1914-03-30

VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 128, to amend an Act to incorporate the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners.
He said: This Bill is to amend a Bill that was introduced and enacted into legislation at the last session of the House in regard to the harbour of Vancouver. The amendment is being made at the request of the harbour commissioners. Under the provisions of that Bill the rental derived from the leases of the foreshore of the harbour were paid over to the harbour commissioners and authority was given to the harbour commissioners to deal with the foreshore in the future. But their powers were limited to making leases for a period of twenty-one years with renewals for further periods of twenty-one years each. It has been found by the harbour commissioners that this provision is not altogether workable, that there are certain cases in which they feel it is more in the interest of the harbour that, instead of leasing the foreshares, there should be power to make grants of them. Therefore, it is proposed to revest the power of dealing with these foreshores in the Governor in Council under a provision that before the Governor in Council deals with any of them he shall first of all get a report from the harbour commissioners embodying their views and recommendations in regard to the matter. This is in order to make the Act workable and it is done at the suggestion of the harbour commissioners who found that the Act in this respect was not as elastic and workable as they would have liked to have it.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CARROLL moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 129, respecting hours of service of railway employees.
He said: The chief provision of this Bill limits the number of hours of service which a railway corporation shall demand of its officials to fourteen a day, and specifies the period that must be allowed the employees for rest betweeen the working hours. Clause 3 of the Bill states the hours of service that cannot be exceeded by order of 1381
any railway company and fully sets forth the hours of duty and off duty that shall be required or permitted. It is careful to make exception in eases of accidental obstruction over which the company, or its agents, has no control. It sets these forth in detail. The main purpose of this clause is to provide a law that can be invoked in case the regulations set forth therein are violated in any way, which law must be interpreted by a judicial tribunal, from whose judgment there is this appeal, thus giving thereto that elasticity which the changes of condition from time to time may demand. The fixing of the hours of service by any body, such as the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, for example, would mean cast iron rules lacking that elasticity and from which no appeal is obtainable. It is quite obvious that this protection is in the interest not only of the employees affected thereby but also of the rail-way companies and of the general public. The clause which provides for the offence on the part of the railway company and the penalty attached thereto ; it also provides for the prosecution of a suit in civil courts in case of violation. The general intention of the Bill is to protect railway employees, and to protect the companies from accidents and the general public from suffering injury and damage by these accidents which frequently occut.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first
time.


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

[Stage Direction]
Further consideration in Committee of Bill No. 91, respecting the Northern Territorial Railway Company.-Mr. McKay. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-extension of time.
Mr. OLIVER:: Would the hon. member in whose name the Bill stands tell Us where this railway is located?


Mr. McKAY:: I cannot tell exactly, but
I can do so generally. At the time the railway was incorporated, the wording was that it would start from either Fort Churchill

or Port Nelson. As it is now definitely settled that the harbour will be at Port Nelson, I presume that the road will start from there. Then it goes across country to lake Wollaston, crosses the Athabaska river and goes from there on to the Pacific coast.


Frank Oliver: Where does it cross the
Athabaska river?


James McKay: I cannot give the exact
place. It is not stated in the Act of Incorporation, but it passes on the south side of lake Athabaska on towards what is known as the Peace river block.


Frank Oliver: Where does it cross Peace river?
Mr, McKAY:	That is not stated either.


Frank Oliver: Where does it touch the
Pacific coast?


Mr. McKAYT:: At Port Essington or the
Portland canal. From the point where the railway crosses the Athabaska river, a branch line will be built to the city of Edmonton by way of Fort McMurray and lac LaBiche.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 27, respecting the South Ontario Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. William Smith.
Bill No. 79, to incorporate the Bruce Peninsula Railway Company.-Mr. Middlebro.
Bill No. 87, to incorporate the Erie and Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Lalor.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 124, for the relief of Leonore Power.-Mr. Porter.

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

Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	Has the Intercolonial railway appointed a man named Cowan as resident engineer in the Maintenance of Way Department at Truro, Nova Scotia? If so, when was he appointed, and at what salary?
2.	Where is he from, what is his age, is he a British subject, and had he been until recently or at any period in me employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company?
3.	Did he displace Mr. J. Jardine, C.E., an engineer trained on the Intercolonial railway,

and who held the position of resident engineer at Truro by promotion?
4.	Is the said J. Jardine, C.E., now in the employ of the Intercolonial? If so, in what position and where?
5.	Is the said W. O. Cowan a friend or relative of C. B. Brown, the chief engineer of the Intercolonial?
6.	Was the said C. B. Brown, chief engineer of the Intercolonial, an American citizen at the time of his appointment, and in the employment of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and when was he appointed and at what salary?


Mr. REID:: *
1.	Yes. March 15, 1914. $150 per month.
2.	Halifax. Age 37. Yes.
3.	He succeeded Mr. Jardine, who lias been assigned other duties.
4.	Yes. Assistant engineer, Moncton.
5.	He is no relation to the chief engineer, the friendship that exists is only that of a business associate, and such friendship was not a factor in regard to the employment of Mr. Cowan.
6.	C. B. Brown. Appointed July 1, 1913. $6,000 per annum. He was in the employment of the Canadian Pacific railway prior to his appointment as chief engineer. The department has no information as to the date of his naturalization as a British subject.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-EMPLOYMENT OF FRED. HARRIS.
Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	Has the Intercolonial railway now in its employ, or has it had, a man named Fred. Harris? If so, what was the nature of his employment?
2.	Was he inspector of rails, when was he first employed, and previous to his employment was there such an officer on the Intercolonial?
3.	What was his age when employed, had he been an employee previously of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and was he a retired employee of that company and in receipt of a pension or retiring allowance monthly or annually therefrom? If so, what was the amount thereof?
4.	Was he a British subject, and what was the salary paid him by the Intercolonial?
5.	Is he still engaged as an employee of the Intercolonial? If not, at what date were his services dispensed with and for what cause?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes, it had. Mr. F. H. Harris was in the employ of the railway as rail inspector.
2.	Yes. September 1, 1913. No special officer for such work employed previously.
3.	Fifty-eight years. Yes. Yes. The department has no information.
4.	The department has no information. $100 per month.
5.	No. Resigned January 1, 1914. Poor
health.


TRENT VALLEY WOOLLEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY'.
*Mr. EMMERSON:: 
Mr. REID:: 1.	The department has no information as to who are the directors, officers and chief shareholders of the company.
2.	Full information as to their alleged legal position in regard of the water-power; and, later, full statement (vouchers and invoices) as to the expenditure in connection wi/th the change from hydraulic to electric equipment.
3.	In the present absence of the minister from Ottawa, the department is unable to give the information.


GIASSON POST OFFICE.
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: 1.	Was a new post office opened in the parish ot St. Aubert, county of L'lslet, and bearing the name of Giasson?
2.	What is the distance from it to the main post office at St. Aubert?
3.	Who recommended its opening?
4.	Has the head office of the department forbidden the postmaster of St. Aubert to receive postal matter from the residents of the parish who are served through that post office, or to deliver such matter to them? If so, why?
5.	Has the Postmaster General received a petition from a great number of electors protesting against that course and asking for the closing of the above mentioned new office?
6.	If so, what are the intentions of the Postmaster General in connection with such petition?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	li miles.
3.	By direction of the Postmaster General.
4.	No.
5.	A petition bearing nineteen names has
been received for the closing of the new
office.	.
6.	The subject is under consideration.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-CHAMPLAIN MARKET STATION, QUEBEC.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Has any decision been reached by the
Government as to when the National Transcontinental passenger station will be erected on Champlain market, at Quebec, and as to the removing of the present offices of the Marine Department, now near Champlain market?
2. If so, is it the intention of the Government to have these offices removed to L#vis, to occupy the building belonging to the Government and known as Carrier & Laine workshops?


Mr. REID:: 1.	The station will be erected as soon as tenders can be called for after the final approval of the plans. It has not yet been determined that i!t will be necessary to re-.move the present offices of the Marine Department to any other site.
2.	- Answered by No. 1.


SHIPPEGAN DOG-FISH REDUCTION WORKS.
Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	Did the Government erect a reduction plant at Shippegan, N.B.? If so, when and upon whose recommendation?
2.	What was the cost of construction?
3.	Was a site purchased upon which to erect the plant? If so, from whom, when and at what cost?
4. Was the plant erected upon such site?
5. If not, upon whose property was	it erected?
6.	If any title to the land upon which the plant was erected has been acquired, from whom was it obtained, when were proceedings to acquire it begun, and what did it cost?
7.	What has the yearly and total cost of operation and maintenance of the plant been since its completion, and in what years was the plant operated?
8.	What yearly and total revenue has been derived therefrom since its completion?
9.	What is the Government's intention regarding the plant?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes. In 1904. On the recommendation of the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
2.	$25,298.60.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	That of the W. S. Loggie Company, Limited.
6.	The site is being expropriated. Instructions were given to have the site surveyed and a description thereof prepared on November 27 last. The plan and description were registered on the 19th of January, 1914.
7.	1905-6, $3,737.15; 1906-7, $9,941.91; 1907-8,
$6,482.86; 1908-9, $9,357.02; 1909-10, $12,154.31;	1910-11,	$9,590.26;	1911-12,	$4,774.61.
From 1905 to 1911, inclusive.
8.	1905-6, nil; 1906-7, nil; 1907-8, $3,164.09;
1908-9,	$104.66; 1909-10,	$316.69; 1910-11,
$9,244.48; 1911-12, $860.55; 1912-13, $383.11.
9.	To sell it to the best advantage.


BLACK CAPE EAST POST OFFICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has an application been received by the Post Office Department to re-open Black Cape East post office, Bonaventure county, Quebec, at the house of Napoleon Cyr?
2.	From whom has said application been received, and what decision has been arrived at?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1 Yes.
2.	The request was made by James Edward Mill, and the matter is under inquiry.


SMELT FISHING LICENSES.
Mr. MACDONALD:: Was any smelt fishing license issued during the past year to George Mason and A. Arbuckles, by D. L. McDonald, fishery officer at Bailey's Brook, Pictou county, during the last season?


Mr. HAZEN:: Yes. Through an- error on the part of the departmental officer charged with the work of preparing the return, these names were not included in a return submitted to the House on March 17 last. A revised return is being prepared.


ALLEGED CABLEGRAM TO SIR EDWARD CARSON.
*Mr. PROULX :: 1.	Does the Minister of Militia and Defence know whether the following cablegram was sent by Captain Tom Wallace, member for Centre York, to Sir Edward Carson, as reported by the Citizen of the 26th March, 1914?
Captain Wallace's Assurance.
Captain Tom Wallace, member for Centre York, sent the following cablegram last night to Sir Edward Carson, Belfast, Ireland:
Thousands of loyal Canadians are with you in your magnificent fight to preserve the best traditions of British citizenship by resisting the coercion of Ulster. We are ready, if necessary, to help you with men and money to the last ditch.
(Sgd) Tom Wallace.
2.	Is Captain Tom Wallace an officer of the Canadian militia?
3. If he is, does the Minister of Militia approve of an officer of the Canadian militia sending such a cablegram?
4.	If not, what action will the minister take to discipline Captain Tom Wallace?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes, on the reserve of officers.
3 and 4. The alleged telegram does not in any way relate to the duties of Mr. Wallace as -an officer on the reserve; and the minister is not called upon- to express any opinion with regard thereto. Any attempt to discipline Captain Wallace in the case suggested would be not only improper but illegal.


AMOUNTS PAID TO L. J. HEBB.
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: What sum of money was paid to L. J. Hebb, chief fishery officer for Lunenburg county, N.S., during the calendar year 1943, for salary and for travelling and other expenses, respectively?


John Douglas Hazen: Wages, $200; expenses,


CARLETON HEAD, P.E.I., BREAKWATER.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: Is the contract for the construction of landing slip and breakwater at Carleton Head P.E.I., in connection with the proposed car ferry, what is known as an ordinary or straight contract, or is it on a percentage basis? If the latter, what is the percentage paid to contractors?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, an ordinary contract.


MILITIA AND CHURCH PARADES.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1. Has the Government seen the following paragraph of a leading editorial in the Canadian Baptist of March 26, 1914:
"We venture to raise the question again as to whether anything is to be done in regard to

the use of our troops at religious processions, where they are regarded as a guard of honour.'
2.	Will the Government say whether the allegation implied herein, namely that our troops are used as guards of honour at religious processions, is well founded?
3.	Is the use of any part of the Canadian militia or permanent force in, or in company with, religious processions in Canada permissible, according to the military regulations governing the militia and permanent force?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	The attention of the Minister of Militia and Defence has been drawn to the paragraph referred to.
2.	The allegation is not ' well founded.'
3.	It is the custom in every part of Canada and the British Empire for the militia to attend church parades wearing side arms only, as per the following regulations:
2.	Was such salary changed since the 21st of September, 1911?
3.	If so, what Is the reason for such change?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to have the former salary restored?


Mr. REID:: 1.	$60 per month when working.
2.	No.
3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.
Mr. J. ARMSTRONG.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has J. H. Armstrong, post office clerk of Sherbrooke, been dismissed?
2.	If so, for what reasons?
3.	When was he appointed in the service?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1. There is no person of the name of J. H. Armstrong in the Sherbrooke post office.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
(a)	King's Regulations and Orders, Canadian Militia, paragraph 1054.
It having been intimated to the department that the rule was not clearly understood in some quarters, the following were issued:
(b)	Letter.	___
Ottawa, May 31, 1913.
From the Adjutant General Canadian Militia, to Officers Commanding Divisions and Districts.
Carrying of arms, Church parades, etc.
Sir___j have the honour, by direction, to
state' that, in different parts of the country certain militia units, cadet organizations and members of civilian rifle associations, to whom government rifles have been issued, have been attending church parades and other religious gatherings carrying rifles.
2 KR and O., 1910, authorizes the carrying of side arms on parades for divine service, but there is no authority whatever for the carrying of rifles on parades of this character. The firearm is quite out of place on religious parades
and processions.	. .
3.	It is desired that instructions be issued to all concerned that, in future, this practice is not to be maintained.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd) Victor A. S. Williams,
Colonel, Adjutant General.
(c)	Militia Order.
Carrying of arms at church parades, &c.
It is notified for the information of all concerned, that the carrying of government rifles by certain militia units, cadet organizations and members of civilian rifle associations, when attending church parades and other religious gatherings, is contrary to regulations and is to be discontinued. (H.Q. 214-14-38).
There is no information in the department that these regulations have not been loyally observed.


SOULANGES CANAL-SALARIES OF WHEELMEN.
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1. What is the salary paid to the wheelmen Nos. 4 and 5 on the Soulanges canal?


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-Return showing: The salary of each deputy minister; how many clerks or employees are under each of the deputy ministers, or over whose work the deputy is supposed to exercise supervision; the salary of the Customs Commissioner, and how long is he employed.
Mr. Delisle.-Return showing: The names of the postmasters' who have been dismissed from office since 1900, in the county of Portneuf; how many investigations there were; the names of those whose cases were investigated.
Mr. William Chisholm.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, guarantee bonds, and other documents and security relating to the renewal of the contract with George A. Stewart for carrying mail between North Lochaber and West Lochaber, in or about the month of May, 1913, and of the subsequent cancellation of said renewal contract, and of the contract made with Hugh D. Cameron for said service.	„ „ ,	.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all tenders, correspondence, documents, &c., relative to supplies for Aldershot Camp for the year 1913, from June until October ?
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all advertisements, tenders, contracts, documents, papers, &c., relative to the supply of ice to the Aldershot Military Camp, N.S., for the season
Of 1914.	.
Mr. Sinclair.-For a copy of all letters and telegrams received since April 1, 1912, by the Minister of Militia and Defence from G. A. R Rowlings of Sydney, N.S., A. H. McDonald of Sherbrooke, N.S., Jas. L. Hattie of Caledonia, N.S., and A. J. Fulton of Guysborough, N.S., relating to bounties payable to Fenian Raid Veterans, and of the replies to said letters,
'£ Mr.5" Sinclair.-For a copy of all letters and telegrams addressed by G. A. R. Rowlings and J S. Wells to the Department of Public Works, or the minister, since October 1, 1911, relating to the construction of a public wharf at Cole Harbour, Guysborough county, N.S., and of all
replies thereto.	_	~
Mr Emmerson.-For a copy in duplicate ot all leases, agreements, correspondence, Orders
[Stage Direction]
in Council and other documents relating to the water power or privileges connected with the Stevens dam, so called, that had been constructed across the river Trent at the village of Campbellford, together with a copy in duplicate of a license in connection with said dam, granted to the Hon. James Cockburn and others under date December 9, 1869, and of all correspondence with, and opinions of, the Minister of Justice at the time of the granting of said license and since that date; also a duplicate copy of all papers, correspondence, Orders in Council and other documents relating to or connected with the cancellation, termination and revocation of such license on the 12th of August, 1911, and of all correspondence, propositions, agreements or other documents had and made by, to or with the Trent Valley Woollen Manufacturing Company, Limited, and of all correspondence with the Department of Justice and opinions thereof relating thereto; also a duplicate copy of all correspondence, reports, Orders in Council and other documents referred to or mentioned in an Order in Council of date August 25, 1913, set forth on page No. W. 398, in the third volume of the Auditor General's Report, 1913, and of all correspondence with the Auditor General and by and between the Auditor General and any department of government relating thereto or connected therewith.
Mr. Ernest Lapointe.-For a copy of all documents, papers, petitions, correspondence, reports, &c., in connection with the opening of a post office under the name of Giasson in the parish of St. Aubert, county of L'lslet.
Mr. Demers.-For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, lists of shareholders, Orders in Council, licenses, certificates and other papers and documents, and of all renewals thereof, relating to the incorporation and licensing of the Banque St. Jean, the Banque Ville Marie and the Banque Jacques Cartier, all in the province of Quebec.
Mr, Sinclair.-For a copy of all correspondence between Mr. G. E. Torrie, fishery officer for the municipality of Digby, N.S., and the Department of Marine and Fisheries, bearing date between the 1st day of January, 1912I and the 1st day of January, 1914; also a copy of all claims and accounts rendered by the said fishery officer to the said department between said dates relating to services rendered by said officer to the department.
Mr. Sinclair. For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, instructions, accounts, vouchers and other papers and documents relating to the purchase of live stock in the Maritime provinces by one Howard Corning of Yarmouth, N.S., during the period of his employment ; also a copy of the appointment of the said Howard Corning and of all correspondence, complaints and other documents relating to the dismissal of the said Howard Corning, if he has been dismissed or retired from the service, together with a copy of all recommendations, correspondence and other papers relating to the appointment of the said Howard Coming's successor.
Mr. Boulay. For a return showing the travelling expenses paid by the Government to the Honourable Rodolphe Roy, judge of the Superior Court at Rimouski, during the years 1912-1913 and 1914, for trips from Quebec to Rimouski and return.
Mr. Graham.-For a return showing:	1.
Particulars of the inventories and value of the estate of the late George A. Montgomery, 	, ! liSSI
registrar at Regina, whose estate escheated to the Crown.
2.	The amount realized at Regina or elsewhere, on the conversion of said estate into money.
3.	The cost paid or allowed with names and amounts paid or allowed before the residue was paid over to the Crown.
4.	The amount paid over and actually received by the Crown.
5.	The disposition of the fund and the names of the persons to whom any sum has been paid, and the respective amounts thereof so paid over or allowed since the Crown received the same.
6.	A statement showing the difference between the reports of the present and the late Minister of Justice as to disposition of the fund, and a copy of such correspondence and representations as led up to any change.
7.	The actual balance now on hand and the intended disposition thereof.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for Committee of Supply, and the proposed amendment [DOT] of Mr. Graham thereto, resumed from March 27.
Mr. A. C. BOYCE (West Algoma):: investigation. There were debates in this House. During the whole course of these debates and investigations it was very-palpable that the Government of the day was endeavouring to keep from the public throughout Canada the actual facts in regard to the extravagance, recklessness and mismanagement which attended the building of the Transcontinental railway. No wonder that the Government changed. The Government having lost the confidence of the people, the people decided in favour of a change of Government. One of the first steps that the new Government took, in carrying out the pledge which its leader made to the people, was to appoint a royal commission to see whether or not the complaints which that party had made in the past were true, and, if true, whether the party which was responsible for the whole transaction from its inception, and whose recklessness and extravagance are shown in this report, was culpable or deserving of the severe censure of the House and of the country. It has been shown by the result to have been more blameworthy than the two commissioners who have made this report, and who deserve the thanks of a grateful country for giving the facts to the people.
The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), who moved this resolution, sat on these benches for many years as Minister of Railways and Canals, and he was familiar with what was going on. He was repeatedly asked for information. Sometimes he gave it, sometimes he did not give it, and sometimes the hon. gentleman gave information which, I think, from a reading of the speech which he delivered on Tuesday and Wednesday last, he would be very sorry indeed to-day to realize that he had given to the House. The hon. gentleman presented himself to the electors at BTOckville for re-election as Minister of Railways and Canals, and went down to defeat upon a policy advocated by his leader, .a policy which had for its object the absolute destruction of the utility of the Transcontinental railway, and the diversion of traffic from it to north and south lines.
We, the Conservative party of Canada, complained, and we complained early. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had hardly got his breath after making that memorable speech on the 30th of July, 1903, before the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), then leader of the

Opposition, made a speech, for the preparation of which there could be very little time, in which he outlined certain strong features which might appear to be of very great import to my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and to the Government of which he was then the leader. The first question, which was of very serious import to the country, but which did not appear to be of very serious import to my right hon. friend or his Government, was what this great undertaking, for the beginning of which even time would not wait, was going to cost, and how great was to be the burden that it would put upon the people of the country. What did my right hon. friend say? Was my right hon. friend serious when he told this House that the railway from Moncton to Winnipeg would cost $13,000,000 and not a cent more? These are his absolute words. Nobody believed it. Nobody took him seriously. He did not take himself seriously. He launched this project upon the people without the slightest consideration what the cost was going to be or what would be the burden which would be imposed upon the ratepayers. Across the floor of this House the then leader of the Opposition, now the leader of the Government, sent the challenge to the ministers of the Crown that they were unable to tell him the cost of this gigantic undertaking within $10,090,000. My right hon. friend gave sufficient opportunity for a reply, but not one of them rose. Not in connection with that, but in connection with another charge that he was confronted with, namely, that there was no information upon which to base an estimate of the cost, my right hon. friend replied: We Rave 'mountains 'of information,' abundance of maps, plans by provincial Governments, and reports upon everything, but the fact remains that this project was launched without one single statement from any scientific gentleman having reference to the nature of the territory which was to be traversed by this railway, or showing how *much this railway would cost per mile.
I confront the leader of the Opposition now with his words-$13,000,000 and no more. I emphasize that with the Liberal pamphlet which was published in the election of 1904 giving the cost of the Transcontinental railway at $13,000,000, and I ask my right hon. friend whether, in his judgment, and having regard to the uncontrovertible and uncontradictable '

facts, as they now appear in this report, he was not misleading the people of Canada at that time and was not intending to mislead them to the point that the people would be committed to the Tailway, and would have to have it carried through.
Another estimate as to the cost of the road was furnished by my right hon. friend's Minister of Finance at that time- a very careful estimate, Mt. Speaker. It created the impression in the House that the estimate which Mir. Fielding gave of $61,415,000 for the construction of the Moncton to Winnipeg section was most liberal. He wrote a letter in connection with that which is shown in the exhibits, and which I must ask the House to listen to because it is distinctly interesting. Under date of May 11, 1904, and after the minister had made a speech upon the subject, he wrote this letter:
Ottawa, May 11, 1914.
Dear Mr. Emmerson,
Last summer, while I was acting Minister of Railways, and when the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme came up, I asked Mr. Schreiber's opinion as to the probable cost of constructing the eastern division (Government portion) of the road. Mr. Schreiber gave me the information, although not in the form of a written report, and I used it in the House, mentioning his name as my authority. His opinion was that a road could be constructed from Quebec to Moncton for $25,000 per mile, and from Quebec to Winnipeg for $28,000 per mile.
These estimates were made for a road of an ordinary character such as is constructed elsewhere. In order to make a sufficiently liberal allowance for a road of better character, I added 25 per cent, making the estimate $31,250 per mile from Quebec to Moncton, and $35,000 per mile from Quebec to Winnipeg. I have not spoken to Mr. Schreiber on the matter of late, but from other experienced railway men I have received assurances that my estimate was a, most liberal one and that the road could probably be constructed well within these figures.
As above stated, I did not obtain a written report from Mr. Schreiber. I think it might be convenient to have a report from him. May I suggest that you discuss the matter with him, and, if there is no objection, ask him to make a short memorandum, putting in writing the information which he gave me last summer. Yours faithfully,
(Sgd) W. S. Fielding. Honourable H. R. Emmerson,
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa, Ont.
And $61,415,000 was stated by the Minister of Finance to this House and to this country, as being a most liberal estimate, based upon the information furnished and assurances given by experienced railway men- men, for instance, like M. P. Davis, who undoubtedly would not mislead the minister in regard to any additional amount that
would be taken from the people for the construction of this railway.
The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in a most eloquent speech; a speech more eloquent than convincing to the thoughtful and earnest reader, expressed great concern that no delay should take place in the immediate construction of this much-needed railway. His words have been often quoted, but I ask the indulgence of the House while I extract a few cogent sentences from that most notable speech delivered on July 30, 1903, when he was introducing the Transcontinental railway measure. I quote his words from page 7659, ' Hansard,' 1903:
To those who urge upon us the policy of to-morrow and to-morrow, and to-morrow; to those who tell us wait, wait, wait; to those who advise us to pause, to consider, to reflect, to calculate, and to inquire,-
Mark, Mr. Speaker, he had no time to consider, to calculate, or to inquire.

our answer is: No, this is not a time for deliberation, this is a time for action. The flood of tide is upon us-
This is the poetical part of it-
The flood of tide is upon us that leads on to fortune; if we let it pass it may never recur again.
I presume he did not want the fortune to pass.
If we let it pass, the voyage of our national life, bright as it is to-day, will be bound in shallows. We cannot wait, because time does not wait; we cannot wait, because in these days of wonderful development, time lost is doubly lost; we cannot wait, because, at this moment there is a transformation going on in the conditions of our national life which it would be folly to ignore and a crime to overlook ; we cannot wait, because the prairies of the Northwest, which for countless ages have been roamed over by the wild herds of the bison, or by the scarcely less wild tribes of the red man, are now invaded from all sides by the white race.
These are eloquent, and poetic sentences, but there is not a word of business in the whole speech from beginning to end. He was cheered by his enthusiastic followers^ as never before, and yet in the whole of that speech there is not to be found a single word of business sense to demonstrate to the people of Canada the kind of road they were undertaking, the kind of country through which it traversed, and the probable amount of the expenditure to be entailed? When the right hon, gentleman initiated his project, these things were held by him to be trivial, and so the country was launched into an unnecessary expenr diture of millions and millions of dollars.

And when the right lion, gentleman was asked in regard to the expenditure, his answer was: 'it will cost $13,000,000, and not one cent more.' As my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) reminds me: it was not a time to calculate, it was not a time to pause, it was not a time to deliberate; it was a time to get through the House a project, calculated to carry the general election with which the right hon. gentleman was face to face, and in which his party had some unenviable records to live down. It was a policy, probably a most useful policy, by which the right hon. gentleman's friends, the Liberal party, could get the sinews of war, upon which to appeal successfully, if not to the people of the country, at any rate to the interests, and to the cupidity of their followers. The right hon. gentleman went on to speak in general terms, and I quote from page 7660, 'Hansard,' 1903:
We consider that it is the duty of all those who sit within these walls, by the will of the people, to provide immediate means whereby the products of those new settlers may find an exit to the ocean at the least possible loss.
The right hon. gentleman was not always so anxious, when a proposition for the construction of a railroad came before Parliament, to rush into it without hesitating and without deliberating, and without calculating; it makes a great difference in the utterances of the right hon. gentleman and his followers which side of the House they happen to sit on when they enunciate a policy. There was once a railway proposition, submitted to Parliament by a Conservative government-and	Conservative
governments know how to build railways in Canada-and the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) begged the Government to pause, and to reflect, and to wait. When it was proposed to build a railway from Quebec to St. John, New Brunswick, a very much needed road, and one which would command an abundance of traffic, substantial assistance to that railroad amounting to $170,000 per annum for fifteen years, or a guarantee was announced
In 1895, when the resolution was brought down for this proposition, my right hon. friend moved an amendment which I commend to the House in contrast with the eloquent words which I have just read, an 1 which fell from the lips of my right hon. friend, indicating that time, the great enemy of mankind, would not wait for the proposition he was then placing before the House. The amendment which my right hon. friend moved, and which will be found in

' Hansard ' of 1885, on page 3257, is as follows:
In the opinion of this House additional surveys are requisite in order to a sound decision for a short line of railway, and It would be premature to adopt any line before further surveys have been made.
I commend my right hon. friend's amendment to him now.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: It was voted down.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It was voted down, because in that case there happened to be surveys and information before the House at that time. My. hon. friend (Mr. R. B. Bennett) reminds me that the railway was built in fifty-five months.
In 1903 my right hon. friend, when introducing a measure which will cost thi3 country upwards of $200,000,000, would not wait for surveys, for any information in order to ascertain the cost; in 1885 when there was a short line of railway to be built, my right hon friend, being in opposition was very cautious indeed, and wanted the most accurate surveys made and all information requisite to a sound decision upon the question. Almost word for word with the principles contained in that amendment was a resolution moved in this House by the then leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister, that details and surveys and calculations and deliberations were fully in order to insure a sound decision upon the question of the Quebec-to-Moncton section. My right hon. friend ignored that appeal entirely and committed this country to the onerous burden now laid upon it, namely, the building of a road, the utility of which at any rate as to one section is in very grave doubt, and in financing which, this country will be saddled with the burden for a great many years to come. Upon my right hon. friend and his party must rest that stigma and that stain. Upon him and his party must rest the blame for plunging into a work so gigantic without any consideration of the immense cost, the immense issues and burdens involved. Upon him and his party must rest the whole blame for the findings contained in that report, and the responsibility cannot be and will not be shifted, in the judgment of this country, by what is contained in the amendment offered by the hon. member for South Renfrew.
With regard to figures, let us see what the various estimates were. Mr. Fielding's estimate of $61,415,000 stood for some considerable time. In 1908 further estimates

were made-and I understand that the hon. member for South Renfrew disclaims any responsibility for any estimates given in this House, or for any attempt to mislead. In fact, he claims that he is not responsible if the actual cost exceeds his estimates. In April, 1908, a question was asked of the then Minister of Railways, the Hon. Geo. P. Graham, as follows:
1 What contracts and what mileage, and the price at which each have been let, upon the eastern and western sections of the Grand Trunk
Pacific railway?	..
2.	What is the date of each contract, and the period set for completion?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the unlet
portions?
His answer was:
Contracts have been let on the eastern division of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, on schedule rates.
The total amount of the estimate on which the contracts were let, as furnished to this House in 1908, by the then hon. Minister of Railways, now the hon. member for South Renfrew, who offers this amendment, was $44,389,293.01; in addition, he stated, as to the portions not then let, that the estimated total cost was $19,030,173; making a grand total of the estimated cost on which contracts had been let, and on which they were not let, of $63,419,293.01. There was some margin in that estimate, which was supposed to cover the whole cost of construction of the main line from Moncton to Winnipeg, including $5,011,346.50 for the Quebec bridge. In 1911, another estimate was given by Mr. Lumsden, amounting to $108,729,900, not including terminals. On the 18th of April, 1913, another estimate was given by Mr. Gordon Grant, chief engineer of the road, amounting to $161,307,800, made up as follows: Value of the work done to December 1, 1912, $127,219,863; value of the work required to complete, $34,087,937. There is a most astonishing divergence in regard to the amount required to complete, between the estimate given in 1908 by the then Minister of Railways of $19,030,173, and Mr. Gordon Grant's estimate in 1913 of $34,087,937. I will not weary the House with details as to how these estimates were made up. I simply quote what I have, to show that none of these hon. gentlemen were able, at the initiation of this scheme or during the time it was under consideration, to give to this House any definite reliable information with regard to the burden they were imposing upon the country. It became necessary for some inquiry to be made. The commission was issued, the amount has been found out, and that amount, exceeding $200,000,000, is appalling enough to stagger the people, and certainly to paralyse the faith of the people in the right hon. gentleman and his party.
What defence does the right hon. gentleman offer? Does he say, or suggest, that if, in 1903, when he brought this measure down to the House, he had stated that it would cost $100,000,000 of the people's money, he would ever have received the endorsation of the people in 1904? I say, he would not. Had he said that the project would cost $150,000,000, they would have thought he was insane. But had he told the people plainly that the cost might be as high as $200,000,000, I am at a loss to express the view the people of Canada might have taken of his sanity. I do not think for an instant that he would have been returned to power in the election of 1904.	*
Now, what was the reason this railway project could not wait? The Minister of Railways of that day suggested that it was by reason of a financial gentleman who was deeply interested in the matter-that he could not wait and therefore time could not wait. But there is one outstanding fact -and I see my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) smiling-that the right hon. gentleman-


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: I always like
to hear a Yorkshire man talk.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I suppose because it is
free trade talk.


Michael Clark: I mean it.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The right hon. gentleman
(Sir Wilfrid Laurier) would not wait, because, he said, time would not wait. But the evidence furnished from what has followed in the case to all those who read the report and consider the history of the road that it was the exigencies of the Liberal party in Canada that would not wait, that the contractors, or possible contractors, those who were collecting campaign funds, those who realize that elections under hon. gentlemen opposite required to be ' greased by something in the way of finance, would not wait. There was also urgent necessity for an issue upon which the Liberal party could carry one more general election. I should like to ask my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), in view of the statement made on the introduction of this measure by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, how the country is going

to be provided, as he said, with cheap freight rates on this line. The Grand Trunk Pacific will have to pay a rental, according to the figures now before the House, of something like $6,000,000 per annum on this line from Winnipeg to Moncton. How ere the benefits to be given to the farmers about which my hon. friend from Red Deer and others are always talking, when this charge must rest upon the traffic as a result of the extravagance, wantonness and recklessness which have attended the construction of this road? I should like my right hon. friend also to consider this: suppose he had paused, and deliberated, and calculated, with regard, for instance, to the immediate construction of the Quebec and Moncton section of the road-which construction was objected to in 1903 and has been objected to ever since as being absolutely unnecessary, because it parallelled the Intercolonial railway and would draw traffic from that railway to the injury of the people whose property it is-suppose the construction of the Quebec-Momcton section bad been left to the end, what would be the result now ? Would the right hon. gentleman, as leader of the Opposition, have stood in his place and advocated the building of that road, now? I say, no, the right hon. gentleman's speech in support of the construction of this part of the road would not be delivered now. One could fancy the eloquent periods of the right hon. gentleman denouncing such a scheme if it were proposed by this Government, as being an extravagant transaction, involving the expenditure of thirty or forty million, and perhaps he might have insinuated that there was a corrupt and insidious design behind it. But what is the position now? The Quebec bridge has fallen down-now. The rails of the Quebee-Moncton section are rusting-now. The track is overgrown with weeds, and trees are growing on it-now. Thirty-five millions of dollars have been spent on that section now. And yet we were told in 1903 that time would not wait in order that there might be deliberation, that there might be investigation, that there might be calculation, to ascertain whether that project was necessary in the interest of the people. We were committed to ft, and $35,000,000 has been wasted on it-now.
Sir, the project of a national transcontinental railway is of vast importance to the people of this country. It is of the utmost moment to the people and to those financially interested who have provided 
the money for the purpose of the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme as distinguished from the Transcontinental, to know where this money has gone to. In this report the House has been given an indication as to where some of it went And my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition knows where some of that money went-and winked at its going in that direction. He knows perfectly well that in connection with the section in my own riding, the section running through Algoma, there was a divergence, an appropriation, or at any rate the ' reception ' of the large sum of $740,000, which by holding up his little finger he could have stopped from going into the pockets of a contractor and into the construction of the road, and could have kept in the treasury of this country. My right hon. friend cannot deny that. It is a melancholy truth that my right hon. friend, when confronted with the facts set forth in this report, even if it be made by partisan commissioners, cannot get away from the fact that, as Prime Minister of Canada, he had the opportunity to prevent the sum of $740,000 from going into the pockets of a contractor and being lost to the country, and that he never lifted his finger to do so. On August 2, 1909, the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, a corporation vitally interested in the exercising of economy in the construction of this road, because it had to pay rental upon the capita] invested, wrote to my right hon. friend as Prime Minister, pointed out what was going on, and implored him to take such action as would prevent fhis unnecessary loss. Let me read this letter, and then let my right hon. friend say to this House and to the country what he did to prevent that outrageous transaction which involved the loss of three-quarters of a million dollars: then and not till then will he satisfy this House and the country that as Prime Minister he did his full duty to the Canadian people, at any rate with regard to that particular item of extravagant waste, if not dishonest appropriation, which was actually brought to his attention in writing at that time. This is the letter:
My dear Sir Wilfrid,-On the 29th day of October, 1908, the National Transcontinental Railway Commissioners awarded two contracts for the construction of about 204 miles on sections ' D ' and ' E ' of the National Transcontinental railway. The first section starting on the west end of Fauquier Brothers' Abitibi contract, in the province of Ontario, about 100 miles west of Cochrane, for a distance of 104.24 miles; the second eoxnract commencing at the terminations of the first and joining Fauquier Brothers' contract north of lake

Nipigon, a distance of 100 miles. By the terms of these contracts the work was to commence immediately after the execution of the agreements to he proceeded with continuously and diligently under the personal supervision of the contractor until completed, the date of completion being 31st December, 1910.
This work is remote from rail transportation, the closest point being 100 miles west of Cochrane. The prices at which the work was awarded were very high and consequently sufficient to allow contractors to build tote roads or some other means oi transportation and getting in supplies so as to immediately commence work. To the best of our knowledge no attempt has been made as yet to open this work, and the indications are that while the work, as before stated, was let at very high prices on account of the difficulties of transportation, it is now the intention of the contractors to haul their material over a portion of the Fauquier Brothers' work track, on which will be completed the present season, say about 50 miles, and haul along right of way to their own section 50 miles distant. This delay will add largely to the profits of the contracts with no commensurate advantage so far as the National Transcontinental railway is concerned, and under the circumstances I will ask that the Government arrange for the cancellation of existing contracts and ask for new bids which can undoubtedly be obtained on very much reduced schedule prices,-particularly so if it is known that the contractors will be enabled to haul their material and supplies over such portion of Fauquier Brothers' work as track has been laid upon.
That is the appeal which was- made to my right hon. friend in writing by the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and it was an appeal that ought to have received instant attention at his hands. Does the report say that the right hon. gentleman replied to this letter, or acted upon it? I ask my right hon. friend to tell the House, in justice to himself, and in justice to this country, of the Government of Which he was then leader: did he reply to that letter, or do aught to prevent the loss of that money to the country, or did he sit quiescent ? Did he do nothing more than turn the letter over to the Hon. 8. N. Parent, the chief commissioner, from whom he received a reply which was certainly not logical, certainly not reasonable, and certainly not in accordance with business principles ? Nothing was done; the contract was in default, and under its own terms could have been cancelled; the work had not been commenced within the proper time, and it was impossible to finish it within the time fixed for completion. That being the case, outside of the charge of the hon. member for South Renfrew that this commission was a partisan commission, no other conclusion is to be derived from this letter and from my right hon. friend's silence than that he sat quiet and winked at a contractor who was using the leverage he obtained through, his
friendliness with the Government to make a profit of $740,000 out of that contract without turning a spade or risking a cent himself. This is a part of the responsibility that my right hon. friend as leader of the Opposition has to bear in connection with this matter. I might enunciate other matters which are referred to in the report in detail, but they are based upon evidence which speaks for itself. I am referring to these in particular in order to point out that when the right hon. gentleman stands up to vote for this resolution he will be doing a little bit more than attempting to substantiate the assertion that the commissioners who ascertained those facts, who found that letter and published it to Canada and to the world, did so because of their being political partisans. My right hon. friend will have to explain that transaction; the fact that he stands up and votes for this resolution will not be sufficient, in the eyes of this House and of the people of this country, to justify what may at least be characterized as an omission on his part of very serious moment, which visited a very heavy loss upon the people of this country.
It is stated as one of the findings of this commission that an amount of $40,000,000 has been wasted, and the reasons why this assertion is made, together with the amounts in detail, are included in the report and are supported by the evidence and exhibits which are submitted. $40,000,000 has been wasted, exclusive of the $35,000,000 which it cost to build the Quebec-Moncton section of the road, the rails of which are now rusting and overgrown with weeds and trees: $75,000,000 lost between 1904 and 1914 by political blundering and political mismanagement so great as to shock the conscience of the commercial world. And yet my right hon. friend has nothing to say even when I implore him-as no doubt he has been implored before-to rise in his place and at any rate disclaim any responsibility in connection with the matters so fully and cogently set forth in this letter with regard to the Davis contract.
I want to ask what the Liberal party, the alleged party of progress, is going to do about this matter? They are confronted with this appalling loss to the country of $75,000,000, the loss of which is attributable to misrepresentation of the circumstances from the beginning, to crass ignorance, and to a long course of extravagance and wasteful expenditure, to dishonesty and fraud connived at, concurred in, and concealed by


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, there are many remarkable features to this debate and to the occasion of it, but the longer the debate continues the more strongly the feature is emphasized that a government and a party are being condemned for having done a work well. I think this is the first time that I have happened to hear criticism advanced from that standpoint. I have heard and read on many occasions charges that a government has completed a work inefficiently and that, as a part of the purpose of that inefficiency, there was an improper appropriation of public money. This debate, based on this report, is almost unique in that every word and line of the report, and every word of the debate, has emphasized the idea that Canada has received at the hands of the late Government a great constructive enterprise of the highest possible standard and that in the construction of that enterprise there is no suggestion that a dollar of the people's money went to private or party interests. It will be within the memory of the members of the House that only a few days ago the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), brought up the instance of a piece of road -I think it was thirteen miles in length- built by the present Government, in which the country was despoiled of $26,000; and the suggestion was made-and it certainly was not refuted-that this extra expenditure had been made for the distinct purpose of influencing the result of a byelection in the locality. Contrast this record and that-over $100,000,000 of money spent and not one dollar gone to party purposes or private ends, so far as this report, or the debate upon the report, has gone to show; on the other hand, a railway thirteen miles long, and $26,000 gone straight 139
and direct to party purposes and for private benefit.


John Dowsley Reid: That is not a fact.


Frank Oliver: I can only say that the
facts were presented to us by the hon. member for Carleton.


John Dowsley Reid: And they did not lead to
that conclusion.


Frank Oliver: There was no other conclusion to arrive at, and there was no contradiction made of that conclusion.


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, yes, there was.


Frank Oliver: It will be the opportunity of the acting Minister of Railways and Canals in due course to take up that question and deal with it.


John Dowsley Reid: The facts stated by the hon. member for Carleton were not borne out. We are going to have an investigation to find out what truth there is in his statement.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: The hon. member for
York (Mr. McLeod) corroborated the statement of my hon. friend from Carleton.


Frank Oliver: I think that the statements of the hon. member for Carleton were substantially corroborated by the hon. member for York. I am willing to leave it at that. It is for the Government to make a proper investigation of the case. When the hon. member for Carleton asked that a royal commission be appointed to investigate the case, no response to his request or reply to his statement was made by the Government.


John Dowsley Reid: I may say, for the information of the hon. gentleman, that a commissioner has been appointed to hold an investigation.


Wilfrid Laurier: When?


Frank Oliver: I am very glad to hear it.


John Dowsley Reid: Only a few days ago I signed the Order in Council.


Wilfrid Laurier: Who is he?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. R. A. Pringle, K.C., has been appointed to hold an investigation. I cannot say whether the Order in Council has gone through, but I think it has. It is several days since I signed the order.


Frank Oliver: I am sure the House is very glad to hear that the minister has
seen fit to take the action which was suggested, and I wish to congratulate him upon his having done so.


John Dowsley Reid: The only difference between my action and the action of hon. gentlemen opposite is that they did not have an investigation when it was asked for several years ago in this House.


Frank Oliver: There was nothing to investigate, and the evidence contained in the report upon which the present Government has spent over $60,000 of the people's money and the hard work of two of the best and most capable men they could get, has resulted in proving that there was nothing to investigate. I am glad that the hon. gentleman has taken the action he has taken; it is undoubtedly to his credit and that of his Government. The facts as brought out in the House were a substantial warrant for such an investigation. I will leave the matter at that. We have these two instances, $100,000,000 expended on the one hand and a paltry twelve or thirteen miles of railway built on the other and the Government could not get out of it without the appointment of a royal commission.
Those of us who were in the House in 1903, and who have the good fortune to be in the House to-day, will recognize that the discussion by hon. gentlemen opposite is an echo of their attitude in 1903, when they were in Opposition. The line of thought which runs through their speeches from beginning to end is, that there should not be effective railway competition with the Canadian Pacific railway. That, and only that, is the burden of their argument. Just as in 1903 they fought the proposal of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier to give competitive railway service and development to the four western provinces -fought it from early summer until the snow flew, in the interests of railway monopoly in these provinces-so, to-day, by the use of the report of a partisan commission and by their arguments in this House, they indicate a determination that the Government now in office is prepared to break the back of the only enterprise in sight that can give these four western provinces effective railway development and competition.
I shall recall the conditions as they existed, and which called imperatively for the inception of this enterprise. We had had railways in those Western provinces from 1886, and it was then 1903. For seventeen years therefore we had railway facilities in the western provinces, but with these railway facilities we had a condition of railway monopoly; and the facts are evidence that there could not be satis-

factory progress and development under such monopoly. The belief of the people in the western country at that time was that they were farming on shares with the Canadian Pacific railway; they had one bushel and the railway had the other. It is true that there was plenty of railway accommodation for the people who were there to use it, but so long as there was railway monopoly, so long was there not going to be any more people to use railways. I shall give the House some illuminating figures from the report of the Department of the Interior. In 1878, when the Conservatives came to power, there were 1,788 homestead entries in the three prairie provinces of the West. In 1886 the Canadian Pacific railway was completed, so that we had railway facilities, and in 1890 the railroads to Prince Albert and Edmonton were Ibuilt. In 1896 the total homestead entries in these prairie provinces was 1,857, an increase from 1878 to 1896 of less than 100, under a condition of Tailway monopoly, and I must admit also on account of bad administration on the part of the Government then in power in regard to the public lands, and in regard to tariff matters. With the access to power of the Liberal Government; with the change in the land policy, in the immigration policy, and in the tariff policy, there came an increase of settlement, so that in 1901 the homestead entries amounted to 8,167, a substantial increase, although the system of railway monopoly still prevailed. It will be remembered, however, that there was, owing to the action of the then Liberal Government, a substantial decrease in railway rates, as a result of the arrangement made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company on the construction of the Crowsnest Pass railway. Lower railway rates, better land administration, lighter tariff burdens on the people, general confidence in the good will and in the good faith of the Liberal Government, had induced increased settlement on the prairies. The increase became greater from year to year, until in the year 1903 there were 31,383 homestead entries in the three prairie provinces. The country, which had stood still from 1876 to 1896, had now clearly taken a start in progress. The Government of the day realized the position; they saw that something must be done to' take care of that enormous increase of homesteaders; and the enormous continued increase it was reasonable to expect would

take place. It was because of appreciation by the Government of the day of the necessity of meeting that condition of progress, which had arisen 'because of their policy, that, looking to the right and looking to the left, they saw that there must be railway development in the western country, and they saw that if that railway development was to be effective it must be competitive development. And so the 'Grand Trunk Pacific arrangement was made. That was the reason for it, and the purpose of it was competitive railway development in the three prairie provinces. As such, it was apposed by the Conservative party of that day, led by the present Prime Minister, .and fought in this Parliament, as I have said, on every conceivable ground, from early in the month of July until the snow flew.
So successful was the Opposition in delaying the signing of the agreement that the favourable condition of the money market existing in 1903, upon which the Government and the country depended for carrying the project through on the terms agreed upon, had changed, and in 1904 it became necessary to bring in a new agreement less favourable to the country, absolutely because of the work of the Opposition of that day in fighting in the interest of railway monopoly in the prairie provinces, just as hon. gentlemen opposite are fighting to-day for monopoly in railway transportation in those provinces. Just as soon as the people of the world saw that there was to be railway development and railway competition in the West, they were satisfied to take chances, and they rushed in; and the homestead entries continued to increase year by year until in 1911 they reached a total of 44,479, because of the confidence of the people in the good faith of the Government of the day to ensure and secure railway competition and railway development throughout those three prairie provinces, with access to the Pacific coast. As soon as hon. gentlemen opposite came into power, they at once showed their continued hostility to the Grand Trunk Pacific project. They appointed their investigating commission. They insisted upon the degrading of that part of the road under their control. I am bound to conclude that the administration of the lands has not been as satisfactory under the present Government as under the late Government, and that, generally speaking, there is not on the part of the people that faith in the good will of the present Government 139i
towards the settlers that there was in that of the late Government. As a result we find a decrease in the homestead entries. Whereas in 1911 there were 44,479 homestead entries, in 1913 there were only 33,699, a decrease of over 10,000 in two years.
It might be interesting to follow the course of land sales in the prairie provinces. In 1893 the different railway companies who had been given grants of land sold
120.000	acres at $2.93 an acre. In 1895 they sold 114,000 acres at $1.94 an acre. That was what land was worth in those provinces at that time. In 1903, corresponding with i e natural increase in homestead entries, there was an enormous increase in land sales, so that 4,229,000 acres of land were sold at $3.46 an acre. In 1911, showing how the confidence of the people in the value of land in the prairie provinces kept up so long as they were assured of competitive railway development, there were sold 1,406,000 acres at $13.59 an acre; in 1912, there were sold
1.329.000	acres at $13.70 an acre; and in 1913, as a result of the second year of the present Administration there were sold 707,000 acres at $13.95 an acre, showing that, while the price of the land has not gone down, the demand for purchased land has decreased just as the demand for homesteads has decreased.
I need not enlarge on the point that in a country of such stupendous distances as Canada, the question of transportation must naturally be a great question. Production is first; transportation is second; but production cannot succeed without transportation on satisfactory terms. Therefore it is not necessary to argue that if we are going to make the prairies of the West produce, we must secure transportation of the products to the markets of the worid. On that point let me dwell for a moment as to the amount of production present and prospective, resulting from transportation facilities. In 1901, only about 2,500,000 acres of land were under cultivation in the prairie provinces. In 1911 we had something less than
18,000,000 acres under cultivation, and there has been practically no increase since. At the present time we have something less than 18,000,000 acres of land under cultiva-. tion alienated in those provinces. We have of the land of the people of this country not less than 150,000,000 acres. This 150,000,000 acres is all surveyed and largely selected land; so we are bound to assume that we have 150,000,000 acres of land in the prairie provinces capable of development, and of

that amount we have only 18,000,000 acres actually under cultivation. From that acreage we have taken about 450,000,000 bushels of grain. We have furnished traffic for many thousands of miles of railroad,, and it has not been unprofitable traffic. If we have such results from 18,000,000 acres, surely the possibility of bringing under production the balance of the 150,000,000 acres should be an inspiration to the members of the Parliament of Canada in regard to projects of transportation. We cannot bring the balance of the 150,000,000 acres under cultivation unless we can market the products of what we have under cultivation under favourable conditions as to transportation facilities.
Besides the 150,000,000 acres we have disposed of, we have at least another 150,000,000 acres capable of being made productive. We are not at the end of our possibilities when we have developed 150,000,000 acres; we are then only half way to our limit of development. I will admit that the bringing under cultivation of the second 150,000,000 acres of which I speak is a much more serious matter than of the 150,000,000 acres of prairies that has been alienated. But still, as to soil, as to climate, as to conditions, it is all capable of reclamation and development. And yet our friends opposite are attempting to alarm Canada because there has been a large expenditure in developing transportation facilities under conditions that are an absolute necessity if that development is even measurably to be * achieved.
I am not going to disregard or ignore the necessities of the treasury; I should be sorry to advocate waste in any degree. But if it is true that the Transcontinental railway has cost, or will cost $200,000,000, yet if by that expenditure we are able to do for the development of the Prairie West what could not otherwise be done, then it is a wise and economical expenditure, beyond any question. Hon. gentlemen opposite are spending money for transportation facilities. They are spending $50,000,000 in deepening the Welland canal. Will they count the interest on that from to-day until some time in the distant future for the purpose of alarming the people of Canada as to the cost of that great work? Surely not. Yet, for whom is the Welland canal being deepened? It is being deepened for the glory of Canada, but, in some degree, we hope, for the benefit of Canada. But it is being deepened just as much for the benefit of the transportation and production interests of the United States as for those of

Canada. Surely, these hon. gentlemen who glory in the fact that they are spending $50,000,000 in a transportation enterprise which will be at least half for the benefit of that country with whom they do not wish truck or trade, are not the people to complain because there is an expenditure of $50,000,000, or $100,000,000 if you like, in the construction of a line of railway that is located solely within Canada for the benefit of Canada, not only in the production of its wheat fields of the prairies, but just as much for the development of its trade passing through its own ports on the Atlantic seaboard. And without such a road there could not be adequate development either of the prairie wheatfields or of the Atlantic ports.
I have said that the increase of production in the West depends upon the possibilities of production-upon the conditions of soil and climate, the cost of the land, the cost of living of the man who works the land, and the cost of the machinery with which he works the land. But it depends also upon the cost of getting the product to the market. Now, in regard to that question of marketing the crop, before the Grand Trunk Pacific project was instituted, and since that time, there has been almost every year in the West what is called a grain blockade. Our grain, on being harvested, (was sent forward to the head of the lakes, and as much of dt as could be transported across the lakes during the same summer was so transported. The rest remained on the farmers' hands or dealers' hands or in the terminal elevators until the following spring. That means that under conditions that then prevailed it was the business of every	farmer to	get	his grain out	in thefall.	By doing	so	he not only	savedinterest on money he may have owed, but he saved the carrying charges on that grain until	the next	spring. The elevatorcharges are one cent a bushel a month, so upon every bushel of grain that was held in the country there was 'a loss to the producer of a minimum of five cents. But besides that, in the rush, the attempt of every man to get his grain marketed in order to save that five cents, there ensued year	after year	a	condition of	grain
blockade which increased the loss, because the buyer, unable to get the grain he had brought forwarded to the lakes because of the shortage of cars, had to discount the possibility, and hammered down the price

accordingly.	So that at the least, the
farmer who did not get hisi grain forwarded in the fall lost five cents a bushel for storage charges, and if he were compelled to sell he possibly lost five cents more on account of the condition of blockade which existed before the close of navigation. Suppose a crop of 100,000,000 bushels, of iwhich 50,000,000 could go forward in the fall of its growth, and figuring that 50,000,000 must remain behind, there would be an absolute loss of 5 cents a bushel on the second 50,000,000 bushels, with a possible loss of 10 cents a bushel on the whole or a part, according to the more or less serious character of the blockade. So there would be a minimum loss of $2,500,000, and a possible loss of $5,000,000 or even more-as we certainly had in the year 1911. Now, there is only one cure for that condition, and that is to have railway transportation from the wheat fields to the ocean ports all the year round. But, you may say: This last year you had not any grain blockade, you had the largest crop you ever had, and yet the railways were able to handle the crop, and it went forward without any blockade to the lake ports, in fact three-fourths of the marketable crop found the world's market before the close of navigation. If those conditions were repeated every year there would be no need of talking about a blockade. The conditions were exceptional last year; the crop was early, with light straw, easily threshed, there were favourable weather conditions and the railroads were more fully equipped than they ever had been before. But, it will be said, another year may be just as good; why do you argue that there must be rail communication with the western wheat fields all the year round when by existing facilities you get your grain out without the difficulty and loss of blockade? Here is the condition that we face now. Our production has increa"ed greatly; our export last fall was 90,000,000 bushels, the larger part of which, was thrown on the Liverpool market within three months, the result being that the price of Manitoba wheat was hammered down from three to six cents a bushel. So that we now have a new condition; we have overcome a blockade, but we are as badly off as ever, for with our enormous production thrown on the market at one time the price is hammered down and the loss is practically the same as in the case of the grain blockade. There is the condition: we lose by reason of storage if the grain does not go forward; we lose by reason of blockade if the car supply
is short, and we lose toy reason of the depression of the world's prices if every condition is favourable. Again I say there is only one remedy for this, and that is rail communication from the wheat fields to the Atlantic ports,'so that the grain can be sent forward as the market demands, and so that there shall be no grain blockade, no payment for winter storage, and no slackening of the world's prices. Say we shipped
90,000,000 bushels last fall, and that one-third of it went forward without injuring the world's price; I have it on the best of authority that on at least 60,000,000 bushels of our crop of last year the farmers-because it all comes back to them-lost from four to six cents a bushel because of that wheat being thrown on the Liverpool market within a very short space of time. That is to say, the farmers of the West, in this year of hard times, lost $3,000,000 in cold cash because of that condition. It was to overcome that condition that this Grand Trunk Pacific enterprise was placed before the people of Canada as it was, in the year that it was, and with all the needs and the urgent conditions that were set out in the speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister of that day. Every word and every line of that speech has been justified and more than justified by the events since that time.
We had a line of railway between the wheatfields and the Canadian Atlantic ports, but it was a matter of railroad knowledge and it was a matter of business knowledge that that railroad was so constructed that it could not handle the crop at a profit to both the railroad and the producer. The distance was too great, the grades were too heavy, the cutvos were too short. If that crop of the West is to be handled as it should be handled, by rail carriage all the year round, then it must be by some other railroad built on. the shortest line from point to point, with the .lowest .possible gradients and the slightest possible curves, so that there shall be the least possible distance to cover and the lowest possible cost in covering that distance. It may be that, after all has been done, the purpose .still may not be achieved, but it was the business of the Government of that day, or of any day, to use the resources of the Dominion of Canada according to their best judgment, in whatever amount was necessary, in order to achieve that result. My hon. friend who has just spoken, and the same assertion has been made and repeated by other speakers, said that this project was presented to the House before therf

was sufficient information with regard to the country that it was to go through. I can only say that the last rail has been laid between Winnipeg and Moncton and it is a fact that the distance of the rails between those cities is the shortest that oould be obtained. It is a fact that between Winnipeg and Quebec there is not a gradient over the maximum allowed by the agreement, except where this Government, for the purpose of destroying the object of the road, has deliberately and contrary to the agreement with the Grand Trunk, put in such grades.
I am under the impression that there is a general belief that the late Government set out to do the impossible when they undertook to build a line from the wheat-fields to the Atlantic ports that would compete with the lines to United States ports, and that such a line would be impracticable for the economic carriage of grain. Just on that point, allow me to give the figures. From Winnipeg to St. John by way of the National Transcontinental to Chipman, allowing seventy-five miles from there to St. John, which is the actual rail distance, the distance is 1,825 miles. . It is eighty miles shorter than the Canadian Pacific railway route from Winnipeg to St. John; sixty miles longer than the Canadian Pacific railway route from Winnipeg by way of Montreal to Boston, one hundred miles longer than the Grand Trunk and Grand Trunk Pacific railway routes by way of Winnipeg, Cochrane and Montreal to Portland, fifteen miles longer than via the Grand Trunk to Montreal and New York. While it is true that there is some disadvantage as far as the route to Portland, is concerned, the Transcontinental is still within competitive range.; on a distance of 1,800 miles, one hundred miles more is not such a tremendous difference. When in addition to the facts as to mileage you take into consideration that on every mile of the 1,825 miles of the Transcontinental a load can be hauled at an absolutely minimum cost, and that it is the only road of that class that reaches any of these ports. I think it will be admitted that so far as competition is concerned, we have certainly provided an efficiently competitive railway for the carriage of grain from Winnipeg to St. John able to compete with the route to any American port, including Portland.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank Oliver: When the House rose at six o'clock. Mr. Speaker, I was giving the distances over the eastern section of the National Transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to St. John and comparing them with the distances from Winnipeg to United States ports by way of the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk railway. From that statement it was apparent that the distance was somewhat greater to St. John than to Portland, Boston and New York. It is a fact, however, that a moderate difference in distance does not control the direction of freight traffic, as can be seen in the ease of the Canadian Pacific railway which hauls wheat from Fort William to St. John although the route is 140 miles farther than the haul would be from Fort William through Montreal to Boston. It shows that railways are not governed absolutely by actual distances. However, leaving that aside, it must be apparent that the distance is greater to St. John than to the United States ports of New York, Boston and Portland. If it were possible to bring Portland, Boston or New York under Canadian jurisdiction, to make these ports a part of the Dominion of Canada, by any means, or at any reasonable expense, that would be one thing that might be done. Another thing that might be done would be to leave matters as they are- leave our Maritime ports and provinces without competitive railway connection with the prairie provinces, practically treating these provinces and ports as though they were not a part of the business life and interest of the Dominion ; leave them, as they have been ever since they have been a part of the Dominion, so to speak, on the sidetrack. We may suppose that one of these things might have been done. Failing the possibility of making the United States ports Canadian ports, we take issue with the position of our friends on the other side of the House, as set forth by their statement at the inception of the scheme, and quite as strongly in the debate which has been proceeding in the House during the past few days in support of the specific declaration by their duly appointed commissioners that the section of the National Transcontinental railway east of Quebec should not have been built and that it was a waste of public money to build it. We support and justify the position of the late Government which used the resources of this country to build a line of railway from Winnipeg, by way of Quebec, to St. John

by the shortest possible route and with the best advantages as to grades, curves and improvements in transportation generally. To do that costs money; it costs a great deal of money, but I submit it is worth something to the Dominion of Canada to have our winter ports and our Maritime provinces linked up practicably and profitably by railway connection with the prairie provinces and the Pacific coast. As to the amount of money that has been spent, let it be great or let it be small; if Canada is to be a country all parts must be properly connected so that business can be transacted by one part with the other. By giving railway transportation, as has been done bv the construction of the Transcontinental railway, the industries of the Maritime provinces are given access to the markets of the prairies just as the producers of the prairies are given access to the markets of the world through the Martime provinces' ports by the construction of this line on the scale on which it has been constructed, and these provinces, for the first time in the history of the Dominion have become, or will become, part and parcel of the general business of the country.
If it is established, as it is, that we have provided an efficiently competitive route through our own winter ports, as compared with competitive winter ports in the United States, the question arises: can such a route, having been constructed, compete efficiently and satisfactorily with water transportation as it exists at the present time ? I know it is taken for granted that it cannot. It is assumed that there is no possibility of rail transportation competing with wateT transportation as we have it at the present time. This is a matter that will bear some consideration, and first let me disabuse the House of the idea that we get the benefit of the present system of water, or water and rail, transportation as a free gift. Take Winnipeg as the starting point. I find that it costs six cents to take a bushel of wheat from Winnipeg to Fort William. May I say right here, that that is the standard rate upon which all the grain export rates over the whole of the railway systems in the three prairie provinces is based. We get our wheat from Winnipeg for six cents. It costs three-quarters of a cent to clean it, elevate it and store it for fifteen days. It then costs anywhere from two to six cents to take it across the lakes from Fort William to Midland. Six cents, of course, is an abnormal rate. That was the highest point reached in 1912, which was a year
of high rates; but let us assume that the rates will range from two to six cents. It may have gone below two cents at some time, but that is rare, and the lower rate need not be considered seriously. At Midland there is another elevator charge of one-half cent, and then there is the rail charge from Midland to Montreal, varying from three to four and one-half cents including the elevator charge at Montreal. It costs us twelve and one-quarter cents to land a bushel of grain from Winnipeg in Montreal. Twelve and one-quarter cents is the minimum charge with the possible maximum of seventeen and three-quarter cents. The recent arrangement in regard to transportation. on the upper lakes tendts to insure that the purely lake rate will increase rather than diminish.


John Dowsley Reid: Why?


Frank Oliver: Because of the shipping
combine. The combine is formed to enable them to raise the rates, and if they do not raise the rates their purpose would, fail.


John Dowsley Reid: Another company is being
formed.


Frank Oliver: This company having raised the rates abnormally, an opening is given for another company to be formed, but the purpose of this shipping combine on the lakes is to raise the rates to the highest posssible limit, and, therefore, we must look, not for a reduction of the lake rates under present conditions, but rather for an increase. We land our wheat at Montreal, from Winnipeg, at from twelve and one-quarter cents to seventeen and one-quarter cents. I am speaking now about the use of the winter ports, and, therefore we must add five months storage, on that part of the crop that does not go forward in the season of its production; that is, the part of the crop that would be'available for transportation by the all-rail winter route to St. John. We have a minimum rate therefore of twelve and one-quarte'- cents carriage and five cents storage, or seventeen and one-quarter cents on all the wheat that does not come forward in the season of its production. As to the all-rail haul to St. John, the standard rate from Winnipeg to Fort William for the 419 miles is six cents a bushel. I have heard some very finely drawn calculations as to the cost of transportation, but I will take this rate of six cents for the 419 miles, which is the standard rate for the wheat transportation in the West.


John Dowsley Reid: Is six cents the rate paid last season to the Grand Trunk Pacific and to the Canadian Pacific railway and to the Canadian Northern railway?


Frank Oliver: Yes, ftiat is the rate that was fixed.


John Dowsley Reid: By the three companies?


Frank Oliver: It was fixed by an arrangement between the Government and the Canadian Pacific railway in 1897, and it has prevailed ever since.


John Dowsley Reid: It is a uniform rate?


Frank Oliver: Yes, and on that rate the transportation of wheat throughout the West is based* It is not always the same rate per mile, because as the distance increases the rate decreases, but it is the basis. The distance from Winnipeg to St. John is four and one-third times as great as the distance from Winnipeg to Fort William, and, therefore, at the very most, the charge for hauling grain that distance should not be more than four and one-third times more than the rate from Winnipeg to Fort William, or twenty-six cents per bushel. The rate from Winnipeg to Fort William was fixed when the railroad from Winnipeg to Fort William was in its original low-class condition; the Canadian Pacific railway had not then been improved and double-tracked. That was then considered to be a profitable rate for haul over a railroad that was what must be called a low standard road; the original Canadian Pacific line from Fort William to Winnipeg was built on the standard of that day, when a one per cent grade was considered to be a very good grade.


Mr. WRIGHT:: In what way was the
Grand Trunk Pacific brought into any arrangement to charge a particular rate from Winnipeg? I understood that when the Grand Trunk' Pacific was constructed, the rate would be reduced. Is the Grand TruYik Pacific in any way bound to that fixed rate by an arrangement between the late Government and the Canadian Pacific railway?


Frank Oliver: Certainly not; but as my hon. friend knows, all the railway companies are now under the control of the Railway Commission, and they, of course, naturally will charge all that the Railway Commission will let them charge. This original arrangement, between the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian Government, with regard to the rate from Winnipeg to Fort William, 
has been approved by the Railway Commission, and therefore the railways competing over that route charge the same rate.


John Dowsley Reid: Then there is no competition at all.


Frank Oliver: There is no competition
at all in rates.


John Dowsley Reid: But they could charge a lower rate if they wanted to?


Frank Oliver: Certainly they could, but we are not to assume that they want to, or that they ever will want to; that would be expecting too much. The Grand Trunk Pacific will charge whatever the Railway Commission will let them charge. We instituted a Railway Commission for the purpose of placing a control upon rates, so that they may be fixed with due regard for the investment in the enterprise, and the interest of the customers of the road.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: Does the hon. member say that the Railway Commission had nothing to do with fixing the rate on wheat between Winnipeg and Fort William?


Frank Oliver: That rate was fixed long before the Railway Commission came into existence, but the Railway Commission has approved of that rate as it stands to-day. To-morrow, the Railway Commission may reduce it, but they have not seen fit to do so. At all events, it was possible to carry grain for that distance over the kind of low-grade road that existed when the rate was put into effect. There is evidence that a railroad of the standard of the Grand Trunk Pacific, as specified in the contract between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Government, has a capacity practically double that of a road of the standard of the Canadian Pacific railway between Winnipeg and Fort William, at the time this arrangement was made. The Grand Trunk Pacific could haul wheat 419 miles on their line between Winnipeg and Fort William for one-half the cost the Canadian Pacific railway could haul it over their line from Winnipeg to Fort William, with the Canadian Pacific railway line in the condition it was when the arrangement was made.


John Dowsley Reid: Why do they not do it and show to the people that they are willing to give low rates?


Frank Oliver: I have been pointing out that they will do so only when they are compelled to.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood you had made an arrangement with them that they would be compelled to carry grain at the cheapest rate.


Frank Oliver: We made an arrangement with them to build a road for them over which they would be able to carry at the cheapest possible rate, but at the same time we established the Railway Commission with authority to control rates, having due regard to the interests of both parties to the transaction. We do not expect the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, any more than the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, or any other railway company, to carry at any less rate than the Railway Commission will compel them to.
We have built them a railroad that will enable them to carry traffic at half the actual cost of transportation that it would have cost the Canadian Pacific railway for the distance of 419 miles at the time the Canadian Pacific railway agreed to carry at 6 cents a bushel. I maintain that, with the road of the standard that is being constructed, if 6 cents a bushel was a fair rate from Winnipeg to Fort William, over the Canadian Pacific railway as it was then constructed, half that rate for each section of 419 miles would be a fair rate between Winnipeg and St. John. In other words 26 cents would be the same rate; the half of 26 cents or 13 cents would be an equally good grain rate, compared with what the Canadian Pacific railway has been and is receiving. I am not suggesting that the Grand Trunk Pacific should be compelled to carry at that rate. It is a theoretical rate. In my judgment, however, it would be fair that the Railway Commission should compel the Grand Trunk Pacific to carry grain from Winnipeg to St. John over such a line, as we promised to give, and as we gave them as long as we were there to do so, at one-third less than the rate that I have mentioned. That is to say, according to the calculation I have made and the figures I have given, the Grand Trunk Pacific can carry and should be compelled to carry grain from Winnipeg to St. John, if everything be worked out as it should be, for 17J cents a bushel as against a lakeland-rail route, with winter storage, of 17i cents a bushel as at present existing. I think I have absolutely proved that, if this railroad be finished as we intended to finish it, we shall have thereby established at any rate a competitive route by which it should not cost more to carry grain in
the winter time than the minimum cost to hold grain during the winter and transport it by lake and rail in the summer; but by having that all-rail route at that rate, we have a means of regulating the charges by way of lake and rail as they exist at present. I gave the minimum rate; but the maximum rate without storage by lake and rail is equal to the all-rail rate to St. John that I have given.


John Dowsley Reid: Do I understand that
the 6-cent rate charged by the Canadian Pacific railway is fixed, so that it cannot be changed by the Board of Railway Commissioners?


Frank Oliver: No, the commissioners
could cut that down. They certainly could do so so far as the Grand Trunk is concerned.


John Dowsley Reid: I mean the Canadian Pacific railway.


Frank Oliver: I do not know whether
they could do so in the case of the Canadian Pacific railway, because a bargain was made.


John Dowsley Reid: It is the first time I have heard that point raised.


Frank Oliver: But I am sure that,
whatever rate the Grand Trunk charges, it is absolutely under the control of the Railway Commission. If we can get that all-the-year-round rate, we are absolutely relieved from the two conditions of grain blockade in the fall and of slump on the Liverpool market by reason of the grain being rushed forward in a very short period. As I have pointed out, that means on the present crop of the Northwest anywhere from $2,500,000 to $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 in the year. Of course, as the crop increases, that benefit will increase correspondingly. The present Government is well aware of the injurious conditions that have existed in past times because of grain blockades. It is because of these grain blockades that they propose to establish interior terminal elevators. They have now under contract three of those elevators at a cost of $4,500,000, hoping thereby to minimize to some extent the injury resulting from the annual recurrent grain blockade. We say that if they will complete the Grand Trunk Pacific as it was intended to be completed, the question of blockade will be solved without the erection of interior terminal elevators, and the still more serious question of the depression of the Liverpool market by

throwing our crop on that market in a month or two will be -done away with also. The construction of that railway over the route over which it is .being constructed and under the physical conditions under which it was to be constructed, is the solution of the problem of the export of Canada's grain so far as that problem can be solved by the action of this Government. Whatever derogates from those conditions in lengthening the road, in degrading it, in militating against the abilitity of the company to finance, is all a blow at the welfare, progress and prosperity of our western prairie country and of this whole Dominion, because I think it is borne in the mind of every man in Canada to-day that it is upon the next crop in the Northwest and upon the prices that shall be received for that crop that this country depends for help in its present condition.


Mr. MORPHY:: Will the hon. gentleman say, whether or not, in his opinion, if that road were constructed for $100,000,000 less than it is costing, that would enable the road to give better freight rates?


Frank Oliver: Most undoubtedly. If the road could be built of the same standard as it is now and of the .same length for $100,000,000 less, undoubtedly-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Or for $40,000,000 less?


Frank Oliver: Yes, for $10,000,000 less, it would make it possible for the Railway Commission to insist upon a correspondingly lower freight rate. We admit that freely; but, of course, we also maintain that, no matter how cheaply the road is built, unless it has the short mileage and the low grade, it cannot do. the business at the price. We have that condition illustrated right alongside the Grand Trunk railway to-day; we have the Canadian Northern railway, built, I am sure the House will agree, cheaply enough, built so as to fake advantage of velocity grades wherever they could be put in, and certainly not restricted as to length of line or curves. But I have yet to learn that the problem of transportation of Canada's grain crop is going to be solved by the Canadian Northern railway; nor am I informed that the country is going to have the benefit of the operation of this line without a very serious cost.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am informed that the Canadian Northern railway took out nearly
40,000,000 bushels of the Canadian grain

crop last year at the current rate. You do not deny that?


Frank Oliver: No.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There was no kick about the rates?


Frank Oliver: No.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Then it is helping.


Frank Oliver: It is certainly helping. We are not finding fault with the Canadian Northern railway, nor with what it has done as a western road lin bringing grain to the head of the lakes. But I have been trying for an hour and a half to point out to the House that it was very far from . being the solution of our problem of grain marketing; that we had to have a better condition than prevails to-day between the head of the lakes and the ocean or we could not get that return on our labour,
' that profit on our production that would enable us to increase our production and thereby make Canada great and prosperous. I am showing now that in that part of the Canadian Northern railway which is paralleling the Grand Trunk railway you have the very condition that hon. gentlemen opposite have insisted should prevail on the Grand Trunk railway. But they do not find the results that we would like to see on the Grand Trunk railway, nor do they find the financial advantage that they would seem to insist.would accrue provided we had a low-class road instead of a high-class road.
Now, I may point out that there is not only the matter of transportation of grain during the winter that is giving us an all-the-year-round outlet, but there is the matter of transportation of grain in the summer. I find that the mileage on the Transcontinental, between Winnipeg and Quebec which is a tide-water port, is only 1,344 miles. Reckoning on the same basis as I gave for the rates from Winnipeg to St. John, I take it that from Winnipeg to Quebec all-rail would be 20 cents a bushel. But if that were reduced by one-third, as I claim it might be, we should have a 13} all-rail all-the-year-round rate between Winnipeg and Quebec, as against a summer lake-and-rail rate as at present between Fort William and Montreal of a minimum of 12} and a maximum of 17 cents. Now, I do not *or a moment expect that grain will be hauled from the prairies to Quebec during the season of export in the fall. When the rush of grain is on, it will no doubt be taken to the head of lake Superior, as much of it

as can be sent forward. But we will have an all-rail route to Quebec that will be able to regulate and control and keep within reasonable limits the rates across' the lakes; and the experience of the last three or four years is that we need sonre such means of keeping down these lake-and-rail charges. If there were no means of controlling these lake charges, as I have said, they could be put up as high as 17 cents.


John Dowsley Reid: I think that was only
in the fall of the year.
Mr. OLIVER. Certainly. But we do not want to be up against a proposition like that if it can be avoided. Just as the New York Central railway from Buffalo to New York, running alongside the Erie canal and the Hudson river, has an important effect not only in actually transporting the grain but in keeping the rates at a reasonable figure, so, I maintain, the Transcontinental between Winnipeg and Quebec will have an important and salutary effect in controlling the summer export rates of grain, and just as, I believe, the railroad from Winnipeg to St. John will have a beneficial effect in providing a winter outlet at reasonable rates. Thus, we have the advantage of this road both in summer and in winter. And, as I have said, the project if carried to completion is an important solution of the great problem that has to be faced by the producers of the West, a problem that, unless it can be solved, must certainly prevent the full development of this country. Our competitors in the wheat markets of the world are many, but particularly Argentina and Australia, two great countries where there are vast areas of unoccupied land available to be brought under wheat production. Unless we can land our product at a figure to compete, we shall be put out of business so far as producing wheat for the world's market is concerned. We must realize that we are not the only people producing wheat in the world; we are not the only country that has cheap land and lots of it. There is a life-and-death competition between the Argentine, Australia and Canada, and unless Canada is prepared to get into the market on more favourable terms, utilizing her shorter distance from the market, the other countries will take the market and we shall have to consider ourselves out of it.
I wish to make some allusion to the question of capitalization. Admitting that we have the short distance, admitting that we have a high-class road, it is nevertheless the fact that if we have excessive overcapitalization, we cannot get the full benefit of the character of road that we have built.
It has been the pleasing task of out friends on the other side to declare broadly and persistently and to attempt to prove that the capital charges to be carried by the Transcontinental are such as to preclude competitive carriage of wheat. The fact i3 this: the Transcontinental from Winnipeg to St. John is to cost, everything paid, interest charges and all, a trifle over $100,000 a mile, upon which interest is to be paid at 3 per cent. That is the only capital charge against the road that has to be considered when the rates are being fixed by the Railway Commission'-a Charge of $3,000 a mile. The Union Pacific has a capital charge of $150,000 a mile, and they pay on that captial charge an interest of say 4 per cent. In other words, while the Transcontinental from Winnipeg to St. John will carry $3,000 a mile capital charge, the Union Pacific carries $6,000 a mile capital charge. The Southern Pacific, with a capitalization of $140,000 a mile, at 4 per cent will carry $5,600 a mile capital charge. The Canadian Pacific is carrying a capital charge of $46,000 a mile. Canadian' Pacific stock is worth over 200; in other words, the Canadian Pacific is paying dividends on a capital charge of over $100,000 a mile at a rate not less than 4 per cent. It may be said that what other roads can do, under less favourable conditions the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, operating the Transcontinental, will not be able to do, and that our country will not progress sufficiently to give the business that will enable the company to make this interest. I am sorry that our friends have iso little confidence in the country or in the success of their policy and administration as to believe that there is not to be sufficient increase of business to provide traffic for this road. I have confidence enough in the country to believe that, given a proper .administration of the country's business and a proper completion and administration of this road, it will not be a question of getting enough traffic for the road to carry, but it will be a question of the road carrying the traffic that will be there for it. One would imagine from the attitude of our friends on the other side that no further development i3 to be expected in this country. I remember very well that after the Canadian Pacific railway was completed it was broadly declared that there was no need for any more railroads in Canada-that the development

of the country was completed. In fact, I heard my friend the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) the other night say that it was gross impertinence and mere vanity on the part of the Liberal, Government that they undertook to 'build a transcontinental line at all. I find that there has been some increase in railroad business in Canada. In 1903 the railroads carried 47,000,000 tons of freight and in 1913 they carried 106,000,000 tons of freight. In 1903 they carried 22,000,000 passengers and in 1913 they carried 46,000,000 passengers. I have every confidence in the belief that the limit of the growth of this country has not been reached and that the maximum amount of business to be done by our railroads has not been attained. I think there is every reason to believe that the Grand Trunk Pacific will find the business to handle and will be able to do the business at a profit to the company, and to the benefit of the country.
In looking through the blue-books to-day I ran across some figures in the matter of comparative cost that I am going to intrude into this discussion, merely for the purpose of information. I find that 18,000,000 acres of land were given as a part of the aid to the first great transcontinental railroad built by the Dominion, and that 11,000,000 acres of that land have been sold, bringing a return of $75,000,000. The company still have
7,300,000	acres to sell, and at the rate at which land has sold for the past three years, about $13 an acre, their 7,000,000 acres of selected land ought to be worth to them $91,000,000. So that when it comes to a question of aid to railways, our hon. friends on the other side can, I think, claim the merit of liberality even beyond what they are willing to concede to us in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific.
I will deal only for a short time with some of the allusions that have been made by our friends on the other side. I wish to speak particularly of this assertion to be found on page 24 of the report of Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton:
We unhesitatingly find that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, instead of discountenancing, has rather encouraged this inexperienced commission in its extravagant expenditure on this railway.
That is a very serious charge to make against a responsible business enterprise. Instead of bearing out that assertion, the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) to-day drew the attention of the House to a communication addressed by Mr. Hays, president of the Grand Trunk Pacific, to the then Government, asking that a certain con-
IMr. Oliver. ]
tract be relet, because by the reletting a saving might be effected. In face of that this commission dares to put in the very report which conveyed that information this assertion against the good faith and business ability of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. I find also that the Grand Trunk Pacific as a construction company took four contracts. In these four contracts they were $958,000 less than the next lowest bidder, so that instead of the road having cost more because of the Grand Trunk Pacific having entered the field as contractors, it cost nearly a million dollars less in the case of these four contracts. The commission itself is evidence of that fact; but notwithstanding that they make this atrocious statement.
Just a word as to the Davis contract, about which Mr. Hays wrote to the commission. The Davis' put up their deposit money; they assigned their contract; and this Government made the final payments upon that contract. This Government had the deposit money and the drawback money, and this Government made the final payments. The contract was not completed at the date specified. My hon. friend the Solicitor General says that the late commission, by resolution, relieved the contractor from payment of the penalty. That is true, but there was nothing to hinder the present commission from rescinding the resolution of their predecessors, and, having the money in their hands as they had, from enforcing the penalty if they thought it should be enforced. The fact that they did not do so must be taken as evidence that they did not believe it was right to do so, and certainly they must take the responsibility for not having done so.
In regard to the broad assertion of the commissioners, that ' without including the mbney which was unnecessarily expended in building the railway east of the St. Lawrence river, $40,000,000 at least was needlessly expended in the building of this road,' if that is intended as a reflection on the policy under which the road was built, all I have to say is that it was none of the commissioners' business. If it .is intended" as a reflection on the business methods employed in the construction of the road, then I have this to say: In the first place, un ler the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Grand Trunk Pacific as lessees of the Government, had the right-the obligation was placed upon them-to review every item of expenditure made upon the road. They exercised that right, and every item of expenditure was reviewed and approved by the Grand Trunk Pacific. Hon.

gentlemen opposite may say if they like- in fact, they have said-that the authorities of the Grand Trunk Pacific did not play fair with their principals. That is such a gross libel that I do not intend to argue it; but, assuming that the men responsible for the business of the Grand Trunk Pacific acted fairly by their principals, then their principals were protected, and this Dominion of Canada was equally protected by that provision in the contract, and there is no justification for the suggestion that there was unbusinesslike expenditure. Besides that, of the 21 contracts, not one-or hardly one-was completed and the money paid over until this Government came into power. This Government held the deposit money and the drawback money, and if they paid out money that should not have been paid out, they are responsible for it and not the late Government, and they must answer to the taxpayers of the Dominion of Canada for that payment.
I just wish to allude to a remark made by my hon. friend from Algoma (Mr. Boyce). He mentioned a resolution moved by the present leader of the Opposition on the presentation of a proposal by the Government of 1885 for the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway short line between Montreal and St. John, in which the right hon. gentleman urged delay in order to get further surveys. My hon. friend drew a comparison between his urging delay on that occasion and his urging haste in presenting the Transcontinental railway proposal. Let me point out the difference. In the case of the short line between Montreal and St. John, the question was as to whether a line could or could not be got right through Canada. The right hon. gentleman was striving then for an allCanadian railway, just as he was in 1903, and it was in the hope that an all-Canadian line could be got that he asked for delay. I think it only right that the House should be informed on that point, because it is one of the strong points that the right hon. gentleman made when he introduced the proposal for the Transcontinental railway, namely, that we wanted an absolutely all-Canadian railway' from the Atlantic to the Pacific. If it has cost us money to have that, in the first place it was necessary that we as a country should have it; and, in the next place, if we are a country it is worth the having.
The construction of this line has been challenged because it ran through unknown country. Whether the country was known or unknown is not to the point. The point
is that by carrying this road, as it has been carried, from Quebec in 9 p.m. a direct line through Winnipeg and across the prairies to a port on the North Pacific, there has been created, so far as business interests are concerned, a new Quebec, a new Ontario, and new British Columbia out of areas of country that might as well have been in the centre of Africa so far as their material benefit to Canada was concerned without the construction of such a railway. The only criticism our friends opposite have to offer of this project is that we should have built it cheap whereas we have built it dear, that we should have built a temporary and inefficient road whereas we have built a permanent and efficient road, so far as they have allowed the work to go on.
In conclusion, whatever else may be charged against hon. gentlemen opposite they cannot be charged with inconsistency on the subject of opposition to the Transcontinental. In 1903 they fought it from midsummer until the snow flew. They fought it again in 1904. They have attempted, as best they could, to discredit it from that day to this, but it was only when they achieved power, when the enterprise fell into their hands, that they were able to carry into effect what they had wished to do from the very beginning. At this particular time, at this critical period in the history of the road, when vast sums of money have been sunk in its construction, at the moment when enormous further sums are required to absolutely complete and fully equip it, at a period during which traffic must be built up and development provided for the most critical period in the history of the road, our friends have seen fit to lay on the table of Parha-ment a report that has already been characterized as false, misleading, and an attempt to discredit in a business way the enterprise as well as to discredit politically this party. Their commissioners exhausted their ingenuity in finding cause to discredit the road and our friends in the House from day to day have repeated and emphasized everything that has been said in their report with that purpose in view. If ever this great enterprise can be wrecked they have chosen a favourable moment to use their influence as a party and as a government to wreck it by discrediting it as a business enterprise in the hope of discrediting their opponents on this side of the House. The report has been characterized as partisan. It is partisan; it is so partisan that it discredits itself.

and he insinuated that the Canadian Pacific railway and all its officials had some sinister design against the Grand Trunk Pacific. But immediately afterwards the hon. gentleman lauded to the skies Sir William Whyte, a very prominent official of the Canadian Pacific railway, because Sir William Whyte, when he acted as arbitrator, on an issue between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Government, decided in favour of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company.
The hon. gentleman also attacked the commission for not allowing Mr. Parent to revise his evidence before being printed in the report. Mr. Lynch-Staunton told me himself that every witness that was called before that commission had the courtesy extended to him of revising his testimony, if he so wished, and if Mr. Parent did not take advantage of that, it was his own fault. It is remarkable, however, that Mr. Parent does not complain about any inaccuracy either in the facts, as set out in the report, or as to the language he used in giving his testimony, and, consequently, where is the grievance? The only possible reason why the hon. gentleman should have referred to that matter at all was to excite some sympathy for the ex-Chairman of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission.
Then the ex-Minister of Railways attacked the report as designed to discredit the Liberal party and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, just as did the ex-Minister of the Interior to-night. The purpose of the commission was to investigate and pass upon the facts, and if the bare disclosure of the facts in this case discredit the Liberal party, then so much the worse for the Liberal party.
These hon. gentlemen also attack Mr. Lynch-Staunton for his opinion, in interpreting the agreement between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Government, that it provided, for a single-track railway. In defiance of that provision in' the agreement, we find the commission building a double track for six miles, which was an unjustifiable expenditure of public money. Mr. Lynch-Staunton gave his opinion to that effect. The ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) sets up his opinion as against that of Mr. Lynch-Staunton.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I shall be glad if the hon. member, who is a distinguished representative of the Ontario bar, will point out to us where in the Act or in the agreement it is stated that this must be a single-track

road, because I have not been able to find such a provision. I am aware that the commissioners say so in their report, but I cannot find it in the Act.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I am glad the hon. member asks that question. He desires me to interpret an agreement which* has already been interpreted by the chief engineer of the Government railway system, Mr. Lums-den. As recorded on page 395 of the report, Mr. Lumsden was asked the following question:
You know that the Act provides for a single track railway?
Mr. Lumsden replied, ' Yes.'


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is no -answer. Mr. Lumsden is not a lawyer. I am not asking for the opinion of an engineer; I am asking for the opinion of a lawyer.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. gentleman comes from the Maritime provinces, where some of the most distinguished lawyers in the Dominion of Canada reside. I shall be glad to quote him the opinion of a Maritime province lawyer, as his -question is a fair one and is entitled to a fair answer. Mr. Mclsaac is a distinguished -lawyer of the Nova Scotia bar, a K.C. I am glad to be able to quote such a distinguished authority. On page 611 of the report Mr. Mclsaac is asked the following -question:
He recommended the construction of that line and it was built double track. The point is, had you any right, under the Act, to build a double track railroad?
Mr. Mclsaac's answer wa-s:
No. I think the Act says single track, does it not?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend is
evading the question. The word was put into Mr. M-cIsaac'-s mouth by Mr. Lynch-Staunton, who professes to be a lawyer. Mr. Lynch-Staunton says: 'That is in the Act ? ' Mr. Mclsaac did not have the Act beside him, and he agreed with Mr. Lynch-Staunton. It is not in the Act.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Surely it is an extraordinary position to take, to say that a gentleman who is a member of the commission and a K.O., and who is supposed to construct the eastern section of the Grand Trunk Pacific in pursuance of the agreement, does not know the wording of that agreement. He was one of the commissioners appointed by the Liberal Government and asked to construct the road in accordance with the agreement, and he

said that he was carrying out the agreement according to the legal interpretation of it. On page 75 of the report, I find the wording of the contract. I will just read the part bearing on this matter. My hon. friend has displayed such anxiety for the information that I want to satisfy his laudable curiosity.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not asking you
to read the contract.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: When the bridge superstructures are in place ready for operation, a single track railway with side tracks-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is certainly a
quibble of the worst kind.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Oh, oh.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I asked my hon. friend a straight, honest question.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If the unruly member still wants his -curiosity -satisfied, I would like to read this question and the answer by Mr. Mclsaac. Mr. Mclsaac is a distinguished member of the Nova Scotia Bar, and a King's Counsel; be was on this commission, and should be able to interpret the agreement and carry out its inten-t in the construction of the road. (Reading):
The point is, had you any authority under the Act to build a double track railroad?-A No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to put a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. gentleman knows that he has no right to interrupt.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If I have not by my weak efforts been able to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. member for North Cape Breton, it is not my fault. I would refer him to the commissioners' report, and also to his compatriot, Mr. Mclsaac, K.C., from Nova Scotia. The Liberals, including the hon. member for North Cape Breton, are apparently not a little exercised over the publication of this report. And well they may be, for every argument and every criticism, and every statement in condemnation of this National Transcontinental road made by the Liberal-Conservative party in the past and by its leaders has been amply justified by this report. Every one who has followed the history of the construction of this line has, and has had for years, a strong suspicion that this construction was marked by plain, every day graft, maladministration and loose methods; and this 140
report amply justifies this suspicion. Consequently, we find the Liberals are in a white heat when discussing this report, as is evident in the case of the hon. member who interrupted me a moment ago. They do not discuss the merits of the Teport so much as attempt to attack the personnel of the commission. But the publication of the findings of this commission has roused such resentment and indignation throughout this country that should an -election be held at any early day, the Liberal party, once great, proud and haughty, but now reduced throughout the country to something of a remnant, would become a mere memory in the minds of the people.
Certain plausible reasons were given to the public why this road should be undertaken. We have heard them rehear-sed by the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior. They said the road was necessary in order to open new territory in the West and afford facilities for new settlements. But when the Grand Trunk was built in the We-s-t, it duplicated for miles and miles at a stretch the Canadian Pacific Tailway through the settled portions of the country. They told us that the construction of the road was necessary to Teduce the freight rates. But the tremendous cost resulting from incapacity, loose methods and lax administration have prevented the possibility of the reduction of freight rates in the time of this generation or the next. They said they wanted to open up the hinterland of Quebec and the Maritime provinces, and so they duplicated the Intercolonial railway; and no person to-day but the ex-Minister of the Interior has the temerity to justify that portion of the line. I give it as my opinion, after reading the report and the opinions of the engineers and of the late Hon. A. G. Blair, that language cannot be found to adequately characterize the folly, the criminal folly, of the late Government in building this portion of the line.
While certain ostensible reasons were given to the public why this road should be undertaken in the public interest, the people generally had grave suspicions that there were certain secret motives behind this construction. And the subsequent history of the work has justified these suspicions in the public mind. For instance, the people suspect that this road was projected as a monument to the present leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). The phenomenal success of the Canadian Pacific Tailway, which was inaugurated by Sir John A. Macdonald, has vindicated the

way (Canadian Pacific railway) from North Bay to Port William and make it a national highway of Canada and operate it hy means of an independent commission, giving to the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Northern and the Intercolonial, as well as the Canadian Pacific railway, equal running power over it. I say that for this reason, that to build two railways, or three railways, where one railway, with running rights over it, will answer the same purpose, is economic waste.
These words should burn into the hearts of the Canadian people; because if this policy had been adopted there would be no occasion for the lamentable condition of affairs which exists to-day in connection with railway matters. The hon. exMinister of Eailways (Mr. Graham) is reported in the Ottawa Free Press of March 17, 1909, as saying:
Regarding the future of the Intercolonial, Mr. Graham frankly expressed the opinion that unless some arrangement were made so that line could ' hook-up ' and be made the outlet of a transcontinental line, it would find itself confined to the handling of local traffic, of which there was insufficient to maintain the road.
Seldom does the leader of any party find his arguments so readily endorsed as did the present Prime Minister in the statement made by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. In the election of 1904, would the people, if they had been able to brush aside the curtain of doubt and peer into the future, looking at the matter in the light of what has singe happened, have endorsed the policy that has been placed before them in the shape of the Grand Trunk Pacific, or would they have accepted the policy laid down by the present Prime Minister ? The people realize to-day as they never realized before that they have been deceived by the Liberal party, that they have been grossly robbed by the Liberal contractors, and that the construction of this road, as pointed out in the report of the commissioners, has been characterized by waste, extravagance and incapacity.
Many disasters have followed in the wake of the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, The Hon. A. G. Blair was an able, far-seeing and constructive man. This road was built upon the political ruins of Mr. Blair; all that was mortal of this great man disappeared protesting against the tremendous folly of the Liberal party. Mr. Blair, humiliated by the action of his leader in negotiating this matter behind his back, against his wishes and contrary to his better judgment, protested to the bitter end against the policy of constructing the National Transcontinental railway. Mr. Blair was shorn of his honours as Minister

of Railways and Canals, yet, standing upon the floor of this House, towering in stature, in mental calibre, and in constructive genius away above other members of his party that surrounded him, he lashed and flayed his political friends in a manner which has had no parallel in this or any other Parliament. Like a prophet of old, in his righteous indignation he poured out the vials of his wrath upon his political friends, who were not only deceiving him, but were deceiving the people of this country as well. No such scathing arraignment of any policy or of any party or of any leader was ever recorded in history of any Parliament as that which was made on the floor of this House on August 11, 1903, when the Hon. A. G. Blair delivered his diatribe against the National Transcontinental railway. He said :
Why with such unusual and such unexampled haste a measure of this magnitude and this character had been pressed upon them. . . . What does the right hon. gentleman mean when he says: ' We cannot wait because time does not wait.' I think, Mr. Speaker, and I may sa^ it with all respect to my right hon. friend that it would have been as correct if not as poetic for him to have said; We cannot wait because Senator Cox cannot wait.
We find this stalwart of the Liberal party, an ex-Prime Minister of the province of New Brunswick, here representing a constituency of that province, condemning the whole eastern branch of the Transcontinental. He talks about the Government destroying its own property. He further says that when the Bill was under discussion in the Railway Committee, he asked Mr. Hays whether if the Government built down to Montreal, they might not arrange for an interchange of traffic and that Mr. Hays answered ' Yes, without any difficulty whatever.' Hon. Mr. Blair says:
The Intercolonial railway has been fully competent to take all the traffic that has been offered up to this date. . . . You will have the Government in the anomalous position of owning both roads, of operating one, and of being pratically interested in the successful operation of the other, going in and destroying its own property, impairing the value of its own property whether it he the one or the other, such a spectacle, I do not think, has ever been presented to the knowledge or observation of any human being since the world began.
I might repeat the sentence I read a moment ago in connection with what the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) said of the eastern branch from Quebec to Moncton. What does Mi. Blair say;

It is a total and absolute waste of public money. It is not only a destruction of the Intercolonial railway but it is a sheer unjusti-able squandering of the public money.
Could language be more severe? Could an argument be more irresistible or logic more deadly? Every paragraph, every sentence, every word that fell from the lips of Hon. A. G. Blair has come true, and the people of this country at last realize the real significance of that great man s opposition and hostility to this absurd, illogical and indefensible branch of the National Transcontinental railway. Disaster came not only to A. G. Blair, but also to Mr. Hodgins for opposing thi,s work. Mr. Hodgins was a man eminent in his profession and a Liberal in politics. Yet he was forced to acknowledge his inability to control the contractors along the line, his engineering staff, and the rapacious horde of Liberal heelers who wanted to make fortunes out of the road. What does he say. I quote from the Manitoba Free Press:
Hodgins charges enormous waste. Dismissed engineer declares millions are being stolen on Government section. Major's side of the story. States trouble first arose over question of c.assi-flcation. Ashed for investigation.
Alleging broadly that millions of dollars are being wasted or stolen in the construction of the Government portion of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway Major A. E. Hodgins, C.E., has issued a letter, the object of which is to secure an administrative investigation.
Major Hodgins is now a resident of Victoria. He is a son of Judge Hodgins, of Toronto, a Liberal, who recently demanded an investigation by the Government to inquire into the reason for his son's removal from office.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Was he a partisan?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I think we can designate
him a partisan according to the standard of the ex-Minister of the Interior. I say that Engineer Hodgins' charges have been substantiated and his reputation vindicated by the publication of the Gutelius-Staunton report, and no man in Canada to-day will welcome this report more than Engineer Hodgins and his friends.
In addition to them, we have Chief Engineer Lumsden, a man prominent an his profession, who by reason of, as he says in his letter of resignation, having lost all confidence in his engineering staff, also resigned from this road. His charges also have been substantiated and his reputation has been vindicated by this report. The Liberals may try to minimize the effect of charges made by Engineer Hodgins and Chief Engineer Lumsden, but there are certain salient and indisputable facts which
they cannot ignore. One of them is that these engineers had personal knowledge of what was happening in connection with this road; they made serious charges against the management of the road and the administration of the moneys spent, and in consequence they resigned. The third indisputable fact is that these charges have been substantiated, proved to the hilt, by the publication of this report. Those are the facts, notwithstanding that engineer Hodgins and chief engineer Lumsden were terrorized and intimidated more ot less to modify their charges before a certain partisan committee appointed to investigate them. Blair, Hodgins and Lumsden were victims of the ambition and greed of party friends of the Liberal party. They were mere pawns in the game, flies upon the wheel, and they were brushed unceremoniously aside in order that these men might pursue their course in becoming millionaires and multi-millionaires in a short time. With their knowledge, ideals and principles, these men were not wanted in the construction of this road; they were dismissed or their resignation demanded in older that the carnival of mismanagement might proceed unhindered. Hon. Mr. Blair foresaw what was coming and he washed his hands of the whole transaction. Hodgins and Lumsden actually saw what 10 p.m. the Hon. Mr. Blair foresaw, and they also washed their hands of the transaction. Engineers Hodgins and Lumsden held a post-mortem investigation, -perhaps I should say ante-mortem, because although the Grand Trunk Pacific is in extremis it has not yet utterly ex-pired,-which verified the predictions of Hon. Mr. Blair in regard to this road and confirmed the experience of Hodgins and Lumsden, who were men actually upon the work. Mr. Blair looked at this enterprise from the point of view of the future and condemned it; engineers Hodgins and Lumsden looked at it from the point of view of the present-men actually on the job- and they condemned it; commissioners Gutelius and Staunton looked at it from the point of view of the past and they condemned it. Hon. Mr. Blair has been reviled and execrated-one might almost say executed-<by the Liberal party. Engineers Hodgins and Lumsden were reviled and execrated by the Liberal party, so is it any wonder that they revile and execrate the names of Gutelius and Staunton?
This investigating commission was ideal for the purpose for which it was appointed.

It was composed of Mr. Gutelius, an expert railway engineer who was appointed to investigate and pass upon the engineering side of the enterprise, and of Mr. Staunton, an able and distinguished member of the Ontario bar whose duty it was to examine and cross-examine witnesses and report on the contracts. In their report, there is not a statement that is not supported to the hilt by the documentary evidence on file or by the sworn testimony of witnesses. AH those witnesses with the exception of one or two were the experts employed in the construction of the road. In other words the Liberal party have been convicted out of the mouths of their own employees. Every expression of opinion in that report is verified and amplified by the best expert opinion on the continent of North America. The very completeness of the report dumfounds hon. gentlemen opposite. They cannot successfully attack the merits of that report. The very completeness of it takes the Opposition, so to speak, at a disadvantage because they cannot successfully, either on questions of fact or of expert opinion, attack this report which has been so ably prepared by these commissioners. In this voluminous, exhaustive and unimpeachable report, these commissioners have placed upon the records of this House, and among the archives of this country, a document which not only vindicates the position taken by the Liberal-Conservative party in years past in respect to this enterprise, but which vindicates the judgment in the most flattering manner of the present right hon. Prime Minister in respect to this whole proposition. This report does more than vindicate the position of the Conservative party, it does more than vindicate the position of the Prime Minister; it exposes, in the minutest detail, and by the most incontrovertible evidence, the greatest piece of graft in the history of politics on the North American continent.
This gigantic waste need not surprise the Canadian mind when you consider the thoroughly political complexion of the former National Transcontinental Railway Commission. This commission was selected, not on account of its expert knowledge of railway construction and operation, but purely and simply on account of its knowledge of practical politics. It is most interesting to compare the methods which were employed by the United States Government in appointing a commission with the methods that obtained in Canada in appointing this 
commission for expending millions and millions of the people's money. At the time that the President of the United States appointed a commission to construct the Panama canal, did he appoint men such as the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals said that the Government had appointed-men of splendid ability but without any expert knowledge? Listen to the personnel of the commission appointed by the President of the United States: John G. Walker, rear-admiral of United States navy, who had been at the head of former canal commissions for purposes of investigation and report; Geo. W. Davis, a major-general of United States army, on the retired list; Wm. B. Parsons, an eminent civil engineer, of New York; Wm. H. Burr, professor of civil engineering in Columbia University of New York; Benj. M. Harrod, formerly city and state civil engineer of New Orleans; Carl E. Grusskey, civil engineer, of San Francisco; and Frank T. Hecker, a civil engineer, of Detroit.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: With reference to that Panama canal matter, to what extent did the expenditure go beyond the estimate?


Mr SHARPE:: I have not the figures.


An hon. MEMBER:: Everybody else has them.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Perhaps my hon. friend, having the knowledge, will give them to the House?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The expenditure was double the estimate.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Any person reading that can come to no other conclusion whatever than that a great amount of that money found its way into the political campaign fund of' the Liberal party.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say that the commissioners have thoroughly investigated this whole road; they have examined the contract; they have examined and cross-examined the witnesses and have made their report. They have summarized their findings in this significant paragraph:
We find that the Transcontinental Railway Commission, the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, and those having charge of the construction of the railway did not consider it desirable or necessary to practise or encourage economy in the construction of this road.
We find that without including the money which was unnecessarily expended in building the railway east of the St. Lawrence river $40,000,000 at least was needlessly expended in the building of this road.
Contrast that with the significant statement of the Hon. Mr. A. G. Blair. Speaking of the eastern branch of the National Transcontinental railroad, he said:
It is a total and absolute waste of the public money. It is not only a destruction of the Intercolonial railway, but it is a sheer unjustifiable squandering of the public money.
Had time permitted, I would have liked to go more in detail into the findings of the commission, because I never read in my life a more complete report, a report that proves the charges to the hilt out of the mouths of employees and witnesses belonging to the Liberal party. I believe that the people of Canada are at last seized of all the real facts in regard to this gigantic waste of $40,000,000, this Liberal masterpiece of wilful waste and wanton extravagance. When the opportunity is afforded them to register their protest, I venture to express the opinion that they will visit well-merited punishment upon the heads of those responsible for this national disgrace.


James Joseph Hughes: This is certainly the most important question that has been discussed in this House during the present session. It is more than that: it is the most important question to the people of this country and to this Government that has been discussed in this House for many years. The report of the Investigating Commission, Messrs. Lynch-Staunton and Gutelius, is bulky and technical. The discussion that has taken place upon it has been extensive and necessarily to a large extent of a technical character. It would therefore, in my opinion, be diffi-

cult for the ordinary man-even if he had *the time and inclination and opportunity to read this report and the discussion upon it and to follow them in .all their details- to come to a decision on the .question. There ought, however, to be some way for the plain citizen, the ordinary man, the ordinary taxpayer of this country, to grasp at least the fundamental features of the ease. I will endeavour to find that way and to follow it.
Before I do so, I want to draw the attention of the House /to this peculiar feature of the case. So far as we know, before this report was completed, before it was printed and laid on the table of the House, at all events before it was available to the members of the House, advance copies, exaggerated statements, biased statements, were given to the Conservative newspapers of the country, and. were published under flaming headlines. The attention of the country was called to the enormous graft that was about to be revealed, to the dishonesty that was about to be exposed. A superhuman effort almost was made to influence, inflame and prejudice .the country before the report saw the light of day at all. Was that a proper course to pursue? Were the men who were preparing this report afraid that, when the report was .submitted, it would not bear out the interpretation which they were sending out to- the country, and was it their intention that the country should be prejudiced first and the report submitted afterwards? It would certainly seem as if that was the case. If these men had confidence in the value of this report, they would have depended upon it to carry its story to the people.
I want to say a word or two with reference to the policy of the late Government, which has been called in question by this report, and which has been seriously called in question to-night by my hon. friend (Mr. Sharpe). In 1903, when the Government of the country decided, in consequence of the development going on in the West and in consequence of the necessity of providing better and cheaper additional transportation facilities, upon building a railway from Winnipeg, Manitoba, to Moncton, New Brunswick, they decided to own it themselves and to connect it with a line of railway that the Grand Trunk Pacific would build from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean. Every province in the Dominion of Canada was to benefit from the construction and operation of this railway. It was to be truly a national transcontinental railway. We know that the Conservative

party at that time was in favour of this railway stopping at Cochrane, and of sending the traffic and the business that would come over it from the West to Toronto and from there through United States territory to United States ports. Some of them wished the railway to be carried as far as Quebec, but no one wished it to go into the Maritime provinces, and from Quebec the freight was to be diverted to Portland. The Maritime provinces were to be left out of the reckoning altogether. We might pay our share of the cost, but were to receive none of the advantages. That was the policy of the Opposition at that time and it is still the policy of the Conservative party. The Government of that day thought and acted differently. On the question of policy they went to the people in 1904 and again in 1908, and the people endorsed that policy. It is just possible that the late Government and the Liberal party and the majority of the people of Canada were as well qualified to pronounce an opinion upon the proper policy to be pursued in that respect as Mr. Gutelius or Mr. Lynch-Staunton or the Conservative party or even my hon. friend (Mr. Sharpe). When a policy was decided upon, it was also decided, as has been pointed out time and again, that a railway of the best standard in America would be constructed, so that the operating expenses of the road would be as light as possible, and so that it would be a true competing line with the Canadian Pacific railway or any other railway in Canada.
What was the arrangement entered into with the Grand Trunk Pacific? While the Government was to build from Winnipeg to Moncton, the Gnand Trunk Pacific was to build from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean. The Grand Trunk Pacific, with the guarantee of the Grand Trunk railway, a large and wealthy railway corporation, agreed to take over the road when constructed by the Government, under a lease for fifty years, and pay 3 per cent upon the cost of construction, whatever it might be, for forty-three years out of the fifty, to operate the road and provide the betterments, that is, to keep it in proper repair. Therefore, it was to the interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk railway that this road should be built honestly and economically. They had the right and privilege and duty of putting their engineers on the road while it was under construction, to see to it that every dollar was properly expended; and they did that. What better arrangement
could be made to insure honesty and economy? I do not think the ingenuity of man could devise a better arrangement. Then the commission wias appointed consisting of four men. The Government of to-day is trying to smirch the reputation of these mm. But these men .are reputable Canadian citizens, and I do not think the efforts of the Government should be directed towards destroying their reputation. That commission had the .advantage of being .assisted .by the best engineers who could be found in Canada. If graft has been carried on, that commission must have been dishonest; the engineers employed by them and paid by the people of this country must have been dishonest; the engineers employed by the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk railway must have been in collusion with the grafters, and they also must have been dishonest; and the contractors must have been dishonest. Mr. Speaker, if all those .safeguards have broken down and this dishonesty has taken place, there must be something inherently wrong with the people of Canada, for it would be impossible to devise better safeguards to insure the honesty of a public work.
Now, we come to another feature of. this case, and a serious one for this Government. I said a moment ago that it would be difficult for the ordinary man to wade through this mass of evidence prepared by lawyers and engineers, and to discover who was right and who was wrong. But it is easy for the ordinary man to see that if all this graft that is charged has taken place, all these men whom I have mentioned must be guilty. This Government is the guardian and custodian of the public funds. What is the Government going to do about it? Is it going to prosecute any of those who are represented to us as rascals, the parties to this huge graft, all this enormous thieving, when millions of the public money were squandered-forty millions, according to this report, squandered and several millions dishonestly taken? I see a member of the Government present, the Hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen); does he think this Government has no responsibility in this matter? Not only have they not started any prosecutions against the men who are alleged to have done these things, but they have retained these same men, these engineers, in their service. Now, this Government is not very sensitive in regard to dismissals; their conscience is not tender upon that point; they have dismissed men

for the most trivial reasons. They have dismissed men simply because they were suspected of being Liberals when there was no other charge against them. They have dismissed men from the post office, from the customs, from the lighthouses, from the railways, simply because they were Liberals, though these were honest men, faithfully discharging their public duties. Why, they have dismissed men who were dead because it was believed they were Liberals; they have dismissed men simply because the/ patted a Liberal dog on the street. But, according to their own statement, here are men in the employ of the Government'who have assisted in robbing the people of this country of millions of dollars-and not even one of them dismissed. If that report be true and the statements made by the members who have spoken on the opposite side be true, this Government is aiding, abetting and shielding rascals and is equally guilty with them. That is what the people who pay their taxes want to know, and the Government are not going to get away from that. If what is alleged on the Government side be true, these men should not be at large; the penitentiary is the place for them. Again I say: What is the Government going to do about it ?
But there is more than that in it. If one-tenth part of what is charged by the members on the other side has taken place, the contractors themselves are dishonest men. When this Government came into power they found that a deposit had been made by every one of these contractors; they had also in their possession a drawback kept by the late Government. Had this Government been sincere in this matter, they should have retained that money until this business was cleared up. These contractors had solemnly agreed faithfully and honestly to carry out their contracts under forfeit of the money that they had placed in the hands of the Government as a guarantee. But this Government exacts nothing; they have paid out that money in many instances without exacting a dollar. But they have done more than that. During the time the late Government were in power, a dispute arose between the Government engineers and the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and that dispute was referred to arbitration under the provisions of the statute. The arbitrators were: For the Grand Trunk Pacific, Mr. Kelliher; for the Transcontinental Commission-that is for the Government-Mr. Gordon Grant; and the third arbitrator, Mr. Colling-wood Schreiber. The arbitrators de-EMr. J. J. Hughes.]
cided that they would deduct from the claim of J. D. McArthur the sum of $550,000, and the late Government decided to carry out that award. What did this Government do since they came into power? They set aside the award of the arbitrators and deducted only $150,000 from the account, thus paying this contractor $400,000 more than the arbitrators had said he was entitled to, and more than the late Government had decided to give him. In the face of that, can this Government dare charge the late Administration or the Transcontinental Commission with not doing their duty, or with not guarding the public funds? The taxpayers of this country will have to know why the finding of the arbitration board was overruled, and why $400,000 of the people's money was paid out to this contractor. Yet we are asked to believe that it was the late Government, or the Transcontinental Commission, that was squandering the public money.
I do not know, I cannot conceive, how this Government can tell the people of the country that they knew that certain men had robbed the taxpayers, and yet kept them in their service; that they did not prosecute them, did not take legal proceedings against them, but condoned everything. I do not think that such a record was ever made in the history of Canada or of any other country. When the Liberal party made charges against men tor squandering public money- against Connolly and McGreevy, for instance-they took these men into the courts and exposed and punished them. They gave a reason for the faith that was in them; they acted properly and like men, and if there is any truth in this report the present Government should act in the same way. But hon. gentlemen opposite know that the report is not true; they do not believe it themselves; and they have not acted upon a single finding of the report from the time they received it until the present day.
The Government, at enormous expense to the country, employed two men to investigate this matter. These men prepared a report, and, if it ibe not true-and we are driven to that conclusion-then it is a slanderous report, which is being circulated by the Government throughout the country. 1 do not profess to know anything about the law, but the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) said that one of the members of the commission,

Mr. Lyn-ch-Staunton, was one of the most distinguished members of the Ontario bar, Mr. Lyneh-Staunton had an opinion, which he published in that report, and the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Minister of Justice, over their own signatures, said that he was all wrong-that his larw was no good. Yet the Government is spending tens of thousands of dollars to circulate that false report throughout the country for the purpose of prejudicing the public mind. I have shown you, Mr. Speaker, how hon. gentlemen opposite agree on a point of law; that is the opinion they have of Mr. Lynch-Staunton's knowledge. I think that is the way the taxpayers of this country will look at this question. I repeat that the commissioners employed by this Government have made a report in which they charge that enormous sums of money have been misappropriated. The persons who are alleged to be guilty are all in this country; many of them are in the employ of the Government; yet the Government is taking no action whatever to punish these men for their alleged misdeeds. If this report be true, we have an instance of the greatest miscarriage of justice on the part of the Government that ever took place in this or iany other country. Will the people of Canada stand for that kind of thing? If the Teport be not true, then it is the most slanderous document that has ever been given to the people of Canada-and it has been produced under the auspices of this Government. I would like to ask the ministers who are present to-night what further action they intend to take. This matter should not be allowed to rest here; further investigations should take place for the protection of the people; further examination into the matter should be made if ttie Government have not enough information to enable them to proceed against the guilty parties. Is that not common sense; is that not ordinary reason? The people of this country will ask for it, they have a right to ask for it, and if they get justice their demands will be satisfied; but they will not get justice. The interests of the people are not considered in this matter; the whole thing appears to have been conspiracy which was entered into for the purpose of discrediting the late Government, for the purpose of discrediting the Liberal party, for the purpose of degrading the Transcontinental railway, regardless of consequences. No amount of special pleading, no amount of finely-spun arguments, no amount of covering up, will keep these
patent facts away from the minds of the people. One man perhaps more than all the others is responsible for this condition of affairs, and that man in the last 'analysis is the right hon. the Prime Minister. On him the responsibility must rest.
One of the points of this commission's report is -that if we had built a cheaper road it would not have -cost -so much. We had to pay $65,000 in order to get that valuable piece of information. Mr. Gutelius says it is unnecessary for the Grand Trunk Pacific to have a level or a straight road, but he would like exceedingly well to induce -the Government of this country to give -him money to take the lumps out of the Intercolonial and make it reasonably straight. He says he could operate the Intercolonial much more cheaply if that were done; but he reports that it is not necessary for the Transcontinental. Any ordinary man can -see some flaw in that reasoning. I say again, the whole thing seems to have -been a conspiracy to discredit the Liberal party and to degrade the Transcontinental. Is it possible that that was intentionally done so that the Grand Trunk Pacific should not take over this road when it was completed; so that it should be handed over to- some other company, the Canadian Pacific railway for instance and the people of Canada would he deprived of competition in transportation? The President of the Grand Trunk Pacific, Mr. Chamberlin, has already notified the Government -that he might not take it over if they went on degrading the road as they were doing-he would not hold himself responsible for the operation of the road. No government in this country ever occupied a more untenable or more unreasonable position-a position more in direct opposition to the best interests of the people-than this one.
On motion of Mr. Sevigny, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Hazen, the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Tuesday, March 31, 1914.