1914-06-08

ASIATIC IMMIGRATION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 227, to amend, the Immigration Act. He said:
The House and the country are well aware of the difficulties which we have been encountering for a number of years past in dealing with immigration from the continent of Asia. At the present time we have three methods of dealing with this question. Japanese immigration is controlled by an amicable arrangement between the two governments; 'Chinese immigration is subject to a head tax of $500, and Hindu immigration comes under an Order in Council which provides that immigrants can only come by direct route to this country. This provision has for some time more or less effectively stopped this immigration. However, there has /been a great real of dissatisfaction. It has been recognized that the regulations now in force are more or less of a temporary character, and there is a general demand 
throughout the country, especially in the province from which I come, that the Dominion Government shall take some definite and final action towards the regulation and restriction of Asiatic immigration. The objections to exclusive regulations are based largely upon the desire of this Government, and the people of Canada as a whole, not to do anything which might offend the dignity of other peoples by specifying exclusion. In this sentiment I heartily concur, but it appears to me, and I think the events of recent years, especially those of the last month or so, have amply demonstrated that this is a case where we have to choose between two evils. One is the possibility of causing some slight offence to these people from across the seas, and the other is unrestricted Asiatic immigration into this country. We cannot go on with the temporary expedients which have been in force for the last few years. There are other reasons why more stringent immigration regulations have not, up to this time, been adopted. For instance, there is the imperial reason, and it is one which is of very great importance, but in that regard I would like to point out a principle which I think we should hold more dearly than any other principle of government, and that is that we, the people of the Dominion, or the people of any of the overseas dominions, or, to to control immigration into this country, have a right to control the immigration into their own country. I base my proposal on the principle that it is our right to control immigration into this country. We axe not bound to extend the privileges of our country to every one who cares to come. It is not a right on the part of immigrants to enter this country, but it is our right to restrict *whatever immigration we desire. For this position I have a very high authority. Lord Curzon, in discussing the Hindu immigration problem, has declared that:
The common rights of British citizenship cannot be held to override the rights of self-protection conferred on a self-governing colony.
That is exactly where I stand. I urge upon Parliament and upon the Government to take a firm stand upon that principle. Now-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order; I am afraid that the hon. member is rather going beyond what is permissible, that is, merely to explain the principle of the Bill.

utr.17


Mr. STEVENS:: I am simply offering this explanation to the House, as a reason for the introduction of this Bill. The Bill provides for an amendment to section 3 of the Immigration Act, which is the clause under which we exclude certain classes of people, for instance, the physically unfit, etc. I purpose by this Bill to add a clause to section 3 of the Immigration Act, which will exclude all natives and naturalized citizens of countries in Asia, south of the 50th parallel of north latitude, provided, however, that this clause shall not apply to any country the government of which has a specific arrangement with the Government of Canada. In other words, we fix the principle of excluding immigrants from Asia, but if the Government of a country in Asia wishes to enter into an arrangement with our Government in order to protect their national dignity, we leave the door open for them to do so.
I urge this Bill upon the attention of the Government, and if possible I should like to see it passed this session. Possibly there may have to be representations made to the Home authorities with respect to it, and if it should be found consequently impossible to pass it this session, then I urge upon the Government that they should make strong recommendations to the Home authorities, with regard to this very important matter, so that this Bill may pass at the next session.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: My hon. friend has introduced this Bill when, as everybody knows, we are so near prorogation that it is expected we shall be able to finish all the business before us within the present week. The hon. gentleman is aware that, even if we had a month or six weeks still remaining of the session, it would be impossible to press this Bill through. The Bill, of course, cannot be taken up at all without the consent of the Government, and it would be interesting to know whether the Government intends to adopt this Bill and to support its passage.


Mr. BORDEN:: I was not aware of the terms of the Bill until my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) told the House of them just now, nor was I aware of his intention to move to introduce the Bill. I was very much occupied with some other matters while my hon. friend was making his explanation, but I shall look it over in ' Hansard,' and give an answer later to the right hon. gentleman. -


Wilfrid Laurier: You will keep considering it until Doomsday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

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

Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 
Mr. DOHERTY:: So far as a careful
search by the departmental officers shows, the last statute passed by the Parliament of Canada authorizing a girant of land to a railway company is the National Transcontinental Railway Act, 3 Edward VII, chapter 71, section 14. 'See also section 46 of the agreement scheduled thereto. The above was a grant of land for right of way purposes. The Railway Lands Branch of the Department of the Interior report that the last statute passed by the Parliament of Canada authorizing a grant of land to a railway company by way of subsidy is chapter 6 of 57-58 Victoria, 1894.
By chapter 55, section 6, subsection c, Revised Statutes of Canada, the Governor in 'Council i3 authorized to make a free grant of land not exceeding in extent six thousand four hundred acres for each mile of railway within Manitoba, and not exceeding in extent twelve thousand eight hundred acres for each mile beyond the limits of Manitoba, in aid of the construction of a railway from some point on the Canadian Pacific railway to Hudson hay.


AGRICULTURAL AID IN SHERBROOKE.
Mr. McCREA:: What was the total amount of money paid out in the county of Sherbrooke during the last fiscal year for agricultural purposes, to whom was it paid and how much to each person or society ?


Mr. BURRELL:: J. H. M. Parker, Lennoxville, Quebec, $65; I. J. Parnell, Lennoxville, Quebec, $10.
These payments were in connection with the purchase of pure-bred rams for distribution to associations of farmers.
Field crop competitions held in August, September and October, 1913, paid to Sherbrooke Agricutural Society for the province of Quebec, $50.
Seed Fair held at Sherbrooke, February 10, 1914, paid to ISherbrooke Agricultural Society for the province of Quebec, $50.
Salary and travelling expenses of Mr. COMMONS
Carl Sweet, district representative for the English-speaking counties in the province of Quebec, with headquarters at Sherbrooke, $2,200.30.
The following payments have been made in connection with the purchase of the experimental station at Lennoxvile, Quebec: F. Campbell and E. W. Reid, $15,000; F. Campbell and W. H. Pearson, $12,000; F. Campbell and C. F. Carter, $2,300; F. Campbell and H. Bennett, $2,800; F. Campbell and W. J. Douglas, $3,750; F. Campbell and Ed. Reid, $5,000; R. W. Reid, $700; Ed. Reid and F. Campbell, $5,000; Graham Bros., $39.08; Robert Westgate & Son, $260; veterinary inspector, J. E. Beaudry, Sherbrooke, P.Q., salary, $1,400; C. White, Len-noxville, P.Q., salary, $100. Total expenditure, $50,724.38.


GROSSE ISLE QUARANTINE STATION.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Was Come Langlois, of Bienville, Lfrvis, captain of vessel at Grosse Isle, dismissed by the Government, or did he tender his resignation?
2.	If dismissed, when and why?
3.	If he resigned, what reasons were given by him for so doing?
4.	By whom was he replaced?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Resigned.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Ill health.
4.	The vacancy caused in the service by Captain Langlois' resignation was filled by the appointment of Depris Couillard.


DEEPENING OF NORTON CREEK.
Mr. ROBB:: 1.	When was an appropriation first placed in the Estimates by the Department of Public Works for the deepening of Norton Creek at or near St. Clothilde, county of Chateauguay?
2.	Who are the members of Parliament who recommended to the Government the undertaking of this work?
3.	When was the work commenced?
4.	How much money was spent and how many men were employed on the work during the summer and fall of 1912?
5.	Who was the foreman or superintendent on the work during 1912?
6.	How much money was spent and how many men were employed on the work during the summer and fall of 1913?
7.	Who was foreman or superintendent on the work during 1913?
8.	Has the work been completed?
9.	Is it the intention of the Government to continue the work this year?
10.	What amount, if any, is appropriated for the work in the Estimates of this year?
11.	What is the estimated amount required to complete the work?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	1912-13.
2.	Messrs. J. A. Robb, R. Lanctot and J. P. Brown, members of Parliament.
3.	1912.
4.	1912-13,	$4,470.29. July and August,
1912, 36 men; September, 1912, 23 men; October, 1913, 22 men; November, 1913, 21 men.
5.	Pierre Robidoux.
6.	1913-14, $4,491.78. May, 1913, 26 men; June, 1913, 28 men; July, 1913, 29 men.
7.	F. X. Dextras and L. Guay.
8.	No.
9.	Yes.
10.	Appropriation, ' Grand Marsh ' improvements, $5,000.
11.	$22,500 is the estimated cost to com. plet-e, of which $8,962.07 has been expended to date.


WINDSOR, N.S., IMMIGRATION OFFICE.
Mr. NEELY:: 1.	Who is the stenographer in the office of P. M. Fielding, immigration officer at Windsor, Hants county, Nova Scotia?
2.	Is said stenographer paid by the Government or any department thereof, and what is the salary paid?
3.	Is the stenographer engaged in such immigration office at present, at work in the said office, or is she engaged as stenographer for members of the House of Commons, Ottawa?
4.	If said stenographer is so engaged at Ottawa, what salary does she receive for such services and does her salary as stenographer in the Windsor immigration office continue and does she draw both salaries?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Miss Blanche Cox.
2.	Salary, $50 per month; paid by Interior Department.
3.	Granted leave of absence for months of February, March, April and May, 1914, without pay. Department has no knowledge of the whereabouts of Miss Cox during those months.
4.	Interior Department incurs no expenditure in connection with Miss Cox during months of February, March, April and May, 1914, and has no knowledge of her earnings from other sources during that period.


DOMINION ARMOURY, QUEBEC.
Mr. LACHANCE:: 1.	Was an investigation held since the 1st of October, 1911, as to the management of the affairs of the Dominion armoury in the city of Quebec, and on the nature, quality and quantity of the works and products manufactured in said armoury?
2.	If so, when did it take place and by whom was it held?

3.	Were the projectiles and cartridges manufactured in that armoury examined?
4.	If so, how many have .been examined and how many have been found unfit for use?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	On June 2, 1913. Colonel Sir H. W. W. Barlow, Bart., C.B., superintendent Royal Laboratory, Woolwich, and Captain G. Ogilvie, R.A., assistant inspector ammunition, Woolwich Arsenal.
3.	Yes.
4.	50,000,000 rounds S.A. ..303-inch examined; 12,000,000 rounds S.A .303-inch ball and 500,000 rounds S.A .308-inch blank condemned; 7,000 rounds completed and 20,000 rounds incompleted; 18-pr. Q F. examined and condemned, besides shell.


Mr. LACHANCE:: 1.	Has the Government decided to remove the cartridge factory, which is at present situated on the Plains of Abraham or Cove Fields, Quebec?
2.	If so, where does it propose to have it rebuilt ?
3.	(a) Did it purchase any ground for that purpose? (b) If so, from whom, at what price and on what conditions?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	On the Hunt estate, St. Charles river.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) Hunt estate. 153.04 acres of lots 2425, 2426, in the parish of St. Sauveur, Quebec, at $20,000. Free title.


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES-INSPECTOR LORTIE.
Mr. LACHANCE:: 1.	Was a certain Lortie, of Montmorency Falls, county of Quebec, recently appointed in the Department of the Inland Revenue, Weights and Measures Branch?
2.	If so, what is the nature of his duties and what is his salary?
3.	Did he pass the required examination before being appointed to that position and when?


Mr. NANTEL :: 1.	Yes. Joseph Adelard Lortie, of Montmorency, county of Quebec, was temporarily employed as assistant inspector of weights and measures, Quebec district, from March 1, 1912.
2.	Assistant inspector of weights and measures. His salary is $750 per annum.
3.	No. No examination is required in connection with the temporary employment of an assistant inspector of weights and measures.


QUEBEC HARBOUR MASTER.
Mr. LACHANCE:: 1.	Is it true that Captain J. A. Murray, of the Empress of Britain, has succeeded, as 317
Quebec Harbour Master, a Mr. P. Sullivan, who died during the winter of 1913-14?
2.	If so, (a) when was Captain J. A. Murray appointed to that position, (b) on whose recommendation or request and (c) at what salary?
3.	What salary was paid to the said deceased P. Sullivan?
4.	Who pays the Quebec Harbour Master's salary?
5.	(a) Have any other parties asked to be appointed to that position? (b) If so, what are their names?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(2) April 25,	1914.	(b) Andrew A.
Allen, president of the Shipping Federation and several others, (c) $3,500 per annum.
3.	$1,750 per annum.
4.	The Quebec Harbour Commissioners.
5.	(a) Yes. (b) Captains Sigismond Belanger, J. B. Belanger, Angus Baker, Charles Koenig, Thos. McGough, H. J. McGough, Alexander Rennie; pilots Sam. Rioux, P. L. Lachance and Messrs. J. A. Cantin, Chas. E. Grant, W. J. Hackett, James A. Ross, John D. Roche, R. H. Scougall, Albert W. Thom, Joseph Cameron


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-FIRE AT LEVIS.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Is there before the Government a report on the destruction of Mr. T. Paradis' saw-mill and lumber yard at Lfrvis, P.Q.?
2.	Did the Government appoint a commissioner to report on that fire?
3.	Who was the commissioner and what did he report?
4.	What is the reason the Government does not act upon the commissioner's report?
5.	How much does the Department of Railways and Canals value Mr. Paradis' alleged damages?
6.	What is the reason Mr. Paradis' claim has not yet been settled?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	L. A. Audette. That the fire which destroyed the mill of Telesphore Paradis, at Levis, in the province of Quebec, on the 19th day of July, 1906, was, in his opinion, caused by sparks from a locomotive of the Intercolonial railway.
4.	No amount for damages by said loss has been agreed upon.
5.	The department does not deem it advisable to state the estimate of the valuation of the loss while the matter remains in the present condition.
6.	Answered by No. 4.


LAUZON POSTMASTER.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Has A. Bourget, postmaster of Lauzon, L6vis county, been dismissed?


BBVISCD EDITION
[Stage Direction]
2.	If so, when, for what reasons and at whose requests ?
3.	When was A. Bourget appointed postmaster at Lauzon?
4.	What was his annual salary during his two last years of office?
5.	By whom was he replaced and what is his successor's salary?
6.	At whose request was the latter appointed postmaster at Lauzon?
7.	Was Mr. Bourget's case investigated?
Mr. PELLETIER:: 1 and 2. No, the postmaster was not dismissed. It became necessary, in view of the inconvenient location of the post office, to remove it to a more central location. The Postmaster General directed, therefore, that the office should be removed to a more convenient location and the change in site involved also a change in postmastership.
3.	July 1, 1875.
4.	For 1912, $606; for 1913, $663.
5.	By Mr. Joseph Lagueux. $663.
6.	By direction of the Postmaster General.
7.	An investigation was not required. The facts were known to the Postmaster General.


HUDSON BAY TERMINAL.
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What are the names of the firms which secured contracts in 1914 for the supply of provisions, groceries, etc., for the Hudson Bay Railway terminal at Port Nelson, Manitoba?
2.	Were such contracts awarded after tenders had been advertised for?
3.	If so, were the contracts awarded to the lowest tenderers?
4.	What are the names of the different tenderers and the amount of each tender?


Mr. REID:: Tenders for the supply of
provisions, groceries, etc., for the Hudson Bay Railway Terminals at Port Nelson, Manitoba, for 1914, have been invited by newspaper advertisement, and these tenders are being considered by the department.


QUEBEC BRIDGE EMPLOYEES STRIKE.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Is it true that a strike has been declared amongst the men employed at the Quebec bridge?
2.	If so, what are the causes of the said
strike?	,


Mr. CROTHERS:: On May 20, certain
workmen employed on the superstructure of the Quebec bridge applied to the superintendent in charge for an increase of wages, and, an increase not being conceded, thirty-six men ceased work, some of whom, it is understood, have since obtained work elsewhere. The Government contract for this work includes the fair wages provisions,

and the Department of Labour is inquiring into the situation.


TRANSATLANTIC MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. LEMIEIJX:: 1.	Has the Postmaster General read the following letter which appeared in the London Times of the 22nd May, 1914.
American Influence in Canada.
To the Editor of the Times.
Sir,-The mail service between Canada and Great Britain is a disgrace to both governments. I am ready to endorse this statement, which is quoted from a letter to Mr. C. N. Armstrong in the Times of May 13.
1 am managing director for a firm of book publishers in Toronto. We buy paper, printing, binding, etc., from Great Britain to the amount of 530,000 to $50,000 annually. The average time it takes to receive a reply from a correspondent here by return post is about three weeks. There is no reasonable regularity; sometimes it is a month, and again, only 15 days. Is not such a mail service a stupid and wholly unnecessary handicap on business between these two parts of the empire? Would it not pay the people of both Great Britain and Canada to do something to improve the service?
Sincerely yours,
Robert Glasgow.
Edinburgh.
2.	If so, what steps will be taken to remedy this condition of affairs?
3.	What is the total amount paid by the Post Office Department for mail service between Canada and the United Kingdom?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 1 and 2. No.
3. One million dollars is paid by the Government.


MR. J. MCL. FRASER, OF HALIFAX.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	The Minister of Marine and Fisheries having stated in the House of Commons on June 1st (see 'Hansard' page 4716) that he read a certain letter written by one J. McL. Fraser, an officer in the employ of the Department of Marine and Fisheries at Halifax, published in the Halifax Herald, relating to a measure before the Legislature of Nova Scotia, containing the following paragraph", namely:
If this Bill passes in the face of public opinion so clearly shown, and knowing the strong financial interests behind the Bill, what conclusion will the general public come to? Simply that some of the gentlemen sent to the House of Assembly to protect our interests were bought body and breeches.
Does the minister approve or disapprove of the conduct of this officer in writing this letter to the press?
2.	Has this officer been asked for any explanation of his conduct?
3.	If not, does the department intend to investigate the conduct of this officer?
4.	Does the department disapprove of its officers taking part in controversial matters of the kind above referred to?
5.	If not, does the department intend to ascertain the facts in regard to this matter, and if this officer is found to be guilty, will he be suspended or dismissed ?

6.	When was J. McL. Fraser above named appointed?
V. What position does he occupy?
8.	Who recommended him?
9.	What is his salary?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is of opinion that the letter referred to did not attack or reflect upon the members of the Legislature of Nova Scotia or upon any political party, but merely expressed the writer's opinion as to the conclusion the general public would come to in the event of the passage of a certain Bill, and the minister does not feel called upon to approve or disapprove of Mr. Fraser's conduct in writing the letter referred to.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	The action of officers of the department in taking part in controversial matters must be judged from time to time as such cases arise, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, but the department disapproves of its officers taking an active part in political controversy of a partisan character.
5.	Answered by No. 3.
6.	10th February, 1912.
7.	Accountant Nova Scotia Agency.
8.	The Right Hon. R. L. Borden.
9.	$1,750 per annum.


THE DENNIS BUILDING, HALIFAX.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	What space, if any, of the Dennis Building, Halifax, has been rented by the Government of Canada for office purposes?
2. (a) What is the rental to be paid per year for the same (b) on what date or dates did the tenancy begin, and (c) for what purpose is the same used or to be used?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Fifth floor of Dennis Building now occupied by this department.
2.	(a) $3,112 per annum, (b) 1st October, 1913.	(c) As offices for the Headquarters Staff of the 6th Division.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Lachance.-For a copy of all papers, documents, tenders asked for, tenders received, contracts and sub-contracts, since the 1st of October, 1912, to this date, respecting the buildings at the Quarantine of Grosse Isle, Quebec; together with a return showing the amounts paid by the Government for the work on each contract and the names of the parties to whom they were paid.
Mr. Lachance.

For a copy of all papers, correspondence, investigations and reports, since October 1, 1911, in connection with the management of the Dominion Armoury at Quebec and the nature, the quality and conditions of pro-3171
jectiles and products manufactured 5n Isaid armoury.
Mr. Lachance.-For a copy of all documents, letters and Orders in Council since the 1st of October, 1911, relating to the appointments, promotions, suspensions, removals and salaries of the employees of the office and of the chief clerks of the Dominion armoury department at Quebec, and the increases or reductions of the wages of the workmen of the different classes and the labourers.
Mr. Lachance.-For a copy of all documents, tenders, contracts and sub-contracts in connection with the extension of the central post office of the city of Quebec; and also a return showing the amounts of money paid up to this date on said contracts, the names of the parties to whom said amounts have been paid and for what services and works.
Mr. Lachance.-For a copy of all documents, correspondence, tenders received, contracts and sub-contracts in connection with the establishment of a telephone line in the county of Quebec, Que. ; also a return showing to date, the number of miles of said line,- the places or parishes it crosses, the cost of the work, the number of miles and the places it will go through, and the cost of the whole work when completed; with the terms of subscription or payment after which the public will be able to use such line, and the length which is now in operation.
Mr. Marcil.-For a copy of all documents bearing on an application or applications made to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs or the department, on an amendment to the Indian Act to facilitate the sale of the Indian reserve of Restigouche, Quebec, or on the acquiring otherwise of any portion or the whole of the said reserve for industrial or other purposes, and any answers given thereto.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. E. B. DEVLIN:: I would like to call the attention of the right hon. the Premier and of the Government to the following circular letter from the Montreal Trades and Labour Council which I have just received, and which I presume has been received by the members of the Government and by every member of the House:
Montreal, June 6, 1914.
To the Right Hon. R. L. Borden,
Prime Minister, and to the members of the
House of Commons.
Gentlemen:
At the regular meeting of the Montreal Trades and Labour Council, held on Thursday, June 4, 1914, the following resolution was unanimously adopted and instructions given that a copy be forwarded to you; that
Whereas thousands upon thousands of competent men are unable to find employment; and
Whereas the number of men unable to secure enough work to support themselves and their families is increasing appallingly as each day passes; and	_
Whereas the suffering and misery of the great army of helpless unemployed has become so acute, that acts of desperation directly traceaBle to those conditions are becoming daily occurrences ; and


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is hardly permissible for the hon. member to occupy the time of the House with reading what he calls a circular letter; but on account of the urgency of the situation, the matter might reasonably be allowed to pass. It is, however, rather an abuse of the privileges of the House.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I recognize your point, Sir. It is a very urgent matter, and I just wish to call the attention of the Government to it. This circular letter, in conjunction with a resolution passed by the municipal council of Winnipeg calling upon the Government to stop immigration until labour conditions improve, would show that these conditions were not confined to eastern Canada, but were prevalent in western Canada as well. Is it the intention of the Government to appoint a Royal Commission, as requested by the Montreal Trades and Labour Council?


Robert Laird Borden: The circular letter or
memorial to which the hon. gentleman

alludes has not yet reached me. It was apparently posted on Saturday, and therefore I suppose in the ordinary course I should receive it to-day; but up to, the present it has not come to hand. It is possible that persons out of employment may have been attracted to Montreal in very large numbers owing to the hopes that were held out of immediate employment being offered there to all persons who should desire it; but I do not know about that. As far as immigration is concerned on the Pacific coast and along the international boundary through the United States into British Columbia, the immigration of labourers and artisans has already been prohibited since the 1st of January last. As far as the eastern seaboard is concerned, the Department of Immigration has already sent out notices on two different occasions during the last two or three months emphasizing the instructions that the immigration of labourers and artisans is not desirable; and that the only persons whose immigration would be desirable in Canada at the present time are agricultural settlers and labourers and female domestic servants. I am not sure of the exact tenor of the notice which has been sent out, but it is very much in the same terms as the two notices which were sent out under similar circumstances by the late Administration in the winter and spring of 1908. AVe have observed the same precautions with regard to this particular matter, and had in mind conditions of a very similar character. As far as the appointment of a Royal Commission is concerned, I cannot, of course, make any announcement, as the subject has not yet been under the consideration of the Government, for the reason that I have not yet received the memorial.


DOMINION LOAN FLOTATION.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. GRAHAM:: I notice by the press cable despatches that the last loan floated or attempted to be floated by the Minister of Finance has been received, as the despatches say, quite coolly on the London markets. There has been considerable criticism in the press concerning it. But I do not wish to say anything about that. Personally I understand little about it, and I think the House does. \\7ould the rignt hon. the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Finance, when he returns, to give us some explanation as to the situation of that loan, and why these despatches appear as they do in the press.


Robert Laird Borden: It is always rather difficult to account for despatches that have appeared in the press, but I shall direct my colleague's attention to the inquiry.


NATIONAL TEANSCONTINENTAL BAILWAY-PROPOSED OPEEATION OF EASTEEN DIVISION.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. PUGSLEY:: Has my hon. friend the acting Minister of Eailways learned yet whether, in pursuance of the pledge given to the House at the last session, the question of having the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company enter into a lease for the operation of the eastern section or the section in New Brunswick, has been taken up with the Grand Trunk Pacific, and with what result ?


John Dowsley Reid: The matter has been discussed verbally between the minister and the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific. There has been no correspondence.


William Pugsley: With what result ?


John Dowsley Reid: With this result, that the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific is willing to operate the eastern division from Winnipeg to Moncton in accordance with the contract made between the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Company.


William Pugsley: I am afraid my hon. friend has misunderstood me. The matter in regard to which he was to give the House information was as to the completed section in New Brunswick and other completed sections, in anticipation of the completion of the whole line. The Minister of Eailways promised that he would take that matter up with the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Company with a view to entering into a lease. I want to know if that matter has been taken up; that is what the hon. gentleman was to have informed me.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Eailways also discussed the question of operating that portion of the line between Edmundston and Moncton.


William Pugsley: With what result?


John Dowsley Reid: With the result that he decided that it would be better for the Intercolonial to operate it until the line between Quebec and Moncton is completed, which will be within the next two months. The question of operating that and any other portions of the line that are completed will then be taken up with the president of the
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and I have no doubt that satisfactory arrangements can be made.


POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT.
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That this House do agree to the second and third amendments made by the Senate to Bill 147, an Act to amend the Post Office Act, but that this House do not agree to the first amendment made by the Senate to the said Bill and in lieu thereof that the following amendment be made to the said Bill:	Page 1, line 8:
Leave out paragraph (e) and substitute the following:
'(e) establish with the approval of the Treasury Board and after such hearing of any persons interested as the Treasury Board may direct, the rates of postage on all mailable matter, not being letters, and prescribe the terms and conditions on which all mailable matter shall, in each case or class of cases, be permitted to pass by post; and, except in the case of letters, authorize the opening thereof for the purpose of ascertaining whether such conditions have been complied with; but the maximum rate which the Postmaster General may so establish as the postage to be paid on newspapers and periodicals defined by section 53 of this Act shall in no case exceed one and one-half cents for each pound weight or fraction of a pound weight; and the rates may be graded according to distances and zones of transportation. The rates so established for such periodicals and newspapers shall be submitted to Parliament at the ensuing session for revision or ratification.'
And that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.


Mr. OLIVER:: Would the Postmaster
Genera! be good enough to make an explanation of the proposed amendment to the Senate amendment?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The amendments made by the Senate to this Bill are three in number. I shall first explain in a few words the two Senate amendments with which we propose to agree.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It appears to me that
it is not in order to deal with an amendment to a Senate amendment in this way. The motion is that this House do agree to the second and third amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 147, to amend the Post Office Act; that the House do not agree to the first amendment made by the Senate to the said Bill, and that in lieu thereof a new amendment be substituted. No reasons are given; this House is simply introducing a new amendment to a Bill which has already been piassed by the House and assented to by the Senate.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I may say that I put this matter in the hands of Mr. Gisborne,


'5034 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
who drafted the proposed amendment in its present form.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me to be
irregular.


Robert Laird Borden: The idea of the law clerk -at all events, this is the information we have from the clerk of the House is that it is competent for this House, when an amendment is suggested by the Senate, to add what is called a consequential amendment. I observe that the term ' consequential amendment' has been eliminated for the sake of convenience, because, instead of leaving the amendment of the Senate as it was and adding, by way of a consequential amendment, three or lour other paragraphs, the terms of the Senate amendment have been embodied in the amendment as redrafted. It was thought by the officers of the House that the amendment was perfectly regular in that form. If there is any question about it, it had better stand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have not a perfectly
clear conception of it, but, so far as I can judge, as the amendment which is proposed is not said to be consequential, I should think that, it is irregular, and had better stand.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: As we are nearing the close of the session and as there is some misunderstanding in this matter, would it not be wise on the part of my hon. friend to let stand over till next session the section referring to rates?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: And compel 1,400 railway mail clerks to wait another year before obtaining the benefits of this legislation? I do not care to do that unless I am obliged to.
Motion stands.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 226, to authorize a guarantee of bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company :
Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, before this
motion passes I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, either during the last session or the session before, when legislation was going through granting aid to the Grand Trunk Pacific, a

very important matter was brought to the attention of the president of the Grand Trunk, Mr. Chamberlin, in respect to a mechanics' strike that was in progress at the city of Winnipeg. At that time a letter was written by Mr. Chamberlin to Mr. Donaldson, the manager of the railway at the city of Winnipeg, agreeing to remedy the conditions complained of by the men, and to submit to the appointment of a board of conciliation, and agreeing as well to adopt the finding of such a board. The board has had its sittings and has made its finding, but I am informed that a certain finding of this board has not yet been approved by the Grand Trunk people. I hope that before this legislation is consummated the Grand Trunk people will take notice of the award as made and endeavour to see that the men get the increase of wages which has been awarded to them by the finding of that board. I am drawing the attention of the House to this in order that the Grand Trunk people may have the notice and may endeavour to carry out the terms of the letter written by Mr. Chamberlin at that time.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Mail and steamship subventions-Canada, China and Japan, $229,000.
['That remains to be seen. My hon. friend (Mr. Gauvreau) poses very frequently as a prophet, but we shall see later to what extent his assumption of that role is justified. I can only reiterate once more that we have done infinitely more for the development of the harbour of Quebec in less than three years than did the Liberal Government in all the fifteen years during which they held office, and it ill becomes them to criticise this Government in view of the splendid work it is carrying on there.\nAmendment (Mr. Pugsley) negatived on division.\nMain motion agreed to, <and the House went into Committee of Supply.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 12.45 a.m., Tuesday.\nTuesday, June 9, 1914.']
Mr. FOSTER:: (Minister of Trade
and Commerce):	We have had for
many years a service from the western portion of Canada to China and Japan, under contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway and Steamship Company. That service has been a composite one in so far as its support is concerned; that is, the British Government has co-operated with the Canadian Government. That contract came to a conclusion a little more than a year ago, and a contention arose between the British post office and our post office as to the cost and charges of the conveyance of the mail matter across the Atlantic. That was a British service, with the cooperation of Canada, and the contract was made with the British Government, so that they became the purveyors of the contract, so to speak. That has not been satiffactory, in so far as the proportion taxed and collected on mail matter is concerned, the British post office getting almost entirely the whole of the receipts, as it was the car-

rier between Canada and Great Britain. That contract therefore was discontinued, but the contention between the post offices was not carried to a conclusion. Meanwhile the Canadian Pacific railway carried on the service, and an arrangement was made by which the British Government assented to the old contract being continued for a year until the matters in dispute could be negotiated and settled. That time is now up, and the question of the service on the Pacific assumes a new aspect. In the meantime, the two Empresses, the Empress of Britain and the Empress of Japan, very good vessels with a speed of about eighteen knots, have been supplemented by two vessels, the Empress of Asia and the Empress of Russia, which are, taken all in all, the finest and best appointed steamships on the Pacific. We propose entering into a contract with the Canadian Pacific railway for that service for a period of three years, the two new Empresses being added to the fleet. The service was commenced as a monthly service, and it came afterwards to be a three-weekly service in the summer season. It is now proposed to put a fortnightly service between Vancouver and Victoria and Yokohama and China. There is a statutory subsidy amounting to $120,000 that is available, and this sum of $229,000 is asked for in addition, in order that a sufficient subsidy may be given for the maintenance of the service. The service on the Pacific ocean is a very important one, and at the same time very expensive. The boats on this service are the equivalent, if not. the superior, of any vessels on any Canadian service, either on the Atlantic or on the Pacific. After considering the -matter as thoroughly as possible, it was considered best to ask for this amount. As I have said, the amount provided here w-ill not be exceeded, and possibly we may be able to arrange a contract for something -less. I think it would be a very great detriment if our service with China and Japan, or the East generally, were -to be allowed to lapse. It certainly cannot be carried on without a sufficient subsidy. Under this arrangement all the proceeds from the carriage of mail matter of all kinds will come into the revenues of Canada, and will not be diverted, as under the preceding contract, into the revenues of Great Britain. It is impossible to calculate just what the revenue will be under these changed conditions, but perhaps my hon. friend the Postmaster General will be able to give
more information in that respect; but if is hoped that, with the accession of a fortnightly service of an excellent class of boats, the revenues will be very materially increased. If I were to indulge in an estimate, I should say that, under the new conditions, the revenue which would accrue to Canada would come very close to meeting the amount of the subsidy, if it did not equal or surpass it.


Wilfrid Laurier: I agree with my hon. friend that the Pacific service is of the greatest importance, and that the relations between this country and the East are going to be multiplied to an extent which we have hardly any conception of at the present time. The Asiatics, who have -been slumbering for ages, are at l-ast awakening, and are gradually approximating to western civilization; and, unless all calculations are wrong, there will be an ever-growing trade between Europe and Asia, of which Canada ought to have her share. Up to the present time we have not had our share of the mail carried between China and England, for the reason, as I have always understood, that the Peninsular and Oriental service is quicker than our own; and, unless we can shorten our service by one, two or three days, we cannot have much hope in that direction. I believe it is possible that the service by the Canadian route may be made shorter than the service by way of the Suez canal. My hon. friend must take into consideration that by and by there will be a service between Canada and Asia via Prince Rupert, which will also ibe a shorter service. I have no doubt that at some time a demand will be made for a subsidy to that service, and I hope my hon. friend will be prepared to grant it. I would therefore urge him not to tie his hands for too long a time under the contract he has in contemplation. I would like to ask whether this $229,000 is in addition to the statutory service?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: And whether the British Government is withdrawing its allowance for that service?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: That will make a bigger outlay for us.


George Eulas Foster: 
William Pugsley: I just want to say a word or two on this matter and it is this; How can we go on encouraging trade between Canada and Asia and then hope to prevent' Asiatics from coming into our country? We are making the people of Asia more familiaT with Canada through having the very best steamship communication and by developing trade, and it is proposed to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to encourage trade and travel between the two countries, and then we say to the Asiatic: You can buy our goods, we want to develop trade with you, but you shall not be allowed to set foot on our territory. That is going to be a troublesome question, and it is already giving this Government and the whole empire a great deal of trouble. Perhaps the time has arrived when, in the interests of Canada, we should consider whether it would not be better to discourage trade between the two countries rather than otherwise. You cannot have trade without intercourse between the peoples, and splendid steamship communication without having the people of Canada visit Asia and the people

of Asia visit Canada; and as the Asiatics become better acquainted with the splendid possibilities of our country it is only natural that they should want to share in those possibilities. It does seem to me that we are acting in a most inconsistent manner. We are spending millions to encourage the thing which we say is going to be detrimental to Canada! I think we should consider this matter very seriously before we start in to encourage intercourse between the two peoples by the expenditure of this large amount of money; that is, if we really and honestly believe-as we profess to believe whenever the question comes up-that it is against the we! fare of this country to have Asiatics come in and take advantage of the opportunities which it affords.
I am myself inclined to think thaL it f were honestly and sincerely of the opinion that Asiatics should not be permitted to come into the country and settle, it wou.d be better for us to take a firm stand and say we are not going to encourage travel, traffic, trade or intercourse between Canada and these countries, I am not so sure which would be the better course to pursue, but I do say that to pursue the two courses is very inconsistent.
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK; I think this is a very important matter for consideration. The fact is that on this question the Government seems to be a Government of limited truck and trade. In the case of our friends to the south of us, they are very glad to see the Americans but they shy at their business, while in the cage of the Asiatics they are very glad to do business but they shy at the Asiatics. So I say they are a Government of limited truck and trade. They make a most peculiar distinction to which, when we get into the recess, I invite the minister to devote his attention. This is a very abstruse problem, and it is one of those problems that we would have thought he would have devoted a great deal of attention to during the leisure he had on board ship. If he has not had time to study it in all its aspects, I respectfully ask him to see if he cannot during the recess level this thing up, find out exactly where the Government stand and give us a clear statement of it. I sympathize very much with the view of my hon. friend in front of me (Mr. Pugsley), that it will be difficult to encourage business with the Asiatics when you say that they must not come in themselves.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What do the members

from British Columbia think of this? Do they care to see these ships in the harbours there? I would like to hear from them.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friends seem to
be harassed with a distressing anxiety in this respect. Now, really, at this stage of the session-
Mr. PUG8LEY: What stage?


George Eulas Foster: -do they propose to raise and settle the whole question as to immigration into Canada? The last words of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) inclined me to think that he had not taken yet the stern resolve, and that he did not think that this matter could be disposed of-


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: We are anxious to hear your views.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, there is a proper anxiety to hear the views of one who can satisfy the desires of hon. gentlemen in that respect. There may be a little suspicion lurking in the minds of hon. gentlemen as to whether I may be able to satisfy these demands or not, but I can see by the expression of their countenances that I am quite warm-quite close-to the thought which is in their mind. I do not imagine that any Victorian, or Vancouverite, would feel sorry to see such vessels as the Empress of India, the Empress of Japan, the Empress of Asia, or the Empress of Russia, come into his port and go out again carrying products from our country paid for by the people of the East and bringing the produce of the East paid for by ourselves. If I had time to discuss it, I should immediately take issue with the statement that if you could not give British citizenship to any country in the world you should put up a prohibitive barrier and declare that there should be no traffic or transport between that country and Canada. I can conceive it to be quite possible that multitudes and multitudes of people in the East might produce what we want, send it here and accept our drafts in return, and that we could do the same with respect to them without it being necessary for gentlemen like the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) and the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) to take up their residence in some of these far-off eastern countries and becoming citizens of those countries. Likewise, I think we could do quite a trade with China and Japan even without Yuan Shi Ki becoming a citizen of Montreal or acquiring certain rights as respects residence and
citizenship. But we have not time to discuss these questions at this stage. I think we agree at the present time as to the importance of the lines of transport which we have on the Pacific, even though people may be anxious with respect to that as governments and statesmen are about problems at the present time. In the meantime, as for my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), I will try and clear my impressions during the coming recess and come to certain conclusions that we may talk about when we meet here again.


Frank Oliver: I would remind the hon.
Minister of Trade and Commerce that when his Estimates in connection with the set-vices of the Trade- and Commerce Department wrere before the House on a former occasion we had some discussion in regard to the amount and progress of trade with China and Japan. Be was good enough to give a carefully worded statement as to the prospects of trade between Canada and these countries. I asked him to give the details as to the progress Canada was making and he referred me to the reports of his department. I went to the distribution office but I 'was not able to get the report of the department for the immediately preceding year, and I was therefore compelled to content myself with the report down to 1912. I have the report for 1912 before me and I think it would be desirable that the House should be informed as to the facts of the case. I must say that they do not at all bear out what my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce said in regard to the progress of trade between these countries nor do they justify an increased subsidy, to steamships running between Canada and these countries if the purpose of the subsidy is an increase of trade. I find at page 104 of the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for 1912 a statement of the trade with China and I find that the exports of Canadian produce to China in that year amounted to $413,899. In 1910 they amounted to $1,249,189. I gather that our trade is decreasing and not increasing. It was just one-fihird in 1912 of what it was in 1910. It is in the exports of Canadian produce to China that we are interested and it is the development of the trade that makes it worth our while to put up money to facilitate traffic between these countries. If the exports of Canadian produce to China are decreasing at the rate of 300 per cent in two years there should be a readjustment either of the methods of trade whereby we will get that increase that we are looking

for or else it is a matter for consideration as to how far Canada can afford to go in the matter of subsidizing steamship communications that produce such very unsatisfactory results. In 1894 the export of Canadian produce to China was $507,000, considerably more than in 1912, and in 1897 it was $761,000. The record of my hon. friend's own department is absolutely contrary to the impression that he desired to leave with the Houseonthebeeasion to which I have alluded. In the report of our trade with Japan., at page 192, I find that the exports of Canadian produce to Japan in 1912 amounted to $486,441, and that in 1910 they amounted to $659,118. The decrease is not as serious in the case of Japan as in the case of China, but still it is a decrease. In 1905, Canadian produce was sold in Japan to the amount of $508,609, and in 1912, $486,441. My point is, that when the Government is asking for an increased subsidy to improve and facilitate communication, and presumably trade communication, with these countries, it is for the Government to show that in their policy and administration they are securing results from the increased expenditure. But when we find the results as shown, I am bound to say that the demand of the Government for increased appropriations to give improved steamship service, lacks sound foundation,, if we are to consider that these moneys are voted in the interest of the people of 'Canada. Of course, if they are in the interest of a steamship company, that is a different matter. On the returns, the trade policy of my hon. friend is condemned and his application for an increased subsidy has no justification.


George Eulas Foster: Two years have passed
since the statistics which my hon. friend has at his command, were published, but I have had a return made for the period between, the end of 1912 and within a few months of the present date, which I shall be happy to send to the hon. gentleman. He will see from it that the latest statistics give a better showing, and that particularly during the last ten months the development of trade with both countries has been more favourable. It must be recollected that the years 1912 and 1913 have been troubled years in China, and that consequently it is .not fair to take the statistics of trade for these years as indicative of what would be the general trend.


Frank Oliver: The conditions in Japan were not parallel with those in China, and

in Japan our sales were $486,441, as against $616,230 in the previous year, $659,118 the year before, and $756,033 in 1909. While there has been this decrease, we bought from Japan in 1912, $1,689,443 worth, as against $1,173,171 in the previous year, $987,276 in 1910, and $746,017 in 1909. While our purchases from Japan are continually increasing from 1909 to 1912, our exports to Japan have been correspondingly decreasing. My hon. friend is now asking the 'House for a vote of $229,000 in addition to the subsidy already given for a service between Canada and China and Japan, and that amount is just about one-half the value of Canada's total exports to either of these countries. Therefore, the subsidy which we give for steamship facilities is out of all proportion to the trade done. I do not wish to make any carping criticism, but the figures of our trade with these countries demonstrate as plain as day that there is something wrong with the policy of the hon. gentleman, or with the conditions upon which the policy is applied.
Steam service on the Petitcodiac river, between Moncton and way ports, and a port or ports on the west coast of Cumberland county, additional amount, $500.


Mr. CARROLL:: How long has this subsidy been in existence?


George Eulas Foster: I think for five or six years.


William F. Carroll: When the Main Estimates were under consideration, I urged that a subsidy should be given to a river service on the Mira river. It has always been contended that it was not the policy of any Government to subsidize river boats, but here we are giving a subsidy for a service on the Petitcodiac river. Has the minister given consideration to my suggestion that there should be a subsidy for the service on the Mira river?


George Eulas Foster: During this summer consideration will be given to the service mentioned by the hon. member. The Petitcodiac river runs to Moncton, and my hon. friend will notice that this includes a Bay of Fundy service as well.


William F. Carroll: I hope the Government will not urge against the Mira river service that it is only a river service?


George Eulas Foster: We will get all the facts during the coming summer.
Steam service between Port Mulgrave, St. Peter's, Irish Cove, and Marble Mountain, and

other ports on the Bras D'Or lakes, further amount, $500.


William F. Carroll: Are the same people doing this service?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, the 8500 extra is given because they make two additional stops.


William F. Carroll: What new stops were made?


George Eulas Foster: Two calls a week are made at River Bourgeois.


William F. Carroll: Does the steamer stop now at Big Pond Centre?


George Eulas Foster: The same as last year.
Steam service between Pelee island and the mainland-further amount required, $3,000.


William Pugsley: Will the minister explain the reason for this large increase?


George Eulas Foster: That is the service which has long been in existence and which is a very important one, between the southwest portion of Ontario and Pelee island, which is disjoined from the main coast. There is quite a large population there, and a subsidy of $5,000 a year has been given up to the previous time. The boat, however, that was performing this service, was of rather poor quality. This year the people of the island joined with some people on the mainland and built a new steamer costing $70,000, which is now to go on the service. It is therefore considered only fair to 'increase the subsidy to $8,000. A greater number of trips are being made, and the service is infinitely superior to what- the old boat could give.


William Pugsley: What is the population of the island?


George Eulas Foster: I would not like to say definitely, but I think about 1,500 people.


William Pugsley: I think the minister, after consideration, will agree that, for an island in lake Erie, containing a population of 1,500 people, and quite close to the mainland, $5,000 is a petty good subsidy. That has been the subsidy for a considerable time. It is now proposed in the Supplementary Estimates to increase it to $8,000. As my hon. friend the Minister of Finance would say, it synchronizes with the Ontario elections which are just coming on. I do not suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has anything to do with the synchronization; but these extraordinary events, which synchronize one with the other, aTe rather calculated to
make us sit up and take notice. Here we find that this subsidy to a small island in lake Erie, with only 1,500 people, as the minister says, has been suddenly increased from $5,000 to $8,000.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend must take into consideration that this is a service which is performed most all the year round that the contractors carry the mails for this service as well, and that they have at certain times of the navigation to carry the mails over the ice, much the same as between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. There is no ground for the suspicion of my hon. friend that, because there is a synchronization, there is also a motive. This matter was decided upon and the contractors were given notice that it would be recommended some three months ago. It was only within a very short period that we had notice of the election.


William Pugsley: Or suspected the election.


George Eulas Foster: I can assure my hon. friend there was not the slightest thought of that in the mind of the department, which is impersonal in these' things.
Steam service between St. John, Digby, Annapolis and Granville, that is to say, along the west coast of Annapolis basin-further amount required, $500.


William F. Carroll: What is this for ?


George Eulas Foster: This amount of $500 is to be added to the present subsidy of $1,500, making a total of $2,000. The contractors are the Valley Steamship Company, Limited. They asked for an increase of $1,000, but 1 did not consider that that increase should be given. Taking into consideration, however, the service of the boat and 'the general statement which the company made, I came to the conclusion that they deserved a slight increase. I think my hon. friend will agree with me in regard to that, if he looks over the statement.
Steam service between St. John, Westport, and Yarmouth and other way ports-further amount required, $3,000.


William Pugsley: Will that include the
service performed now by the Prince George?


George Eulas Foster: No, that is entirely different. These are the services which were performed last year by the Insular Steamship Company, Limited. This item is for a service which was very strongly lecom-mended by the Board of Trade and City Council of St. John. The number of trips is being largely increased. The contractors

are making steamship connections between the Nova Scotia end of the service and various other ports on the Nova Scotia coast. They have also made through rates with the southwestern ports of Nova Scotia, which have been incorporated into the contract. Altogether I think the service has been an excellent one.
Steam service between Petite de Grat and Intercolonial terminus at Mulgrave-Further amount required, $1,000.


William F. Carroll: What is this for? *


George Eulas Foster: It is an additional sum
given for the service between Petite de Grat and the Intercolonial terminus at Mulgrave. The increase is given because the service is a very difficult one. It is a return trip every day in the year except Sundays, and so is not what you may call a seasonal service. I took into consideration the financial statement made by the company, and it came out in the end that the contractor would have been unable to carry on the service unless some additional subsidy were given.


William F. Carroll: What amount were they getting the year before?


George Eulas Foster: $6,000. The contractor is
Mr. William G. Leslie.
Steam service between Halifax and west coast of Cape Breton, calling at way ports- Further amount required, $2,000.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: What are the
ports of call for this service?


George Eulas Foster: Mulgrave, Hawkesbury,
Hastings, Havre au Bouche, Port Hood, Maboumouth, Margaree, Grand Etang, Cheti-camp, Eastern Harbour, Pleasant Bay.


Alexander William Chisholm: Is the boat supposed
to make one trip a week, and does she call at all these ports every trip ?


George Eulas Foster: Not every trip, I think.
She calls every two weeks at Havre au Bouche and Margaree. It is exactly the same as last year.


Alexander William Chisholm: Margaree is one of the most important ports on the whole route. If the provision for a call every two weeks was in last year's contract, I was not aware of_ it, and I am sure that the people of Margaree were not aware of it.


George Eulas Foster: The service is a weekly
service, and, as I have it in, the report, the exception is made that she is to call every two weeks at Havre au Bouche and Margaree. Did she call weekly last year?


Alexander William Chisholm: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: If she called weekly last year, she does so this year.


Alexander William Chisholm: The contract, then,
gives her the privilege of calling once every two weeks instead of once a week, as last year?


George Eulas Foster: No, the contract has not been changed in any way as between this and last year. There may be a mistake in the explanation contained in the report, but no change in the contract has been made.


Alexander William Chisholm: Permit me to say to the minister that there was a change as between last year and the two previous years. Why should an exception be made of the case of Margaree? Why should this boat plying along the coast and calling at all the other ports north and south cf Margaree, leave Margaree out?


George Eulas Foster: I am trying to tell my
hon. friend that if under her contract the boat called at Margaree weekly last year, she will call weekly this year as well. If it is optional with the minister to say whether she shall call weekly or fortnightly, the minister will exercise his option by providing that she shall call weekly.


Alexander William Chisholm: Very good; all I want is the minister's assurance that she will call once a week. I wish to call the attention of the minister also to the fact that during 1910 the boat plying along the coast from Mulgrave to Cheticamp had the lightering done at her own expense. I should like the minister to ask the contractors in the ease to which we have just had reference, as well as those who are in charge of the boat running from Mulgrave to Cheticamp, to pay the lightering charges themselves. It was done before, and, I think, very satisfactorily to the people. If it were not so late in the session I would consult the minister privately and explain to him the whole circumstances. The people are the sufferers when the agents are permitted to charge for landing goods; I insisted in 1910 and 1911 that the company should bear that expense.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know how that
is; I will look into the matter and will give my hon. friend some information either this afternoon or to-morrow.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is the minister
making any provision for a steamship service subsidy between the Magdalen Islands and Halifax?


George Eulas Foster: No.


Mr. McLEAN:: The Board of Trade of Halifax have frequently passed resolutions respecting this service, asking for aid. I understand that the minister has been consulted in the matter by friends of the proposed service. Has he any explanation to make?


George Eulas Foster: Very full representations
were made by the Board of Trade of Halifax and by others interested in the service. The main object is to connect the Magdalen islands with the mainland and provide adequate mail and trade communication. The natural point of communication on the mainland is Pictou, from which is obtained the shortest ocean route to the islands. As the mails would have to go from Pictou anyway, it seems impossible to justify two services, one of them from Halifax, traversing a long and already frequented route.


Mr. MAOLEAN:: The Magdalen Islands
do a great part of their business with Halifax.


George Eulas Foster: I understand that a great deal of their trade is done with Halifax, but we are not putting on new services this year; I just note the difficulty there is in having a double service to the island.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The service is a semiweekly service, and under the same contract as before?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I observe that no provision is made in the Estimates this year for a subsidy for the steamship service from St. John to Bear River. The minister will remember that he has frequently been asked toy the citizens and by interested parties at Bear River for restoration of the subsidy which for years had been given for steamship service between St. John and Bear River. Would the minister toe good enough to tell me frankly and sincerely why the subsidy was cut out in 1911-12?


George Eulas Foster: So far as I recollect, 1
found so many services there which in the main duplicated each other that I had to do something towards having them readjusted.


William Findlay Maclean: Oh, no.


George Eulas Foster: My recollection is not
very clear about that, but I will refresh my mind, and if my hon. friend will put the question to me some time to-day or to-morrow I will give him the exact reasons.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the minister be
frank?


George Eulas Foster: Yes; it may not agree
with my hon. friend, tout I will give him the reasons without mental reservation.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have no doubt in my mind that this steamship subsidy was discontinued purely for political reasons. The minister himself wrote the owner of the boat which has been plying between Beat River and St. John for years, and which, I think, is now engaged in that service, saying that if he would use the Government wharf at Bear River he would get him a subsidy. Mr. Clark, the owner, says that the wharf should never have been built, that it never was used and never will be used, and, lastly, that he himself cannot use it.


George Eulas Foster: I scarcely think that I wrote a letter of that kind; but I do remember that the point was up as to whether it was not wise in all our contracts to make our subsidized steamers stop at Government wharfs where Government wharfs are available. There was some question about that particular Government wharf, but I do not think it was impossible to use it. This raises the interesting question as to who put the wharf there, if the assertion is true that it is not an available one. I think, however, we all agree that where the Government goes to the expense of building wharfs and where those wharfs are commodious and usable, our subsidized steamers should use them.


Mr. McKENZIE:: The minister says that there is a. daily service between Petite de Grat and Mulgrave. I should think that a daily service between those points would be an impossibility, particularly during a severe winter. Has the minister a report showing that daily connection is made between those points?


George Eulas Foster: The contract calls for
daily return service; if they do not make the daily return service they suffer a diminution of their subsidy in proportion to the number of trips they miss. But it is destined to be a daily service. In 1913 they

made two hundred and eighty-one and a half round trips.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand that it calls at Arisaig, but in anything like severe weather that harbour is closed over. I would ibe very glad if these people were able to make daily trips.


George Eulas Foster: The purpose is to make daily trips. Sometimes the weather is so bad that the trip cannot be made. Then they do not get the subsidy.
Steam service between Halifax and Spry Bay and ports in Cape Breton, $2,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What ports at Cape Breton does this vessel call at?


George Eulas Foster: The vessel running from Halifax calls at the following ports in Cape Breton: St. Peters, Arisaig, West Arisaig, L'Ardoise and Margaree.
Schooner service between Pictou, New Glasgow, Antigonish county ports and Mulgrave - Further amount required, $500.


Alexander William Chisholm: At what ports will this vessel call, and why the increase?


George Eulas Foster: That service was performed last year, not by a high class steamship, but it was a very useful service intended to make connections between the ports at which the Pictou-Mulgrave service could not call on account of the shallowness of the harbours. It performed a very useful service last year, and I think I have as many commendations from the people of that coast on the convenience afforded them by that small service, perhaps more, than I had on many more pretentious services. It is proposed this year to make additional calls and to put on a better type of vessel. The boat that is to be put on has an auxiliary power. She is 62 ft. long, and has a capacity of 30 tons. In consideration of the increased calls, an additional amount of $500 is given.


Alexander William Chisholm: At what places
will it call? I agree that, considering the character of the boat, the service was a very good one, that is, that the contractors did their duty. The unfortunate thing is that 'the haiibours there have been entirely neglected by the Minister of Public Works. Of course, we get promises from time to time, but, some way or other, the sand gathers in, the wharfs tumble down, the harbours are altogether neglected-and promises do not seem to relieve the situation. As we get near to an election, however, I have no doubt that the situation will be

%
relieved, and the service, that has deteriorated in recent years because of the neglect of the harbours, will be improved.


George Eulas Foster: I shall give the ports at which she calls. They are Pictou, Lismore, McAra's Brook, Arisaig, Malignant Cove, Georgeville, Livingston Cove, Ballantyne Cove, and three other ports:
Winter steam service between St. John, Halifax and London-Further amount required, $1,500.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Upon this item which is closely related to the matter of the mail subsidy for the fast Atlantic winter mail service, I desire to ask a question of the Postmaster General. It apparently is a part of this vote. About a year ago a contract was made for the winter mail service to Great Britain, and it was a term or provision of the contract made between the Government of Canada and the contracting steamship companies that the contractors had the right of selecting their winter Atlantic ports. The Canadian Pacific railway, the Royal Mail Steamship Company, the White Star Company, and the Allan line, I think, designated Halifax as the port of departure for the fast Atlantic mail service. Later on, shortly after the winter mail service was commenced, considerable opposition arose in the city of St. John against the departure from that port of the Canadian Pacific mail boats which had been sailing to and from St. John for a great number of years. They made a strong protest to the Government. I stated, in a few remarks I addressed to the House upon this matter some time ago, that the Government has unduly interfered in the matter, and that the transference of the Royal line from Halifax to St. John was due to the interference of the Government. I rather gathered from the remarks made by the Postmaster General at that time that there had been some Government interference, and I would like to ask the Postmaster General now what is the nature of the contracts made with the steamship companies for carrying the mails during the coming winter season. Has any contract been made, and if so, is any port designated, or have the contractors the option of selecting their own ports ? I would like to know if interference is to be permitted on behalf of anybody. As a representative of the city of Halifax I desire to urge that that port be specifically mentioned in the contract as the point of departure and arrival of these .fast Atlantic mail boats.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Does my hon. friend from St. John agree with that ?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend knows that all St. John wants is justice.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is not an answer to my question.


George Eulas Foster: Again I want to appeal to my hon. friend to defer his remarks until we get to the mail service item.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Where is it ?
Mr. FOSTER. In the Main Estimates.
Mr. MACLEAN. Will the minister say he will take that up immediately after three o'clock ?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That will be satisfactory to me.


William Pugsley: Before we take up the Atlantic mail service item will my hon. friend have his colleague the acting Minister of Railways give us a statement of what the freight and passengers carried under the Gutelius agreement of last year between St. John and Halifax would have netted to the Intercolonial under the then existing tariff. The return does not show that.


George Eulas Foster: I will speak to the minister about it.
At one o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
Trade and Commerce-Supervision, lake and ocean freight rates-Salary and expenses of offiial, 26,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What does that
mean?


George Eulas Foster: In carrying on the work
of the Department of Trade and Commerce, in which we 'have numerous questions arising in reference to ocean and lake freight rates, I find that the department is very poorly -manned for that service. Freight rates, particularly ocean freight rates and all that appertains to them, is a very complex -and abstruse question and, for a man who is not experienced, it is very perplexing. In- all our contracts we have clauses which when worked out, call for the decision of the minister as to whether the freight rate is too great or too small. I find that I am not able to enter into the contest with a freight expert. I propose to have my department provided with a small staff whose business it will be to take up that work and furnish the department with the
information that is absolutely necessary for it to have before it can act. It will take up the question of freight rates on the lakes as well as oee-aan transport.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think the proposition of the minister is a pretty fair one. I can understand that a service of that description might be very well utilized for such a purpose. Am I correct in assuming that this official will have supervision of steamers which receive a subsidy from the Government, the contract with which it provides that an approval of rates must be had from the department?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: And that he will pay
particular attention to these matters?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has the minister anybody in mind as the chief of this branch?


George Eulas Foster: I have nobody in my
mind at all but, as far as my judgment can lead me, I want a man really efficient and expert in that kind of business wherever I can get him.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: One man will be all
that you require?


George Eulas Foster: One man is quite sufficient. We have clerk force enough in the office to assist him in the work. All there will be will be the salary of the official, but if we get a proper man we will have to pay him a proper salary.
Ocean and mail service between Canada and Great Britain, $1,000,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When the House Tose at one o'clock I had just begun a few observations respecting the contract for the Atlantic mail service, especially in the winter season and with particular reference to the Atlantic port which will be used by the contracting mail boats. In the contract of last year between the Government and the contracting steamship companies there was a provision that the power of selecting the port should be with the contracting steamship companies. The hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier), at the last session of Parliament, was clear and pronounced in saying that the contracting steamship companies would absolutely possess the power of selecting the ports of landing and embarking the mails, and he also expressed the opinion that this was a fair proposal. At the time I did not oppose this particular part of the contract,

because I thought there was a great deal to be said in favour of leaving the selection of the port to the contractors. I think that was the view of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), who with myself represents the constituency of Halifax, which constituency has been, and now is, considerably interested in the ports utilized by the subsidized mail boats during the winter season. While there was a feeling of disappointment at Halifax that the practice which had prevailed for thirty-six years, namely, the landing and embarking of the mails at Halifax, was not to be continued, yet there was a disposition, I think, not to regard that feature of the contract as entirely unfair. I think the friends of the port of Halifax felt that if that port had merits superior to those of other ports they would 'be recognized by the contracting steamship companies and the best port would be selected. If any contracting steamship company had selected a port other than Halifax, it might have been urged, as it was and with some fairness, that Halifax would have to submit to the selection made. The mail contract, as I Tecollect, was divided among four steamship companies-the Allan, Canadian Pacific railway, Canadian Northern and White Star lines. I think that under the terms of the contract all of these contracting companies made a selection of the port of Halifax. It soon became quite obvious and notorious that after the designation of the port of Halifax by the contracting steamship companies tremendous influence and pressure was being exerted upon the Government to induce some of the contractors to adopt St. John as a port for landing and embarking the Atlantic mails.
I think that the selection of Halifax by the contracting companies was deliberate and for cause. I believe they had a preference for that port, and I think that the contracting steamship companies would have used the port of Halifax entirely during the past winter season had it not been for government interference. I do not want to take up any time in reiterating the statement that there was interference by the Government. I believe there was. It may foe quite true that there is no evidence of concrete governmental action, but I am satisfied beyond any doubt 'whatever that there was active and effective iater-ference on the part of members of the Government. The interference was designed for a purpose, which was accomplished. I

do not propose accepting the denials of the Government in respect to this matter.
By reason of this interference, the Canadian Northern Railway Company particularly was forced to leave the port of Halifax which they had used for a number of years, and went to the port of St. John. It is quite clear that pressure was exerted upon this company because earlier in the season its vice-president publicly stated that they did not intend to leave the port of Halifax, and the president of the company, Sir William McKenzie expressed publicly his preference for that port. It is unnecessary, however, that I should attempt to prove that there was direct interference on the part of the Government. That is now an accepted fact.
We are paying one million dollars a year for the transatlantic mail service, and consequently all Canada is interested in it. The people of Canada have the right to expect the adoption by the contracting steamship companies of that port which will deliver to Canadians the transatlantic mails in the speediest manner. I submit that if the mail-boats use Halifax as their winter port, the people of all Canada would receive their mail anywhere from twelve hours to twenty-four hours earlier than if the mails were landed in any other Atlantic port. That is an undeniable fact. At the request of the Halifax Board of Trade, the Post Office Department kept a record of the sailings of the subsidized mail boats to and from the ports of St. John and Halifax during the last winter season. The Halifax Board of Trade have issued a printed memorandum based upon the information supplied by the Post Office Department. It may be said that the statement is from biased sources, but that is not important if the facts are true, as I submit they are. 1 will read the statement:
Taking the forty-three winter sailings of the Liverpool-Bristol to Montreal winter mail service, via the ports of Halifax and St. John, it is found from the official returns furnished by the Postmaster General that the average advantage per trip via Halifax is twelve hours and forty-three minutes over St. John in the time consumed from United Kingdom ports to Montreal.
The tabulated returns have been furnished by Postmaster General Pelletier as promised to the Board of Trade. While St. John had the greater number of fast boats, still Halifax was easily able to demonstrate its superiority as a port for the speedy transportation of the mails.
The tabulation shows 23 sailings from Liverpool to Montreal via Halifax and 21 sailings Bristol-Liverpool to Montreal via St. John.
The Halifax sailings collectively consumed 202 days and 15 hours, which gave an average

for each of the 23 Halifax sailings of 8 days, 19 hours and 11 minutes.
The 21 sailings via St. John consumed 195 days, 22 nours and 35 minutes, or an average per trip of 9 days, 7 hours and 54 minutes, thus giving an average advantage to Halifax of 12 hours and 43 minutes each trip.
Another fact is to be stated which renders this comparison more significant still. It is that while Halifax had 9 sailings of the slower boats, such as the Corsican, etc., St. John had only 4, but had 17 of the faster boats, such as the Royals, while Halifax had only 14. In spite of this Halifax beats the sister port by over half a day per trip, in point of time, between England and Montreal.
A point has been made that in all the service one trip via St. John happened to be the fastest of the whole series, but supposing this trip, which was made by the Royal George, had been via Halifax, with 270 miles less sailing, the time to Montreal would have been still further reduced.
The test has now been held and Halifax has proved herself to be the port for the fast transportation of mails. In spite of St. John having the faster boats Halifax comes out of the ordeal with a record of an average of twelve hours and forty-three minutes less time from England to Montreal than St. John.


William Pugsley: Is that inclusive of rail?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.
Mr. FOSTER- I wish for iny own information 1o ask if in making the comparison between St. John and Halifax as ports of entry, the same railway carnage is used, or a different railway carriage?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The railway carriage is
from Halifax to Montreal on the Intercolonial, and from St. John to Montreal by the Canadian Pacific railway.


William Pugsley: They only send from St. John occasionally by the Canadian Pacific railway. That is where they gave us the double-cross; they sent us around by Moncton.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) is not correct in his statements, I turn him over to the vigilant scrutiny of the bon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley).


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have no doubt we shall soon hear from both of the hon. members for St. John. I might point out that there was more or less difficulty in connection with the departure of the mails from Halifax to Montreal during the last winter season. Frequently the mails, when landed at Halifax, were not promptly forwarded to Montreal and western points for many hours afterwards. There seems to have been negligence or carelessness on the part of somebody in connection with the despatch of the mails after being landed from the boats. I believe the people of St. John 318
have a similar complaint. I understand that the Canadian Post Office Department disclaims any responsibility for the mails after they are landed, they contending that the responsibility for that rests upon the British Post Office Department. Had there been promptness in the despatch of the mails after being landed at Halifax, the average results would have been much more favourable to the port of Halifax than set forth in the memorandum of the Board of Trade of Halifax. It has been demonstrated in the past that there can be a saving of from twelve to twenty hours, and perhaps more, by receiving and despatching our European mails from the port of Halifax, as against any other Atlantic port.


Mr. HAZEN:: Is the hon. gentleman
making any allowance for the distance from Liverpool and from Bristol?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That would not matter because ships approaching the Atlantic coast of Canada, whether from Bristol or from Liverpool, pursue a certain track across the ocean until they reach a point about sixty miles off the coast of Nova Scotia, from which they diverge to St. John or Halifax as the case may be. That point is sixty miles from Halifax and 330 miles from St. John.


John Douglas Hazen: If the distance from Bristol to that point is longer than the distance from Liverpool to that point, it would make a difference in the time consumed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think that is an element of importance, because if a ship sails from Bristol for the port of Halifax and there despatches her mails for Montreal by the Intercolonial, the same will reach Montreal and western points from twelve to twenty hours earlier than if they were landed at the port of St. John and from there despatched to Montreal. Inasmuch as we are paying $1,000,000 for this service, the port of landing the mails should be that which will give Canadians their European mails in the quickest possible time. That is a matter of ordinary business, and I cannot see how my position can safely be controverted by any one. One might also refer to the preference of the ship-owners, the safety of ships and the safety of passengers. The preference of the contracting steamship companies should receive special consideration for these reasons. In my judgment, Halifax has special advantages as a winter mail port over any other port in the Maritime provinces. I



believe it is the desire and the wish of the contractors to adopt Halifax as the winter port, and I submit it was unfair and unjust to that port that any interference should have been made by the Government in the direction of inducing the contractors to change from one port to another when under the contract they had made their selection of ports. We have had an experience with permitting the contractors to designate their port, and have found that they afterwards were not permitted to carry out their selection. For that reason I have no confidence that the contractors will be given a free hand in selecting a port. I desire to urge upon the Postmaster General and the Government that the port of Halifax should be designated in the contract as the port of landing and embarking the ocean mails. I fear that, if the contract in this respect is to be as last year, there will be further political interference. Consequently there is no advantage in leaving in the contract the right of selection by the contractors.


Mr. McCURDY:: Although a debate on this question naturally takes rather a local flavour, it is, I think, of such importance as to call for the earnest attention of the committee. The matter of improved fast Atlantic steamship service is one which has been in the public mind for a great many years, and is associated always with the mail service. Ever since I was a boy I have heard it discussed. Sometimes it appeared near and then it appeared to recede as we apparently approached its establishment.
As we have devoted so much attention and such large sums of money to the provision of a land transportation system, the development which should naturally follow is the fast Canadian Atlantic service and which should be encouraged in every way possible. We have gone the limit in giving assistance to land transportation companies. Every hon. member is thoroughly seized of the fact that the obligations which have been undertaken in this connection have been exceedingly large. One of the largest undertakings and for which tremendous obligations have been assumed was for the avowed and express purpose of providing ourselves with a system which began at a Canadian port and ended at a Canadian port, a transcontinental road all on Canadian territory and using Canadian ports. That was the alluring picture drawn at the time that the most expensive

transportation system that we have up to the present secured was launched. Therefore, I submit that, in considering the transportation of mails, that point should be borne in mind. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) the other day referred to a proposal to carry these mails over American territory. I would submit -and in this I am sure the right hon. the leader of the Opposition will agree with me -that that is not a proposal which should be considered; that we should if possible -and we can-be independent in regard to the transportation of mails as well as in regard to the transportation of freight- have a self-contained mail carrying system in Canadian territory and using Canadian ports. During the first session for which I had the honour of sitting in this House, I took occasion to bring to the attention of Parliament this matter of improved fast Atlantic steamship service. At that time my argument was on all fours with that of my hon.. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) namely, that in the selection of a Canadian port there should be no discrimination; that a fast Atlantic line should be encouraged to establishment, and that the best port should be selected on its merits. I was particularly pleased, when the new mail contract was being made, that the matter of the selection of the port was left entirely in the hands of the contractors.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has already read a statement prepared by the Halifax Board of Trade, which is based on official information given out by the Postmaster General. It seems to me that the improvement or advance which has been made in the mail service has not been at all satisfactory. The amount of subvention voted for this service has been augmented by some $400,000, and the opinion is expressed in many well-informed quarters that the mail service given to this country last winter was really inferior to the service enjoyed in previous years and under previous contracts.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Does my hon. friend mean that the Canadian service was better in previous years ?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The statement has been put forward by people who do a large transatlantic business and depend largely on the mails in the prosecution thereof, that the service given during the past year has not been any improvement on the service

given under previous contracts and with a much lower subsidy; at any rate, so far as the interests of my personal business friends residing in Nova Scotia are concerned, they state the deliveries of mail have been slower this past winter than in previous years.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I should like to point out to my hon. friend that the service last year was a Canadian service while the service during the year previous was a foreign service.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Voyages were made last winter under the mail contract by vessels which should not have been used for the carrying of mails under the contract. They were old and slow years ago, and their names are more familiar to our fathers than to us.
It does not seem to me that a case has been made out along the line of the argument put forward by the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. It is quite true that during the last winter there was in the city of Halifax quite a little disappointment, and some surprise, when the 'Canadian Northern boats were withdrawn from Halifax and sent to another port; but no proof has been adduced, ,so far as I am aware, that this proposal was not made by the Canadian Northern people, the proprietors of this steamship line. Referring to the matter from a purely local standpoint, in some business circles in Halifax it was looked upon as a blessing in disguise that these boats did not come to that port during the last winter. The. terminal facilities and equipment for handling these steamers were stated to be insufficient, and well-posted shipping men have made the statement that had all the shipping gone to Halifax last winter there would have been difficulty in taking care of it.
Previous to last year there was great congestion at deep water, and I am informed by shipping men that if the additional boats to which the hon. gentleman refers had gone there last year, it is very questionable whether the business could have been properly taken care of.
When the hon. gentleman, asserts that no interference or pressure should be brought to bear on contractors in the selection of ports, I am entirely at one with him.
Those who are acquainted with the waterfront at Halifax know that for many years past there has been a considerable congestion of traffic. Representations were 3184
made by representatives of the board of trade in that city urging that the terminal facilities should be augmented in a comprehensive manner. It had always puzzled me that the Government did not take steps, not to equip the port for 'business that *might offer in the future, but to provide an equipment sufficient to cope with existing business. As responsible for the operation of the Intercolonial railway, the Government should certainly provide the facilities necessary to handle business pressing on the road.
I state no more than the fact when I say that the facilities there were quite incapable of coping with the business offered, and that as a consequence delay and loss frequently occurred. And frequent and urgent representatives for relief received little response from the Government. Any hon. gentlemen who are inclined to question this assertion may refer to the delegations which visited Ottawa to impress the existing state of affairs upon ^he Government. They finally did receive as a compromise the undertaking that another additional wharf would be built; this wharf, which is now in course of construction and almost completed, is known as No. 2. While hon. gentlemen are inclined tc be critical and even to censure the Government for disappointments which occur in the development of a promising business, with a desire to be fair I wish to say that the business community of Halifax learned with a great deal of satisfaction of the attitude of the present Government with regard to the transportation question, and have considerable confidence in the ultimate working out by the Government of the important eastern transportation problem.
While transportation systems were being built up across the continent, sufficient attention was not being paid to the facilities for transhipment when this traffic reached tidewater. Although this pressing state of affairs was brought earnestly to the attention of the predecessors of the present Government, they received scant recognition and nothing of a comprehensive character was undertaken until the present Government came into office.
Extensive plans for the accommodation of the trade to which I have referred are now being carried out, and they are so regarded as an earnest of the present Administration's intention to handle the problem in a comprehensive manner that I think the

business community of that city have not felt much concern, or been disposed to become alarmed over the temporary withdrawal of 'boats by the Canadian Northern railway.


John Douglas Hazen: At this late stage of the
'session I shall not occupy very much of the time of the House in a discussion of this matter; but at the same time I feel that, as a representative of the constituency of St. John, I should not allow the remarks made by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), which are undoubtedly an. attack upon the capacity and merit of St. John as a mail port, to go unanswered. The respective merits of the ports of Halifax and St. John as mail ports have been matters of discussion for a good many years past. I have always thought it would be better, in the interests of both ports, if there was less discussion of their respective merits, less attempt to cry down one or the other, and if there was more union between them with a view to advancing the interests of the lower province ports and of the lower provinces generally. At the same time those people who are interested in the port and business of St. John, have contended for years that the winter mails to and from Canada could be handled with just as much expedition through St. John as through any other port in the lower provinces. As my hon. friend has pointed out, for a period of about thirty-six years the mail contracts provided that the carriers of the mails were to receive and deliver them at the port of Halifax and thus, for all those years, there was no opportunity for the port of St. John to demonstrate by actual experience whether the claims made by its citizens that it was in a position to successfully compete with Halifax as a mail port were or were not correct. Last year a contract was entered into by the Postmaster General for the carriage of the mails. That contract provided that in the winter season the carriers of the mail should, on their own option, select the port in Canada on the Atlantic seaboard at which they would deliver and receive the mails, and the Postmaster General undertook to deliver the mail to them at the port of Halifax or of St. John. That was the policy of the open door for which citizens of St. John have contended, and with reason I think, for a great many years past. I can see no possible objection to leaving the carriers of the mads free to select the port of departure. It certainly seems to me that that is a fair proposition,

fair to Halifax and fair to St. John, because the carrier of the mail will naturally be influenced by the merits of the ports and their facilities for the handling and rapid distribution of the mails throughout the country. My hon. friend has said that there was pressure brought to bear because the Canadian Northern railway boats, the Royal George and the Royal Edward, left Halifax and came to St. John, last winter. I think that my hon. friend ought to bear in mind that the Canadian Pacific railway and the Allan line steamers announced through the press that all their boats would sail direct from St. John to Liverpool. After that announcement in the press they changed their minds and went to Halifax as the Canadian Northern railway later changed their minds. Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, explaining this action on behalf of the Canadian Pacific railway, stated most emphatically that St. John was the port of the Canadian Pacific railway, that their action in taking the Empresses to Halifax last year was merely tentative and that they proposed to return to St. John as soon as there were facilities there so as to enable them to properly handle the freight, mail and passenger business. We in St. John certainly have just as much right to complain of the change on the part of the Canadian Pacific railway -as my hon. friend has to -complain because of the Change of the Canadian Northern railway in bringing the Royal boats to St. John.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Oh, no. There is this distinction. The Canadian Pacific Railway boats selected Halifax, under the contract, of their own volition and not at the suggestion of the Government. The Prime Minister himself publicly stated that this was the act of the Canadian Pacific railway. But I say, and I mean it and I h-ave reason for knowing it, that pressure was brought to bear on the Canadian Northern railway by members of the Government. It is not a guess with me at all.


John Douglas Hazen: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The explanation of that is that the mails arriving on the Hesperian were allowed to remain in Halifax for many hours before being taken out.


John Douglas Hazen: That shows the difficulty of making comparisons or drawing conclusions from such a statement as my hon. friend has read to the House. No doubt
5.000

there are individual cases in which the mail from Halifax has been delivered quicker than from St. John, and vice versa. Looking at it from that standpoint, and taking into consideration the fact that the mails through St. John were hauled in some cases by the longer land route from St. John and by the longer water route from Bristol, I think it will be admitted that mails can be handled through St. John with as much expedition as they can through Halifax.
I would like to read to the House a statement from a circular letter of the St. John Board of Trade under date 29th May,. 1914:
The statement of mail records as between the ports of St. John and Halifax, which was compiled by the Post Office Department, while it may be employed to substantiate the claim of St. John to mail carrying supremacy, is not sufficiently clear upon a very important point to justify any dependable comparisons being made. It does not in every instance refer to mails which were despatched over the shorter rail route from St. John to Montreal over the Canadian Pacific railway. In some instances, the time of haulage from this port to Montreal was over the longer Intercolonial Railway route instead of over the shorter route. The unfairness of making a comparison of the relative merits of Maritime province ports, based upon such a condition as the above, can readily be seen.
I am sure this must appeal to the sense of fairness of my hon. friend from Halifax The statement continues:
It is interesting to note in connection with the official record, that the palm for the fastest delivery of mails during the past winter was carried off by the port of St. John.
This was in the case of the Royal George, which arrived in St. John on January 7, and whose mails reached Montreal in twenty-two minutes less than any mail shipment from any other Maritime mail port. This incident affords a striking example of the superiority of St. John in this connection.
The result of the experience of the past winter-which is supported by the incomplete official record-shows that St. John has every right to be considered on equal terms with any other mail port that may be seeking recognition.
I think that is a very correct summing up of the case. In the contract which will be entered into, I understand that St. John will be considered on an equal footing with any other mail port on the Atlantic coast that is seeking recognition. The selection of the port will be left to the contractors themselves, and consequently I do not think any port has any right to find fault or to demand, as my hon. friend has demanded for Halifax, that it shall be named in the contract to the exclusion of all other ports. Such a course would be manifestly unfair.
	.
Let the policy of the ' open door ' prevail. Each port will stand on its own merits, but having regard to the fact as stated in the communication of the Toronto Board of Trade that there is very little difference between Halifax and St. John so far as the delivery of the English mail in Toronto is concerned, the result may be that the service will be divided between the two ports. That matter, however, is in the hands of the contractors. I do not see how any port can fairly find fault with an arrangement of this sort under which each port stands on its merits and will be considered on its merits alone, and under which the contractor is given power to decide on the port which will be most advantageous from his standpoint.


William Pugsley: Is it the intention to
renew the rather famous and much attacked Gutelius-Bosworth agreement, being an agreement between the Government railways of which Mr. Gutelius is general manager and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think there has been any decision to renew that particular agreement in its actual terms. No doubt negotiations will be carried on between the Government and the Canadian Pacific railway with regard to access to Halifax for such of its boats as may be run there.


William Pugsley: I am very glad indeed to observe how completely my hon. friend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Hazen) has answered my hon. friend from Halifax as to the respective merits of Halifax and St. John as mail ports. The sooner the Government recognize that those two ports have merits and settle this difference of the mail service between the two ports by dividing the fast mail steamers equally between them the better it will be for both ports. It is not desirable, it is not in the public interest, that this jealousy should continue and that the people of either port should not know what to expect. If the subsidy is to be given year after year, if it is to be voted by Parliament, and if then the matter is to be left optional with the steamship companies, they will play off one port against the other, just as they are doing to-day. The longshoremen who serve the steamers, loading and unloading, will not know what to expect. We had a very distressing example, as a result of the uncertainty, in what has taken place in St. John during the last winter. For a good many years past the winter port business

has been steadily increasing, and quite a large number of longshoremen have had steady employment. It was expected that last winter the Empress steamers would come to St. John as usual. They did not come, and the result was that for the first time in the history of the winter port business, St. John had a large number of people who were thrown out of employment, and a rather distressing state of affairs occurred. The matter ought to be settled. If these fast steamers are to be subsidized for the winter service, three of them ought to be subsidized for St. John and three for Halifax. That would make two trips a week. Let there be one from Halifax and one from St. John. If it could be arranged definitely and permanently that each port was to get a part of the service, then each port could go ahead with its development of business, knowing what to expect in the future.
My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries rather favoured the idea that the same agreement is to be made with the companies as that which was made last winter. He called attention to the fact that there was general satisfaction with the proposal to allow an open door. If I remember rightly, last session I suggested the same thing that I am suggesting now, that the service should be equally divided, but the Government thought it well to take this course, although the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) gave the most positive assurance that each port would be treated with absolute fairness. The Postmaster General was speaking for the Government when he said that. We cannot separate the different departments of the Government. Whatever one minister does is the act of the Government for which the whole Government is responsible. Whatever the deputy head of a department does is the act of the whole Government and the whole Government is responsible.
What took place after this agreement was entered into? The Canadian Pacific railway having the terminus of their railway at the port of St. John, made up their mind that they would make St. John the port for their mail steamers. The Canadian Pacific railway, as is generally known, control the Allan line steamers as well. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries says that lists of sailings were prepared and inserted in the newspapers and notices were also sent out inviting tenders from grocers and other supply men for supplying the
Empress steamers at the port of St. John. Almost immediately after these advertisements appeared there came an announcement that the Canadian Pacific railway had changed their plans altogether and that they were going to make Halifax the terminus of their mail steamers. Mr. Bosworth, the gentleman who signed the agreement, to which I shall refer a little later, on behalf of the Canadian Pacific railway, and who, I believe, is the general traffic manager of that road, made a statement in an interview' published in the Montreal papers that the Canadian Pacific railway had decided to send their steamers direct to St. John because they were not able to make a sufficiently favourable arrangement with the Intercolonial railway. But he said that they had, within a few days, completed arrangements which were entirely satisfactory, and that they had therefore, changed their mind and that the steamers were going to stop at Halifax The people of St. John were naturally very much surprised and I think I can say, on behalf of the people of St. John, that they have no desire to in any way interfere with the legitimate ambitions of their sister city of Halifax. They would like to see Halifax grow and develop and become one of the great cities of Canada. But they want to be treated fairly and to be treated on an equality with other portions of Canada. When they found that the effect of the arrangement which the Government had made with the Canadian Pacific railway, was to induce the Canadian Pacific railway not to use the open door which the Postmaster General had announced would be afforded to them they naturally became very indignant, sought to ascertain why it was that this agreement had been entered, into and endeavoured to have it revoked. I may say that they learned of this agreement some weeks before it was to go into operation. It was made on the 30th of September and it was to go into operation on the 15th of November, so that there was in the period between the 30th of September and the 15th of November ample time for the matter to be considered by the Government. Immediately upon the people of St. John learning of it in the month of October they called upon the Government to reconsider it. They had meetings and resolutions of the board of trade and Government supporters in the city of St. John, men of great prominence, took the platform and alleged that i.f this iniquitous agree-

ment was allowed to go into force there would be the greatest split in the Conservative party that had been seen in St. John for a long time. A delegation was sent to Ottawa; the Prime Minister will remember it. It was headed by the president of the board of trade, and the people of St. John took the very reasonable ground that the Government should not, as the owners and operators of the Intercolonial railway, make an agreement with the Canadian Pacific railway to give them rates more favourable than those which existed before and therefore induce them to change their plans, deter them from selecting St. John as the port which they had decided upon and cause them to make Halifax the terminus of their mail steamers. I remember that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) said that St. John might depend upon it that the Government w'ould not allow any discrimination against St. John or any other port. In view of that I was greatly surprised to hear the Minister of Marine and Fisheries say not long ago in this House when I had the honour to mention this subject, that he did not know whether the agreement was discriminatory against St. John, that Mr. Gutelius, the general manager, said it was not and that the rates now given to the Canadian Pacific railway had been given by the Government some years ago to the Canadian Northern.	Noth withstanding all the protests which were made, that agreement was allowed to go into effect. It had to be approved of by the Government, or the Minister of Railways and Canals, and I hold the Government and every member of the Government responsible for the agreement and for its being allowed to go into operation. They cannot escape the responsibility for it. I maintain that it was an unfair act towards the port of St. John. When the vote was given by Parliament and when the open door was so boastfully offered to the people of both Halifax and St. John, it was supposed that the steamship companies would have to conform to the rates prevailing upon the Intercolonial against all shippers under similar circumstances, and that no specially favourable arrangement would be made to induce the steamship companies to abandon St. John and decide in favour of Halifax. A return was moved for at my request, which was prepared by Mr. Gutelius, the general manager, and it reads:
Return of Department of Railway by F. P. Gutelius, general manager.

Canadian Government railways, Intercolonial railway,
Moncton, N.B., April 28, 1914.
A. W. Campbell, Esq., C.E.,
Deputy Minister,
Department of Railways and Canals, Ottawa,
Dear Sir,-Your letter of April 9 asking for information to answer question of the House of Commons by Honourable Mr. Pugsley:
Question No. 1: How many passengers have been carried over the Intercolonial railway from St. John to Halifax, and from Halifax to St. John, respectively, under the agreement made on the 30th September, 1913, between the Canadian Government railways by F. P. Gutelius, general manager, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company by G. M. Bosworth, general traffic manager, from the 15th November, 1913 when the said agreement went into effect to the 31st March last?
Answer:	Number of passengers carried from
St. John to Halifax, 6,778 ; number of passengers carried from Halifax to St. John, 7,698.
Question No. 2 :	How many tons of freight
of each of the classes mentioned in said agreement have been carried each way over the Intercolonial railway between St. John and Halifax under said agreement during said period?
Answer:	Freight carried from St. John to
Halifax, flour and grain, 31,461 ; all other classes of freight, 12,804^ ; total, 44,265 tons.
Freight carried from Halifax to St. John, all classes of freight, 18,757 tons.
Question No. 3 :	What have been the total
earnings by the Intercolonial railway under said agreement up to the 31st March last for passengers and freight carried respectively?
Answer:	Total earnings for passengers carried, $25,960:	total earnings for freight,
$50,683.31 ; total, $76,643.31.
Question No. 4 :	What amount has been paid
to or earned by the Canadian Pacific railway for car hire under said agreement?
Answer:	Mileage on passenger equipment,
$3,302.75 per diem; on freight cars approximately, $5,875.20 per diem; total, $9,177.95.
Question No. 5:	What number of empty
cars of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have been hauled by the Intercolonial railway free under said agreement, and what has been the cost of such haulage?
Answer:	None.
Question No. 6 :	What would have been the
total amount paid by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to the Intercolonial railway under the tariff prevailing at the time of the making of the said agreement for the passengers and the freight so carried, respectively?
Answer:	Nothing, as there would have
been no business under the prevailing tariff and the division thereof.
Yours truly,
(Sgd) F. P. Gutelius.
The last answer is a most extraordinary answer to give to the question involved in the return. What I wanted and what was required by the question was this: Under the arrangement which was prevailing before this agreement came into force, there was a through rate and division of rates as between the Intercolonial and the steamship lines using Halifax. For inward

freight the rate between Halifax and St. John would be so much, and also between Hal.fax and Montreal so much, and that is what I wanted the Minister of Railways to tell me. Here were 63,000' tons of freight which were carried between Halifax and St. John under this unusually favourable agreement, and what I asked for was what would be paid for that quantity of freight under the tariff schedule prevailing before this agreement came into force.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is that local
freight?	.


William Pugsley: No, it is through freight as between the steamers and the railway. All the steamship men have it and the acting minister ought to be able to get it within ten minutes from his department. There is also a rate for passengers coming by steamship from Halifax and going to Montreal, or St. John, ot other points. I wanted to know how much the 14,000 passengers would have paid under the tariff schedule which was prevailing berore this agreement was brought into force, and as to these two matters the department has not given me the information I sought. I shall present some figures which will give the House an idea of the nature of this agreement and the favourable consideration which was given to the Canadian Pacific railway. The ordinary freight rate on lumber from St. John to Halifax is, I am told, $2.75 per ton.	_


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A local rate?


William Pugsley: No, for the 275 miles
between St. John and Halifax.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is that an export rate?


William Pugsley: It is the rate between
St. John and Halifax.


John Dowsley Reid: It is a local rate.
Mr. PUGSLEY':	It is from one Atlantic terminus of the Intercolonial railway to the other.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is it from Montreal to Halifax?


William Pugsley: I do not know. Every
railroad man will tell you that freight cannot be hauled on the Intercolonial for less than six-tenths of a cent per ton per mile, and at that rate it would have given for that freight alone for the number of tons carried $123,750 which the Government would have received. The ordinary first-class passenger rate between St. John
and Halifax is three cents per mile for the 275 miles, or something over eight dollars.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does any lumber, as a matter of fact, go to Great Britain via Halifax on these Empress boats?


William Pugsley: I do not know. As I said, there were over 14,000 passengers. For the 275 miles, the ordinary first-class passenger pays upwards of $8, the ordinary rate being three cents per mile. Of course, the second-class rate will be much less than that.


John Douglas Hazen: Will my hon. friend say that lumber was carried from St. John to Halifkx for shipment out of Halifax to Great Britain at the rate he mentioned?


William Pugsley: I am not sure as to that.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think that is so, because it is a local rate.


William Pugsley: I wanted my hon. friend, who has the tariff schedule, to give me exactly what it would be; but he has not done so, and therefore I have to argue the matter as best I can from the ordinary rate. Suppose you allow for the 14,000 passengers a dollar and a half each for carrying them 275 miles, which is a very low rate indeed, being only a little over half a cent per mile, that would make $21,000. This, plus $123,750, makes $144,750, which would have been paid by the Canadian Pacific railway as against the amount they actually paid of $76,643.31. The freight charges to them were about three-tenths of a cent per ton per mile. No railway man will tell you that freight can be hauled on the Intercolonial railway for anything like that rate, because my information is that six-tenths of a cent per ton is the average cost per mile. What we in St. John complain of bitterly is that the Canadian Pacific ought to have been told that they would have the same rates which were prevailing over all the steamship lines which come to Halifax. The Government, however, entered into an agreement which, as can be seen from a perusal of it, is limited to the mail steamers, and in which it is specially provided that, in order to get these rates, they must make their terminus at Halifax; that is that all the passengers and all the freight from the steamers which get these favourable terms shall be landed* at Halifax and that no portion shall be brought on by steamer to the port of St. John. That is highly discriminatory against the port of St. John; and it is highly objectionable that a road, which is owned

by the whole .people of Canada, and to which the people of St. John contribute just as much as the people of other portions in the Dominion of equal population should be used in discriminating' against that port.
The suggestion was made that the question should be submitted to the,Board of Railway Commissioners; but the committee will realize at once that, as the Board of Railway Commissioners has no power or authority whatever over the Intercolonial railway, the only way in which that question could be submitted to the board would be by the request of the Government, and the board might then be induced, perhaps, to act as advisers, and to give their opinion in regard to this agreement. But, for reasons which I shall not enter into now, and for which I certainly was in no way responsible, the matter did not come before the board. I at once communicated with the board; and I expected, when the Government submitted the agreement, I would be notified as one of the counsel for the city. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries stated to the House not long ago that he thought it was up to the board of trade to have the matter submitted. However that may be, the question was not submitted; 'but we have also this fact that the Government, through the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, made the statement to the board of trade in St. John, before the entering into operation of the agreement, that, no matter what might be the decision of the Board of Railway Commissioners, the agreement would go into operation, and would remain in force during the time agreed upon. Therefore, you can understand that, even if the Minister of Railways had succeeded in getting the Board of Railway Commissioners to take the matter up and investigate it, the commissioners would be dealing absolutely with a question which would 'be of no practical importance, because the agreement would go into operation in accordance with its terms, 1 hope that, when this question comes up, the Government will decide to divide the mail subsidies' between the two ports, and not to leave it optional to the railway companies as to which poTt they shall use, and that no favouritism will be shown to the Canadian Pacific railway or any other railway company simply because it agrees to use one port or the other.
I hope that will be the case, because it is

only by treating all the companies alike, by having a fixed schedule which will apply both in winter and in summer based somewhat on the mileage of the Intercolonial railway, that full and complete justice can be done to the different sections of Canada that may be interested in the mail service.
Mr. A. DeWITT FOSTER: Is it not true that the members of the Board of Trade of St. John decided amongst themselves that the agreement was not discriminatory against St. John, and that that was their reason for not submitting the question to the Board of Railway Commissioners for argument?


William Pugsley: All the members of the board with whom I have ever spoken have been of the opinion that the agreement was discriminatory; and only a few days ago there was a resolution passed; a copy of which was published in the newspapers condemning the agreement and expressing the strong hope that the Government would not again enter into a similar arrangement.
Mr. A. DeWITT FOSTER: Will they argue the question?


William Pugsley: I am arguing it now
before the committee. There is no other tribunal before which I can argue the question. I contend that this agreement is discriminatory. It is making a more favourable arrangement with the Canadian Pacific railway than the tariff in force before the agreement was made, and therefore it is unjust to the port of St. John. Just a question with regard to the boats and the test which was made during the past season. In regard to the Canadian Northern steamers, I congratulate my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on the fact that he succeeded in getting the Canadian Northern Royal steamers to come to the port of St. John. He is undoubtedly entitled to all the credit, and the people of St. John were thankful to him for what he did. Many Conservative friends of the minister in St. John can stand pretty bad treatment from the Postmaster General and other members of the Government, and then if the Minister of Marine and Fisheries succeeds only in half righting their wrongs, they are grateful to him and give him credit accordingly. It is not a bad plan to ill-treat the people of St. John and give my hon. friend an opportunity of half-righting the wrong done and of claiming a great deal of credit there-

for. Perhaps the hon. Minister of Railways can tell me what arrangements were made to assist the Canadian Northern in bringing the traffic to St. John. What was the rate *for passengers and freight from St. John to Montreal over the Intercolonial, or were any special rates given?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not any information
before me with regard to that. If anything of the kind occurred, it took place prior to my acting for the minister.


William Pugsley: Could my hon. friend
ascertain that? When my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries got the Canadian Northern steamships to go to St. John, did he also have the tariff schedule altered in their favour?


John Dowsley Reid: As the hon. member knows, if a ticket is sold from a point in Canada to Liverpool via Halifax, the rail rate is not the regular local rate; it is very much lower.


William Pugsley: Yes. There was prevailing under the tariff schedule that low rate between Halifax and Montreal and other points so that passengers arriving by steamer at Halifax could have that low rate over the Intercolonial to St. John and over the Canadian Pacific to Montreal. But under this Gutelius-Bosworth agreement, a lower rate was given to the Canadian Pacific in order to induce them to abandon St. John and stop at Halifax. I want to know if a similarly low rate was given to the Canadian Northern, to induce them to take their steamers to St. John for the carriage of passengers and freight to Halifax over the Canadian Pacific railway. My hon. friend the Postmaster General, in speaking of Mr. Gutelius, said that he had proved himself a loyal Canadian, true to the interests of the Intercolonial and against the Canadian Pacific railway. Among other things he said, as found on page 4615 of ' Hansard ':
And Mr. Gutelius stood by the Post Office Department, stood by the interests of this country, and put before us figures which could not be controverted by the Canadian Pacific railway. He fought the battle of the Post Office Department and of the country against the Canadian Pacific railway. When last year a question arose about what road was to transport the ocean mails during the winter season, the Canadian Pacific railway did their best to secure that contract; but Mr. Gutelius fought the battle of the Intercolonial railway and was able to induce the Post Office Department to send the mails by the Intercolonial railway as against the Canadian Pacific railway.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is for the Halifax mails.


William Pugsley: What about the St. John mails?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We do not pay anything at all to the Intercolonial for the carriage of the St. John mails.


William Pugsley: Was this fight Mr. Gutelius -made simply to induce the Post Office Department to send the mails from Halifax to Montreal over the Intercolonial railway?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.


William Pugsley: Did anybody make any fight to have all the mails landing by the Royal and other steamers at St. John sent over the Canadian Pacific railway to Montreal?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Canadian Pacific Railway Company did.


William Pugsley: Did the Post Office
Department do so?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No; this arrangement
was in respect of the Halifax mails, for the carrying of which the department paid a certain amount. The Intercolonial railway did not get anything for carrying the mails from St. John to Moncton; this was done in the usual course. What I referred to in the statement read by my hon. friend was the question as to who should take the mails from Halifax to Montreal and obtain the amount which the Post Office Department pays for that service.


William Pugsley: As I understand it, the Post Office Department was contending that these mails should be carried over the Canadian Pacific railway.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No.


William Pugsley: Oh, yes. The minister
says:
Mr. Gutelius fought the battle of the Intercolonial railway and was able to induce the Dost Office Department-
Which means my hon. friend the Postmaster General.
-to send the mails by the Intercolonial railway as against the Canadian Pacific railway.
That gives Mr. Gutelius the credit of in some way inducing the Postmaster General to send the mails by the Intercolonial railway and to refuse to send them by the Canadian Pacific railway.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That refers to Halifax.


William Pugsley: The Postmaster General thought that the mails ought to go by way of St. John and the Canadian Pacific and Mr. Gutelius fought the battle and induced him to send them by the Intercolonial railway; is that correct?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: What is the use of
splitting hairs in that way? The Canadian Pacific Railway Company contended that under the Gutelius-Bosworth agreement they were entitled to the carriage of the mails from Halifax to Montreal. Mr. Gutelius thought that- this contention was not right, and the matter was discussed between them with the result that Mr. Gutelius succeeded in. getting the mails for the Intercolonial railway from Halifax to Montreal. The Canadian Pacific railway, therefore, did not succeed in getting the mails from Halifax to, Montreal. Is that clear enough?


William Pugsley: That is quite clear, but _ what surprises me is that in getting this done Mr. Gutelius is entitled to so much credit because he fought the battles of the Intercolonial railway, and was able to induce the Post Office Department to send the mails by the Intercolonial railway as against the Canadian Pacific railway. Gutelius must be a great fighter if he succeeded in diverting the Postmaster General from his apparently fixed determination to have these mails carried by the Canadian Pacific, railway instead of by the Intercolonial.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This does not apply to ordinary trains; it is a question of special trains from Halifax to Montreal. Let me repeat that the Canadian Pacific railway contended that under the agreement they were entitled to have his special train from their ship's side for the carriage of the mails from Montreal, but Gutelius set forth the view that the Gutelius-Bosworth agreement did not cover the mails and that consequently the Post Office Department should give the preference to the Government railway. That is the fight which Gutelius made. If a department of the Government undertook to give these mails to the Canadian Pacific railway, I should have considered the Post Office Department bound by that undertaking, and that was why the matter was referred to Gutelius, with the result which I have stated This shows that Mr. Gutelius, who hon. gentlemen say was paid out of special

funds supplied by the Canadian Pacific railway; on that occasion, as on many others, strongly fought in favour of the Intercolonial railway and against the Canadian Pacific railway.


William Pugsley: I certainly drew from
the language of the hon. minister as reported the conclusion that in some way Mr. Gutelius had fought the battle, to use the Postmaster General's language, of the Intercolonial railway, and was able to induce the department to send the mails by that railway. It appears, however, that he was fighting the Canadian Pacific railway, not the Post Office Department.


William Pugsley: The Minister of Railways ought to be able to give us, and I hope he will, a statement of what would have been the amount received by the Intercolonial for the passengers and freight which they carried as stated in this return under the tariff schedule for inward and outward-bound freight in effect before the Gutelius-Bosworth agreement came into effect. It would be in that way only that we could make a comparison.


John Dowsley Reid: I would not consider it fair to have a statement showing the local rates.


William Pugsley: I did not say that, I said inw'ard and outward.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no way in which we can get a rate from St. John except taking the local rate and applying it to the freight carried under the agreement.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend talks as if this was the first time that freight and passengers had ever come to Halifax and been transferred over the Intercolonial railway. For years they have had a tariff ' schedule applying to inward and outward freight between points on the Intercolonial railway and Liverpool and other European ports. The tariff arranged under the agreement of Messrs. Bosworth and Gutelius was simply a modification of the tariff schedule giving more favourable terms, but there is an inward and outward freight schedule which my hon. friend will find in his office.


John Dowsley Reid: A shipper from St. John would send direct to Liverpool by water, not by rail to Halifax and thence by steamer; therefore it is not likely there would be any special inward and outward rate.


William Pugsley: There is. I saw the schedule which was given to me by a shipper in St. John. Every winter more or less freight comes by steamers to Halifax

for St. John and other points on the Intercolonial railway, and there is a special tariff schedule applying to it.


John Dowsley Reid: That would be for small quantities.


William Pugsley: No, by the ton.


John Dowsley Reid: But that would be small in comparison to the very large shipments. Special agreements are made by all railroads, say for trainloads of freight or 500,000 bushels of grain.


William Pugsley: I do not think the Intercolonial railway has ever done that, beyond giving a carload rate. You must have uniformity to operate a railway, and particularly a Government railway. There has always been a tariff schedule giving the apportionment of the rates as between the steamship companies and the railway. I would like to have that laid on the table of the House.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: In all that has been said on this question there has not been much real information as to the relative merits of these two ports, My hon. friend from St. John states that the fastest trips of the season made anywhere was by the Royal boats from Bristol to St. John. But a decision based on any one particular case is almost sure to be misleading; that is almost a truism.
The statement read by my hon. friend from Halifax is prepared by the Board of Trade, is explicit and conclusive; it is based on official information given out by the Postmaster General, and covers all the winter sailings, forty-three in number, between Liverpool and Halifax, Bristol and St. John, and Liverpool and St. John; and the net result is that the average saving in time in the carriage of mails between Liverpool and Montreal or Bristol and Montreal is by the Halifax route twelve hours and forty-three minutes. That is not one case, but the average of all the voyages.
If we were to assume, which was, however, not the case, that in every one of these passages via St. John the mails were carried from St. John around by Moncton to Montreal, there would have been added in each case 265 miles more than via Canadian Pacific railway St. John to Montreal. That is, the distance from St. John to Montreal via Canadian Pacific railway is 475 miles, and the distance from St. John via Moncton is 740 miles, a difference of 265 miles. If you take the average running
time of the regular limited expresses on the Intercolonial railway, which is thirty-two miles, that will give you eight hours and twenty minutes more time required to go from St. John to Montreal via Moncton than by Canadian Pacific railway direct.


John Douglas Hazen: That is assuming that the trains are running under the best conditions, with no interruption by storm or anything of that kind.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: We are assuming that the trains are running as they have been operated under the present acting Minister of Railways, always on time.
So that if all these mails landed at St. John had been during the past winter sent by the Intercolonial railway via Moncton to Montreal, which they were not, and we deduct eight hours and twenty minutes, which is the ordinary running time which could be saved by sending via Canadian Pacific railway direct, we would still have saved four hours and twenty minutes by sending same via Halifax. That is to say, supposing that all the mails that came to Halifax were sent over the Intercolonial railway to Montreal, and that all that came to St. John were sent over the Canadian Pacific railway to Montreal, then these results of the past winter service would show that, even taking the short cut across the state of Maine, the Halifax route is four hours and twenty minutes shorter; and that time would be considerably increased if we had available, and could calculate on, the number of trips that the mails went from St. John to Montreal via Canadian Pacific railway.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend
think it fair to take the average of all the steamers when we bear in mind the fact that the four fastest steamers-the two Empresses and the Alsatian and the Calgarian of the Allan line-went to Halifax. Only two fast boats went to St. John, and therefore it is not fair to make such a comparison.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The Calgarian was not on the route at all, and the Alsatian only made a few trips.


William Pugsley: It is counted in.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: As the Alsatian made
only a very few trips that would affect the average only very slightly. Furthermore, the Royal liners are stated to be as fast, if not faster than the others which he mentions and therefore in the latter case my hon. friend's arguments would rather cut

the other way. The difference in distance 'between Bristol and St. John and Liverpool and St. John is according to the Admiralty chart which I have under my hand only seven miles, making a difference of only half an hour in time at the most.
The hon. member for St. John has talked much of local freight rates and export rates. He mentioned particularly that the rate on lumber between Halifax and St. John is $2.75 per ton although I think that has not much bearing on the question of mail service.
It does seem to be rather hard that the management of the Intercolonial should be publicly condemned because they have had the courage to take advantage of the opportunity of making a business arrangement to increase the traffic of the Intercolonial. If you are operating a railroad or any other business and see an opportunity of increasing your business without any increase of capital expenditure, surely it is wise to take that opportunity by the band. The additional business the Intercolonial railway has secured would not have been obtained if they had not taken advantage of the opportunity when it came along. I have not seen the figures which my hon. friend asks for. I do not know what rates were given on Canadian Northern Northern business from St. John to Montreal, but I venture to say that prior to the time of the Gutelius-Bosworth agreement the Intercolonial had given freight rates much lower that the ones specified in that agreement.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman instance a case?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The rates given the
Canadian Northern on their through business from Chicago to Halifax, at the time the Royal Steamship line was first established, were, I venture to say, considerably lower than the rates in the Gu'telius-Bosworth agreement. I make that statement without knowledge of what these rates were, but I know it would have been impossible for the Intercolonial
5 p.m. to have secured the business in competition with lines out of New York and Portland unless its rates had been lower than in this agreement. The hon. gentleman has figured out that the Intercolonial can haul traffic at six-tenths of a cent per ton mile; that is the actual operating cost for moving a ton of freight, he says. That of course must be an arbitrary figure.


William Pugsley: Based on the long experience of the railway authorities.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Well, taking sixtenths of a cent as the actual figure, I can assure my hon. friend that very much lower rates than that have been given by tbe Intercolonial tor ten years back. Such rates were in effect a great many years ago when hon. gentlemen opposite were in control and operating the road. I find no fault with these rates being given. Every one knows that rates must meet conditions if business is to be done. The rates given on steel products from Sydney to Montreal are much lower than six-tenths of a cent per ton mile. These products may be carried at a loss-I do not know about that-but if a low rate were not given they would not be shipped by rail, but largely by water. As I said, the rates that must be made depend upon existing conditions and you cannot make the conditions.
A condition of affairs faced the Intercolonial whereby by giving certain rates, and at no additional expense for rolling stock or on capital account, they could increase the business of the road substantially. I think the management of the Intercolonial are to be commended for getting that 'business. I imagine if my hon. friend has made any mistake in his figures it would not be in favour of the Intercolonial.


William Pugsley: It is easy to figure out. Simply multiply six-tenths of a cent by the number of tons.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: If my hon. friend has
made an error it would certainly not be against his own argument. I will take his figures as correct, but even then the rate was not so low as had been given on previous occasions at earlier dates. Under the conditions which existed a low rate had to be given in order to secure the business; therefore, it was good business on the part of the management to give a fine rate. I do not think they are at all open to censure for doing that, but rather to be commended.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I think I should not let this matter pass without saying something-I was going to say repeating something, which, to my mind, is of very great importance. There seems to be an impression in the minds of some of the business people of Canada, and this sentiment has been expressed on the floor of the House, that the ocean mail service, instead of having been improved by the contract of last year, was degraded. We are told that we used to pay $600,000 as a subsidy, but we now pay $1,000,000, and that the service is inferior to that which we had

before. I am not surprised at that statement, because it seems to be the opinion of a good many business men . in Canada, and some of the boards of trade. I -would like to explain, and I hope this will be given as wide publicity as possible, because if this kind of thing continues we will have to think very seriously whether we shall continue the Canadian subsidy at all-that we had four steamers on the Canadian mail service before 1913. We now have twelve in summer and eight in winter. For this very great and very marked difference we pay $400,000 in addition to the $600,000 that we- used to pay. An impression has gained ground that our new Canadian service is bad, and I want to dispel that belief if it is at all possible. What are the facts? I admit at once that we were disappointed in one respect. We fully expected that the Alsatian and Calgarian would go into the service much earlier under our 1913 contract than they did. There were strikes and a good many difficulties encountered which prevented them from going into the service late in the year of the contract. We have in consequence suffered to a great extent. But, with the Alsatian and the Calgarian in the service, the Canadian mail service-and I would like these words to be heard by every business man in Canada-is as good as the New York service. Some of the New York steamers are faster than our own steamers, but the distance which the Canadian steamers have to traverse is shorter; consequently, we are able to hold our own with our Now York competitors and send our mails to Liverpool or Bristol as promptly as by way of the New York service, except, perhaps, when the Lusitania and Mauretania happen to carry the mails.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: I would like to ask the Postmaster General upon what statistics he bases that statement?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We are sure of that. We have the facts and the data in the department. We have all the data at our fingers' ends.


Michael Clark: 'Speaking from my private experience, and that of a great many others who correspond regularly with Europe, we have thought that by putting ' via New York ' on our letters we would ensure their getting to their destination sooner and the same thing holds good with reference to letters coming from the other side. I should like to know what the statistics are.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I can tell my hon.
friend a very curious circumstance that occurred repeatedly last year. We had any number of complaints that letters coming to Canada were delayed. We investigated every case and we found that the complaints made to- us about the Canadian service had reference to letters coming via New York to Canada. This fact was shown by the letters enclosed and forwarded to us in support of the complaints made. The blame wae put on the 'Canadian service notwithstanding the fact that the service had been performed by the New York steamers. That the .service was performed by the New York steamers was due to the absence from the Canadian service of the Alsatian and the Calgarian. The British post office practically refused to send any letter mail during last winter by the Canadian boats so that, except in two or three cases, the whole of the letter mail came from England via New York. Yet we were blamed for that. As a matter of fact, most of the complaints that we received came under the supervision of the inspector of the Post Office Department and it was found that some of the letters in regard to which complaint had been made had been sent to Queenstown and that, in consequence of storms or other causes,- the Lusitania, or the Mauretania, could not stop at Queenstown to take on the mails. Consequently, these mails, which had come from London to Queenstown, had to be sent back to London and to wait for .another boat. It .is not surprising that the mails were delayed but they were delayed by the New York service. We had the data of all that, we iare in. a position to substantiate what I say and let me add that we would not have undertaken to pay that $400,000 a year more if we had not known that the Canadian steamers could take care of this service1.
The boards of trade have passed resolutions declaring that this service must continue via New York because they say it is the better one. We know that it is not the better one if we can get our service in proper shape. Last year circumstances were against us; we did not have the Alsatian and the Calgarian, but I ask the boards of trade, now that we are to have the Alsatian and the Calgarian in the service, not to pre judge the question and not to adhere to their conclusion that the Canadian service is no good and that we must send our mail via New York.
While circumstances prevented the Alsa-

tion and Calgarian going into the service as early as we would have liked them to have gone last year, we have this year this most terrible and appalling disaster to the Empress of Ireland which will deprive us of one of the ships engaged in this service. In addition to all the other circumstances connected with this awful accident, of course, Canada is going to suffer in that this ship was one of the twelve in the summer service and one of the eight in the winter service. Our contractors say that this is a case of force majeure and that they cannot replace this ship except by an inferior one. I want this service to be accepted by Canada as a whole and I must tell the committee that we will have to discontinue paying these large sums if the contractors cannot put on a service which can, as far as speed goes, properly replace the Empress of Ireland and we will have to use the New York boats for the service because I do not want this service to again receive the black eye that it received last year when the Corsican and Hesperian were in the service and when the letter mail was sent from the British post office via New York. I shall not go over the whole of the ground that my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) traversed in discussing the question as to the relative claims of the ports of Halifax and St. John.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What are the terms of
the contract as regards the number of years during which it shall remain in force.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It was a contract for twelve months. The question of which should be the winter port for Canadian mails was discussed very fully on a former occasion, and I said what I had to say on the question, so that I hope my hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean) will not be offended if I do not repeat it now. I stated then that the two ports would have to stand on their own merits, and that the contractors would have to make their own choice. This statement I repeat now, and the two ports will be treated fairly by the Government.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is the new contract signed?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I understand that the terms of the contract are pretty well arranged. We had to make other arrangements on account of the new ships, and, much to the regret of the Allan Company, I said I would not have this year the Grampian, the Corsican, and the Hesperian.

They have made arrangements to have the Teutonic, which is a very fast ship, come into the service. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and myself have practically now completed the terms of the contract, but of course provision will have to be made to get a substitute for the Empress of Ireland. The hon. gentleman said that St. John had got the double-cross in our dealings with the Intercolonial railway and the Canadian Pacific railway. I may tell him that we have tried to deal with these matters as best we could, and we have, I think, succeeded, except of course from the point of view of gentlemen who will find fault anyway. As to the mails, we had a special train from Halifax, which the post office paid for, and we had a special train also when the mails came to St. John. We did not discriminate between one port and the other in that respect. But when there was no letter mail for other points ecxept the Maritime provinces, we thought, and I think everybody will agree with me, that it would have been a poor business to pay for a special train to carry parcels and magazines, the latter of which we practically carry for nothing from Liverpool to Vancouver. I think, however, it is worth while to have a special train for letter mail. Whenever there were letter mails on the steamers coming to Halifax, we had a special train from Halifax to Montreal over the Intercolonial, and paid for it, and when the ships came to St. John -I want my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) to understand this clearly-there was no question as to sending the letter mail over the Canadian Pacific railway or the Intercolonial railway, because the distance between St. John and Montreal via Moncton, is so much greater than by the Canadian Pacific Railway route that it would be ridiculous to send by any other route than the Canadian Pacific railway. On any occasion when we had a special train from St. John we had it on the Canadian Pacific railway.


William Pugsley: How many special trains were there on the Canadian Pacific railway?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There was one every
time there was any mail, two or three times.


William Pugsley: I may be wrong, but I
am under the impression that mail very frequently went from St. John by the passenger train some t few hours after the mails landed.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. gentleman is mistaken on that point, and I would like

him and his friends in St. John to understand exactly how the matter stands. If any mail matter went over the Intercolonial it was because there was no letter mail. Mr. Gutelius-this very bad man, who is accused by gentlemen opposite of being a Canadian Pacific railway spy, and accused by gentlemen who do not know what they are talking about


Mr. GAUVREAU:: You do not know yourself.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Oh, the member for
Temiscouata has been heard from.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: You had better not
mention Mr. Gutelius' name here.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Well, we are speaking about serious business now.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: You are off the track.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I want to tell my hon. friend from St. John that the Intercolonial railway without hesitation and without difficulty, exerted themselves and gave us first-class accommodation for parcels and magazines, while the Canadian Pacific railway would not facilitate them for the reason or under the pretense that their train was overloaded. They would not take these mails at St. John unless we paid for a special train. On the other hand, we had the help of Mr. Gutelius in that respect, and he gave us good service and gave it promptly. Evcry-time we wanted him to help the Post Office Department, we found him right there ready to help us. I do not think hon. gentlemen opposite will contend that we should have special trains' to carry magazines and periodicals. At all events I am not prepared to recommend it, because I do not think it would be good business. We have provided in o-ur new arrangement with the railways that when letter mail comes to either Halifax or St. John we will have a special train to carry the letters for important points like Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, etc. We have tried to be fair and we have succeeded, and there is no diouble-oross as my hon. friend from St. John says.


William Pugsley: I remember during the early part of the season when one of the steamers was coming in, the people of St. John made inquiry and they were assured that there was a large quantity of first-class mail matter on board.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There was none.


William Pugsley: My information is to the contrary.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Oh, your information may be that, but, of course, the Post Office Department knows better.


William Pugsley: The Post Office Department made the assertion that there was no first-class mail, but when the steamer arrived it was found there were a good many bags of letters. That was the statement published in the newspapers, and not contradicted.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It was contradicted.


William Pugsley: Do I understand that under the new arrangement all letter m'" coming by the mail steamers to St. John will be carried by a special train over the Canadian Pacific railway, and all letter mail coming to Halifax will be carried by special train over the Intercolonial railway?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: So far as the Halifax * special trains are concerned, nothing has been decided about that yet, but so far as the St. John end of it is concerned, there is no question that if we have a special train at all we will have a special train over the Canadian Pacific railway. If we engage a special train it is in order to have the mails in Montreal, Toronto, and other points at the earliest possible moment, and that object would be defeated if we chartered a special train and sent the mail around by Moncton.


William Pugsley: I want to get at that a little more definitely. I understand the Postmaster General to say that where there is letter mail it will be taken by special train from St. John and Halifax respectively. Will the letter mail coming to St. John be taken by a special train over the Canadian Pacific railway ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: When the British authorities send the mail by St. John that will be done, but it is not going to be done if the British authorities send the bulk of the letter mail matter via New York.


William Pugsley: That is not very definite.
Sir WILFRID LAURlER:	The Postmaster General said he would have to send some of the mail via New York on account of the disaster to the Empress of Ireland. I hope he will not have,to do that. I am a great believer in the 'Canadian route; and I believe that, even taking into account this great disaster, time will show that the route over the St. Lawrence is safer than any other, and that it will become in course of time the most popular of all. Mail steamers from Canadian ports
RarisED bditooh

have the advantage of distance, although mail steamers from New York have the advantage of speed. It cannot Ibe expected that the Canadian Pacific Eailway Company will be able this summer to replace the Empress of Ireland with a boat of equal capacity; but, knowing their spirit of enterprise, we are sure they'will give as good a boat as it is possible to supply. Therefore, for my part, I have no doubt at all that the St. Lawrence route will not long suffer from the bad impression created by the accident. I have great confidence that the investigation will show that the disaster was not due at all to the locality of the St. Lawrence, and that the same thing might have happened under similar circumstances in mid-ocean. The impression, however, prevails, which has been voiced by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), that there is an advantage in sending mails via New York. If two steamers happen to leave on the same day, one via New York and one via Montreal,
I do not think there is any advantage via New York. The only advantage in routing via New York at the present time is that there is a sailing every day from New York, whereas there are only two sailings a week from Canada. Otherwise I am satisfied that the St. Lawrence route is equal to the New York route and that in course of time it will become the more popular one.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We have three sailings a week in summer: Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the case
to which my hon. friend the Postmaster _ General alludes is one in which the ruleB of the International Postal Union would have some effect, and I believe he had that in mind when he spoke of the necessity of sending the mails via New York.


Wilfrid Laurier: What are those rules?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will explain them in a moment. The application of the rules would lie in this, that, if a steamer from Great Britain to New York were so much faster than the one that could be put on in place of the Empress of Ireland that the mails could be landed here more quickly via New York than via the substituted steamer, the British post office would have the right under the rules of the International Postal Union to route the mails via New York.

So far as the whole question is concerned, I would like to add just a few words. There is a very natural rivalry between the ports of Halifax and St. John; and that rivalry, of course, leads the inhabitants of each city to be very zealous and diligent to see that the interest of their port are not neglected. The proposal which the Government brought down and which was acted upon last year left the selection to the steamship companies. We are accused by our opponents in 'St. John of having interfered on behalf of Halifax. We are accused by our opponents in Halifax, of having interfered on behalf of St. John. As a matter of fact, we did not interfere on behalf of one port or the other, but left the matter to be determined by the steamship companies themselves. There was a declaration by the Canadian Northern in the first instance that their boats were going to Halifax. There was also a declaration by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the first instance that all their boats were going to St. John. As a matter of fact, they saw fit to change their arrangements; but in the end, if I remember aright four steamers made their terminus at St. John and four made their terminus at Halifax.
As far as the agreement between the Intercolonial railway and the Canadian Pacific railway in respect of the carrying of freight and passengers between Halifax and St. John is concerned, in regard to through export traffic and the traffic to western Canada, it was necessarily felt by the people of Halifax that they should not be absolutely excluded from all transportation benefits accruing to the whole country from the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway. Therefore, it was a proper thing that fair arrangements should be made between the Intercolonial and the Canadian Pacific railway in respect to the new situation thus brought about. I am thoroughly convinced, so far as one who is not an expert in these matters can be, that the arrangement did not discriminate against either Halifax or St. John. There is no reason why Mr. Gutelius, or any one else connected with the Intercolonial, should desire to discriminate against one port or the other. Persons having the management of the Government railway system would naturally desire an agreement which would not be a losing proposition to the Intercolonial; and

I believe the agreement was not a losing one, but was a reasonable and a paying one in view of the large amount of traffic which was acquired. My hon. friend the member for the city of St. John (Mr. Pugsley) thinks that the subsidy should be divided. My hon. friend and colleague from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) considers that a contract should be entered into by which these steamships should sail altogether from Halifax for the purpose of mail-carrying. We have thought better to leave the matter open, as it was left open last year, and it will remain for the steamship companies under these circumstances to make their arrangements for sailing. I have not any doubt that the matter will be worked out by the steamship companies in a fair way.
I agree entirely with what my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has said as to the necessity of maintaining the Canadian route in every possible way. It was unfortunate last year that the construction of the Alsatian and the Calgarian was delayed. It is unfortunate this year that we have lost the steamship Empress of Ireland. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company will no doubt do everything that their great resources will permit and that their great enterprise will suggest, to replace that steamer by at least an equally good steamer in the near future. It may be necessary, for some time during the summer before that can be accomplished, that a slower steamer should be put on; but we have every confidence indeed that the loss in that regard will be replaced by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at the earliest practicable moment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is evident that under the present Administration we are condemned to drink very often the cup of humiliation as regards our relations with the mother country. Last year, when my hon. friend the Postmaster General laid on the table of the House a new contract which had been made between the Government and the steamship companies, he laid it with a glorious gesture and declared that this was another step forward in the closer connection between Canada and the mother country; that it was a step which would bring us nearer to the motherland. I said to myself at the time that he was not a very high stepper from the obscure names he gave the House when he mentioned the second-class. type of ships which were to bring nearer and sooner to the shores of the motherland the Canadian mails. Events have proved that my apprehensions were 319 J
true. We were paying, in round figures', about $600,000 to steamship companies, and we never heard at the time of the disgust, shall I say, of the people in England and in Canada when they spoke of the handling of the transatlantic mails. This morning I put on the Order Paper the following question, which illustrates the case very plainly:
Has the Postmaster General read the following letter which appeared in the London Times of the 22nd May, 1914:
To the Editor of the Times.
Sir,-'The mail service hetween Canada and Great Britain is a disgrace to both governments.' I am ready to endorse this statement, which is quoted from a letter of Mr. C. N. Armstrong in the Times of May 13.
I am managing director for a firm of book publishers in Toronto. We buy paper, printing, binding, etc., from Great Britain to the amount of $30,000 to $50,000 annually. The average time it takes to receive a reply from a correspondent here by return post is about three weeks. There is no reasonable regularity; sometimes it is a month, and again, only 15 days. Is not such a mail service a stupid and wholly unnecessary handicap on business between these two parts of the empire? Would it not pay the people of both Great Britain and Canada to do something to improve the service?
Sincerely yours,
Robert Glasgow.
Edinburgh.
As I stated a moment ago, in 1911, when the late Government was in power, we were paying $600,000, in round figures, as mail subsidies. We are now paying $1,000,000 for what has been described by Mr. C. N. Armstrong, a friend of the Government, by Mr. Robert Glasgow, in the London Times, and by many people in Canada, as a disgrace and as a stupid mail service. Last year, when my hon. friend laid the contract on the table of the House, we were told that this great service would help to bind us more closely to the mother land. As I said a moment ago, we have drunk the draught of humiliation many times since the new Administration came into office. I surely do not rejoice in my country's misfortune, but I am bound to say that while we had the right hon. leader of the Opposition as Prime Minister of this country, although he was a good target for the jingoes, he always stood for sane imperialism; we had a splendid mail service between the Dominion and the mother country, and we never had such 'Complaints as are made in the columns of the Times, where this service is described as disgraceful and stupid. Yes, we are being humiliated by the jingoes who took office in 1911. The Hindus are kept literally at bay in the harbour of Vancouver, for the sake of empire of


Rodolphe Lemieux: Robert Glasgow says that.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I would rather accept the view of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, who takes a broad view of this question, than that of the hon. member for Rouville, who has dragged into the discussion of this mail contract service the Hindus and a lot of other extraneous references. The hon. member for Rouville says that we have a rotten service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Times says that.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Times does not say that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is said to be a disgrace. ,	[DOT]


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 
Frank Oliver: I have always been
anxious to know why we paid the extra' $400,000.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Because we had only four ships in the service before 1913, with one trip a week; whereas now we have in the summer twelve ships, with three trips a week: one on Tuesday, one on Thursday, and one on Saturday; and during the winter we have eight ships, with two sai'ings a week: one on Wednesday and one on Saturday. This explains the difference of $400,000.


Frank Oliver: As I understand, the
reason for the mail subsidies is to get the mails to their destination; and if, as a matter of fact, the mails do not reach their destination any more quickly or any more certainly when we are paying the $400,000 than they did before we paid that, it seems as if we are paying the money for nothing.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: They reach their destination as quickly as by a foreign port, and in greater quantities. We used before 1913 to pay to the Government of the United States a very large sum which, under the Postal Union laws, we had to pay to a foreign government for taking care of our mails at their ports. Both these amounts will be saved now by Canada, to be used to pay the increase in the cost of the Canadian mail service. With the boats we now have, including the Alsatian and the Calgarian, we are sure that the mails will reach England as quickly as by New York. If we were not sure of that we would not pay the $400,000 additional. It is unfortunate that last year there were delays in placing the Alsatian and the Calgarian on the route, so that inferior steamers had to be used part of the time; but they are now in the service, and we shall have a very fast service. The final success of this matter will be our answer
to the gentlemen who are now criticising the arrangements.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Lest we forget, as my hon. friend attributed to me the words of one of his friends in England, Mr. C. N. Armstrong, a Unionist candidate, I will again read his letter, published in the London Times, the chief organ of imperialism on the other side:
TO the Editor of the Times.
' sir.-Tire mail service between Canada and Great Britain is a disgrace, to both Governments.' I am ready to endorse this statement, which is quoted from, a letter of Mr. C. N. Armstrong in the Times of May 13.
I am managing director for a firm of book publishers in Toronto. We buy paper, printing, binding, etc., from Great Britain to the amount of $30,000 to $50,000 annually. The average time it takes to receive a reply from a correspondent here by return post is about three weeks. There is no reasonable regularity ; sometimes it is a month, and again, only fifteen days. Is not such a mail service a stupid and wholly unnecessary handicap on business between these two parts of the empire? Would it not pay the people of both Great Britain and Canada to do something to improve the service?
Sincerely yours,
Robert Glasgow.
Edinburgh.
Mr. Glasgow quotes from Mr. Armstrong, and I simply .quote the letter. Last year, when the new contract was laid on the table of the House, my hon. friend stated that this would bring us closer to the motherland; it was a step forward, to bind us closer to the mother country. We now find from people in the motherland itself, that this contract is a disgrace and that this is a stupid and wholly unnecessary handicap.


Frank Oliver: I could understand our paying $400,000 a year more if we were getting a quicker and better service; but I understood from the Postmaster General that we were not expecting to get either a quicker or a better service than we were getting before.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Why, certainly we
are.


Frank Oliver: It was to go by Canadian vessels, but it was going to be, as he said, as quick by Canadian vessels as it had been by United States vessels. He did not profess that it would be any quicker. The House and the country should understand that this $400,000 is being paid for the benefit of the steamship companies and not for the benefit of the Canadian people, or that part of the Canadian people who have to carry on correspondence with Great Britain. But the evidence is that while my

hon. friend expected to get his mails carried as quickly and as surely by the payment of $400,000 as he had been getting them carried without that payment, he is not getting the mails carried either as quickly or as certainly as before. The minister should explain this or reconsider the situation. This is a rich country and we wish our steamship companies well; but we have had evidence placed before this House repeatedly during this session as to the holdup practised by these very steamship lines. I understand that the matter was brought to the attention of the Government within the last week by an important section of the Canadian community. It is in order that there should be a more definite and lucid explanation than any that has been given why that $400,000 should be paid.
Mr. GEO. E. FOSTER: I think my hon. friend has, not designedly, got in wrong on this question. I do not see how he comes to this conclusion. He says we pay $400,000 more than we formerly paid and have no better service than before.


Frank Oliver: I understand not as good.


George Eulas Foster: Let us try it out. Under the old service we had one mail per week in summer and one mail per week in winter. Now we have three mails out of Canada every week in summer and two mails out of Canada every week in winter. Under the former state of things the great majority of our letters went via New York. Under the present state of things the great majority of our letters go by Canada. I think these two considerations themselves are fairly indicative of the effect of the change in the. contract. But we are also doing better in the class of vessels. Contrast in speed and quality the vessels of four years ago with the vessels of to-day. I had the advantage of coming over in one of the latest boats, the Alsatian. It is as well appointed a boat as there is on the Atlantic service and made a trial speed of over twenty knots. The Calgarian is equally good, if not better. Four years ago we had no vessel that could compare with them, and if it had not been for the accident which we all deplore, we would have had four vessels with a speed of over eighteen knots, and these two new Allan liners with a. speed of nineteen or twenty knots-easily nineteen knots on a voyage from land to land. Our fleet of vessels carrying our letters, papers and parcels is infinitely better than it was four years ago. Do we or do we not want to carry

Canada's mail matter through our own ports and have the proceeds from the carrying of this mail matter come into our own revenue ? Is it not a matter of pride as well as a matter of national importance that instead of paying foreign countries for carrying our mail we should carry it ourselves, and gradually come to the time when we shall have a service the equal of any on the Atlantic. I agree with what my right hon. friend has said. We have the advantage in point of distance as between port and port, and with eighteen and nineteen-knot boats we can put the mail into the interior parts of Canada and into the interior parts of the United States quicker than it can be done via New York. I think that is a fair way of looking at it, and that it gives us a better view of our improved mail service than was given by my hon. friend.
Just a word or two about the remarks of my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). Mr. C. N. Armstrong is one man, but there are 45,000,000 people in Great Britain, and 8,000,000 people in this country, and it is a very dangerous thing to stand up in Parliament and give a black eye to a service because one man out of forty or fifty million people writes to The Times, for some reason or other, and says that the mp.il time between Great Britain and this country runs anywhere from between fifteen days to a month. If five thousand Armstrongs made that statement, I would still say that it was erroneous. There are very few times when it takes the mail fifteen days to get across and there never is a time when it takes a whole month. I am very sensitive as to the impression that is caused by a member of Parliament making statements on an important matter of this kind-I am not administering any reproof to my hon. friend,
I do not propose to do that-which have a tendency to degrade and disparage our own service in the eyes of both our own ' people and those abroad, because it goes out that The Times newspaper has declared that this service is a disgrace.


Rodolphe Lemieux: On several occasions
last winter I brought letters to the attention of my hon. friend from his own electors . complaining of the service.


George Eulas Foster: Did my hon. friend ever
know a period in his lifetime, or does he ever expect to know a period in his lifetime, which I hope will be long, when somebody did not write a letter to somebody

else saying that some particular thing was not being done as it should be done? Long dates of passage are given out when they ought not to be given out. It may be that the delay takes place between the time that the letter was written and the time it gets into the post office and into the fast steamer which takes it to the other side.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I appreciate the remarks which have been made toy my hon. friend in such good spirit. I read The Times regularly, and if I can get a copy in the reading room for the month of May I will show my hon. friend not later than this evening, column after column reflecting the opinion of this writer to The Times.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Investigations have
been made, and in most of the cases, if not all, we found that the delays complained of were in the case of letters going via New York. I am sure of that


William Pugsley: The Postmaster General has stated that most of the letters coming this way come via New York instead of in Canadian ships. Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce kindly explain why the British Government takes that course?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is very easily
understood. Both the British Government and this Government are bound by the laws and regulations of the International Postal Union to put letter mail on the ship which will carry it to its destination in the quickest way. The British Government claims that it is bound by those laws, and so it is. There is no disposition on the part of the British Post Office to hurt Canada. The dates of sailing are all fixed, and the British Post Office has to put the mail On board the ship which will give the quickest service.


Michael Clark: The destination for all Canadian mail would be points in Canada, would it not?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.


Michael Clark: Does the minister say that the delay complained of by writers to the Times proved on investigation to have been in the case of letters sent via New York?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Absolutely.


Michael Clark: Then they must be complaining of the Canadian service in regard to letters which they themselves have marked to go via New York.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend does not catch the point. Numerous complaints were made in regard to delay in the receipt of letters. We investigated every case and found that most of the complaints were in regard to letters coming via New York.


Michael Clark: Those complaints were made to the minister's office by private persons. The cases investigated were not the ones complained of by the correspondents of the Times.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not read the
Times.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank Oliver: This is an important matter, and one that, I think, we ought to thresh out until we get to a conclusion. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said he thought I was in wrong in my statement of the case. On the other hand, I think that, judging him by his statement of the case, he is decidedly in wrong. The question that I asked, and which, I think, is the question that we are entitled to be satisfied upon, is this: Has the mail service between Canada and Great Britain been improved since the granting of $400,000 additional subsidy, as compared with what it was before that subsidy was granted? That question is answered by the knowledge of how long it takes a letter to get to England from Canada, and with what little delay it takes a letter to get from England to Canada. It is not answered with information as to what vessel carries the letter or by what route it is carried. I am quite willing to admit that, if, by the vote of $400,000 additional subsidy, we get our letters carried to Great Britain quicker, or business letters from Great Britain are carried to Canada quicker than they were before, proportionate to the amount of extra money paid, there might be some justification for the extra payment. But, if we are not getting our letters carried more quickly than and with less delay than we were before, then, from the standpoint of the mail service, there is no value received for this amount of money that is being paid. My hon. friend has said that there are so many vessels sailing from Canada each week now as compared with the number that we had before. I presume that he means the number that are carrying mail now as compared with those that were carrying mail before. I think that, as a matter of fact, with the

exception of the two new vessels, we have exactly the same vessels and the same number of sailings that we had two years ago. There is no difference in the number of sailings or in the class of vessels except with respect to the two additional and superior vessels which have been put on the Canadian route.
If it is for the purpose of getting better vessel accommodation for freight and passengers on the Canadian route, then I can understand why this money is being paid; but I cannot understand why money should be paid, presumably to improve the mail communication, when, on all the evidence which has been placed before us to-day, there has been no improvement in the mail communication. As to the value to the country of having two very fine steamers in addition to the fleet already plying between Great Britain and Canada in the service, I am not prepared to say that under certain circumstances there might not be an advantage that might compensate for the extra payment that has been made. But the point I want to bring out is that, as far as freight is concerned, we are not'getting any advantage whatever from that extra payment. As a matter of fact, the papers report that within the last few days a deputation of the millers of Canada called upon the Government and complained that their trade was being injured, that they were being driven out of the European market with their product, by reason of the rates that the vessels charge on flour from Canada to British and European ports. If there is merit in their contention, and there is no doubt whatever that there is merit to the extent that ocean rates have been abnormal during the past year or two, then I say it is evident that as far as the freight traffic is concerned, we have paid this $400,000 a year and we have got nothing for it. I am not so sure that we have not got worse than nothing because there is a good deal to be said in favour of the argument that the subsidies that we pay to certain lines of steamers enables them to keep away from the ports that they sail from steamers that are not subsidized. The very money that we are paying these vessels enables them to establish a monopoly which again enables them to charge a rate of freight which, though it is decidedly profitable to themselves, drives Canadian traffic to United States ports. This is a sufficiently serious eon-

sideration, it appears to me, to warrant more and better reasons than have been given to the public for the vote of this additional subsidy.
To revert to the postal question, I can appreciate the desirability of improving mail communication between, Canada and Great Britain; I can appreciate the propriety of paying out Canadian money for the purpose of providing Canadian facilities that will give that improved communication; but I cannot appreciate the purpose of giving Canadian money if the service is not improved. It just means a hand-out from the Government of Canada with the authority of Parliament to certain steamship companies. Such a vote, without better reasons being given for it, is absolutely unwarranted. It may be desirable that we should have magnificent steamers plying between Canada and Great Britain; it may be that it is worth paying for; but Canada is not- getting any return in the way of a mail or freight service for, this $400,000 a year that is being paid in addition to what was paid formerly.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. gentleman
overlooks one important feature of this matter, namely, that when our mails go iby New York we pay for them in Canadian money to foreign vessels. When these same mails are taken to Great Britain through Canadian ports, we also pay, but we pay to Canadian ships employing Canadian labour. Our estimate of what we would have been obliged to pay to the United States Government this year if we had not taken care of our own mails vi>a Canadian ports, would be, speaking from memory, in the vicinity of $350,000. Instead of paying that to the United States Government, we paid it and a little more, to Canadian ships coming to Canadian ports, and my hon. friend must not forget that, which to me is a very important consideration. The hon. gentleman says we are paying $400,000 more and receiving nothing in return. If we do pay that amount, and 'because of paying it we pay less than we otherwise would pay to the United States Government, we are getting some consideration.


Frank Oliver: I appreciate that.


Mr. BICKERDIKE:: There is only the
usual service now that we have had for years?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is increasing enormously.


Robert Bickerdike: It is only three times a week?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, that is our present contract; but it was only once a week before.


Frank Oliver: The statement made by the Postmaster General is perfectly logical if all the facts correspond; but we have already heard in the House that notwithstanding this payment of $400,000 and the additional 'service from Canadian ports, we still receive 'and send a considerable portion of our mail via New York. The fact that we do send by preference part of our mail through New York, and that by preference part of our mail comes from Great Britain by way of New York, is absolute evidence that we are not getting a service on the direct route equal to the service iby way of New York. If we were getting better service for the increased amount of money well and good, but we are not.


Robert Bickerdike: Does not the minister think that the time hag arrived when the steamers going ^eastward should, no longer drop their pilots at the same place as the steamers coming westward pick them up? I made the same suggestion some years ago, which ie in effect that the pilots should be picked up at one side of the Tiver and dropped on the other side.
Mr. GEO. E. FOSTER:	Would not that
be difficult on some portions of the river on account of the width?


Robert Bickerdike: I admit that it
would be very difficult, but is there anything too difficult to be attempted to prevent loss of life. The steamship men might object to it on the ground of expense, but the Postmaster General knows that part of the river better than any of us, and I think if a rule were enforced by which the boats going out would drop their pilots at Rimouski and the boats coming in would taike them up on the north shore, we would not have had the terrible disaster which occurred recently.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have in mind suggesting to the Minister of Marine something on the same line as that suggested by my hon. friend, but I do not think it would meet the case to set down the pilots on the north shore and pick them up on the south shore. I think perhaps it might be feasible for the outgoing steamers not to drop their pilots so near the Rimouski wharf as they have been in the habit of
doing. However, this question will no doubt be considered by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and some rule will probably be adopted which will to a great extent meet the views of my hon. friend.
On the motion of the Hon. George E. Foster, that the committee rise and report progress:


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Before the committee rises, I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the question of improving the transportation system, so as to facilitate the shipment of the products of the fisheries of the Atlantic, particularly in southwestern Nova Scotia. The hon. gentleman will recollect that representations were made to him in March last by a delegation which came here for that purpose. I will not detain the committee to go into the details again, as they are fully covered in the memorandum submitted to the hon. gentleman; but I would again call his attention to the question of the Government assisting in facilitating the transportation of fish to the consuming centres. This is a matter of particular importance at the present time, as it will undoubtedly increase production, which is something we very much need.
Mr. GEORGE E. FOSTER: In reference to the representations which were made to me, and to which my hon. friend (Mr. McCurdy) has alluded, I may state that I received a deputation from the southern part of the coast of Nova Scotia, which was accompanied by my hon. friend, and these gentlemen went very carefully into this matter with respect to the product and the progress of the fisheries on that part of the Nova Scotia coast, chiefly extending from Lunenburg to Yarmouth, or in that section. They represented that there was a large increase in the production; that this increase in production and the activities that accompanied it were now coming more into the hands of Canadian capital and Canadian fishing boat industries; that their market for these fish, particularly in the winter months, was largely in ports in the United States, the city of Boston in particular, and that that was especially the case with reference to live lobsters, which were taken for about two or two and a half months of the season. They represented that they had had some difficulty in getting these fresh fish products in particular quickly and in good condition into the Boston market, because the Yarmouth line of boats running


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: I trust that, when the minister works out a scheme, he will not forget that the main winter fishing in Nova Scotia is in the eastern part of the province, and that the headquarters of our fishing industry centres about 'Canso and vicinity. The best fishing grounds on the Atlantic coast of Canada are Tight off Canso, which juts out into the sea pretty close to what is known as the banks where the haddock ,and cod are caught. If there is to be a fast fish steamboat line between any point in Canada and the United States market, it ought to start from some point near Canso. I suppose it would be quite possible to connect Shelburne and the district around that point with Yarmouth and make the Yarmouth service accommodate Shelburne, but for eastern Nova Scotia the case is very different. I pointed out to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in a recent discussion-and 1 do not think my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce was present at the time-that we could develop a very large trade in eastern Nova Scotia if we had the advantage of steamship communication with the Boston market, and that it would be of enormous advantage to our fishermen. The fact that the price of fresh fish has gone up at Yarmouth since the duty was taken off last year in the United States is an illustration of what might happen in eastern Nova Scotia. The fishermen at Yarmouth are now getting, I am told, nearly 50 per cent more for

their fish than they were getting when the duty was exacted in the United States-. Therefore I trust that, if any scheme is entertained by the Government to assist this project, they will keep in mind that the place where it can be developed to a greater extent than any other pl-ace on the coast is in the eastern part of the province of Nova Scotia. I regret very much that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who, I know, is willing to assist in developing our trade in any direction he can, has not been able to work out any scheme this year. I trust, however, he will keep the matter in view, as I can assure him it is of the greatest importance to the fishing industry. I do not believe there is .any other trade that has the same possibilities at the present time; and a liberal subsidy, that would establish a line of bo-ats to carry the fish to Boston and New York market and deliver it there ingood condition, would be of great advantage to the fishing industry on that coast.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As the hon. minister is aware, the steamship service of the county of Victoria is performed by but one steamer. The route from Sydney to B'ay St. Lawrence, embracing a coastline of from 150 to 175 miles, including harbours, is served by the Aspy. Some ten years ago the service was instituted with a much smaller steamer; subsequently the Aspey was put on, and the service has grown much too large for that boat adequately to handle. Ports at which this steamer calls include Englishtown, North River, North -Gut, South Gut, Barrachois, St. Anne's, Breton Cove, French River, South Bay Ingonish, North Bay Ingonish, Neil's Harbour, White Point, Dingwall, Bay St. Lawrence, Meat Cove. That is, about fourteen ports, including St. Anne's harbour, Ingonish harbour, and up to the extreme northern part of the county of Victoria. It is impossible for one steamer to give anything like satisfaction to all these ports. The hon. member for Guys-borough has been referring to the importance of giving accommodation to the people who are dealing in fresh fish; therefore I would bring to the notice of the minister that if he hopes to give anything like efficient service to this important part of the province of Nova Scotia, he should take into consideration the advisability of putting more than one boat on that service. It is absolutely impossible for one boat to do it. I think the hon. minister
has in his office a largely-signed petition from leading men of the northern part of Victoria, praying for some further and better service than the Aspy is capable of affording. I trust that he will give serious consideration to the matter, with a view to meeting the necessities of the case at as early a date as possible.


George Eulas Foster: I will have it looked into this summer.


Wilfrid Laurier: With reference to item 568, why was Harrington substituted for Blanc Sablon as the terminus of that line?
Mr. GEORGE E. FOSTER: We have had a tremendous amount of trouble with that north shore service, as my right hon. friend understands, -and the cardinal difficulty has been one of lack of capital with which to carry on the -service. This year we have put the service under contract to -the Canadian Steamship Company and, I believe, will have a thoroughly regular and up-to-date service. Harrington was substituted for Blanc Sablon because there is another service which is meant to serve the ports below Harrington.


Wilfrid Laurier: How -far is
Harrington from Blanc Sablon?
Mr..FOSTER: It is a long way, and the service to the extreme end was, I think, only about two trips in the course of a season.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the name of
the steamer?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Saronic.
Progress reported.



Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That this House doth agree to the second and third amendments made by the Senate to the Bill No. 147, an Act to amend the Post Office Act, but that they disagree to the first of their amendments for the following reasons :
Because the said amendment is not sufficiently explicit in regard to the terms and conditions on which mailable matter shall in each case be permitted to pass by post, or as to the powers of the Postmaster General in regard thereto.
And that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.
He said: The merits of the question do not come up at this time. We are obliged to send the Bill back to the Senate, and if any amendment such as we now suggest is to be put in, it will have to be put in by the Senate. With reference to the other

two amendments, we simply notify them that they are agreed to by this House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understood this morning that my hon. friend would accept the amendment with a rider attached to it. I have no doubt that under the circumstances the matter may be arranged by conference.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Am I to understand that nothing is settled as regards the amendment?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Nothing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Bill will come back to the House?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes. The Senate has made an amendment. With a view to agreeing as much as. possible with the views of the president of the Canadian Press Association, we have consented further to amend the amendment of the Senate. According to the rules of the House, however, we cannot now add to the Senate amendment our consequential amendment; therefore the Bill is to go back to the Senate and will then come back to the House for our concurrence, if we do concur.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Under those conditions, I shall defer any remarks I have to make until the Bill comes back.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for Committee of Supply:
William Pugsley: I purpose moving an amendment to the motion of my hon. friend, as follows:
That all the words of the motion after the word ' that ' be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:
This House regrets that since the present Government came into power there has been an apparently systematic and determined effort to defeat or delay the accomplishment of the great national objects for which the Transcontinental railway was undertaken, of carrying traffic at a low cost between the East and the West, and to secure to the utmost extent possible the transportation of Canadian products and merchandise through Canadian channels and Canadian seaports both in summer and winter, such efforts being evidenced-
(a)	by reducing the standard of construction ;
(b)	by so doing without the consent of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company,

and thus giving the company a reason for refusing or delaying the operation of the eastern division, and for the carrying or its traffic to United States winter ports;
(c)	by delaying the construction of terminal accommodations, at Quebec and Maritime province ports, and also by great and unnecessary delay in the making of provision for suitable connections therewith to be used by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company;
(d)	by neglecting to arrange as provided by statute for the operation by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company of sections of the Transcontinental railway a'ready completed, which, if it had been so arranged for, would have already brought about considerable development of traffic in the districts served by the sections so operated.
I do not intend at this period of the session to debate this at length nor do I think it would be necessary to do so for 'the reason, that all the facts upon which this amendment is based have 'been pretty well presented to the House in the various discussions which have taken place.
With regard to the first section of the amendment, that the standard of the road has been reduced, I think there can be no question, because it has been proved to the entire satisfaction of the House that in a large number of eases the grade has been increased beyond the .4 per cent as againts eastbound traffic and as against .6 per cent as against westbound traffic. There can be no gain-saying that fact. The proof of it will be found in the references made by the hon. member for South Renfrew, which will be found in ' Hansard ' at page 2109, and subsequent pages. There have been a great many instances in which the grades have been increased. I think no one will deny that the lowering of the standard in that respect tends, as my amendment says, to interfere with the national idea of having a great transcontinental road built to the highest standard, which will carry the products of our country from ocean to ocean at the lowest possible cost. That was the idea which was put forward when the Transcontinental was first inaugurated and that was the ideal which the late Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company always kept before them. It does seem an extraordinary thing that the Government should have consented to the degrading of the Transcontinental railway in that particular. It seems most unfortunate that, after the road was nearly completed-after the larger part of the expense of its construction had been, incurred, the Govern-

ment, through its commissioner, Major Leonard, should have set about to reduce the standard by, as I have said, raising the grades and also in some cases substituting wooden structures instead of steel as the contract provides for. It is important to bear in mind that in order to ensure entire satisfaction by the Grand Trunk Pacific with the standard of construction, it was provided that their chief engineer should approve of the plans and specifications for the eastern division of the road, and those plans and specifications provide for the grade which I have spoken of, not exceeding four-tenths of one per cent as against eastbound traffic and six-tenths of one per cent as against westbound traffic. There were a few instances where it was not practicable to obtain those grades and by mutual consent pusher grades were provided for; but taking the whole road from the Atlantic to the Pacific, both that portion which was to be constructed by the Government and that portion which was to be constructed by the company, the plans and specifications provided for a railroad to be built to the highest standard.
The amendment also declares that these changes-this increase in the grade, this lowering of the standard-were made without the consent of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and I would call attention to a letter from Mr. Chamberlin, the president of the .Grand Trunk Pacific to Major Leonard, the chairman of the commission, as follows:
July 18, 1912.
Major R. W. Leonard,
Chairman, Transcontinental Commission, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-I learn from our engineers that the standard of work on that portion of the Transcontinental railway between Lake Superior Junction and Cochrane, which was at the outset adopted and has so far been complied with, is being departed from, and that instead of four-tenths grade and permanent structures, you have authorized grades up to one per cent and the erection of temporary wooden structures. In regard to this I would call attention to clause 7 of this agreement of the 29th July, 1903, which provides that the work of construction of the eastern division shall be done according to the specifications approved by the company and shall be subject to the joint supervision, inspection and acceptance of our chief engineer and the chief engineer of the commission. I beg to say if this work is done in accordance with what I understand to be your recent instructions, it will not he in compliance with the agreement nor satisfactory to this company and cannot be accepted.
(Sgd) E. J. Chamberlin.
There is a distinct statement by the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company calling attention to this departure from the grade and accepted plans and specifications and notifying the commissioner that this change will not be. approved of and that the work cannot be accepted. All the way along on the eastern division, both west of Cochrane and east of Cochrane, these changes were made, and made just as if the Grand Trunk Pacific-had nothing in the world to do with agreeing or not agreeing -with the standard to which the road was to be constructed. Apparently the Government, through their commissioner, Major Leonard, ignored the provisions of the agreement and proceeded with the work entirely independently of the consent of the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I think that nobody will question the fact that this was a most dangerous and unjustifiable proceeding on the part of the Government, because the result is that if the road is constructed to a standard to which the Grand Trunk Pacific has not agreed-if the agreement of July, 1903 is departed from by the Government, it places the Grand Trunk Pacific in the position of being able to insist upon terms upon which they will give consent to take over the portion of the road so altered and so degraded in its character.
I come to the next part of the amendment, which refers to the extraordinary delay which has taken place in the providing of terminals for the Grand Trunk Pacific at the city of Quebec. I am not as familiar with the condition of affairs there as other hon. gentlemen, but the admission cf my hon. friend the Postmaster General is abundant authority for the statement alleged in this amendment that there has been inexcusable delay. What are the facts? As long ago as 1910 or 1911, three or four years ago, plans were prepared; a scheme of improvement at Quebec was laid out providing for yard room, workshops, wharfs, a grain elevator, the location for an immigration shed, a station,-everything was so arranged that the work might be proceeded with without delay. Those plans weTe approved of by the Grand Trunk Pacific authorities. I know that on one occasion when I met the Grand Trunk Pacific authorities in the city of Quebec they expressed their delight at the layout of the proposed improvements. It was expected that the contracts would be let almost immediately and the work proceeded with. In the meantime, I may say that

the work of getting into the heart of the city of Quebec was proceeded with by building a track. from near the point of junction with the Quebec bridge which gradually got down to the city level and entered the station at Champlain market. But, Sir, this Government has been in office since the fall of 1911, pretty nearly three years, and scarcely a thing has been done towards providing the necessary terminals in connection with the Transcontinental at Quebec. The Postmaster General admitted that there has been too much delay, but who is responsible for that? It is the Government and its officials, and whether it is Major Leonard or anybody else that has been the direct factor in bringing about the delay it is this Government and this Government alone that is responsible to the people of this country for the delay which has taken place. I think it is most unfortunate that .when the Grand Trunk Pacific is completed this fall-as it is said it will be-there will be no terminal provisions at Quebec for accommodating the traffic which will come over the Grand Trunk Pacific-no suitable wharfs close to the railway, no grain elevator, no workshops, no yard room, practically nothing whatever provided. Anybody who knows anything about railroading knows how essential it is that all these terminal facilities should be ready when the railway is 9 p.m. opened for traffic. I shall leave the matter of the terminals at Quebec to be dealt with by those who are more familiar with the subject, but I may say that the very statement of the Postmaster General, if we had no other evidence as we have in abundance, would be sufficient to condemn this Government for. the delay which has taken place in connection with the terminals at the port of Quebec. v
Let us look at the city of St. John. When the Transcontinental was planned it never was expected that its terminus, so far as its Transcontinental business was concerned, would be at the city of Moncton. Moncton was only to be the point of junction with the Intercolonial to connect with the great cities of the Maritime provinces. It was expected that connection would be made with the city of St. John, either by the Intercolonial railway or a shorter route, and also connection with the city of Halifax. What is being done in the city of Halifax to interest the Grand Trunk Pacific in carrying traffic to that port I do not 
know, but so far as the port of St. John is concerned I assert that there has been the most criminal negligence which it is possible to imagine. As long ago as 1910 the Grand Trunk Pacific, through Mr. Hays, its chief executive officer, and with the approval of their engineer and other high officials, came to the conclusion that St. John should be one of the termini of their system. They came to St. John and had surveys made and elaborate plans prepared showing their yard room, the location of their roundhouses and of the station and grain elevator, and indeed of all the equipment which properly belongs to the terminals of a great transcontinental system. They purchased some forty or fifty acres of land at the head of the harbour-at Courtenay bay. They had their plans prepared and intended to proceed as rapidly as possible with the improvements, but from that day to this not a step has been taken. No work of any kind or description has been done at St. John towards providing yard room, roundhouse, or in fact in any direction along the lines which were under contemplation when this Government came into office. Prior to the commencement of the development of Courtenay bay I, as Minister of Public Works, conferred with Mr. Hays and Mr. Biggar the solicitor of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and we came to an arrangement under which the Grand Trunk Pacific agreed that the' first two piers immediately after being constructed in Courtenay bay should be leased by the Grand Trunk Pacific upon a rental basis, just as is being done in connection with the Transcontinental railway; in other words, that tiiese piers should be treated as part of the Transcontinental system. A draft of the agreement was prepared by the solicitor of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, and when we went out of office that agreement was left on file and I presume is to be found to-day in the office of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works. That agreement provided for the use of the wharfs by other railway companies, and the very reasonable stipulation was made that the rental should be divided amongst the companies using the wharfs. From the time this Government came into office, nearly three years ago, nothing has been done towards providing terminal facilities at St. John; no yard room, no roundhouse, no grain elevator, no work of any kind has been done in connection with providing terminals, and to-day by the declaration which the Government has made the Grand Trunk Pacific do not know and cannot

know whether they are to create terminals at St. John or not. Last summer when the people of St. John had the pleasure of a visit from the Minister of Public Works he made the statement publicly at a meeting of the members of the board of trade, and his statement was corroborated by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that the Government did not approve of a railway company having control of wharfs, and they both expressed the opinion that the Government should build terminals and have control of the wharfs, giving all railway companies access to them.
With this policy being announced by the Government, of course, the Grand Trunk Pacific cannot proceed to make any improvements. It is the duty of the Government, and it has been their duty for the past three years, to take hold of this land that the Grand Trunk Pacific have acquired for the purpose of creating these terminals. While (by reason of the inexcusable delay that has taken place they cannot be ready when the Grand Trunk Pacific is open for traffic, while they cannot be ready until two or three years after the Grand Trunk Pacific is opened, they can get to work and have them ready as soon as they reasonably can and make up for the three years which have been lost in connection with this most important work. By reasonof the public statements which have been made by the ministers, and by reason of the fact that during all the time that this Government have been in office, not only has there been uncertainty as to the position of the Grand Trunk Pacific in connection with the operation of the eastern division of the Transcontinental railway and in connection with the terminals at the Maritime Provinces ports, most valuable time which can never be recovered has been lost and lost to the very great detriment of the people of this country.
You, Mr. Speaker, know perfectly well that when the Grand Trunk Pacific railway is opened, as it will be this fall, if there are not suitable terminals at the St. Lawrence and Maritime Province ports, if there is not ample grain elevator accommodation or ample yard room for the storage of cars the Grand Trunk Pacific will necessarily and naturally carry their traffic to the city of Portland in the state of Maine. Is it that hon. gentlemen opposite are desirous that that shall take place, is it that they are desirous that they may Ibe able to point from the public platform to the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific, which was constructed at the public expense as a great national
highway that was to carry the traffic through Canadian channels, has failed in its object? Is that their desire? They have been apparently lacking in doing anything to provide proper facilities to enable the Grand Trunk Pacific to carry traffic through Canadian ports. If that had been their object tan. gentlemen opposite could not have done .anything which would be more likely to bring about that result than to pursue the policy of inaction, inactivity and neglect which has characterized their course during the past three years.
I want to pass on to another part of the amendment. I come to that portion of it which refers to the fact that this Government has not entered into an agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific to operate the completed sections of that road. It will he borne in mind that the Act of 1904 contemplated that these various sections would be completed from time to time pending the completion of the whole line, and this Parliament, in the year 1904, had specially provided that, when any section of the line was completed, the Government would be authorized to enter into an agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific for its operation. Its operation would be carried on pending the completion of the whole road. I think the House will agree with me that that would have been of very considerable importance to the province of New Brunswick, and I speak of that province because for something like two years t'he Transcontinental railway has been completed in New Brunswick from Moncton to Edmundston, or, indeed, a point somewhere northwest of Edmundston. The late Government took that up, and the president, Mr. Hays, as I think I have already stated to this House, agreed that the Grand Trunk Pacific would take hold of this section of the Transcontinental railway, and any other completed section, would put on their own rolling stock, would give an efficient service, would operate the line, keep an accurate account of the earnings and operating expenses, and, if there was any deficit, the Government should charge that deficit up against capital account, upon which the company would pay interest, just as they would upon the remaining cost of the Transcontinental railway. We thought that a fair and reasonable proposition. I have no doubt that had the late Government remained in office, that agreement would have been reduced to writing and entered into in accordance with the proposals that were made by Mr. Hays.

When the late Government went out of office, it was not long before the section in New Brunswick was fully completed. But, instead of approaching the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, instead of making any effort whatever to induce that company to act upon the terms of the statute and to engage in the operation of that portion of the line, the commission, without any authority of law, without a vote of Parliament, entered upon its operation, and, at the last session of Parliament, when I called the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways1 (Mr. Cochrane) to the fact that he was acting without the authority of law, he at first denied my proposition, but said he would have it looked into and let me know next day. Next day he came to the House and stated that d was right, and that the commission had no authority t-o do it.	Then he asked for a vote
of Parliament. When the vote was under consideration I called attention again to the statute of 1904. I also called attention to the reasonableness of the proposition, and I asked the Minister of Railways and Canals to take the matter up with a view of entering into a contract. It has been stated publicly in one of those books of facts in regard to the Dominion of Canada that this offer made to our Government was repeated to this Government.


John Dowsley Reid: What was the offer that was made to you?


William Pugsley: The offer that Mr. Hays made to us was to operate the section in New Brunswick just as soon as it was completed to Edmundston, or any other section, put on their rolling stock, keep an account of the operating expenses, that to be subject to examination by an accountant on behalf of the Government, and if there should be any deficit in the operation that deficit should be added to the capital account, and the company should pay interest upon it just as they do upon the cost of the Transcontinental railway.


John Dowsley Reid: What about the equipment?


William Pugsley: That would be provided by the Grand Trunk Pacific.


John Dowsley Reid: Did you allow anything for depreciation?


William Pugsley: Well, nothing was said about that. Anything of that kind would come under the head of operating expenses. They agreed to see that any

deficiency should be added to capital account, and upon that interest should be paid just as upon any part of the transcontinental road after the rental becomes payable by the company.


John Dowsley Reid: Did he put that in writing?


William Pugsley: No; it took place in the office of my right hon. friend who was then Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), in the presence of a committee of Council, and it was made formally and with the view of being acted upon. What I complain of most on behalf of the people of New Brunswick is that while the Minister of Railways and Canals was last session endeavouring to get a vote through Parliament, he made a distinct promise to this House that the question of getting the Grand Trunk Pacific to operate that section in New Brunswick would be taken up at once, and that they should be asked to enter into a lease of it; all we are told by the acting Minister of Railways and Canals now is that there has been some conversation about the matter between the Minister of Railways and Canals and Mr. Chamberlin, but there is no correspondence in the department, and apparently there has been no business effort to have the Grand Trunk Pacific do what they offered to do when the late Government was in power; that is, enter into an agreement to operate the line. What would have been the result?? The Grand Trunk Pacific are interested in the development of business, and you know what an active, energetic railway company can do towards developing business. They would be interested in encouraging traffic in every way possible, by the numerous means which a well-managed railway company knows how to employ. Then at the time the main line would be open for traffic, there would be considerable local business developed which would, of course, be for the benefit of the railway.
We have, it is true, an operation of the road by the Intercolonial railway, but it is a half-hearted, miserable and unsatisfactory operation. I have here the Intercolonial time-table, from which it appears that although they have been operating this portion of the National Transcontinental railway for two years, the only accommodation they have is a mixed passenger and freight train, only triweekly. This is the kind of operation we have, while the Government would not permit so unsatisfactory a service on the smallest branch railway to which a sub-

sidy is granted. These subsidized companies are always required to give one train a day each way, but here is this portion of the National Transcontinental railway, which the Government has undertaken to operate as a part of the Government railway system, on which a train is
run	each	way only three	times a	week.To	show	what interest	they	take in	the	line,	if you look	at	the'	mapwhich is	in the folder	you	find	that
the Transcontinental railway which they profess to operate is not shown on that map at all. A tourist visiting New Brunswick and looking at the folder would not know that there was a road in operation, which forms a part of the Transcontinental railway, though the centre of the province. This shows that what the 'management of the Intercolonial is doing is operating this road in the most unsatisfactory way possible, in order simply to induce the people of the country to believe that they are giving them accommodation, while, as a matter of fact, they are not. In that respect the Government are neglecting their plain duty.
If the Government had taken the matter up with the Girand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, I have not a shadow of doubt that during last year and this year that company would 'be operating the line in a satisfactory way. What we had in view, and what would have taken place, would have been that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company would have readily and gladly entered into an arrangement by which splendidly equipped trains would now be running over that division and into the cities of St. John and Halifax. This state of uncertainty should have been removed long since and the officials of the Grand Trunk Pacific induced to take a warmer interest in the eastern division. It is a remarkable fact that since this Government has come to office there has not been one of the high officials of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company down in the 'Maritime provinces. The last public occasion on which one of them visited us was when Mr. Hays appeared in St. John in, I think, 1910, about the time the large purchase of property was made at the head of Courtenay bay, and he then announced that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company intended to become an important factor in the development of trade through the ports of the Maritime provinces, and he said that terminal facilities ought to be provided with the least 320
possible delay. Since that time, whether it is true or not I do not know, the Grand Trunk Pacific officials have acted as if they did not know what was happening in connection with the operation of the eastern division. As an evidence of that feeling on their part they have stopped their work at St. John altogether, and it does seem to me, and I think you will agTee with me, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the importance of having suitable terminal facilities at the different ports with which the Grand Trunk Pacific is to have connection, it was the duty of the Government long ago to take up the subject with them and to have influenced them to proceed with these undertakings.
We have the evidence before us that the Government has degraded the Eastern Division of the Transcontinetal railway, that it has raised the grade and thereby lowered the standard of construction, and that it has done this without the consent of the Chief Engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific and in violation of the solemn agreement which was entered into between the company and the Government when the work of construction began. In view of the long and inexcusable delay which has taken place at the port of Quebec which is to be the St. Lawrence terminus of the Grand Trunk Pacific; in view of the inexcusable delay which has taken place at the port of St. John, I believe that the Government is worthy of censure and that this amendment ought to be passed.
There is another matter. I observe in the Supplementary Estimates that one million dollars is provided to make connection between the city of Montreal and the Transcontinental railway. I presume that is intended to allow the Government to engage in construction itself, instead of the construction which a company has been proposing to engage in. As to the port of St. John, I know as a matter of fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company were anxious either to have a branch from Chip-man down to St. John, which could be built at a comparatively small expense, or to utilize the railway to be built down the St. John Valley. The late Government had in contemplation, and so provided, that the St. John Valley line should be constructed from the city of St. John to Grand Falls, up to the standard of the Transcontinental railway, so that it might be used by the Grand Trunk Pacific as a means of bringing traffic to the port of St. John. But with the consent of this Government-because they



are giving a subsidy to the Valley road and they are giving aid to the bridges, and they therefore are necessarily parties to the contract-the Government of New Brunswick has departed altogether from that idea, and the only portion of the line which is to be up to the standard of the Transcontinental is the portion between Fredericton and the city of St. John. For the whole distance extending north from Fredericton to Grand Falls, if they ever build as far as Grand Falls, the standard which was laid down in the first place has been absolutely departed from, and I am told that in many places there will be gradients as high as one and a half per cent. So that, as a means of getting to the port of St. John, this Valley road-upon which the Government of New Brunswick is lavishly guaranteeing the bonds, and to which this Government is giving large sums of money in the way of ordinary subsidies and the building of expensive bridges-will, notwithstanding this large expenditure, be an absolute failure as a factor to enable the trains of the Grand Trunk Pacific to get to the port of St. John; unless another branch is constructed which would connect the Valley line with the Transcontinental railway from Nabadogan to the city of Fredericton, which would require the expenditure of a very large additional sum of money.
The whole scheme of having the Valley road as part of the transcontinental system has been completely defeated by the action of this Government iand the provincial Government in allowing a reduction of the standard of construction of that line between Fredericton and Grand Falls. It has been defeated in another way, because, although when the late Government was in office provision was made by this Parliament for a subsidy for a line all the way from St. John to Grand Falls, yet at the last session of Parliament, presumably at the request of the provincial Government, the subsidy for that portion of the line between Andover and Grand Falls was struck out, showing a clear intention on the part of this Government at all events and, if that action was taken at the instance of the provincial Government, showing the intention of the provincial Government also, that the portion of the line between Andover and Grand Falls should not be built. If that is not the case, I cannot understand what the reason would be for the wiping out of the subsidy for that portion of the line.
I appeal to members of the Government, I appeal to my horn, friend the Minister of

Marine and Fisheries as especially representing his province in the Cabinet, as to whether there has not been a long and inexcusable delay iin taking up this matter of connection by the Grand Trunk Pacific with the ports of the Maritime provinces, at all events in so far as the province of New Brunswick is. concerned. I appeal to him and to his colleagues to endeavour to make up by quick action for the long delay which has taken place. If the feeble efforts which I have made in bringing the matter to the attention of the House and of the Government will have any effect at all in awakening those gentlemen who sit on the Treasury benches to a sense of the duty which.they owe to the people of Canada in endeavouring to make this Transcontinental railway what it was designed to be, namely, a great instrument of developing Canada and of carrying Canadian traffic through Canadian channels, then I shall feel that my efforts, humble and feeble though they may be, have not been entirely in vain.
Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (Minister of Public Works); Let me in the first place express my regret that my hon. friend the member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) did not extend to this side of the House that common courtesy that is usually the practice under such circumstances, namely, that of sending over, at least a few hours before, a copy of the amendment which he was proposing to present to the House.


William Pugsley: I think my right hon.
friend the leader of the Opposition mentioned to the Prime Minister that such an amendment would be proposed, and I stated to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister on Saturday the nature of the amendment that I intended to propose. I regret that I did not send a copy over, but I certainly did not intend any discourtesy.


Robert Rogers: As long as my hon.
friend regrets, we shall take him at his word. So far as the amendment is concerned, it is of such trivial importance that probably it is a matter of little concern whether he observed the common courtesy practised in this House or whether he did not.
The hon. member for St. John had evidently one or two purposes to serve in presenting this motion. In the first place, I cannot believe that my hon. friend fully realizes the condition which those of us realize who had the privilege of being present in this House a few weeks ago, and

who were able to listen to the tale of .Canada's woful position as presented to Parliament and to this country by my hon, friend the acting Minister of Railways and Canals, when he laid before this House the cold, hard facte in respect to the maladministration practised by those in control prior to the year 1912 in regard to a national transcontinental railway which, if built under ordinary conditions, with ordinary care and prudence, would have served as a blessing to the people of this Dominion. But because such conditions did not exist', we were face to face with the terrible conditions as presented to this House by my hon. friend the acting Minister of .Railways and Canals on that occasion. I am sure that, if my hon. friend the member for St. John were fully conscious of those conditions as they were understood by members of this House and as I believe they were understood by the people throughout the length and breadth of this Dominion, he is too good a friend of the party with which he is associated to have ventured to move an amendment here to-night that can serve only the purpose of recalling those fearful conditions by which the usefulness of the Transcontinental railway has been destroyed to the people of Canada through incompetency and maladministration in respect to its construction.
Perhaps my hon. friend the member for St. John realized the very feeble, lame and pitiful attempt of those upon the other side of the House on that occasion to present to this House and to the country any reasons for the maladministration that had the effect of destroying the usefulness of this great Transcontinental railway to the people of Canada. My hon. friend, feeling that his associates had failed, may have thought it to be his duty to attempt on his return here to endeavour to make a case by which condemnation could be placed on the shoulders of the present Administration, thereby detracting from the serious position of hon. gentlemen opposite in the matter before the intelligent electors of Canada. In the amendment which he has just proposed, my hon. friend ventures to add insult to injury, not only to the members of this House but to the people of the Dominion of Canada as well, in venturing to claim that any fault is attached to the present Administration in the carrying out of that great undertaking. It is true that we inherited the deplorable condition of affairs which has been so clearly presented to this 320i	. :
House and to the country, and that we had to make the best of those conditions.
My hon. friend talks of the degrading of the Transcontinental railway by the present Administration. I will undertake in a very few words before I sit down to deal with this particular phase of the matter, but I should like to say a word or two in the meantime in regard to my hon. friend's statement in the matter of terminals. I am sure that it is within the knowledge of every member of this House and within the knowledge of every good citizen of Canada that the present Government has done more in three years for the development of our national ports and our national terminals than was accomplished by the Government of our predecessors duiing the fifteen years they were in office. It does not lie in the mouth of any man to come forward and say that the present Administration have not pursued an advance policy in connection with the development of ohr great national ports, because the evidence goes to show that more has been accomplished in three years than was accomplished in the fifteen years previous to 1911.
My hon. friend has spoken also of the conditions in the province of New Brunswick. It is true that the National Transcontinental railway is of very little use to the province of New Brunswick, and who is at fault? Where was my hon. friend the member for St. John when this famous contract was being entered into for the building of a transcontinental railway? Where was his influence when by the plan laid down by the Government of which he was afterwards a member, the people of the province of New Brunswick were deprived of any advantage whatever from the construction of this Transcontinental railway? The rails were laid in the northern portion of the province, practically wilderness; where was my hon. friend then as the defender as of his national port, the city of St. John? Was he fulfilling his duty by his constituents? Was he fulfilling his duty by the national port of St. John in allowing a national transcontinental railway to be built in the province of New Brunswick in such manner that it would be of absolutely no benefit to the people living within the borders of that province? It is true that because my hon. friend and those associated with him failed to secure the construction of a line of railway which would be beneficial to the province of New Brunswick, it became necessary for the provincial Government to build a line


George Perry Graham: It is spoiling the road.


Robert Rogers: It is not spoiling the road in any particular. It is only carrying out the bargain which my hon. friend entered into in 1903, in which it was provided that the Government of Canada should pay for all the betterments in connection with the Transcontinental for the first fifty years after the Grand Trunk Pacific leased the road. I will quote clause 16 in order that my hon. friend may not overlook its provision :
In case, after completion of the said eastern division and the taking possession thereof by the company under the lease thereof, hereinafter referred to, or at any time thereafter during the continuance of the said lease, the Government shall deem it necessary to expend any sums of money for the improvement of the said eastern division, the replacement of structures by others more modern, or otherwise upon capital account for betterments, and not being ' working expenditure ' payable by the company, the Government may expend such sums, and the amount thereof shall be added to the capital of the construction account at the end of the year in which such expenditure takes place, and shall tliereafter he considered as part of the cost of construction, upon which interest, by way of rental, is to be paid by the company; provided that no such expenditure shall be entered upon without the consent and approval of the said company.
That is the provision in the original contract made by hon. gentlemen opposite, under which everything that has been carried on by the present Administration can be corrected and will be corrected at the proper time and in the proper place. It has been the duty and the desire of the present Administration to remedy those conditions, and to see the road completed at the earliest possibly date.
I come back again to my hon. friend's reference to low rates between eastern and western Canada. How in Heaven's name can we have low rates upon the National Transcontinental railway when there are piled up against it such enormous fixed charges through the maladministration, extravagance and incompetency
10 p.m. of the late Administration in constructing the road. In the West we have an unlimited territory-hundreds of millions of acres of the finest land the world has ever known. Every year sees an increase in its production. Last year western Canada produced its greatest crop, and I am glad to know that this year there are millions of acres more under cultiva-

tion that in any previous year, leading us to hope for a largely increased production. That being the case, the people of western Canada are naturally most interested in the welfare of this great undertaking, and it is because of that interest that we are giving consideration to its construction and operation in every detail. It is because of conditions in the West that we deplore the fact that this line was so constructed as to make it impossible for the people of western Canada to ever hope to secure relief by way of reduced rates on the Transcontinental owing to its enormous fixed charges resulting from the maladministration to which I have referred. My hon. friend talks about the degrading of this line. Let me say that the degrading of this line began the day the specifications under which it was constructed were framed. The road was degraded the day it was started. The specification made it impossible for the road to be of that value to the people of Canada that it otherwise would have been. The specifications were so framed that three apparently simple words were largely the cause of the deplorable conditions in which' the people of Canada find themselves to-day in regard to this road. I will quote to the House the three words to which I refer: masses, best, judgment. Those three words have destroyed the value of the Transcontinental to the people of this country. Under the specifications we have this wording in regard to classification:
Solid rock excavation will include all rock found in ledges or masses of more than one cubic yard, which, in the judgment of the engineer, may be best removed by blasting.
After the first contracts were let, difficulty at once arose over the meaning of the word ' masses '. The contract price for solid rock was $1.50 to $1.70 per yard; loose rock fifty to sixty cents a yard; and common excavation about thirty cents a yard. The great difficulty was as to the meaning of the word * masses '. The chief engineer of that day found great difficulty in getting his district engineers to understand what the word * masses ' was meant to convey in these specifications. The examination of Mr. Lumsden shows that the greatest difficulty he had was to make his district engineers understand that the word ' masses ' meant rock. The district engineers did not agree with Mr. Lumsden, and were ready to classify as masses, frozen earth, gravel and almost anything that could be assembled in masses. A contro-

versy arose, and as a result a meeting was held at La Tuque in the province of Quebec at which the chief engineer and -several of his district engineers were present. The chief engineer gave as clearly and forcibly as he could his interpretation of this particular clause.
He found that the commissioners agreed with the district or local engineers, and they placed a very wide interpretation upon these specifications as laid down in the clause. The chief engineer apparently could not make any impression on the commissioners who sided with the local engineers, and when he returned to Ottawa he concluded to present his views to the Government of that day. Mr. Lnmsden did so. He presented first to the commissioners his interpretation of this clause, and he presented evidence of the fact that the treasury of this country was being plundered to an enormous extent as the result of the interpretation which was being made by the district engineers on the various portions of the line. He presented that view to the commissioners as strongly as he could, and the commissioners in turn transmitted the matter to the Government for their consideration. The Government of that day cannot claim that they did not have the facts placed before them, or that they had not knowledge of the conditions under which the public treasury was being plundered in the construction of this National Transcontinental railway in such a manner as to discount its usefulness to the people of Canada for all time to come as a means of reducing railway freight rates. What did the Government -do? They received that communication and returned it to the commissioners saying: We approve of the specifications; go on and carry out your work. I claim that the Government of that day were responsible, and that they were answerable to the people of the country for having committed the greatest crime that has ever been committed against the people of any country in respect to the building of this Transcontinental railway. We had notice of these conditions served upon the commissioners, and we had notice served on all and sundry of the people in various parts of this country that there was easy money to be made in the building of the Transcontinental railway. That being the condition, could we expect any other state of things than that which has been disclosed in the building of this line?

Some hon. gentlemen may naturally ask what were the interpretations put upon this clause which brought about the serious condition that I have just alluded to ? I will repeat something that has already been quoted in this House, because the hon. member for St. John did not happen to be here at that time and perhaps he is not aware of the manner in which the interpretation of these specifications has operated to the detriment of the people. In the matter of contract No. 10 the estimate by the engineer of solid rock was 779,433 cubic yards, but, by some inconceivable means, when the work was finally measured this estimate was increased from 779,433 cubic yards to 2,712,359 cubic yards, or over 2,000,000 cubic yards in excess of the estimate, which at $1.50 per yard amounted to over $2,000,000 upon 100 miles of the railway. The estimated quantity of loose rock was 211,200 cubic yards, but this estimate was converted into an amount of 1,513,284 cubic yards to the advantage of the contractor. Common excavation was in the first place estimated at 4,242,455 cubic yards but, because common excavation was cheap work for which the contractor was only able to get thirty cents a yard, the quantity was cut down to 1,501,802 cubic yards. According to the estimate there was solid rock excavation to the value of $1,159,000, and remember that this was only on a 100 mile section of this railway. That amount was converted into solid rock excavation to the value of $4,068,000, to the advantage of the contractor and the plunder of the public treasury. Loose rock that was estimated to cost $105,000 was converted into a cost of $756,000, while common excavation which, as I have said, was cheap, and which was to have cost $800,000, was cut down to $315,000. That condition of affairs can be found all through the estimates and figures and it is not necessary for me to follow to-night in detail the different statements in respect to the classifications as made by the different engineers. They are matters of public record and are within reach of every hon. gentleman who desires to read them and to obtain the information which they contain. Then, we find this phrase in the specifications:
Which In the judgment of the engineer may best be removed by blasting.
What do you think of the judgment of an engineer whose qualifications have already been described in this House? I shall quote the evidence with regard to him again for the benefit of my hon friend from St. John. I refer to the testimony of
Mr. Alfred Paradis, who, being sworn, deposed:
Q. How old are you?-A. Thirty-nine.
Q. You are a civil engineer?-A. Yes.
Q. Are you a graduate of any college?-A. No.
Q. Educated where?-A. National business college and private tutor, and then I followed the course of the International Correspondence School of Pennsylvania.
That was the engineer who was to give his best judgment as to how the measurement should be made in connection with this work. Yet this gentleman occupied a trusted position on behalf of the Government of that day. He goes on to -say:
Q. You had not classified before that on any other road?-A. No.
Q. You went in the first morning to make your estimate?-A. Yes.
Q. Did anybody go with you the first time? A The first estimate, I believe so.
Q. Did you measure, count, or estimate your boulders?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which did you do?-A. I measured a few of the boulders myself; a few others were measured by subordinates; the boulders were measured by contractors' foremen.
Q. By the contractors' foremen?-A. Yes.
Q. Did you take their word for it?-A. No, not always.
Q. Did you ever take their word for it?- A. Sometimes I did and sometimes I did not.
Q. Did you take their word for the measurement in many cases?-A. Yes, I did.
That was the best judgment of the engineer of this country; yes, he did take the measurement of the contractors themselves and he was protected by this clause, ' which in the judgment of the engineer might best be removed by 'blasting.' These words indicated to him that the measurements could be made most satisfactorily by allowing them to be made by the contractors who were building this work for the people of Canada at a cost such as I have just described. Is it any wonder that because of the maladministration of the late Government we have reason to regret the deplorable conditions under which the National Transcontinental railway has been built?
A good deal has been said about the development of our national ports, and let me say that if there is one part of the policy of the present Administration of which we have more reason to be proud than another, it is that we have shown energy, good will, and desire for the building up of our national ports, not only on the Atlantic but on the Pacific. The difference between hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in power and the Government of the day is, that in connection with all great national undertakings for the welfare of the country, whether it be the

port of St. John or the port of Halifax, or the port of Quebec, or the port of Montreal, or Toronto, or Hamilton, or Port William, or Vancouver, or Victoria, we can claim pride in the fact that we have the same policy in every port and every part of this Dominion. There is the difference between us and hon. gentlemen opposite, who have one policy for St. John, another for Halifax, another for Montreal, and another for every section of the country where they, in their limited and mistaken judgment think they may gain a few votes in the hope of getting back to power. But our position is different; whether it be in respect to the development of our prairies, or whether it be in respect to the development of every port and every part of Canada, we stand for a broad national policy which conserves to our people their own trade within the borders of their own country. We stand by a policy which conserves to all Canadians, whether this be their native land or their adopted country, the results of the fruits of their own industry, and the development of our natural resources in the best interests of all our people. That is the policy which this Government has stood by in the past, and that is the policy which this Government will stand by in the future. We shall develop in the future as in the past our great national ports. We shall push forward the early completion of the National Transcontinental railway in the hope that the unfavourable conditions which we have inherited from our predecessors may be made to disappear under wise, and prudent, and honest administration, so that this railway will confer on the country the benefits it ought to. In view of all this, I ask hon. members to vote down the motion of my hon. friend from St. John, as being of no force and no effect, and of no value to the people of Canada. And by that vote, condemnatory of the policy announced in this amendment, we will pronounce the last solemn rites on behalf of the people of Canada over a once recognized great party in this Dominion, the representatives of which, because of their maladministration and incapacity when in power, met with the most ignominious defeat ever experienced by the leaders of any political party in the history of Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon.
friend (Mr. Rogers) has devoted the best part of forty minutes to threshing old straw over and over again. He evidently

' on this occasion has treated us to a speech which he prepared for some other debate, but which for some reason he would have had to keep in his bosom were it not that he availed himself of this opportunity to unload it on us.


Robert Rogers: Not at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will not
engage in a bragging contest with my hon. friend; I will leave to him the epithets he has applied to us, and I do not know that we shall feel any the worse off. The hon. gentleman would have made his story more complete if, after having repeated for the hundredth time that there had been maladministration in the construction of the Transcontinental railway, he had told us that the first act of the present Administration was to dismiss the commission which had built the Transcontinental railway, and to replace it by a single commissioner who was supposed to have in him the wisdom of four. The story of the hon. gentleman would have been still more complete had he told us that as a result of the administration of Major Leonard, who was represented to us as a practical railroad man, a Bill has been introduced by the Government, and, with the assistance of the Minister of Public Works, has passed through the House, for the purpose of getting rid of this same Major Leonard and letting him down as easily as possible.
The first indictment in the amendment of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) is, that this Administration has degraded the Transcontinental railway in several respects:	first, by increasing the
grades which had been agreed upon between the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The only answer my hon. friend (Mr. Rogers) had made to that is, that it is not worth while speaking about the degradation of the road, because the whole amount involved will not be more than $200,000. Well, there will be something to say on that at the proper time and in the proper way. But the important thing is that the Minister of Public Works admits the charge that his Government has degraded the line. We have had for the first time an admission from the Government that they have taken a course in this matter which they cannot defend, and which they admit they must remedy at the first moment possible.


Robert Rogers: I did not say that.


Wilfrid Laurier: from the Canadian Northern railway, and even then we are not at the shops.


John Dowsley Reid: The right hon. gentleman
knows that I stated that this line was bought not only to get to the shops, but in order to get to the eastern side of the Quebec harbour until the tunnel was built.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is all wrong in his geography.


John Dowsley Reid: No, I am not.


Wilfrid Laurier: The line runs from St. Male westward to the main line at Cap Rouge. Then the main line goes by the shore eastward again. I know the locality well.


John Dowsley Reid: I know it well also.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon.
friend has bought five miles of railway from the Canadian Northern, and the shops are four miles away yet. In order to get to them, he has had to get the right of way for some two miles from the Canadian Northern and for two miles from the Canadian Pacific. I believe that at the present time he is trying to enter into an agreement. There is no use in denying the facts, because they are as I have stated.	I believe that the	Government have running rights over the Canadian Pacific; I believe that part of the contract has been made; but so far as I know no contract has been made with the Canadian Northern, and we are still in the air as to that. This matter is not new. We had the same condition of affairs last year, and on the 29th of May this is how I spoke in regard to the matter:
At present the Grand Trunk Pacific is brought from Sillery to the Champlain market. Then there is to be a track built from the Champlain market to the tracks now owned by the Canadian Pacific railway. All this presupposes that there has been first, some agreement between the commission and the harbour commissioners, to build that track of railway, and also an agreement with the Canadian Pacific railway to use their tracks. Then, on the other side, on St. Charles river, I understood my hon. friend to say that the Grand Trunk Pacific were to use the tracks of the Canadian Northern railway. Is that so?
Mr. Cochrane: Tes.
Therefore it is very clear that this is not the Transcontinental.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: Then, that presupposes another agreement with the Canadian Northern railway. Have all these agreements been consummated, or are they merely contemplated?
Mr. Cochrane: The heads of the agreements have been arrived at.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier: That is not very satisfactory.
Mr. Cochrane: The principles are agreed upon, and there will not be much detail to work out.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: That is not our experience. However, if the city council of Quebec are satisfied, I have nothing more to say.
Mr. Pelletier: They are unanimous.
Wc had there the statement of the Min-isiter of Railways that the department were negotiating for the acquisition of that line of railway. On the 6th of this month of June I was told by the acting Minister of Railways, that although this matter was in contemplation, the agreement had not been consummated. I was told that the matter had been agreed upon, but that no writing had been done, and I understand that no writing has been done up to date. Therefore we are in the same position to-day as we were a year ago. My hon. friend the Postmaster General stated last year, and he repeated it again this year, that the people in Quebec were quite satisfied with the condition of things. The people of Quebec will be satisfied with anything, provided it is done. What they want is to have terminals, workshops, a station and everything else so that the road will be operated; but up to the present time the people of Quebec have been subjected to disappointment after disappointment; they have been fed on promises, not one of which has yet been fulfilled.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps the right hon. gentleman will explain what he did between 1903 and 1911 in Quebec.


Wilfrid Laurier: Here is the
eternal statement:	What have you done
during eight years? We were told a moment ago by the Minister of Public Works that we were ignominiously defeated because we did nothing. What are you doing? Nothing. We made a contract and built the railway. What we had done by 1911 was this:	We had the plans for the
shops at Cap Rouge.


John Dowsley Reid: That took eight years.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes; and it
was undone Iby the present Government, who in three years have not been able to sign an agreement, although they have changed the location of the shops. This is what has made the people of Quebec more disappointed than they have ever been before, namely, that they have been fed on promises, and that nothing has been done.
An agreement was entered into by the late Government with the city of Quebec

for the acquiring of a site for a new station. The city of Quebec agreed to sell to the late Government at the nominal price of $100,000 property which was of great value, in order to have the station at that place. My hon. friend the Postmaster General tells us that the station was wrongly located. All I have to say to my hon. friend is that the location was determined only after consultation with all the railway companies whose lines communicate with the city of Quebec-with the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Grand Trunk, the Quebec Central, the Intercolonial, the Quebec and St. John, the Delaware and Hudson.; which railways all approved the location of the new station. In the face of these conditions, this agreement was cancelled and another made with the Canadian Pacific railway for the construction of a union station. The correspondence on this point does not show that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company ever agreed to that change; on the contrary, it shows that they protested against it all along. When first communicated with on the subject, Mr. Chamberlin -said: if a proper plan is submitted to us, we do not say that we will not accept it- But when the plan was submitted to them they had the greatest objection to it. In view of what has taken place, it may be worth while reading to the House a few of the objections set forth in a letter written by Mr. Chamberlin to Major Leonard on August 9, 1913:
Dear Major Leonard,-Referring to your communication relative to proposed contract with the Canadian Pacific railway for use of joint terminals in Quebec, would say that this contract has been carefully examined by myself and other officers of the company and we do not regard the proposed agreement as at all satisfactory from the standpoint of the Grand Trunk Pacific.
Generally speaking, the whole scheme of the agreement is objectionable inasmuch as It places the entire control of the terminals in the hands of the Canadian Pacific railway-to illustrate:
Clause 2. Under this the Transcontinental is permitted by the Canadian Pacific to use the joint tracks and joint premises in conjunction with the Pacific Company and any other company to which the Pacific Company may grant similar privileges. As pointed out by Vice-President Kelley, under this the Canadian Pacific railway might entirely exclude the Grand Trunk or in fact any other company except that operating or having running rights over the Transcontinental railway.
Clause 4. This provides that the Transcontinental shall acquire certain lands and lease them in perpetuity to the Canadian Pacific. This certainly is rather a strange provision requiring as it does that the Government shall
acquire land for terminal purposes and then transfer not only the property but the entire control over to the Canadian Pacific railway.
In view of this extraordinary statement on the part of Mr. Chamberlin, it may be well if we look for a moment at clause 4 of the contract. It is as follows:
The Transcontinental shall, as soon as conveniently may be, acquire the lands edged in yellow on the said plan, and shall lease such lands to the Pacific Company during the term of this agreement, at an annual rental equal to four and one-half per centum per annum of the cost of the said lands, which cost shall include all expenses of and incidental to the acquisition thereof, and the Pacific Company shall hold the same for the use and benefit of the parties hereto, under the provisions of this agreement.
This is the extraordinary part of this agreement. The Government is to buy lands for the purpose of the joint station and this land is to be transferred in perpetuity to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, so that the Government railway becomes an adjunct of the Canadian Pacific railway; a second fiddle, as it were, and not by any means master of the situation. Mr. Chamberlin goes on:
Clause 5. This only provides for the setting apart for joint use of such additional lands as in the opinion of the parties may be required. The Canadian Pacific railway being one of the parties could under this simply decline to concur in any suggestion made by the Transcontinental Commission with the result that the clause would become ineffectual.
Clause 6. The same remarks apply to this clause, which is further objectionable inasmuch as it provides that the Canadian Pacific may rearrange, rebuild, alter or make improvements, additions or extensions to the joint premises without the leave or consent of the other parties interested.
Clause 7. By this all switching and shunting service is to be performed by the Pacific Company.
Mr. Chamberlin concludes as follows:
I do not know how the Transcontinental Commission regard these clauses, but to my mind the Grand Trunk Pacific, as lessee of the eastern division, could not under any circumstances accept them and expect to be placed in anything like as favourable a position in the use of these joint terminals as the Canadian Pacific railway would be. In my opinion, the terminals should, as at Winnipeg, be placed under the control of a terminals board, or, what would perhaps be better, should be conveyed to a terminal company to be incorporated with powers somewhat similar to above conferred upon the Toronto Terminals Railway Company, and the Ottawa Terminals Railway Company. As you are no doubt aware, the Canadian Pacific railway have never been satisfied with the terms of the Toronto Union station agreement of 1892 because they considered that under it the Grand Trunk had too much control. It is for that reason, as I understand it, that they now practically insist that the union terminals at Toronto shall

be owned and controlled by a terminals company. The same reasoning should apply to Quebec as well as to Toronto.
These were the reasons why the Grand Trunk Pacific company refused to agree to the contract which was made between the commission and the Canadian Pacific railway in regard to the union station. I put it to the judgment of any man in this House; can any fault be found with the reasons given by Mr. Chamberlin for refusing to become a party to that contract ? Mr. Chamberlin says: I cannot agree to that contract because the Government is going to cause the National Transcontinental to become tributory to the Canadian Pacific railway. Attention was called by the hon. member for the city of St. John to the enormous difficulty which may arise from the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific is not bound to lease this railway. You have given them the power to refuse to take the railway, and no man in this House will pretend that they will agree to a contract made with the Canadian Pacific railway behind their backs. No man will pretend that the Grand Trunk Pacific can be forced to take over the railway; it is evident that if they choose to do so, they may refuse to operate it. What will be the consequence ? The consequence will be that grave difficulties will arise, and heaven only knows how they will end. All this was done under what was termed to be a business Government. One would have expected that this Government would have taken precautions to make no mistakes; but it has degraded the road, and, in violation of the contract which was made in 1903, which provided that everything should be done jointly with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, has changed the sites of the workshops and stations without consulting the Grand Trunk Pacific company.
But that is not all. Hon. gentlemen opposite promised the people of Quebec that all these works would be completed within a very short time. At a sitting of the City Council of Quebec on May 22, a resolution was passed protesting against the character of the work and the delay in executing it, as follows:
That on the 26th of August, 1910, the city of Quebec sold to the Transcontinental Commission the Champlain market, which is in the central part of the lower town of the city of Quebec, a property of very great value for the nominal sum of $100,000 under the express condition, which was the main consideration of the contract, that the Transcontinental should build, without delay, a passenger station of great value with suitable buildings and approaches of a value of at least two millions, not including the
[Sir Wilfrid Laurier.i
cost of the expropriations of the lands required ;
That the said Transcontinental Commission has since demolished the building of the Champlain market, thus depriving the city of its most important market place and compelling the city to procure, at great expense.
I shall not read all of it. The conclusion is:
That the council of the city of Quebec emphatically disapproves the mode of action of the Chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, which is contrary to the interest of the city, and that His Worship the Mayor is hereby instructed to notify the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Railways and the Hon. L. P. Pelletier, representing the district of Quebec, of the manner in which the city of Quebec has been treated by the Transcontinental Commission with regard to the question of the terminus station, in contradiction with the policy of the Government as publicly and solemnly declared by the Right Hon. R. L. Borden, Prime Minister, last fall, at the public dinner tendered to him by the citizens of Quebec and confirmed in the correspondence exchanged between the members of the Government and His Worship the Mayor on this subject, and especially by a letter of the Prime Minister to the Mayor, bearing date the 24th of January, 1914.
His Worship the Mayor in his explanation having referred to a letter of the Right Hon. R. L. Borden, Prime Minister, addressed to him on the 24th January last, 1914, and containing important declarations and statements, it is ordered : that a summary of the said declarations and statements be inscribed in the minutes of this meeting as follows, to wit:
1. The union station: agreement for construction and operation settled and agreements signed. Contract expected to he let by the Canadian Pacific railway at a very early date.
This statement is clear. The agreement between the Government and the Canadian Pacific railway has been concluded; it has been signed; it is ready for execution; it was to be executed; the contract was to be let at a very early date. This was on the 24th of January. We are now at the 8th of June, and so far nothing has been done towards the lettmg of the contract. I do not know that even the plane have been prepared. I am not informed that tenders have been let. I am not aware that the city council has been informed that the plans have been approved. 1 inquired lately from them whether the plans of the Canadian Pacific railway had been submitted, and I was told that they had not been. I understand, also, that the Board of Trade recently applied to the Canadian Pacific railway to ascertain when they would commence the building of that station, and the only answer was that it would be done in due time. That was all the comfort they got. So far

nothing has been done. No wonder that there is a great deal of discontent in the city of Quebec to-day. My hon. friend the Postmaster General made the statement a few days ago that the people of Quebec were satisfied with the changes, but that there was discontent because the commissioner, Major Leonard, had been slow in carrying on the work. The people of Quebec have been in this matter extremely generous and extremely forbearing. I do not admit that they have been satisfied with the changes made. They have accepted the changes suggested by the Government. They agreed to have the union station; but they di<l_ so under a reasonable expectation that this work would be commenced and completed at an early date. But I venture to say with great confidence that, if the people had anticipated that there would have been such delay as there has been, three years having elapsed before the work was completed, they would never have given consent to the changed site of the station. This journal goes on summarizing the letter of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister:
Champlain market station: Minister of Railways informs that plans will be completed next week and action taken immediately after without the slightest unnecessary delay.
That was on the 24th of January. The plans were not all completed until the middle of May, and the notices for tenders were sent out within the last fifteen days, or thereabouts.
Sir, what is the kind of station that we shall have at the Champlain market? The contract by which the city of Quebec sold the market to the Government said in so many words that one of the reasons why they sold that property, which is of great value, as everybody knows, for $100,000, which was simply a nominal sum, was that a station of great value was to be placed there. And a few days ago we had before us the plan of the station to be placed on the Champlain market, and it is what? It is a building which will cost but $70,000, a brick building of the most modest proportions, something which is simply unworthy of the city of Quebec; and I must protest, on behalf of the city of Quebec, that it is treating that city with contempt to place such a building as that beneath the walls of the city, where it will be daily in evidence to all comers. We should have something in keeping with the grandeur of the enterprise. But
the people of Quebec will have to take what is offered them. This process verbal goes on to say:
Tunnel: construction will be undertaken as mentioned in banquet. Connection with Canadian Northern at Cap Rouge entering St. Charles side of the city will he ready for traffic when road ready for operation.
I do not know what was mentioned at the banquet, but I understand my hon. friend stated that the tunnel would be constructed at a very early date, as it was part of the work that was necessary for the terminals of the Grand Trunk Pacific at Quebec. I think that nothing has been done up to the present time towards the construction of the tunnel. I understand that correspondence has been exchanged between Major Leonard, of the National Transcontinental railway, and Mr. Chamberlin, the president of the Grand Trunk, the effect of which is that it is proposed to delay the construction of the tunnel. It has been stated, and I have not seen it denied-if it is not so I shall be glad to hear from the Prime Minister or the Postmaster General-that it is not intended to construct the tunnel at an early date, as stated at the Quebec banquet. My hon,. friend the Postmaster General knows as well as I do, because he represents the county of Quebec, that without the tunnel the union station is absolutely of no use to the Transcontinental. A train coming from the West must come to the riveT front at Champlain market, and there must be a tunnel for that purpose. That is the condition of things which exists today in the city of Quebec and no wonder the people are disappointed, no wonder they are sore and sick of heart. What excuse has the Government to offer for such delay as has occurred? What can be said to the people of Quebec for delaying this work from day to day and from year to year? Before we leift office in 1911 we had given a contract for the building of a station at Champlain market at a cost of $1,000,000. I heard the Postmaster General say the other day that the station would not be of any use as it would occupy so much ground that there would be none left between the station and the cliff for the building of lines. I may say that that consideration has been given attention by other men more competent than my hon. friend. It was taken into consideration by all the railway companies to which I alluded a moment ago. Al'l the railway companies that come to Quebec had agreed to that station, and my hon. friend says that it

would be of no use. Why the plans were changed passes my comprehension. I know the value of a union station. It has been admitted by many cities that it is better to have one union station than two or three independent ones. My hon. friend the Postmaster General knows that the topographical conditions of Quebec make it impossible to have a union station except at great cost. You may have a union station, it is true, but it will add greatly to the cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific and be inconveniently situated. A union station on the cliff near the Plains of Abraham would have been much more conveniently situated for passenger traffic, but that is not being done. The station is being placed in the valley of the St. Charles river: The Grand Trunk Pacific is. in the valley of St. Lawrence, and between those rivers there is a cliff at least 200 feet high which has to be overcome, and which makes a tunnel absolutely necessary. The Prime Minister gave his pledge to the people of Quebec that within a very short time this station would be built, but six months have passed and he has yet taken no stepsto redeem his promise. That is the way Quebec has been treated right along, and no wonder the people are sore. But it is not a matter 11 p.m. of disappointment simply to the people of Quebec; they are not the only people interested. The whole of Canada is vitally interested in this project, and unless a station is built at Quebec the Grand Trunk Pacific will be of no value whatever. The Minister of Public Works said a moment ago that it was a mistake ever to have built this Transcontinental, but I say if ever a work was needed it was the building of this road, and I believe that that question whenever submitted to the Canadian people will be approved as it always has been approved whenever submitted to them. But the railway can be of no value unless all the necessary works are completed.
To sum up what I have said, it was a mistake to change the station from Champlain Market to the St. Charles river. It was a mistake to change the shops from near the bridge to St. Malo. That is my judgment in view of the interests of the road, but I submit to what has been done. One thing, however, we have a right to hope for, and not only to hope for but to exact from this Government, and that is that having made these changes they must carry them out without any delay whatever.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The right hon. gentleman has made a very eloquent plea indeed. He has practically confined his remarks to the Quebec situation, but has touched en passant on the question of the so-called degradation of the road. He has told us that the Minister of Public Works admitted the degradation. I do not think the people of this country can be led astray on this question. It is a question whether this road could not have been better constructed some other way from the one adopted. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) made a great speech on that question-probably the best of his life. He gave us quotations and opinions supporting his views; but there are opinions to the contrary, and whether the principle of momentum grades is right or wrong, I think the hon. member for South Renfrew will admit that it pays to have momentum grades during the time of construction, and that if necessary they can be levelled down after the road is completed more cheaply than during construction.


George Perry Graham: I do not admit that at all; I contend to the contrary absolutely.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Does my hon. friend deny that momentum grades are very often used, and that it is good railway practice to remove these grades after the line has been completed?


George Perry Graham: I have consulted a good many authorities on that point. Where a road has very heavy gradients like the Canadian Pacific railway had, and it is impossible to overcome them, it is good railway practice even in this country to introduce momentum grades as they reduce the ruling grades where they are heavy. But the best engineers I have consulted- and if I did not give this information to the House before, it was in my hands- maintain that it costs much more to remedy these degradations after the road has been completed than it would cost to remedy them during construction. It is obvious that after the road has been opened for traffic the trains would be seriously interfered with by ballast trains wiping out these momentum grades. These construction trains could only work at certain intervals, and consequently the cost of remedying the degradations would be much higher than if done during construction.


Robert Rogers: I would like to say for the information of my hon. friend that only

this morning the chief engineer of the Transcontinental told me that this work could be carried out after completion of the road for one-third less what it would cost during construction.


George Perry Graham: That is not the opinion of the engineers whom I have consulted. I think it is only reasonable to expect that the work could be done more cheaply during construction than after completion of the road, when the work could only be done at intervals.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Engineers may differ, but at all events the opinion of the engi-. n.eer appointed by my hon. friend should have some weight. Mr. Gordon Grant was not appointed by us; he was chief engineer of the Transcontinental when we came into power, and as the Minister of Public Works has just said, it is his opinion that this work can be done much more cheaply after the completion of the road.
My hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) says himself that it is a question of opinion amongst engineers. Let us take it that way. Engineers will differ on that question as lawyers will differ on certain questions, but >at all events there is one point about which nobody has differed and that is that these grades, if they are not proper ones, can be remedied at any time. That cannot be controverted, that cannot ibe gainsaid. Now we have the opinion of the man under whose direction, as chief engineer, these things were done, and who tells us that they can be remedied for a bagatelle of $200,000.


George Perry Graham: Then they must be
remedied?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Nobody has ever
pretended that there are not certain grades which are not according to the specifications, but as my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) has said, there was a great hurry to finish the road *and it will be admitted by every one that it would take less time to construct a road with these temporary grades than it would have taken to build a road at once with grades of .04 per cent. Where is the great crime about that? There is none. These things are going to be remedied; they are going to be put in final shape. Whatever bon. gentlemen may say against this Government in that respect, at all events it cannot he alleged as a reason why the Grand Trunk Pacific will not take the road over.
Let us come to the remarks made by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) about the Quebec terminals. The Quebec terminals have been the subject of discussion for some time, and the remarks made to-night by my right hon. friend are only a reproduction in more eloquent form of many articles published by the Liberal newspapers in Quebec. What is the situation in that respect? I have made several statements in the House on this matter and I am going to take it up briefly to-night so that there will be no misunderstanding about it. The plans which had been prepared for the Quebec terminal and station were: in the minds of almost every good citizen of Quebec, impossible of realization from the point of view of busibess and the public interest. Everybody knew that these plans had been adopted for a certain, purpose which nobody could guess, but many of the best political friends of my right hon. friend were themselves absolutely of the opinion that this station could not be built as it had been planned. This station, as mapped out under the former Government, was to be the sole and only terminal for this big Transcontinental railway. I will appeal to any one of common sense who knows the city of Quebec, and knows the space between the cliff and the river front, to say whether, both from the engineering and business point of view, this was the proper place for the terminal of the National Transcontinental railway. Surely, for a terminal and station of that kind you must have space. You must have space for freight sheds, for yards and for a great number of cars near the station. Any one who had seen the proposed site, any school child, would come to the conclusion that it was absolutely impossible to erect a big railway station .at that point. When this question was discussed before the late Government resigned, many Liberals promised the people of Quebec that the situation would be remedied in some way. The city council adopted the proposition because they were told that they must do it, but let my right hon. friend ask the mayor of Quebec, who is one of his best political friends, whether our proposition is a better one than his and I will stand by the answer. That is a fair proposition to make. My right hon. friend will never put that question to the mayor of Quebec because he knows, and because the mayor of Quebec has told him-


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Well, if he has not he is prepared to tell him at any time my right hon. friend wants to know. Instead of that impracticable proposition it is proposed to have the big union station in the division represented in the House of Commons by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. He is dead against it, he says he wants it on the Champlain market which is not at all in the heart and centre of the city, which is far away from the centre and business quarter of the city, which is far away from one of the leading commercial business thoroughfares, St. Joseph street, right in the heart of my hon. friend's constituency. I say that the place for the union station is in the heart of the city as the city is built now. I have to fight in this House in order to have this station in the heart and the centre ot the city and I have to fight that battle against the gentleman who represents that constituency in the House of Commons. That is the stand which he has taken and in which he persists. I was going to ask him whether he was prepared to stand here in the House of Commons and tell us that he preferred the Champlain Market station to the Palais station in his own constituency tout he has relieved me of the necessity of putting that question to him because he has made that declaration two or three times to-night in the course of his speech. He does not want to have that station where the business men and his own friends and supporters unanimously want to have it placed, he is against them, he is fighting against the realization of their will and desire though he is their representative in this Parliament. That is the situation and anybody who knows anything about the condition of public opinion in the city of Quebec will corroborate the statement that I am making.
Now, let us come to the shops. There again we have committed a great crime. What is that crime? We are told that the late Government had done a great thing, that during the eight years which elapsed between 1903 and 1911 they had accomplished the marvellous feat of buying a plot of land. We are told to-night by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition that these shops should have been located at this place which is eight or nine miles from Quebec. We have changed the plans and we have located the shops in or near the

city of Quebec, and we have located them in the constituency represented by the right hon. gentleman himself, and where nintey-nine out of every one hundred of his electors want to see those shops erected. As a matter of fact, the right hon. gentleman is about the only man who opposes that change. I defy him to go to Quebec and get from his own electors a petition signed-and if he gets one-third of his electors to ask that these shops should be continued to be located at Cap Rouge, I shall stand by that decision and I shall ask that they be changed back to Cap Rouge. Let my right hon. friend try that.
In speaking as I do to-night I know as well as any one can know that in locating those shops at St. Malo we have met the views and desires of almost every good citizen in Quebec, and particularly of the electors of Quebec East, who are represented by this very gentleman who fights against the unanimous desire of his own electors. We are told by the right hon. gentleman that these shops should have been built at Cap Rouge, nine miles from Quebec, so that they would be on the line of tire Transcontinental railway. He tells us that these shops should not be in Quebec or near Quebec, because they will not be on the line of the railway. Does the right hon. gentleman mean that the National Transcontinental railway is not going to enter Quebec at all, because he says that to have the shops established on the line of the road we must have them nine miles outside of Quebec. Surely his desire is that the Transcontinental railway should enter Quebec, and if it does enter Quebec, then by putting the shops in or near Quebec, we can get them by one means or another located on the line of the National Transcontinental. If that be so, there is nothing left of his argument except that he might want the railway to pass over the Quebec bridge, nine miles from Quebec and go to Portland or some other place.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is time for hon.
gentlemen opposite to say, hear, hear; but they should think this matter over. We shall hear more of this matter later and we shall have the opinion of the people of Quebec on it at some time or another, and then we shall know who was right and who was wrong. I assume the full responsibility before the House, and before the coun-

try, and before the electors of my right hon. friend, for this change, and I am prepared to stand by their decision on the question. This will be one of the issues which will be raised when the people have an occasion to pronounce upon it.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: You will be defeated just the same.


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: Will the elections be soon?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: They may be sooner than the hon. member would like.


David Arthur Lafortune: I have no fear.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: As to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau), I would not exchange the chances I have to come back here with his. Let him wait and see.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I am waiting for you.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Is that an invitation?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Any time you like I am ready.	.


Mr. PELLET  LER@: Then it will be fully considered.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: You are not accepting.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Just wait and see.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Vou will not be
elected.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. the Postmaster General has the floor, and he is entitled to a hearing without interruption.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We were told by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition that all the railways had agreed to the location of that station at Champlain market, and although the newspapers stated it many times, the people of Quebec had doubts about it. One of the first things I did after the elections of 1911 was to ask the Canadian Pacific railway whether that statement were true, and the answer given me by the Canadian Pacific railway was that it was preposterous to think of a union station at the Champlain market, and that they had not even considered the question. The gentleman who gave me that answer was Mr. McNichol, and it was confirmed to me by Sir Thomas Shaugnessey.
My right hon. friend said that all the railways had accepted the Champlain Mar-321
ket station, but if it was a station only for the Grand Trunk Pacific, what. business had the other railways to accept it or refuse it ? Why were the other railways brought into consultation if they had no business in the matter. We were told in Quebec that this was going to be a union station, and with a blare of trumpets the Hon. Mr. Parent called together the heads of the railway companies, and we were told they had met and considered the situation and that they had all agreed that Champlain market was the proper place to build a station. To-night for the first time I have heard from the right hon. gentleman that it was not intended that Champlain market should Ibe a union station, but if that be so why were the other railway companies asked to confer about it? I shall wait for the answer before I proceed further.
Now, as a matter of fact, all the railway men who have been consulted by me told me that Mr. Parent had asked them about it, but as they were not concerned they would not take any part in the discussion. They said that the Champlain market was no place for a station, and that they would not go there, but that as Mr. Parent wanted to have it there they had nothing to say about it. And yet that is the great argument which the right hon. gentleman has put forward this session, and last session, and the session before, in order to-justify the choice of the Champlain market.
We are told this Government has not kept faith with the people of Quebec so far as this station is concerned. The hon. member for Quebec Centre (Mr. Lachance) said something like that the other day, and it was really very amusing to hear him say so, in view of the fact that we have entered into a contract between the Government, the Transcontinental Railway Commission and the city of Quebec, which is in black and white. There is not one item or one line in that contract about the station at Champlain market. This contract asks for the building of a union station at the Palais, and the building of the shops at St. Malo has been assented to at the request of the mayor of Quebec and of the members of the city council of Quebec, the majority of whom are Liberals.
They are the people who have asked for that. The mayor of Quebec came here with several aldermen, and, in my presence, they put to the Minister of Railways and the Chairman of the Transcontinental Commission their request that the shops should be located at St. Malcr, near Quebec. This was



done at their request. Why make so many exaggerations about the matter now? When the Government succeeded in having the shops located at St. Malo, a contract was entered into under which the covenants of the former contract entered into by Mr. Parent were put to one side, and under which the Government undertook to build a union station with the Canadian Pacific and to locate the shops at St. Malo. Under that contract the city of Quebec consented to give the use of certain streets, and to grant exemption of taxes for twenty years, and certain privileges in regard to water taxes as well. My right hon. friend, a member for the city of Quebec, just like the hon. member for Quebec centre (Mr. Lachance), have taken so little interest in this matter; they have put so little of their heart into it that they do not know even what the covenants of the contracts are, and they speak of the Cnamplain market as 'being one o.f the contractual obligations. I will tell my right hon. friend that it is not one. The contract with the city of Quebec will be fulfilled when the union station is built, and the Champlain Market station is being built by the Government over and above the bargain which we have made with the city of Quebec. I want the right hon. gentleman to know that to-night for the first time, because he has evidently never heard of it before.' He has taken his information from old papers and from his own Liberal paper in Quebec, whose mission, as well as whose very life, is to lie every day of the year in regard to the matter; and I am not surprised, if his information has been taken from the columns of that paper, that my right hon. friend and the member for Quebec have so little information in regard to the matter. The Champlain Market station is something which the Government have given to Quebec, and which they are not obliged to give to Quebec. I cannot repeat that too often in order to make the people understand the matter, which is apparently so little understood by the gentlemen who represent here the city of Quebec.
My right 'hon. friend has read a resolution from the city council of Quebec in which complaints are made that this work has not been begun sooner. This resolu tion was passed, I think, about the middle of May; it does not contain one iota of complaint against the Government; and without boasting, I think I can venture to say that the people of Quebec understand that they owe something to this Govern-

ment by whom they have been taken care of as they never were before during the fifteen years of the Liberal regime.


Mr. DELISLE:: What have you done?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: A resolution was
passed complaining of the Chairman of the Transcontinental. When the spring came, *the people of Quebec expected that the works which were not under way would be started. They were not started, and the people complained and rightly so. I am not going to make any subterfuge about the matter. I think these works should have begun earlier this spring. The people are unanimously of that opinion, and I agree with them. We succeeded in starting the shops last fall; and we succeeded in starting many other great public works in Quebec, which were -sorely and badly neglected by my right hon. friend. The Champlain Market station should have been started as soon as the snow left the ground; and although that was not done, it was started as soon as possible, and I have the pleasure to read for the information of the House and of the people of Quebec the following letter:
Dear Mr. Pelletier:
For your information, I may say that I have to-day written to the commission recommending that the tender for the erection of the Champlain Market station be awarded to Mr. Joseph Gosselin, of L6vis, Quebec, who is the lowest tenderer for the work. I am just in receipt of a telegram from Mr. Leonard authorizing my recommendation to the letting of this contract be forwarded to the Government. It will he sent over to-morrow. I have wired Doucet-
That is the district engineer.
__to lay out the work and instruct Gosselin to
go ahead.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd) Gordon Grant,
Chief Engineer.
That is another thing that this Government have started when, during the long fifteen years of the Liberal regime, there was never anything started. We have started things now, and they are going to be carried to completion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the amount of that contract?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am not in a position to tell my hon. friend.
My right hon. friend has complained that the Grand Trunk Pacific are not giving their consent to the plans and to the changes. I have answered that so often that I have reason to be surprised that it is brought up again. To prove his theory my right

hon. friend has read a letter signed by Mr. Chamberlin, dated the 9th of August, 1913. Why he should do that, I fail to understand. Mr. Chamberlin wrote that letter in the month of August, 1913; but the objections which he formulated in that letter were later on dealt with. He sent Mr. Biggar and Mr. Kelley to Ottawa.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Beattie of the Canadian Pacific railway was there, and Mr. Dalrymple of the Grand Trunk railway.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: All these objections were taken up one by one, and were settled to the satisfaction of the Grand Trunk railway people.


Wilfrid Laurier: I moved for the correspondence, and it has not been brought down.	'


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My right hon. friend was not there; I was.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have asked for the correspondence.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Mr. Chamberlin has said many times to Mr. Cochrane and myself that he would like to have these plans submitted to him; but he has said: I will trust you. He has said in my presence to Mr. Cochrane on many occasions: I will trust you to decide those questions, and 1 am sure you will decide them in the best interest of the the country. He has said: What you will do, I shall be satisfied with. When this contract was entered into, Mr. Chamberlin complained of one thing. I asked him the other day again, and he said that he had agreed to what we had done; that that was all right; but he complained that he had not been notified that the papers had been signed. Of course, he may be right in this respect, and I will not enter into the difficulties which may have arisen between Mr. Chamberlin and Mr. Leonard; but that was his complaint. He said, however, as to the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company: My suggestions have been met; what have I to complain of ?
As regards the tunnel, we had that matter up again on Saturday. We have had it up on many occasions. My hon. friend said on Saturday that this tunnel would never be built.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A week-end matter.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, that is a week-end matter. The Minister of Railways has said that this tunnel will be built. The acting
32 lj
Minister of Railways repeated that statement on Saturday on the floor of this House.


Wilfrid Laurier: When will it be built ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We are dealing now
with the Champlain market station, which is the most pressing subject at the moment, because we wish to have it ready when the road is completed. The construction of the shops will take some time, but they are under way and good progress is being made. The Prime Minister made a statement to this effect at Quebec in the month of October last; his word is as good as his bond, and the people of Quebec know it. It may be that the Grand Trunk Pacific will not take over the road when it is completed; I shall not at the moment discuss whether that would be a great blessing or a great calamity, but I do know that if the Grand Trunk Pacific Company has any objection to leasing the eastern section of the Transcontinental, the only cause of this objection will be that they will have to carry about their neck the millstone of the heavy cost of the Transcontinental. That is not guesswork; that I know is a fact. Anybody who confers with the Grand Trunk Pacific people will know that what I say is true. Not only is it true that they will find it a big proposition, in view of the cost of the road, to give reasonable freight rates, but the Grand Trunk railway, which is really the Grand Trunk Pacific, will have to consider whether or not they would ruin and wreck the Grand Trunk railway if they entered upon this lease. This is one of the points to which I particularly call my right hon. friend's attention. I say that the motion made by the hon. member for the city of St. John is not justified by the facts which I have related, which are well known and recognized as true by every one who has looked into this question. If there is any difficulty about this matter, the difficulty will be rightly laid at the door of the gentlemen who are responsible for the excessive cost of this railway. This railway will cost in the vicinity of $100,000 a mile. What railway company will, without a great deal of consideration and hesitation, undertake to operate a road under those conditions, paying interest on this very large outlay? That is a serious question and if the difficulty ever does arise the responsibility will rest with those who have built the road and who loudly complain about what we have done in respect of the Canadian Northern railway, which

cost $35,000 to $40,000 a mile, while the National Transcontinental cost $100,000 a mile.


Francis N. McCrea: There is some difference
not in only in the cost of these two roads, but in the quality as well.
Mr, PELLETIER: I do not know about that; when the Canadian Northern is completed, I think it will be one of the best roads not only in Canada but in America.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend, perhaps inadvertently, did not answer the question put to him a moment ago: when will the work of the tunnel begin?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The work on the tunnel will begin as soon as possible. It will be begun quite in time for my hon. friend to be very much disappointed over the fact that it has been begun and that his party has lost more of its popularity in the city of Quebec.


Mr. LACHANCE (Quebec Centre):: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the House will allow me to say a few words more this evening, though I have already spoken several times on the question of the Transcontinental, and particularly in regard to the condition in which the the property of that railway line is in the city of Quebec, since this Government reached power in the month of September, 1911.
In view of the statements and misstatements of facts made by the hon. Postmaster General in the speech he has just delivered, statements which are foundationless in many instances, I deem it my duty to address the House once more in order to set matters right.
There is one matter concerning which I shall at once let the minister know what are my views, as well as the views of the citizens of Quebec, Conservatives as well as Liberals; I refer to the attacks directed against the right hon. leader of the Opposition by the Postmaster General. The citizens of Quebec are in the same mood to-day as they were of yore, their hopes are the same, their faith and trust in our leader are unchanged.
The hon. Postmaster General thought it proper to voice a kind of protest and to state that in Quebec there might be surprises ip store for him. If there be surprises in store for any one, it is for the hon. Postmaster General who has taken the responsibility for all that happened, or rather fell short of happening, within the last three years. The Postmaster General is too 
shrewd to flatter himself with the hope of having prepared surprises for the leader of the Opposition in Quebec. However, should he deceive himself to that extent, I am bound to rid him of that false notion, and to assure him that his opinion will not count for much in our city as against the statements and opinions of the hon. leader of the Opposition. Though he may simulate indignation, I am in a position to state that the public feeling in Quebec is against him, especially in regard to the matter now under the consideration of the House, and it will assert itself in the proper place and time. There are numerous reasons for that. The hon. gentleman is a man of resources. When he has a case which is as good as lost, he endeavours to make believe that his opponent is open to almost any charge, and accordingly he takes on the airs of a man in a rage. Those who are well acquainted with him do not worry very much over it; they know that the only occasion for that exhibition of temper is the weakness of his case.
The Postmaster General told us he could not guess the reason why such terminal plans had been adopted by the Liberal Government previous to 1911. He must be the only one that is left in the dark; for every engineer has stated the reason. On the other hand, no one knows what can have induced this Government to agree to the changes effected in the plans since 1911.
True, the hon. Postmaster General insinuated that there were possibly improper motives that would explain the plans laid down for the [DOT] building of the original terminals. Insinuations are easily made, and I might reply that some people have insinuated in this connection that speculation was rife in connection with the changes effected in the last instance. I do not put very much faith in that kind of gossip and I prefer dealing with the question on its actual merit, which will not prevent the people of Quebec from wondering what justification there is for such changes. The hon. gentleman held the floor three-quarters of an hour without broaching the subject; last week, on several occasions, and also in the course of the debate on the report of Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton he dealt with the subject, but without offering any satisfactory explanation. So far, accordingly, I see no reason why the leader of the Opposition should have lost the confidence of his constituents, as was claimed by the hon. Postmaster General. The latter gentleman has enough

to clear his skirts of without concerning himself with the welfare of the electors of Quebec East, and the latter will know enough to remain firm in the faith they have put in Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the last thirty years, notwithstanding the vituperations of the hon. Postmaster General.
I have carefully gone through the reports, and I have followed the whole debate in this connection since the opening of this session; we are not making of this a-party question for the city and harbour of Quebec, but we consider it a matter of the deepest concern for Canada as a whole. The hon. Postmaster General pretends to find a justification of the course followed in the restricted area available on Cape Diamond for the Transcontinental terminals. What does his knowledge of engineering amount to? I prefer the opinion of three noted engineers to his. In 1906, the Citizens' Committee of Quebec, comprising delegates of the city council and of the board of trade, and a representative of each of the railway and steamship companies, and of the shipping interests of Quebec, Montreal, the whole of Canada and even Great Britain, appointed Messrs. Ho are, Boswell and Doucet to prepare a report as to the most convenient site for the Transcontinental terminals. These three gentlemen submitted their conclusions in writing to that committee, and recommended building on the site of Champlain market and Cape Diamond the Transcontinental terminals, stations, deep water wharfs, sheds, shunting yards, local repair workshops, and these plans have been unanimously endorsed by the Citizens' Committee. All the railway companies on the south shore of the St. Lawrence in the district of Quebec, would have had the privilege of using such terminals after the bridge was built, and it was considered of enormous advantage to be able to build the stations, wharfs, etc., close to deep water. And now the hon. Postmaster General is endeavouring to give to this House the impression that all those people were astray as regards the sufficiency of space.
It is contended that union stations are rather the general rule nowadays; but it should not be forgotten that Quebec occupies a somewhat unique position to-day. It is a seaport, and we were intent on ensuring to the traffic during summer the immense advantage of direct transhipment from the cars to the ship, which would have materially cut down the general cost of transportation. Deep water wharfs
might have been constructed there at low cost over a distance of several miles, along which steamers of the highest tonnage might have loaded or unloaded at any time. Such were the main reasons which prompted the findings and recommendations of the engineers. The union station at the Palais is and will be especially of use to the Canadian Pacific railway which has at. that place no accommodation whatever for freight, and which will receive from the Government yearly interest on the cost of the station and a high rental as compensation for its use. Such is the embarrassment of the Government when it comes to give a plausible reason justifying the change in the plans, that the best they thought they could do was to unload the responsibility on one of their officials, Major Leonard. They even succeeded in having the statement endorsed by public bodies in Quebec, but it is childish to entertain the hope that the people of Quebec will give credence to such an explanation. Major Leonard was an official of that Government and the latter was in a position to exact compliance with its orders. Is there in the whole record a single word of protest on behalf of the Government against Major Leonard as regards his attitude towards Quebec? Not one. And it is only quite recently that the Government made that discovery. But no one will take any stock in their contention. Major Leonard's unfriendly stand is only the counterpart of hostility ehown in higher situations as regards Quebec; and whatever the Government may say, they are alone responsible for the delays incurred within the last three years in the carrying on of the work connected with the Transcontinental terminals in Quebec, to the detriment of that undertaking as well as of the whole of Canada.
For several months past the Transcontinental line has been practically open to circulation of trains; we were informed four or five days ago in this House that it would, be wholly completed by the month of 'September. However no provision whatever has. as yet been made in Quebec to meet the requirements of traffic. That unfortunate state of things is due wholly to the remissness of this Government. Within the last; three years not a single shovelful of eartha has been moved, not a single stone has been laid for the foundations of the necessary buildings which should by this time be completed.
The Liberal Government, it must be averred, had provided a series of magnifi-


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in answer to some criti-12 m. cisms that have been made as to the course of the Government, in connection with the National Transcontinental railway. Nearly everything put forward by my hon. friends on the other side has been repeated two or three times before; but, as the charge is once more made, tfie answer must be once more given. It can perhaps be given in an even more effective way to-night than on previous occasions.
The first two paragraphs of my hon. friend's amendment which set forth the particulars of the default of the Government, refer to the alleged reduction in the standard of construction and to the absence of consent by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The hon. gentleman, if he had looked at the agreement of 1903 would not perhaps have fallen into the error into which apparently he has. Every hon. gentleman, including the mover of this resolution, who has spoken on the other side of the House, has obviously endeavoured to build up a case for the Grand Trunk Pacific against the country. They have taken it for granted that there has been some default on the part of the country, that the consent of the Grand Trunk has not been given to matters an respect of which its consent was required. If they had thought for one moment they would have known that their own law

officers, as far back as 1906, declared that the consent of the Grand Trunk is not required with respect to such matters. The then Minister of Justice and the Deputy Minister of Justice so advised them, and did so by reason of this provision contained in the fifth clause of the agreement made in 1903 between the Government and the company:
The said eastern division shall be constructed by and at the expense of the Government upon such a looation and according to such plans and specifications as it shall determine, having due regard to directness, easy gradients, and favourable curves.
The opinion of the law officers of the Crown in 1906 was that under this provision the location which includes gradients and curves, w'as entirely within the discretion of the Government, and that the discretion conferred upon the Government under clause 5 was not in the least reduced or removed by clause 7, which apparently is relied on by hon. gentlemen opposite.
But, putting aside for a moment the favourable position of the Government, which hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to break down against the interest of tne country, under the contract, w>nat does all this amount to? Upon whose advice has it been done? Is it to be expected that members of the Government-the Minister of Railways and the Postmaster General-snan follow the construction of this railway ana see that this curve or that or the other is of a proper proportion and that this grade or the other does not exceed a certain percentage? These hon. gentlemen know that they placed the construction of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway under a commission. They did that for a certain purpose, in order that it might be put into capable hands, that there might be, I suppose, no political interference, and that the work might be carried on in the best interests of the country. When we came into power we placed that work under the Charge of one of the most capable railway men we could find in Canada; but, more than that, we left the engineering part of it absolutely under the control of the very gentleman whom they themselves had selected, a gentleman of great eminence in his profession. Mr. Gordon Grant; and I tell them now that when they decry these gradients, when they endeavour to besmirch the very railroad which they themselves undertook to construct, they are casting reflections, not upon the Government, but upon the very engineer whom they selected as a man capable of carrying out this work. In order that there Should be

no mistake about that, I shall place upon ' Hansard ' a letter which I think has never yet been read, and which perhaps will give these gentlemen some light on the reasons and considerations which led to what they cail, without any foundation whatever, the degradation of this road. This letter was written by Mr. Gordon Grant on the 3rd of December, 1912, to the Minister of Railways and Canals, and is in these terms:
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Cochrane:
In accordance with your verbal request for an expression of my opinion as to the use of velocity grades on this, or any other line, and with special regard to the recent use of velocity grades on district ' C.'
l may say, that, disregarding ordinary sags in long fills, or fills over soft ground, that it has been considered inadvisable to bring up to profile grade at present and pay contractors' prices for this unnecesary work; there are, as you will see, only two cases that virtual grades have been adopted, and the saving effected by this slight change amount to $27,797.
They are both well within velocity limits and will not affect the hauling capacity of a locomotive to the extent of a single pound.
The introduction of virtual grades in railway construction for the purpose of economy in first cost and subsequent economy in operation by reason of reduced interest charges, cannot he considered other than a good business proposition.
In so far as this concerns the Transcontinental railway, I always was, and am still of opinion that virtual grades should have been used whenever it was practical and economical to do so, and that a very much larger amount of money could have been saved by their use, as the standard of grade adopted, together with the general topography of the country traversed by this line, effect a combination in favour of a virtual grade that an engineer will rarely or ever meet with.
I may also add that, in so far as I am personally concerned in this matter, while I was employed on this line, as a locating engineer, I used, in my location, virtual grades wherever it was practical, economical and common sense to do so.
I leave you to judge of my surprise when orders came from Ottawa that these grades would not he allowed, and that the profiles so made must be changed. This was accordingly done, which greatly increased the cost of construction, without, in any way, benefiting the line as regards operation.
Had these grades been adopted, where conditions warranted, if they ever did, the sags so introduced could have been removed wholly or in part by the operating company, at one-half the cost of contractors' prices, and the same applies to the permanent structures that would have been, in such cases, left out until more economical conditions obtained for their construction.
Tours truly,
Gordon Grant, Chief Engineer.

So that these hon. gentlemen, in attacking the Government for the course which has been taken by the commissioner of the Transcontinental railway, are in reality, attacking the very engineer whom they themselves appointed, and not attacking the Government at all, because every hon. gentleman in this House knows that in matters requiring the advantage of expert service, such as the construction of a railway, it would be most absurd foolishness on the part of any member of the Government who had not that expert knowledge to set himself up against an engineer eminent in his profession. This is their complaint', that we have followed for the purpose of economy, and for' the purpose of reduced cost of operation, the advice of the very engineer whom they themselves appointed, and have carried out the ideas which he said were based upon economy, common sense and the best practice of the engineering profession. This is what the tremendous speech of my hon. friend from St. John amounts to. He ventures to set up an opinion in a matter in which he is most profoundly ignorant, against that of a man at least as able as himself who has devoted his life to the study of problems such as this.


William Pugsley: I have the opinion of
the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Robert Laird Borden: I have the opinion of
the chief engineer of the Transcontinental railway appointed by the Government of which my hon. friend was' a member. Would the hon. gentleman have us believe that in respect of the construction of the Transcontinental railway, he and his Government were to take the advice not of the engineer whom they selected as best fitted for the purpose, but the advice of the engineer of the company whose interests might be profoundly different from those of this country in that regard? Does my hon. friend eay that it was the practice of the late Administration to reject the advice of their own engineer and accept the advice of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company? .


William Pugsley: What I said was that
under the agreement of 1903 the plans and specifications were subject to the approval of the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Robert Laird Borden: I have just alluded to
the advice of the law officers of the Crown,
who declared as far back as 1906 that the provisions of section 7 to which my hon. friends alluded did not in the least take away from the right of the Government under section 5 of the agreement to be guided by the judgment and opinion of their own engineers in respect of location, in respect of gradients, and in respect of curves. Therefore, when my hon. friend suggests that the Government should accept the advice of the Grand Trunk Pacific engineer instead of the advice of their own engineer, he is suggesting to the House that they should .accept that advice in respect of a matter which the Government was to judge and which the Grand. Trunk Pacific Railway Company was not to judge; and I leave it to the judgment of any hon. member of this House or of any man in this country as to whether or not that would have been a vise and justifiable proceeding on the part of the late Government or on the part of this Government. As a matter of fact what the commissioners of the Transcontinental railway did under the advice of their own engineer was this: they did precisely what the Grand Trunk Pacific has been doing In respect to the western division. They were leaving some work to be carried out after the road was put in operation because it could then be carriedoutatlesscost. And I want to tell my hon. friend, if he does not know it, that the Grand Trunk Pacific has been operating for four and a half years the lines in the prairie provinces. I have the certificate of the Government inspecting engineer, Mr. Schreiber, that that road is not completed to-day-that there is work still to be done on it. Why was that? Because the Grand Trunk Pacific knew in respect of that western division what the commissioners of the Transcontinental realized in respect of the eastern division, namely, that there was a good deal of work of that kind that could be done more economically after the road was in operation, and therefore, they left it to be done at that time; and if the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company raise any question with regard to that, we can point to their own example and their own practice in respect to the western division. We can also justfy our course by the advice of the engineer of the Transcontinental railway appointed by the Government of which my hon. friends opposite were members at the time.
My right hon. friend the leader of the

Opposition has repeated a great many of his laments about the terminals at Quebec. He has not said anything new, but has repeated in another form what he has already said three or four times during the present session. He has alluded to the speech I made in Quebec last autumn. I am prepared to stand and do stand to-day by every word and every line of that speech, which was regarded as satisfactory, so far as I could learn, by the people of Quebec to whom it was addressed. I have it here under my hand, and I challenge my right hon. friend to point to one word or one line that has not been justified by subsequent events. He has stated here before Parliament that what he accomplished from 1903 to 1911 was to buy a piece of land at Cap Eouge, and he cannot point to anything else that he did, so far as I am aware. What have we done? I shall tell my right hon. friend what we have done in the three years as compared with what he and his party did during the eight years. In the first place, we have made arrangements to provide a ferry boat of large dimensions capable of holding a whole passenger train at one crossing. That boat was contracted for last year in Great Britain and I understand it will be delivered during the present season. It is to be used pending the completion of the Quebec bridge. We have provided ferry landings for that boat, and they were under construction last year when I spoke at Quebec. I do not know whether they have yet been completed, but I have no doubt that all due diligence is being exercised in their construction.
It is perfectly true that we have changed the location of the shops, which originally were to have been constructed at St. Foye. We propose to erect them at St. Malo, in the city of Quebec, and they are now in course of erection there. I am bound to say that during my visit to Quebec last autumn I did not find a single man who was willing to offer any criticism with regard to the change. The shops will occupy an area of about 200 acres, and a very large number of men will be employed. My right hon. friend knows it will be easier to secure the necessary labour in the city of Quebec than it would have been at St. Foye. Further, the site originally selected at St. Foye will not be useless. On the contrary, it will be utilized for a large through freight yard which is necessary at that point in order to provide for the distribution of cars on different roads.
We have already erected, as I mentioned lin my speech, a large handsome station at St. Foye, as well as an eighteen stall engine house and every building	necessary . for	the	efficient
operation of the railway. Between the Quebec bridge and the Champlain station a double track has been completed, and then there is a connection, which was alluded to only a day or two ago, with the Canadian Northern at Cap Eouge which permits entrance to the St. Charles side of the city, and which can be utilized for that purpose pending the completion of the tunnel that will connect the St. Lawrence water front with the new union station on the Palais site. I understood my right hon. friend to say that he intended to have a union station at the Champlain market, but he afterwards said that we had misunderstood him in that regard. I do not know that it would have been practicable to have a union station at the Champlain market.


Wilfrid Laurier: What would
be the difference?


Mr. BOEDEN:: By means of a tunnel?


Wilfrid Laurier: If you have a tunnel to connect between the St. Lawrence and the St. Charles, it is just as easy to have a tunnel to connect between the St. Charles and the St. Lawrence.


Frederick William Borden: I did not understand that my right hon. friend contemplated a tunnel.
Sir WILFEID LAUEIEE. The railways were satisfied with the arrangement that was made.


Frederick William Borden: Then, it was not to be
a union station?


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not say it was a union station.


Frederick William Borden: I understand my right
hon. friend to say now that a union station was not contemplated toy his Administration?


Wilfrid Laurier: All the railways were satisfied.


Frederick William Borden: Let us assume that all
the railways were satisfied, but was or was not a union station contemplated by the late Administration?


John Dowsley Reid: How are they going to get to Champlain market?


Wilfrid Laurier: By the Quebec bridge.

Mir. .BORDEN: The Quebec bridge -would not be of much use for that purpose unless you moved it nine miles down the river.


Wilfrid Laurier: Every railway coming to Quebec except the Canadian Pacific railway would come by way of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend has not made it very clear whether or not the late Administration contemplated a union station? I think that a union station at the Champlain market would not be practicable without a tunnel, and my right hon. friend wall not say that he did contemplate a tunnel. Therefore, I assume that it was not a union station that he contemplated, although he is reticent now as to whether he did have that in mind or not. While the tunnel that we propose is essential to the National Transcontinental for effective access to the union station on the St. Lawrence side of the river, I am informed by the commissioners that that tunnel will be equally necessary in the future to other railways in order that they may get access to the St. Lawrence water front. Therefore, it is not a question solely of the access of the Transcontinental railway to the Palais station and the St. Charles river side but it is also a question of the access of other railways to the St. Lawrence.


Wilfrid Laurier: Only the Canadian Pacific railway.


Robert Laird Borden: Well the Canadian Paci-fis railway is a fairly large railway.


John Dowsley Reid: The Canadian Northern railway as well.


Six WILFRID LAURIER:: No, the Canadian Northern will have access at St. Foye.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that some time
ago my right hon. friend contended that the shops were not on the main line of railway.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly not, but the Transcontinental railway is connecting with the Canadian Northern railway at St. Foye.


Robert Laird Borden: It will have access by
this short line of railway, the shops are on that line and if my right hon. friend relies on one side of the argument he must take the other side as well.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does my right hon. friend believe that the location of the shops nine -miles from the main line, to -be connected by a spur line, will be equal to
shops on the main line? It does not matter if you have shops somewhere but certainly the working of the railway is improved by having the shops at St. Malo.


Robert Laird Borden: These shops will have all the necessary connection with the main line of railway because pending the construction and completion of the tunnel there will he very good access to these shops, the St. Charles river front and the Palais station by means of the line which we have just acquired. I told the people of Quebec that:
Between the Quebec bridge and the Champlain market a double track has practically-been completed. There is also a connection with the Canadian Northern railway to Cap Rouge which permits entrance to the St. Charles side of the city, and which can be utilized for this purpose pending the completion of the tunnel that will connect the St. Lawrence water front with the new union station on the Palais site. While that tunnel is essential to the National Transcontinental railway for effective access to the union station and to the St. Charles side, it will be equally necessary to other great railway systems which will naturally acquire access to the great frontage terminals on the St. Lawrence.
I believe this is a good -common sense view of the situation; at all events, it was one which was communicated to me by the commissioner of the Transcontinental railway, -and I had very good reasons to rely on it. Then, I understand it is good practice in railway construction- and in providing terminals to have, if possible, one union station for all the railway systems entering the city. So it was decided that this great railway station should be erected on the Palais site. What I said about it at that time I say now, that it will be a very handsome edifice worthy Doth of the city and of the great railways by which it is to be used. Not only will this building be handsome and spacious, but its arrangement and accommodation will be of the most modern and approved design. Its location is in the most populous part of the city, and it will therefore accommodate most conveniently the greatest number of people. Under these circumstances I do not see why the right hon. gentleman has bad dreams over the situation, and why he disturbs us so -at this stage of the session by repeating what he has said three or four times already.
Further than that, let us see what we have done at the city of Quebec, as compared with the wonderful activity of our predecessors that resulted in the acquisition of some land at St. Foye, and not much else as far as I can see. We have
51C4

acquired three miles of the best water front at Quebec, extending from Sillery to Cape Diamond, and portions of the water front from Cape Diamond to Champlain market have also been secured. What I said in Quebec at that time I stand by to-day. These are my words:
The magnificent waterfront will give to the Government and to the Harbour Commission the opportunity of almost unlimited development of port and terminal facilities; and I hope you will agree that In thus looking forward to the possibilities of the future the Government have taken no unwise course. In adopting this policy we feel that we are acting not in the interest of Quebec alone but in the interest of all Canada, for Canada as a whole is concerned in the provision of modern and effective facilities necessary for the outflow and inflow of commerce at all its great ports.
Further than that, I pointed out that whenever necessary we could arrange for connection from the Champlain market station to Louise Basin for the transfer of freight, which can largely be carried on at night without disturbance or inconvenience to the business activities of the city.
In addition to that, my right hon. friend will perhaps like to be reminded that whereas he absolutely forgot, in so far as we are aware, the necessities of the great city and port of Quebec in respect to dry dock facilities, we are building to-day opposite Quebec one of the greatest dry docks in the world, which dry dock is absolutely necessary for the commerce which will in the early future flow in ever-increasing volume to the city and port of Quebec. My right hon. friend says we have not done anything, and yet we have done that. As compared with his mighty efforts which resulted in the acquisition of a couple of hundred acres of land at St. Foye, we have accomplished these things; and yet my right hon. friend has the courage to stand up and criticize this Government that has done five times more in three years than he accomplished during the eight years that this transcontinental railway was under construction.
There are a great many other things of which I would like to remind my right hon. friend. We reconstituted the harbour commission in the city of Quebec, and what have they done since that time as compared with what was done during the regime of my right hon. friend? Let me point out to him that they drew, up a general scheme for the future, as well as the immediate, development of the harbour. They called together all those interested in the harbour, tne business interests, the officials of

the railway companies, the steamship lines, the pilots and all other persons who could throw any light upon the best method of development; and they took counsel with them. Having done that, they caused plans to be prepared by competent engineers, and in accordance with these plans, contracts have been let. Some of the works are completed and some are now under construction. The bulkhead wall on the St. Charles side is in course of construction and dredging contracts involving no less than 3,000.000,000 cubic yards have been awarded for dredging at the mouth of the St. Charles. A contract has also been given to capable contractors for the construction of an elevator having a capacity of 1,000,000 bushels with the possibility of arrangements being made for increasing the capacity to 2,500,000 bushels with very little -outlay. I understand that the elevator itself has already been completed.


John Dowsley Reid: Completed and ready.


Robert Laird Borden: Yet, my right hon friend, whose eight years of activity resulted in the acquisition of a couple of hundred acres of land, has seen fit to- jibe at us with this splendid record of what we have actually accomplished staring him in the face all the time. I cannot understand the condition of mind that has led my right hon. friend to take that position. In addition to that I would like to- tell him, if he is entirely oblivious of the fact, that freight sheds have been constructed for the Grand Trunk and Intercolonial and new tracks laid in connection with the -car ferry. I went all over these works when I was last at Quebec, and I was astonished at the progress which had been made in extending the facilities which had been provided there. Besides the things which I have enumerated, shunting engines have been purchased and are now being used with good results in increased efficiency. Indian Cove has been acquired by the commission, a small mill has been erected for the purpose otf working up the timber foT the cribs and a number of large cribs have been constructed there for the purpose of the work which is toeing carried on in the St. Charles river. My right hon. friend should go to Quebec at some convenient time and look at those works; and if he does he will come back with an inspiration which will not cause him to stand up and find fault with the Government for having succeeded so admirably with works that stood still during the eight years from 1903 to 1911.

But that is not all. The Government acquired a portion of the water front of the St. Lawrence, three miles in extent, to which I have already alluded. This naturally caused some difficulty on the part of persons who had been utilizing that water front, and it was thought necessary to make some provision on the front of the St. Charles river. What did we do in that regard? We did not sit down and fold our arms, as the late Administration did. We thought it important and desirable that provision should be made for the improvement of the St. Charles above the railway bridge, near the Louise Basin. The construction of a dam and other works at that point would enable some six miles of the St. Charles river to be used for transportation, and we have been dealing with the work there. I think the contract had been given for the lock when I was in Quebec.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, we had given that contract.


William Pugsley: When was that water front acquired?


Robert Laird Borden: Which water front?


William Pugsley: The water front that my right hon. friend speaks of. Was it not acquired by the commission under Mr. Parent?


Robert Laird Borden: There was a right of way acquired, but as I understand it, the water front was not.


William Pugsley: I think it was.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: You are mistaken
about that; it was bought under Major Leonard.


Robert Laird Borden: The right of way was acquired under the late Government, but the water front was not.


John Dowsley Reid: That is right.


William Pugsley: Mr. Parent spoke to me as Minister of Public Works about it, and I advised him to acquire the water front as well, because I thought it would be done more cheaply, and I am under the impression he did so.


John Dowsley Reid: No, he did not.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) will find in regard to that as in regard to a great many other matters in Quebec under the late Government that it all ended in talk, and when we came into power we found it necessary to acquire the
water front which hon. gentlemen opposite had not acquired. When I was in Quebec I had the honour of being present at the commencement of the work on the St. Charles lock. The contracts had been let and the work is being carried on by a competent contractor.
Under all these circumstances I think that the record of the present Administration in respect to the terminals at Quebec compares most favourably with the record of the late Liberal Government. Indeed, I hardly like to put it that way; I would rather say that looking at what was not done by the Liberal Government in the eight years from 1903 to 1911, and looking at what has been done by this Government in the two and a half years since it has come into power, there is absolutely no comparison between the records of the two. In the one case there was nothing done by the Liberal Government during eight years, while in the other case there has been accomplished in two and a half years by the Conservative Government more than they did in the whole eight years; nay, more than they accomplished in the whole fifteen years of their administration, so far as the development of the harbour of Quebec is concerned.
Let me allude for a moment to the complaint of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) with regard to the operation of the Transcontinental railway in New Brunswick. The hon. gentleman seems to be continually under the delusion that the Government have the right undeT the contract of 1903 to force the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to operate a portion of the line. I say to him that the Government have not the right to compel the Grand Trunk Pacific to operate a portion of the line. The Government can negotiate with them, but they cannot compel them.


William Pugsley: That is all I said.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, what fault has the hon. gentleman to find?


William Pugsley: That you have not tried to negotiate.


Robert Laird Borden: We did negotiate with
them. We negotiated with them in New Brunswick and elsewhere, and the net result was that when we found ourselves unable to conclude with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company in respect to the operation of the line in New Brunswick, an arrangement which we thought in the interests of the country, we undertook the operation of that line by the Intercolonial railway.

and that portion of it which is not still under construction is to-day being operated by the Intercolonial railway. In these circumstances I believe that the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) will justly fall upon deaf ears in this House.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: But not outside the
House.


Robert Laird Borden: That remains to be seen. My hon. friend (Mr. Gauvreau) poses very frequently as a prophet, but we shall see later to what extent his assumption of that role is justified. I can only reiterate once more that we have done infinitely more for the development of the harbour of Quebec in less than three years than did the Liberal Government in all the fifteen years during which they held office, and it ill becomes them to criticise this Government in view of the splendid work it is carrying on there.
Amendment (Mr. Pugsley) negatived on division.
Main motion agreed to, <and the House went into Committee of Supply.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 12.45 a.m., Tuesday.
Tuesday, June 9, 1914.