1914-03-26

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

Mr. CAR YELL:: 1.	What persons, firms or corporations are engaged dredging for the Government in the bays, harbours and rivers along the coast of New Brunswick, except the harbour of St. John and the St. John river and its tributaries?
2.	What amounts have each of these persons, firms or corporations been paid since October 1, 1911 ?
3.	Who is the president, secretary and manager of each corporation ?
4.	Where has the dredging been done, and who have acted as inspectors for the Government ?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	W. :E. Forbes; Maritime Dredging and Construction Company, Limited; Eastern Dredging Company, Limited; W. J. Pou-pore Company, Limited; A. and R. Loggie; Peter England; J. S. Gregory; Northern Dredging and 'Construction Company, Limited; Felix Michaud; General Construction and Dredging Company, Limited; M. J. Poirier; F. A. Fowlie.
2.	Maritime Dredging and Construction Company, Limited, $64,339.12; W. J. Pou-pore Company, Limited, $63,807.55; General Construction and Dredging Company, Limited, $28,347.28; Eastern Dredging Company, Limited, $10,792.24; A. and R. Loggie, $791.25; Peter England, $19,150.51; J. S Gregory, $35,361.05; Northern Dredging ana Construction Company, Limited, $180,112.03; M. J. Poirier, $1,707.20; F. A. Fowlie. $11,214.88; Felix Michaud, $5,144.91; W. E. Forbes, $2,195.94-total, $422,963.96.
3.	Contracts are signed for Maritime
Dredging Company, Limited, by Manning William Doherty, manager; Eastern Dredging Company, Limited, by Robert Loggie, president,	F. P.	Loggie, secretarytreasurer; the W. J. Poupore Company, Limited, by W. J. Poupore, president; A. and R. Loggie, by Andrew and Robert Loggie; Northern Dredging and Con-

struetion Company, Limited, by R. O'Leary, president; General Construction and Dredging Company, Limited, by W. A. Warren, president. No information as to names of other officers.
4.	Localities and inspectors: St. Stephen, V. V. Vanstone, Walter J. Commins; Richibucto, John Cur win, Peter L. Richard, W. F. McKinnon, James Long; Shediac, Thomas Gorman, Eustace Legere; Miramichi Bay, R. Ahearn, Edward Kiriby; Loggieville, D. McIntyre, R. Ahearn, F. J. Legere, G. McEwen, Robert England, Charles Stephenson; Oaraquet, F. G. Legere, Charles J. Poirier; Campbell-ton, C. J. Robins, W. A. Murray, James Hamilton; Buctouche Beach, John S. Mullin, Zaddus Desroches; Dipper Harbour, Charles W. Masson, William Harkins; Chatham, D. McIntyre, Peter R. Moor, Frank D. Gunn; Little Aldouane, Pierre Babin; Newcastle, D. McIntyre, Frank Masson; Dalhousie, H. J. Hubert, James Hamilton, George H. Seeley; Ship-pegan Gully, John de la Garde; Bathurst, James M'cGinley, E. J. Palmer, Charles Landry, Percy Wilbur, Stuart Hodgins, M. T. Daley; St. George, Herbert Harvey, James Jack, H. V. Connell, James Waugh; Little Black River, A. MacLean, Hugh MacKay, Robert Macdonald; St. Andrews,
S.	E. Field, James Waugh; N. W. Miramichi River, John Wilson; Grande Dune Flats, F. D. Gunn, D. McIntyre; St. Louis River, David Babineau; LawloTS Shore, David Powers; Douglastown, F. D. Gunn, D. McIntyre; Nelson, F. D. Gunn; Bridgetown, D. McIntyre.


CO AD FOR DREDGES.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	What amount of coal was used on the Government dredges working in Victoria harbour during the nine months from March 31, to December 31, 1913?
2.	What was the price paid per ton?
3.	What part of the total tonnage came from mines in the United States?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	3,351 tons.
2.	$5.50 to $7.50; average about $6.50.
3.	About 1,500 tons.


STE. ANNE WHARF.
Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: 1.	To whom was the sum of $747.90 paid for the extension of the wharf at Ste. Anne de le Pocatiere, as mentioned in the public accounts ending on the 31st March, 1913?
2.	For what works or material was said sum of money paid, and when was it paid?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1 and 2. Paylist:	From 28th June to
16th August, 1912:	Amable Berube, conductor, 30 days at $2.50, $75; Leon Pelletier, carpenter, 22 days at $1.75, $38.50; Joseph Berube, carpenter, 22 days at $1.75; $38.50; Alphonse Benoit, labourer, 17 days at $1.40,	$23.80; Louis Emile Berube,
labourer, 18 days at $1.40, $25.20; Eleu-there Pelletier, labourer, 1 day at $1.40, $1.40; Charles Verrette, carter, 11 days at $2.25, $24.75; Adrien Berube, carter, 5 days at $2.25, $11.25; total, $238.40.
Accounts:	Ones. Carbonneau, lumber,
$232.01; Alexis Michaud, lumber, $29.40; Charles Verret, lumber, 70c.; Charles Berube, hardware, $3; Joseph Berube, hardware, $1; Amable Berube, petty disbursements, $14.45; L'Union Agricole-Hardware, $15.64; N. Lizotte, hardware, $36.24,	$21.61; total, $354.05. King's
Printer, $155.45. Grand total,, $747.90.
Paylist paid by paymaster 5th September, 1912. Accounts paid by departmental cheque dated 18th September, 1912.


ENGINEERS AT RIMOUSKI.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	What are the names of the engineers, assistant engineers, apprentices, * or of any other employee of the office of the engineers at Rimouski?
2.	What is the salary of each of them?
3.	What have been the total expenses of that office since 1911?


Robert Rogers: 1 and 2. J. C. Tache, district engineer, $2,650; L. G. Trudeau, jr., assistant engineer, $1,200; J. L. Fyfe, clerk, $1,200; Maurice Leblanc, general foreman, $1,200; Mr. A. Lavoie, general foreman for Rimouski county, $1,200; J. E. Letendre, jr., assistant engineer, $1,080; Jerome Legare, draughtsman, $1,000.
3.	Office expenses, other than salaries as above:	1911-12, $714.17; 1912-13, $1,799.47;
total, $2,513.64.


RIMOUSKI HARBOUR.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to have certain work done in the harbour of Rimouski?
2.	If so, were tenders asked for?
3.	Who are the tenderers and what is the amount of each tender?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Matter under consideration.
2.	Ye?.
3.	Paul Raymond, Joseph A. Talbot, as per unit prices, scow measurement, $334,250; O'Brien & Doheny, $497,801.80. As per unit prices, place measurement, Paul
Raymond, Joseph A. Talbot, $355,445.50; O'Brien & Doheny, $501,023.40.


MONTREAL POSTAL STATION.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Is the Government negotiating to purchase the property known as the Carslake Hotel, near Bonaventure station, Montreal?
2.	Who are the owners of said hotel?
3.	For what purpose does the Government contemplate purchasing above property?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes,
2.	The Carslake Hotel Company, Limited.
3.	For a postal station.
*	Mr. LEMIEUX:
1.	Who are the valuators said to have been appointed by the Government for the proposed expropriation of the property known as the Carlslake Hotel, Montreal?
2.	When were the expropriation proceedings begun ?
3.	What is the amount claimed by the proprietor of said hotel?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	A. F. C. Ross, J. Stevenson Brown, J. Craddock Simpson.
2.	On 2nd inst., the Department of Justice was instructed to expropriate.
3.	Approximately $407,880.


OTTAWA CUSTOMS BUILDINGS.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. CARVELL:
1.	Did the Dominion Government enter into a contract with the Foundation Company, Limited, on or about 20th August, 1913, for the completion of the foundations of the new Customs building on Sussex street, Ottawa?
2.	When did said company begin above mentioned works?
3.	Is the Foundation Company still working on the foundations of above mentioned Customs house ?
4.	Who owns and operates the machinery, plant, derricks, hoisting engines, boilers, pumps, tools, concrete mixers, etc., used bysaid company on above mentioned works?
5.	Did the Government, or any of the departments, at any time since above work was commenced, rent or lend to the Foundation Company any machinery, plant, derricks, hoisting engines, boilers, pumps, concrete mixers, tools or materials owned by the Government? If so, what department, when and for what rental or on what terms?
6.	Has the Foundation Company been using and operating its own machinery plant, derricks, hoisting engines, boilers, pumps, concrete mixers or tools on above work? If so, on what terms, or what sums has it received or is to receive from the Government for above machinery or plant, etc.?
7.	Who employed the men for above mentioned work, the Foundation Company or the Government?
Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	July 26, 1913.
3.	Yes.

4.	Some owned by the Government, some by the Foundation Company and some is rented.
5.	Yes, the Department of Public Works, according to the agreement <all plant then on the work was to be used 'by the company.
6.	A few special machines were supplied by the company for which a charge of three per cent per month was paid.
7.	All employed by the Foundation Company.


HOUSE OP COMMONS ROOMS.
Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON:: 1.	How many rooms in the House of Commons are set aside for members?
2.	How many members are allotted to each room?


Mr. BORDEN:: 1.	Sixty-seven rooms are set aside for the use of ministers and memibers of the House of Commons.
2.	The number of occupants of each room varies from one to twelve according to the size of the room, as follows:
Room	No.	12,	2 members.44	"	15,	6	"4'	"	16,	Conservatives,	general.44	"	17,	1 member.44	"	18,	Liberals, general.44	" 10S,	3	members.44	" 109,	4	"" 110,	4	44	" 113,	12	44"	" 115,	5	4444	" 125,	2	44	" 126,	8	44	" 127,	4	"44	" 128,	2	4441	" 130,	2	4444	" 131,	4	44" 132,	4	4444	" 136,	3	44" 137,	6	4444	" 138,	7	4444	" 200,	6	1444	" 201,	2	4444	" 202,	4	4444	" 203,	5	44	" 204,	3	"" 205,	4	44	" 206,	2	" 207,	3	<<	" 208,	4	41	" 209,	3	"" 212,	8	"" 213,	8	"	" 214,	2	" 215,	3	44	" 300,	8	"" 303,	6	44**	" 304,	2	"" 305,	2	44	" 306,	5	" 307,	2	"" 308,	4	U" 309,	5	44" 310,	6	44	" 313,	6	""	" 316,	5	"[Mr.	Rogers. 1


FENIAN RAID APPLICATIONS.
Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: 1.	Referring to an advertisement in the Casket newspaper, published at Antigonish, N.S., which reads as follows:
'Ottawa, March 16, 1914.
' To my constituents :
' The Government have decided to extend the time for Fenian raid applications to December 31, 1915. Provisions will also be enacted to enable heirs and widows of those living at the time the Act was passed to draw the amount. I shall be very glad to furnish further information to any one who cares to write me about the matter.
' E. Lavin Girroir.'
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to enact such provisions as are above set forth ?
3.	In what proportion will the widows and the heirs share in the bounty ?
4.	Will all the heirs of a deceased volunteer, who, if living, would be entitled to the bounty, and who left no widow surviving him, share alike in the bounty ?
5.	Has the Government, or the Department of Militia, authorized Senator Girroir to make the above statement ?
6.	Who are the constituents of Senator Girroir, and what constituency does he represent ?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1 and 2. These provisions are already in the Bill, and it is the intention of the Government to propose such provisions as are set out in- the proposed resolution, notice of which was given to the House on March 13, 1914.
3 and 4. Answered by No. 2.
5.	The Government or Department of Militia and Defence has published the resolution upon the Bill, and it is open to every intelligent person to read and understand the language therein.
6.	Question is improper.


CANSO REDUCTION WORKS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	With reference to the reply given by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on March 16, instant, to question No. 3, relating to the Canso Reduction Works, what are the names of the farmers who purchased the said fish scrap in 1913 and the number of tons purchased by each ?
2.	On what date was the said fish scrap sold to A. H. Whitman ?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	James Stevenson, Woodburn, N.S., If tons; James McConnelly and Sons, Port Hilford, 1 ton; A. W. Reid, Port Hilford,
4	ton; Jesse A. Wright, North Bedeque, P.E.I., 1 ton; Lewis D. McDonald, Port Hood, J ton; John D. Chisholm, Malignant Cove, N.S., 4 ton; Joseph M. Grant, Antigonish, | ton; E. E. Olding, Woodburn, New Glasgow, 5 tons; Alex. Sinclair, Country Harbour, N.S., 4 ton; A. G. Archibald,

Country Harbour, N.S.,	4 ton; Frank
McLean, Port Hilford, 1,400 lbs.; James W. McIntosh, Country Harbour, 4 ton;
A. W. Reid, Port Hilford, 4 ton; J- F. Leblanc, Margaree Ford, 700 lbs.; J. O'Leary, Lochaber, Antigonish Co., 4 ton;
J. W. McDougall, New Glasgow, 5 tons; Cadegan Bros., Bridgeport, C.B., 14 tons; John Newson, Charlottetown, P.E.I., 1 ton;
C. P. Roy, Woodburn, N.S., 4 ton; Michael Gillis, Dunvegan, C.B., 2,200 lbs.; H. E. Stewart, Melrose, N.S., 1,400 lbs.; Ronald McDonald, James River Station, 4 ton; James W. Sutherland, West Merigomish,
4 ton; W. H. Woodworth, Berwick, N.S.,
1 ton; James McConnell and Sons, Port Hilford, 4 ton; A. W. Reid, Port Hilford,
4 ton; Hugh McPherson, Antigonish,
4 ton; P. G. Grant, New Glasgow, 700 lbs.; John E. Hudson, Isaacs Harbour, 14 tons; Thos. C. Hart, Leitches Creek, 1,300 lbs.; Burton Hadley, Guysborough, 300 lbs.; Alex. Harton, Canso, 600 lbs.; James Sullivan, Canso, 200 lbs.; A. Cameron, Canso, 4 ton;John Bollus, Guysborough, 200 lbs.; E. S. Camo, Arichat, 4 ton; Parker Hart, Guysborough, 300 lbs.; Wm. Kavanagh, Canso, 1 ton; Mr. Teiror, Arichat, '4 ton; Fred. Johnson, Canso, 4 ton; Godfrey Leblanc, Arichat, 4 ton; James Stevenson, Wood-burn, 1,400 lbs.; Father Robitaille, River Bourgeois, C.B., 1 ton; R. McRae, West Bay, C.B., 4 ton.


FRENCH RIVER IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Was a contract awarded in the year 1913 for the construction of a dam or other improvements on the French river in the district of Nipissing?
2.	What was the date and amount of the said contract and the name of the contractor?
3.	What was the amount of the deposit put up by the contractor?
4.	Has the said contract been abandoned or
cancelled? If so, has the deposit been forfeited?	,	,
5.	Will a new contract be let for the work? If so, when will tenders be invited?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Contract awarded on 14th January, 1914;
2. Dated 26th December, 1913,	for $23,124.40, based on unit prices from Jennings and Ross, Limited.
3.	$2,312.40.
4 and 5. No.


MILITIA AUTOMOBILES.
Mr. PROULX:: 1. How many automobiles have been purchased by or for the Militia Department since October 15, 1911?
2.	Were the said automobiles purchased after tenders were invited, and what was the price paid for each?
3.	What amount has been paid for repairs, furnishings, storage and the upkeep of the said automobiles from October 15, 1911, to date?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1,	2 and 3, answered last session and this. (See unrevised 'Hansard' February 29, 1912, p. 4118, and unrevised 'Hansard,' February 16, 1914, p. 850.)


COLLINGWOOD ORANGE LODGES.
Mr. C. A. WILSON:: 1. Has the Government, or any member thereof, received the communication referred to in the following announcement, published in the the Sentinel of March 19, 1914? Collingwood Lodges Protest Against French
in Schools and on Post Cards and Government Stationery-Express Dissatisfaction with Local Representatives.
The brethren of L.O.L. Victoria No. 934, and Golden Lion No. 1990, Collingwood, at their regular meetings held on the 9th and 11th March, 1914, adopted the following resolution, and instructed their secretaries to forward same to the Orange Sentinel, to the Hon. R. L. Borden, Ottawa, and to the acting Premier, the Hon. J. J. Foy, Toronto, also to their representatives, Col. J. A. Currie, Ottawa, and Hon. Jas. Duff, Toronto:
Moved by Brother Wm. Elliot, P.M. L.O.L. 1990, seconded by Brother Peter McMillan, W.M. L.O.L. 943, and resolved:
That we, the members and officers of Victoria Lodge No. 943, and Golden Lion No. 1990, assembled at our regular meetings, take this opportunity of condemning in the strongest terms the action of the federal Government in permitting the issuance of the bilingual post cards, and the use of the French language upon the official stationery of the departments, and consider this departure an insult to the other nationalities, such as Germans, Highland Scotch and others, inasmuch as the English is the language of this country.
We also demand the immediate abolition of bilingual schools, as English must be the only language taught in our public schools, if we desire to grow up as a united body of citizens. And we do not uphold the attitude of our representatives in both Parliaments, as so far we have not noticed that they have taken any part, or raised their voices in opposing any of those encroachments, which is bound to be detrimental to the unity of this country.
' "2. If so, what was the answer, or what were jjpe answers given?


Mr. BORDEN:: A copy of the communication was received this morning. No answer has yet been sent.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Sevigny.-For a return showing what amounts have been paid by the Government of Canada from Winnipeg to Moncton for damages to lands, fences, roads, rivers, buildings, etc., during the works going on, and after they were completed by the contractors of the Transcontinental, in connection with the build-
[Stage Direction]
ing of the railway; whether the contractors were charged by the Government of Canada for the amount 'thus paid, as per clause 24 of the contracts.

Air. EMMERSON:: I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Militia and Defence to a question I asked at a former sitting. He will recall that I mentioned that a poster had been put up through the county of Westmorland, presumably on' behalf of the Department of Militia and Defence, and signed, ' Captain L. G. Carey, 74th Regiment-,' in which poster is recited the following:
The undersigned has been requested by the Militia Department to submit the names of all men who, in the event of a general mobilization, would be willing to enlist in ' E ' Company, 74th Regiment, also all retired officers, exmilitiamen and civilians who would be willing to accept employment with the Army Service Corps, Army Medical Corps, Ordnance Corps, Army Veterinary Corps, or Army Pay Corps.
By sending or handing in your name you will not be enlisting, but merely showing your willingness to serve your country in the event of war.
The minister promised, on that occasion, to furnish to the House information as to the request that was made of the officer in question 'by the Militia Department. I simply want to know what the nature of that request was, what it included and what it contemplated.
parturient will be represented thereon, and the divisional or district commander will himself preside.
The divisional officer at Halifax who is, I understand, an enthusiastic and very capable officer, in order to save himself the trouble of calling on all the people in the county to ascertain their views, took the way that my hon. friend takes in his county, and, let the broad light of heaven in on his plan. I expect my hon. friend will be the first man to send in his name as being ready to serve his country in case of necessity.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What about the member for Brockville (Mr. Webster)?


Samuel Hughes: I did not disable him
completely.


Mr. GRAHAM:: What about you ?


Samuel Hughes: I took just two out of him and he took one out of me.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You are evidently interested in the ambulance corps.


Samuel Hughes: The order sent by the divisional officer contains this paragraph:
It may be noted that it is understood that the returns herein called for are to be prepared and submitted without expense to the public.
The mobilizations are all here; I will lay them on the table.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: I am delighted to see my hon. friend so interested in this matter. I presume he would join the Army Service Corps as that is where the rations are kept. In conformity with the custom of previous years the divisional officers send out mobilization plans each year. That has been -done from time immemorial. The paragraphs in the Canadian mobilization regulations bearing upon this matter are:


ALLEGED CABLEGRAM TO SIR.
Air. PROULX:: 
Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The privilege in regard to the asking of questions of members, other than members of the Government, is governed by the following rule:
S.t Questions may be put to ministers of the Ci-own relating to public affairs; and to other members, relating to any Bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House in which such members may be concerned.
And after giving the usual notice. The matter to which the hon. gentleman refers would not, in my judgment, come within the rule because it has nothing to do with any business of this House with which the member is concerned.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: But my hon. friend (Mr. Proulx) has not stated it yet.


Edmond Proulx: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. Minister of Militia (Mr. Hughes) if he ever gave permission to the hon. member for Centre York to send this cablegram. Here is the cablegram.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Edmond Proulx: I want to read the cablegram.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, the hon. member cannot do so, because he is doing it in violation of a rule of the House, which is intended for a very good purpose.


Edmond Proulx: I beg to remark, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do you rule, Mr. Speaker, that a member cannot state his question and that it is out of order before he has had an opportunity of stating it ? How do you know ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Having heard the hon. member say that he desired to ask a question of the hon. member for Centre York regarding a cablegram which was sent by him in regard to something with which this House is not concerned, I ruled that it was out of order for him to ask any such question.


Wilfrid Laurier: May I ask how you know that the House is not concerned in any such cablegram as that ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The rule says plainly that it must be some ' public matter connected with the business of the House in which such member may be concerned.' Then he has to give the regular notice, neither of which conditions has been complied with.


Edmond Proulx: I will put it in this way: The hon. member for Centre York is an officer of the militia-he is a captain-and I want to ask the hon. Minister of Militia if he has taken cognizance of the cablegram which was sent by Captain Wallace to Sir Edward Carson.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I suggest that if the hon. member has any question to put to the Minister of Militia he take the ordinary course and put it on the Order Paper so that it may be answered in the regular way ?


Edmond Proulx: This matter is very urgent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. I was about to say, in view of the version which the hon. member has given of it, that it would be a proper question if he desired to put it on the Order Paper in the usual way.



PRIVILEGE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Mr. Speaker, I find in the Montreal Star of yesterday, and in
other daily papers-
Wilfrid Laurier: Does this concern this House ?


Samuel Hughes: I shall rise to a question of privilege. I find in the Montreal Star that my old friend, Mr. Hamar Greenwood, in the House of Commons in England, made a statement to the effect that he deplored something with all his heart, and then went on to say that:
The feeling in the Dominions was that the British officers were drawn from a class antagonistic to democratic ideals. It was a great wrench to him as an imperialist when quite recently the Minister of Militia in Canada had appointed a new Commander-in-Chief, and he did not consult the War Office. The Canadian army for the first time now had not got a single imperial officer serving under the Canadian flag.
I wish to state that I have not appointed a new commander-in-chief; there is no such office in existence. I did appoint a chief staff officer and I consulted Sir John French and Colonel, 'Seeley before I appointed him-not that I had to do it at all, but I did it out of courtesy. We have upwardsof seventy of the best British officers toibeobtainedinthe empire in our Canadian permanent service, some on loan, some on exchange and others for instructional purposes. We have also a great many British non-commissioned officers in the service and I hope it will be a long day to come when we will be without the services of these gentlemen.
While I am on my feet, I should like to refer to an incident that occurred in this House the other evening. A few nights ago, on a matter altogether irrelevant to the'business of the House, a member put a question founded on one of their ' slander-bund ' cablegrams, or emanating from the ' boozarium '-I do not know which-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was published in the Montreal Star.


Samuel Hughes: The Montreal Star, I
presume, repeated the cablegram coming from the slanderbunJ.


Mr. PARDEE:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege.


Samuel Hughes: I am not through with my question of privilege yet.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Then, I rise to a point of order. The Minister of Militia and Defence has just been referring to a matter that was brought to the notice of the House the other night which he says came from the ' slan-derbund ' or the ' boozarium.'


Samuel Hughes: I do not know what the correct name is.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I beg the minister's
pardon.


Samuel Hughes: I do not know what the correct title of the institution is.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: You do not? Well, if you do not you ought to. It shows your utter ignorance when you make a statement of that kind in the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. What is the
question of order?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The hon. Minister of
Militia and Defence refers to the fact that this cablegram was read the other night.
I read the cablegram and I have nothing to take back. The minister knows, when he makes the statement that it came from the ' slanderbund ' or the ' boozarium,' that he makes a statement that is absolutely outside of the facts and one that he knows is false. I demand-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: No, I demand-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I demand the withdrawal of that statement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw, withdraw.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order; I am sure that the hon. member (Mr. Pardee), being an old parliamentarian, must know very well that it is not permissible for an hon. member to say that another hon. member has made a statement which he knew to be false.


Wilfrid Laurier: The insinuation made by the hon. Minister of Militia
and Defence had refnr^nne to my hon. [Mr. S. Hughes.1
friend (Mr. Pardee). The minister was referring to the cablegram that was brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friend and you, Mr. Speaker, heard the minister say that it was from the } boozarium.' Was that in order?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Had any member risen to a point of order and asked me to rule on it, I should have said that it was not in order, but since it was not challenged I passed it over. I think that the hon. member for West Lambton, who is an old parliamentarian, wi1! understand the desire to maintain the rules of the House.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I quite understand the desirability of keeping within the rules of the House as far as possible, but I rose to a point of order the moment that the hon. Minister of Militia uttered those words, and I demand a withdrawal of them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not see the hon. member rise to a point of order at that particular moment. Had I seen him 1 would certainly have given him the right to explain his point of order. In my judgment, the word used was not a suitable expression, and I think it ought to be withdrawn.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, if you will state the rword which I have uttered and which you consider unparliamentary,
I will gladly withdraw it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The word was 'boozarium.'


Samuel Hughes: I withdraw the word 'boozarium.'


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Do it like a man.-


Mir. HUGHES:: I want to point out the fact that these gentlemen dilated at veTy great length the other evening, violating the rule of Parliament that newspaper clippings should be verified before being allowed to be used in this House. No attempt was made to verify their truth, either directly or indirectly. I have been a cabinet minister for the last two and a half years, and I challenge any hon. gentleman opposite to point out any instance in which I have not rigidly adhered to the rule not to express views on matters not pertinent to this House.


Mr. GERMAN:: I rise to a point of order.
I submit that this is not a -question of
privilege


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In speaking to a
question of privilege, an hon. member should confine ihimself to the question of privilege and not debate it.


Samuel Hughes: I am not debating the question of privilege, I am pointing out that these gentlemen, taking my record and the common sense view of the case


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Samuel Hughes: I am in order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You are not.


Samuel Hughes: I know that it is a little hard for the ex-First Minister to-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Samuel Hughes: During the two and a half years that I have been a cabinet minister, I have never once violated the ruleB of the House. I have neither directly hot indirectly sent a cable that had anything to do with the affairs of the Ulstermen, or in relation to any one leaving Canada for Ireland. If any men were leaving Canada for Ireland, they would not see the hedge fence artists that are discussing this question, going-
Some hon. MEMBERS : Order.



FENIAN RAID BOUNTIES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called: Mr. J. J. HUGHES: I wish to ask the Minister of Militia and Defence if he will tell me why the province of Prince Edward Island has been left out of the resolution re Fenian bounties, which he intends to submit to the Committee of the Whole to-morrow.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	I answered that
question long ago. There were no volunteers ordered out in Prince Edward Island either in 1866 or in 1870. My hon. friend received the official answer long ago.

Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: I rise on a question of privilege to say that the hon. Minister of Militia has not answered certain questions. I refer to question No. 24 on the Order Paper. The 6th question he has considered to be improper. Perhaps it is, I do not dispute that. The 5th question, however, is a straight question and is as follows;.
Has the Government, or the Department of Militia, authorized Girroir to make the above statements?	1
Referring to tne advertisement contained in the first part of the question-. The answer prepared by the department was:
The Government, or the Department of Militia, has not requested any one to make any such statements.
Somebody has changed that answer and now it reads:
The Government, or the Department of Militia and Defence, has published the resolution upon the Bill and it is open to every intelligent person to read and understand the language therein.
Some very intelligent person prepared that answer. I submit that that very intelligent person is not treating the members of thi3 House with proper courtesy in giving such an answer.



THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for Committee of Supply, and the proposed amendment of Mr. Graham thereto, resumed from M-arch 25.
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of
regret to me that I was not able to stay in the House during the address of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell). It w-as my privilege to hear the very vigorous speech of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham); and from the report I get of the effort of the hon. member for Carleton, he followed closely the manner, if not the matter, of his predecessor. The hon. member for Sbuth Renfrew (Mr. Graham) was in a form not unusual to him in this House. I have heard the hon. gentleman on previous occasions exhibit much the same animation, much the same indignation, much the same panic dealing rhetoric as he displayed in his address on his amendment. The last time we heard the hon. gentleman in that vein was last session, when, in a most impassioned speech he pictured the calamity that was to befall the House of Commons when the closure resolution he -so much dreaded should go into operation. He announced that he was making his last speech in a free Parliament, and that thereafter the liberties of this House were to be demolished and his privileges were to go with them. If the very vigorous, very vehement, and very violent address over seven and a half hours with which he favoured us in three or four laps, has served any useful purpose, it has

at least demonstrated the folly of his great denunciation. The hon. member, haying been Minister of Railways during the time when the matters dealt with in^ the Gutelius-Staunton report were going on, might naturally be expected to agitate himself very seriously in an endeavour to get from under, so far as he could, the consequences of that report. I have some admiration for the manner in which-he addressed himself to that task. The importance of it was worthy of his effort, and his style of delivery, I must say, was impressive. And, though he has not convinced me that the responsibility of his misconduct while in charge of that department, is not serious for him and serious for Canada, and though he has not convinced me that there is any substantial error in the Gutelius-Staunton report, he has succeeded in convincing me that, in some small respects, he really believes there fs.
The hon. gentleman was, first, very much agitated because there was a commission at all. He thinks the Government is to be_ severely condemned because they appointed Mr. Lynch-Staunton and Mr. Gute-lius to investigate the Transcontinental. He inveighs against Mr. Lynch-Staunton; he reproduces the brief of the Liberal press of this country whose objections to Mr. Lynch-Staunton are, first, that he is a Conservative, and, second, that he spells his name with a hyphen; but the hon. member stops at the first objection, and so his only point against Mr. Lynch-Staunton is that he is a Conservative in politics. 'A very prejudiced commissioner' says the hon. gentleman, ' utterly incapable of coming to a just conclusion '-yes, indeed, a very unfair and a very prejudiced commissioner in the mind of the hon. gentleman-because he is a Conservative. The hon. member knows that in our selection of judges, whose office doubtless compares in dignity and in consequence with that of a commissioner, we are compelled to resort to party lines on one side or the other for appointees; and so the same objections which the hon. member hurls against Mr. Lynch-Staunton could be hurled against every man appointed to the bench by the Government of which he himself was a member. He tells us that Mr. Lynch-Staunton took the stump for the Conservative party in 1904 and 1908.


George Perry Graham: And in 1913.


Arthur Meighen: In the South Bruce
election.


George Perry Graham: While he was a commissioner.


Arthur Meighen: But the hon. member is on record as saying that before Mr. Staunton took the stump in South Bruce his report was complete. No doubt the hon. gentleman has scoured the record of Mr. Lynch-Staunton and endeavoured to find where he has complained of or attacked the Transcontinental railway or the Transcontinental railway project, but he fails to show where Mr. Lynch-Staunton ever on any occasion pronounced himself one way or the other on that subject.
The hon. gentleman has strictures just as severe for Mr. Gutelius. 'Why,' he says, ' Mr. Gutelius was actually employed by the Canadian Pacific railway, and consequently he should not have been selected,' although in the course of his address he continuously assured the House that the Canadian Pacific railway was the best managed railway on this continent. If so, it must have the best officers on this continent, of whom Mr. Gutelius was one.


George Perry Graham: But the Canadian
Pacific keeps its good officers; it does not let them go.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is
bound to hit Mr. Gutelius, and is endeavouring to insinuate that Mr. Gutelius lost his position with the Canadian Pacific railway. Does he believe it?


George Perry Graham: I did not say so.


Arthur Meighen: He told us in almost
every sentence he uttered that Mr. Gutelius was loaned to this country by the Canadian Pacific railway.


George Perry Graham: I beg the hon. member's pardon; I quoted the statement of the Minister of Railways, that the Canadian Pacific railway had only loaned Mr. Gutelius to him.


Arthur Meighen: Then, apparently, the
Canadian Pacific railway have as much confidence in Mr. Gutelius as ever they had.


George Perry Graham: Possibly.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
can take whichever horn of the dilemma seems most comfortable to him. Mr. Gutelius was assailed last night, I am told, by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), who told the House, from that pinnacle of information that he alone can attain, that this poor Mr. Gutelius did not know anything about railroad construction, that the Canadian Pacific railway em-

ployed him in operating and put him in the little town of North Bay. The fact is that Mr. Gutelius was engaged in railway construction as early as 1888, and continued to be engaged in railway construction until 1908, a period of twenty years. He was superintendent of constructive operations of the Pennsylvania railway; he supervised and controlled the construction of the Columbia and Western railway in British Columbia, and operated it as well. For ten years of his tenure of office in the Canadian Pacific railway he was in charge of railway construction, and for four years in charge of the operating. Does the hon. member for South Renfrew really believe that on this continent, or any other continent, there was a man better qualified than Mr. Gutelius to undertake this work?


Mr. MACDONALD:: Would the hon.
member permit me, before he leaves the question of Mr. Gutelius' appointment, to ask when Mr. Gutelius became a naturalized Canadian-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William John Macdonald: -and whether it was only after this Government had appointed him commissioner that lie took the oath of allegiance to His Majesty?


Arthur Meighen: I will answer the hon. gentleman. He seems to think that Mr. Gutelius would not be competent to do the work if he were not a naturalized Canadian, and he tells us that Mr. Gutelius has only been naturalized two years. Is that correct?


William John Macdonald: The hon. gentleman's own department, or that of the Secretary of State, should be able to inform him whether Mr. Gutelius was naturalized only after he had been appointed commissioner by this Government.


Arthur Meighen: I have never looked the matter up because I have never seen, and do not now see, that it has any bearing on the case; but if the hon. gentleman thinks that British naturalization is an important qualification for knowledge of engineering, what has he to say to that supreme engineer of this continent and all other continents whose single letter to the hon. member for South Renfrew is depended upon to destroy Mr. Gutelius and every other engineer who fails to accept his view?
It is not to be expected that either the appointment of this commission, or the commission itself, would satisfy the hon. gentlemen opposite, including the hon.
member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). Who ever heard, in the history of this Parliament, of a commission to satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite? Why they themselves could not appoint a commission to satisfy themselves. They are no strangers to investigating commissions; they have a record in such commissions. On several occasions when in power they appointed investigating commissions, but those commissions failed to satisfy themselves.
They could not elect anybody from the Liberal ranks to satisfy them; they could not select anybody from the Conservative ranks to satisfy them; they could not select anybody from the independent ranks to satisfy them, and they could not select anybody from the judicial ranks to satisfy them. They appointed a civil service investigating commission in 1907. That commission was composed of two Liberals and one gentleman who had very little politics, but who, if anything, was a Liberal. That commission investigated their own conduct and administration of the Oivil Service. No sooner had they made their report than the vials of wrath from hon. gentlemen opposite were poured upon them, and the diatribes the hon. member for South Renfrew levelled at Mr. Gutelius and Mr. Lynch-Staunton were mild and weak and watery compared with what hon. gentlemen opposite levelled upon their own appointees in 1908. Not satisfied with the appointment of one commission, they decided to appoint another, in order, if possible, to correct the effects of the first commission. So they appointed Mr. Justice Cassels-I do not know whether he was on the bench when appointed or not, but at all events before he was on the bench he certainly was not a Conservative-to review the work of the commission they had appointed a year before. Mr. Justice Oassels reported, and day after day in this House hon. gentlemen opposite never ceased to inveigh against Mr. Justice Cassels. I remember, as if it were yesterday; the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) and the hon. member for Carleton using language that verged as close as it could upon exceeding the rules of this House in order to show the country that Mr. Justice Cassels did not know anything about investigating the Civil Service, had no idea whatever about the weight of evidence, and, having heard the evidence, had not enough common sense to make a report. The hon. member for St. John seemed to be deeply shocked a couple of days ago when he heard from the hon. member for South Renfrew that Mr. Gutelius was actually at one time in the

trusted employ of the Canadian Pacific railway, and that Mr. Lynch-Staunton was a Conservative. He seemed to think that as a consequence we had wasted our money in asking these men to investigate a public work. The hon. member for St. John will be the last member in this House ever to be satisfied with any commission. Scarcely a session has passed since he entered this House, in which he has not occupied a great deal of time in condemning and berating, and in pouring vitriol and virulence upon commissions. He remembers the Central Railway Commission-it did not suit him; he remembers the Landry Commission, and even that great representative of the Acadian race, Mr. Justice Landry, did not suit him as commissioner. There has never been an investigating commission appointed even by themselves that suited hon. gentlemen opposite, so it is out of the question that the party now in power could possibly have suited hon. gentlemen opposite, no matter whom they appoint.
The Transcontinental Inquiring Commission was appointed, and the hon. gentleman says that the way they went about their work shows that they were biased; that they had no desire to use their witnesses fairly; and that they did not intend to make a just or an honest report. Why, he said, the first thing they did-and he showed the record to prove it-was to promise Mr. Parent that he would be allowed to read over his evidence after it was typewritten and before it was printed. The hon. gentleman read a letter from the secretary which promised Mr. Parent that 4 p.m. that opportunity would be given him. Mr. Parent wanted to read it over with the commission, and the secretary said in the letter he would advise him when Mr. Gutelius returned to Ottawa in order that it might be done.


George Perry Graham: When Mr. Lynch-Staunton returned.


Arthur Meighen: Thank you. Apparently, so far as is shown from the correspondence, that matter was overfooked by the secretary. The hon. member for South Renfrew showed that he had been in communication with Mr. Parent and that Mr. Parent had complained to him about this very unjust treatment, but he never brought into the House a sentence or a word or a syllable to show that there had been the slightest error in the transcription of the notes of evidence in this report. The conclusion is irresistible-that the evidence was faithfully re-

ported and faithfully transcribed. If so, where is the injury?
The hon. member thinks that a very serious wrong was also done because this commission did not examine Mr. Charles Young on the question of the Winnipeg terminals. Having some knowledge of this subject myself, aside from the report, I was at a loss to understand what the reference of the hon. member for South Renfrew was as to the failure to take the evidence of Mr. Young. It will be remembered that in connection with the Winnipeg terminals the hon. member for South Renfrew said that whereas it was the first intention to bring the Transcontinental line into Winnipeg by connection at Dundee siding with the Canadian Northern, and running along the Canadian Northern into the joint terminals on the Winnipeg side of the. Red river, as a consequence of an investigation made personally by himself another route farther to the north was decided upon, and as a result the route of the road as now constructed was determined. It is quite true that the first route contemplated was a ground-level route, running alongside the Canadian Northern, and immediately to its north, or by the use of the Canadian Northern on a joint traffic basis.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend, speaking from memory, has neglected to mention the whole of my statement in that respect. It was not only on account of a personal investigation I made that the present route was decided upon. My hon. friend will remember that I mentioned the fact that the Minister of Railways had the right to locate the route. I heard in my office the arguments of all companies and all those interested, and in addition to that I made a personal investigation. I would not like the country to think that it was only on a personal investigation made by myself that the route was decided upon.


Arthur Meighen: I had no intention of leading the House to believe that it was only on account of my hon. friend's personal investigation that the decision was made. I know the hon. member did hear the interested parties; I know that as a consequence he came to the conclusion that the north route should be selected, that the wishes of the Canadian Pacific railway in that regard should be respected, and that the route should go just as it goes to-day, through a high-level line from St. Boniface across the Red river into the Winnipeg terminals. But what I want to draw attention to is, that the hon. member is

complaining that the commission had suppressed the evidence of Mr. Charles Young in their endeavour to show that due regard for economy was not observed in selecting this entrance in preference to the other. The hon. member must know, and he does know, that Mr. Charles Young was the commissioner who refused to consent to the selection of the ex-Minister of Railways himself, and that he was the only member of the commission who resisted, and continued to protest after the ex-Minister of Railways had come to his decision.


George Perry Graham: To be fair, the hon. gentleman should say that I mentioned that fact in my remarks.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the hon. gentleman did say that.


George Perry Graham: I said that Mr. Young dissented.


Arthur Meighen: Then what had the commission to gain in making a point against the ex-Minister of Railways by suppressing the evidence of the one commissioner who resisted him? I do not think the hon. member for South Renfrew told the House at the time the decision was come to that the high-level entrance was not contemplated, and that afterwards when the high-level entrance was decided upon by the Railway Commission as being necessary, the consent of the engineer of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways to the adoption of that entrance was not secured.
The hon. member says it is all nonsense to complain of the Transcontinental Commissioners appointed by the Liberal Government because they were not practical railway men. Why, he says: we do not appoint practical railway men to run railways, we appoint any kind of .business men and these men take the advice of their engineers. Here is an instance where they did not take the advice of their engineers, but took the advice of the Minister of Railways himself, against that of the engineers, and adopted the high level entrance.


George Perry Graham: That is not the case.


Arthur Meighen: Not the case?


George Perry Graham: No.


Arthur Meighen: I had a lawsuit on this subject.


George Perry Graham: I hope my hon. friend won it.


Arthur Meighen: What nonsense it is,
says the ex-minister, to suggest that the Liberal Government should appoint practical men, either in constructing or operating, to take charge of a great national undertaking. such as the building of a railway. He says: if you adopt that principle you are bound to have the Minister of Railways an engineer, either constructing or operating, and the Prime Minister of Canada as well. If his theory is correct, the Prime Minister of Canada would have to De master of every art and profession known to mankind. He says the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific railway do not appoint operating engineers to be heads of their railways; the Canadian Pacific railway did not do so when they appointed Sir Thomas Shaugh-nessy, and so wre were quite justified in appointing a box manufacturer, a couple of lawyers, and a grain merchant from Delo-raine to'build the National Transcontinental railway. Can he give us an instance of the directors of the Canadian Pacific railway or the Canadian Northern railway or of that wonderful road, the Union Pacific, or of any railway in the world, appointing as its president and general manager any one excepting a practical railwayman? Can he give us an instance in the whole history of railroad construction on this or any other continent where the directors or stockholders, responsible for the building of a railway, entrusted its building and its initial operation to men who were not practical railway men, either constructing or operating? There is no such instance in history. I do not believe he could imagine one instance in fiction, where any railway ever perpetrated the folly that the Liberal Government perpetrated when they appointed this commission to take charge of the .building of the National Transcontinental railway. I went to Winnipeg, said the hon. gentleman, I examined the surroundings, and I made up my mind that the National Transcontinental railway was not going to play second fiddle to the Canadian Northern railway or to any other road; I made up my mind that it was going to have an independent entrance of its own, and that there was going to he no second fiddle about it; that is the reason I adopted that north entrance. Let me picture to the hon. members of this House what that north entrance is. The railway comes in from Transcona, four and a half miles out. It crosses the Seine river and circles around until it gets to the Red river, through the flats of St. Boniface, which largely belong

to the Canadian Northern railway. It is built at an elevation of twenty-ijhree feet and presents a hideous spectacle from the city of Winnipeg or any other standpoint, being a tremendous embankment, lifting the railway into the air throughout the whole extent of its approach to Winnipeg. It goes over the Red river at high level; it reaches the joint terminals at high level, and the consequence is that where it should have some connection with the business element of Winnipeg, if it intends to get any business out of Winnipeg, it is almost as near the occupants of the heavens as it is to the people of Winnipeg. The road has a sky line through St. Boniface, and it cannot get a spur line connection with any business interests in the city of Winnipeg. How does the ex-minister expect the Transcontinental to get business out of Winnipeg? He has made a joint terminal arrangement with the Canadian Northern railway. The Canadian Northern railway own the	capital invested in
the	terminal,	and	except	over
lines owned by the Canadian Northern railway, the road cannot get a bit of freight out of Winnipeg. The hon. gentleman was very much afraid of making the Transcontinental play second fiddle to the Canadian Northern. What is that but having to play second fiddle to the Canadian Northern before they can get a ton of business out of that city? They have a connection whereby their trains must be pushed up to the high level line owned by the Transcontinental over a connecting link, which is the property of the Canadian Northern railway, and for the use of which the Transcontinental pays a certain rate of interest, and except over the line of the Canadian Northern railway and up to that connecting link, it cannot get business out of the city of Winnipeg. The hon. gentleman knows I am speaking correctly, he knows that is the only way they can get business there. They can get passenger business it is true out of the joint terminal, but they cannot get freight business, and they cannot connect with houses that would use the line as a freight line. Their whole terminal arrangement, their whole arrangement in Winnipeg even for passenger business, is to play second fiddle to the Canadian Northern railway. The Canadian Northern Railway Company own the joint terminal facilities in Winnipeg; they are the owners of the land on the west side of the Red river where the union station now stands, and the Transcontinental railway simply pays a rate of interest to the Canadian [Mr, Meighen.f
Northern railway for the purpose of using, as second fiddler, the Canadian Northern railway terminal.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend knows
there is an agreement, perfectly fair to both companies, managed in a separate way altogether from the Canadian Northern railway arrangement. He knows that, as to the station.


Arthur Meighen: I know there is a terminal agreement whereby it is laid down that the Canadian Northern railway are and are to be the owners of the whole terminal facilities, and whereby the Canadian Northern railway have bound the Transcontinental Commission to pay a rate of interest for the use of the terminal facilities owned by the Canadian Northern railway. That is the terminal arrangement they have, a joint board-


George Perry Graham: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, certainly, in order to see that each gets its rights under that agreement.


George Perry Graham: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: 
George Perry Graham: Oh.
Mr. ME1GHEN:	The hon. gentleman
laughs. I hope I shall feel as lighthearted as he does now, when the verdict is announced. No one hopes more than I, arid no one worked more than I to bring the damages down a-s low as we could, but the situation is there. The suit is entered and whatever the verdict, one man is responsible for it, and that is the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham).
The hon. member for South Renfrew says that the Transcona shops are another source of great pride to him; that if he had to build them again he would build them just as they are now; and that Mr. Lynch-Staunton is entirely wrong when he argues that the building of the Transcona shops, as a plant for repairs, was beyond the powers of the commission and should have been done by the Grand Trunk Pacific. I was
aware, before the ex-Minister of Railways rose, and I think most of us were aware, that Mr. Staunton in that opinion did not agree with the Deputy Minister of Justice who gave the late Government his opinions and who gives this Government his opinions. We knew that Mr. Staunton was running counter to the opinions of eminent lawyers in this country, and we knew it was the duty of the Government to heed the opinion of the Department of Justice, but I was not aware, and I am not yet aware, that it was- a crime on the part of Mr. Staunton to give his own opinion even if it did differ from that of the deputy minister. Mr. Staunton, himself, in his report quoted the opinion of the Department of Justice, and he quoted every line of it. He gave it to the people of Canada and told them it was the official opinion of the Department of Justice. This report itself takes exception to another feature of the Transcona shops, .and I wan t to know what the ex-Minister of Railways has to say about that. The report says they have built at Winnipeg at a cost of $4,500,000 shops more than doubly sufficient for the necessities of the Transcontinental. The ex-Minister of Railways said they cost $4,500,000, and he tried to persuade the House of Commons that the shops at Transcona were a necessary investment in order that the Grand Trunk Pacific could repair engines and cars at that point. The ex-Minister of Railways also read a report from Mr. Hodgins, who was appointed by the Transcontinental Commission in 1912 for the purpose of investigating the work of the commissioners, in regard to the building of these shops, and the hon. gentleman says that Mr. Hodgins reported that the Transcontinental Commission had taken good care of future needs when they made the shops cost $4,500,000.	.1 entirely agree with Mr. Hodgins in that. I fail to find in the whole report, though, a statement showing that there is any reasonable probability, within a reasonable time, that the whole or half the shops will be used in connection with the Transcontinental railway. It is as plain as anything could he, that when Mr. Hodgins made the very modest statement that these shops were built to amply take care of all future needs, he had in contemplation the needs of the Grand Trunk Pacific on the western line. Why do I say that? It is because Mr. Hodgins in his report, as quoted by the hon. member for South Renfrew, compares the facilities in these shops with the facilities of the

Canadian Pacific railway shops, and endeavours to show that in some respects they equal, or greatly exceed them, he evidently having in contemplation that the shops were to be used by both western and eastern lines just as Canadian Pacific shops are. That is plain on the very face of the report. There is no fault to be found with Mr. Hodgins' report, and not a line or a letter in it conflicts with the report of Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton. The hon. member for South Renfrew laughed at the suggestion that $4,500,000 was too much to spend in erecting shops to repair the engines and cars of the Transcontinental. Does he remember, as he sits there, that only as far back as 1908 he assured this House and the country that the Transcontinental shops would only cost $1,500,000. I see he does not contradict me, but in case any one would like the evidence it ds to be found in ' Hansard,' July 11, 1908, page 12672, where Mr. Graham said:
But we take the $2,000,000 for Quebec and we take $1,500,000 for the shops east of Winnipeg', and these will make $3,500,000 instead of the $5,470,000.
Again, on page 12664 of * Hansard/ he says:
Bor the shops east of Winnipeg the estimate is $1,500,000.
That is what he contemplated and that is what the commissioners contemplated when they felt it was their duty to make a capital investment there on shops sufficient to provide for the repair of engines and cars on the Transcontinental; but when they thought of lending the Grand Trunk Pacific sufficient money at 3 per cent to enable them to repair their cars and engines on their line and on our line they ran the cost up to $4,500,000. The Gute-lius-Staunton report is verified line for line by the report of Mr. Hodgins, and by the words of the minister himself spoken only five or six years ago.
The hon. gentleman says-we do not believe this report, or we would not be building shops at Quebec. While we have the utmost respect for the opinion of Mr. Lynch-Staunton on that matter-and no lawyer who reads that opinion, and knows the facts and arguments and deductions in support of the opinions will fail to have respect for the opinion of Mr. Staunton on that point-we recognize that it is the official opinion of this Government that we go by, and so we are building the shops at Quebec. But. I will tell the

hon. gentleman what we are not doing at Quebec, we are not spending money there for the Grand Trunk Pacific to use in connection with other lines they may own.
At the city of Quebec the estimated cost for shops is not $4,500,000, but it is $2,000,000, or less than half the cost at Transeona. At the city of Quebec, while the suggestion is that it should be limited to $2,000,000, and it is estimated not to exceed that amount, it has to be remembered that these shops have to take care of repairs for the line west of Quebec as well as east of Quebec, and consequently there will be every reason to believe there will be twice the business in repairs at Quebec that there will be at Transeona, which is the end of the line. Consequently it will be seen that a very different policy is in vogue in reference to the shops at Quebec. We pay respect to the suggestion of Messrs. Lynch-Staunton and Gutelius by seeing to it, that while we carry out the obligations of a very bad bargain made by hon. gentlemen opposite, we do not exceed these obligations in the interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific. So much for the Transeona shops.
The hon. gentleman says that at the city of Quebec there has been a very grave blunder made in that the shops have been moved some distance from the main line, and that consequently there is going to be all kinds of expense in the halt and crippled engines limping over from the main station at Quebec to the shops. He thinks we should have the shops right along the main line of the road, but if you do you have to haul your crippled engines from the n arest divisional point or the nearest station. Where did the hon. gentleman build the shops at Transeona? He built them four and a half miles out from the divisional point.


George Perry Graham: They are on the main line.


Arthur Meighen: They are on the main line, but the limping trains have to go four and a half miles to get to the shops. Where are they at Moncton? Are they on the main line? I do not think the hon. gentleman will say they are.


George Perry Graham: They are right in Moncton.


Arthur Meighen: They are right in Moncton, but a mile and a quarter away from the station, and the hon. gentleman selected the site himself.


George Perry Graham: The Intercolonial shops at Moncton form part of the terminals in the city of Moncton.


Mr. J. D. REID:: They are two miles out.


George Perry Graham: They are not two miles out.


Arthur Meighen: There is one to two miles that the limping trains have to go to get to them. The hon. gentleman said that all our estimates in connection with the cost of the transcontinental project are futile. He said that we included everything in them, no matter whether they should have been included or not, and he has been saying that for many years. I have no doubt he thinks he could appoint a much better commission than we did, but he had the opportunity of appointing a commission in 1910, and he refused to appoint one, and the reason he gave was that the gentleman who moved for the appointment of the commission had entirely over-estimated the cost of the Transcontinental railway. Mr. Lennox, of South Simcoe, said in 1910 that in his view the cost would run up to $218,000,000, and Mr. Graham then estimated the cost, inclusive of interest during construction, at $150,400,000, and he asks the House to believe that he was right as against Mr. Lennox, who wanted a commission appointed. Mr. Graham, then Minister of Railways, declined to avail himself of the privilege of appointing a commission that he could have selected himself. The hon. gentleman put the cost at $150,400,000, while Mr. Lennox put it at $218,000,000, or, as Mr. Graham said, $68,000,000 too high. He has to-day admitted that on the same basis of calculation, the correct figure is not $150,400,000, is not even $218,000,000, but, without figuring compound interest, that it runs up to $230,000,000.


George Perry Graham: I do not admit anything of the kind. On this basis of calculation I state, and the hon. gentleman must himself agree, that the amount is $181,000,000 approximately.


Arthur Meighen: I think the House has clearly grasped the interruption of the hon. gentleman, and what it means. On the basis of the calculation at which he arrived at $150,400,000 in 1908-it was $159,000,000 in 1910-he tells the House that the cost to-day is $181,000,000. He makes out the cost to-day to be $181,000,000 by including the $161,000,000, cost of construction, exclusive of interest, and adding to it the inter-133
est during construction, which would come to $18,000,000, making a total of $181,000,000. That is correct, is it not?


George Perry Graham: That is correct.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman say that in his $150,400,000 in 1908, or his $159,000,000 in 1910, he did not include the seven years' interest after construction?


George Perry Graham: The seven years' interest after construction has nothing to do with the cost of construction.


Arthur Meighen: But the hon. gentleman says that it was'by the same basis of calculation he arrived at the $150,400,000. At page 12,680 of ' Hansard ' of 1908 he gives $10,740,000 as the interest during construction, and $26,124,676 as the interest for seven years after construction, and he makes the total cost then $150,400,000. He, himself, included the $26,124,676 interest for the seven years. Now the hon. gentleman says that on the same basis of calculation it is only $181,000,000. It is $161,000,000 without interest at all, it is $181,000,000 with interest during construction, and it is $234,000,000 with seven years' interest compounded after construction, and it is approximately $230,000,000, if you do not compound at all, according to his own methods. So that Mr. Lennox, in 1910, not four years ago now, in estimating the cost at $218,000,000 was, according to the estimate of the hon. gentleman himself, about $12,000,000 short of actual cost instead of being $68,000,000 too high.
The hon. gentleman says: You should not include	the	Quebec	bridge. I	didnot include	the	Quebec	bridge	in	the
last estimate , Mr. Gutelius and Mr. Lynch-Staunton did not include it in getting at the $234,000,000, but the hon. gentleman almost took a fit when the present acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) included something for the Quebec bridge in getting at the cost of the road. He said: There is no more sense in including the item of the Quebec bridge than if you were to include all the armouries in this country. If that is the case there is very little sense in the position taken by Mr. Fielding, then Minister of Finance, who, himself, was acting Minister of Railways and Canals when these words were used, and who said, page 8587 of ' Hansard,' August 12, 1903:
Whether the Grand Trunk Pacific had made a contract or not, whether we ever should build a transcontinental railway or not, the Quebec bridge has become a national undertaking, and in one form or other this Government has to see it through. As to what the Government



may do later, I am not in a position to say. Whether it would he wise to buy the bridge outright and make it part of the Government system or let the bridge company continue to manage it, will have to be arranged later on. But some part of the cost of that bridge is properly chargeable to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway.
He puts the cost at $4,500,000. (Reading):
What proportion of that would be fairly chargeable to this enterprise? I am going to assume that out of what it may cost we may fairly charge the Grand Trunk Pacific railway $2,000,000.
So that the Minister of Railways of the day, who himself fathered the whole scheme in this House of Commons, stated that about four-ninths of the cost of the Quebec bridge was properly chargeable to the Transcontinental. Four-ninths of the cost of the Quebec bridge is not quite the -same ais the armouries of this country; but what I want to draw my hon. friend's attention to is, that if we are to take what the cost of the Quebec bridge has been up to the present time, and its estimated cost for completion, and then take four-ninths of that as properly chargeable to the Transcontinental, we are going to add without interest at all, nearly $10,000,000 to the cost of the Transcontinental. On top of your $230,000,000, you have, on the authority of Mr. Fielding, to add that $10,000,000. On top of that also, you have to add interest for three years after the seven years, unless you are optimistic enough to think that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are going to find rental over working expenses for the three years. I do not believe that the ex-Minister of Railways in his heart of hearts would like to take as his share of the patrimony of this world, any part or all of the three years' rental we are going to get when the seven years are up. I do not think he would exchange it for his smallest possession in this world at the present time. If you add that three years' interest, and I think a sane regard for prospects will compel us to add it, you are going to add another $18,000,000 to the cost of the Transcontinental.
In all these calculations, which are sound, and which cannot be refuted, I have said noting at all about betterments until we get some return on the road. The ex-Minister of Railways knows that at the present hour the property of this country in the National Transcontinental, on the completed line not in use, or not in use to any serious extent, is depreciating day by day; that the Tails are rusting; that the ties are rotting; that the road bed is getting out of shape,

and that we shall have to spend huge sums of . money in betterments before we have as good a road as when it was first constructed. He says we are making up the $230,000,000 in such a way that if we applied the same plan to the Canadian Pacific railway, it would have cost $200,000,000 or $300,000,000. In that calculation the hon. gentleman took into account interest on the money advanced to the Canadian Pacific railway and on the land given to the Canadian Pacific railway at a cost of $5 an acre, compounded up to the present time.


George Perry Graham: I did not do that at all.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman did do it in one calculation anyway.


George Perry Graham: In my calculation, on
which I computed the compound interest, there was no reference to the land at all; it was the cash given to the Canadian Pacific railway, and the value of the completed railway handed over to them at a valuation which in 1887 amounted, according to the figures in possession of the Government, to $72,000,000. I calculated cash and Toad completed, not land.


Arthur Meighen: And he calculated interest on that up to the present time.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: If he takes the interest for a long enough period, he will make the amount anything he likes.


George Perry Graham: And, so can my hon.
friend in regard to the National Transcontinental railway.


Arthur Meighen: In my opinion if you
compute interest, you should compute it up to the time when the country gets some service from the road.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Until the road is completed.


Arthur Meighen: Well, who is objecting to that? What does the hon. member for St, John think about the method of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) in calculating interest for thirty or forty years after the road is completed?
Then my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways went on to say that the capitalization of the road was quite reasonable, namely, $85,000 per mile, but if he calculates it at actual cost, plus interest, he is. going to get $99,500 a mile.


George Perry Graham: I did not say that.
Mr .MEIGHEN: I say that.


George Perry Graham: I said $85,000 a mile,
from Prince Rupert to Moncton. I took the figures given to me by the Government.


Arthur Meighen: That is all right. I did not know that my hon. friend was referring to the road from coast to coast.


George Perry Graham: I was taking the whole road.


Arthur Meighen: Well, we do not know what that road is going to cost yet; it is yet some distance from completion. At all events the National Transcontinental railway is the line which we are discussing and you cannot get its cost by mixing up the figures of another road. The National Transcontinental road will cost $99,500 a mile or almost $100,000 a mile for every mile of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton.


Mr. MURPHY:: Does that include the
interest?


Arthur Meighen: We will assume for the sake of argument that it does, although I am not sure. The hon. gentleman says that the road is well worth it, because it will carry trains so cheaply.


George Perry Graham: Without interest.


Arthur Meighen: I think I am too generous with hon. gentlemen opposite; that is the cost without interest.


George Perry Graham: How much?


Arthur Meighen: 


George Perry Graham: No.


Arthur Meighen: If there is an error at ^all, it is in favour of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Robert Laird Borden: If the road be 1,800 miles long, then without including this seven years' interest the cost would be about $180,000,000, or about $100,000 per mile.


George Perry Graham: According to the contract and agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, they are to pay rental on the cost of construction, which is made up of the actual cost of construction and interest on the cost of construction during the time of construction. That is $181,000,000 approximately, which is to be the cost of the road for rental purposes.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly, for rental purposes.
133J


Arthur Meighen: I am vety glad that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Graham) interrupted me because I see that I was much too favourable to his side of the case. I gave $99,500 a mile as the cost with interest. In the moment or two of recess caused by the interruption, I find that the total cost of the road plus interest during construction alone aggregates $100,000 a mile.
By adding the computed interest for seven years, the cost pgr mile would amount to $117,000 instead of $99,500. My hon. friend (Mr. Graham) says that the road is worth it, because he says I can show you railroads in Germany that have cost more than that.


George Perry Graham: In speaking yesterday, I did not mention Germany directly or indirectly. In discussing railway matters here some years ago, I mentioned several railways in Europe. In my address of yesterday, taking the present Estimates, I mentioned the capitalization of four or five American roads, two of which I was giving for purposes of comparison. I did not mention any European roads at all.


Arthur Meighen: I read in 'Hansard' a
reference by the hon. gentleman to Germany.


George Perry Graham: I did not say that.


Arthur Meighen: I was not referring to my hon. friend's Sipeech of yesterday. But, at all events, I do not know what point the hon. member expects to make by interrupting me, for it is just the same whether it was in Germany, or in England or elsewhere. He referred to the Canadian Pacific railway, and to three or four roads in the thickly-populated parts of the United States-as if there were any comparison 'between land values in the state of New York and land values at Graham, Redditt, Cochrane, Fitzpatrick and various other points in our yet unpeopled north. His method is to put the cost of this bare line of railway against the Canadian Pacific railway, with its telephone system, its telegraph system, its hotels, its lands, its steamships, and all its other multifarious assets.
Now the hon. gentleman says: Whatever it cost, it is worth the money. And that is the report we always get when we present the case of the people of Canada against the late Government for unneces-

sarily adding to the cost of the Transcontinental. Hon. gentlemen opposite say: Whatever it cost, and whatever blunders we made, whether in the agreement or after the agreement, or in the execution of the work, we put those blunders behind our backs and under our feet, because the road is worth the money anyway.
Well, the feature of the case I wish to present, with what emphasis I may, is just that in estimating the money that ' should be spent on a railroad, whether in whole or in part, some regard should be had to reasonable expectations of traffic for the years after the road is completed. And, however optimistic hon. gentlemen may be of the traffic that will go over this road, their optimism does not justify us in flinging reason and discretion to the winds and assuming that on the Transcontinental railway, immediately after construction or very shortly after construction, we can have a traffic comparable with the present traffic on the Canadian Pacific railway. It is pointed out in this report, and not refuted even by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., so far as I am informed, that the equating tables presented to the engineers of this road, as they located the same and laid it out, were based upon the hypothesis that the road, as soon as it was open for traffic, [DOT]would receive a traffic double that of the present traffic on the Canadian Pacific Tailway. And these equating tables, calculated for the purpose of showing under what circumstances it would pay to make capital investment rather than incur expense for operation, were based upon a hypothesis which no reasonable man would be justified in holding. As a consequence of this hypothesis, twhich violates every principle of discretion and common sense, the road was laid out and constructed at a cost that defeats the very purpose for which the road was projected. The hon. member for South Renfrew read some letters to show that because in this construction they had got down to a better grade than another transcontinental line, they could carry traffic much cheaper; he went on to show that the Transcontinental railway could carry wheat, I think he said, for about one-third the rate the Canadian Pacific railway could carry it for, and almost as cheaply as it could be carried by water. But no sooner was this said than the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) asked: What about the obligation

of the company to pay rental on this tremendous capitalization as affecting their ability to make loiw traffic rates? And the hon. gentleman's answer was: I will tell the hon. member later on. But he has not told him about that rental yet; he has never admitted, in figuring the cost to the Transcontinental, the interest on the capitalization, which must be taken into account in arriving at the rates which that railway will be able to give its customers.


George Perry Graham: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. 'member undrlly, but I would refer him to page 2107 of ' Hansard ' on that point. I know the hon. member was not here last night, and I am sure he has not read this or he would not make the statement he does. I gave the statement as to what it would cost to operate this line, taking the expected traffic as given by Mr. Tye before this commission. My hon. friend will see that I put in the cost of operation as one of the charges, the very amount figured out by the commission as rental:
Interest charges per day,' as per commissioners report, $14,800.
So, I answered the hon. member for St. Antoine as I promised.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member for a moment suggest that in his cost of operation he has included overhead charges?


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman said I did not mention that. If he will follow out what I said he will see that there was a balance left to pay all other expenses.


Arthur Meighen: Very well, but what I
said was that the hon. member did not include the cost of rental in order to arrive at what the traffic would cost, and when he does include the rental he leaves out interest. The hon. gentleman admits that.


George Perry Graham: I do not.


Arthur Meighen: Then, I do not understand what he says. The hon. gentleman dwelt at great length on the question of grades, and he set about to convince the House that he was quite justified, and that the Transcontinental railway commissioners were quite justified, in entirely eliminating from thisToad what are known as momentum grades, and the Gutelius-Staunton report is entirely in error when it informs the people of Canada that $6,200,000 was thrown to the winds in this effort to do away entirely with the possibility of momentum grades. The hon. gentleman quoted letter after letter to show that the better grade you can get on a railway the cheaper you

can carry the traffic. Nobody disputes that general proposition. But still you have to keep in mind the cost of construction, and the interest on that cost if you arc going to be fair in your calculations. But that is what the hon. gentleman did not do: that is what the eengineers of the Transcontinental were forbidden to do. That is why we have a cost of construction that defeats the very purpose of the road.
Hon. gentlemen opposite would convince us that momentum grades are fearful things. One would actually think, to hear the hon. gentleman describe them, that a train on a road on which there were momentum grades, would rock about like an automobile on a rough road, and that momentum grades were dangerous not only to the lives of those who rode over them but to the country through which the train passes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: It is well that we should grasp what momentum grades really mean.
I understand that the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) agrees with me in my description. Let me illustrate to the right hon. gentleman just how much truth there is in his belief. The momentum grades that have been allowed in the interest of economy on the Transcontinental have a maximum depth of eight feet; but the momentum grades on the Canadian Pacific railway between here and Carleton Place have a maximum depth of thirty feet. The right hon. gentleman himself has travelled over this Canadian Pacific line many times, and I do not think he has suffered very serious turmoil to his anatomy.
Now, what are these momentum grades?


Wilfrid Laurier: Will the hon. gentleman tell the House where the momentum grades on the Transcontinental are? I have not been able to get that information so far.


Arthur Meighen: I have a list of them here, but I do not think the right hon. gentleman would be very much edified if I were to read to the House about 1,000 figures. I shall be glad to send the list over to him. I understand that it was brought down in response to an order for a return to this House, but I may be misinformed as to that.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have not
seen them.	*	.


Arthur Meighen: What are these momentum grades? The ruling gradient on the Transcontinental is 0.4 per cent as against
eastbound traffic, and 0.6 per cent as against westbound traffic. Those were the grades determined upon, and they were determined upon without any reference to the character of the country through which the road was to be run, and without any reference to whether or not such construction would be in the interests of the road or would help fulfil the purposes of the road. Apparently the cost of the road was not considered in its relation to the rates to be charged on the freight that might be carried over it. The cardinal blunder in connection with putting into execution the design of the Government in connection with the Transcontinental was in heeding not in the slightest degree the necessity of keeping the capital cost down to a minimum, in the interests of the road itself. No attention, then, was paid to the equating tables. The engineers were told to make 0.4 per cent and 0.6 per cent grades and to have no momentum grades, no matter what the result might be. The consequence is that the interest charges on the road are so high that there is no hope whatever of securing low freight rates, which the road was built to secure. It would appear from the speech of the hon. member for South Renfrew that the moment you introduce a momentum grade you depart entirely from the four-tenths and six-tenths actual grade. You will do nothing of the kind. A four-tenths grade, if I understand it aright, means that there is at no place a greater rise than four-tenths of a foot in one hundred feet against eastbound traffic, and in no case a greater rise than six-tenths of a foot in one hundred feet against westbound traffic. Consequently, an engine of certain power can haul a train loaded to a certain capacity over that four-tenths grade east-bound and six-tenths grade westbound and, if the momentum grades that are introduced are really momentum grades in the real meaning of the term, 5 p.m. they in no way interfere with the power of an engine to carry exactly the same load over exactly the same route. One would think that you limit the hauling capacity of your engine, the moment you introduce a momentum grade, no matter how slight, and that, at no matter what cost, such grades ought to be eliminated. Momentum grades, the hon. gentleman says, are of very doubtful advantage. He tells us that a momentum grade is of value to the road; at least he says it does not do it any harm. I admit

that it does not do any harm, but the question of cost comes into the construction of a non-momentum railroad. It 'becomes a question how much you should pay to produce a non-momentum system. The hon. gentleman refused to let that question intervene at all; to him it did not matter what it cost. Ordinary business sense should have dictated to him to ascertain first of all whether a non-momentum road is any better than a momentum road for the traffic that this line is expected to carry, and, if you ascertain that it is better, then find out whether it is so much better that it warrants the paying of $6,200,000 for it. Surely that is a matter of ordinary business; but the hon. gentleman did not do that. The momentum grade means this: you carry the very same load with the very same power. By means of a down-grade for a short distance and upgrade the rest, the momentum that the train secures going down carries it up the other side,, and as a result the principle of momentum is introduced and a great saving is effected without any detraction from the operating value of the road. The principle is not that of degrading the road to introduce momentum grades. The hon. gentleman has scoured the continent of America in order to produce the opinion of an engineer, if he could get one, that momentum grades should never be introduced. He scoured the continent of America and the continent of Europe ffi prove to this House that under no circumstances should momentum grades be used on the National Transcontinental railway. Having done this-and he has had seven or eight years in which to do it-he has not, in a speech lasting seven hours and a half, produced a single witness to show to this House that momentum grades should not be introduced. He could not and did not quote a line from either Mr. Berry or Mr. Cooper, one an engineer from the southern States and one from England, to show that momentum grades should not be used on the Transcontinental. He went to the American Association of Engineers, but the report of that association, from which In quoted, showed that he was wrong, and that there were circumstances under which momentum grades undoubtedly ought to be introduced in the interests of the road it-itself.


George Perry Graham: I have always admitted that there are circumstances under which momentum grades are practicable. I never

suggested anything else, but they are not practicable in a frost and snow country.


Arthur Meighen: Not in a cold country?


George Perry Graham: I said a frost and snow country.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman's
opinion is that momentum grades are all right under perfect circumstances, but that they are not all right in a frost and snow country.


George Perry Graham: On new lines.


Arthur Meighen: Here is the opinion of
one of the engineers quoted by my hon. friend-and I venture to say it was the most in his favour of any that he could secure from the whole report:
Modern railroad practice has substantially established the fact that momentum grades have their uses and are frequently of great value, but there are definite and well-known objections to their indiscriminate use.
Who would not know that?
And that they should be adopted as a matter of course ordinarily or wherever opportunity offers, especially in original locations, may be seriously questioned.


George Perry Graham: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: Does the Gutelius-
Staunton report say in a single instance that momentum grades should be indiscriminately applied, or wherever opportunity offered? All Gutelius and Staunton said in the report was exactly what the American Association said in the report quoted by my hon. friend. The view of the association was:
Modern railroad practice has substantially established the fact that momentum grades have their uses and are frequently of great value.
But the Transcontinental railway proceeded on the presumption that modern railway practice had established the fact that there was no value in momentum grades at all.
The hon. gentleman went down to the southern .States and produced Mr. Berry, whose reputation is said to be international, but whom I never heard of before, although I have heard of many American engineers whose reputations became international very suddenly. However, I will accept Mr. Berry's opinion as that of an engineer of international reputation. In all the quotations which the hon. gentleman made from Mr. Berry, he cannot point to a line wherein Mr. Berry states that momentum grades

should not have been applied to the Tran -continental railway.
Mr. Berry was asked by the hon. gentleman himself to be a witness on this matter. I do not know whether Mr. Berry ever read the evidence. I have not seen the letter which the hon. gentleman wrote to him. I do not think he read the evidence, because he does not refer to it. But this gentleman from South America-


George Perry Graham: Not South America.


Arthur Meighen: The southern States- does say that there are circumstances when momentum grades should not be used, and he makes it as clear as day that there should always be an equation made between the advantage to be gained by momentum grades and the possible disadvantage. He thinks non-momentum grades are worth getting if you get them cheaply enough. Consequently he says there is a doubt amongst railway engineers whether or not a momentum grade is better than a non-momentum grade, and therefore, says my hon. friend (Mr. Graham), we are ready to pay any sum to remove the doubt. Whoever heard of reasoning tike- that. Mr. Berry almost says, and the ex-Minister of Railways does say, that you dare not have momentum grades in a cold country where there is snow and frost; and I wish to follow Mr. Berry and see just how far he establishes the point. Mr. Berry, in the course of his letter, points out that there are certain circumstances where a momentum grade may interfere with operating. He said that in the case of the momentum grade shown in the report, which was put there for the purpose of illustration, if you started out a fully loaded train of empties at the top of that momentum grade it would not get up the other side. There is his first objection. Whoever heard of putting in a momentum grade where you would be starting a fully loaded train of empties at the top? Would not a fully loaded train of empties, if that momentum grade was located in the only sensible place where any man would locate it, have a speed of ten or twenty miles an hour when it Teached the foot of the down grade, and in that case it would get up the other side just as any other train would. That is what momentum means. Who would start a train over a momentum grade without iany head at the top of the momentum? But he says a still more terrible thing might happen in a cold country of thirty degrees below zero. Mr. Berry says that if you strike a momentum
grade in a cold country, thirty degrees below zero, with five inches of snow on the rails, and if, when you get to the bottom of the grade your engine goes up the spout, then you will not get to the top. Those are the only two circumstances that the ingenious mind of Mr. Berry can devise in order to show that you should never have a momentum grade in order to insure the country against the calamitous result of a train of empties started at the top of a momentum grade without any momentum and getting stalled before it gets to the-other side, and the still more calamitous result of a fully loaded train of cars, at thirty degrees below zero and with five inches of snow on the rails getting stuck at the bottom through a dead engine, we ought to spend $6,200,000 of the money of the people of Canada. He cannot point to me in Mr. Berry's report a single other instance, a single other possibility that Mr. Berry's ingenious mind can devise that would defeat the real purpose of momentum grades. I read a few minutes ago what the hon. gentleman quoted from the report of the* American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association. Just bear with me while I quote that again in order that I may show you the reasoning of the ex-Minister of Railways. Here lis the quotation he made:
Modern railroad practice has substantially established the fact that momentum grades have their uses and are frequently of great value, but there are definite and well-known objections to their indiscriminate use, and that they should be adopted as a matter of course ordinarily or wherever opportunity offers, especially in original location, may be seriously questioned.
Now let me give you the deduction which the logical mind of the hon. member for South Renfrew draws from that statement:
This association takes the ground that even where the conditions are perfect, it is a mistake to introduce velocity grades-


George Perry Graham: Go on.


Arthur Meighen: -
On a new line.


George Perry Graham: Hear, hear. That makes a difference.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman says 'hear, hear.' The Maintenance of Way Association said:
There are definite and well-known objections to their indiscriminate use and that they should be adopted as a matter of course ordinarily or wherever opportunity offers, especially in original location, may be seriously questioned.


George Perry Graham: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: It may be questioned
whether you can adopt them indiscriminately or whenever opportunity offers, no matter what the result to be gained is, under those circumstances, in original construction. That is what the Maintenance of Way Association says. The deduction of the Minister of Railways is that unless conditions are perfect it is a mistake to introduce velocity grades.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has left out again the word ' on a new line'.


Arthur Meighen: On a new line.


George Perry Graham: That makes a difference.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member say that the Maintenance of Way Association said that? They said that on new lines it may be questioned whether you should introduce them indiscriminately or ordinarily or wherever opportunity offers.


George Perry Graham: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: Nobody would say anything else on new lines. This association says that you should use due care in the introduction of momentum grades. You would not introduce them, for instance, at a divisional point where you are going to start a train of empties at the foot of a momentum grade without any momentum. That would be their use indiscriminately, and ordinarily, and wherever opportunity offered. The Maintenance of Way Association say that you should not do that, but that is a long way from saying that you should never do it on a new line at all. It is just the difference between doing it without discrimination and doing it with discrimination. The hon. member for South Renfrew does not see that difference and the reason he gives is:
For you do not know where the density of traffic is going to he and you cannot establish the velocity grades in the proper places.
That hon. gentleman says, that because we do not know, for example, what the traffic is going to be between Winnipeg and Lake Superior Junction, we do not know where the density is going to be along the Jine. such great density that you would not dare have momentum grades of that kind, at whatever cost he is going to abolish momentum grades altogether. Doe3 the hon. gentleman fear a traffic along that line so great that you could not have momentum grades? The Canadian Pacific railway do not fear it. The Canadian Pacific railway have been running their line between Fort William and Winnipeg 
until now they have a double track, and on the revision of their line, knowing full well the traffic and having due regard for the future traffic, I have the evidence and the proof here to show that they have 85 momentum grades of importance on that line between Winnipeg and Fort William, or a momentum grade for about every three or four miles of the road.
But my hon. friend is fearful that we are going to have such a congestion of traffic between Lake Superior Junction and the city of Winnipeg that it would be a fatal thing to introduce a momentum grade at all. I have a letter here from an engineer who has the confidence of hon. gentlemen opposite. He was employed by them on the Transcontinental-or, perhaps not by them-at all events he was employed on the Transcontinental. He is an eminent engineer who made an inspection of the profiles of the Canadian Pacific railway at my own request. He writes:
The ruling grade, that is the maximum grade when neither momentum or pusher grades are used, between these points is, according to the information given me, 0.4 per cent against both east and westbound. This information checks with the profiles.
The momentum grades are not used to the same extent against eastbound as against westbound traffic as regards the rate of grade but there are probably about the same number of them each way. I counted 85 in all, and left out quite a number of the lighter ones. The rate of grade varies against eastbound from 0.5 per cent, 0.6 per cent, 0.7 per cent, 0.8 per cent to 0.9 per cent and in one ease 1.0 per cent. Against westbound traffic the rate varies also from 0.5 per cent to 1.2 per cent, there being numerous cases of over 1.0 per cent. X noticed in a few cases that these grades were used in such a way as I would hesitate to adopt myself because of the high rates of speed required.
If we leave out the 40 miles west from Fort William and 60 miles east from Winnipeg, the average of these grades for the remaining distance is roughly one to every four miles. In one section of 22 miles, however, I found 13 momentum grades with a more frequent use of the higher rates of grade, there being three cases of the use of 0.8 per cent against eastbound and 1.0, 1.15 and 1.3 per cent against westbound.
That is the judgment of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; and they have lately revised their line and deemed it in the interest of the company and the purposes the railway was built to serve that they should introduce these momentum grades because of the great cost of obviating them. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Graham) says: 'If you look at the time sheets of that company, you will find that where there are momentum grades on a ruling grade of 0 4 per cent,. they do not

load their trains to capacity. I understand the time sheets do not say anything about it.


George Perry Graham: I did not say time sheets.
I said weigh sheets. Perhaps that is not the proper term, but the sheet I mean shows the loading of the trains.


Arthur Meighen: 
George Perry Graham: At the time Mr. Grant
made that report as to momentum grades, he was not chief engineer.


Arthur Meighen: Did the hon. gentleman take his advice as to momentum grades after be was chief engineer?


George Perry Graham: I do not think my hon. friend will find that Mr. Grant, except in one or two instances, gave advice as to momentum grades. Grant did not pretend to be chief engineer at the time he wrote that report; lie got his orders from the chief engineer.


Arthur Meighen: He got his orders from Ottawa, he says. But did the hon. gentleman take his advice as to momentum grades after he became chief engineer? In twc most important instances the hon. gentle-

man took his own opinion instead of that of his chief engineer.
The evidence is on file to show that the chief engineer before him was overpowered from Ottawa and that he was not allowed to exercise his own best judgment by this Transcontinental Railway Commission. and the Minister of Railways and Canals. As a result finally of being impeded in the fair discharge of his duties by these orders from Ottawa, he threw up his post as chief engineer and retired from the service altogether.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Grant did not do
that.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Grant took his *orders from Ottawa, Mr. Grant did it against his best judgment and on account of being compelled to do it he was made a party to the extraction from the treasury [DOT]of this country of $6,200,000 which is chargeable to the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Now, the hon. member for South Renfrew says that he is afraid of the snow and the ice of this country, and that therefore he refused to sanction momentum grades. Did he ever ask the chief engineer about snow and ice? Did he ever ask him if this gentleman from the southern States-


George Perry Graham: No, Chicago; get it right.


Arthur Meighen: From Omaha.


George Perry Graham: No.


Arthur Meighen: I think I am right when I mention Omaha because he reduced the grades of the Union Pacific. My information is that he did reduce the grades of the Union Pacific, but that he reduced them from two and a half per cent down to one per cent. That was the revision on the Union Pacific grades, and if you have a reduction of gradients to one per cent there is not so much need of introducing momentum grades as there is if you get down to 0.4 per cent or 0.3 per cent. It is then that the momentum grade is imperative in the interest of common sense and economy because you have not as much latitude in locating and constructing your line as you have with a one per cent grade. Momentum grades are introduced not when the gradient is high but when the gradient is low. If the gradient is high you can get [DOT]economy without the momentum grade, but if the gradient is low you cannot.


George Perry Graham: Then why did the hon. gentleman say that the momentum grade is

used on the Canadian Pacific railway, when the Canadian Pacific railway has a grade of over 0.4 per cent?


Arthur Meighen: Because, in the revision of their grade, they reduced the gradients.


George Perry Graham: By the momentum
grade?


Arthur Meighen: It is when you get a
0.4 per cent grade that you want momentum grades. When the Canadian Pacific were getting their 0.4 per cent grade the momentum grade was regarded as an economic consideration and one in the interest of the road. But when the Transcontinental Railway Commission were getting a 0.4 per cent grade they flung economy and common sense to the winds. That is the difference between the Transcontinental and the Canadian Pacific railway.
As to this engineer from Omaha who reduced the grade of the Union Pacific from two and a half to one per cent. This is the engineer from the southern States who writes up to the Canadian people and tells them that the Laurentian and granite rocks in this northern country which have withstood the elements for ages, will be disintegrated beyond all recognition if exposed to rain and ice. That is the suggestion he makes with reference to the granite of northern Canada. The enigma has so frightened the hon. member for South Renfrew that he says that momentum grades are going to interfere so much, under conditions of snow and ice and frost, with the operation of the road and are going to impede trains to such an extent that it would not be right to introduce them. I desire to direct the attention of the hon. member for South Renfrew to the opinion of his own chief engineer, in whom he had confidence, in whom he still has confidence and whom he did not consult apparently at all on this question of snow and ice when he was in a position to consult him and when he should have taken his advice. Here is what the chief engineer of the Transcontinental railway says about it. I do not think it is too much to ask that the hon. member for South Renfrew should concede that the people will be a little better justified in taking the opinion of the chief engineer, to whom he entrusted this work, aided and abetted by the opinion of the leading engineer upon the Canadian Pacific railway and aided, abetted and supported by the opinion of every man who has

had to do with the great, successful railways of this country, rather than the opinion of a man from Omaha on the question of snow and ice. Here is what Mr. Grant says in a letter addressed to me on the 25th March:


William Pugsley: Of the present year?


Arthur Meighen: Of the present year.
Mr. Grant says:
In accordance with your verbal request for a statement regarding the contention of a certain engineer who lives in the southern states that momentum grades are objectionable in a cold climate, and that they are objectionable for the reason that a train of empty cars is liable to stall on them, and also that they are objectionable in the case of a broken down engine;
I may say that the movement of a train over a momentum grade is affected by climate, length of train, and the inability of a broken down engine to haul her load, exactly the same as any other grade, no more and no less; or in other words there is nothing to your southern friend's contention.


George Perry Graham: Does Mr. Grant say: There is nothing to your southern friend's contention?


Arthur Meighen: The only error is apparently that he thinks he is my southern friend instead of the hon. gentleman's. Here is the opinion of the hon. member for South Renfrew in regard to Mr. Gordon Grant:
Is there a man in this House who will say that Gordon Grant is crooked or incapable ? They know that such a charge could not lie because he is kept in the employ of the present Government, and is an able, competent and honest man.


Arthur Meighen: Now we have shown what the position has been with regard to momentum grades. I think it will be Admitted that up to the very last no regard whatever was paid to the dictates of discretion in deciding before the conditions and the topography were known, that momentum grades would never be allowed to exist on the Transcontinental railway. The verdict of Mr. Gutelius and Mr. Lynch-Staunton is supported by every tittle Of evidence that is before the House. It is disputed in no sense whatever by the witnesses brought here by raking with a fine tooth-comb through North America and Europe by the hon. member for South Renfrew. It stands to-day unmolested and undisturbed, and the responsibility for the damage that has resulted is on the Government then in power and particularly on the hon. member for South Renfrew.
There is something else. The hon. gentleman maintains that everything was all
right in the way of the tenders. I will follow up one or two of the tenders in order to ascertain whether or not the remarks of the hon. member for South Renfrew were justified in relation to them. I shall take up at the present time contracts Nos. 16 and 17. I want to refer to them particularly because the hon. member for Carle-ton (Mr. Carvell) last night, in very vigorous language to which he is not a stranger, endeavoured to 'bring home to the present Government the responsibility for the loss to the country in connection with contracts Nos. 16 and 17. The undisputed facts of the matter appear to be that these two contracts, representing some 204 miles of railway north of the northern shores of lake Superior, were let at the request of the Grand Trunk Pacific on October 29, 1908, to Messrs. M. P. and J. T. Davis. The contract price was a huge figure, running up into the millions, and at the time the contract was let the conditions 'were such that whoever tendered on it would find very great difficulty in reaching the scene of their labours and getting their supplies and tlheir men there. As a consequence, it must have been contemplated that the tenders that would be received in answer to the advertisement would be more than ordinarily high. The tenders were more than ordinarily high. The conditions in the advertisement were such that the contractors had to start the work at once, and that the work had to be completed on the 31st day of December, 1910. If I am wrong as to the date, I hope my hon. friend will correct me.


George Perry Graham: The date is not very important.


Arthur Meighen: The date makes a great deal of difference, because, unfortunately, it proves a very important statement made by the hon. member for South Renfrew to be incorrect. Contracts Nos. 16 and 17 were let separately to Messrs. M. P. and J. T. Davis. That firm took contract No. 16 and contract No. 17. The tenders were high, inordinately high. I do not know what the average would be, but they varied in excess of the average of the other tenders received, which were high enough, from say 10 per cent to 50 per cent to 100 per cent. The prices on some of the items tendered for were 100 per cent higher than the prices of the other tenders for the same work. Some were very little, higher.


George Perry Graham: All over the line?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, all over the line. On solid rock the price was 20 per cent higher than the average, on loose rock 40 per cent, on common excavation 50 per cent, and on other items the price was 100 per cent higher.
Mr. GRAHAM1: What ones would be 100 per cent higher?


Arthur Meighen: I will get the information for my ihon. friend. It is in the Gutalius report. It was on rip rap.


George Perry Graham: Never mind; go on.


Arthur Meighen: The reasons for the high tenders doubtless were the inaccessibility of the locality and the difficulty that would be encountered in getting supplies and men to the scene. But, under compulsion, at all events under the dictation of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, the commission deemed that they ought to advertise for tenders on that work, and ought to compel the tenderers to commence operations at once and to finish both contracts before the 31st of December, 1910. That is what they deemed advisable in the public interest, and they deemed it in the public interest that, in order to secure that completion, these excess prices had bdtter be paid. What resulted? The contractors did nothing at all on that work in 1908; they did nothing at all up to September, 1909, except to send a party from Jackfish bay to the scene to see how best to get in their men and their supplies. The party went up in the winter and came back in the spring. The contractors rested on their oars from the spring until the fall and did absolutely nothing. In September of that year, the time approaching rapidly when the steel was to be laid at least close up to the extremities of these contracts from east and west, they sold their contracts to Messrs. O'Brien, Fowler and McDougall Bros., under an agreement which reserved to them 10 per cent profit on the same. They were to get 10 per cent of the total sum that would come to Messrs. O'Brien, Fowler and McDougall Bros, on the completion of the contract. Nothing more was done until, I think, December and all that was done was on contract No. 16. About 12i per cent of that contract was done when the whole of the contract should, under the terms of the contract, have been completed. As to contract No. 17, not one dollar was invested in it; not one spaxle was put in; nothing at all was done until three months after con-LMr. Graham.]
tract No. 17 should, under the terms of the contract, have been completed. The hon. member for South Renfrew told us in the House the day before yesterday that immediately those contracts were taken over and before the expiration of the time, Messrs. O'Brien, Fowler and McDougall Bros., were on the ground. They were on the ground on contract No. 16; but they were never on the ground and did not do a tap on contract No. 17 until three months after the work should have been completed. The hon. member for South Renfrew said: It is true we approved the assignment from the Davis firm to Messrs. O'Brien, Fowler and McDougall Bros.; it is true the Transcontinental Railway Commission approved in September, although they knew at the time they approved, that Messrs. Davis and Davis, were in default; that they had not gone on immediately with the wo'tk; that they had not taken the steps they should have taken in prosecuting the work in order to fulfil the contract, although they knew that all this firm had done was to send a party into the district; that the party had gone back over one route in the spring of 1909 and that this firm had done nothing whatever between the spring and the fall when the contract was to be assigned.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend says
Messrs. O'Brien, Fowler and McDougall Bros.; he means Davis.


Arthur Meighen: Messrs. O'Brien, Fowler and McDougall Bros., did not come on the scene at all until September 29, 1909. What I was pointing out was that the hon. member told the House that the only time, if any, when the commission would have been justified in cancelling the contract of Messrs. O'Brien, Fowler and McDougall Bros., would have been at the -time when the contract should have been completed, and at the time when he said they were on the work, actually doing construction. That was a mis-statement comparable with what he called the colossal blunder of the hon. acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid), who in estimating the cost of the Transcontinental railway dared to include the seven years' interest, instead of calling it a subsidy.


George Perry Graham: He said that it was for rental purposes.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I will not be
diverted from my argument just now. My hon. friend told the House that the contractors were on the ground and at work

on the contract. That is true in regard to contract No. 16; but they had never started work on contract No. 17 until three months after the work .should have been completed. Yet the hon. gentleman argued that the Transcontinental Commission could not have legally cancelled that contract.


George Perry Graham: Will my hon. friend let me explain what I did say? We agree absolutely except on this, that I made the explanation that in discussing contracts Nos. 16 and 17, as they covered a continuous stretch of road and as the -same firm had them, I would discuss them as one contract.
Mr. -MEIGHEN:	From that the hon.
gentleman drew the conclusion that, inasmuch as the contractors were on the ground when the work should have been completed there could have been no cancellation. That conclusion was a wrong one, because it had no application to contract No. 17 at all. My hon. friend said that it would not have been legal to cancel the contract any sooner and that it was right that the commission should approve these two contracts. It must be remembered that before they got the notice that the contracts were assigned to Messrs. O'Brien, Fowler and McDougall Bros., the Prime Minister of Camada and the Chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commission had both been notified that, inasmuch as these men had never gone on the ground and bad never done a tap and inasmuch .as the time was approaching when the road was to have been completed from both ends, the circumstances that justified the increased prices were removed and that as a result the commission should take -advantage of the circumstances and s-ecure tenders that were justified by the conditions 'then -existing. They -declined to do anything. The hon. gentleman ha-s -stated that he found a lawyer who has given an opinion that the Government could not cancel these contracts. I asked this lawyer's name, but he intimated that the lawyer was so sensitive that he did not like to have his name divulged,


George Perry Graham: I did not make that
statement. I do not see why the hon. gentleman should continually misquote me. I said they could not be cancelled without there being a chance of an action.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman only mean that inasmuch as O'Brien, Fowler & McDougall Bros, might have
started an action for which they had no ground, that therefore it would not be wise-


George Perry Graham: I did not say a word
about O'Brien.


Arthur Meighen: Davis, then-what's in a name? Unless they had ground for an action that would enable them, in the opinion of the commission, to succeed, surely the contract could have been cancelled. Does the hon. gentleman's lawyer undertake to say that they had grounds-


George Perry Graham: Does the hon. gentleman ask me the question?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


George Perry Graham: He says: ' Unless in the opinion of the commission they had grounds for action.' I read the letter of the chairman, who is a lawyer of some eminence, stating that he thought they had grounds for action.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the question. I wanted to know what this lawyer really said, who would not give his name. Does he -say that in his opinion there would be ground for an action on which they would succeed?


George Perry Graham: I would not say that.


Arthur Meighen: What the lawyer said,
then, was that in his opinion they might start an action whether they had ground for it or not?


George Perry Graham: Anybody might do that.


Arthur Meighen: If the commission were afraid-


George Perry Graham: They were not afraid,
and so stated.


Arthur Meighen: No, but the hon. gentleman's lawyer appears to have been afraid. I know that the chairman stated in a letter that they could not cancel the contract. Now, I want to ask the ex-Minister of Railways if he could possibly imagine circumstances under which any contract could have been cancelled by these commissioners if this one could not. Is he going to lay at the door of his commission the charge that they entered 'into a form of contract with contractors that left them no means whatever for cancelling the contract if the contractors defaulted? But here these men lie back and do nothing, not a tap, nor do their assignees, until three months after the contract should have been completed; and the hon. gentleman wants to lead this House to believe

that even three months after the contract should have been completed, with nothing done, the contract could not have been cancelled. If the commission entered into a contract of that kind, their guilt is far heavier than it would be if they had simply failed to cancel the contract. The commission had a contract with these men which says:
Section 8. The said work shall he commenced immediately after the execution of this agreement and shall he proceeded with continuously and diligently, and under the personal supervision of the contractor, until completed.
Was lit commenced immediately? Was it carried on with diligence, or in any other way? It was not. So that clause of the contract undoubtedly was violated. Then further:
Section 20. In case the contractor shall make default or delay in diligently continuing to execute or advance the works to the satisfaction of the engineer, and such default or delay shall continue for six days after notice in writing shall have been given hy the engineer to the contractor requiring him to put an end to such default or delay, or in case the contractor shall become insolvent . . . the commissioners may take the work out of the hands of the contractor.
Then, it goes on to deal with the liability of the contractor. Not only have the commission power, in case of delay to sweep the contractor out of existence so far as profits go, but they can do more, they can hold him liable in case of loss. That is what it plainly means. No one will say that M. P. and J. T. Davis did not violate section 8; and, having violated section 8, they come under the condemnation of clause 20. So, if ever circumstances could arise that would justify the commission in cancelling a contract and advertising for new tenders, those circumstances arose in that case. 1 have nothing to say against the lawyer who advised the hon. gentleman that action might have been entered; I note that he was wise enough not to advise him that the action would succeed; so, I do not see why the hon. gentleman should be so sensitive about divulging his name. So, the contracts might have been cancelled, and if cancelled, the Government would have saved at least ten per cent, because the prices were more than ten per cent above the average price for the rest of the line. The responsibility is on the commission, for that loss, and that loss amounted to $740,000. But the hon. gentleman says:	We never in any way consented to this ten per cent being granted. It is true, he says: that. Ip the deed of

transfer between Davis and O'Brien, Bowler and McDougall Brothers, provision is made for reserving ten per cent, but we knew nothing about it when we consented to the assignment, and when I ratified it as Minister of Railways I did not know of it. But the hon. gentleman is wrong. If not, it would be better for him if he were. For, in the assignment to which they consented was embodied a reference to an agreement of transfer made between Davis, and O'Brien, Fowler and McDougall Brothers which made that agreement part of the assignment, and when they ratified the assignment they ratified the agreement. The hon. member says: The agreement never was on the file; we never ratified the agreement; it was made part of and embodied in the assignment but they did not know what was in it. Does he mean to say that the commission assented to assignments the purport of which they did not know? Does not he think it would be their duty to have the assignment on file, and that if they did not have it, the guilt and responsibility was greater than if they had consented to it after having it on file? But the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) says that this Goverument is responsible, not the old Government; he says this Government should keep out the $5,000 a month, because there is a provision whereby the commission could elect to keep out $5,000 a month as damages in case of default or delay in the conclusion of the contract. And I am told that, with an air almost of thunder, he defied this Government to do this, the intimation, the insinuation, being, I am told, that in some way we were tied up to Davis. I wonder if the hon. gentleman was aware of the seriousness of the statement he made. He says the duty is upon this Goverrment to insist on the $5,000 a month provided for in the agreement. I know it was within the power of the commission to elect whether or not, in this case as in any other, they would call for the $5,000 a month in case of default. But I wish to tell the hon.. member, though he is not here, and I tell the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) who did not correct him, that the commission which he appointed, the commission that operated under the old Government, themselves made that election and determined to release M. P. and J. T. Davis from that contract. I will read to the hon. gentleman the minutes of that meeting of the commission where they decided, that they would not insist on that $5,000 a month, thus relieving them of that $5,000

a month; and they did it at the request of the head of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company who themselves were contractors and who stood to lose if that penalty were exacted. In order to find out whether it was the duty of the late Government to call for that $5,000 a month, to whom did they write?
They wrote to Mr. Hays, President of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, which company themselves were contractors for 353 miles of the line; which company themselves were in default and liable to the $5,000 penalty. That is where they went for advice. I have here a certified copy of the resolution which was passed by the Transcontinental Railway Commission. It reads:
Extract from the minutes of a meeting held by the commissioners of the Transcontinental railway at Ottawa, May 26, 1911.
Hon. S. N. Parent in the chair.
Copy of letter from the chairman, dated 19 April last, to Mr. Charles M. Hays, president Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and Mr. Hays' reply dated the . 23rd instant setting forth his views in regard to the enforcement of the penalty clause in the various contracts for construction, advising his opinion that there is nothing to be gained in attempting to enforce the penalties prescribed, and that, should the commission determine upon this policy, it would meet with the approval and concurrence of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, was read, and it was
Resolved, that in view of all the circumstances as set forth in the reports of the chief engineer, the various district engineers, and in the letter of president Hays of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, that no attempt be made to enforce the penalty clause in the various contracts for construction, unless, and except in such cases only, as the chief engineer can establish a clear cause of default on the part of the contractors, on account of which the public interest has suffered ; and that a copy of the correspondence and of this resolution be forwarded to the honourable the Minister of Railways and Canals and to the Auditor General.
By that resolution the commission put upon the chief engineer the responsibility of showing that by reason of the delay the country suffered. How could he show that, when the rest of the line was not built up? Consequently, by virtue of that resolution they absolutely shut the door upon any collection of the $5,000 per month from M. P. and J. T. Davis.
At six o'clock the House took recess,
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I can conclude all I have to say on the subject of contracts by a reference to the discussion that has so far preceded in regard to subletting. It will be recalled that the report of this commission finds that as nearly as may be estimated, some $8,800,000 has been lost to the country by means of injudicious advertising and injudicious restrictions in the matter of the letting of the contracts. That was assumed by the hon. gentlemen who have spoken as a finding on the part of the commission that the whole principle of sub-letting was a vicious principle, and that it was not in the public interest. The commissioners were attacked in the severest terms of censure because they had attacked the principle of sub-letting, and the Government of to-day is charged with having no faith in that commission and with violating its findings because they absolutely countenanced sub-letting on the Hudson bay railway and the Welland canal. I have not been able to find any assertion in the report of the commission that there is anything inherently wrong in the principle of sub-letting. Nobody objects to the principle of sub-letting properly applied, the public interest being safeguarded. But is it only sub-letting that has taken place here on the Transcontinental railway? It is not sub-letting at all, in the main it is selling of the contracts; it is securing something under conditions that shut out competition, and, having secured it, turning it over to somebody who does the work that the primary contractor should have done, at an immense profit. For example, the sale of the Davis contract is not a sub-letting. O'Brien, Fowler and Mac-dougall Bros, may have sub-let afterwards. That is very frequently done. The contractors first sold, then the man who purchased from them sub-let, and perhaps two or three under him got contracts. Then they would sub-let again, and so on. All that has taken place under the conditions stipulated by the late Transcontinental commission. What was one condition that was severely to be criticised? The commission advertised for tenders and called for a certain deposit with the tender. But they inserted in their advertisement a provision that, not only did they require that deposit, but that they reserved to themselves the right to demand any further sum whatever, within a certain number of days; and unless this sum was put up, not only would the man who tendered be in danger of losing the contract, although he might be the lowest tenderer, but he would face the probability of losing his cash deposit. In other words, he delivered himself bodily into the hands of the com-

mission, because the commission might exact from him something which he could not possibly comply with. Surely no hon. gentleman opposite will say that this was not such a restriction as was calculated to shut out competition. I am at a loss to imagine what other purpose such a restriction could have had, or what the commission could have had in mind were it not to shut out competition in reserving to themselves the right to practically ruin the tenderer if he did not comply with conditions that in advance he knew nothing of. The clause to which I refer is as follows:
And I hereby declare and agree that in case of refusal or failure to execute the said contract with the commissioners and also to furnish the approved security required-[DOT]
Not knowing what it was.
-to an amount not exceeding one-third of the estimated total consideration of the contract, for the faithful performance of the said contract, within ten days after the acceptance of this tender, the said cheque shall he forfeit to the said commissioners as liquidative damages for such failure, and all contract rights secured by the acceptance of this tender shall be forfeited.
The checks demanded varied in amount from 575,000 to 5400,000, and the subsequent security varied from nothing up to about $1,300,000 in the case of the McArthur contract. But the point is that the contractor had no possible conception, except that he was limited to one-third of the whole contract price, as to what he might be called upon to do. If that were a justifiable proceeding in this case is it not in all Government contracts? Why is an exception made in the case of the Transcontinental Commission and their contracts? The Minister of Finance of that day saw that the effect of regulations that the Transcontinental Commission had put into effect, in this restrictive clause, inevitably would be to so discourage prospective tenderers as to limit very seriously their number and consequently to enhance very materially the cost. He wrote a letter of protest, asking that the commission should recede from that position and should be content with such conditions as prevailed in other Government contracts. But his request was not heeded and the Government of the day did not see to it that fair and reasonable conditions only were insisted upon, and in that way at least one element of cost eliminated. They decided in this case, just as in every other case, whenever a question was before them on one side of

which was a reduction of cost and on the other side an increase of cost, they decided every time on the extra expenditure, whatever it might be. Was there ever a question or dispute that reached the commission, or, above the commission, reached the Government, that was not decided in favour of the extra expense? So that the' attack on the system of advertising and tendering and the consequences of that system is not an attack on sub-letting as sub-letting, and all that the commission say is that one step in the process at least might have been eliminated, there might have been one clause struck out and one element of the cost prevented if a fair system had been adopted. In that way they estimate that $8,800,000 was wasted. The basis of this estimate is only a fair average between the first cost and the second cost, not between the first cost and the actual cost to the men who-performed the work.
I have not yet dealt with the question of curvature. It is very much akin to the question of momentum grades. On the question of momentum grades I think it has been clearly established that a loss to this country of $6,200,000 has resulted; and in estimating that loss regard has only been had to what could have been saved after the line of railway was decided upon. If this stringent condition had not been laid down before the line was decided upon, a line of railway would have been laid out on which there could have been saved a great deal more than $6,200,000. The commission were not in a position to say what might have been done unless they went to work and laid out a different line altogether. They could only say what could have been saved with the line of railway as it is, had it not been determined that, come what might, and at whatever cost, momentum grades were to be absolutely debarred. As to curvature the very same words, in effect, apply. They determined in advance, without any regard to the topography of the country, and having no interest at all in what the result to the country might be of their determination-they determined in advance on a 6 degree curve as the maximum, no matter what the cost of that 6 degree might be to the country. The hon. member for South Renfrew says the curvature is as important as the grade, because if you increase the curvature you produce exactly the same result in retarding operation as if you increase the grade. That is very true. And he says, if you have an 0.4 per cent grade and then add

10 degr&es curvature, you are doubling the 0 4 per cent grade; and the conclusion that might be very reasonably drawn from that is that you cannot afford to add a maximum curvature to the maximum gradient. That is to say, the conclusion .put generally is this: That in curvature just as in gradients you cannot indiscriminately apply the maximum. You have to use judgment, take into account all the conditions surrounding each case, and decide each one on its merits. That is all that the commission report asked for. What is there in the argument of the hon. member for South Renfrew as against this proposition, that where the road is on the level it (would not have been advisable to have used a 10 degree curvature instead of a 6 degree, even if a large saving might have been made thereby. Ten degrees curvature on the level is equal to 0-4 per cent grade. You are not in any way diminishing the hauling power of an engine: the engine could take just the same load as df that 10 degree curve were not there, but they had no regard whatever for this consideration, and just because it would cost more in all cases to have a 6 degree curve, they insisted upon it. They appear to have acted on the principle that the greater the cost the better for Canada, and in all cases they decided on the greater cost irrespective of the merits of the particular case in hand.
It is a fact established by the evidence, and which the hon. member for South Renfrew will not deny, that the 10 degree curve is used on all the important railways m this country. It is the best in the judgment of the Canadian Pacific railway and other roads, and surely the judgment of successful Canadian roads is the judgment that we would be wise in following.
It is said by the expert from Omaha that the commissioners just made a wild guess in getting at $602,000 as the saving that would be effected if they had gone as far and no further than a 10 degree curve on this road, without in any degree diminishing the hauling capacity of the engines or the operating value of the road. I do not know upon what Mr. Berry bases his remark. The commission assert that they went thoroughly into it. They took the evidence, and I have before me a statement showing every detail by which this $602,000 was arrived at for one-quarter of the line; and inasmuch a3 the rest of the line hears a fair comparison with this one-quarter of the line in this regard, I think four times that is what the commission would be expected to arrive at as the saving on the whole line. I would like to place the figures on 'Hansard,' if I may do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that the same privilege has been extended to the ex-Minister of Railways; therefore I take it that the House will consent in this case.


Arthur Meighen: land a5 to the traffic-bearing powers of the National Transcontinental railway. This is what the hon. gentleman quoted from Mr. MacPherson:
The distance on the Transcontinental railway will be 1,351 miles-
That is from Winnipeg to Quebec which is not correct.
__and, as the maximum eastbound grade is
21.12 feet per mile, compensated for curvature, the heaviest locomotive built to-day, a Mallet Articulated Compound,' fully described in the Railway Age Gazette of April 30,	1909, is
capable of hauling on this grade a gross load behind the tender of 4,290 tons.
I need not read all of this as it is already on ' Hansard.' I wish to point out a curious error 'into which MacPherson has fallen, and in which he has been fallowed by the hon. member for South Renfrew, a mistake which I have no doubt Mr. MacPherson would readily acknowledge; and that is, that a mallet, articulated, compound engine is such an engine as is used in mountain country. It is used on a heavy grade, on short distances, and has not the steaming capacity to pass from one division to another and consequently could not be used over the line. Mr. MacPherson says that if they could use a mallet, articulated, compound' engine a load of 95,333 bushels of wheat could be hauled. Every one of us knows, and the hon. member for Edmonton will support me, that a car of wheat averages about
1,000	bushels. A small caT runs to about 600 bushels; a medium car 800 bushels, and a large car about 1,000 bushels. I have figured it out on large car basis and on Mr. MacPherson's figures the engine would have to haul about ninety-seven caTs in order to carry the load he mentions. I want to ask the hon. member for South Renfrew if he ever heard in his life of an engine pulling ninety-seven loaded cars? I think he will find out if he makes inquiry of any operating engineer that the coupling bars would break, that the very outside is sixty-five cars and that ninety-seven cars could not, under any possible circumstances, be drawn even if the engines were strong enough to draw them. There are two very serious errors in the foundation of the table that my hon. friend put upon 'Hansard ' and from that table he left out entirely the overhead expenses of running the railway. There might he a useful deduction drawn in the way of showing the traffic-hauling powers of the National Transcontinental railway. I notice in the table also 134 i
that he assumes, although I must say I could not find out by what process he arrived at that assumption, that on the average there will be 8'5 trains per day both ways between Winnipeg and Moncton.


George Perry Graham: Not each way.


Arthur Meighen: I think it says 'each
way.'


George Perry Graham: No, I was asked if it
were each way and I distinctly said 'no.'


Arthur Meighen: I have it before me:
This gives an average for the whole line from Winnipeg to Moncton of 8 -5 trains per day, both ways.


George Perry Graham: It is not each way at all.


Arthur Meighen: I think I can be excused from misunderstanding my friend's language. I do not know by what process he evolved that particular piece of evidence. Perhaps the reason is that I had not time to figure it out in two hours. At all events, he left out a very important element of cost, and I want to point out that the annual rental from Winnipeg to Quebec is about $4,200,000. On the basis of calculation of
25.000.	000 bushels of wheat being shipped, it would require sixteen cents per bushel to pay the rental alone. On 50,000,000 bushels pf wheat which, compared with the other traffic, would be a very large computation, and I do not think we could add everything else in and possibly hope to exceed that, you will have to get eight cents a bushel to pay the rental and then you have to pay the whole cost of operation and overhead expenses on top of that.


George Perry Graham: Does my hon. friend not think it fair to admit that there will be something drawn besides wheat?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but I do not admit that there will be 50,000,000 bushels of wheat.


George Perry Graham: No, and there will not have to !be.


Arthur Meighen: If the whole import of the United Kingdom is 260,000,000 bushels, how can we expect to get 50,000,000 bushels for the Transcontinental, 50,000,000 bushels for the Canadian Northern railway and from
75.000.	000 to 100,000,000 bushels for the Canadian Pacific railway? To do that we will have to control the whole of the wheat from the rest of the world. So, I say, taking everything reasonable into consideration, it would require a traffic that would be fairly represented by 50,000,000 bushels

of wheat, at eight cents a bushel to pay the rental alone.


George Perry Graham: If you did not draw anything else.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
himself left out passenger traffic. It is impossible to estimate everything. Does the hon. gentleman believe that the whole traffic will exceed a traffic represented by
50,000,000 bushels of wheat?


George Perry Graham: It would probably exceed the traffic that would he represented by half of 50,000,000 bushels of wheat anyway. The fallacy that my hon. friend is falling into is that the rate on grain is very low but the rate on manufactured goods going back, and goods coming from the old land, is much higher and you have to calculate that you will get as great returns from the other traffic as from the wheat.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think that is the case. I do not think that the hon. gentleman will say that it is the experience of other roads that they get anything like the traffic in that they get out. "


George Perry Graham: Not in tonnage, but returns in money.


Arthur Meighen: Or returns. I remember the hon. gentleman's remarks on another subject, a subject that I really thought he would be correct on if he could be correct on anything. He objected very strenuously to the evidence of Mr. Tompkins and to the conclusion from the evidence that there had been a huge loss in the construction of engine houses. It will be remembered that Mr. Thomas Tompkins was the witness who gave evidence to a man of practical experience that the fortunate gentlemen who, under the peculiar system of the commission, got the building of these engine houses, out of a total cost of $203,911.78, had been able to pocket in profit $115,209.19. They had secured over 50 per cent, or more than half of the whole cost as profit. That was the finding of Mr. Tompkins. My hon. friend said that Mr. Tompkins was not a good authority on the subject. He said that he was an old friend of his down in Brockville, that he had known him quite well some fifteen or twenty years ago when he did know something about building engine houses, but that he had forgotten all about it, just as my hon. friend has forgotten how to set type. I am afraid the hon. gentleman has not followed the career of this gentleman very closely. I took occasion to make inquiries with reference to this matter far-
[Mr. Meighen.l
ther, and ascertained that Mr. Tompkins was the man who built the engine houses for the Canadian Pacific railway at Cliap-leau and at Westmount dn 1906, and that he was the man who had been the most recent constructor of engine houses in Canada, and who had built them actually about the time that the engine houses were built on the Grand Trunk Pacific. Mr. Gutelius having known his friend (he having built engines under him), and knowing that he was actually engaged in the same work at approximately the very same time, I think my hon. friend will have to admit that no better witness could have been secured. The hon. gentleman has now to defend the process of letting contracts that gave the contractors $115,000 of profit out of a $203,000 job.
There is another phase of the subject that I want to speak of now, namely, the subject of trestles and, in connection with that, the subject of over-break. The hon. gentleman has a very poor opinion of wooden trestles. He thinks that they are going to rot, and consequently they never should be put up. We all know that wooden trestles, or wooden anything else, will not last forever. We all know that in their nature they are more or less temporary. No one has ever disputed that, but the question that is before us is this: Was it in the interest of good business, in the interest of ths railway and dn the interest of the country that wooden trestles be put there for the same purpose that wooden trestles are put on every other road? That is the question before us. Wooden trestles are used for two purposes. Where they require, or desire, to have a train fill over a valley, wooden trestles of a very temporary character are used, dn order that the small donkey engines of the contractor may go over them and in that way dump the loads of earth into the fill. That is only one purpose. They are not used very much for that purpose, but there is another. Wooden trestles are used on all roads in order that a temporary structure may be used for such valleys as I have mentioned, where a train fill, or cement or steel structures are ultimately intended, in order that we may provide more cheaply in the end for the ultimate character of the construction intended and in order that the trains may carry the filling over the line and that the filling may be dumped into these structures as time goes on. The hon. gentleman says that that is a very poor system because there is danger of fire-

and no doubt there is some little danger of fire. He says that on account of that danger a little will be added to the cost of operation, but he has made no calculation to show that the danger of fire and the consequent cost of guarding against it bear any relation whatever to the saving that would have accrued if this system had been adopted. He simply tells us that we cannot adopt it, no matter what the saving may be. The privileges that ordinary railway companies have are denied to this Government in the building of a railway. It may be that the Grand Trunk Pacific would use this system in their western line. He assumed that they did use it. He admitted that they built wooden trestles wherever it would pay them to do so, and when they had no barrier to prevent them doing so. He knows that the Grand Trunk Pacific railway in western Canada, ever since their line has been constructed, and that is many years ago, has used wooden trestles and are 'using wooden trestles still. There are large and long structures of wooden trestles right in Manitoba, and that road has been operated over them for years, and doubtless will be operated over them for some time to come. Why should not the same system of building have been adopted here, inasmuch as it is in the interest of economy, and without in any way detracting from the value of the road? Why is it that the Government of Canada was debarred, as the hon. gentleman says they were, from adopting any system of economy that was in the interest of the road and of the. country, and that was open to any other railway company to adopt? My hon. friend says, we could not do that, for if we did the Grand Trunk Pacific would not take over the road. We have bound ourselves, he says, to deliver over to them a railway actually completed and ready for operation. Well, Mr. Fielding, his predecessor in charge of this work, did not take that view. He, as shown by the report, very clearly took the view that the same course was open to the then Government as was open to any other builder of a railway, and that they could build a road which would save money to the people of Canada, so long as they did not detract from the value of the road. Mr. Fielding clearly pointed out to the House, that the road would be completed and ready for operation, although at the same time there would be work to be done upon it in the future that would bring it to its ultimate high standard. If that course was open to the commission and it was good railwav business, would the commission be justified in shutting themselves out from that right later on? Were they justified in delivering into the hands of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company the keys to the' treasury of this country? Surely * they were the guardians of the money of the people of Canada. If it was in the interest of good railway businesss to adopt this method of building the Transcontinental railway, why should they have shut themselves out of that right by a bargain with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company? Does the hon. gentleman still adhere to the statement that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company would refuse to take over the road if there were wooden trestles? Is it not a fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company not only did not so refuse, but encouraged the use of wooden trestles just for the purpose that I have mentioned, and that the Transcontinental Railway Commission, having an eye to the enhancement of the cost, decided against the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and built the road without wooden trestles and paid 55 cents a yard for train-haul fills to contractors, thus encouraging the contractors to overbreak and everything else in order to get the 55 cents a yard train-haul fill? I will read the evidence of Mr. Woods, engineer for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. He was examined by the commission and here is what he said on page 432:
Q. Did the Grand Trunk Pacific have anything to do, so far as you know, with the elimination of wooden trestles on the Transcontinental railway ?-A. They did not.
Q. Your company would not have objected to the construction of wooden bridges, as is the usual practice on other new railways in Canada and the United States ?-A. They would not; they even recommended it in some instances.
Q. There are advantages in the construction of wooden bridges on a new railway through a new country, are there not ?-A. There are, in my judgment.
Q. Will you tell us, in your own language, some of the advantages that occur to you ?
In Mr. Woods' answer he shows the various advantages that accrue from wooden bridges. (Reading):
Q. Permanent wooden trestles ?

A. Yes. I think this is generally done in the construction of lines of any magnitude, aside, possibly from Government work here in Canada.
In the face of that evidence, the hon. gentleman tells us that the! company, whose engineer says that they recommended that system of construction to the Transcontinental Railway Commission, who actually tendered themselves and wished to get the contract for filling these wooden trestles at twenty-five cents a yard and

who would thereby have saved millions of dollars to this country, would refuse to take over the road if there were wooden trestles. The hon. gentleman says that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company would not take over the road. Is there a portion of the National Transcontinental railway system that is going to be used more than the line between Winnipeg and Fort William, which runs from Winnipeg to Graham, and then by the Grand Trunk Pacific from Superior junction down to Fort William? I think not. Does he tell us that there are no wooden trestles on the line from Graham to Fort William? Why, it is dotted with them. That is the system the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company adopted in building that line in that northern country, a line analogous in every respect to the National Transcontinental railway. If the hon. gentleman will go over this line-I speak now on the authority of one who has been over it-he will find that the road from Graham to Fort William is built in accordance with profiles and the plans; he will find that there is not overbreak to the extent of thirty or forty per cent, as Mr. Macfarlane swears there is allowed on the contract from Graham to Winnipeg. He will find that the excavation there is cut out within reasonable proportions of the original design, and that overbreak is kept down to a minimum through that rough country. But if he looks over the McArthur contract from Graham to Winnipeg, he will find that the road is forty per cent wider than it ought to be; and that overbreak has been indulged in to the extreme. What is the reason? It is because Mr. McArthur was encouraged to indulge in overbreak. He was encouraged to put in dynamite here, there, and everywhere, because on whatever he blew out he got fifty-five cents a yard using it for train-haul fill along the line. Where you have wooden trestles, where you use the system that other railways adopt in railroad building, you do not hold out a prize to the contractors to indulge in the luxury of overbreak. That prize was held out in this case. The engineers of the company, under the compulsion that they themselves have referred to, consented to allow the overbreak that was so thrown down, inasmuch as it was used in train fill. As a consequence, the contractors had a certain right on their side when it came to the arbitration and, as a result, the arbitration board, to which my hon. friend referred, was not in a position to judge of this overbreak qeustion on its own merits. His [Mr. Meigheir..
argument on this overbreak is this: It is true there was some overbreak; it is true there was more overbreak than there should have been; twenty per cent is all that you ordinarily are allowed; there was thirty to forty per cent here, but that is all very well, for we provided an arbitration board to look into that. The arbitration board consisting of Mr. Grant, Mr. Kelleher and Mr. Schreiber, looked into this question and decided that a reduction of $500,000 was all that could be made and that settled the question, and Messrs. Gutelius and Lvnch-Staunton had no further right to interfere in the matter. Does that settle the question? What situation faced the arbitration board? This thing had been going on for years and years. The engineers of the Transcontinental Commission had been passing on this overbreak. Contractors had been encouraged to throw down this great amount of rock, and to make 40 per cent of overbreak instead of 20 per cent, while the rock and clay and loose rock thrown down had been used in the construction of the road instead of trestles. The consequence was, the contractors had rights at this time, which, if the Transcontinental Commission had done its duty, they never would have had. These rights had to be taken into account by the Arbitration Board. But the duty of the investigating commission was to ascertain whether, if the Transcontinental Commission had done its duty, a greater sum would not have been saved in overbreak. And the investigating commissioners found that if the Transcontinental Commission had done its duty, the cost of the reduction in overbreak would not have been merely $500,000 but would have been $678,000 more. The question is not settled by the award of the Arbitration Board. Their finding, doubtless, on the facts before them and with the arguments which the contractors could advance, was a fair finding, I do not challenge that. But the arguments that the contractors could advance would not have 'been possible, they could not have been advanced,	if the	TranscontinentalCommission	had	done its	duty and forbidden this	overbreak.	'Now, the hon. gentleman is very much concerned about the wooden trestles; for, he said, they would no sooner have been built than	the	Railway	Commission of
Canada would have compelled them to be filled up, and the Grand Trunk Pacific would have had to fill theirs up before this if they had been under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission of Canada.

I should like to know what the hon. gentleman's authority is for saying that the Railway Commission of Canada had decided that the wooden trestles had to be filled up. I never heard of such a ruling of the board. If there is a wooden trestle that has had its day and is dangerous to the public, certainly then, as in every other similar case, the Railway Commission would decide that it must be replaced by something safe. But there has been no ruling by the board that wooden trestles are not to be allowed to serve their time on the Transcontinental, the Canadian Pacific, or on any other road. I will read the latest ruling of the commission on the subject, and I will ask the hon. gentleman to point out anything that warrants him in saying that the Railway Commission has set its face against wooden trestles. This was made on the 2nd of August, 1910.
It is ordered and directed:
That every railway company subject to the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, operating by steam power any railway or railways, any part or parts of which is or are constructed of, or upon wooden trestles the whole of which cannot be seen from an approaching train for a distance of at least one thousand feet, do, during the months of May, June, July, August, September and October of each year, provide, place, and keep a watchman, trackwalker, Are alarm signals, ballast flooring, zinc covering over caps and intersections or approved fireproof paint, as hereinafter directed, for the purpose of protecting the said trestles from fire; each such company having the option of adopting any of the said foregoing methods of protection.
This shows that the Railway Commission of Canada has not in any way set its face against wooden trestles, but only insists, in this as in every case, that due precautions shall be taken for the public safety.


Robert Laird Borden: It specifically recognizes
them.


Arthur Meighen: Not only specifically
recognizes them, but directly endorses them. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Graham) imagine that the cost of keeping a man or the cost of having fireproof paint bears any comparison to the saving that would have accrued to the people of Canada if this more sensible and economical manner of constructing the road had been adopted [DOT] in the end resulting in just the road the hon. gentleman says the country set out to secure? What is the interest on about $5,000,000 that this country has lost because the Transcontinental Commission refused to adopt the methods of the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Pacific railway, the Canadian Northern railway and other roads
in utilizing wooden trestles to secure economical and at the same time thorough construction?
The hon. gentleman tells us that the commissioners' report is entirely wrong also in its conclusion on the Cap Rouge viaduct. The Cap Rouge is a small river, or creek, I understand, that flows into the St. Lawrence between the Quebec bridge and the city of Quebec. In order to cross this they had a steel viaduct which, of course, must have a substructure. In this case the commission saw fit to adopt the character of substructure used in the Quebec bridge, that is, to have the pneumatic caisson instead of the open caisson. As I understand it, in the case of an open caisson, piles are driven until the solid rock is reached, and on the floor formed by the top of these piles, the caisson sits, composed of a wooden structure made up of twelve-by-twelves within which the concrete is built, resulting in a square block of concrete resting securely on the top of the piles. As against this there is the pneumatic caisson, which consists of the concrete being built on the solid rock by means of a pneumatic system of getting air into the enclosure and by keeping out the water, enabling the workmen to work. The hon. gentleman says the commission would never have been justified in using the open caisson on the Cap Rouge viaduct, but had to use the pneumatic caisson such as are used for the substructure of the pillars of the Quebec bridge. He gives as a reason that there was a great depth of mud there, and that the waters of the St. Lawrence come up the Cap Rouge river and reach the viaduct itself, and would have injured the open caisson.
I want to tell the hon. member that not only is there no ground for any such fear in this case, but that he himself is the authority who has proven that there is no such ground. He himself, in case of a viaduct over the Sturgeon river between Graham and lake Superior junction, where the depth and the mud is greater, where the danger is greater,-I am speaking on the authority of engineers who have been there and made an examination-authorized and ratified the use of the open caisson. Not only has he done it at Sturgeon river viaduct, but also in the viaduct over the Vermilion river. In both instances, the very reasons he gave for forbidding the use of open caissons in the Cap Rouge viaduct existed and existed in greater degree -if they are reasons at all. The fact is, there is no such reason, and I speak advis-edly-I speak on the authority of gentlemen

who know-when I say that he cannot point to any instance of this most expensive class of pneumatic caisson in the case of any similar structure on the face of the earth. What is the use of a structure of this kind in the case of the crossing of a little creek or river like the Cap Rouge? The hon. gentleman did not produce any authority whatever for his assertion that there was any danger from the use of open caissons in connection with the Cap Rouge viaduct, and he has failed to justify the conduct of his commission and failed to justify his own conduct in not saving to the people of this country the enormous sum of a quarter of a million dollars that was lost in that regard alone.
I come now to the question of the Chau-diere cut. The hon. gentleman believes that the commission is entirely wrong in this regard also, and that the sum of $351,000, which, it is asserted, might have been saved the country if due regard had been had for economy in connection with that cut would not have been saved. The Chau-difere cut is an expensive one, a mile, I believe, from the extremity of the Quebec bridge. At the Quebec bridge, the hon. gentleman himself admits, there is a one per cent grade, and if only a one per cent grade had been insisted upon in the Chau-diere cut instead of a four-tenths grade, a saving of $351,000 would have been made. If the train is fully loaded, a pusher engine has to be used wherever there is a one per cent grade, but if the train is not fully loaded, a pusher engine is not used. Is it good common sense, therefore, to throw away $351,000 rather than run a pusher engine a mile from the Quebec bridge? Surely that appeals to hon. gentlemen; why not let a pusher engine run a mile from the Quebec bridge, where a pusher engine has to be used on fully-loaded trains? The engineer himself who reported on this matter, and whose advice the hon. gentleman should have followed, said that the prospects for heavy traffic were not such as to warrant the belief that there would be, within a reasonable number of years at all events, any necessity for a pusher engine over the Quebec bridge or over the Chaudiere cut; consequently there was not only a lack of excuse for running a pusher engine out a mile from the bridge, but there was no excuse whatever for throwing away this $351,000 of the public money. It is the same all down the line; it is the same from one end to the other. The pole star set before the Transcontinental Commission seems to have 
been to put all the money they possibly could into the Transcontinental, and then boast about what a fine road they had. If a business concern that has set about to establish, we will isay, a shingle mill, were to insist upon having marble floors, metal roofs, stained glass windows and all other appurtenances which are more fitting in a bank than in a shingle mill, they could justify their course on all fours by the very argument with which hon. gentlemen opposite have attempted to justify the course taken in connection with the Transcontinental railway. The proprietor of the shingle mill could say: We have the best floor in any shingle mill in North America; we have the finest roof to he found in any shingle mill on the continent; we have stained glass windows which are found in no other shingle mill on the continent; we do not need to equate the results so far as profit against capital expenditure is concerned-that is the argument of hon. gentlemen opposite. Even though we are wrong, they say, for goodness' sake do not say so or yon will frighten the financiers of the world. The hon. ex-Minister of Railways has been deeply concerned for the financiers of the world and the reputation of the Grand Trunk Pacific for many years. In 1910, when the terrible state of the financial world that he to-day so vividly depicts and so much deplores did not exist, he had the same fear in his soul that he has now. In 1910, when the then member for Simcoe told the House and told the country and told the world that this Transcontinental railway was going to cost $218,000,000, the hon. gentleman pleaded, for goodness' sake do not say a word about it, or we would frighten the financiers of the world and they would turn their backs upon the Grand Trunk Pacific project. He told them that it was doing an injustice to the Grand Trunk Pacific and doing an injustice to Canada for us to dare say to the financiers of the world that this road was actually going to cost $218,000,000. We were not telling the financiers of the 9 p.m. world the whole truth at that time; we were telling them only part of the truth. On the same basis we know to-day that it will cost $234,000,000 to build the Transcontinental railway. I do not know why in 1910 we would have been justified in taking the advice of the hon. member for South Renfrew and in refusing to tell the financiers of the world even half the truth. I do

not know on what principle we in this House are justified in refusing to disclose the truth about any Canadian project. I do not know that in the end truth does much harm to anybody. The hon. gentleman says it is not the truth, but he says we should not say it, even if it he true. It was not the whole truth in 1910; it was only part of the truth; but so far as it went it was absolutely true, and he was afraid of divulging even that part of the truth. In 1914 he does not want any part of the truth divulged. He says we are wrong in doing so because we are criticising not only the management of this thing but the Government of the day that had control of it as well. Are we to sit in this House and refuse to criticise the Government of that day? When we were in opposition did we criticise it; that was our function as members of the Opposition, and if hon. gentlemen opposite are going to follow the injunction of the hon. member for Renfrew and refuse to criticise the Government of the day for fear of frightening the financiers, had they not better start for home at once? There might have been a Government in power not long age that did not wish the truth to be disclosed about Canadian ventures, either private or public, but that Government went out of power on September 21, 1911. The Gutelius-Staunton report does no injustice to the Grand Trunk Pacific in disclosing the actual facts. The Government of the day does no injustice to them or to anybody else in making known the facts so disclosed, and the Government of the day would be derelict in its duty to the financiers of the world and to Canadian institutions generally if they showed any disposition to withhold in the slightest degree the facts of this or any other case. There is a new ruler in Israel just now, and the facts are going to be disclosed as long as that ruler holds the reins of power.
The hon. gentleman says that the cities of St. John, Halifax and Quebec will be dreadfully alarmed when they hear that there are such things as small momentum grades on the Transcontinental; that they will be fearfully alarmed when they hear that wooden trestles, used on every other railway in the world, are actually used on the Transcontinental, and he calls upon the Prime Minister of the day, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Postmaster General to rise up as three righteous men to save these three cities from the awful catastrophe which will come upon them if the world finds out that momentum grades
and wooden trestles are actually-used on the Transcontinental. I want to assure the hon. member for South Renfrew-I do not need to assure the cities of St. John, Halifax and Quebec; I do not need to assure this country-that the Government of the day can be entrusted to see to the interests of Canadian ports and to the interests of Canadian lines.
The determination of hon. gentlemen opposite to guard so faithfully the interests of Canadian transportation is a determination of very recent growth. It did not have ,an abiding place in their hearts two and a half years ago. It is only two and a half years since they professed utter indifference to the interests of Canadian transportation lines and of Canadian ports. If only they could get some further outlet for the products of western Canada and of Canada' as a whole, they did not care whether it was over American or over Canadian lines. The Government of to-day will see to it that there is no practical degrading whatever, and no diminution of the operating value of the Transcontinental railway by any system of momentum grades or any other system. But at the same time they will see that money is not extracted from the treasury of this country for purely fanciful restilts; and the people of St. John, Halifax and Quebec well know that their interests are secure in the hands of the Government that securely guarded them two and a half years ago, as they have been guarded at all times when such a Government has been in power. They well know that no traffic will be lost to them through any action of this Government in respect of the Transcontinental railway.
Now, Sir, I say in conclusion, the Gutelius-Staunton report stands unmolested and undisturbed by the attack of the hon. gentleman. He has used terms of abuse directed against the authors of that report. I do not think the terms he used were justified. He ,did not apply them to any other man in connection with this whole enterprise. He has turned the vials of his wrath upon them. He has described them in a variety of terms. The same course was followed by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell). But neither of these gentlemen has taken a single finding of that report on the facts: fhe ex-Minister of Railways has not taken p, single assertion in that report or any of the evidence that backed up that assertion, and shown that any of these items which in the report were stated to be possible savings to the people of this country could not have been saved and saved without depreciating in any degree the operating value of that road.

That is the essential finding of that report, that stands and will stand. The $40,000,000 is made up of savings that could have been made without detracting from the operating value of that road, or its value as an asset to the people of Canada; and in that $40,000,000, the $4,500,000 which, in the opinion of Mr. Staunton, was spent illegally is not included. The $40,000,000 includes only that part of the $4,500,000 which was not expended for the Transcontinental Tailway at all, but for the Grand Trunk Pacific, and for which there was no justification whatever. There is $40,000,000 beyond that. Then there are the damages that will be assessed against this country in connection with the northern route into the city of Winnipeg, by reason of the failure of the Government then in power, before they filially determined upon the northern entrance, to come to terms with the Canadian Northern railway, to make a fair bargain with them. These damages are attributable to the mismanagement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Graham), himself, and of the commission who had charge of this work. These damages are still unknown, but they are estimated by the company injured at $10,000,000. This is not included in the $40,000,000 of savings that the commission say might have been made in the laying out of the line itself, if before that line was laid out, hon. gentlemen opposite had not determined on this rigid and unnecessary adherence to strict rules. A line could have been secured, had the rules been fair and reasonable and more in consonance with the rules adopted by other great railways, which, the commissioners say, would have meant a saving of millions of dollars to this country in addition to the millions mentioned in the report itself.
The responsibility of that is on the hon. member for South Renfrew, but it is in a still greater degree on the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. He is the gentleman who, himself, against the advice of his (Minister of Railways of that day, fathered this institution and foisted it on the people in the form in which it was foisted on them. He is the one primarily responsible, he has proclaimed it as a monument that is to make his name immortal in this country and throughout the world. I think the Gutelius-Staunton report has had this result if it has had no other; it has shown the right hon. leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Renfrew that the National Transcontinental railway is not now such a monument as they would

wish to have pressing down upon their remains.


William Manley German: Mr. Speaker, I feel it something of a work of supererogation to discuss this report of Gutelius and Staunton after the very searching and thorough investigation which was made by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham). He made a speech in tJiis House on which I wish to congratulate him and which, in my opinion, ranks with anything ever heard within the walls of this- Chamber. It dissects that _ report from beginning to end and leaves it standing in all its hideous nakedness. I was much interested to hear the Solicitor General (Mr. M-eighe-n). I saw -some days ago a photograph of that hon. gentleman in one of the Toronto papers and -under it were the words ' the rising hope of the Conservative party,' and I was- anxious t-o hear how high that hope would rise to-night on this great subject. But, Sir, I am free to say that if the Conservative hopes cannot rise higher than that, they will not reach any 'very great height of politioal splendour. The hon. gentleman, just before resuming his seat, said that the object of an opposition was to criticise. Well, Sir, it struck me very forcibly that the Solicitor General thought he was still in opposition. He was continually referring to the hon. member for South Renfrew as the Minister of Railways and Canals, and his whole demeanour was similar to that when he occupied the Opposition benches. His speech was, to my mind, a rather narrow special pleading, without that breadth of argument and that wealth of original suggestion which you would have expected from this rising hope of the Conservative party.
This report has been submitted to members of Parliament and the hon. member for South Renfrew has moved an amendment condemning it. Of that amendment I fully approve.
I say that not from the first to the last page of this report, is there a single earmark of a. desire on the part of these commissioners for an impartial investigation, or to show that they felt their official responsibility. The honourable the Solicitor General says that we complained that Mr. Staunton took part in politics, and he says that- Mr. Staunton had a right to do as he liked. Mr. Staunton was a royal commissioner, appointed by warrant of the Crown to consider of the matters referred to him and to deal impartially and fairly between the parties interested. Is it like

an impartial judge to deliberately step off the bench and announce himself as counsel in the proceedings? That is what Mr. Staunton did. One would have supposed that the royal commissioners investigating a matter of this great importance, touching the honour and integrity of high class business men in this country-the commissioners of the Transcontinental railway- would have said to these gentlemen: 'We are investigating this matter and we are going to take evidence; that evidence may in some measure reflect upon you, and we *will give you the opportunity either to be present when the evidence is taken or to be represented there by counsel.' Did they do that? No. They held a star chamber investigation. They called such witnesses as they liked and when they liked; they took such evidence as suited themselves; they embodied in the record such evidence as suited their purpose and having done that, they toss the report into this parliamentary arena and say:	' On that partial
evidence we base our report of these great wrong-doings.' I say that it was an absolutely partisan investigation; it was not an inquiry by a Royal Commission, but an inquiry, highly paid for by this Government, to find out, if possible, some way of condemning the Transcontinental Commissioners, and I say deliberately that from the beginning to the end of that report theis is not one tittle of evidence to support the findings. It is based on improper evidence and its suggestions and insinuations are insulting to high class business men of this country. What do we find? Take the very first paragraph which has already been dealt with.
Until the appointment of Major R. W. Leonard in the autumn of 1911, no member of the commission had any experience or knowledge of railway building or operation.
It has been said that it was not necessary that the members of the Transcontinental Commission should be experienced railway .men. With that I quite agree. The Minister of Railways and Canals himself i3 not a railway man, yet he is building railways and canals continually. Major Leonard is a very estimable gentleman whom I know exceeding well and I have not a word against him, but it is not unfair to him to say that he never built or operated a railroad in his life and knows no more about operating and building railroads than I or any other man in this country. Why put him up as a paragon of perfection in the construction and operation of railroads?
What further do they say?. The hon. ex-
Minister of Railways and Canals has referred to the last paragraph of the finding in regard to extravagance. Let me refer to another paragraph on page 24. And I submit to this House and to the country that a more slanderous and disgraceful statement never was published by any man, let alone royal commissioners, than is to be found on that page. Every man in this House and every man in the country knows of the late lamented Charles M. Hays. .Every man who knew him knows that no more high-minded man, no man of finer character or greater ability in railway building ever lived in Canada. He was the man that was practically instrumental in starting this great Transcontinental railway. We remember the first speech he made in the Railway Committee in support of this great national undertaking, and it was that .speech practically that influenced the Railway Committee in support of this project. What do these commissioners say?
We unhesitatingly find that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, instead of discountenancing, has rather encouraged this inexperienced commission in its exravagant expenditure on this railway.
If the railway company really expected to operate this railway when completed according to the terms and at the rental provided in its agreement with the Government, we must attribute its want of proper care to its indifference to the interests of its own shareholders or its desire to so increase the cost of construction of the 353 miles of railway, for which it was contractor, so as to reap the largest present profit possible therefrom.
It was a very credulous commission indeed if it relied on its contractor, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, interested as such in high classification, to criticise improper classification where other contractors were concerned, or to expect that that contractor would be astute to discourage expenditures where th ev were the builders of one-seventh of the line.
I say that that statement is a slander .against the Grand Tunk Pacific Railway .Company presided over in England by Mr. Smithers, a man of the highest class, and managed by a board of directors of the highest class in Great Britain, and presided over in this country by the late 0. M. Hays at that time. I want to ask the Prime Minister and the members of his Government if they wish to stand as sponsors for that statement? If they do they have a different feeling in regard to this matter than I believe they have.
I wish to make a few references to the arguments of the hon. Solicitor General in reply to the hon. member for South Renfrew. He spoke of the entrances into Winnipeg and complained that the railway ran

into Winnipeg over a high trestle and on a high embankment. I do not know whether he is in favour of an embankment or not, but I will tell the hon. gentleman this. The embankment is there because the Railway Commissioners of Canada ordered that it should go in on a trestle and that the trestle should be filled. That is the only way you can go in. If the hon. gentleman says you cannot go in on a trestle or an. embankment, he might as well say the Grand Trunk railway, the Canadian Northern railway 'and the Canadian Pacific railway should not go into the city of Toronto on a trestle. The Railway Commissioners ordered them to go in on a railway elevated on a viaduct. In the same way the Transcontinental railway is going into the city of Winnipeg. I have very little to say as to that. My hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) explained the situation fully. He stated that the Transcontinental railway has the best entrance into the city of Winnipeg. The Solicitor 'General controverts that and says to the contrary. I am willing to let it stand at that without any further word or suggestion from me and I am willing to let these statements go before the people of the 'country for their verdict. I venture to say they will approve of the statement of my non. friend from South Renfrew rather than the statement of the hon. Solicitor General.
Then, we come to another matter that touches us, as far as the Transcontinental railway is concerned, a little more nearly; and that is in connection with the Trans-cona shops. The Solicitor General says tnat Mr. Staunton may very fairly differ from any other legal authorities in the country. The Solicitor General admits that Mr. Lynch-Staunton is wrong in his law.


Arthur Meighen: I do not say that.


William Manley German: Silence gives consent.
His department says so, the Minister of-Justice says so, Mr. Newcombe, the Deputy Minister of Justice, says so and the Law Clerk says so. If the Solicitor General differs from them and joins Mr. Lynch-Staum-ton, very good for nim. At any rate, he says there is no reason why Mr. Lynch-Staunton should not differ from other legal authorities. There is no reason why he should not. Mr. Lynch-Staunton is a very good lawyer and a very estimable gentleman and I have not a word to say against him. He is a most bitter partisan. I do not believe that in the making of this great world the good Lord ever created a greater

partisan than Mr. George Lynch-Staunton, and I do not believe he ever tried to. But as I have said, he is .an estimable gentleman. It is not the fact that he differs from all the legal authorities that I complain of but it is that he says: in law you should not have built these shops, and because you have built them you nave wasted $4,500,000 of the people's money. If he had said: In law I do not think that you should have built them, but all the other legal authorities are against me; the Minister of Justice, the Deputy Minister of Justice, all the great lawyers in Canada, are against me on the law; Sir William Whyte, the arbitrator, is against me as a matter of practice, and although I think they are all wrong, as I have a right to think so, still, you being right, the expenditure of this money was proper. Why did he not say that? Is that not what a royal commissioner should have said and would have said if he had been a fair royal commissioner? But, no, he said: You are all wrong in law, and being all wrong you have wasted $4,500,000 of the people's money. This expenditure is represented throughout the country as being an extravagant and wasteful expenditure. As a commissioner he should have stated:	I think you are
wrong in law but as you have been held to be right, the money is properly expended.
My hon. friend said something about the cost of the line. We know the cost of the line and we know the cost of other lines. That matter has been fully gone into and it is not necessary for me to weary the House by reiterating these figures. Then he goes on to speak of what we call momentum grades. It would be well to understand just where we are in connection with this matter. There is without doubt much difference of opinion amongst engineers as to whether there should he momentum grades or whether there should be actual grades of 0-4 per cent and 0-6 per cent as provided for. Why has this been done? Why was provision made for a 0 4 per cent grade against eastbound traffic and a 0-6 per cent against westbound traffic and why was it adhered to strictly by the commissioners? Were they right or wrong? It was simply owing to the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific engineers, the engineers of the Railway Commission and the engineers of the Government got together and devised specifications for the construction of this railway and they prepared such specifications and designs as Mr. Hays and the directors of the railway company desired. The board of English directors, represented

toy Mr. Hays in this ountry, said:	We
want a railway built from Winnipeg to Moncton with a grade of 0-4 per cent against eastbound traffic and a grade of 0-6 per cent against westbound traffic; that is the road we will take over and pay rental for, that is the kind of road we expect you to build. That is the kind of road that was intended to be built when they started out and they continued building that kind of a road until this Government began to degrade it. There is the whole question. The *Grand Trunk Pacific built and are building the same class of road west of Winnipeg. They wanted a road from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans with that kind of grade and they had sufficient knowledge of the country through which this road was running to know that that class of grade could be easily built and without exorbitant cost. It is folly to say that one engineer favours the momentum grade and that another engineer says it is all wrong. I do not care whether it is right or wTong so long as the agreement for the building of the National Transcontinental railway is maintained. That was the policy of the Government. That policy was submitted to the people of Canada in 1904 and received their strong approval. It was submitted to the people in 1908 and again received theiT strong approbation. In 1908, after we had heard in this House, ad nauseum, the same class of talk which has been given us to-night by the Solicitor General against this high class railway, the people approved of it and they will approve of it now.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
is mistaken; it was before the 1911 election that these statements were made.


William Manley German: It was not an issue in
the 1911 elections at all. There was another issue in that election. It really makes no difference in reference to these momentum grades, if one admits that the grades established by the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental Railway Commission are the grades under which the road was to be built and are the grades which will make it the best railway not only in Canada but in America.
It would take the largest hauls of any transcontinental railway on the American continent. My hon. friend the Solicitor General, speaking of grades, said it was impossible for ninety-seven cars to be hauled in one train. He is wrong. There is a railroad in Canada to-day that hauls not only ninety-seven cars, but one hundred cars or more.


Mr. NESBITT:: One hundred and twenty cars.


William Manley German: Yes, one hundred and
twenty oars, and that road is the Michigan Central railroad.


Arthur Meighen: Loaded cars?


William Manley German: Loaded	cars. I have
counted them time and again.


Arthur Meighen: How	did you knew
that the cars are loaded?


William Manley German: They are sealed and I
presume they are loaded. In going from Chicago to New York these trains pass the town of Welland in which I live. On the Canada .southern division of the Michigan Central there are just the same gradients that there will be on this National Transcontinental railway.
My hon. friend says that the Canadian Pacific railway have momentum grades. I presume they have. I believe that every railroad, in its initial operations, as a rule establishes these momentum grades to some extent in order to cheapen the cost of construction. The grades are taken out later on as time progresses and as circumstances warrant.


Arthur Meighen: These have been put in just lately in the revision of the road.


William Manley German: I quite appreciate that
fact, but it is to get rid of one per cent grades, which are much heavier grades than these momentum grades are.


George Perry Graham: To get over the hump.


William Manley German: I know pretty well about the Canadian Pacific railway west of Winnipeg, although perhaps not as much as does the Solicitor General. I know that the Canadian Pacific railway west of Winnipeg has been totally rebuilt, at least once and probably more than once. Which would be the cheaper, to build a first-class road in the beginning or to build a second-class road and then in a few years rebuild it? The question really comes down to that. Mr. Hays, the directors and the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway company thought that it would be better for them, in order to carry the great traffic which they anticipated they would get right from the start, to have a first-class road built immediately and that they would rather undertake to pay the interest on the cost of construction of a first-class road from the start than to have a second-class road from the start which would debar them from hauling the freight which they

expected to get and which they intended to go after. Consequently, they said: Build a first-class road and we will take the responsibility of paying the interest on it. Who will find fault with them for doing so? The hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) last night rather insinuated that the Grand Trunk Pacific would never take over this road. They will never take it over if this Government degrades it so that they cannot carry the freight they expect to obtain. If the road is kept up to the standard at which it was maintained until this Government came into power, there is no doubt as to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company taking it over.
My hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) spoke rather derogatorily of the capitalization and of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I would like to tell him and this House and the country that, in the Act confirming the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company we find that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, one of the wealthiest institutions of America, is behind this project; that it is compelled to take a large percentage of the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific and hold it during the whole term of this lease, namely, fifty years. This company is bound to guarantee the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for the cost of construction over and above the bonds guaranteed by the Government. Therefore the Grand Trunk Railway Company are behind the carrying out of the agreement made by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. My hon. friend, forsooth, presumes to insinuate that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, composed of men of the highest class men in Great Britain, is endeavouring to keep up expenditure in the construction of this road so as to have an excuse to violate the terms of the contract. That seems to me to be absolutely and utterly absurd. Yet Messrs. Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton say that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company have no idea of economy, and that they are trying to make a few paltry dollars out of their contracts for the construction of this railway. Everyone who knows anything about the matter knows why the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company entered into the field as competitors for the work. They made their reason absolutely plain at the time. They said: We will likewise go into the field as competitors so as to keep down the prices on these contracts; we will see what the work is going to cost and will bid ourselves and, 
if we cannot get the appliances to build the railway, we will sublet the work to other contractors at our prices and will see that the road is built at the proper figure and on economical principles. That is why they went into the construction. I presume they are quite satisfied to make the few dollars they would make just as any other contractor would be, but their primary object was to keep down the cost of construction.
My hon. friend says that momentum grades do not degrade the road. They make it more difficult for locomotives to haul trains over the road, as heavy trains cannot be hauled over a road with momentum grades as can be hauled over a level road. The primary object of every railway company on the American continent is so to reduce the grades of their line that they can haul the heaviest possible trains. The Grand Trunk Railway Company did that; the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is doing it too. Every railroad in the United States is doing it because they are compelled to do it in order to compete with the water routes in the hauling of freight. They are all the time bringing down their gradients to the lowest possible figure. Although a momentum grade may not so seriously degrade the road as to make it unfit for use, of course the company can haul the freight, but they cannot haul the quantity of freight and they cannot haul it at as low a figure.
My hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) says that he has never heard of Mr. Berry. My hon. friend is young yet. He will probably hear of Mr. Berry lateT on. He has heard of him at any rate in this discussion. I have heard of Mr. Berry and can corroborate what the hon. member for South Renfrew has said, that he is the highest railway authority on the American continent. What he does not know about railroad construction, about gradients and about the classification of a railway for freight haulage, there is very little use of any man in this country endeavouring to find out. What he says I fully and heartily rely on.
My hon. friend also spoke about the curvatures and the trestles. As to the trestles, I might say this. He read the evidence of Mr. Woods that the Grand Trunk Railway Company was willing that wooden trestles should be put in. What is the position?
They were willing they should be put in if the Grand Trunk Pacific were allowed to fill them in after, and thereby delay the operation of the lease for a couple of years and lose to this country 3 per cent a year

on the total cost of construction. They said: We will not take over the road as a going concern if wooden trestles are built, but we will fill them in and hold back the rental for that length of time. What would these hon. gentlemen opposite have said if that had been done? What a howl of indignation we should have heard from the Solicitor General then. He would have said: Why did you not carry out your agreement and build a first-class road?
In regard to curvatures the position is exactly the same. These matters were settled, as I have already said, between the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, through Mr. Hays, representing the English board of directors, the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific, the engineers of the Commission and the engineers of the Government. The class of railway then decided upon is the class of railway they set out to build, and that is the class of railway which should have been built without any degradation. To show that that was the intention, to show that that was the object of the Grand Trunk Pacific company, just so soon as this Government attempted to degrade the road by putting in momentum grades, they got a letter from Mr. Chamberlin, President of the Grand Trunk Pacific, saying: You are degrading the road, and we will not take it over. He immediately repudiates the proposition; he palls the attention of the Railway Commissioner, Major Leonard, this great railway builder, to the fact that the road is being degraded and the agreement entered into violated, and declares that if this continues the company will not feel bound to take over the road. And that letter stands there to-day a menace to this Government or to any Government in regard to the taking over of that road by the Grand Trunk Pacific. When you have it finished next year, ready to put trains on it and you say to the Grand Trunk Pacific: There is the road completed-his answer will be:	There is	my letter	written
two years ago	in which I pointed
out that you had degraded the road; and you have admitted through your Solicitor General in the House of Commons that that is the effect of your action, why, then, should we be compelled to take over the road? Has not the hon. gentleman placed in the hands of the Grand Trunk Pacific solicitors the greatest brief that they could hold for the maintenance of their case? The Government have violated the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific and will continue violating it unless they cease putting in
momentum grades and get back to the situation which existed prior to the time when the former Commissioners were turned out.


Arthur Meighen: While the hon. gentleman is on that point, will he be good enough to read the portion of the agreement that prevents the putting in of wooden trestles or momentum grades?


William Manley German: The whole thing was
approved of-


Arthur Meighen: Read the clause of the agreement.


George Perry Graham: Go on with your argument; I will find it.


William Manley German: Now, the Solicitor General says that by reason of the exdVlinister of Railways having refused to make these changes, the country has lost $6,200,000. I defy him to find within the four comers of this evidence one iota of testimony to justify his statement.


Arthur Meighen: Why did not the hon. gentleman ask me while I was speaking and had the evidence before me?


William Manley German: The hon. gentleman has the evidence before him.


Arthur Meighen: No, I have not it now.


William Manley German: There is nothing to show that the country lost that money by reason of the ex-Minister of Railways refusing to change these grades. And what is more the contention that these grades should have been put in is not sustained by the evidence in this report. We have engineers saying that money would have been saved if momentum grades had been put in. They express themselves sometimes in percentages and sometime? otherwise. There is no evidence to show that any substantial sum of money would have been saved by putting in momentum grades. But they have shown what the whole object of this proposition was-a high-class road built as speedily as possible. We find that provided for in sections 42 and 43 of this agreement. And, Sir, it seems to me that the reading of these sections is sufficient to justify not only the conduct of the old 'Commissioners but also that of the old Government in what they did, and enough to justify this Government in turning at once back to the standard which the old Government had set:
It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties to this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the Government

of Canada for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian channels. The company accepts the aid on these conditions, and agrees that all freight originating on the line of railway, or its branches, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall, when destined for points in Canada, be carried entirely on Canadian territory, or between Canadian inland ports, and that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports.
How in the name of all that is sensible could the Grand Trunk Pacific, having a longer haul to carry the products of the Northwest to the Atlantic than the American lines have, secure traffic unless they have & railway of the highest possible standard? I say, that ishows in itself the reason why this road was to be of high-class. The Act further says:
The company further agrees that it shall not in any matter within its power directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight hy routes other than those above approved and shall in all respects, in good faith, use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted, namely the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.
Is that not itself a sufficient answer to the special pleading of the hon. Solicitor General? I submit that it is a plain answer to his suggestion with regard to the construction of this road. In ordeT to haul freight as cheaply as it could he hauled over shorter routes, a high-class road had to be built, and the directors of the Grand Trunk Pacific asserted to the . former Government: Yon build us that class of road; we will take it ovct and operate it on the rentals which he have suggested, and we will build up a through Canadian traffic which will develop your ocean ports, build up your great northern country and develop the whole of Canada. My hon. friend says that tlhe railway will not get the traffic. I am loath to heaT these little Canadians talk in the 'Canadian House of Commons. Many years ago, when the Canadian Pacific railway was being built, we heard the Conservatives shouting for a greater Canada: the products of the West would come teeming down to the Bast; the products from the old land would go forth to the West oveT this great transcontinental railway, and Canada would he built up and become a hive of industry through their magnificent diplomacy and their energetic endeavour. But when a Liberal Government comes

along and begins the establishment of a new transcontinental railway, better in construction, running through a far better country, leading directly to Canadian seaports, these little Canadian Tories stand up and say: When you have built the road you will get no traffic; you will be unable to pay interest on the money; the Grand Trunk Pacific railway will not get traffic enough to pay the Government the amount of rental provided in the lease, and the whole thing will be a failure. I regret very much to hear that sentiment expressed at this day in His Majesty's House of Commons. I have greater faith in Canada than that. So far as the normern part of the province of Ontario is concerned, it will not be seven years, it will not be five years, before a profitable local traffic will be developed on that line 'which will go a long way towards paying the rental provided for in that agreement. Now I will read to the hon. Solicitor General the provisions of clause 7, chapter 21, of the National Transcontinental Railway Act. They are as follows:
In order to ensure for the protection of the company as lessees of the eastern division of the said railway, the economical construction thereof in such manner that it can be operated to the best advantage, it is hereby agreed that the specifications for the construction of the eastern division shall be submitted to, and approved of, hy the company before the commencement of the work and that the said work shall be done according to the said specifications and shall be subject to the joint supervision, inspection and acceptance of the chief engineer appointed by the Government and the chief engineer of the company, and, in the event of differences as to the specifications or in the case the said engineers shall differ as to the work, the question in dispute shall be determined by the said engineers and a third arbitrator, to he chosen in the manner provided in paragraph four of this agreement.


Arthur Meighen: I am quite aware that that -clause is in the contract, but will the hon. gentleman be good enough to explain how that prevents the use of wooden trestles or momentum grades?


William Manley German: It would not prevent wooden trestles; it (would not prevent momentum grades; it would not prevent saw-logs being used, if they were agreed to by the engineers, but momentum grades and 'wooden trestles and saw-logs are not agreed t-o hv the engineers.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
cannot say that momentum grades or wooden trestles are debarred by the specifications.


William Manley German: Mr. Chamberlin says
they are, and he is president of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. He will take mighty good care that these grades are put back before he takes over the road.


Arthur Meighen: Just read from the
specifications where they are debarred.


William Manley German: I am not reading from
the specifications; I am reading from the statute authorizing the making of the specifications.


Arthur Meighen: And the statute says
that they are not debarred unless debarred by the specifications, and they are not debarred by the specifications.


William John Macdonald: Are they provided
for in the specifications?


William Manley German: My friend the Solicitor
General will have to revise his legal opinions; he had better consult his friend, Mr. Lynch-Staunton.


Arthur Meighen: Show me in the specifications Where they are debarred.


William Manley German: In regard to the traffic, the hon. member for South Renfrew said that according to Mr. Tye, 8-05
10 p.m. trains both ways each day would develop a traffic and an income sufficient not only to pay all the working expenses and the rental provided for in the agreement, but to leave a fair margin of profit as well. I am strong enough Canadian to say that when the seven-year term expires, not 8.05 trains a day only, but 8-05 trains a day both ways- yes, and double 8 05 trains a day both ways will be running on that line.


An hon. MEMBER:: You will have to
change the Government first.


William Manley German: I am inclined to think
the Government will be changed the very first time the people of the country are given an opportunity to do it, particularly when they thoroughly understand what the Government is doing in regard to this great national undertaking which they approved on two different occasions.
This country is big enough to maintain three transcontinental railways, and the Grand Trunk Pacific, being the best, will get the traffic. I do not wonder that the Canadian Pacific railway take a little umbrage at the high-class construction of the Transcontinental railway. I have heard men say, first-class engineers and leading railway men, that when the Grand Trunk Pacific railway is completed and in opera-136
tion, the Canadian Pacific railway will have to rebuild their line in order to compete with the Grand Trunk Pacific-and they are doing it now. They will have to rebuild their line and bring down their grades; any man who knows anything about railroad operation-and I know a little about it by reason of having talked to prominent railway men-knows that the railroad Which has the low grades gets the business and the railroad that has the high grades does not. My hon. friend dealt with the question of tenders, and in that connection I wish to make a reference or two to this precious document of Gutelius and Staunton, which says:
The rules adopted by the commission in advertising- for tenders, the unlimited security required to be furnished by the contractors, and the proposal to let the work for the most part in unreasonably large sections, resulted in only live contractors tendering for S06 miles of the railway, and eleven contracting firms secured all the work and sub-let it to upwards of 100 sub-contractors, who, had the work been divided into reasonably large sections and the security required in other governmental contracts only been exacted, would have in all probability competed in the bidding. As ah indication of the handsome profits derived by these eleven firms, it appears that they were paid $8,800,000 in profits for that part of their work which they let to sub-contractors.
They say that by making smaller sections a greater number of bids would have been put in and there would have been keener competition. I have heard that said in this House. There is no large work undertaken in this day of the world which is let out in small sections; that is a thing of the past, when work was done by horses and scrapers and ploughs and shovels and picks and wheelbarrows and wagons. Then you would let out work in small sections. But now,' when the work is done by means of steam shovels, steam drills and steam derricks, big sections have to be advertised. Why? Because the cost of the plant is so enormous that unless a contractor is offered a big section he will not bid, he will not take a small section. A contractor must have a section big enough to allow him to pay for his plant at least. The Welland canal has been referred to. I know something about that. I remember that when the present Welland canal was built, it was let out in small sections and hundreds of contractors were at work up and down the canal, many of them failing continually, and the Government was in trouble all the time with small contractors. What happens now? They are building a new ship canal with thirty-foot draft and enormous



locks, a canal which it is estimated will cost $50,000,000. It is divided into nine sections of an average of a little over $5,000,000 a section. There is one section, it is true, which is a very short one, only a mile in length, in which the work will cost $10,000,000. That had to be let in one section. There will be another section or two which will be short, but will cost a large amount of money. The average is over $5,000,000. What happened? Every small contractor in western Canada, yes, in the whole of Canada, began to inquire how the work was to be let, whether in small or large sections. Many of them came to me, and I inquired from Mr. Weller, chief engineer of the canal, what was going to be done. He said: I am certainly going to let that work in sections large enough to permit the contractor to pay for his plant at least during the course of construction. And so he has done. There was a great howl. The Minister of Railways had considerable trouble with his own party friends, who endeavoured to force him to have Mr. Weller divide this up into smaller sections so that smaller men could get the jobs. Mr. Weller said no, and Mr. Cochrane, the Minister of Railways and Canals, very properly backed him up in that and said it must be let in big sections so as to secure as prompt a construction of that work as possible. That is the only way in which a great work of that kind can be accomplished. That work is being let in nine sections. Only four contracts have been let but the sub-letting is going on now and always will. No large work has been done without sub-contracting. Take the Erie canal from Buffalo to Albany. That was let in enormous sections and there was not a section that was not sub-let, practically throughout its whole length.
Let us see what these tenders are. I intend to place on ' Hansard ' the successful tenderers, their prices and how those prices compared with the engineer's estimate and with the next lowest bidder. The commission stated that there were only a few tenderers so that it was divided up among a very few people, that there was no keen competition and that these contracts were given to the friends of the commissioners. The contracts were as follows:
Contract No. 1-
Engineer's estimate, $1,017,051.
Lowest tenderer, Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
Awarded to Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company at $989,895.
Below engineer's estimate by $28,000.

Below next lowest bidder by $157,020. Number of bidders, 3.
Contract No. 2-
Engineer's estimate, $326,341.
Lowest tenderer, J. W. McManus Co., Ltd. Awarded to J. W. McManus Co., Ltd., at $289,190.
Below engineer's estimate, $37,000.
Below next lowest bidder, $35,000.
Number of bidders, 4.
Contract No. 3-[DOT]
Engineer's estimate, $933,137.
Lowest tenderer, Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
Awarded to Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company at $767,434.
Below engineer's estimate, $166,000. Contract No. 4-
Engineer's estimate, $2,356,389.
Lowest tenderer, Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
Awarded to Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company at $1,898,124.
Below engineer's estimace, $600,000.
Below next lowest bidder, $103,000.
Number of bidders, 2.
Contract No 5

Engineer's estimate, $2,232,891.
Lowest tenderer, Kitehon Company. Awarded to Willard Kitehon Company at $1,646,253.
Below engineer's estimate, $600,000.
Below next lowest bidder, $48,372.	[DOT]
Number of bidders, 7.
Contract No. 6-
Engineer's estimate, $1,478,395.
Lowest tenderer, Lyons and White. Awarded to Lyons and White at $1,385,941. Below engineer's estimate, $93,000.
Below next lowest bidder, $21,408.
Number of bidders, 6.
Contract No. 7-
Engineer's estimate, $3,139,367.
Lowest tenderer, M. P. and J. T. Davis. Awarded to M. P. and J. T. Davis at $2,377,409.
Below engineer's estimate, $700,000.
Below next lowest bidder, $135,079. Number of bidders, 3.
Contrast No. 8-
Engineer's estimate, $5,491,974.
Lowest tenderer, M. P. and J. T. Davis. Awarded to M. P. and J. T. Davis at $5,011,346.
Below engineer's estimate, $480,000.
Below next lowest bidder, $7,208.
Number of bidders, 4.
Contracts 9 and 10-
Awarded as one contract to Hogan & Macdonell.
Engineer's estimate, $6,172,000.
Lowest bidder, Hogan & McDonald, $5,279,000.
Below the engineer's estimate by $800,000. Below the next lowest bidder by $260,000. Number of bidders, six.
Contract No. 11-
Awarded to the Grand Tunk Pacific Railway Company.
Engineer's estimate, $1,776,000.
Lowest bidder, Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, $1,691,000.
Below the engineer's estimate by $85,000. Below the next lowest bidder by $260,000. Number of bidders, 3.

Contract No. 12-
Awarded to Macdonald & O'Brien. Engineer's estimate, $5,715,000.
Lowest bidder, Macdonell & O'Brien, $4,599,000.
Below the engineer's estimate by about

Below the next lowest bidder by $324,000. Number of bidders, 2.
Contract 13-
Awarded to Macdonell & O'Brien. Engineers estimate, $4,000,000.
Lowest bidder, Macdonell & O'Brien, $3,815,000.
Below the engineer's estimate by $200,000. Below the next lowest bidder by $61,000. Number of bidders, 2.
Contract No. 14-*
Awarded to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
Engineer's estimate, $3,985,000.
Lowest bidder, Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, $3,986,000.
Above the engineer's estimate by about

Below the next lowest bidder by $436,000. Number of bidders, 2.
This is the first contract where the lowest bidder was above the engineer's estimate. The next lowest bidder to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company was the Pacific Construction Company, (E. F. Fauquier). Mr. Gutelius said that this contract should not have been awarded to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company but to E. F. Fauquier (the Pacific Construction Company). In that case the country would have lost $436,000.
Contract No. 15-
Awarded to E. F. & G. E. Fauquier. Engineer's estimate, $4,124,000.
Lowest bidder, E. F. & G. E. Fauquier, $3,936,000.
Below the engineer's estimate by about

Below the next lowest bidder by $379,000. Number of bidders, 2.
We now come to contract Nos. 16 and 17, which have created such a disturbance in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite. I will state the figures and come back to the suggestions of the Solicitor General in regard to these two contracts afterwards.
Contract No. 16-
Awarded to M. P. & J. T. Davis. Engineer's estimate, $3,224,000.
Lowest bidder, M. P. & J. T. Davis, $3,308,000.
Above the engineer's estimate by about $60,000.
Below the next lowest bidder by $94,536. Number of bidders, 2.
Contract No. 17-
Awarded to M. P. & J. T. Davis. Engineer's estimate, $2,004,000.
Lowest bidder, M. P. & J. T. Davis, $2,019,000.
Above the engineer's estimate by $15,000. Below the next lowest bidder by $80,000. Number of bidders, 2.
136}


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: Would the hon. member be good enough to give the actual cost on these contracts, instead of the estimates which are practically a guess?


William Manley German: If my hon. friend wants the actual cost he will have to go to the Transcontinental Commission as this report does not give it, by any manner of means. The returns sent in to the Transcontinental Commission by the engineers will show the actual cost.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The report gives the actual cost up to the date of publication.


William Manley German: My hon. friend has got
the report before him; he can look at it if he wants. I say it does not give the cost of the work up to the present time. You can only ascertain that from the progress estimates sent in from time to time by the engineers on the work.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It gives the actual
cost up to the date of that report.


William Manley German: My hon. friend can read it if he wants to. I am giving the engineer's estimate in charge of the work, that is, the chief engineer of the Transcontinental Commission. I am giving the amount of the tenders and the number of the tenderers, to show that in every case the lowes bidder got the contract and in every case was far and away below the engineer's estimate.
Contract No. 18-
Awarded to E. F. & G. E. Fauquier.
Engineer's estimate, $2,326,000.
Lowest bidder, E. F. & G. E. Fauquier,

Below the engineer's estimate by $225,000.
Below the next lowest bidder by $91,000.
Number of bidders, 4.
Contract No. 19-
Awarded to O'Brien & Fowler.
Engineer's estimate, $7,864,000.
Lowest bidder, O'Brien & Fowler, $5,967,000.
Below the engineer's estimate by $1,900,000.
Below the next lowest bidder by $436,000.
Number of bidders, 4.
Contract No. 20a-
Awarded to O'Brien & McDougall.
Engineer's estimate, $1,513,000.
Lowest bidder, O'Brien & McDougall, $1,158,000.
Below the engineer's estimate by $400,000.
Below the next lowest bidder by $126,000.
Number of bidders, 2.
Now we come to contract No. 21, awarded to J. D. McArthur. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been throwing fire bags, I might say, at this contract, for which there were four bidders. I will give the figures:
Contract No. 21-
Awarded to J. D. McArthur.
Engineer's estimate, $13,756,000.
Lowest bidder, J. D. McArthur, $13,010,000.

is all very well for Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton to employ in Ottawa a couple of engineers to go over the sub-contracts which they got from the contractor and work out these figures given in the' report, but that is not doing the work. There is something else to do besides that. If my hon. friends opposite will look at the evidence of Mr. Arthur Moles-worth in the report they will find that the commission took the chance of asking Mr. Molesworth about profits received by sub-contractors, but they stopped there mighty quick.


George Perry Graham: They did not want
that.


William Manley German: Mr. Molesworth told
them why the sub-contractors were losing money, and the contractors were actually paying the sub-contractors for their work rather than allow them to lose money. They were not bound to pay them, but they wanted the work to go on.


Charles Murphy: Is that mentioned in the report?	; i ,


William Manley German: That would not suit the complexion of these royal commissioners. It is not mentioned in the report, but it is in the evidence. Mr. Molesworth said: I knew that these sub-contractors were losing money. Mr. Lynch-Staunton stopped that sort of cross-examination at once; he said nothing about it in the report, and from the beginning to the end of the evidence he never asked another man that question. He never called a subcontractor to ask him whether or not the sub-contractors were losing money. Some of them probably were losing money. This, however, showts the character of the investigation. It is not an investigation.
I would not dignify it by that name. It is an inquiry to find out what kind of evidence could be obtained to build up a mountain of attack against the Liberal party and against the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I submit that this document will be a disgrace to the public archives of Canada as long as it stays there.
My hon. friend the Solicitor General said that a large amount of money was lost on the Cap Rouge viaduct. If he would read the evidence of Mr. M. P. Davis, he would see the whole cause of the difficulty. Cap Rouge is a neck of the river. There is tidal water there; the water rises from sixteen to eighteen feet. 
There is a mud bottom. The contractors were to put in that tidal water a concrete foundation. The engineer of the commission and the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific decided that piles should be driven and an open caisson built on those piles. Messrs. M. P. and J. P. Davis got the contract and went down there to look over the work. In	his
evidence, Mr. M. P. Davis said:	I
will not be responsible for that foundation on an open caisson in that tidal water. 1 will not build it. You can take the contract and build it yourself. I will do the rest of the work if you wish me to or you can do the whole work yourself. When the engineers discussed the matter with him, he said that they should build the foundation using a pneumatic caisson. Mr. M. P. Davis is an expert on pneumatic caissons, one of the best in America and certainly the best in Canada. After the engineers of the commission and the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific had discussed the matter together, they decided that a pneumatic caisson was required. They built the pneumatic caisson and that is what made the extra expense. Yet Messrs. Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton criticised the commission for adopting the suggestions of engineers who knew fully as much as Mr. Gutelius and very much more than Mr. Lynch-Staunton in that regard.
My hon. friend speaks about the overbreak. There was a considerable amount of overbreak on the McArthur section, contract No. 21. My hon. friend said that $500,000 was deducted by the arbitrators under the old Government. I would like the House and the country to understand that long before Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton appeared on the scene, or had anything to do with this matter or knew anything about it, the whole matter had been settled by Mr. Schreiber, Mr. Gordon Grant and Mr. Kelleher. Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton say that there was over classification, great expense, two great returns, overbreak, &c. That whole matter had been settled by the board of arbitration before Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton appeared on the scene. Messrs. Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton asked a lot of questions in regard to matters which were all known to the commission and to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company's engineers who made the complaint. Messrs. Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton report this as though they had discovered it. They say that they are the wonderful discoverers in this particular;

that they were appointed a royal commission to investigate; that they delved into this matter and dug up all this iniquitous transaction. That is not the case. The whole matter was known before the late Government went out of office and not only so, but the board of arbitrators went over the whole work; they settled the whole matter and settlements were made by the late Government, so far as they were made, on the report of that board.
I wonder if this Government could say the same. We will find out. Settlements were made by the late Government on the basis of that arbitration and award. These commissioners say: We find that all this money was paid out. There wa3 money paid out, but it was kept back out of these contractors by the former Government in the final settlement made with them, and kept back under the provisions of that award. Now, how about Mr. McArthur's contract? Mr. McArthur's evidence stated the amount in question at about $600,000. I found out today on positive authority, from men who know all about the transaction, that it was $550,000 that the arbitrators decided should be kept back from J. D. McArthur for overbreak and overclassification under that contract.


George Perry Graham: Under the late Government..


William Manley German: Yes, under the late Government. McArthur kicked, and his subcontractors kicked, of course, for most of it came out of them land not out of McArthur. Now, let me call the attention of the Solicitor General to what happened. He says it was $660,000, but-


Arthur Meighen: It was that much more.


William Manley German: After this Government
came into office they settled with Mr. McArthur for this overbreak and overclassification, and instead of settling on the basis of the award made by the arbitrators, the Government, or ratheT this great construction engineer, Mqjor Leonard, settled on the basis of $150,000 where the arbitrators declared that the basis should be $500,000, so that in this way, McArthur was given $400,000 of the people's money.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose the hon.
gentleman has the facts there. Will he please put them on ' Hansard? '


William Manley German: I am putting them on
' Hansard ' by my statement. I have not got the documents here. But let the hon.
gentleman go to Mr. McArthur. Let him go to MajoT Leonard.


Arthur Meighen: I am not allowed to
seek again; I would like to get the facts on * Hansard.'


William Manley German: The hon. gentleman can go to Major Leonard if he doubts what I have said. Or let him get the fact where-ever he likes. I have made my statement on my responsibility as a member of this House that this commission and this Government has made a settlement with J. D. McArthur on the basis of keeping out not $550,000, but $150,000, thus going against the award of the arbitrators and making a clean gift of $400,000. I think, in the face of that, the less these gentlemen say about wrongdoing the better.
Now, how about the Davis contract? Why, all the Government have to do is to hold back the money if there is anything wrong. Why do not they do it? These commissioners say that Fauquier Brothers made an immense amount of money by getting a contract because of inside information. And from the first page of this evidence to the last there is not one line, not a tittle, to justify such a statement. If there were, this Government has yet to settle with Fauquier Brothers, and if there is anything wrong, having the money in their own hands, let them keep it. Let me see whether they will do that or not. They did not do it in the case of McArthur. These gentlemen do not say, but they insinuate and it is a most insulting insinuation-that these men had inside information on the Transcontinental Commissioners Which they should not have had. And again there is not a tittle of evidence from first to last of this book to show it. Mr. McArthur denies it, Mr. Davis denies it, Mr. Fauquier denies ,it and Mr. Parent himself denies it.


Arthur Meighen: Surely, the hon. gentleman knows a little of what he is talking about. Mr. Fauquier admits it.


William Manley German: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, he does not admit it. Mr. Fauquier, in answer to Mr. Lynch-Staunton's question whether he had got information that there was not as much moss as the engineers had estimated, said: I made inquiry as to what moss there was. But it was an inquiry open to everybody. And I challenge the hon. gentleman to contradict that (by the evidence.


Arthur Meighen: He got the information from the engineers of the commission, as to the estimates of moss, and it was inside information.


William Manley German: The hon. gentleman is
mistaken. Let him read the evidence; it does not read that way. Mr. McArthur says he got information but it was information that anybody could get. And the engineers say the same thing; there was no secret information about it. Mr. Fauquier says: I knew there was not as much moss as they thought. But whether the quantity was large or small does not matter for he said he would have put in the same price, 13 cents a yard, if there had been 5,000 yards which I think is the quantity the engineers estimated. The evidence shows conclusively that these gentlemen acted in good faith from beginning to end.
And what further insinuations are made against Mr. Parent? In contract 8 with M. P. Davis and Company, there was a question of timber price. Mr. Davis put it in at $80 a thousand feet. And he says: I put that in because I believed that on timber delivered in that country it is a proper price. These commissioners insinuate that Mr. Parent, the chairman of the commission, changed the date of the document from the 8th to the 18th of October to show that the document had been signed subsequent to the putting in of this timber price. And be was asked the question and his reply was: It may have been changed, but if so, it was changed since I gave up the chairmanship of that commission. And that is the class of insinuation that runs throughout the whole length of this so-called report of Royal Commissioners, men appointed to investigate and hold the scales of justice even as between the Transcontinental Commissioners and the people of Canada. Can any man say that a report of that kind is justified by the evidence? I say, no; any man who reads the evidence must come to the conclusion that it is a garbled statement got up for a special purpose of a partisan character, to discredit a political party, and, if possible, to injure one of the greatest industrial enterprises ever established in Canada.
On motion of Mr. Joseph E. Armstrong, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. ILazen the House adjourned at 10.57 p.m.
Friday, March 27, 1914.