1914-02-23

[Stage Direction]
PRINTED BY J. de L. TACHE, PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY
[Stage Direction]
Mouse of Commons Hefmtes

[Stage Direction]
Speaker: Hon. Thomas Simpson Sprotjlb.
Monday, February 23, 1914.

[Stage Direction]
Report oi the Department of the Interior for the year ended March 31, 1913, volume
I.-Hon. W. J. Roche.
Regulations for the disposal of petroleum and natural gas rights.-Hon. W. J. Roche.
Grazing Regulations.-Hon. W. J. Roche.

Hon. ROBERT ROGERS:: I beg to move that the special committee to whom was referred Bill No. 62, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, have leave to report from time to time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. ROGERS presented the first report of the said committee, recommending that it have leave to sit during the time the House is in session.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the report was concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton) moved for to introduce Bill No. 85, to amend the Railway Act. He said: The object of this Bill is to provide that all steamboat companies plying on inland waters shall be under the Railway Commission. As the House is aware, at present only o small portion of the boats on the Great Lakes and inland waters are to-day under the Railway Commission. We have expended tens of millions of dollars on our inland waters in the way of deepening rivers, building docks 65
and piers, and constructing canals in order that the steamboats plying on these waters may have every advantage. At the present time these steamboat companies are practically free to charge whatever rate or to make whatever traffic arrangements they like, and in my opinion, it is high time they were placed under	the
Railway Commission. Only last Thursday I heard hon. gentlemen opposite complain of combines on the Great Lakes. By having the steamboats engaged in the carrying trade placed under the Railway Commission, we shall be able to investigate any such combine. Moreover, we protect our inland waters for the purpose of giving our own boats and shipping interests practically all the traffic on these waters, and we should have some control over these boats. Not only will this Bill compel the shipping interests on our inland waters to file their traffic rates, tolls and arrangements, but it will compel any boats coming to any of our ocean ports to file their traffic rates, tolls and arrangements with the Railway Commission. If this Bill is passed, it will materially assist the commission appointed by the Department of Trade and Commerce for the purpose of investigating the ocean freight rates in coming to a definite conclusion as to what is the best thing to do in regard to controlling ocean freight rates. At the present time these boats come from foreign lands, take our produce and carry it away, without any restriction whatever or any question being asked.
It is said that this Bill will materially interfere with the Marine Act, and that it will not be possible for this Parliament to put it into force; but I have consulted some of the best marine lawyers that I could find, and they have assured me that in no way will it interfere with the present Marine Act. The marine law deals only with the safety of navigation and the protection of seamen.
[Stage Direction]


My intention is to ask the Government to allow this Bill to receive its second reading, and then to be sent to the committee who have at present in charge the consolidation of the Railway Act. It was useless for me to word this Bill in conformity with the old Railway Act, because that will be out of existence before the session closes. It was impossible for me to word it so as to fit it into the new Railway Act. Therefore, I ask the Government to allow this Bill to have its second reading, and that it then be sent on to the committee with instructions -from this House that the provisions included in this Bill be embodied in the Railway Act which is being consolidated by the committee.
If it is true that the Saskatchewan Government appointed a commission and that this commission found that freight rates on the Great Lakes have been doubled since 1909, then if you place the shipping interests under the control of our Railway Commission, it will be up to the commission to see that these rates are placed at such a point that they will not only be fair to the producer and the -consumer but to the freight carrying trade as well. Probably it would be well, Mr. Speaker, that I should read this clause of the Bill in order that the House may be informed as to the provisions which they contain. The first clause is:
1.	In this Act unless the context otherwise requires, ' steamboat ' means any vessel propelled wholly or in part by steam or by any machinery or power other than sails or oars.
The second clause is as follows:
2.	The provisions of the Railway Act, Revised Statutes, 1906, chapter 37, relating to accommodation for traffic, tolls, classification of freight and tariffs shall, so far as applicable, apply ' mutatis mutandis ' to all steamboat companies, steamboat owners and steamboats engaged on a regular route carrying passengers or freight or both from one port or place in Canada to another port or place in Canada, or from a port or place in Canada to a port or place out of Canada; and all traffic agreements between steamboat owners and railways and other persons and all questions of the places along the line of route where steamboats shall call for traffic and the time of call and the duration of stay shall be subject to the approval and control of the board.
Clause 3 deals with an entirely different subject. It extends the powers of the- Railway Board to the control of special privileges. The Railway Commission have decided that they have notdhe power to grant certain privileges to manufacturers and individuals, such privileges as railway companies are at the present time granting. I

need not go into details with reference to this matter more than to say that this provision places the right of any railway company in Canada to grant special privileges to manufacturers or individuals under the jurisdiction of the Railway Board and it gives the Railway Board the right to extend these privileges to any other manufacturer or individual. The board have decided, within the last year, that while certain privileges have been granted to certain manufacturers and individuals, they have not the power to extend those privileges to other manufacturers and individuals. This clause will definitely provide that in so far as these privileges are concerned, the board have absolute power to extend them to any manufacturer or individual.
The last -clause of the Bill is for the purpose of preventing the improper handling of baggage and freight by the railway companies. Railway companies appear to be helpless when it comes to the handling of many products and particularly perishable products. The express company come into a district with their cars, the goods are taken by the men in charge of these cars, as if they were so much cordwood, or so much wood taken from a buzz saw, and fired up in the most careless and indifferent manner. We compel the fruit men in Canada to live up to the Fruit Marks Act, and we compel them to pack their goods in the most careful way. These goods are taken to the -station and there they are handled in the most careless manner. This clause is designed to afford some protection to the fruit men. If they see a man handling goods in a careless -and reckless way, the shippers are in a position to bring that man before a justice of the peace or compel him to explain why he has been conducting himself in -such a way. There is not a member of the House who has done any considerable amount of travelling but will agree with me in the statement that the careless handling of baggage in Canada has become a -serious question an-d one that must be dealt with. When the railway laws are being consolidated it is an opportune time for us to -take up these matters and have the provisions to which I have referred included in the new Bill. Those who have -travelled throughout the country must realize that baggage is handled like so much cordwood or baled hay, in a most careless and ridiculous manner. Clause 3 provides that men engaged in the handling of baggage shall be more careful and they are brought under certain restrictions provided by this Bill.

Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. LAW:: I would like to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) to a matter of urgent importance. The minister will remember that on Tuesday, the 17th inst., I called his attention to the fact that the harbour of Yarmouth was frozen up and that the boats running between Boston and Yarmouth were delayed. On Friday last I asked the minister if he had heard from the harbour-master at Yarmouth, and he replied that up to that time he had not had any report from him. To-day I have two telegrams from Yarmouth saying that the steamer Boston, which started for Boston, had been delayed by the ice in the harbour for four hours. From another private source I have a telegram saying that the Boston-Yarmouth service has been discontinued until the harbour is free of ice. This is a matter of vital importance to the western part of Nova Scotia. The shipments of fish from Yarmouth to Boston now are quite heavy and if a steamer, after being loaded and started for Boston is delayed, it may incur a loss of many hundreds of dollars to the fishermen of that part of Nova Scotia. I would like to ask the minister if the matter will receive his immediate attention and that, if there are any Government boats convenient to Yarmouth, they be sent there so that the steamers may resume their regular trips between Yarmouth and Boston.


Mr. HAZEN:: In reply to the inquiry
of the hon. member for Yarmouth, I will at once send to the department and ask the deputy minister to come over here. I will consult with him and with my hon. friend about the situation, and if anything can be done to meet the condition of affairs there, I shall be only too glad to do it.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 37, respecting the Ottawa and Ungava Railway Company.-Mr. Chabot.
Bill No. 39, respecting the Thessalon and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Smyth.
Bill No. 55, respecting the Quinze and Blanche River Railway Company.-Mr. Fripp.
65i

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


[Stage Direction]
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM:
1.	How many section men, including foremen, were employed on the Intercolonial between Mulgrave and Marsby Hope during the past summer?
2.	What are the names of the regular section men so employed, and the number of the .section-on which they were respectively employed?
3.	When were said section men appointed?
4.	What were tlieir respective ages at the date* of employment?
Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Ten foremen and twenty-four labourers.
2,	3 and 4. See statements attached.
INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-ST.	JOHN-


HAMPTON TRAIN RECEIPTS.
Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	What were the receipts from passengers, express, etc., from suburban trains Nos. 132, 136, 138 and 156, running between St. John and Hampton, on the Intercolonial railway for the different months in the years 1910, 1911 1912 and 1913?
2.	What were the receipts from the same sources as well as from the transportation

of milk on Nos. 7 and 8 trains, running between St. John and Sussex on the Intercolonial railway for the different months in the years 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913?
3.	What was the expense charged against these several trains each year, and the totals for each month of each of said years?
4.	What were the receipts of Rothesay, Hampton and Torryburn stations, from passengers and freight, respectively, during the years 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913, and the receipts for each month of each year?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Statement attached marked * A ' (filed with the Clerk of the House), gives the receipts from passenger traffic from trains Nos. 132, 136, 138, and 156 for certain periods during which accounts for same were separately kept, during the years 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913. For the months not shown, no separate record was kept of the earnings, information, therefore, is not now available. Express companies do not operate on these suburban trains.
2.	No separate record was kept of the earnings of trains Nos. 7 and 8 for the period asked for.
3.	No separate record kept of the expenses of these trains for the period asked for.
4.	Statement attached marked ' B ' (filed with the Clerk of the House), showing receipts at Rothesay, Hampton, Torryburn stations from passengers and freight respectively during the years 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-ANTIGONISH BRIDGE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM:
1.	When were the tenders opened for the erection of concrete pillars in the trestle work approaching the railway bridge near Anti-gonish station?
2.	When was the contract awarded for said work?
3.	What was the cause of the delay in entering into a contract for said work?
4.	Within what time was the work required to be completed?
5.	Has there been any request made by, or on behalf of the contractors, for an extension of time for performance of said work?
6.	What reasons were assigned why such extension should be granted?
7.	Why was not the request complied with, particularly in view of the delay in awarding the contract and the very much increased expense of doing such work in mid-winter?
8.	Have the contractors ceased work there?
9.	What arrangements, if any, have been made for the completion of the work?
10.	Has the Railway Department settled with the contractors for the work already done? If so, on what basis or terms?
Mr. REID:: 1.	October 3, 1913.
2.	October 30, 1913.
fjfr. Emmerson.3	'
3.	General consideration of departmental and railway routine business between dates, opening of tenders and passing Order in Council awarding the contract.
4.	Work was required to be completed by the 1st day of February, 1914.
5.	Yes, verbal request made to chief engineer.
6.	Lateness of season in beginning work and difficulty of prosecuting some in midwinter.
7.	The request was complied with and an extension granted by Order in Council of January 30, last, authorizing such extension to April 1, 1914.
8.	Contractors have, for the time, suspended work.
9.	Carrying out the provisions of their contract which the contractors are being ordered to do; additional force and plant being demanded.
10.	Progress estimates and payments being made according to terms of the contract.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-LABOURERS' WAGES.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	What wages are paid to the labourers on the working trains of the Intercolonial in the province of Quebec ?
2.	What wages are paid to the labourers doing the same work in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Wages paid to labourers on the Intercolonial railway working trains in the province of Quebec are from $1.30 to $1.60 per day. This rate varies in different localities and at different seasons of the year, but employees are always paid the rate prevailing in the locality in which they are employed.
2.	Wages paid to labourers on the Intercolonial railway working trains in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are from $1.50 to $1.80 per day. This rate varies in different localities and at different seasons of the year, but employees are always paid the rate prevailing in the locality in which they are employed.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-PERRY EMPLOYEES.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: What are the names and dates of appointment or employment, description of employment and daily or monthly wages, of all the men employed on the Intercolonial railway ferry steamer Scotia, Mulgrave, N.S. ?


Mr. REID:: 
AT SACKVILLE.
Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	How many dismissals have been made by the Intercolonial Railway management of employees at Sackville, N.B., since December 1, 1913 ; who were they, and in what employment were they engag-ed, and were they permanent employees ?
2.	For what reasons were their service^ dispensed with, were they granted retiring allowances under the Provident Fund Act, and to what extent? If not, why not?
3.	What were their ages respectively, and what length of notice did they receive?
4.	Were the positions from which they were removed filled by others? If so, by whom, what are their ages, the nature of their previous employment, what salaries are they to receive respectively, and by whom were they recommended for employment?
5.	Were the employees whose services were dispensed with permanently dismissed or only temporarily? If the latter, will they be reengaged when the work at that station requires their services?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Two; Fred. Avard and Warren Carter. Employed as freight porters. Avard was a permanent employee; Carter was not.
. 3* * [DOT]	"	'	"** "
2.	Were not performing their duties satisfactorily. No. Not eligible.
3.	Avard, 63. Carter, 65. One day.
4.	Yes. Claude Estabrooks and Robert Amos. About 26 years each. Estabrooks with Enterprise Foundry Co. Amos, off jobs. $1.60 per day. Estabrooks by R. Trites; Amos by station master.
5.	Permanently.


INTERCOLONIAL, RAILWAY-RATES ON FISH.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What was the cost per 100 lbs. by express for transporting- fresh fish from Halifax and Mulgrave to Montreal and Toronto prior to October 10, 1911?
2.	What was the cost per ton for transporting fresh fish by fast freight in carload lots from Mulgrave and Halifax to Montreal and Toronto prior to October 10, 1911?
3.	What was the cost per ton for transporting fresh fish from Mulgrave and Halifax to Montreal and Toronto by fast freight in less than carload lots prior to October 10, 1911?
4.	Referring to jabove questions inumbers 1, 2 and 3, what is the comparative cost in each of the said instances under the express and railway rates at present in force?

5.	What was the minimum charge for a small box or package of fresh flsh from Mulgrave to Antigonish prior to October 10, 1911?
6.	Referring to question No. 5 what ns the minimum rate chargeable on a similar package now?


Mr. REID:: 1.	From Halifax and Mulgrave:
Per 100 lbs. Per ton.
To Montreal	
$1.50	$30" Toronto	
1.75	352.	The rate per ton as follows: Halifax to Montreal, $5.20; Halifax to Toronto, $6.40; Mulgrave to Montreal, $5.60; Mulgrave to Toronto, $6.80.3.	The rate per ton as follows: Halifax to Montreal, $7; Halifax to Toronto, $9.20; Mulgrave to Montreal, $7.60; Mulgrave to Toronto, $9.80.4.	The foregoing figures show the comparative costs by express versus freight.5.	By freight, 25 cents.
*6. By freight, 25 cents.
A	PRIVATE CAR DUFFERIN.


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Has the Intercolonial railway had in operation on its line, designated as the observation *car Dufferin, or a so-called Pullman car, of any description, named Dufferin? If so, where was it built, when purchased or constructed by that railway, what was its total cost, how long has it been in use on the line, in what portion thereof, and in connection with what service?
2.	Is it now being converted into a private or official car? If so, for whom?
3.	What is the estimated cost of dismantling and rebuilding it for the purpose of making it a private or official car, and of fitting, equipping and furnishing same?
4.	Is it to be used when rebuilt as a private or official car for Mr. F. P. Gutelius, the general manager?
5.	How many official or private cars has the Intercolonial railway now, what are their names or numbers, by what officials and others are they respectively used, and what is total [DOT]cost of all said official cars?


Mr. REID:: 
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY FREIGHT RATES.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	What was the freight tariff on oats,
potatoes, hay, straw, cattle, horses, isheep, swine, geese, dressed hogs, butter, cheese, rough and manufactured lumber, cordwood, limestone, and coal; also on package freight in carload lots, and less than carload lots, over the Prince Edward Island railway, on the 15th April, 1909, for 5 miles' distance and up to 100 miles?	[DOT]
2.	What is the freight tariff: for the same products and goods for like distances at the present time ?


John Dowsley Reid: 1 and 2. Statements filed with the Clerk of the House.
. EXPRESS FRANKING PRIVILEGE.


Mr. NEELY:: 1.	Referring to the statement recently made in the House by the Postmaster General, that hereafter even the Postmaster General himself must pay postage on parcels sent through the mails, does the Postmaster General enjoy the franking privilege from the express companies of Canada? If so, does he use this privilege?
2.	Is it true that all the members of the Government have this same privilege?


Mr. PELLETIER:: In answer to both questions, the Government is not aware that any recent change has been' made in the practice of the express companies in this regard.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-EASTERN DIVISION.
*Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	What amount has been expended to date in construction of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway?
2.	What amount is due on cost to date?
3.	What is the estimate of amount required to complete?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Total expenditure to December 31, 1913, $140,562,147.
2.	Amount due on cost to December 31, 1913, $2,448,867.
3.	Estimate of amount required to complete, $18,296,786.
TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY SHOPS. Mr. GRAHAM:
Exclusive of the shops at Transcona, what i3 the cost or estimated cost of all car and locomotive repair shops, now constructed and equipped or to be constructed and equipped,

on the line of the eastern division of the
Transcontinental railway?


John Dowsley Reid: For the locomotive and
freight car shops, but not passenger car shops, at Quebec; sixteen roundhouses, seven with machine shops and nine without, at different points on the line, the total sum expended and estimated to complete is $3,489,166.31.


TERREBONNE POSTMASTER.
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	At what date was Mr. Joseph Sergius Archambault appointed postmaster at Terrebonne?
2.	Why was he appointed?
3.	At whose request has he been appointed?
4.	Has he fulfilled his duties to the satisfaction of the public and of the department?
5.	Who did he succeed as postmaster of Terrebonne?	.
6.	What was the reason for removing his
predecessor?	_
7.	At what date was Mr. Joseph Sergius Archambault dismissed, and at whose request?
8.	Have there been complaints made against him? If so, of what nature, what are the names of the parties who made such complaints, and have the latter been investigated?
9.	What is the name of the new postmaster
of Terrebonne, and at whose request was he appointed?	,
10.	Have any complaints been made in connection with that appointment?
11.	Are there now any complaints as to the incompetency of the new postmaster?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	On the 19th October, 1912.
2.	He was reinstated in this position, from which lie had been removed in 1897.
3.	By direction of the Postmaster General.
4.	He was unable to give his attention to the duties of the office, having found other employment in Montreal as an actor.
5.	Mr. J. R. Deschambault.
6.	See answer to No. 2.
7.	A new postmaster was appointed to the office on the 26th November, 1913, by direction of the Postmaster General.
8.	No. Bee answer to No. 4.
9.	George Beausoleil. By direction of the Postmaster General.
10 and 11. No.


DRUMMOND AND ARTHABASKA POSTMASTERS.
Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Was W. H. Rich, postmaster at Kirkdale, dismissed?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	Who has been appointed in his place.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 1 and 2. Not He tendered his resignation.
3.	By Mr. G. W. Cunningham.


Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Has Mr. L. S. Pelletier, postmaster at Lemire, been dismissed?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	By whom has he been replaced?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 1 and 2. No. He tendered his resignation.
3.	By Mr. Desire Martel.


Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Why was Mr. Wilfrid Savoie dismissed as postmaster of North Chester?
2.	By whom has he been replaced?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	The postmaster was not dismissed. He tendered his resignation.
2.	By Mr. Octave ^eauchesne.


Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Why was Mr. Aimd D. Matton dismissed as postmaster of Troutbrook?
2.	Who replaced him?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	The postmaster was not dismissed. He tendered his resignation.
2.	He has not been replaced. The post office has been closed, owing to the establishment of rural delivery in that district, which will accommodate all the former patrons of the office.


MOULIN DUBOIS POST OFFICE.
Mr. BROUILLARD:: Why was the post office of Moulin Dubois closed ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Post Office Inspector recommended the closing of this office, as he stated that almost the only person who used it was the postmaster himself. The annual revenue of the office was $5, while it cost for maintenance, $60 per annum.


ARTHABASKA POST OFFICE REPAIRS.
Joseph Ovide Brouillard: What sums of money have been paid to Auguste Quesnel, Ludger Lavigne, Rolland Picher and Oscar Cloutier, respectively, in connection with the works or repairs to the post office of Arthabaska, since the 1st of November, 1911?


Robert Rogers: Ludger Lavigne, $141.50; Rolland Picher, $60; August Quesnel, $2,612.23; Oscar Cloutier, Nil.


Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Who has been awarded the contract for digging the brook, on the ground near the post office of Arthabaska, and the covering of same?
2.	What price has been paid to the contractor for such work?
3.	Were tenders advertised for, and what are the names of the parties who sent in tenders?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	A. Quesnel.
2.	$500 and for extra excavation $15.
3.	(a) No; (b) tender received from A. Quesnel for $500.


Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	What length and width of concrete sidewalk has the Government caused to be made in front and on each side of the post office at Arthabaska?
2.	What price has been paid?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	814 square feet at 35 cents.
2.	$284.90.


SEA FISHERY STATISTICS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SINCLAIR; .
What are the names, post office addresses and remuneration of each of the officers in Guys-borough county, N.S., who furnish the Department of Marine and Fisheries with the Information on which the monthly bulletins of sea fishery statistics are based?
John Douglas Hazen: J. A. Dillon, Guysborough; R. V. Cooper, Wine harbour. This is part of their duty as officers, and no extra remuneration is allowed them.


SOUTH AFRICAN HAY CONTRACTS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PROULX;	.
1.	What was the amount of the judgment for debts and costs recovered against the Government by Boulay and Lussier in the action brought by them for damages arising out of their contracts for the sale of hay to the Department of Agriculture during the Boer war in South Africa?
2.	When and to whom has the judgment been paid?
3.	What other actions, if any, are pending against the Government in connection with the contract for shipments of hay during the said war?
4.	Was the case of Boulay and Lussier vs. the King a test case?
5.	If so, are any negotiations in progress for settlement of the remaining cases?
Mr. PELLETIER (for Mr. Doherty):: 1.	The amount of the judgment debt and costs recovered against the Government by Boulay and Lussier in the action brought by them for damages arising out of their contracts for the sale of hay to the Department of Agriculture during the Boer war in South Africa was $1,361.33.
2.	The judgment has not yet been paid. The suppliants have not yet obtained the certificate of judgment of the judge of the Exchequer Court. As soon as this has been dene the judgment debt will be paid to the suppliants.
3.	There are no other actions pending against the Government **>. connection
[Mr. Brouillard.l
with the contract for shipments of hay during the said war.
4.	The case of Boulay and Lussier was not a test case.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


EMPLOYMENT OF JOHN A. McDONALD.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Is John A. McDonald employed on the engineering staff, St. Peter's canal improvements ?
2.	How long has he been so employed, what is the nature of his employment and the rate of wages?
3.	Has his dismissal been asked for by the resident engineer?
4.	What are the grounds of complaint?
5.	Has any action been taken?
Mr.REID:
1.	Yes.
2.	Since April 1, 1913-axeman-general
labouring assistant, $45 per month.	-
3.	No.
4 and 5. Answered by No. 3.


GEORGIAN BAY CANAL.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has the Government received a copy of the following resolution passed on Friday, December 26, 1913, at 8 p.m., by the Executive Board of the Chambre de Commerce, of Montreal?
Your commission has apprised itself of all that has been said, written and made since twenty years by the chamber and outside of it on the Georgian Bay Canal question, since fifty years, that this question has been before the public, and, after deliberation, it recommends the adoption of the following resolution. It also recommends that copies of this resolution be forwarded to all public bodies, commercial and municipal, in order to obtain their help and adherence, and, thereby, assume the success of energetical, powerful and decisive pressure on the Government:
Whereas, the necessity of the construction of Georgian Bay canal is now so well acknowledged by all, that further arguments in its favour are now useless;
2.	Whereas, the federal Government has already obtained all the necessary information as regards its possibility, its cost and the results which would be brought by the fulfilling of this great national enterprise ;
3.	Whereas, the leaders of the different gov

ernments at Ottawa have declared themselves
in favour of the project;
4.	Whereas, at its last session, the Government announced that the canal would not be built until a new commission be appointed to ascertain the commercial results of the scheme, which commission was to make a report at the next session of parliament;
Whereas, the session is now at hand, and this commission has not yet been appointed:
Be it resolved, that the Chambre de Commerce du district de Montreal re-iterates with energy its demand on the federal government for the construction of the . Georgian Bay canal within the shortest delay, and assurances of its building at the impending session.

6.	That the Chambre de Commerce du district de Montreal protests with all its might against all measures which would entail delay in the realization of this great national project.
Humbly submitted,
A. P. Prigon,
President of Special Commission.


Mr. CODERRE:: Yes.


FRASERVILLE BATTERY.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Has the Fraserville 20th Battery of Artillery any right to a contribution of one hundred and fifty dollars as a battery fund? If so, has this amount been paid and to whom?
2.	What pay were the officers and non-commissioned officers entitled to?
3.	What was the length of the course at Fraserville, and did the officers and non-commissioned officers receive, when at Kingston, the same pay as during the special course?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	No.
2.	The same pay as any other officers and non-commissioned officers of field artillery, active militia, according to rank and qualification.
3.	Six weeks. The officers at Kingston received $1 per diem and barrack accommodation; at Fraserville $1.75 per diem and provided their own accommodation. The non-commissioned officers at Kingston received 80 cents per diem and barrack accommodation; at Fraserville $1.25 per diem and provided their own accommodation.


KAMLOOPS PUBLIC BUILDING.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Has the Government selected a site for a post office and public building at Kamloops?
2.	If so, what is the area and location, the name of the street, and the numbers of the lots and block?
3.	What price is to be paid for the property?


Robert Rogers: No site selected.


KAMLOOPS DRILL HALL.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Have tenders been received for the erection of a drill hall at Kamloops, B.C.?
2.	If so, what are the names of the persons or firms tendering?
3.	Has the contract been awarded?
4.	If so, at what price?
5.	When is the work to be commenced?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2,	3, 4 and 5. Plans are being redrawn and the work will be readvertised.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY RATES ON FLOUR.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What was the freight on a carload of flour by the Intercolonial railway, for a distance of
not over ten miles, prior, to October the tenth, 1911?
2.	What is the present rate of freight chargeable by said railway, on a carload of flour for a distance not exceeding ten miles?


Mr. REID:: 1. Not over 5 miles, 3 cents per 100 pounds; not over 10 miles, 4 cents per 100 pounds.
2. Not over 5 miles, 3 cents per 100 pounds; not over 10 miles, 4 cents per 100 pounds.


VANCOUVER DRILL HALL SITE.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Was there any commission or moneys paid by the Department of Militia and Defence to any person or persons in connection with the purchase of block 43, D.L. 246 A. Vancouver, for a drill hall site? If so, to whom was such commission or moneys paid and what is the amount?
2.	How much was paid to the legal officer for the department at Vancouver in connection with the said purchase?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	No.
2.	Nothing by this.department.


EMPLOYMENT OF CHARLES A. BORIGHT AND FRANK S. BAKER.
Mr. BOIVIN:: 1.	Is Mr. Charles A. Boright now in the employ of the Department of Customs at New Port, Vermont?
2.	Who recommended his appointment?
3.	Is Mr. Frank S. Baker in the employ of the same department?
4.	Who recommended his appointment?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Minister of Customs.
3.	Yes.
' 4. The Minister of Customs.


ST. JOHNS ISLAND REVENUE COLLECTOR.
Mr. DEMERS:: 1.	What is the salary of the collector of inland revenue at St. Johns, P.Q. ?
2.	Does the Government intend to increase that salary, so that it may be more in keeping with the cost of living?


Mr. NANTEL:: 1.	The salary of Francois Xavier Archambault, Deputy Collector of Inland Revenue (Class ' B') at St. Johns, P.Q., in the St. Hyacinthe Division, is $900 per annum.
2.	This question is under consideration, as are the salaries of other officers of the Inland Revenue Department.


FENIAN RAID BOUNTIES.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to extend the delay provided for by the Act passed by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, viz : 2 George V. cap. 53, sec. 3, so as to enable the volunteers who fought for the Crown during the Fenian raids from 1866 to 1870, and who have not been able to benefit by the provisions of that Act before the 31st of December, 1913, to secure the grant of one hundred dollars?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to amend the said Act during the present session, so as to entitle to the grant the widows of the volunteers who were entitled to said grant and did not get it?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to have such Act amended, so as to entitle to the grant of $100 the conductors of lorries and other vehicles used in conveying arms, ammunition and provisions, and also captains and sailors of the vessels which conveyed the officers, guns and provisions for the expeditions of 1866 to 1870?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1 and 2. The hon. gentleman evidently means the Act passed by the Parliament of Canada. These questions were answered on the 4th inst.
3.	No.


Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	How many claims for Fenian raid bounties are still unpaid in Hants county, Nova Scotia?
2.	Has any person been appointed by the department to receive claims for Fenian raid bounties in Hants county?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Stands as order for return.
2.	The Militia Department gave no authority to any one in Canada, except its regular commission, to deal with any claims.


Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	Did the Militia Department send any officer to the county of Victoria, or to the county of Cape Breton during the months of January and February, 1914, for the purpose of inquiring into Fenian raid bounties? If so, what was the name of the officer, the date of his appointment, and what were his instructions and powers in regard to those bounties?
2.	Did the Militia Department appoint any person or persons in the counties of Victoria or Cape Breton since 1st of April, 1912, with authority to report upon or to allow or disallow any or all of the claims for Fenian raid bounties?


Mr. SAM HUGHES:: 1.	No.
2.	The Militia Department gave no authority to any one in Canada, except its regular commission, to deal with any claims.


INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to present any amendments to the Industrial Disputes Act during the present session?
2.	If so, when may we expect that such amendments will be presented?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to present the amendments presented to the Government by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada?


Mr. CROTHERS:: The matter is receiving the attention of the Government, and the conclusion reached will be announced in due course.


CANADA AND GULF RAILWAY.
*Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	On how many stations was the federal subsidy granted to the Canada and Gulf railway applied, and where are they located?
2.	On how many tanks and where are they situated?
3.	On how many repairing workshops, and where are they located?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Stations, 4: Little Metis, Sandy Bay, Riviere Blanche, Matane.
2.	Two, one at Matane and one at the 18th mile.
3.	One, at St,. Flavie.


NOVA SCOTIA WATER LOTS.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Have any grants of land in public harbours in Nova Scotia been made during 1913?
2.	If so, when, where and to whom?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Grants of water lots have been made during 1913.
2.	October 15, 1913: Halifax harbour, N.S., to the Western Union Telegraph Company.
March 29, 1913: Halifax harbour, N.S., in front of part of Princess Lodge property on west shore of Bedford Basin, to the municipality of the county of Halifax.
May 19, 1913; Halifax harbour, N.S., in front of property of Acadia Sugar Refining Co., Ltd., in town of Dartmouth, to the Acadia Sugar Refining Co., Ltd.
April 14, 1913: Halifax harbour, N.S., in front of lots 3, 5, 7 and 9, Main street, Mac-nab'.s Island, transferred to Department of Militia and Defence.


PICTOU COUNTY POST OFFICES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. * MACDONALD:
1.	How many post offices have been closed or ordered closed, in Pictou county during the past year?
2.	What were the names of said offices?
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Fourteen post offices
have been closed in the county Pictou during the year 1913. Their names are as follows:	Burnside, Concord, Elgin, Lome,
Lome Station, Marshdale, Minto, Murray-field, Rocklin, Royal Centre, Scotsburn, Stillman, Union Centre, Whitehall. The Churcliville post office, instructions for the closing of which were issued on the 16th December, 1913, was not closed until the 31st January, 1914.


JOLIETTE PUBLIC BUILDING.
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Does the Public Works Department contemplate the erection of a new post office building at Joliette? If so, will such building replace the present one? If not, in what part of the town and what street will the new building be erected?
2.	What will be the location of the public building for which an amount of $10,000 has been placed in the Estimates for 1014-1915?
3.	At whose request will that building be erected, at what place and on what street of the town of Joliette does the department intend to have that building erected?
4.	Has such building been asked for during several years past, and what parties have made such requests?


Robert Rogers: No. Plans are being prepared for an addition to the present building.


HANTSPORT PUBLIC BUILDING.
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has any site been obtained for the new public building at Hantsport, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, from whom was it obtained?
3.	When was it obtained?
4.	What was the price?
5.	On whose recommendation was the site fixed upon?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. William S. Whitman.
3.	Order in Council, January 7, 1914.
4.	$1,000.
5.	On the recommendation of the departmental purchasing agent.


PICTOU COUNTY RURAL MAIL.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has a rural mail delivery route between Merigomish station, Lismore, Pictou county, been established?
2.	If not between those points, between Merigomish and what other point has it been?
3.	Have orders been given to close any post office along the route? If so, what offices?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Instructions were issued on the 8th of January, 1914, for the establishment of a rural mail delivery service over the route between Knoydart and Merigomish via
Lismore; the service to be inaugurated as soon as the necessary arrangements can be completed.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Yes. Ponds post office and Lower Barney's River post office.


THE NIOBE'S CREW.
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:: 1.	How many officers are now on duty on the Niobe?
2.	How many men are in service on the Niobe?
3.	How many officers are now in duty in connection with the Naval College at Halifax?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	On January 15, 1914, commissioned and warrant officers, 14.
2.	On January 15, 1914, 155.
3.	On January 15, 1914, 8.


MINERAL DEPOSIT NEAR HULL.
Mr. DEVLIN:: 1.	Is the Government aware that near Hull, province of Quebec, there are large and valuable deposits of magnetic ore contiguous to the line of the proposed Ottawa and Georgian Bay ship canal?
2.	Is the Government aware that such ore assays from 64 to 68 per cent of metallic ore?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	The Government is aware of many deposits of iron ore, more or less contiguous to the line suggested for an Ottawa and Georgian Bay ship canal. Attention to these deposits was drawn as early as 1845, by the Geological Survey, and they have been described in subsequent reports, the last by the Mines Branch in 1909.
2.	In these reports, analyses are given ranging from 43-7 per cent to 69-65 per cent of metallic iron.


DISMISSALS.
Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	For what reason has Mr. David Ephrem Bruneau, postmaster of Madington Falls, been dismissed?
2.	By whom has he been replaced?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	For political partisanship.
2.	By Mr. Napoleon Gagnon.


Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	For what reason has Mr. Ephrem Goupille been dismissed as postmaster of Goupil?
2.	By whom has he been replaced?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	It was considered advisable to remove the-post office to a more central location, where it would be more generally used, and

it became necessary, therefore, to make a change in the postmastership.
2.	By Mr. Phillippe Heon.


Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Why was Mr. Colbert Marchand dismissed as postmaster of Blandford?
2.	By whom has he been replaced?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	For political partisanship.
2,	By Mr. Alphonse Provencher.


Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Why was Mr. Benoit Lafond dismissed as postmaster at St. Marjorie?
2.	Was there an investigation?
3.	Who has been appointed in his place?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	After an investigation by the Post Office Inspector, he reported that the postmaster resided at some distance from the post office and took no part whatever in the duties of the office, which were performed by another person. A new postmaster, who would give his attention to the duties of the office, was therefore appointed.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Mr. Elisee Frechette.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Murphy.-For a return showing how many persons, since October 10, 1911, have been appointed to positions -in the inside Civil Service who had. not passed the public competitive examination held by the Civil Service Commission in May and November of each year; and how many of such persons were appointed in each department.
Mr. Wm. Chisholm.-For a return showing how much money has been expended on public works in Antigonish County since October 11, 1911; of the amount so expended, how much was provided in the estimates for 1911-1912?
What amount was expended on public works in said County which was not included in the estimates for 1911-1912.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a return showing how many claims for Fenian Raid Bounties are still unpaid in Hants County, Nova Scotia?
Mr. McKenzie.-For a return showing the names and addresses of the persons who made application for the Fenian Raid Bounty, up to the end of the year 1913, from the Counties of Cape Breton and Victoria, Nova Scotia; how many of them were paid, and what are their names and addresses; how many were rejected, and what are their names and addresses, and the reasons assigned in each case for such rejection; what are the names and addresses of all applicants whose applications have not yet been adjudicated upon by the Militia Department, and when will those applications be considered.
Mr. Murphy.-For a return showing the total number of officials and employees in the Department of Public Printing and Stationery on February 1, 1914; and what increase in wages was granted to the several groups of employees during the year 1913.

Mr. Ross.-For a copy of all letters, petitions, telegrams, evidence, reports, papers and documents, in the possession of the Post Office Department or any other Department, relating to the dismissal of Geo. Skates, Postmaster at Appin, Ontario; and if there was an investigation, the names of the investigator and witnesses, a copy of the evidence and of letters, papers, petitions recommendations and other documents connected with the appointment of Mr. Skates' successor.
Mr. ICyte.-For a copy of all correspondence,
letters, telegrams, memorials, petitions. &c., re'ating to the sale or transfer of the Indian Reserve at Sydney, N.S., and the removal of the Indians therefrom.
Mr. Kyte.-For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, recommendations and complaints since the 10th day of October, 1911, relative to the employment of H. G. Stanton as Resident Engineer of the St. Peters Canal.
Mr. Emmerson.-For a return showing the total earnings of the Intercolonial railway on Division 3 in connection with passenger traffic for the calendar years 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913 respectively, and the monthly passenger traffic earnings for each of the said years; the total expenses or expenditures connected with the said passenger traffic on said division during the said years respectively; together with a statement showing the monthly passenger traffic expenses or expenditures connected with said passenger traffic for each of the months during the said years; and showing, in addition, the loss and surplus for each of said years and the months thereof respectively, in connection with the passenger traffic on said division three between St. John and Halifax; also a statement of the revenue and expenditures on the transactions connected with said passenger traffic over said division during the months of December, 1913, and January, 1914, separately; and also a statement showing the gross passenger earnings for December, 1912, and January, 1914, respectively, and the gross expenditures with the passenger traffic for the said months respectively together with a copy of all reports, returns, letters and correspondence relating to the earnings, expenditures or losses or surpluses on said division either in connection with freight or passenger traffic.
Mr. Graham.-For a copy of the report of Geo. S. Hodgins, of New York, regarding the Transcona shops of the Transcontinental railway, dated June 10, 1912.
Mr. Graham.-For a copy of all correspondence between the National Transcontinental Railway Commissioner and the Minister of Railways, and between the National Transcontinental Railway Commispioner and the' Canadian Pacific railway regarding the Joint Terminals at Quebec; also a copy of the Order in Council regarding Joint Terminals at Quebec, and for the final agreement regarding same.
Mr. Carvell.-For a copy of all letter^, telegrams, correspondence, leases and other documents relating to the cutting of lumber by Mr. B. F. Smith from the so-called Tobique Indian Reserve, in the province of New Brunswick, and of ail recommendations with reference thereto, made by the Indian agent for that portion of the province, or any other official of the department in the said province; together with a statement of the lumber cut by said Smith from said reserve, with the rates of stumpage charged and amounts paid since January 1, 1912.
Mr. Graham.-For a copy of all correspond-

ence in connection with the appointing of Messrs. Lynch-Staunton and Gutelius as commissioners to investigate the cost of construction of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway, and also of the Order in Council appointing them.
Mr. Carvell.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, contracts and documents relating to the surrender of a contract for dredging in Miramichi bay, N.B., by Messrs. A. and R. Loggie, and also with reference to the letting of a contract for the same, or any portion of said work, to the Northern Dredging Company; together with a copy of all notices for tenders, tenders and contracts in connection therewith.
Mr. Emmerson.-For a return showing the expenditures by the Intercolonial railway in connection with all the inquiries and investigations held by H. P. Duchemin, concerning any and all employees of the Department of Railways and Canals, or of the Intercolonial railway for any cause whatever, and relating to any complaints or charges, or to any matter of whatsoever nature, giving in detail the items of all accounts or bills of or payments to the said H. P. Duchemin in connection with same, during the years 1912, 1913, and for the year 1914 to date; together with a statement showing the total amounts paid in each specified investigation and the total paid in each year, for the whole period to the said H. P. Duchemin.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all letters, papers, plans, correspondence, memoranda and other documents relative to the shortening of distances on the Intercolonial railway between Pictou and Port Mulgrave, and to the construction of a new bridge at Pictou in connection therewith.	.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all letters, papers and other documents relating to 4 p.m. the payments made at Skinner's Cove, Pictou county, for purchase of land or other rights in the year 1913.
Mr. Boulay.-For a copy of the report of George Lafontaine, received by the Department of Agriculture during the present fiscal year, relating to the manufacture of chemical manure.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier.-For a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Railways or the Transcontinental Railway Commission and the Quebec Harbour Commission, with regard to the construction by the said harbour commission of a line of railway to connect the said Transcontinental railway from Champlain Market witli the proposed Union station at the Palais, and of all contracts by the said harbour commission towards that end.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier.-For a copy of all agreements between the Transcontinental Railway Commission and. the Canadian Northern railway for the use of the line of the said company by the trains of the Transcontinental railway from Cap Rouge to the shops of St. Malo.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a return showing the number of cattle exported from Canada to the United States in the months of October, November and December, 1913, and January, 1914, and for the corresponding months in 1912 and 1913.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a return showing the quantities and varieties of fish exported from Canada to the United States in the months of October, November and December, 1913, and
January, 1914, and for the corresponding months in 1912 and 1913.
Mr. Emmerson.-For a copy of all proposals, offers, agreements, reports, estimates, letters, telegrams, and all other communications and documents in the possession of the* Department of Railways or of the Prime Minister or of any other member of the Government, filed with the Minister of Railways and Canals, or in his department, or in any department of the Government, since the 20th day of January, 1913, and not already furnished, relating to or in any manner appertaining to the question or proposal of acquiring any, or all, or any one of the lines of the railways connecting with the Intercolonial railway along its line, or proposed to be connected therewith, and serving or to serve, as a feeder or feeders of said railway, either by lease, purchase or otherwise; also of all proposals, offers, requests, applications, petitions, memorials and other documents, and of all letters, telegrams and other communications and correspondence relating to or in any manner appertaining to the acquisition by any railway privileges, or the securing of a leasehold or other company of running rights, so called, or other interest involving the rights by any railway company to operate its trains over the rails of the Intercolonial railway; together with a copy of all answers, letters, telegrams, correspondence and reports relating thereto, on the files of the Department of Railways and Canals or of the Prime Minister, or of any department of the Government, since January 20, 1913, and not already furnished.
Mr. Macdonald.-Return showing number of claims for Fenian raid bounties still unpaid in Hants county, N.S.
Mr. Kyte.-For a copy of all correspondence, recommendations, etc., relating to the appointment of Allen Morris, St. Peter's, N.S., as inspector of dwellings erected on Gregory Island. Richmond county, N.S., in 1912-1913, and of all accounts, charges, vouchers, etc., rendered to the Department of Marine and Fisheries by the said Allan Morris as such inspector.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all letters, papers, telegrams, valuations, appraisals and other documents relative to the obtaining of a site for a public building at Hantsport, Nova Scotia.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a return showing all smelt fishing licenses issued in the county of Pictou during the past season, and of all correspondence in reference to the same.
Mr. Graham.-For a copy of the assignment of M. P. and J. T. Davis in September, 1909, of contracts numbers 16 and 17 on the National Transcontinenetal railway to O'Brien, Fowler and McDougall, and of the Transcontinental Commissioners' approval thereof, in the said month of September, 1909.

Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Rouville) moved:: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, etc., in connection with the purchase of about 150 arpents of vacant land, part of lots 8 and 9, parish of Lachine, for the sum of $180,000, by His Majesty the King, represented by the Hon. Sam. Hughes, Minister of Militia and Defence, on June 24, 1912,

He said:	In moving for the papers in
connection with this case, I do not intend to formulate any charge against my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence. For the time being I simply move to get the necessary information which I think, in order to satisfy public opinion, should be later on followed up by drastic investigation. Before giving the House the facts of the case, however, perhaps it would be well to refer to some years previous.
It is well known that all Governments for some years back intended to erect barracks and a military school in the city of Montreal, the largest centre in the Dominion, or nearby. It was found that the military school at St. John, in the county of St. John and Iberville was a little too far out of the way, and the various militia corps of the city of Montreal were intent upon having a military school and barracks nearby. The Government, of course, was in a difficult position. It is well known that land values in the city of Montreal for some years past have been very materially enhanced. The Government, it is true, was proprietor of some valuable land at Lafontaine park for one, and St. Helen's island for the other. St. Helen's island has been used as ordnance land since British domination in 'Canada; and when one reads history, one finds that St. Helen's island has also been used as ordnance land under the French occupation. But as the city of Montreal developed, St. Helen's island was largely used by the Militia Department for military stores and for the annual drill. It was, however, chiefly used by the city of Montreal as a public park and as play-grounds, especially for the children during the summer months. The city of Montreal was very anxious that a settlement should take place between the Dominion Government and the city corporation in order to secure for the people of Montreal the exclusive use of St. Helen's island and Lafontaine park.
In the year 1908, if I am not mistaken, a settlement was arrived at. Sir Frederick Borden, the predecessor of my hon. friend sold St. Helen's island to the city of Montreal for the sum of $200,000. At the same time, by other Orders in Council which I need not recite, some ordnance property was sold to the city of Toronto for similar purposes and objects. In 1910, the Militia Department found that the Government of Canada was the proprietor of a large strip of land on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, facing the city of Montreal and situated in the town of Longueuil. In 1867 at the time

of Confederation this land had been transferred to the Dominion Government as ordnance property. It was under the control of the Department of the Interior, and Sir Frederick Borden, my hon. friend's predecessor, obtained for the Militia Department the transfer of that block of land at Longueuil from the Interior Department.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	It originally belonged to the Ordnance branch of the Department of Militia.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It belonged to the Government, but was transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Militia.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	First from the
Department of Militia to the Department of the Interior and then back again.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As it was Government property, it did not cost anything to do that. The idea of the then Minister of Militia was to utilize that strip of land for the building of barracks for the use of the Montreal militia. The $200,000 obtained from the City of Montreal for the sale of St. Helen's island was to be spent for the buildings themselves and not for acquiring the land. The site at Longueuil has been accepted by the Minister himself, by General Sir Percy Lake and by the most prominent officers of the Montreal district. It was adopted and approved by all of them as being a proper site for the depot of the permanent 'force. I have just referred to an Order in Council confirming the sale of St. Helen's island. That Order in Council was passed on the 6th December, 1905. It is recited in a resolution introduced into this House on July 17, 1908:
Hon. Sir Frederick Borden, Minister of Militia and Defence, moved that the House go into committee to consider the following resolutions:
1. Resolved, that it is expedient to confirm the following Orders in Council, that is to say:
(b)	An Order in Council, dated the 6th day of December, 1905, authorizing the sale to the city of Montreal of the ordnance property in the St. Lawrence river, opposite the said city, known as St. Helen's island: and
(c)	An Order in Council dated the 27th day of July, 1907, authorizing the conveyance to the city of Montreal of a portion of the ordnance property in that city known as Lafontaine park, and to authorize the sale and disposal of the said ordnance property in the manner and subject to the conditions by the said Orders in Council, respectively, provided and subject to such further and other conditions as may be imposed by His Majesty and accepted by the corporation of the city of Toronto and by the city of Montreal, as the case may be.
I referred a moment ago to other ordnance properties that were sold to the city

of Montreal at the same time as St. Helen's island and Lafontaine park were transferred to the city of Montreal. When this resolution was introduced there was some little discussion in the House and some questions were put after which the resolutions were reported and the Bill founded upon them was passed.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: What date?


Rodolphe Lemieux: On July 17, 1908. In 1911 the question oame up again but this time it took a concrete form. The Government had decided to build the barracks or the military school on the site 'belonging to the Government situated at Longueuil, on the south shore of the St. Lawrence facing the city of Montreal. An item was placed in the Estimates of that year and when the item was reached in Committee of the Whole a discussion ensued in which the present hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) and the then member for Chambly-Vercheres, (Mr. Geoffrion) took part.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: What year was that?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The debate took place on February 7, 1911. The other members who took part in this discussion were the then Minister of Militia and Defence, Sir Frederick Borden, and the present hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Hughes). The hon. Minister of Justice, who was then the 'member for Montreal, St. Anne's, was not irremediably opposed to the site at Longueuil but he raised some objection on behalf of some officers of Montreal against that site. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Public Works, the present member for Jacques Cartier, was strongly in favour of a site in his own county at Lachine. He expressed an opinion in that sense. On the contrary, the then member for Chambly-Verchferes strongly recommended the selection of the site at Longueuil. Two others who spoke on this question were the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence and my hon. friend the present Minister of Militia and Defence. I may be permitted, in order to be accurate, to quote from a speech delivered on the 7th of February, 1911, by Sir Frederick Borden, in which he explained how it was that he had selected the Longueuil site, and after what investigation. At page 3145-6 of ' Hansard,' Feb. 7, 1911, my hon. friend the minister will find the speech delivered by Sir Frederick Borden. He said:
That was talked of, and the present proposal is more agreeable to the officers generally, as far as I know, than the location at Pointe aux Trembles would be.
I might remind you Mr. Speaker, that some people at that time were in favour of a site for a barracks and military school at Pointe aux Trembles, where our rifle ranges are located at the present time. Sir Frederick Borden continued:
Then there was a suggestion as to Lachine, another point some distance to the westward of the centre of the city, quite as far away as the present proposed location. That proposal would have been as good as the present proposal but no better. So, upon the whole, even from the point of view of accessibility I think the present location is fairly satisfactory. Accessibility will be measured by time. How long does it take from a given point, the post office, or some central point in the city of Montreal to get to a given place? I understand that by way of the Victoria bridge at all times of the year, and by crossing the river by ferry in certain seasons of the year, the time occupied in going from the centre of Montreal to Longueuil is only a few minutes, and that the tendency is towards improvement in that regard.
There is the Southern Counties railway, and there is the street railway giving direct accommodation with the centre of Montreal-better communication than there is with our rifle ranges at Pointe aux Trembles. I think there is no serious difficulty on that ground. As far as officers outside of the city are concerned, it cannot make any difference to them and these military depots are of quite as much importance to the country militia as to the city militia.
As to evening schools and that sort of thing, I do not know what the. course of instruction would he, but it would always be easy for us to arrange a course of instruction at hours which would suit professional and business men in the city, and an effort will he made to do that wherever the location inay be. We had also to consider, Mr. Chairman, another matter of importance, and that is the question of expense.
I wish to call the attention of the House to the weighty words of the then Minister of Militia and Defence:
The Government own this land.
That is, the Longueuil site.
It was owned by the British war office, and it was handed over to the Canadian Government at the time of Confederation. It is a block of land between 100 and 200 acres in extent and, as a matter of fact, it is costing Canada no, one single dollar as against the problem we had before us of purchasing between 100 and 200 acres t>f land in the city of Montreal, or near Montreal at a cost of $300,000 or $400,voO, and perhaps $1,000,000. It seemed to me that that was a point that could not be disregarded. It is a matter of very considerable consequence, and I felt that a very difficult problem had been solved when I found this land practically waiting for us, and I thought I was acting in the public interest as well as in the interest of the

militia, to have adopted it as a site for our barracks at Montreal.
I may say that in addition to my own judgment X consulted the best military authorities we had. I consulted General Sir Percy Lake, who was here at that time, and he entirely approved, and I think I may say that it is the unanimous opinion of the militia council, and of the best authorities here and in Montreal that we should have pursued the course we have.
Later, my hon. friend the present Minister of Militia and Defence addressed the House, page 3151, in the following words:
Last year two or three officers wrote me concerning this proposed site.
That is, the Longueuil site.
Their objections were first the inaccessibility of the site, and second, the condition of the ground. It was pointed out by these gentlemen that part of the ground is very low and that part of it is a sticky clay, so that on dewy mornings, unless it were well drained, it would be a rather unfavourable ground on which to drill. I have made inquiries from some of the gentlemen representing that part of the country and they tell me that that condition extends only a short distance along the river bank and that the ground is higher and more sandy further back.
So that we have here the opinions of both the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence, Sir Frederick Borden, and my hon. friend the present incumbent.


Samuel Hughes: Would the hon.
gentleman point out the information the present minister gaye in regard to that matter?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have just read it.


Samuel Hughes: I am afraid not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend, in his remarks before the House-


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman
should be fair enough to say that what I said was that the member representing that particular county (Mr. Geoffrion), told me that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Mr. NESBITT:: That was a fair profit,
was it not, in Montreal?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was not in Montreal, it was at Dorval, thirteen miles from the Montreal post office.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	Will the hon.
member tell us when the race track was purchased?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am moving for the
titles.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman has stated that the race track was purchased in 1911.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will give that in a
few moments.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman is
seeking to make it appear that after twenty-four days-


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am reciting only facts.


Samuel Hughes: No, he is not reciting
facts, he is seeking to make it appear that the two properties were sold within a few days of their purchase.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend will let me go on peaceably, I am not accusing my hon. friend, I am reciting facts and nothing else. Let us go a little more deeply into this transaction. Let us take the details of the purchases made by Rodden. He bought first, this Bel-Air race track for $48,500. He paid, on May 27, 1911, which I think was the date of the purchase by Rodden, $10,000 to the race track proprietors. In 1912, on the 10th of May, he paid another $10,000. That is all he paid to the Bel-Air race track proprietors; the balance, $28,500, was to be paid only in 1915 as will appear by the titles. I stated a moment ago that he bought the other portion of the property from the Duncan McIntyre estate. He bought that property on the 8th of June, 1912, sixteen days before the sale to the Militia Department, and he paid $36,496. Sixteen days later he sold it to the Government for $180,000 cash, making a profit of $95,000.04. I think I mentioned that the area was 150 acres. From the report of the land surveyor it would appear that the land comprised 172 arpents-that is the old French measure in the province of Quebec. The equivalent of 172 arpents is 145%o acres, English measure. The Government paid $1,232 an acre for this farm at Dorval. The property adjoining the one purchased for His Majesty by my hon. friend can be bought for $600 an acre. First of all, I want to say that the p-o-perty purchased by the Militia Department can not be used as a rifle range. I think my hon. friend will admit that. It. is near the Forest and Stream club and pretty close to the village. It is divided not only by the highway but a little further on by four railway tracks, two of them Canadian Pacific railway tracks and the other two Grand Trunk tracks. I am told that the modern military rifle must have a range of at least 2,000 yards. Now this farm in its longest part has a range of only 1,133 yards. Furthermore, it cannot be used for military training, according to militia officers in Montreal, as it is thirteen miles away from the centre of that city. I would like to know, and that is the object of my motion, why the Department of Militia and Defence so radically departed from the policy accepted by the Parliament of Canada in 1911 when this Parliament voted for the erection



of those barracks at the Longueuil site opposite Montreal, a site which already belonged to the Government and which would have obviated this expenditure? I would also like to know who gave the instructions? Were they given by my hon. friend the Minister of Militia, by a Militia Department clerk or by some Montreal officers?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: If the hon. gentleman will tell us what instructions, I would be glad to answer him.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I want to know who gave the instructions for changing this site from Longueuil to Dorval, and to whom they were given? Also the date of those instructions and if any recommendations were made by the department or by my hon. friend officially; and whether a report has been made in writing by the officers in Montreal, and whether that report has been considered by the hon. gentleman and by the military experts of his department? I want to know what the Government intends to do with the property at Longueuil, and whether the property purchased by the department on the 24th of June, 1912, divided as it is by the highway and four railway tracks, is going to be utilized by the department either as a rifle range or for	a	military training	school?
I want to know if there are any buildings erected on that property, or if there are any plans for the construction of such buildings. I can inform my hon. friend that anybody in Montreal will tell him that the price paid by the department for that property-1180,000-is considered scandalous. I do not say that my hon. friend is personally responsible for that, but officially, of course, he has to bear the responsibility. I can tell my hon. friend that the properties around the two blocks of land purchased by his department at Lachine can be bought to-day, and could have been bought at that time, for $600 an acre and less. It is rather startling that a gentleman who had invested $20,000 in one block and $36,000 in another-sixteen days before its sale to the department-could sell that block to the department without mentioning at the registry office the price he paid for the last section of the property, and make a profit in sixteen days of nearly $100,000. I expect that my hon. friend will give the House, as soon as possible, the information which I am seeking by this motion.'
Hon. SAM. HUGHES (Minister of Militia and Defence!: I am greatly in-
debted to the hon. gentleman for his very capable address, bristling as it does with everything but facts. He pointed out that for the time being he is not going to make any charges, but he demands a thorough investigation, to which I heartily assent. He speaks of the barracks being required for the city of Montreal, and yet advocates the building of a barracks on a site down in St. Lambert, which he says is two miles from Montreal by air line. He proposes, I suppose, to use aeroplanes to get the boys out there. It is nearly as far from the post office at Montreal to the site on the south side of the river, as it is from the post office to the Dorval site which I purchased-and a much more awkward road. There are four railway tracks running through the property; there is a splendid main road, and, what the hon. gentleman did not mention, there is a boulevard about to be constructed along the rear part of the property. Besides that, the electric street cars, which will be there is a very short time, will render this the most accessible site in the neighbourhood of Montreal. The hon. gentleman points out that Sir Frederick Borden, after giving certain property to the people of Montreal, selected the site across the river St. Lawrence, which had been handed over to us by the British Government in 1867. The hon. gentleman tells us that Sir Frederick Borden himself, and I am not surprised at it, could not locate a site anywhere near the city of Montreal for a price less than $400,000 or $500,000 or possibly $1,000,000; but I have obtained a site for $180,000, within a few miles of the city of Montreal, and a better site than any that was located by my predecessor. When Sir Frederick Borden thought of locating the school of instruction on the south side of the river St. Lawrence, I drew to his attention the fact that the officers, not only from the city of Montreal but from the country districts, complained bitterly about that location, pointed out that about one-third of it was under water part of the year, and that there was a ridge on that property behind which the water lay until it became stagnant. I asked Sir Frederick Borden at the: time if these facts were true, and I also challenged Mr. Geoffrion, who then represented the constituency, I believe, in which the property is located, and Mr. Geoffrion said he thought the land was sandy. When I became Minister of Militia, one of the first things I did was to visit that property, and I was tramping through mud half-way up to my knees

before I got across the field. That property is absolutely unsuited for a barracks site. Moreover, a large portion of that land on the south side of the river is now required for the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, and some thirty or forty acres of it has been handed over to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: For what purpose is it required by the 5 p.m. Harbour Commission of Montreal ?


Samuel Hughes: I have handed it over to the Marine Department; I do not know what they are going to use it for.


Wilfrid Laurier: Did the minister part with it without knowing for what purpose ?


Samuel Hughes: It was for the purpose of the harbour commissioners.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, but what do the harbour commissioners want with it ?


Samuel Hughes: I do not know.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Perhaps it is for the navy.


Samuel Hughes: It may have been for.
raising ducks for aught I know. It goes without saying that a school of instruction is wanted for the militia of the city of Montreal. In making inquiries as to the prices of property, I was told that the old Crawford farm on the Lachine road, nine miles out of Montreal, could not be bought for less than $2,500 or $3,000 an acre; I found that property at the Back river could not be purchased for less than $1,800 or $2,000 an acre. I visited a dozen different properties there, without any one knowing my purpose, and learned the prices asked for them. On the Lachine road they were asking upwards of $2,500 an ac^e for property; around Lachine, the property was $3,000 per acre; down at Pointe aux Trembles, the remote end of the island, property was valued at about $1,200 an acre (more than we paid for the Dorval property); and at Montreal West, properties were valued at over $4,000 an acre. In not one solitary instance, except in the case of the Back River property, could we get a large enough area for our purpose. I consulted two of the most respectable and most distinguished officers of the service, Colonel Labelle of Montreal, and Colonel Wilson. I accept full responsibility for everything these gentlemen have done, and I have no fear whatever on the result of any inquiry into any 661
action taken in this matter. These are two gentlemen of the very highest standing; and I believe an investigation will show their good sound judgment. This property lies on lake St. Louis and the Forest and Stream Club occupy a part of the front of it. The property is traversed by a splendid automobile road, by four railway tracks, and a boulevard is going to be constructed through the northern end of it, and in a very short time the electric railway will be there. If the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) consults the time table, he will find it is ten miles from the Grand Trunk station and nine miles from the Canadian Pacific station, to Dorval. I am sure my good hon. friend will agree with me that he would sooner go to Dorval by train or electric car, than he would go to the property located between St. Lambert and Longueuil, at Montreal South, and to reach which you have to cross the Grand Trunk bridge and go a roundabout way. The Dorval property is only five miles from Montreal West and four miles from Montreal junction.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Montreal Junction is
far from Montreal.


Samuel Hughes: It is five miles from
Montreal. If the hon. gentleman does not know the geography of his own city any better than that, I do not see how he can be expected to know much about the geography of the country. When the property was purchased I was advised to consult Mr. Charles W. Robertson and Mr. James Baillie about its value. Perhaps my hon. friend knows these two gentlemen but I would not know them if I met them on the street. I was told on independent authority that C. W. Robertson and James Baillie were two of the safest valuators in Montreal, and Mr. Baillie valued the property at $205,500 and Mr. Robertson valued it at $235,500. I can tell my hon. friend that the property adjoining this property is valued at $200 more an acre than we paid, and with all due respect to him I can tell him that he cannot get a piece of land within ten miles of this property for $600 an acre, in any suitable locality. A gentleman named F. H. Shaw has put the present value of the property at $1,400 an acre or $219,800, and Mr. Robertson confirms his former valuation and believes there is a prospect of an early advance in price, but owing to the financial stringency during the last year he thinks it might not be sold readily at the present moment. I do not know that the hon. gentleman (Mr. COMMONS.
Lemieux) could sell property right on St. James street in Montreal very easily at the present time. Mr. Baillie values this land now at fifty cents per square foot on the waterfront, thirty cents per square foot in the middle and twenty-five cents per square foot near the railway tracks.	[DOT]
My hon. friend knows that property to the west of that, a mile or so further from the city of Montreal, is being laid out in lots and is sold veiry rapidly at a higher figure. The average value of the property is 35 cents per square foot, but taking it at the lowest estimate of 25 cents per foot and it is worth $767,745. Lot nine, north of the tracks, contains 64-3 acres, and it is valued at from six to ten cents a foot. If we take the lowest valuation of 6 cents this would give for the property north of the tracks the sum of $168,141 at the present time. This, with $767,745 for the property south of the track, would make a total of $935,886 that this property would toe worth to-day for building purposes. If we take the total area of 5,873,340 square feet at five cents per foot-land is selling for ten and fifteen cents a foot and as high as twenty cents for the front part between the tracks and the water, as my hon. friend knows-this would give a value of $293,667; or if we take it at ten cents a foot, which is less than the average of the piece north of the track, the value would be $587,334. I was rather surprised at the way in which my hon. friend slid over the Lafontaine park transaction.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It has nothing to do
with the question.


Samuel Hughes: Why mention it then?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Because the Orders in Council were passed at the same time.


Samuel Hughes: I was surprised at my
' hon. friend referring to -St. Helen's island.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The barracks were
formerly on St. Helen's island.


Samuel Hughes: They were never on St. Helen's island, never in the history of the world.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The militia drilled
there.


Samuel Hughes: They drilled in Fletcher's field and at Logan's farm also.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was when St. Helen's island was sold to the city that the Government started to build the barracks at Longueuil.


Samuel Hughes: The Order in Council was passed in 1905, but the Act was not passed until 1908.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In 1911, $100,000 was voted by this Parliament for the construction of barracks at Longueuil.


Samuel Hughes: You waited six years, until just before the election. $100,000 was voted just on the eve of an election for the construction of barracks at Longueuil, near the city of Montreal. It is quite consistent with the hon. gentleman's whole procedure.
Thirty-one acres of Logan's farm were handed over to the city of Montreal by the Liberal Government

possibly my hon. friend was engineering the deal-and for what purpose? This property in the city of Montreal belonged to the Militia Department. Some of it was handed over in fee simple, and forty acres was leased for ninety-nine years at a nominal rental. The whole of St. Helen's island, worth millions of dollars, was handed over to the city of Montreal. This property rightly belonged to the Department of Militia, and yet all that this Government has got out of it is the paltry sum of $200,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is all gobbled up in the .other deal.


Samuel Hughes: My hon. friend is very anxious about the other deal. What is wrong with the selling of this Longueuil property? If it is so very valuable as my hon. friend states, we can sell it to-morrow and make enough out of it to build the barracks.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You have given it away.


Samuel Hughes: We have just given the swamp .part of it to the marine people, to the Marine Department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: For a navy?


Samuel Hughes: I do not know whether it is for the raising of ducks or the building of dockyards;' it is immaterial to me. What we parted with was a swamp, but we have retained the better part of it and we propose disposing of that for the best advantage of the Department of Militia and of the Dominion of Canada.
As regards the Longueuil site, it was entirely unsuitable and almost inaccessible. On the question of changing the site, if my hon. friend will produce five officers who will say that the Dorval site is not infinitely better than the other, I will take it back at a valuation, make a fortune on it incidentally, and put the barracks on the

other site. You cannot get five officers in the Dominion of Canada to condemn the Dorval site and to endorse the Longueuil site. After I inspected the Longueuil site, I would not dream of erecting barracks on it; the entire staff of officers in Montreal and all the officers not of the staff in Montreal agreed to our proposition to change the site. In fact it was at their persistent demand we did so. As to reports in writing, we are not bothering about them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is very important.


Samuel Hughes: My hon. friend speaks of reports of officers. Let me point out to him that my predecessor obtained reports on Farnham camp on one occasion. The story goes that a certain distinguished gentleman, the ex-Minister of Agriculture, had some friends in this House who had mortgages on a lot of swamp property around Farnham. It was supposed to be used for the raising of tobacco, but it had ceased to be used in that way. Consequently, these gentlemen could not get the amount of their mortgages out of the place. One gentleman said: ' Let us lay out a military camp there.' Reports were immediately forthcoming from two distinguished officers of the service that this was a magnificent site for a camp, and accordingly Farnham camp was unloaded on the Militia Department for a fabulous sum. Thus these gentlemen received a rake-off for the mortgages which they could not collect in any other way.
I understand that both of them had held seats on the Liberal side of the House. My hon. friend cannot find an officer in the eastern townships, be he a Liberal or be he a Conservative, who will say that one can ride for a distance of a hundred yards in av straight line in Farnham camp without getting into a bog hole and running the risk of losing the shoes off his horse's feet. One of those officers who made the report was one day talking to a colonel and he said, ' Don't you think it will make a magnificent site?' The colonel replied,
' There is just one thing it lacks.' ' What is that?' said the officer. ' Why,' he says,
* It requires to be planked over.'


An hon. MEMBER:: Was it Mr. Sydney Fisher?


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Sydney Fisher, exMinister of Agriculture, certainly is credited with engineering the deal. As regards the Longueuil site, I can assure my hon. friend that it is not going to be abandoned,
to no purpose. That is one thing that my hon. friend can reckon his bottom sixpence on.
That property will be utilized to the best advantage for the militia and those parts which are swampy and which we cannot use fcr the militia we will hand over to the Marine Department. My hon. friend speaks of using the property at Dorval for "ifio ranges. I would like my hon. friend not to make an exhibition of himself; lie might as well talk of locating a rifle range in the city of Montreal. Rifle ranges must have special sites. I am sorry that is so because, unfortunately, it is impossible to give the militiamen of the country the sites that We would like them to have. We have a rifle range,at Pointe aux Trembles which is not satisfactory because it takes nearly as long to get to it as to the Longueuil camp site. It takes the boys about forty minutes to get there and the same time to come home, and when they get to the ranges the afternoon is well advanced, and there is not much time left for shooting. There never was any intention of using the Dorval property for a rifle range. If my hon. friend had known anything at all about the business he would not have put that idea forward. It is intended to be used as a site for a school of instruction and not for a rifle range. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) is not in his place, but if he were here he would give my hon. friend the assurance that plans are ready. We have $200,000 stowed away somewhere with which we can proceed, and there is a possibility that a- sum will be placed in the Estimates for the construction of a military school at Dorval at an early date. However, I will be very glad to answer my hon. friend's questions and bring down the papers in due course.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon.   S@: For a copy of all petitions and memoranda from commercial bodies or other parties in relation to the immediate construction of the Georgian Bay canal, and of all correspondence in connection with the same since September 21, 1911.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that during the last recess numerous petitions and resolutions of hoards of trade and different commercial bodies have been presented to the Government urging upon them the feasibility, nay, the necessity, of promptly commencing the construction of

the Georgian Bay canal. Up to the present time there has been no indication of any intention on the part of the Government of complying with these numerous and repeated requests. Not only that, but in -newspapers which seem to be deep in the confidence of the Government a statement has been made more than once that it was -their intention not to proceed with the work, but to have another commission entrusted with the duty of making an investigation. I do not know whether this investigation is to be made upon an engineering basis or upon any of the other features of the question; but their intention, it was stated, was to have the matter investigated in some way by a commission before any decision was to be taken.
I might observe that we have already had two different commissions to investigate this matter. One goes back as far as the year 1859, under the old Government of Canada, and another took up the question within the last six or seven years under the late Administration, Each of these commissions has reported. These reports are very thorough. The first one was exceedingly thorough, and the second one was no less thorough, and I believe -that at the present time we have all the information that we need to come to a conclusion.
Upon the floor of this House more than once the opinion has been expressed by men occupying prominent positions on both sides to the effect that the Georgian Bay canal was necessary -to the commercial development of Canada. But there is reason to believe that -since the present Administration -has been in office representations have been -made to them by interests connected with the St. Lawrence -system to the effect that all the energy and efforts of the Government and of the country should be applied to -the improvement of the St. Lawrence system and -th-at nothing should be spent at all upon the Georgian Bay and Ottawa River system. On the other hand,
I am aware, that there are those who believe that a quite different course should be taken

 that the Ottawa and Georgian Bay system ought' to be developed to the exclusion of -any -more expenditure upon the -St. Lawrence system, that henceforth the Ottawa system alone should receive the attention of the Government and of the country, and that we should not g-o on with any more works upon the St. Lawrence.
For my part, it is my firm opinion that both of these views are wrong-that we want not only the St. Lawrence system, not

only the Georgian Bay system, but both; that the trade that we -have reason to expect to flow from east to west, and still more from west to east, necessitates both the St. Lawrence system and the Ottawa and Georgian Bay system. At the present time we are committed to the improvement of the St. Lawrence system, and already the Government is proceeding with the deepening of the Welland canal to ensure a navigation of at least twenty feet over the mitre sill.
What is to be expected from the deepening of the Welland canal? If I have -correctly interpreted some of the speeches I have heard even during the present session, we have been led -to believe that the Welland canal would not work satisfactorily for the development of Canadian trade, and that -our trade might still be diverted from Canadian to American ports. The matter is one of very -serious importance, and I would call the attention o-f the House to a statement which was made a few days ago by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), as to the portion of the trade of western Canada going to Canadian ports and the portion going to American ports. Speaking upon this subject no later than last Thursday, my hon. friend stated:
Of the grain that went forward from Canadian ports at the head of the lakes from August, 1913, to the close of navigation in December!
75.000.	000 bushels went by United States ports
as against 5S,000,000 bushels by Canadian ports.	'
This means that during the last season, from the month o-f August to the close of navigation, a quantity of no less than
133.000.	000 bushels of the grain of western Canada wen-t -from the -head of lake Superior, and at -a certain point was divided, 75,000,000 bushels going to the United States and 58,000,000 bushels going to Canadian ports. That is a serious state of things to which I invite the earnest attention of the -Canadian people. It is not in accordance with the possibilities of our resources. The reason for that condition of affairs is simply this: The grain is shipped in very large vessels, having -a draught of more than 20 feet, and when these vessels reach -the head of lake Erie, with Buffalo on one side and Port Colborne on the other, they -cannot go any further. The Welland canal cannot receive them and they have to be unloaded, and the consequence is that 75,000,000 bushels of grain go through United States ports and only 58,000,000 bushels go through Canadian ports. When this condition of affairs is analyzed, it

means that the Canadian shipper has to take the option of putting his cargo upon river boats and sending it through the canal to lake Ontario, and thence to Montreal, or of sending it through Buffalo to New York by .rail. When the Welland canal is deepened, we shall have an uninterrupted lake navigation system to Kingston, at the lower end of lake Ontario. Then Canadian wheat can be brought down to the end of lake navigation, and carried thence on river boats to Montreal.
Some one said the other day-I think it was the hon. member for Bast Simcoe (Mr. Bennett)-that when the grain reaches the end of lake Ontario there is a danger of its being diverted to Oswego and thence to New York. I do not think there will be *any difficulty in this regard, because the grain having reached the lower end of lake Ontario, the shipper will have the option of sending it to Montreal by water or sending it to New York by rail, and when it comes to a choice between river transportation and rail transportation, the former is always considered the more advantageous.
For my part I am, as I have always been, in favour of the deepening of the Welland canal and of improving the St. Lawrence navigation system. But, I shall be asked, if that be the case, what would be the advantage of having another water route by way of the Georgian bay and Ottawa river? There are two reasons for this, and one of them is that the trade which is looming up in the West will in the future be so vast that it will require all the facilities we can afford to carry it. I do not think we have a sufficient appreciation, not merely of the .possibilities but of the certainties of the development of Canadian trade. We have only to compare the tonnage of the vessels passing through the St. Lawrence Canal system with the tonnage which passes through the most famous canal in the world, the Suez canal, to see the immense difference there is between the possibilities of the one and the possibilities of the other. The Suez canal serves as a means of communication between 300,000,000 people in Europe and 800,000,000 people in Asia. The total tonnage- I have not the data for the last year or two, but I am sure that the amount cannot have varied very much, because the canal has reached the limit of its possibilities- the total tonnage which passed through the Suez canal in one year never exceeded, I believe, more than 50,000,000 tons, whereas,
last year alone, on the Canadian canal on the St. Mary's river the total tonnage exceeded 39,000,000 tons. Assuming that there is as great a tonnage on the United States side, the total would be. 60,000,000 tons, more than four times the tonnage of the Suez canal; and we are only at the beginning of our development.
We obtain a very good idea of the development of Canadian trade if we simply compare the tonnage passing through the canal on the Canadian .side of the St. Mary's river in the year 1912 with that of the year 1902. In 1902 the tonnage which passed over the Canadian canal on the St. Mary's river was about 4,500,000 tons; in ten years it increased to the enormous figure of 39,000,000 or more, so that in within a decade the tonnage passing over the canal doubled and trebled and quadrupled, and it still increases. This is sufficient qualification not only for our having what facilities we have to-day, but for our providing for the future also. There are 100,000,000 people to-day in the North American continent, and it is safe to assume that within the next 100 years that figure will increase to 250,000,000. These are people of the greatest commercial races of the world, so that there is no limit not merely to the possibilities but to the certainties of trade development on this continent.
In considering a policy of improving the waterways of the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers, we have to consider that we should provide for increase of trade not only on the Canadian side, but also on the United States side. The people of the United States have the same right to the use of the waters of the St. Lawrence as we have, and if we build a canal we do so for the purpose of drawing trade not only from the Canadian side but from the United States side as well. All the great .states south of lake Superior-Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, the Dakotas and Montana-always seeking water navigation, send their cargoes through seaports on the United States or the Canadian side and over the St. Lawrence system. If we have these advantages on the St. Lawrence, what would be the advantage, it may be asked, of developing another system in the Georgian Bay canal and the Otawa river. It is simply a matter of distance. If you look at the map, you find that the waters of the St. Lawrence system, as they recede from lake Superior [DOT] and advance eastward, take a southerly direction until they reach Detroit, and then come back towards the north.

So that part of Canada which is bounded by the waters of the .St. Lawrence system between Lake Superior and Detroit and eastward, forms a wedge into American territory. The Canadian shore forms , two sides of a triangle. A ship, therefore, in sailing from Fort William to go to Montreal, has to go as deeply as the wedge into American territory and then come back into Canadian territory; whereas the same ship, if it could go by the way of the Georgian bay and the Ottawa river, would go almost in a bee line. In fact, the distance by the St. Lawrence between Fort William and Montreal is a lttle over 1,200 miles; whereas the distance between the same two points by way of the Georgian bay and Ottawa river is only about 950 miles. So that practically there is a saving by the Georgian Bay route of one-quarter the distance by the St. Lawrence route. This alone is enough to induce us to go on with this work. The advantage of the Ottawa route is so natural, so obvious, that in the early times of the colonies, when the only trade between the East and the West was the fur trade, the only route which was followed by the fur traders was the route of the Ottawa river and Georgian bay. There were not then the same requirements in navigation that there are no\^, but the reasons are as obvious to-day in favour of the Ottawa system over the St. Lawrence system as they were in those days. So when the Ottawa-Georgian bay system is completed, as it must be ultimately, we will effect a considerable saving in freight charges.
There is, I am aware, the question of speed. Can we maintain the same rate of speed over river navigation as we can maintain over lake navigation? I do not believe that anybody will pretend that we can have the same speed over the river navigation as over lake navigation. From the moment a vessel enters a river system like the Ottawa it will be impossible for her to maintain the same speed that she maintains on the Great Lakes. But it must be observed that both the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa are partly lake and partly river.
I am prepared to admit that there is more of river navigation on the Ottawa system than upon the St. Lawrence system, and that to that extent the Ottawa system may not be as advantageous as the St. Lawrence system. But that question is not of such moment as to be a factor. I am prepared to admit that, in a comparison of cost of carrying freight on the two routes the St. Lawrence system may have this advantage 
of having less river navigation than the Ottawa system; but still I maintain that the difference, while it is appreciable, is not such as to be a factor against the Ottawa system. I have therefore to urge the desirability of developing, as rapidly as possible, the Ottawa system.
It may be seen, by the tenor of my remarks, that I approve the system in a wholly commercial spirit, without any captious disposition at all. I am simply pointing out to the Government what seems to be the pressing necessity of the day, that is to say, the development of the Ottawa system as soon as possible. I am so confident of the future of the country that I have no hesitation in saying that none of the resources which nature has given us in the way of transportation can be neglected, that every possible advantage of that kind should be improved. Nature has provided us with two outlets from the West, one by the St. Lawrence and the other by the Ottawa river. Both of them are needed to carry on the enormous development which must take place in the West. The West has been settled for only a few years; we have not yet one-fiftietn of the available soil under cultivation, but last year the wheat crop alone was about two hundred million bushels. Therefore, if the country continues to develop as it has developed, the agricultural products alone which will come from the prairie provinces will reach almost fabulous figures. If that be so, I repeat that it is not enough to have only one system; we require the two systems. It is in view of these circumstances that I bring this question to the attention of the House. My motion is simply a motion for papers.
I do not ask for anything else at the present than the production of the papers which have been presented to the Government, with the correspondence that has taken place on the subject; and I hope that the Government will tell us at this date what policy they intend to pursue upon this very important question.


Mr. P. E. LAMARCHE (Nicolet):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and myself have had similar motions on the Order Paper for several weeks past. It was my intention, as was anounced in the press, to speak on my motion to-day, but as my right hon. friend has pressed his motion,
I shall .speak now.
In a few days from now a large delegation, representing over three hundred public

bodies, will come before the Government to express the views of what they think to be the great majority of the people of this country on the subject of waterway improvements. In the meantime, I have been requested to draw to the attention of this House to the necessity of seeking an immediate remedy for the unsolved problem of water transportation by constructing an all Canadian deep waterway from the ' Great Lakes to the Atlantic ocean.
For over half a century this important question has been freely discussed in the press and, on several occasions, within the walls of Parliament; but up to the present day the interest of the nation at large has been sacrificed to local and even foreign interests and to parochial ambitions. And what has been the result? The western and eastern provinces, each possessing exchangeable commodities and products, have remained commercially separated. The .surplus of our western productions and our export trade in general have been prevented from following the channel traced by nature itself, and a great portion of every Canadian crop is distributed for consumption from United States ports, to the prejudice of our interprovincial trade and of our national unity.
In order to reclaim our trade from the American republic and establish a great national water traflic, various Toutes have been suggested; but the best engineers and the most reliable authorities on transportation have advocated the French river from lake Huron up to lake Nipissing, and thence the Mattawa river down to the St. Lawrence. This route is commonly refer-ed to as the Georgian Bay Canal, a wrong appellation, in my opinion, to describe that immense stretch of navigable waters requiring only 28 miles of canal excavation to offset its natural obstacles.
Party politics have assumed such an important role in the economical life of this country, that it may not be out of place to say a few words a3 to the political aspect of this question. The most eminent statesmen of both political parties have considered that great national enterprise of such importance for the welfare of the country and the prosperity of its inhabitants, that they have all endorsed it, and for that reason I feel that my proposition should find support from the Treasury benches and from the members of the Opposition as well. There is not a man in this House who will not admit that amongst the political men who have associated their names and their memory with the material
progress of this country, very few have been more farsighted and more Canadian in their policies than the late Sir John A. Macdonald. Speaking on the subject of transportation, he expressed his views in the following utterance:
The Ottawa canal and the Pacific railway must be constructed and no voice would be raised against the great national work which would open the western states and colonies to the seaboard.
That progressive statesman always considered the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway and that of the Georgian Bay canal as being the great twin enterprises of the nation. One of these enterprises was achieved during the lifetime of Sir John A. Macdonald, and now it is up to this Government, his descendant in direct line and the guardian of his succession, to fulfill the unexecuted part of his political will. The Honourable Alexander Mackenzie, while he was member for the county of East York in 1876, made the following statement:
The very first year I was in Parliament, I was one of a committee appointed to investigate the question of canal navigation on the upper Ottawa, .and from that time I have been perfectly satisfied that the valley presents the greatest facilities of any route upon the continent for the transportation of products of the northwest to the Atlantic ocean, or rather,
I should say, to the head of Atlantic navigation.
The right hon. the Prime Minister, when he was leader of the Opposition, also put himself on record in favour of the principle of the Georgian Bay canal when he defined and reaffirmed, as follows, the policy of the Conservative party in matters of transportation :	*
Our object is to keep Canadian trade in Canadian channels and to continue as much as we can the policy of making that trade run east and west.
The present leader of the Opposition has also, on different occasions, given his support to the project and one cannot use plainer words than those he used in reply to a delegation of the Montreal city council a few years ago:
I cannot conceive of any two views on the subject of construction. The route is naturally the great outlet of the west, nor can I see any rival of the canal.
Many other politicians of renown, Liberals and Conservatives, have expressed similar views, but I have quoted a sufficient number to conclude that the action which I expect the Government to take in this matter should not be handicapped or de-

layed on account of mere party considerations. Sound and unprejudiced public opinion will not be satisfied with a policy of procrastination; it demands quick action in the interest of trade in general, and in the interest of our commercial independence.
The Ottawa and French River route was discovered 299 years ago by Samuel de Champlain, the founder of the city of Quebec, the oldest city of the Dominion. In the province where I live, every schoolboy learns by heart the difficulties and adventures of that long voyage, and he can point out on the map the route followed by the early pioneers of this country. This has probably escaped the attention of the gentleman, who a few weeks ago, while presiding at an anti-Georgian Bay canal meeting in the city of Windsor, Ontario, made the gratuitous statement that the people of the province of Quebec did not even know where the Ottawa and French River route was situated.
It is not my intention to deal longer with the history of our future national waterway; but I may say, en passant, that along this route are found, mingled with the signs of mature nationhood, the most picturesque landmarks of early civilization. Every fall, every cliff, every obstacle or caprice of nature has its history or its romance. Le Sault aux Recollets, Carillon, La Ohaudicre, Les Cheneaux, Le Grand Calumet, La Cul-bute, Le Chapeau, Les Deux Joachims, Le Rocher Capitaine, Le Trou, La Veillee, Plein Chant, La Por*age des Paresseux, Les Epines-are all immovable sentinels of a past age, standing in their old French garb in this English settled country, to perpetuate the memory of those who have conquered this vast common heritage from the uncivilized, and to illustrate at the same time the ethnical durability and solid loyalty of their descendants.
After many years of prosperous fur trading by means of canoes and other small craft, the Ottawa route was bound to be commercially abandoned when bigger ships were put into commission and diverted the trade elsewhere. In the meantime, however, the science of hydraulics had made wonderful progress and in the middle of last century, the genius of man conceived the idea of offsetting the natural obstacles of the Ottawa route. It was therefore proposed to make, by means of locks and dams, the portage of a ship with its full cargo across the heights of land from lake Huron to the St. Lawrence. It was the project of the Georgian Bay canal. In the summer of 
1856, Mr. Walter Shanly, an engineer of repute at that time, was requested by the Commissioner of Public Works to make a careful survey of the Ottawa and French River route, from Montreal to lake Huron, and to report on the possibilities of constructing a continuous line of navigation between these two points. Mr. Shanly went to work immediately, the survey beginning in the month of August, but in the montlf of January, 1858, an Order in Council was passed ordering the survey to be discontinued and the report was submitted to the Legislative Assembly in the month of July, 1858.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at 8 o'clock.


Paul-Émile Lamarche: This first report cannot be considered as a complete and exhaustive study of the question but it is more than sufficient to establish the possibility of construction and the numerous advantages to be derived from the opening of this waterway. Mr. Shanly's work covers the whole route from lake Huron to Montreal, a distance of 430 statute miles. Only part of the route, however, was actually surveyed: the whole Mattawa river and that portion of the Ottawa extending from Portage du Fort to the foot of Deep river, forming an aggregate distance of about 105 miles. The rest of the route was carefully explored and examined. This report demonstrates, however, by a comparative study of distances and freight rates the superiority of the Ottawa route over all others, from a commercial standpoint.
Ten years before Confederation, Mr. Shanly had brought this great question to the attention of the public men of his time and more than half a century after, when I bring that very same question to the attention of the public men of to-day, I cannot use better words, Mr. Speaker, than those I have found in the conclusions of Mr. Shanly's report:
To those who have made the laws that govern the movements of western traffic their study, I leave it to estimate the height to which Canada would be elevated, in commercial importance by opening through the heart of her Dominion a continuous navigation, shortening by fully one hundred and fifty miles, the shortest water communication that now does or ever can exist, between tide-water (whether in the gulf of St. Lawrence or the estuary of the Hudson) and the broadest extent of grain growing country in the world.
A few months after the publication of Mr. Shanly's report, another engineer, Mr. T. C.;

Clarke, was requested to make a second survey. His report submitted to the Legislative Assembly in the month of March, 1860, i-s full of valuable new information and constitutes with the previous report of Mr. Shanly an interesting and complete study of the question of construction. Mr. Clarke agrees with Mr. Shanly in the general conclusions which are most favourable to the enterprise, but he differs with the latter on the questions of cost, water, supply and method of construction. Mr. Shanly provided for 58 miles of canals while Mr. Clarke reduced this to 29 miles. This difference is explained by the fact that Mr. Clarke follows more the course of the river, occasionally raising its level by the construction of dams to overcome rapids or cascades, while in most cases Mr. Shanly has recourse to canal excavation. In consequence, there are more dams in Mr. Clarke's plan and more canals in Mr. Shanly's.
Mr. Shanly's estimate is made for locks *measuring 250 feet long, 50 feet wide, and 10 feet deep while Mr. Clarke's calculations are based on locks measuring 250 feet long, 45 feet wide, and 12 feet deep. The cost of the whole enterprise is estimated by Mr. Shanly at $24,000,000 including the enlargement of the Lachine canal.
Mr. Clarke's figures are $12,058,680, but he does not include the enlargement of the Lachine canal, which is one of the biggest items, nor the probable damages to property caused by the flooding of lands in certain parts of the route where the level of water has to be raised. The Summit level is another question which is treated differently in the Shanly and Clarke reports. Both adopt lake Nipissing as the feeding reservoir, but Mr. Shanly raises its surface 23 feet to the level of Trout lake by means of dams at the outlets. By this scheme, the storage capacity of the lake is increased to the extent of 300 square miles, but large tracts of lands on the north and northwest side of lake Nipissing are completely flooded. To-day this would be an impossibility, as it would swamp the whole town of North Bay and a portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway line.
Mr. Clarke proposes raising lake Nipissing only 9i feet over high water level, lowering Trout lake 8 feet and Turtle lake 7 feet and raising lake Talon 21 feet. In this manner the four lakes are reduced to a common level, forming a summit reservoir 57 miles long and measuring 330 square miles in area. . This difference in the summit level accounts for the difference in lockage.
From lake Huron to the Summit level, Mr. Shanly measures 83 feet of lockage, and Mr. Clarke 77.
From the Summit level to Montreal, Mr. Shanly measures 615 feet lockage, and Mr. Clarke 586. The general principles of these two reports have never been set aside by any subsequent survey or exploration nor by the last report made by the Government's engineers.
Shortly after Confederation, on the 16th of November, 1870, a Royal Commission was appointed by the Government of Canada with the following powers:
To institute and make a thorough inquiry as to the best means of affording such access to the seaboard as may be best calculated to attract a large and yearly increasing share of the trade of the northwestern portion of North America through Canadian waters, as well as a thorough and comprehensive improvement of the canal system of our said Dominion, on such a scale and of such a character as would best tend to afford ample facilities for the expansion and due development of Its growing trade and commerce; and in such inquiry to consider the whole subject, in all its bearings, as well In a commercial as in an engineering point of view, with the object of obtaining such reliable information thereupon as may furnish the necessary data on which to base a plan for the improvement of the canal system of our said Dominion, of a comprehensive character, and such as will enable Canada to compete successfully for the transit trade of the great western country, and especially to inquire into the public works and improvements hereinafter enumerated, that is to say:
The Welland canal and the enlargement thereof.
The St. Lawrence canal and the enlargement thereof.
The deepening of the channels through the rapids of the river St. Lawrence.
The deepening of said river in its most shallow parts between the cities of Montreal and Quebec.
The Rideau canal and its improvements and the development of trade through the same.
The construction of a canal at Sault Ste. Marie between lakes Superior and Huron.
The construction of a canal between the St. Lawrence at Caughnawaga and lake Champlain.	.
The improvement of the river Richelieu and lake Champlain line of canals.
The completion of the Montreal and lake Huron system of navigation via the Ottawa and French rivers.
The construction of the Georgian Bay canal to connect the Georgian bay with lake Ontario.
The construction of a canal in the township of Murray through the neck of land lying between lake Ontario and the Bay of Quintd.
The construction of a canal through the isthmus dividing the Bay of Fundy from the Gulf of St. Lawrence at Bay Verte.
As you have no doubt noticed, at that time the expression ' Georgian Bay canal ' was used to indicate a proposed canal system between lake Huron and lake Ontario

with an outlet in the neighbourhood oi the city of Toronto. The Georgian Bay canal that we propose to-day was then known as the Ottawa canal or the Montreal and Lake Huron waterway.
The Royal Commission which was presided by Sir Hugh Allan, of Montreal, submitted to the Government on the 24th ol February, 1871, an extensive report covering about 200 pages. I have read somewhere in a pamphlet that this commission had pronounced against the practicability and commercial utility of the Ottawa^and French River route. I hasten to say that this is a deliberate false statement or a reckless declaration made by some one who has never read the report made by that Royal Commission. The Royal Commissioners divide into four classes the several public works and improvements to which their attention has been directed and they recommend an aggregate expenditure of $19,170,000 for the works of the first class, which are detailed as follows:
Sault Ste. Marie canal.
Enlargement of the Welland.
Improvements on lower Ottawa between Ottawa and Laehine.
Enlargement of the Chambly canal. Deepening of channel between Montreal and Quebec.
Construction of the Bay Verte canal. Enlargement of the St. Lawrence canal.
An expenditure of $1,800,000 was recommended for improvements on the lower Ottawa included in those works of the first class, and although no expenditure was recommended for the upper Ottawa and the French river, still the enterprise was classed under the title of works of the first class. The report refers to it as follows:
Without classing the upper Ottawa canal among works of the second class, the commissioners resolved that the wide discrepancy between the different engineer's plans and estimates, one being as high as $12,058,680 and the other $24,000,600, leaves then in doubt, both as to the proper methods of improvements and their probable cost. The importance of this work to the whole dominion cannot well prospectively be over estimated and the commissioners are of opinion that further * examination into the subject is necessary as early as possible, in order that it found advisable, action may be taken with regard to it.
In 1879, a survey was made by Mr. E. P. Bender, engineer, acting in accordance with instructions received from Mr. Sanford Fleming, then engineer in chief of the Canadian Pacific railway. This survey was limited to the Fren h river from lake Huron to lake Nipissing. The report submitted the same year is very favourable, as is evidenced by the following passage:

There is probably no river which presents so many advantages for canalization as the French river for there are always at least two channels; by damming one the water below the dam would assume a lower level, and works be carried on above which would otherwise have to be done under water; or a lock can be built in a favourable part of the river, and the channel permanently blocked, while the whole discharge passes through the other branch.
Four years before this, an engineer named Ridout had surveyed the harbour of French river on the north shore of Georgian bay, and with the aid of the latter's plans, Mr. Bender, after a careful examination and study of local conditions, was able to report that the outlet of the French river was easy of access, being sheltered from the winds and storms, and offering advantageous terminal facilities.
Another engineer, Mr. Marcus Smith, made a report in 1895. In his study of the question of water supply, he recommends raising lake Nipissing five feet and lowering Trout and Turtle lakes eighteen and seventeen feet respectively and raising lake Talon sixteen feet, so as to obtain a common level for the summit reservoir.
In 1898, Mr. T. C. Clarke, who had made a complete survey in 1860, made a supplementary report taking into consideration the new conditions existing along the route. His report differs from his first one in so far as it recommends locks 300 feet long, 45 feet wide and 14 feet deep and a different summit level, the surface of lake Nipissing being left at its normal level and the three upper lakes being lowered to the level of lake Nipissing.
In 1899, Mr. Henry F. McLeod, engineer, made an exhaustive survey of the summit section, lake Nipissing to lake Talon, and he recommends as summit reservoir lake Nipissing maintained at mean summer level, that is three feet above low water.
The last and most important as well as the most complete and accurate survey was that made by the engineers of the Government, Messrs. Lafleur, St. Laurent, Coutlee and Chapleau. Their report submitted in January, 1909, is so complete in every respect that no further preliminary work is necessary, and that the enterprise can be commenced at once if it is the wish of the Government. In order to gather such an amount of valuable and accurate information as this report contains, eightyone	people	have been	employed,	someof	them	through	the severe	coldof	winter	and	far	from	homein	the	wilderness,	fulfilling	their
duties of good but poorly paid public

servants working to make their country more prosperous. This work has covered a period of about five years ancf has cost the country nearly three-quarters of a million of well spent money. According to this report, the distance from Montreal to French River village on the Georgian bay by the route adopted is 440 miles. The plans and specifications are made for a channel 22 feet deep all the way, so as to [DOT]accommodate the largest lake freighters measuring 600 feet in length by 60 feet beam and 20 feet draught.
The water supply is taken from the natural summit levels that is to say from the lakes above lake Nipissing called Trout, Turtle and Talon lakes. These and the natural low water flow of the Ottawa and French rivers are proven to be amply sufficient to feed the canal at all times. But the engineers recommend the storage of the surplus water flowing into the Ottawa river during the spring floods and to use the same in case of emergency. In this respect it is very interesting to consult the report made by Mr. Coutlee, a government engineer, on the question of the Ottawa River storage, which report should be considered as a necessary supplement to the report on the Georgian Bay canal. This water storage scheme has been working very well in many countries of Europe and in the United States. Lake Nipissing is also offered by the engineers as an alternative summit reservoir on the condition of spending $10,000,000 more and of excavating 12 additional miles of canals. From Montreal to the summit level the rise is 659 feet, requiring 23 locks; and from the summit level to the Georgian bay the drop is 98 feet, requiring 4 locks, making a total of 27 locks and 18 dams. The whole distance of 440 miles is to be divided as follows: 28 miles of canals, 66 miles of dredged channel and 346 miles of lake and river navigation. The alternative route by Back river or Riviere des Prairies around the island of Montreal would cost $5,000,000 less than the route by Lachine. The cost of the whole enterprise is calculated at $100,000,000. Conditions having considerably changed, however, since 1909, I believe that the sum of $150,000,000 would be a fair estimate to cover everything, including all possible contingencies.
I have taken some of the time of this House to analyse and compare the contents of all the reports made by engineers since the year 1858, not for the purpose of giving new information on this question of construction, but principally to show that since
the beginning, all the experts who have explored or surveyed the Ottawa and French River route have declared themselves satisfied as to the feasibility and the advantages of this great enterprise, and to dispel, once for all, the false impression conveyed by the adversaries of this project that those different reports were of a conflicting character. Not only do they not conflict, but I think I have demonstrated that even the existence of apparent or unimportant differences tends to prove the rectitude of the similar general conclusions arrived at.
Before dealing with the commercial utility and other advantages of the Ottawa and French River route, I think itisnecssary to dispose of three objections which are generally made against the construction of the canal. Other objections having regard to the commercial aspect will be dealt with later.
The first objection is that, the route being situated at a northerly latitude, ice will be an obstacle for a longer period than along the Welland-St.Lawrence route far more to the south. This objection is not serious. First of all, there is not very much difference, if any, between the time the St. Lawrence is free of ice and the time the Ottawa is free also. But even if there was such a difference, it must be remembered that the trade comes from lake Superior and that the boats going to the Welland as well as those going to Georgian bay must necessarily lock through the Sault canal and the latter is situated at a higher latitude than the highest point along the whole Ottawa and French River route.
The second objection is that the channel will be dangerous for navigation on account of numerous curves. According to experts, a curve may be dangerous to navigate and on the other hand it may be as safe as a straight line. One has to consider the width of the channel at the curve, the radius of the curve and the length of the curve. The channel of the proposed Georgian Bay canal is designed to be wide enough in the curves to give ample room to the biggest ships. As to the radius of the curves, no curve on the whole Georgian Bay canal will be as sharp as those in the neighbourhood of Sugar island, on the Great Lakes, where no accident has ever occurred to the big ships constantly navigating there day and night. As to the length of the curves, very few are long and thejs form an aggregate of about 69 miles where navigation is affected. The rest of the route is straight or nearly so. Besides it must be

remembered that there are 346 miles of open lake and river navigation.
The best authority that could be quoted in this respect is Captain Norcross, one of the most experienced navigators on the Great Lakes, who, answering the questions put to him by the engineers of the Government, declared that he considered Stribling Point Bend and Sailor's Encampment as perfectly safe by night or by day. These are two curves on the Great Lakes and both are sharper than any curve to be encountered along the proposed Georgian Bay canal. Captain Noreross further declared that he considered none of the curves on the Georgian Bay canal as dangerous.
The third objection is that the canal will pass through a barren country. This canal is wanted to carry freight from the lakes to the head of Atlantic navigation and not for the purpose of running sight-seeing excursions and the aspect of the country does not matter very much. The Welland district, which is called rightly the garden of Canada, supplies only two per cent of the trade going through the canal Now, Mr. Speaker, that I have established the absence of any serious local or natural obstacles to the construction of this waterway, I will endeavour to show, as clearly as possible, the numerous advantages which will derive from this enterprise and its commercial necessity.. The project of the Georgian Bay canal should count among its most enthusiastic supporters all those who not only invoke but firmly believe in the principle ' Canada for the Canadians.' The Georgian Bay canal is the only waterway from east to west which can be constructed from one end to the other on Canadian territory. The great St. Lawrence river, of which we are so justly proud, is an international river, while the Ottawa and the French river from their source to their outlet are, and remain, Canadian waters. This means that in time of peace we would be free from many international disputes with the United States, while if we adopt the St. Lawrence route, we can foresee many difficulties arising from the development, sale, or lease of water powers, the flooding of lands, the regulation of the flow of water, the raising or lowering of water level, and the regulations as to canal privileges and as to navigation in general.
Those -who have studied the history of our country as regards its relations with Uncle Sam are inclined to be very careful. Every time we have had a serious difficulty with him he has added to his territory a slice of our own. Lord Alverstono has set-
tied the last dispute by the Americanization of a part of our Yukon, and I believe that we are more sheltered from similar decisions on the banks of the Ottawa than in the vicinity of the 45th parallel of latitude.
This also means, Mr. Speaker, that in time of war, if such a thing should ever happen with the United States, the Ottawa waterway would be the only useful one from a military point of view. This view was entertained by the Imperial authorities as early as 1821, and many are they who believe that strategy counted for something in the establishment of the capital on the banks of the Ottawa river. The Imperial authorities have not changed their minds in that respect. In 1898, before a special committee of the Senate of Canada appointed for the purpose of inquiring and making a report upon the feasibility and advantages of the Georgian Bay canal, Major General Gascoigne made the following declaration i
Mr. Stewart-Will you explain the military advantages of this route?
Major General Gascoigne-I may state broadly, from a strategic point of view, 1 look upon this scheme as the most desirable possible. Of course, I should qualify my statements in this respect, that a great deal depends upon the depth of the water that you propose to make.
The Chairman-The depth will be fourteen feet.
Major General Gascoigne-I was going to ask for lourteen feet. If you make it xourieen ieet deep, I can only say that it will be of the utmost value, from a strategic point of view, to the country. I know the Imperial authorities look at it in that light also.
The Chairman-Have you ever been over that route?
Major General Gascoigne-No.
The Chairman-But you know the general lay of the country.
Major General Gascoigne-It is, of course, a thing we have looked at very closely both at home and here, form a strategic point of view. Parts of the country I have been over myself but it is quite sufficient to look at the map to judge of the enormous value of this route, from a military point of view.
The Chairman-What depth of water would it require for the purpose of transporting your armaments through?
Major General Gascoigne-Fourteen feet is what I should ask for. Fourteen feet would do me. I could do with less, but I should be very sorry to have less. Of course a torpedo boat does not require the same depth of water, but, at the same time to get the full value of the work, from a strategic point of view, fourteen feet is the least I should ask for.
The Chairman-What is the length of your vessels ?
Major General Gascoigne-I cannot tell you the length, but the locks would have to be of considerable length. I am speaking from memory, but I think they should be not less than 120 feet.
The Chairman-Three hundred feet is the

length proposed, and they are to be forty-five feet wide.
Major General Gascoigne-That is excellent; nothing could be better. I feel perfectly sure that you would never regret the construction of such a canal. It would be of vast importance.
The Chairman

You recollect that this Rideau canal was built a great many years ago, with that object in view, by the Imperial authorities.
Major General Gascoigne-Yes.
The Chairman-And if it was necessary then, do you consider it is equally necessary now?
Major General Gascoigne-Much more necessary now, from many points of view which I think it would not be prudent for me to state here publicly, if you will just take what I have said from a strategic point of view. I cannot speak too highly of the value of this projected canal. I think it would be wise for me not to go into details because I do not know how far my statements might be repeated abroad.
Hon. Mr. Power-You may take for granted that they would be stated as widely as possible.
Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell: And exaggerated.
Major General Gascoigne:	I should like to
confine my statements to the vast importance of the project, as I look at it.
Mr. Stewart:	Sir John Michel, who commanded Her Majesty's forces here in 1866, and Admiral Hope, Commander of the squadron, went over this route the whole fay by canoes and other ways, and when they came back they reported at a meeting held in Montreal that this canal was not only a commercial but a great military necessity for Canada. Are you of the same opinion?
Major General Gascoigne: I am.


The Chairman:: Do you know the opinion
of the military authorities in England?
Major General Gascoigne: I do, it would be looked upon with the utmost pleasure at heme if this scheme were carried out.
Hon. Mr. Power: I take it that it is chiefly from the naval point of view. Since that time of which Mr. Stewart speaks, 1866, two railways have been built connecting the Ottawa river with lake Huron and of course for the purpose of transporting troops, for instance, the canal would not be nearly as useful or valuable. It is valuable now chiefly as a means of getting ships through.
The Chairman : And munitions of war.
Hon. Mr. Power:	They could be carried
through by train. You would not think that it is very necessary to have this canal for the purpose of moving troops east or west ?
Major General Gascoigne:	Of course it would
be a most admirable thing even from that point of view.
Hon. Mr. Power:	But considering the fact
that there are two railways running from Ottawa to lake Huron, do you think the canal would be largely used for transporting troops in case there was any difficulty and it became necessary to move troops?
Major General Gascoigne:	It was not the
movement that I had in mind chiefly .


Pierre Édouard Blondin: But it would serve a purose in that respect?
Major General Gascoigne:	Most unquestionably it would serve the purpose, but there are greater purposes than that which I have in mind.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I suppose you could not
have a route more remote from the frontier for transportation than this Ottawa route?
Major General Gascoigne: Certainly not, and it is just for that purpose that I consider it important.
The reasons given by General Gascoigne in favour of the Georgian Bay canal, from a military point of view, are, it seems to me, elementary and full of common sense, and I am sure the Minister of Militia, who is known to be well versed in military matters, holds similar views on the subject, and therefore cannot help being an ardent supporter of the proposed enterprise. But besides these advantages, in time of peace as well as in time of war, there is another economical reason to induce us to construct' a waterway on Canadian territory. We would keep undivided for our own benefit all the traffic going from west to east, and the greatest portion of the western export trade, while by the international route to the south every American port constitutes a leak-hole through which our grain productions are lost to the Canadian commerce.
Basing our calculations on the total shipments of Canadian grain from Fort William and Port Arthur, as furnished by the grain statistics compiled by the Department of Trade and Commerce, we find that our grain was shipped to American ports during the past few years in the following proportion: In 1906, 32 per cent; in 1907, 26 per cent; in 1908, 1909 and 1910, 30 per cent; in 1911, 371 per cent, and in 1912, 40 per cent. We lost the advantage of carrying in Canadian bottoms, in Canadian channels, to Canadian terminal points, these millions of bushels of wheat and other grains, on account of our stagnant policy in matters of water transportation and of waterway improvements. Moreover, canal statistics compiled by the Department of Railways and Canals show that, in 1911, 93 per cent of the total traffic which passed through the Sault Ste. Marie canals were carried by American vessels, and that only 7 per cent was carried by Canadian vessels.
It has been said and written that all the grain of the West has to be shipped every year from the end of harvest to the close of navigation, that is to say, during the months of September, October, November and December, .and that, consequently, during the other months of the year a fleet of steamers travelling east and w'est by the Georgian bay canal would remain idle. I will demonstrate later that the traffic through , the Georgian Bay canal will con-

sist of other cargoes besides grain cargoes, but for the moment I will show that the statement in reference to the period of shipment is absolutely contradicted by the official grain statistics.
If we refer to the monthly shipments of grain from Fort William and Port Arthur during the past few years, we find that only a little more than half of the crop is shipped during the months of September, October, November and December, and that the balance is shipped during the other months of the year, each month getting its fair proportion. Taking for example the crop year of 1912, we find that the total shipments from Fort William and Port Arthur amounted to 143,557,523 bushels of grain, of which 28,652,486 bushels were shipped by rail and 104,905,037 bushels were shipped by the Great Lakes. Out of this last amount of lake shipments, 55,956,918 * bushels were shipped during the months of September, October, November and December, and this represents a proportion of 52 per cent of the total lake shipments for the crop year of 1912, the balance, 48 per cent, being shipped during the other months of the year.
The Georgian Bay Canal route is also the shortest, the cheapest and the safest. The advantage in distance by the Georgian Bay Canal route over other routes is very easily demonstrated. From Fort William by the Georgian Bay canal the distance to Montreal is 934 miles, by the Welland it is 1,216 miles, and by way of the Erie canal to the city of New York the distance is 1,358 miles. The Georgian Bay route, therefore, is 282 miles shorter than the Welland-St. Lawrence route, and 424 miles shorter than the Buffalo-New York route. From Fort William to Liverpool by the Georgian Bay canal, one has to travel 4,123 miles, and by the New York route 4,929 miles, making a difference of 806 miles in favour of the Georgian Bay route.
This route will also be the cheapest because it will be the only one that will permit the biggest freighters to navigate to the head of ocean navigation without breaking bulk. If in the future a rival route of the same depth is constructed it will always have the disadvantage of being longer. At present a very small portion of western freight is carried by all-water route. The grain is carried mostly either in Canada or in the United States by lake and rail, and this is on account of the insufficient depth of water in American and Canadian canal systems. Small canal boats or barges have [DOT]
not been able to hold their own against the railways, but the railways, on the other hand, can never compete against the big freighters of the lakes. The construction of a water way twenty-two feet deep, permitting these big freighters to reach the harbour of Montreal, will be a complete revolution in freight rates for western traffic.
But some hon. gentlemen will probably object that this will injure our established lines of railways. That has long been argued, but I think it is now admitted that a deep waterway is the greatest source of revenue a railway can have along its line. This aspect of the question was discussed very ably in 1910 by the hon. member for North Renfrew, who quoted in support of his argument, M. de Freycinet, member of the French Cabinet at (he time, who explained this, very interesting theory as follows:
It is conceded that the waterways and railways are destined not to nupplant but to * implement each other. Between the two there is a natural division of traffic. To the waterways gravitate the heavy commodities of small value, which can only bo transported where freights are low. In procuring for manufactures cheap transportation for coal and raw materials, they create freights whose subsequent transportation gives profit to the railways.
If hon. gentlemen consult the admirable report submitted in 1909 by the Royal Commission on Canals and Inland Navigations of the United Kingdom, they will find a very interesting study of the results obtained from the construction of canals and other waterways in the different countries of the world. It is established beyond doubt that in every instance the new traffic created by the opening of a waterway is always accompanied by a corresponding parallel increase of railway traffic. Wonderful results have been obtained in that respect in France, in Belgium and especially in the German Empire. Experts have calculated that when the Georgian Bay canal is constructed, grain will be carried from Fort William to Montreal for li cents a bushel. At present, according to a table I have consulted, the freight rates average as follows: From Fort William to American Atlantic ports by lake and rail, or by lake and Erie canal route, 4-95 cents per bushel; from Fort William to Montreal by lake and rail 46 per bushel; by the St. Lawrence all water route, 5 cents per bushel, and by the Canadian Pacific railway all rail route, 7-56 cents per bushel.
As to the safety of the route from the point of view of the curves and general

lay-out of the Georgian Bay canal, 1 have already quoted the opinion of Captain Nor-cross. As to the character of inland water navigation compared to open lake navigation from the point of view of insurance rates, inland navigation offers less danger than lake navigation. The big lake freighters have to lock through many canals and have to navigate through many channels of every description, and still the statistics of casualties complied by the Department of Marine and Fisheries show that the biggest losses of property and life have occurred in open lakes and have been caused by storms. The Ottawa route is protected from wind storms from one end to the other.
One of the greatest advantages which will result from this enterprise will be the creation and development of interprovincial trade. We are every day losing our commercial independence, and we aTe neglecting our duty of uniting more firmly the different portions of this Dominion by closer commercial relations. 1 am not of the opinion that we should consider the American boundary as a Chinese wall, and I have never thought nor said that trading with our neighbours is a danger and a peril to our political existence, butt as a true Canadian, I am firmly opposed to the Americanization of our water-borne traffic.
To-day, without the Georgian Bay canal, the Americans control absolutely the grain freight rates on the lakes, because the return cargoes, in the proportion of 80 per cent, consist of coal from lake Erie ports. Without this important return cargo, which package freight can never replace, our Canadian lake fleet would be absolutely unable to carry grain for the same price as the American vessels. Therefore our Canadian grain traffic on the lakes is absolutely in the hands and under the control of the American people. Moreover, the province of Ontario depends absolutely on the United States for its coal. It is calculated that Ontario's supply of coal ar any given period of the year cannot last more than three weeks without further supply from the United States. In case of a war with our neighbours, during the winter months a decisive victory could be secured without soldiers by the freeze-out method. And this is still going on, almost half a century after the date of Confederation, when one of the provinces of the Dominion, Nova Scotia, had been promised an opening to the western Canadian markets for her coal industry. It has very often been argued 67
that Cape Breton coal could not compete with American coal further west than Montreal.
Under the present conditions, that is absolutely Tight, but via the Georgian Bay canal, Nova Scotia coal could be delivered at Fort William for the same price as it is now delivered at Montreal. American coal in lake Erie ports costs le3s per ton than Nova Scotia coal in the port of Sydney, and this for various reasons. American coal is extracted from the flank of hills or mountains, while Canadian coal at Sydney is extracted from below the sea level which is a much more expensive method. In the United States the work of extraction in the coal mines is done mostly by foreigners, while in Nova Scotia they have to employ local labour. In Nova Scotia each ton of coal contributes 12J cents to the provincial treasury for purposes of education, while no similar tax is imposed on' American coal.
As you see Canadian coal from the beginning is at a disadvantage, but things are about equalized by the duty of 53 cents per ton imposed by our tariff on American coal.
There remains the question of transportation. From lake Erie ports coal can be shipped to Montreal or to Fort William and sold for about the same price, the cost of transportation being about the same. Coal shipped from Sydney, Cape Breton, by water can compete as far up as Montreal, but no farther on account of additional freight charges. But with the Georgian Bay canal it would be different. At present it takes about 60 hours to bring a cargo of about 7,000 tons of coal from Sydney to Montreal at a cost of about 60 cents per ton, making a total of $4,200 per voyage. This sum, however, covers freight expenses for a voyage of 120 hours and not 60 hours only, because the boat always returns light and the whole distance covered both ways in 120 hours is 1,668 miles. On the other hand, if this boat, instead of stopping at Montreal, could proceed with its coal cargo direct to Fort William by the Georgian Bay route, the whole run from Sydney to Fort William would be of 1,768 miles, and would take about 170 hours. The return trip being made after having secured a Teturn cargo of grain, which pays more than a coal cargo, the shippers would be able in this manner to deliver and sell at Fort William a ton of coal at Montreal prices.
Moreover, grain elevators could be established in Cape Breton, where good har-



hours, open all year round can be secured; and in this way ocean navigation to Liverpool would be 700 miles shorter than from New York, and this would tend to reduce ocean freight rates. The traffic on the Georgian Bay canal would include, in addition to grain and coal, lumber, pulpwood, pulp, flour, live-stock, dressed meats, phosphate, peat, ores, minerals and other products.
The Georgian Bay canal has a great rival in the Welland. Although that route has not the same national, commercial and natural advantages, it has, on the other hand, very active and interested supporters, the majority of whom are on the other side of the boundary.
Contracts for over $20,000,000 were awarded last year for the enlargement of the Welland, in order to render it navigable by the big lake vessels, and immediately property went up over 25 per cent in the neighbourhood of Oswego, in the state of New York, where our traffic in the near future will take a sharp turn to the south, if we do not at once construct a Canadian waterway. The Americans have been waiting a long time for the opening of this free gate, for, as you undoubtedly know, we are obliged by treaty to give to the Americans free use of the Welland canal. By travelling through the Welland to Oswego, 120 miles of canal navigation is turned into lake navigation. The consequence will probably be the deepening of the Erie canal from Oswego to Syracuse, and from there to Albany, to a depth of 21 to 30 feet, as has been proposed and recommended by the United States Deep Waterways Commission, and by the Superintendent of Public Works for the state of New York.
If these proposed works are carried out they will enable the big freighters to travel from Fort William to New York city without breaking bulk. This will constitute, for the benefit of the United States of America, the most important water route on the continent, second only to the proposed Georgian Bay canal. I believe it would repay any member of this House to read on this question the numerous articles published by Mr. Redden of Port Arthur. But the greatest fault I have to find with the Welland is that it has delayed the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. After the completion of our only national water route the danger will disappear and the trade will revert to its natural channels. The Welland canal is a convenience between neighbours. The

Georgian Bey route is a domstie necessity.
There is also another point of View from which every good Canadian should consider t'his question, that of the future development of the country. When the project of the Canadian Pacific railway was discussed, its advocates isucceeded in convincing Parliament of its importance, not merely because they were able to show in figures the probable revenues of the line and the probable freight rates from one point to another, but because they satisfied the Government of the day of the necessity of opening new territories and of developing the boundless resources of the nation.
The political men of that time looked higher and they saw something beyond the ordinary possibilities of a commercial enterprise. They were nation-builders and they knew that, in a vast territory like ours, there can be no unity among distant citizens without adequate means of communication. They understood that common prosperity is produced to a great extent by the facilities of trade relation; and in that respect, the steel band of the Canadian Pacific railway extending from ocean to ocean has done more towards interprovincial fraternity than many statutory declarations. The Canadian Pacific railway has made this country what it is to-day, and in return this country has made the Canadian Pacific railway one of the wealthiest railway companies in the world. At the time this railway was built, the vast territories of the West were the common property of the citizens of Canada who were then all settled in the East. Large portions of that western common property were used to finance the enterprise. Owing to new transportation facilities, western energy and perseverance have turned these vast plains into a splendid wheat producing country, and I think the old provinces are not asking too much when they pray-for a preference over the United States of America for the transportation of these commodities. The Georgian Bay route does not demand as much. It has hidden treasures of enormous wealth all along its course which are ready to pay more than the cost of its construction.
The report of the Government engineers confirms entirely the statements made by previous experts, that water-powers of incalculable magnitude abound in the roaring bosom of the Ottaw'a and that over one million horse-power can be developed, which would attract large and prosperous industries, and would besides pay the interest on the whole expenditure. Last year it was

announced by the hon. the Minister of Public Works that a commission would be appointed to report on the commercial utility of this project. Since that time my faith in Government commissions has been a little shaken by the opinicns expressed by the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce who said, before the electors of the county of Lanark, that reports of commissions after they are submitted are generally shelved and forgotten. The people of this country do not want the project of the Georgian Bay canal to be shelved and forgotten.
Among the numerous reports which have been shelved in the past years, I have found one submitted by a special committee of the Senate of Canada in 1898 upon the feasibility and advantages which would accrue to the Dominion from the construction of a canal uniting the waters of lake Huron and those of the St. Lawrence via the Ottawa river. This select committee, after inquiring into the subject, reported upon the feasibility of the enterprise, its commercial advantages and its military aspect. The conclusions of this report read as follows:
Your committee, reviewing the evidence as a whole, are of the opinion:
That the construction of such a canal as that proposed by the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Company is, beyond a doubt, feasible and practicable.
That its construction will be of great commercial advantage to the trade of Canada, affording, as it would, an additional outlet for the conveyance of the heavier grades of freight from the West to the seaboard, via Montreal and Quebec. It would also, from its being a more direct route and shorter, have the effect of reducing the cost of transportation upon these freights; for instance, grain
9 p.m. from lakes Michigan and Superior could be laid down in Montreal- at a a lower rate, and at Quebec at no higher rate than the lowest ever yet reached between the lakes and New York. Consequently a great deal of that trade which now goes by way of the Erie canal would be diverted to Montreal and our Canadian ports. And furthermore, your committee are unanimously of the opinion that the development and use of the enormous water power along the route for electrical purposes, in the mining and smelting of iron and other ores which are so abundant in the Ottawa valley, and which cannot now be developed by reason of the want of cheap communication and transportation, would of itself alone warrant the construction of the canal. It would also develop an enormous industry in the hardwood, pulpwood, pulp and other lumber industries of the Ottawa valley. The development of all these industries and the opening up for settlement of the country will necessary be a means of creating centres of population, and so. as your committee have already observed, it will be a means of greatly increasing and benefiting the commerce of the Dominion, and its construction is not only advisable but necessary.
67 J	'	*
Your committee can only refer to the evidence of the Major General commanding in respect to the advantage of the proposed canal as viewed by the Imperial military authorities.
Your committee, therefore, in submitting the evidence adduced by the various scientific, expert, commercial and other witnesses, feels that it proves most conclusively that the construction of the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal will be of inestimable benefit to the general prosperity of the Dominion of Canada.
They also desire to call attention to the advantage to be derived therefrom as respects the present settlers of the Northwest: as also to the impetus that would ensue in the future to the increase of the agricultural population of that fertile section of the country, by affording them easy, cheap, and safe transportation for their products ; and thus the large area of land now unproductive, would become owned by a desirable producing class of settlers, who would consequently be contributors to the revenue of the Dominion. Under the various circumstances, your committee would strongly recommend the contemplated enterprise to the favourable consideration of the Government, and that they may be pleased to extend such assistance in such manner, modes and conditions as will ensure the early construction and speedy completion of the work; feeling quite assured that the people of the country when they are made aware of the advantages to be derived from the undertaking will duly appreciate any action the Government may take, which will facilitate the construction of a work of such national importance, it being an allCanadian route from and to the seaboard to the Northwest.
Another report, Mr. Speaker, would not in my opinion be more convincing, and it would not bring more information than is already possessed by the Government at the present time. I have placed my views on this subject before this House and before the country. I have faith in the future of this Dominion. Its destinies are great among the nations. When its energetic and law-abiding people shall have established other generations into the most distant portions of the western	wheat-producing
prairies; when transportation facilities shall have increased the output of our agricultural products, we shall be the greatest farming nation in the world, and it is with their eyes turned towards the shores of the St. Lawrence that the dense populations of European Christianity will repeat the everlasting prayer: ' O, Lord give us our daily bread.'


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright):: The
right hon. leader of the Opposition deserves the thanks of all who are interested in this great project of which my hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche) has so ably spoken, for bringing the matter to the attention of the House today. On different former occasions in this House, I have pronounced myself strongly

in favour of the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, and it is, therefore, not my intention to-night to make any extended remarks upon the subject. The hon. member for Nicolet has expressed the hope that the report of the commission, which is spoken of as about to be appointed, will not be shelved as have been other reports in the past. In fairness to the members of the House, and in fairness to those in the country who are interested in this work, it may be well to state what these former reports werS. We first had a report of a committee of the Senate, and it will not for a moment be contended that that report was upon a canal, such as is intended to be constructed at the present time. The second, and the only other report, and in fact the only report that is of importance in considering this great enterprise as now projected, is a report which was prepared by the Department of Public Works in 1908, and signed by four eminent engineers: Mr. Eugene D. Lafleur, Mr. St. Laurent, Mr. Coutlee, and Mr. S. J. Chapleau. That report urged the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. It naturally will be asked why that report was prepared, in view of the previous report of the Senate in 1898, and the answer will be found in the report, published in 1905, of the royal commission on transportation. These commissioners, speaking of the two different routes, the Welland and St. Lawrence routes, and the Georgian Bay route, states:
Tour commission unhesitatingly affirm their belief in the desirability of a through waterway from the head of lake Superior to ocean navigation, to aid in the carriage of the grain and the regulation of rates, of a standard not less than that above set forth, so that the largest vessels navigating the great lakes can continue their voyage to ocean navigation or as near thereto as possible.
But in view of the fact that the Government has undertaken the survey of a proposed route by way of the French river to lake Nipissing and by way of the Ottawa river to Montreal, and as the feasibility of this route from a commercial as well as an engineering point of view, and, if feasible, its cost, has not yet been ascertained, and further, in view of the fact that the Government has also undertaken the survey of the Welland canal and its vicinity, looking to its possible enlargement and diversion, your commission do not see their way clear to any recommendation as to route, but would recommend that, in case the Ottawa river scheme, because of want of feasibility, from a commercial or engineering point of view, or on account of its cost, or for other reason, be not adopted, then the Welland canal can be enlarged and deepened to the standard of the Sault Ste. Marie canal, with a view of enabling vessels of the largest size to continue their voyage to Kingston or Prescott, thus bringing their cargo to within, say 180 miles or less of Montreal before discharging the same.

The commissioners who made this report were two very capable men: Mr. Robert Reford of Montreal, and Mr. James Ashdown of Winnipeg. We find, by this report, that it was absolutely necessary to inquire into the feasibility from a commercial and from an engineering point of view, of this project, before beginning the actual construction. That, of course, called for further surveys and further report.
Three years after the Royal Commission on Transportation had thus reported, the engineers of the Department of Public Works made a further survey and report. That report was placed before this House in 1908. It may be asked, why was not the work immediately begun then ? I am not alone in the country in saying that I would have liked to have seen the work commenced at that time, but it was represented to those of us who favoured the construction of the canal, that on account of the building of the Transcontinental railway at the time, and because the credit of Canada was pledged to that undertaking, it would not be wise for the Government of the day to begin the construction of this great canal; but it was represented, that the moment Canada's credit would allow of it, the work would be immediately begun. The work upon the Transcontinental railway is now almost completed.
You have before this House a full report upon this work. You have had surveys made. You will admit that you have had not superfluous reports, but complete reports made. Now, why should not the work be begun? We are told that a further commission will be appointed. Why the necessity of this? You have in this report the exact estimate of the cost of the work, namely, $100,000,000; but you say that today it may cost more on account of increased wages and the increased cost of material. Granted, but give the same report with the same data to any competent engineer in the employ of this Government; give him also the schedule of the increased prices of material and of the increased wages, and he will immediately, without any further commission being necessary, bring down before the Minister of Public Works and before this House an estimate, based upon these figures and upon the work that was done up to 1908, of exactly what this canal will cost to-day.
The question is not a new one. It has been debated in and out of this House for a great many years. My hon. friend the member for Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche) has cited the words of the Hon. Alexander

Mackenzie in 1876. He was in favour of it. Before Confederation, the Hon. Mr. Skead of this vicinity and others spoke in favoui of it. I think that the Postmaster General must have read the able speeches upon this very subject made by Sir George Etienne Cartier as early as 1864 in the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada. The speeches made by Sir George E. Cartier are replete with facts. Upon these speeches, with that report, if never another word had been said upon the Georgian Bay Canal project, you would have had material sufficient to warrant going on with the work.
I was glad to hear the right hon. the leader of the Opposition declare himself so emphatically in favour of this work, as this House has heard him upon several other occasions. I hope that it will be our pleasure, before this debate is ended, to hear the right hon. the Prime Minister declare himself in favour of the work. I have never tried to make any political capital out of this question, and I do not intend to do so to-night, because I am too much interested in the work; but the right hon. the Prime Minister has uttered these words:
Our object is to keep Canadian trade in Canadian channels and to continue as much as we can the policy of making that trade run east and west.
Let me deal with this phase of the question before I take up any other consideration. There is only one possible way of keeping our trade in our own channels, East and West, when dealing with water transportation, and that is by improving our waterway system from the great lakes to the ocean ports along the Georgian bay, the French river and the Ottawa river. Deepen the Welland canal and you will not do this. By the deepening of the Welland canal, it will follow that our trade, instead of going from East to West, will go from West to South. The greatest quantity of grain and other traffic coming from the West over the lakes to-day goes to American ports. My hon. friends opposite know this well, and I need not go into the figures, although I have them here. If they refer to the reports of the Department of Trade and Commerce, they will find that millions of tons of goods go by way of American ports from our lakes and an odd million come through Canadian channels. Why is this? Because this traffic finds its way to American ports, which are nearer. If you deepen the Welland canal, this traffic will find its way to American ocean ports, because it is well known that the Americans will immediately improve their system of canals between Oswego and
New York. The reports of all their commissioners upon this question are to that effect. The Americans can compete with any other canal in this country, but they will never be able to compete with the Georgian Bay canal. They want us to deepen the Welland canal; they want to get our grain. They get a great deal of it now, but they want their largest vessels to be able to go direct to New York; and the moment the Welland canal is deepened to such an extent that these vessels can pass through, and perhaps before that, they will begin their work upon the Oswego canal. The trade is going to the south now. I am sorry to see the American markets getting our grain from the West. So far as I am concerned, I am sufficiently interested in my country to desire to see the farmers of the West get the nearest and best market; but as a Canadian I am like the right hon. the Prime Minister, anxious to see our trade as far as possible go East and West and within Canadian channels. If the right hon. the Prime Minister was sincere in that statement, he must of necessity be an advocate of the Georgian Bay canal. He comes from Nova Scotia. He knows full well that it is impossible for Nova Scotia coal to compete with coal coming from the ports of lake Erie. That is admitted on all sides. The moment the Nova Scotia coal reaches Montreal, it cannot go further. Why? It has not the facilities of water transportation; it cannot therefore compete with the coal passing through the Erie canal. I do not pretend to be an authority on the coal question; but all the authorities that I have read agree that the moment this canal is built, you will have the coal of Nova Scotia going direct west. The boats	will	come	east with grain,
and they will not go back empty. They will go back loaded with other cargoes, but principally with Nova Scotia coal. If I were to speak as one coming from the Ottawa valley, I would tell you that we have great mines within the Ottawa valley yet to be worked. We have great deposits of iron ore. We have no means of transportation except railway transportation and tlie ores are too heavy for railway transportation. If we had water transportation we would develop those mines. We have a great pulpwood industry and the construction of the canal would also assist in the development of that industry.
The estimated cost is $100,000,000 according to the report of the engineers. We might pay that, and perhaps a little more, but we will develop upon that
COMMONS*
course a trade that will amply repay any expenditure we may make.. The engineers tell us something further, which I do not want to advance as the sole reason for the building of the Georgian Bay canal, and that is that you will he able to develop
3.000.	000 horse-power which would be equal to the power requirements of mining
40.000.	000 tons of coal annually. That is certainly an important commercial consideration. But the great consideration is the bringing of the trade through channels from east to west. Perhaps I may be permitted, although considerable reference has been made to it this afternoon, to point out that there is a greatly mistaken idea about this canal. The distance is 440 miles. A great many people think that that means eanalling the greater part of the 440 miles. As a matter of fact 420 out of 440 miles follow the course of lakes and rivers; 346 miles require absolutely no improvements and 28 miles of canal alone are to be built which is one mile more than the Welland canal and 44 miles less than the Welland-St. Lawrence Canal system. In the report of the engineers, Messrs. Lafleur and others in 1908, we find that there are 28 miles of canal excavation, 66 miles of canal dredging and 356 miles of river and lake with a width of 300 feet up to half a mile.
There is perhaps a greater movement at the present time in favour of the construction of this canal than ever before. There is more interest being taken in the question than ever before. No doubt hon. members of this House generally have been receiving resolutions passed by the different chambers of commerce, by the association of retail merchants of Canada and by other bodies, urging them to support this project.
I did not feel that I would want the occasion to pass without adding a word once more in favour of this great work. I feel that we have reached a time in Canada when the Government may begin the work. The road is made very easy, for them. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition invites the Government to undertake the work and hon. gentlemen upon this side of the House promise the Government earnest support. There is no anxiety on this side of the House to make of this a political question. We do not want to wait until after the next general election, when we will be back to power, in order to do the work ourselves-not a bit of it. We are anxious to see the work begun at once by hon. gentlemen opposite and to give them the full credit for having begun the 
work. I think I am speaking for the majority of the members upon this side of the House when I say that they will support this work; my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition spoke for them all this afternoon. Why not build it? There has to be a beginning of the work and the sooner it is begun the better for the trade, the prosperity, and the general advantage of Canada. I resume my seat fully satisfied that if the Government of the day will listen to the appeals which are made to them from both sides of this House they will not have any reason to further delay the work of construction of what has been known as the Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal but what is in reality the improvement of the waterway system between the Great Lakes and the ocean ports.


Robert Rogers: Mr. Speaker, in common with all other hon. members of the House, I have listened with a great deal of pleasure, and indeed with a great deal of interest, to the manner in which this question has been approached, first of all by my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and by the gentlemen who have followed him. It is indeed a source of pleasure for me to feel and to realize that we can take up a great and important question such as this in a spirit of calm and careful consideration, apart from any question of political advantages or disadvantages to either of the two political parties to which we belong.
I am sure that we have listened with particular interest to the speech of my hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche), who has evidently given a great deal of time and study to this important subject. We appreciate the manner in which he has not only presented his views, but intimated that we are to be presented in the near future with the views of such a large and respectable number of our commercial and municipal bodies in various parts of the country.
I well remember having had the pleasure during the last session of Parliament, of listening to my hon. friend the member for North Renfrew (Mr. White). If there is one man in this Parliament who has given greater study to this question than has any other, it is undoubtedly the hon. member for North Renfrew. On the occasion to which I refer, the hon. gentleman presented not only his own views, but facts and figures as well, which, I am free to acknowledge, made me feel that he had placed a large and heavy responsibility

upon my shoulders, as the Minister of Public Works administering a department with which the matter of the construction of the Georgian Bay ship canal has so long been inseparably connected. The hon. member for North Renfrew made it clear that this great project was undoubtedly a matter of great importance to the Dominion of Canada. Realizing as I do the importance of the views he presented on that occasion, I am glad that we are approaching the discussion of this matter in such a calm, fair, and reasonable manner.
The hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin), who has just resumed his seat, has told us that this is no new question to the Parliament of Canada. The record goes to prove this assertion to be correct. During the past few years the Parliament of Canada has on many occasions given evidence of a deep interest in this matter. I think it' was in the year 1894 that Parliament placed upon the statute book a charter giving very wide powers to a certain body of men, responsible in themselves, worthy and capable citizens of our Dominion, who were hopeful of being able to carry out as a commercial undertaking the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. The rights and powers extended to them under this charter have been renewed by Parliament every . two year's from that date until the present time, the last renewal having been granted in 1912. When they first obtained that charter, they were given power to dispose of bonds to the amount of $10,000,000 in the hope of being able with this sum, I presume, to undertake the construction of the canal at that particular juncture. Later, I think it was in 1900, that enactment was amended by Parliament, and power was given to them to raise something like $35,000,000 for the carrying on of this great work. In 1906 Parliament, in its judgment and wisdom at that time, granted to that company the privilege of raising the sum of $100,000,000 with which to carry out the undertaking. I regard these circumstances as evidence of the interest which this Parliament and a great proportion of the people of this Dominion have taken from time to time in this matter. Not only did Parliament undertake to grant such powers to that company, but in the years 1900 and 1901, I think, surveys having been made by certain responsible engineers, who were named this evening by the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche), Mr. Macleod and others who were associated with him, the Government of that day contributed to the
expenses of those surveys to an amount something like $20,000. So, as I have said, Parliament gave to a company of reputable citizens of our country the widest possible powers-powers that should have enabled them to undertake the construction of this work, if they could have succeeded in establishing that it was feasible from a commercial point of view. But, this company having met with disappointment from time to time in this regard, the Government, in the year 1904-and, in my judgment, very properly-employed engineers of the Public Works Department, supporting them with an efficient staff, to make the most careful survey of the proposed route from Montreal to lake Nipissiiig and the Georgian bay. As a result of that survey we have the advantage of having before us to-day the report of one of the most complete surveys which, in my humble judgment, it would be possible for engineering skill to make, in respect to the cost, possibility and feasibility of this route from an engineering point of view.
Under these circumstances we are face to face with the consideration of what, in our judgment, is the next best step to be taken on behalf of the people of Canada in respect of this undertaking, and what should be immediately undertaken by the Government and carried on as rapidly as possible to a conclusion. While it is all very well for hon. gentlemen to discuss this matter, at the same time some members of this House, particularly the Minister of Public Works and the Government with which he is connected, have to assume a very heavy and very large responsibility. In view of the fact that in the year 1912 we extended the charter of the Georgian Bay Company, which company, had, year after year, been promising this Parliament that they would be able to carry out the work, and that this charter stands good until the 1st of May next, I felt that we would not be acting fairly with those responsible individuals were we, at an early date, to make any move in connection with the matter as a Government enterprise, or relieve them from their attempts to realize the hope they have evidently entertained, that some time or other they would be able to carry out this woTk to the satisfaction of 'the Government and of the country as a whole.
The question of the construction of the Georgian Bay canal and, in fact, the question of the development of the whole canal system of Canada, undoubtedly deserves

the most careful and serious discussion and consideration of every well wisher of our country, and especially of every well wisher for the development of Canada as a whole. We all know and realize, and I am sure that those who listened attentively to the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche) to-night, as he recited the views and ideas and reports of men of twenty and thirty years ago in respect to the feasibility of the Georgian Bay ship canal undertaking, felt that it was probably a good thing, in the interests of Canada, that this work had not been undertaken at an earlier date, for the simple reason that the conditions to-day are not the conditions that we had fifteen, twenty or thirty years ago. We are face to face to-day with a condition of brighter hopes, greater prospects, and bigger things; and therefore I say that the responsibility resting on any individual who has to make a recommendation to his colleagues and to this Parliament upon such a national undertaking as this, is very great. He must be careful that no mistakes are made in the building and development for the great future trade of our country.
We in Canada have already expended something like $135,000,000 on the various canals which we have constructed; and, with no attempt on my part to reflect on the judgment or the good intentions of those who from time to time had responsibility for the expenditure of those sums of money that have gone into the opening up of the different canals of Canada, .still I am sure every hon. gentleman in this House agrees with me that, in the light of the great development that has taken place, in the light of the great hope that we have for the future, the men of to-day would not undertake to spend money as it has been spent in the past in respect to the opening up of the canal systems of our Dominion. Not only has this sum of $135,000,000 already been exh pended on the various canal systems, but we have, as has been well stated this afternoon by my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition, a duty to perform to-day, so to improve and increase those expenditures, that they may meet the requirements of the growing conditions of our country. In order that we may realize how we have spent that sum of money on various canals,
I shall cite a few of the larger ones with the amounts that have been expended on them: Beauharnois, $3,000,000; Carillon and Grenville, $5,700,000; Chambly, $2,900,000-Cornwall, $9,730,000; Lachine, $18,000,000;

Rideau, $7,000,000; Sault Ste. Marie, $5,700,000; Soulanges, $8,000,000; St. Lawrence, $3,500,000; Trent canal, $12,000,000; Welland, $37,000,000; Wallaceburg, $11,000,000.
These are the figures in round numbers that go to make up the $135,000,000 to which I have referred. I am simply quoting these figures as I believe they will be of interest to the hon. members and to this country as showing just what amount of money Canada has already invested in her canal systems. In addition to this, we have here an estimate that is proposed as being necessary for the improvement of the St. Mary's river, a great work that is, to my mind, of pressing and absolute necessity. The engineers of my department estimate that to bring the St. Mary's river to a depth of 25 feet would mean an expenditure of something like $15,000,000. Then to deepen the channel from lake Huron to lake Erie through lake St. Clair and the Detroit river to a depth of 25 feet would require a sum of about $18,000,000.
The Welland canal, as you know, is being improved to a depth of 25 feet at an estimated cost of $45,000,000. In addition to this, if the St. Lawrence route is improved from there to Montreal, it is estimated that it will cost something like $150,000,000 more. As to these figures, we have on record a report of the Deep Waterways Commission of the United States who had their engineers go over this same territory in the year 1900. They then estimated that a channel to the depth of something like 30 feet would cost something like $300,000,000, covering the territory from Sault Ste. Marie to Montreal. But in the year 1906 a board of the United States army engineers were commissioned to report upon the feasibility of changing the existing project of a 20-foot ship canal from lake Superior to lake Huron and from lake Huron to lake Erie then in progress, to a depth of from 22 to 25 feet, connecting those lakes. They reported as follows:
The board concurs with the district engineers and the divisional engineer in the opinion that the obtaining of either 22 or 25 feet navigation in the Great bakes should be deferred until it is plainly shown that a safe and reliable 20-foot channel is not equal to the necessities of lake commerce.
That was the recommendation of the American engineers at that time. I'think that I voice the sentiment of this Parliament, and I am sure I voice- the sentiment of this country, when I say that a 20-foot channel is no longer sufficiently great for the trade of western Canada, to bring it, as it should be brought, to the national

port and the outgoing port on our own Canadian territory, at the city of Montreal. We shall also have the advantage of connecting with our own Intercolonial railway over which we can transport our products to the national ports of Quebec, St. John and Halifax. In addition to this, a demand is being made for the deepening of the canals to which I have just referred, to a depth of 35 feet. That project would involve an expenditure too large to give it consideration. We have at all events the remedy in our own hands in the construction of the Georgian Bay ship canal, if it is thought to be commercially feasible in the interests of the Dominion.
My right hon. friend who leads the Opposition, dealt this afternoon with the question of the transportation of our products from western Canada to our eastern ports, and with the amount of traffic that was diverted to American ports. I am free to confess that, to my mind, that is undoubtedly the strongest argument that can be advanced for undertaking the construction of the Georgian Bay ship canal. It is an undoubted fact that the grain of western Canada has been diverted to American ports to a very large extent. My hon. friend the member for Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche) gave us certain figures this afternoon, correct figures in my judgment; but although'our traffic is being diverted and Buffalo seems to be the point at which the diversion takes place-it is not diverted to New York by the Erie canal, nor will it be at any future time, for the simple reason that up to the present time our neighbours to the south have not shown that energy in the development of their canals that would lead us to expect that it will be possible for them to compete with us, in any reasonable time at all events, by means	of the Erie
canal. As every hon. gentleman in this House probably knows, the Erie canal has only had a depth until very recently of eleven to twelve feet, and now I believe it is something like fourteen feet; therefore we have a greater canal system upon the Canadian side, and we are in a better position than our American friends to transport our wheat via canals to the seaboard. Unfortunate as it may be, the fact is, as stated by my right hon. friend this afternoon, that when our grain reaches Buffalo it is unloaded and placed, not in ships to be taken by canal, but on railway trains, and carried by the different railway companies to New York. In my humble judgment, our Canadian railways are very
blamable and should be held responsible by this Parliament for allowing that traffic to be diverted to New York in this manner, instead of carrying it to
10 p.m. Montreal and other Canadian ports. As loyal Canadians, we cannot allow any diversion of our trade to American ports and to American railways, if we are going to build up that Panada that we all hope to see built up in the future; and to my mind that is the strongest possible reason why this Parliament should take action with regard to the Georgian Bay ship canal. I have no hesitation in saying that the railway companies of Canada have been, and are, at great fault in that they themselves allow the traffic to be diverted in this manner. The only reason for it that occurs to my mind is that they are so taxed with more profitable transport in other parts of Canada, that they have not been able to take care of that trade. Otherwise, they would not have allowed the American railways to take it away from them. This is a very serious matter, and one that well deserves consideration, not only by this House but by the Railway Commission, to see if we cannot, by some means or other, prevent our traffic being diverted to American channels.
My right hon. friend this afternoon took objection to the appointment of another commission. In his judgment we already have had commissions enough. In so far as engineering commissions are concerned, I quite agree with him. The hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) quoted suggestions and recommendations made by the commission appointed in the year 1905 in respect to the deep waterways between lake Superior and Montreal. This commission dealt with the various questions that came before them, but failed to make any recommendations in respect to the Georgian Bay canal project. They went on to say that if the project were considered feasible from a commercial point of view, as well as from an engineering standpoint, they would be diposed to make a recommendation. We have had engineering reports, but we have not yet had reports as to its commercial feasibility; and I may say that the question of a commission in respect to commercial feasibility is no new matter. It was not only recommended in 1905 by that commission, but was taken up by the Department of Public Works, and if you read closely the reports of 1906, 1907 and 1908, you will find continual references to

the idea of a commercial commission in respect to this project.
There are also to be considered the advantages of the Georgian Bay canal, as compared with the St. Lawrence route, and of course, we know that both routes offer certain advantages. My right hon. friend put forward the idea that by the St. Lawrence route there would be more open water through the lakes, and therefore more, rapid transportation, but, as against that, we must bear in mind that there are 73 miles of artificial canals on the St. Lawrence route, whereas on the Georgian Bay route there would only be about 28 miles. Another point in favour of the Georgian Bay canal, which has been overlooked, except by my hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin), is the great possibility in connection with power development. According to the report of the Government engineers, there would be 1,000,000 horse-power available, by reason of the construction of the canal, but I understand that Mr. Tye, an eminent engineer has estimated that about
3,000,000 horse-power would be developed. Even if 1,000,000 horse-power is possible, it would almost pay the interest on our bonds in connection with the cost of , that undertaking. At all events, this phase of the matter deserves serious and careful consideration. As far back as 1870, this question was considered by the Parliament of Canada, and an Act was passed placing the Ottawa river under the direct control of the Dominion Government, which, of course, would include the water-powers, and that being so, this matter is placed in a very strong position.
At the same time realizing the responsibility that must rest upon any minister who undertakes to make a recommendation to his colleagues, and to Parliament, on such an important matter, I feel that I would not be doing justice to myself, nor to the department over which I have the honour to preside, nor to my colleagues, nor to this Parliament, were I to come down now with a definite recommendation for the construction of the canal without first having the most full and complete inquiry and information as to the commercial possibilities of such a vast undertaking. It is because I am conscious of my responsibility in this respect, that I cannot undertake to ask Parliament to pledge the credit of the country to this project until I have the opinion of a body of commercial men, who will thoroughly inquire into it and report upon it. When the names of the commissioners are announced, I think they

will commend themselves to the people of the country. Let me say that it will be an honorary commission, composed of men who will not take any salary, or remuneration from the country. The commissioners have sufficient pride in the development of their country, and interest in its commercial welfare, to undertake this work without any thought of remuneration for their services. Upon the report and findings of that commission I hope the Government and Parliament will be .able to decide. If the report of the commission is adverse to the work, and if it is considered well-founded and carefully calculated, I shall have no hesitation in adopting that report. On the other hand, if the report of the commission finds that this undertaking is a commercial possibility, then, in the same way, I shall have no hesitation in coming to this Parliament and recommending the expenditure of whatever money may be necessary to carry out this project, in accordance with the report of the engineers, who have had the matter under consideration for so many years.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The hon. gentleman referred to the commercial possibility of the work. Does he mean possibility or probability?


Robert Rogers: I mean to speak of the
commercial feasibility of the work. There is not very much further for me to say at the present juncture, except to again assure the House that the names of the commissioners will be a guarantee that they will discharge their duties in a manner to redound to their own credit, and to the satisfaction of the people of the Dominion. I am satisfied that no long delay will ensue because of the appointment of the commission. For example, if it be impossible for them to make a report on the whole work without any great delay, it certainly will not be impossible for them to make a report on the portion of the canal, from Montreal, west for some distance, and also with respect to the work, on the French river to lake Nipissing. To my mind, this is a very important part of the undertaking, because all we will have to do there will be to canalize the river, which, according to the report of the engineers, is not a very expensive undertaking, and which would give us eighty odd miles of completed canal. That is a portion of the project that deserves immediate and serious consideration. When the report of the commission is submitted, the people of Canada can depend upon it that the Government will

not fail to assume responsibility for dealing with the matter in a way that will merit their confidence.


Mr. PROULX:: How many members will be on the commission?


Robert Rogers: Three.


Edmond Proulx: Have they been selected yet?


Paul-Émile Lamarche: The Minister of Public Works has stated that if the commissioners were not able to report on the whole work without delay, they would probably be able to report on different parts of the route. This commission is to inquire into the commercial feasibility of the project, and that being so I cannot understand how they could report on part of the route without reporting on the commercial feasibility of the whole route? I would like to have that explained.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend does not
appear to appreciate the fact that it might be a commercial possibility to build that portion from the French river as far as North Bay, and to build and improve the portion from Montreal to the Ottawa river without it being absolutely necessary to make a favourable report of the whole undertaking.


Mr. G. V. WHITE (North Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege on several previous occasions to occupy some of the time of this House in discussing this very important question which has been under discussion this afternoon and evening. I venture to say that on no previous occasion has this House been treated to so frank an expression of opinion from a minister of the Crown as we have had from the hon. Minister of Public Works this evening. The Minister of Public Works has shown to the House and to the country that he has taken the question, not only of this particular project, but of the whole canal system of Canada, into his .serious consideration. He has endeavoured to secure all the data possible in connection with the improvement of our great waterways. This House and this country must congratulate the Minister of Public Works upon the very frank statement he has given us to-night.
On a previous occasion, I think in the session of 1910, I had the privilege of moving a motion similar to that which the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has placed in your hands, Mr. Speaker, upon this occasion. My right
hon. friend stated this afternoon that he thought that sufficient expressions of opinion had been received by this Government to justify it in undertaking immediately the construction of this great waterway. If my memory serves me right, the papers brought down in response to my motion for papers in connection with this project seemed to me to have been sufficient to justify the late Government in undertaking the project. I refer especially to that report which was laid upon the table of the House I think in the session of 1909, and which was referred to by several hon. members to-night in connection with the engineering feasibility of the project.
My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) also referred to the fact that he did not see any occasion for the appointment of another commission; that this project had already been dealt with by two commissions, one away back in the fifties and one quite recently. I can only refer my right hon. friend to a meeting held in the city of Ottawa on the 24th of January, 1910, which the right hon. gentleman attended, as it was in connection with a byelection held in the city of Ottawa. At that meeting the ex-Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) was present, and gave expression to his opinion that a commission .should be appointed to ascertain what speeds vessels could obtain on the Georgian Bay canal, and what were the probabilities of return freights from Montreal. He said that when this was learned the Government could intelligently go ahead with the project. Therefore, while the right hon. gentleman may not think that a commission is necessary to inquire into the commercial aspect of the case, some of his colleagues in the late Administration were of the opinion that a further commission should be appointed.
I wish to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche) on his speech to-night, on this ques-1 tion, which I am sure is appreciated by every hon. member, whether he be in favour of the construction of this great work or not. My hon. friend from Nicolet dealt with every aspect of the case; he went into the engineering feasibility and also into what he considered the commercial feasibility. He has left very little for the hon. members who follow him to deal with.
In connection with a project of this kind, it would not be amiss to give a few cogent reasons with regard to the importance

of the question of transportation generally. There is no doubt that the tariff question, not only in this country but in every country, is one of the most important questions with which any government has to deal. Transportation, however, is equally important, especially in a country like Canada which stretches for three thousand miles from one ocean to the other and which is favoured with so many natural means of transportation. I think it was Bacon who said:
There he three things which make a nation great and prosperous: a fertile soil, busy workshops, and easy conveyance for men and commodities from one place to another.
For a few moments, I wish to deal first with the question of railway transportation in the republic to the south of us. Some statistics which I have been able to obtain but which, unfortunately, do not deal with very recent years, will serve to show the great importance of transportation facilities. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1907, the average amount per capita of duties collected on imported merchandise by the United States was $3.84. During that same period the average per capita contribution to the revenues of the railways in the United States was $30.86; or, an other words, the transportation taxes collected and levied by the United States railways in the year 1907 were more than eight times greater than the amount collected on imports by the Government of that country. This goes to show that financially the Government of the United States was completely outclassed by transportation. In the same year, 1907, the average receipts of the United States Government from all sources, except the sale of bonds, was $9.84 per capita, while the railway revenues were $30.86 per .capita, or more than three times the former, showing, in a small way, the great importance of the question of transportation.
There are three methods of transportation, the highway, the railway and the waterway, or what is commonly referred to as road, rail and river, the three E's of transportation. The distinguishing characteristics of the roadway may be called availability. A cart or pack-horse may go where a railway is a commercial, if not an engineering, impossibility, and a railway may be built where no river exists and where a canal would be too costly.	The
distinguishing characteristic of a railway is speed, and of a waterway economy. It is said, Sir, that a horse, or its mechanical 
equivalent, can move two tons of freight at the rate of three miles per hour in a wagon on a fairly level road; 15 tons in a car on a railway, and from 90 to 100 tons in a boat of proper shape on a waterway of a width and depth adapted to its use. Corresponding with these physical facts, we find that the estimated cost of wagon transportation on an average road in the United States is 25 cents per ton mile, which may be reduced to 10 cents on a first-class road. The average rate received by the railroads of the United States in 1907 amounted to 7.82 mills per ton mile, while the average charge per ton mile on the goods carried in and out of lake Superior in that year was eight-tenths of a mill.
The United States has up to the present time no completely improved rivers, but the army engineers claim that when the work under construction on the Ohio river is finished transportation may be conducted thereon for one-half a mill per ton mile as against 7.82 charged by the railways. This means that a dollar will carry a ton of freight four miles on an average road, 10 miles on a first-class road, 127J miles on a railway, 1,250 miles on the Great Lakes, and, if the contention of the army engineers is correct, 2,000 miles on a river of the first class when completely improved. From this it is plain that good roads are vastly better than poor roads, but that method of transportation is too costly for long distance traffic. Its essential function is the carriage of small loads over short distances. It is equally plain that in economy the waterway surpasses the railway as far as the railway exceeds the highway, and it follows that the essential function of the waterway is the carriage of large loads over long distances. The railway occupies a position intermediate between the highway and the waterway in availability, economy and essential function. Each of them, road, railway and river, is an integral and indispensable part of the three-fold transportation system, which would be logically defective if any of the three were lacking. In regard to waterways, let me just read an extract from a statement made by Mr. Joseph E. Ransdell, president	of the
National Rivers and Harbours Congress of the United States, in regard to the improvement of waterways, said:
The improvement of our waterways constitutes at once the highest duty and the greatest opportunity which confronts the citizenship and. statesmanship of our country.

Waterways, Sir, produce benefits in three principal ways: first, their direct saving in the cost of goods actually carried by water; second, the indirect saving through the reduction of railway rates due to the competition of wates routes, and, third, by what may be called the creative effect. There is no better way to determine the effect of waterways than by speaking of the results which they have produced. Let me cite one or two concrete instances. In the early part of the nineteenth century the business men conceded that Philadelphia would be one of the principal cities of the Atlantic coast. Up to 1820 the population within her present boundaries was greater than the combined populations of Brooklyn and New York, and in 1821 the state of Massachusetts rivalled New York in the volume of exports. By 1840, however, the combined population of New York and Brooklyn exceeded that of Philadelphia by nearly 100,000, and in 1841 the exports from New York were nearly three times as great as they were from Massachusetts. A history of Philadelphia published in 1884 says:
Be the cause whatever it may, the fact stands out prominently that, from the competition of the Erie canal, New York became what Philadelphia previously had been-the commercial emporium of the United States.
Beaten in commerce, Philadelphia sought to maintain her supremacy in manufactures, and for a time succeeded, only to see a little later, this prize also slip out of her grasp. New York was hopelessly behind in manufactures in 1830, the value of her product being but $7,000,000, as against $8,000,000 for Connecticut; $11,000,000 for Pennsylvania and $63,000,000 for Massachusetts.
Ten years later New York had advanced to first rank, with products valued at $96,000,000 as against $74,000,000 for Massachusetts and $64,500,000 for Pennsylvania. Going over to the British Isles, we find another instance where the improvement of waterways has been of vast and material benefit to some of the great cities of England. I refer principally to the city of Manchester. The first railway came to Manchester in the year 1830. As hon. gentleman all know, Manchester is situated some 50 miles from Liverpool, which is one of the greatest ports in the world. It is surrounded by abundant supplies of coal, and is the centre of the cotton milling industry in the British Isles. In 1881 the population of Manchester was about 500,000. In the early eighties, however, Manchester suffered a
setback through the closing down of many of her industries, and it was evident that some remedy would have to be found to revive the industrial and commercial life of the city. Twenty years later a marvellous transformation had taken place. The mills which had closed down in the early eighties were again running, many new industries were started, and to-day the city of Manchester and its suburbs has a population of nearly 1,000,000, and is the nearest seaport for a district occupied by 8,000,000 busy, prosperous people. The cause of this stagnation of growth in the city of Manchester was costly transportation, and the miracle which remedied this condition was the construction of the Manchester ship canal. In Germany we find another similar instance. The city of Frankfort is situated in the heart of Germany, far from the sea, and more than twenty miles from the Rhine, on the banks of the small river Main. Frankfort was founded by the Romans in A.D. 150, and in after years, by the slow growth of many centuries, reached a population in 1880 of about 140,000 people. Something happened to make a wonderful change in the rate of growth of this city, with the result that in the next twenty years Frankfort gained more than in all the previous centuries. To-day, with its suburbs, which lie close around its borders, Frankfort has a population of nearly half a million. The ' something ' which happened was the canalization of the river, completed in the fall of 1886, which made the Main a part of the Rhine navigation system, and which, while it did not allow ocean vessels to go direct to Frankfort, did enable that city to ship goods all the way by water to any port on all the Seven Seas. The locks have since been lengthened and other improvements made, so that much larger boats can now use the river, and Frankfort, which spent some $2,000,000 back in 1886 to equip her harbour, is now spending $17,600,000 on a new and greater harbour to care properly for her swiftly-growing trade. Germany, Holland and Belgium are three countries which, adjacent geographically, are widely separated politically. The area of these countries is very 'small compared with that of the United States. For the fiscal year 1908, however, the foreign commerce of Germany, Holland and Belgium amounted to $6,433,347,839, as against $2,845,044,087 for the United States; that is to say, the foreign commerce of these three countries was nearly two-and-a-half times as great as that of the United States. These countries have only about one-thirteenth of

the area of the United States; they have a population 14,000,000 less than that of the United States; they have less than half the accumulated wealth of the United States, and the soil and climate are no better. The reason for the vast difference in the amount of foreign commerce is the transportation triangle, as it is called, which is more completely and symmetrically developed in those particular countries than it is in any other place in the world. They have two-and-one-third times as many miles of railway in proportion to area as the United States. . Their 41,200 miles gives them one mile of road to each 5-6 square miles of territory, while the 230,000 miles of railway in the United States in 1907 gives an average of one mile of railway to each 13-1 square miles of area. They have a system of waterways unsurpassed and unequalled elsewhere. According to a statistical yearbook, Germany has 8,545 miles of waterways classed as navigable; this includes the estuaries of the larger rivers which are used mainly by seagoing vessels, certain canals built partly for drainage purposes, and some small streams which are only occasionally navigated. Omitting these, there are 6,215 miles of improved inland waterways which are in constant use. Holland has 2,960 miles of canals and navigable rivers, and Belgium 1,367, which makes a total for the three countries of 10,542 miles of waterways. I could give figures also with regard to France, which has 10,350 miles of navigable waters, of which 7,485 miles are regularly used. Coming to Great Britain and Ireland, we find that she has a foreign trade greater than that of any other country in the world, which is no doubt due in a measure to the fact that no spot on the British Isles is more than 100 miles from the sea. In the United States the states that touch the lakes rank first, second, third, fifth, eighth, ninth, tenth and thirteenth in value of products.
Many arguments and Teasons have been submitted to-nighit to prove the necessity of the Government undertaking, at as early a moment as possible, the important public work of improving the Ottawa and French Biver waterway. I shall touch upon only a few of the points that have been raised as the question has been gone into fully by previous speakers. One question of importance is that of water-power. According to a publication issued by the Commission of Conservation, in 1911, entitled ' Water-powers of Canada J the estimated

water area of Canada is 125,755 square miles, as compared with a water area in the United States, exclusive of Alaska and foreign possessions, of 52,630 square miles. In other words, Canada has almost two and a half times the water area wihioh the United States has. Ontario has 40,354 square miles of water area, exclusive of any portion of the Great Lakes or any arm of the sea; and this area is over 75 per cent of the total water area of the United States. One estimate, according to this publication of the commission, places the total water-power of Canada at nearly 17,000,000 horse-power, and it also states that the total water power developed in Canada in 1910 was only 1,016,521 horse-power or practically one-seventeenth of the available horse-power. In connection with the Ottawa river and the French river and their respective tributaries it is estimated that there is anywhere from one million to three million horsepower available for development. These powers have lain dormant and it seems to me that it is time we harnessed them so as to use the energy which could be derived from them. It is also a fact that along the St. Lawrence river there are many valuable water-powers. The striking difference between the water-powers along the Ottawa and French rivers and those of the *St. Lawrence is that the St. Lawrence powers are all international. By the Burton Act, the United States has the right to import into the United States one-half of the electric power developed in Canada along international waters. Canada agreed to one-half indefinitely and agreed to two-thirds until such time as Canada needs it, which will probably be a very remote period. At all events, the United States is entitled to have imported into that country one-half of the power generated in Canada along international waters. Therefore, in that respect alone the question of the development of power is a very important one, especially in so far as the Ottawa river and its tributaries are concerned, in view of the fact that these powers are entirely within our own territory. The present Government, as we are all aware, have committed themselves to the enlargement of the Welland canal. This enlargement will no doubt entail an expenditure of some $40,000,000 or $50,000,000, and I am frank when I say that I believe it is practically useless to deepen the Welland canal until the whole St. Lawrence system is improved. In that connection I would like to Tefer for a moment or two to a very important.

document which was laid on the table of the House some time ago, I refer to the papers relating to the application of the Sanitary District of Chicago for permission to divert 10,000 cubic feet of water per second from lake Michigan. One of the strong arguments in opposition to the Georgian Bay canal is a statement (which is entirely inaccurate but which has been sent abroad throughout this country by opponents of this scheme) by critics living on the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, to the effect that there is not sufficient water at the height of land to carry on this project in a feasible manner. I would like some of those critics who have been using this argument, which is entirely untrue, to look over this document to which I have referred and they will find, according to the evidence contained in it, that the city of Chicago, for sanitary purposes, has been diverting 7,000 cubic feet of water per second from lake Michigan, when they were only authorized by the United States Secretary of State to divert 4,167 cubic feet. The facts were brought forward by a special board of engineers, under the chairmanship of General W. H. Bixby, appointed to report on the effects which this diversion at Chicago would have on navigation. This special board reported that the Sanitary District was diverting some 7,000 cubic feet of water per second, thus exceeding the authorized amount by
3,000	cubic feet of water per second. Daniel Mullin, K.C., who was acting on behalf of Canada in opposition to the diversion of this water, says:
The diversion at Chicago is an absolute and irreparable loss to the navigation interests of both countries. It is a permanent diversion. One of the worst features about it, Mr. Secretary, is that it is an insidious effort to get water-I will not say for any other purpose than for sanitary purposes, but there is no question about it, if you will read the preliminary report, that there was another object in view and that was the lakes to the gulf project.
That refers to the waterway which the United States intended to construct from the Great Lakes to the gulf of Mexico in order to give the middle West an outlet to the ocean. The effect which this diversion will have on the Welland canal and on the levels of the Great Lakes is also pointed out on page 24:
The depth in the Welland canal and in the six canals employed to overcome rapids in the
St. Lawrence river is now 14 feet, of which every inch is needed.
I ask particular attention to that-the conclusion reached by this commission-4 of which
every inch is needed,' and the evidence which will be submitted to show by competent witnesses as to the injury occasioned by the lowering even of one inch, so far as navigation interests are concerned, will be, I think, abundant.
At the head of the Cornwall canal in the St. Lawrence river the abstraction of 14,000 cubic feet of water per second at Chicago will lower the surface about 62 inches at mean level, and much more at low water. To restore the depth in these canals involves the reconstruction of all the end locks and deepening the approaches thereto, and is estimated to cost $2,500,000.
The total cost of restoring the depth in the harbours of the Great Lakes and the channels between the 'lakes, is therefore;, roughly, $10,000,000, and of restoring it in the Welland, and St. Lawrence canals is $2,500,000 additional, or $12,500,000 in all.
The shores of the Great Lakes are very far from being fully developed, and it is highly probable that many harbours not now in existence remain to be created, or if in existence remain to be improved. The lowering of the lakes' surfaces increases the difficulty and cost of such improvements. This consideration is of importance although no money value can now be given it.
At page 26, the effect on Niagara falls is noted:
In the presence of these interests, the effect upon Niagara falls may be simply mentioned with a reference to our former reports upon that subject. The volume of Niagara falls will be reduced by the full amount diverted at Chicago.
And on the same page the
11 p.m. effect on the Great Lakes is noted.
The diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second will lower the levels of lake Michigan-Huron, St. Clair, lake Erie, lake Ontario, and the St. Lawrence river, besides the important connecting channels, the Detroit and St. Clair rivers, by amounts varying from 4| to 6 \ inches for the different waters, and the diversion of 14,000 cubic feet will lower them from 6 to inches. The diversion of 20,000 cubic feet will lower lake Michigan-Huron about 13 inches and lake Erie about 11 inches.
According to these statements, which are absolutely reliable, you can see what effect action of this sort by the city of Chicago, or by any of the other American cities on the Great Lakes, would have on the navigation of the Great Lakes and on the St. Lawrence system. This would have no effect at all on the Georgian Bay canal because the height of land is considerably 'higher than the level of lake Huron. I might also give the opinion of the Dominion Marine Association as to the effect this diversion would have on the Great Lakes. On page 95 they say:
The self-evident fact that the diversion of water from lake Michigan at Chicago must affect the levels of the other lakes and of the

St. Lawrence river is established by ample authority already cited in evidence, and is practically conceded by the applicants. The figures submitted at the present hearing on behalf of the Canadian Government (computed with reference to periods of depression) show that, if anything, the loss has heretofore been underestimated. They indicate a lowering of the water at various points as follows: For a withdrawal at Chicago of 10,000 cubic
feet per second:
Inches.
Lake Michigan	 7.4
Lower sill of lock at Sault Ste.
Marie	- 7.0
Lake Huron	 7.4
Lake Erie	 6.1
Lake Ontario	 4.5
Rapide Plat in St. Lawrence
river	 6.S
Cornwall canal, lock 21	 5.0
Coteau	 5.4
Montreal	10.2
Under those conditions I think it is very important that this country should see that the level of the Great Lakes is maintained in order to ensure safe navigation.
Another phase of this question, and one which was very fully gone into by the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche), is its military aspect, and the fact that the route is entirely within Canadian territory should not be lost sight of. Canada and the United States have for a period of 100 years enjoyed peace, and I am sure it is the wish of every Canadian that we should have century after century of peace, between these two great neighbouring nations. It may be interesting to cite some strategic advantages which are possessed by the Georgian Bay Canal route. The conclusions to be drawn from the war of 1812 are that land victories or defeats were not vital, but, their effects were dependent upon the control of the lakes. This control was possessed alternately by the British and Americans, and always the success of the campaign was with the power controlling the lakes. A book issued by Major General G. W. Roibinson, entitled 'Canada and Canadian Defence', contains the following:
Lake Ontario is, comparatively speaking a more important lake with regard to the defence of Canada than lake Erie; and fortunately (he Canadian shore of lake Ontario afforded facilities for a good naval port-Kingston. The success of an enemy upon lake Erie, cannot, so long as lake Ontario and the country to the north of it, including the eastern shore of lake Huron, are in British hands, reduce Canada or cut off the country east of Toronto from Montreal and the sea.
President Madison of the United States wrote in 1812:
The command of the lakes by a superior force on the water ought to have been a funda-

mental part of the national policy, the moment
the peace of 1813 took place.
The Duke of Wellington, writing to Sir
George Murray on December 24, 1814,. expressed himself thus:
I have told ministers repeatedly that a naval superiority on the lakes is a sine qua non of success in the war on the frontier of Canada, even if our object should be only defensive, and I hope when you are there they will take care to secure it for you.
In order to follow up this advice, Great Britain constructed the Rideau canal between 1812 and 1832, at a cost of several million dollars, in order to avoid international waters and to provide navigation between Montreal and lake Ontario. That these conditions apply to the present time, and must be seriously considered, it is only necessary to point out that the United States has, with the consent of the Canadian Government, overlooked the Rush-Bagot treaty of 1817 by which the naval forces on the lakes to be maintained by the United States and by Great Britain respectively, were not to exceed: On lake Ontario, one vessel; on the upper lakes, two vessels, and on lake Champlain one vessel, none of which were to exceed 100 tons burden, and the armament not to be heavier than one 18-pound cannon; the convention to be terminable after six months, upon notice by either side. The convention has practically been terminated by the United States, with the consent of Great Britain and Canada, and the United States now has several training ships on the Great Lakes, any one of which is as a dreadnought to a fishing sloop, as compared with anything which Canada has afloat on the lakes at the present time. Then, the United States has on the upper lakes several hundred large steel freighters, of about 8,000 tons each, as compared with a dozen or two that belong to Canada. Most of these big freighters could be immediately equipped with light guns from the United States arsenals, and under present conditions they could hold these lakes and invade the Canadian shores with impunity. They could not get into lake Ontario until the Welland canal is enlarged, when they would also control that lake, which under present conditions, is capable of being controlled in the same way by Canada, owing to the majority of ships on that water being Canadian. The lesson of the war of 1812-14 is that loss of control of lake Ontario by Canada would probably compel the withdrawal of all troops operating to the west

of Kingston, and the abandonment of the heart of Ontario, or, in other words, the heart of Canada. If the canal be enlarged this loss is inevitable, because of the preponderance of the big United States freighters going to Oswego which now run to Buffalo.
When the Ottawa ship canal is constructed, the Canadian naval fleet would be able to reach lake Huron clear of international waters, and whenever the defence of the country should require it, their presence would protect that Canadian coast and call for a large United States force to be kept at various places to protect the cities and the coast of the United States. With the Ottawa-French River canal constructed, western Canada, Ontario, and Manitoba would not be dependent on the United States water-borne coal in time of trouble, which dependence is at present a vitally weak spot in our armour.
Apart from the military aspect of this project, the other important points which have to be considered and which have been very ably discussed to-night, are in connection with the saving of distance. As has been pointed out by almost every one of the previous speakers this route is 282 miles (Shorter than any other existing route, or in other words, 564 miles for the round trip. That, of course, is what should be considered in connection with a project of this kind.
The report presented to Parliament by the Liberal Government in 1908 showed that the time of transit was in the neighbourhood of 70 hours; that the curves on [DOT] this route were no sharper than those on the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes; that as far as fogs are concerned, the Ottawa river was as free, if not freer, from fogs than the Great Lakes. As regards the safety of navigation, I can only' refer to that terrible disaster which occurred last fall on the Great Lakes whereby many lives were lost. That showed that, so far as the Great Lakes route is concerned, while the stretches of water may be larger, navigation is not as safe as it might be, and we all know it would be impossible for an accident of that kind to occur on the Georgian hay canal route.
In conclusion, I wish again to express my appreciation to the hon. Minister of Public Works for the very exhaustive manner in which he has treated this question. I feel safe in saying that when that commission which is to be appointed has sent in its report, its findings will be that, not 68
only from an engineering point of view, but from a commercial standpoint, the Mont-real-Ottawa and Georgian Bay waterway is feasible in every respect. I trust that before long this project will be under way and that within a comparatively short time we .shall have the large lake freighters passing our very doors.
On motion of Mr. Brabazon, the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
Tuesday, February 24, 1914.