1914-03-25

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

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons tJcbntcs

[Stage Direction]
Speaker: Hon. Thomas Simpson Spboule.
Wednesday, March 25, 1914.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BRADBURY presented the first report of the Select Committee on the prevention of the pollution of navigable waters.
On motion of Mr. Bradbury, it was agreed, in accordance with recommendations contained in the said report, that the said committee have leave to have its proceedings and any evidence taken by it printed from day to day; that the quorum of the committee be reduced to six members; and that the committee have leave to sit while the House is in session.
Mr. BRADBURY moved:: That the reports and proceedings of and the evidence taken by the Select Special Committee appointed last session to consider Bills No. 2 and No. 116, Letter A of the Senate, respecting the pollution of navigable waters and laid upon the table on Monday, June 2, 1913, be referred to the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the prevention of the pollution of navigable waters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George Henry Bradbury: That a message be sent to the Senate requesting Their Honours to give leave to the Hon. Napoleon Antoine Belcourt, one of their members, to attend and give evidence before the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the prevention of the pollution of navigable waters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: 1.	Has the management of the Intercolonial railway or the Railway Department been asked to make certain urgent works of fencing and draining along the line of the Intercolonial railway at Ste. Louise, county of L'lslet?
2.	Were those petitions investigated?
3.	Is the Government aware that owing to
the non-execution of such works a great deal of damage is said to have been done and is still being caused?	.
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to have those works completed next summer?


Mr. REID:: 1.	The management of the railway has been asked to perform certain work in connection with ditches and repairs of fences along the line of the railway at Ste. Louise, P.Q.
2.	The matter of this request was in vestigated.
3.	No.
4.	It is the intention of the Government to have any necessary work performed during the coming summer.


BEAR RIVER WHARF.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works, since the 10th of October, 1911, purchase property from H. H. Marshall, M.P.P., for Digby county, N.S., for the site of a wharf at Bear River, N.S.?
2.	What was the amount paid for said site?
3.	Has the wharf been built and what did it cost?
4.	When was said wharf completed?
5.	How many tons of freight were landed on and shipped from said wharf since it was built, and how much wharfage was collected?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$1,800.
3.	$7,542.05 including the purchase price.
4.	October, 1913.
5.	No returns have yet been made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


NIAGARA PALLS MAIL DELIVER'S.
Mr. NESBITT:: 1.	When was a mail or letter delivery estab-lishd at Niagara Palls, Ontario?
2.	What was the population at the time?
3.	What was the revenue at the time?
4.	What was the population at the time the last Dominion census was taken?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	On the 30th May, 1911, under the late Government, when the population was less than 12,000, and the revenue a little less than $20,00C. It is presumed that this was done for political reasons.
2	10,036-municipal census, 1910.
3.	$19,684.50.
4.	9,248.


THREE RIVERS MAIL DELIVERY.
Mr. NESBITT:: 1.	When was a mail or letter delivery estab-lishd at Three Rivers, Quebec?
2.	What was the population at the time?
3.	What was the revenue at the time?
4.	What was the population at the time the last Dominion census was taken?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	The letter delivery in Three Rivers was established on the 22nd August, 1907, under the late Government, when the revenue of the office was under $20,000. It is presumed that this was done for political reasons.
2.	12,200.
3.	$11,096.
4.	13,691.


FREDERICTON MAIL DELIVERY.
Mr. NESBITT:: 1.	When was a mail or letter delivery established at Fredericton, N.B. ?
2.	What was the population at the time?
3.	What was the revenue at the time?
4.	What was the population at the time the last Dominion census was taken?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	7th May, 1913. This was done because the rule as to population does not apply when the service is, as in the case of Fredericton, for the capital of a province.
2.	7,250-census, 1901.
3.	$21,072.
4.	7,208.


ST. HYACINTHE MAIL DELIVERY.
Mr. NESBITT:: 1.	When was a mail or letter delivery established at St. Hyacinthe, Quebec?
2.	What was the population at the time?
3.	What was the revenue at the time?
4.	What was the population at the time the last Dominion census was taken?
[Mr. Coderre.l


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	29th August, 1907, under the late Government, presumably for political reasons.
2.	The population of St. Hyacinthe was 9,500, and the villages of St. Joseph de Hyacinthe and La Providence, both of which are in the area to which the letter carrier service was given, had a population of 1,500 and 1,000 respectively, making the total 12,000.
3.	The revenue of St. Hyacinthe was $10,799.91 and that of St. Joseph de Hyacinthe $346.80, making a total of $11,146.71. There was no post office in the village of La Providence; the residents used the St. Hyacinthe post office.
4.	The population of St. Hyacinthe was 9,797 and that of St. Joseph de Hyacinthe and La Providence 514 and 894 respectively, making a total of 11,205.


OWEN SOUND MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. NESBITT:: 1.	When was a mail or letter delivery established at Owen Sound, Ontario?
2.	What was the population at the time?
3.	What was the revenue at the time?
4.	What was the population at the time the last Dominion census was taken?


Mr. PELLETIER:: No. 1. June 1, 1910.
No. 2. 12,091-Municipal census, 1909.
No. 3. $23,633.72.
No. 4. 12,558.


SAULT STE. MARIE MAIL DELIVERY.
Mr. NESBITT:: 1.	When was a mail or letter delivery established at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario?
2.	What was the population at the time?
3.	What was the revenue at the time?
4.	What was the population at the time the last Dominion census was taken?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	February 8, 1912.
3.	$22,751.
2 and 4. At that time the census of 1911 showed that the population was 10,984, but the Postmaster General received very reliable information that the population was over 12,000, and acted on that information.


CHARLOTTETOWN MAIL DELIVERY.
Mr. NESBITT:: 1.	When was a mail or letter delivery established at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island?
2.	What was the population at the time?
3.	What was the revenue at the time?
4.	What was the population at the time the last Dominion census was taken?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	November 26, 1907.

2.	12,080-Census 1901.
3.	$20,648.07.
4.	11,203.


TRADE WITH THE WEST INDIES.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	What was the total trade between Canada and the British West India islands, included in the West India Trade Convention from July 1, 1912, to December 31, 1912, as to exports and imports respectively?
2.	What was the total trade between Canada and the British West India islands, included in the West India Trade Convention from July 1, 1913, to December 31, 1913, as to exports and imports respectively?


Mr. REID:: 
LENNOXVILLE EXPERIMENTAL FARM.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Before the purchase of the experimental farm in the Eastern Townships at Lennoxville, Quebec, were any farms examined on behalf of the Government by Mr. Duncan Anderson, in the electoral division of Richmond and Wolfe ?
2.	If so, where are the said farms situated, and what are the names of the proprietors of the said farms ?
3.	What was the price demanded by the proprietors of each of the said farms ?
4.	If any price was offered by Mr. Anderson on behalf of the Government, what was the amount of the said offer in each case ?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes. Several farms were examined in the county of Richmond.
2.	Close to the town of Richmond. Owned by Mr. Lemoine and Mr. Fortier. Also the farms owned by Messrs. Beattie Bros., and Mr. Berwick. They are situated about four miles north of the city of Sherbrooke, in the county of Richmond.
3.	The price asked by Mr. Berwick was $10,000. Messrs. Beattie Bros, offered their farm at the same price, $10,000. No value was placed on the farms examined near the town of Richmond.
4.	No offer was made by Mr. Duncan Anderson on behalf of the Government for any of these farms.


RIMOUSKI CUSTOMS OFFICERS.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	What is the salary of Mr. Omer Beaulieu, customs officer at Rimouski, and of his assistant, Mr. L. O. Lavallee ?
2.	What was the salary of Mr. Martin Lepage^ customs officer and of his assistant respectively, prior to 1911 ?


Mr. REID:: 1.	The salary of Mr. Omer Beaulieu, collector of customs at Rimouski, is $900; that of his assistant, Mr. L. 0. Lavallee, preventive officer, is $400.
2.	The salary of Mr. Martin Lapage, collector of customs at Rimouski, was $800 prior to 1911; but on April 1, 1911, it was increased to $900. The salary of his assistant, Mr. J. 8. Gauvreau, acting preventive officer, was $300 prior to 1911; but on April 1, 1911, it was increased to $400.


RIMOUSKI MEDICAL SERVICE.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	How many doctors have been appointed to the transatlantic steamers' service at Rimouski ?
2.	What are the names and salary of each ?
3.	How many of them were there prior to 1911 ?
4.	What were their names and salaries ?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	There are at present three doctors, one coming up to Quebec for each steamship line.

2.	Dr. L. F. Lepage, Dr. Alf. Bouillon, and Dr. J. A. Lord, at the rate of $1,200 each per annum.
3	and 4. Dr. Ernest Belisle made inspections himself at Rimouski prior to 1911 without coming up to Quebec, at $15 per inspection.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY ICE SUPPLY.

['The excess of imports over exports would represent principally capital borrowed abroad and money and effects brought in by immigrants.']
John Dowsley Reid: .
1 and 2. Tenders per 2,000 pounds:
J. A. Boulay, Sayabec, $1.05, delivered and packed in the icehouse, freight and all other charges paid.
J. H. Rioux, St. Fabien, 60 cents, f.o.b. cars, St. Fabien, railway to carry ice free of charge from St. Fabien to Ste. Flavie.
Ernest Dastous, St. Fabien, 64 cents for ice; $1.40 for freight; $2.04, packed in icehouse.
Sirice Rioux, St. Fabien, 591 cents, f.o.b. cars, St. Fabien, cars to be furnished free by the railway, and the railway to carry ice free of charge from St. Fabien to Ste. Flavie.
J. A. Pelletier, Riviere du Loup, 69i cents, f.o.b. cars, Riviere du Loup.
3.	The contract was awarded to Mr. J. A. Boulay at $1.05, delivered and packed in the icehouse at Ste. Flavie, all charges paid, his tender being the lowest. The freight on a minimum car of 30,000 pounds from St. Fabien to Ste. Flavie is 6 cent3 per 100 pounds or $1.20 per ton, which, added to Sirice Rioux's tender price of 591 cents, made his tender $1,791 at Ste. Flavie.



Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: Does the Post Office Department intend to close the Plainfield post office, Pictou county, as a result of the establishment of rural mail delivery routes, as has been done with other offices in the vicinity?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, if it is found after the establishment of the rural mail delivery routes that the patrons of the Plainfield post office are within the scope of rural delivery.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY MINIMUM FREIGHT RATE.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: What is the minimum local freight rate on small parcels on the Intercolonial railway west of Chaudi&re ?
[Mr. Burrell. 1


John Dowsley Reid: 35 cents.


EMPLOYMENT OF MR. PHILEAS DUBE.
Mr. LEMIETJX:: 1.	Is Mr. Phileas DubS employed on the construction of the workshops of the Transcontinental railway at St. Malo, Quebec ?
2.	If so, what is the nature of his work and what is his salary?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Mr. Phileas Dube is not employed by the Transcontinental Railway Commission nor by the Government on the construction of the work shops of the Transcontinental railway at St. Malo, Quebec.
2.	Answered by No. 1.	.


BALANCE OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT.
Mr. BURNHAM:: If Canada during 1913 imported six hundred and seventy-five million dollars worth, and during the same period exported three hundred and ninety million dollars worth, in what manner was the excess of imports provided for by Canada ?


Mr. WHITE:: The excess of imports over exports would represent principally capital borrowed abroad and money and effects brought in by immigrants.


UNDISCUSSED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Truax.-Returns showing:	How many
private cars are owned or leased by the Government, and their names or numbers; the total cost of said cars; the cost of operating same during the calendar year 1913; what, if anything, was paid for haulage or shunting of said cars during the said calendar year; where the said cars are located respectively, how many at Moncton, how many at Ottawa and how many elsewhere; what departments of Government or the ministers of same, if any, have cars for their particular use, which are sometimes placed at the disposal of other ministers; whether any of the railways in Canada or in the United States make any charge for transportation or hauling of said cars; and whether the companies in Canada by courtesy deadhead said cars; and, if so, at what rate.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. C. A. WILSON:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that on Friday last I put in the hands of Mr. Laplante and Dr. Thos. B. Flint the following question:
Mr. C. A. Wilson-On Thursday next

Inquiry of Ministry-1. Has the Government, or any member thereof, received the communication referred to in the following announcement, published in the Sentinel of March 19, 1914?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the hon. member is out of order. I looked over the question,

[DOT]2017
and, in my judgment, it was not a proper one to go on the Order Paper, as it was founded on a newspaper clipping relating to subjects which are not proper for the consideration of this House. Rule 37, which governs the asking of questions by members, reads as follows:
Questions may be put to ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs-
This, in my judgment, does not relate to public affairs.
__and .to other members, relating to any Bill,
motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House, in which such member may be concerned.
The question that was submitted to me did not, in my judgment, relate to public affairs. Part of it related to bilingual schools, which are under the control of the provincial Government. Another part of the question asked whether the Government had received any protest regarding the reading of the prayers in French by the Speaker of the House every second day. That appeared to me to be too frivolous to put on the Order Paper.


Charles Avila Wilson: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to state my case-yes or no?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member has a right to do it, if he brings it up as a question of privilege.


Charles Avila Wilson: In order that there shall be no misunderstanding, I rise to a question of privilege; and the first privilege I claim is to state my case in both English and French. I have read of Richelieu saying that the execution should sometimes take place before the trial, but this is not such a case. My case is this: on Friday last, I put iu the hands of Dr. T. B. Flint-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the hon. member to state his question of privilege? I shall then be in a better position to judge whether it is or is not a question of privilege.


Charles Avila Wilson: I am rising to a question of privilege, and I want to state my case. I ask you frankly, Mr. Speaker, whether I am to be allowed to state my case-yes or no? Je vous demande, monsieur l'Ora-teur, si j'ai le droit d'exposer mon cas. I wish to state my case.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member
asked, in French, to be allowed to state his case, and proceeded to make comments. Surely my hon. friend understands-he speaks English very well-that the Speaker asked him to state his question of privilege
and not to make comments. I think a spirit of fairness should prevail here.


Charles Avila Wilson: French language in Parliament every second day of sitting?
Of course, with my French education, I put the words ' His Honour ' before ' Mr. Speaker *. There was another question, reading as follows:
4.	If so, from whom and upon what grounds?
Questions 3 and 4 were returned to me with the following note:
Dear Mr. Wilson:
His Honour the Speaker thought the above part of your question somewhat irregular as being put ironically and as not arising out of the main question. So I inserted the principal question, with this latter part eliminated for the present.
T. B. FIin',
*	Clerk.
What is the reason that it is not on the Order Paper? The question may be irregular or it may be ironical-I have nothing to say about that for the moment,- but it seems to me that, according to all precedents, your judgment, Mr. Speaker, should be rendered in this House anyway. I ask that this question No. 3 be put on the Orders of the Day. If you say that the question is irrelevant or ironical, I want this House to pass judgment upon your decision. That is all I have to say at the moment, and, as a member of this House, I ask you now, that this question be put upon the Orders of the Day and that the House pass judgment upon it whether it is ironical or not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The only question involved is the question of privilege. Is it the privilege of a member of this House to .ask questions? I have only to say in reply ato that-


Charles Avila Wilson: Would Mr. Speaker allow me just one question? Is it the privilege [DOT]of a member to go to the Clerk and put a *question in his hands in order that that *question may be placed upon the Order IPaper? It is on that question that I want your ruling, and not as to the propriety or impropriety of the question itself. It seems to me that the House must decide this point. Was it the right of Dr. Flint, for instance, not to put this question on the Orders of the Day? Let us be frank. If the question has not been put on the Orders of the Day, has it been submitted to you; or do I assume too much, Mr. Speaker? I do not think I do. Until I get further information I assume that the question has been withheld from the Order Paper upon your orders. I want to know whether it is the privilege of a member to put a question on the Orders of the Day or whether the matter 
is controlled outside of the House of Commons.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question involved
is one of privilege. Is it the privilege of a member to put a question? I quote again rule No. 37, which is one of the clearest rules in the book and the rule that governs as to the subjects upon which questions may be asked:
Questions may be put to any ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs.
As it is the right and duty of the Speaker for the time being to see that no improper questions are put on the Orders of the Day, this question was submitted, of course, to the Speaker's judgment, and, in my judgment, it did not come within the rules. Or questions may be put:
-and to other members, relating to any Bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House, in which such members may be concerned.
The question did not seem to me to come within these rules. I have in my hands Mr. Speaker Peel's Decisions in the House of Commons in England, and in this book I find the following statement:
Mr. Speaker discourages the practice of asking questions based on statements in the public press. It is desirable that members should undertake the responsibility of the questions thus put. A member who puts a question is responsible for the facts alleged therein.
If a question contains a statement, the, member who makes it should vouch for its being a fact.
With reference to the duty of the Clerk of the House, I have not the authority under my hand at the moment, but the clerk has to consult with the Speaker in reference to any question that is handed in to him and that he thinks is irregular. In my judgment this question was irregular, and I notified the clerk to consult with the hon. member (Mr. Wilson) for the reasons which I have already given.


Charles Avila Wilson: If I understand your statement, Mr. Speaker, the report from Dr. Flint to myself was a correct one, and therefore this question, according to your judgment should not have been put upon the Order Paper.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have not looked over
the report of the clerk; consequently I could not express an opinion.


Charles Avila Wilson: There it is, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have just now had a copy of it handed to me by the clerk. He submitted the question to me before the opening of this sitting of the House, and I

instructed him to have it put on the Order Paper.


Charles Avila Wilson: Do I understand you to
say, Mr. Speaker, that you gave Dr. Flint instructions to put that question on the Orders of the Day?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The first part of the
question.


Charles Avila Wilson: Why the first part?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I instructed the clerk
that, in my judgment, the first part of the question might be put upon the paper, but I thought the last part of the question too frivolous to engage the attention of the House.


Charles Avila Wilson: I beg leave of the House to ask that this question, No. 3, be put on the Orders of the Day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Orders of the Day.


Charles Avila Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order, order.


Charles Avila Wilson: But, Mr. Speaker, I think we should understand each other now. I understand that Mr. Speaker said that in so far as question No. 3 was concerned he would leave it to the judgment of the House. Is that correct or not?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not exactly.


Charles Avila Wilson: If I understood you, Mr. Speaker, you said that you would leave the question to the judgment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order; the hon. gentleman is not exactly correct in that respect. I did not say that I would leave it to the judgment of the House, but I said that if my judgment was called in question I would certainly submit it to the judgment of the House to say whether the questicfa was out of order or not.


Charles Avila Wilson: Do you rule, Mr. Speaker, that question No. 3 is out of order, and should not >be put on the Orders of the Day?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is my judgment.


Charles Avila Wilson: With all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I appeal from your decision.


Mr. BORDEN:: I do not think that there is any appeal from such a decision as the Speaker has announced, and I think that my hon. friend (Mr. Wilson) is making a great deal of fuss about a very frivolous matter. In order that his mind may be set at rest, with respect to the question which Mr. Speaker thinks is not proper to be put on
the Order Paper, I may tell him now that the Government have not received any such protest as he has alluded to.


Charles Avila Wilson: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Charles Avila Wilson: If there is no discussion on the appeal, the Prime Minister should not have got up.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: What is the point of
order, Mr. Speaker?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The point of order is that the decision of the Chair has been given, and if that decision is called in question, there can only be an appeal to the House.


Charles Avila Wilson: Then why has the Prime Minister spoken?


Robert Laird Borden: Because the Prime Minister has a right to speak on any point of order.


Charles Avila Wilson: Have I the right to
answer?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Charles Avila Wilson: Mr. Speaker,-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. The hon. member has appealed from the decision of the Chair, and there must be no debate while the Chair is preparing the appeal to the House.


William Pugsley: Then the Prime Minister was out of order?


Charles Avila Wilson: Has the Prime Minister the right to speak?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
Mr. EMMERSON:: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Finance. Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Lincoln. Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. BEATTIE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Montcalm. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. STANFIELD:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Lambton. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. TRUAX:: I was paired with the hon. member for Parry Sound. Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. RAINVILLE:: I was paired with the hon. member for L'Assomption. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: I was paired with
the hon. member for Norfolk. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. BELAND:: I was paired with the
junior member for Ottawa. Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. McCREA:: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Lanark. Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling of the -Chair.


Mr. ROSS:: I was paired with the senior member for Ottawa. Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I was paired with the
hon. Minister of Railways. Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling of the Chair.
The ruling of the Chair confirmed.


Charles Avila Wilson: Has the hon. the
Postmaster General voted?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Orders of the Day.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, an hon. member has the right to call your attention to the fact that another hon. member has not voted. If an hon. member is in the Chamber, he is bound to vote unless he is paired.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As I understand it, the hon. member did not call my attention to the fact that the Postmaster General had not voted, but he asked the question directly to the Postmaster General, and I took it to be in the discretion of the Postmaster General whether he should answer the question or not.


Charles Avila Wilson: I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the Postmaster General has not voted.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend's mind will be set at rest when I state that I never vote in this House on any question when the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) is_ not in his seat, but I do not think it is necessary to say so every time.



THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for Committee of Supply, resumed from March 24.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM: When the House adjourned last night, I had been dealing with several important 4 p.m. items in the report of the National Transcontinental Railway Investigating Commission. I think I dealt with all the large items included in the $40,000,000. At the time of adjournment I was discussing that part of the report where Mr. Gutelius suggested that the money spent on the line east of Quebec should not have been so expended, but that a portion of it should have been expended in reducing the grades and curves on the Intercolonial railway, particularly,
because that railway lends itself to the introduction of gradients of 0-4 per cent against eastbound traffic and 0'6 per cent against westbound traffic.
Before I leave the question of grades,
I want to ask the Government and the members of this House to look at the question of velocity grades from another angle.
I stated yesterday what is an evident fact that there is a difference of opinion as to the practicability of velocity grades, particularly in a country like ours. The Maintenance of Way Association Of America, composed of the chief engineers of the great railways and members of the engineering staffs, 'have intimated that the introduction of velocity grades in the construction of a new line ought to be practiced only under very extraordinary circumstances. There are authorities both pro and con, but I think that the most eminent authorities are against velocity grades in the construction of new lines and in a country where we have snow and frost to the extent that we have in this country.
For a moment I want to ask the House to view this matter, so far as the Transcontinental railway is concerned, from another standpoint. Granted that there is disagreement of opinion, there can be no dispute as to whether a four-tenths or a six-tenths grade is equal to a velocity grade. No engineer or operator will say that a velocity grade line is superior to a level line; many of the most eminent authorities do say that a velocity grade line is inferior to a level line. That being true, why should the Government, when the country is expending so many millions of dollars in this project, substitute a policy in respect of which there is grave disagreement for a policy on which there is absolute agreement, particularly when the line is nearly finished? Would any business man take such a course in his own business? At least there is no dispute as to the equality of the level line with the velocity grade line; there is a disagreement as to whether the velocity grade line is equal to the level line. Therefore I say it is poor judgment, it is not good business, to accept that policy upon which there is grave disagreement and to substitute for it a policy upon which there is no disagreement whatever.
I want for a moment to refer to the last clause of this report-and here, I think, we find a condensation of the views of the commissioners. I submit to this House and to the country that the statement and the criticism found in this clause is unwarranted, and', to put it mildly, a most egregious blunder so far as the Dominion of Can-
[Stage Direction]
ada is concerned. Leaving out, for the moment, every other consideration, I say that this attack found on page 12 of the commissioners' report is absolutely unwarranted and may be fraught with grave results to a great national undertaking, to a company now engaged in completing a great national enterprise, and that that result will indirectly reflect upon the business of Canada and upon the standing of Canadian enterprises in the financial markets of the world. This is the clause to which I refer:
We find that the Transcontinental Railway Commission, the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and those having charge of the construction of the railway did not consider it desirable or necessary to practise or encourage economy in the construction of this road.
What does that mean? It is charged that the Transcontinental Railway Commission was derelict in its duty-was extravagant, I dealt with that yesterday at some length, and I am not going to deal with it again;
I think I answered that charge very well. Then, the commissioners imply that every man on the engineering staff, every individual connected with the construction of the road, did not consider it desirable or necessary to practise or encourage economy. Does any one imagine that the people of Canada will believe that sweeping assertion made against men who have spent the whole of their lives in the service of the public? I refer not to members of any particular party; I refer to eminent professional men. This assertion on the part of the commissioners means tliat every engineer on the line who was engaged in the supervision of construction did not- find it necessary to be honest, and thought it wise to be extravagant. I am not going to take up and present to the House the names of these gentlemen, but I do say that there are on that staff men of as high ability as will be found anywhere on this continent; men whose honesty at least cannot be challenged by any living soul. Yet the commissioners make the sweeping assertion that all these men practically conspired to neglect their duty. I say that if we had nothing more, these words are in themselves a refutation of the reliability of this report. The judgment of the public is generally very well balanced, and when men go so far, be they commissioners or any other persons, as to make a sweeping charge, without one iota of foundation for it, against men whose reputation has hitherto been unimpeachable, they condemn their own utterance; 
the people will take no stock whatever in their assertion in that respect, and, not taking stock in that statement, will discount every other assertion such men may make.
I do not intend to defend the professional gentlemen who are engaged in this work; they are well known, but I come to another thing which I think is absolutely an outrage-and I use the word advisedly. It is found in these sentences:
We find that the Transcontinental Railway Commission, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and those having charge of the construction of the railway, did not consider it desirable or necessary to practice or encourage economy in the construction of this road.
What does that mean? It means that the commission appointed by this Government publicly charge, in a document being circulated throughout Canada, that the Grand Trunk Pacific officials in Canada conspired to defraud the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Is there any substantiation for that charge, which is one of the gravest made in this country for many years? I say there is no substantiation, there is not the shadow of substantiation for that charge. Mr. Hays, who in his time was one of the ablest men at the head of any railway in this country, and Mr. Chamberlin, his successor, are, without any evidence, charged by Mr. Lynch-Staunton and Mr. Gutelius with not thinking it desirable to practise economy in the construction of a line which they were going to operate, and on the cost of which they were to pay interest. It is inconceivable; it is unthinkable that men should make such a charge and place it not only before the people of this country, but before the financiers of the old land as well, who are being asked for money to carry on this great project. I ask hon. gentlemen who are connected with companies of any magnitude what they would think if such a charge were made against them? They would demand absolute proof, and if this were not furnished, the men who made the charge would suffer the consequences.
I say this matter will never be settled until the gentlemen who made this report are compelled to substantiate that charge against the Grand Trunk Pacific, or retract it on behalf of the Dominion of Canada. Is it an attack on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company only? Not at all. Even that is serious enough.
At the very time when the finan-

cial situation in Canada is tense, when some of our great industries are finding it difficult to finance their transactions and carry on their undertakings; when the weak ones in the industrial world are being crowded to the wall; when capital is exceedingly sensitive and it is difficult to obtain it, even on good security, this charge is hurled headlong at a company which is linked up with the Dominion of Canada in a great enterprise. That charge against this company is a charge against the Dominion of Canada and the way it manages its affairs. What will the Finance Minister think when he goes to the old land and that charge meets him? What will representatives of industrial concerns think when they go to the old land, as some of them have done, and are met with this unfounded charge against this company? The men against whom these charges are made are well known in the old land; they are men of probity, men of means, men of high standing, and I say it is a most serious thing that this charge should be placed before the public on the streets of London, as it has been, and in the offices of some of the leading men. This Government has a duty which is as clear as the noonday sun, and that is, on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and on behalf of the good name of Canada, to repudiate the charge which has been made against that company and which has not one iota of foundation. This unfounded charge has had its influence. Men are out of employment in one of the big cities of this Dominion on account of the publishing of that unfounded report. Some of the leading men of Montreal, close friends of the Prime Minister politically and personally, have no hesitation in saying that this attack is unwarranted, should not have been made, and will injure the Dominion of Canada if not repudiated. And it does not take much intelligence to see that that is the case. I am making a strong plea, Mt. Speaker, on behalf of Canada and this great transportation company under the present financial conditions. The Government may do as they please about the party charges, these are in the political arena; but in the interest of Canada, in the interest of our great industries in Canada, in the interest of this great enterprise the Government ought to repudiate that unfounded charge against the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. Every country has what are known as wild cat projects. They find their way, through their prospectuses, into the money markets of the
world. Often the financiers are deceived and bitten. They have been warned from this side of the water many times to -beware of the gilt-edged and gold-lined prospectus and we are not anxious as to results to these financiers if they dip into these get-rich-quick schemes. But on behalf of the Dominion of Canada I want to say, and I feel I have a personal responsibility in saying it, that, in the main, the industries of Canada and her great enterprises are sound at heart, that the financial institutions of the old land are perfectly safe not only in continuing but in increasing their investments in Canada, so long as- they investigate thoroughly before they go into these investments. We have in this country great industries. We have great enterprises that are going to the old land every day asking for financial aid; and what we in this House ought to do, and what is the duty of the Government above all, is to see that the legitimate enterprise is protected and that the legitimate borrower is not deprived of his rights by any false reports such as the one before me. I am. speaking thus strongly because the matter before me has been pressed on my attention during the last few weeks by many prominent men who have no sympathy with the Liberal party whatever; but they feel that a great error has been made in the present financial situation, at least in allowing a report of that kind to be spread broadcast not only throughout Canada but throughout the old land and throughout the United States, where it is having and must have the effect of injuring the credit of Canadian industries and Canadian enterprises unless the Prime Minister of Canada, in the words of an eminent statesman, is honest enough to be bold and bold enough to be honest and repudiates at least that part of this report. I am not pleading at all that he should repudiate that part of the report in which attacks are made of a political nature; we will look after them ourselves in the country. But I am asking him, on behalf of the industries of Canada, on behalf of the borrowers of Canada and on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, not to allow his Government to be tied up to such a report as that, because the injury to Canada from such a report cannot well be estimated.
Now, I come to the actual cost to the country. I must again protest against the typewritten report sent out to the newspapers of the country which also, in this case, was a bit misleading. Under headlines already prepared, this item was sent
[Stage Direction]
to the press. The sending out of this item synchronized with the laying of the report on the table.
Assuming that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will commence to pay interest on the cost of construction in 1922, the road will have cost the country, for principal and interest, $234,651,521. This amount has been arrived at by calculating the interest on the amount expended during each year from the end of the year up to the end of 1921.
These gentlemen are not as fair as my hon. friend the acting Minister of Railways. You see now the false impression- just really to show the trend of this whole thing. This report as sent out, neglected to state that the compilation was arrived at by a computation of compound interest, not simple interest. It makes quite a difference in the impression created in the public mind. The report says compound interest, but the item sent out to the papers leaves it to be understood that the amount was arrived at by the computation of interest in the ordinary way. The amount of interest that it will cost the country during the seven years of free rental of the line forms no part of the cost of construction of the line, everybody agrees with that now. The payment by the country of the interest on the amount the Grand Trunk Pacific would pay for the first seven years, were they not rental free under the agreement, has nothing whatever to do with the cost of the laying of the rails, with the cost of embankments, with the cost of construction, be it great or small. This investigation was to ascertain if there had been extravagance in the construction of the line, and the interjection of this dissertation as to what it would cost the country after the end of the seven years is altogether outside of the instructions given that commission, because it forms no part, directly or indirectly, of the cost of the construction of the line. This amount of the rental for seven years was really a subsidy given to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, nothing more, nothing less; a subsidy equal to a good many million dollars in cash, it is true, but a subsidy nevertheless. It is a part of the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific and has nothing whatever to do, directly or indirectly, with the cost of the construction of the line. But if that be true and it be a subsidy, what earthly excuse is there for the commission computing interest on a subsidy? We have given millions to other railways. We are giving subsidies every year. Now, has any person ever thought that, in order to find 
out the amount of subsidy we have given to the Canadian Northern railway or the Canadian Pacific railway, we should compute compound interest from the day we gave it until the present? That is what has been done by this commission in this report referring to the National Transcontinental railway. It shows a total unfairness and a desire to treat this enterprise on an altogether different basis from any other enterprise of this kind that the Government has ever aided. I shall make a computation from which I think the Government will see the unfairness and the foolishness of this commission endeavouring to lead the people to believe that interest ought to be computed on what was really a subsidy.
In 1885 the Canadian Pacific railway handed back to the Government certain lands for which they received cash to the amount of $10,198,520.23. This decreased the land grant but increased the cash so that up to 1887 the Canadian Pacific railway had received in cash $72,000,000. Mark you, $72,000,000, in cash or its equivalent. Does any persorr say that the Grand Trunk Pacific received $72,000,000 with compound interest added? It stands in the books of the Government, in the Auditor General's Department, at $72,000,000; but calculating it as these commissioners insist upon doing, and adding compound interest for thirty years at 3i per cent, we should find that the Canadian Pacific railway up to 1887 had received in cash, and railways constructed and handed over, $202,089,110. I have just as much right to say that at the end of that thirty year period the Canadian Pacific railway will have received $202,000,000, as this commission has to .say that the Grand Trunk Pacific will have received this amount, plus the compound interest. This is the first time in the history of Canada that compound interest ha3 been added to a subsidy given to a railway when endeavouring to show what aid that railway has received.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: Where does my hon.
friend get his authority for calling that a subsidy?


George Perry Graham: I will tell my hon. friend after a while. Let me now make a comparison between this railway and some others. Considering the difficulties under which it was constructed, the country through which it runs, the exceedingly high cost of labour and material, and the high standard of the road, I assert that the Transcontinental railway has been con-

structed as cheaply as any line on the continent of America during the past ten years. There is no line like it, so far as standard is concerned, so no real comparison can be made. I wish to give the capitalization of some of the leading railway companies. The first companies I shall deal with, I am introducing as a matter of information to the House and not for purposes of comparison, because they have two, three, or four tracks, very expensive terminals and all that kind of thing, but I thought it would be of interest to the House to know the cost of some of the large railway companies on the other side of the line. 'Hie Pennsylvania road capital $371,023 a mile; the New York Central $418,370 a mile; Lehigh Valley $437,643 a mile; the New York, New Haven and Hartford $187,426 a mile. Now we come to two roads that might fairly be compared with tne Grand Trunk Pacific, although they are not up to its high standard:	The Union Pacific cost
$150,925 a mile; the Southern Pacific $142,360. For the information of the House, I might give two or three other figures in regard to the capitalization of these roads. The first four roads operate in the eastern and central States and their capitalization is therefore high, but the average capitalization of all the railways of the United States in 1911-the most recent statistics available-was $64,000 per mile. That includes every little brancli line, and every cheap line constructed at a cost of $15,000 or $20,000 per mile. None of the lines in the western States can begin to compare with the Grand Trunk Pacific for standard. The average capitalization of all the eastern lines in 1911 was $167,885 a mile, and of the western Toads $73,000 a mile. While the average capitalization of all the western roads in the United States, including the cheap, prairie or colonization roads, is $73,000 a mile, the cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific from Moncton to Prince Rupert, with its high standard of equipment will only be $85,000 a mile.	_
Let me give some figures of Canadian railways. The Grand Trunk railway capital $133,939 a mile. That is a very high capitalization and I gave one reason for its being high yesterday; that the road was built cheaply, as some hon. gentlemen wanted to build the Transcontinental. As a result great portions of the road have been abandoned altogether, millions have been spent in reducing grades, and millions more will be spent in bringing the road up to a high standard. The money invested
by some of the original shareholders stands to-day without a cent of dividend ever having been received, and probably will for many years to come, if not for all time. One of the reasons for that, is that wisdom was not shown in the original construction of the Grand Trunk railroad.
The Algoma Central railway, which runs through New Ontario, has a capitalization of $152,891 a mile; the Canada Southern, $99,000 a mile; I now come to the Canadian Pacific railway. I have two reasons for taking this railway: one is that the railway is one of the best managed transportation institutions in the world, and perhaps one of the largest. It is the railway to which Mr. Gutelius looked for guidance or for comparisons in his investigation. I take the Canadian Pacific railway because it is practically the only Canadian road from which we can get the information I desire. The Canadian Pacific Tailway, it is true, gives its capitalization as $46,000 a mile, but no person for one moment thinks that is all the Canadian Pacific railway cost. The Canadian Pacific railway received from the Dominion of Canada many gifts, and the proceeds of at least some of these went into the construction of the road, or if not, the Canadian Pacific railway is not playing fair. But it is playing fair in that *respect. Let me read what aid the Canadian Pacific has received:
Cash aid, Dominion	$ 29,944,660
"	" provinces	
412,878"	" municipalities .. ..	464,761Lands handed over at cost ..	37,785,320
Value ot land, put at $5 an acre . 174,081,010
Total	$242,688,629
That total, figured as this commission figures, would be swelled to $500,000,000 by adding compound interest up to the present time.


Arthur Meighen: Have we not been getting a li+tle service from the company all these years? The commission have only figured up to the time we get returns from the company.


George Perry Graham: They have figured interest on a subsidy, but they never figured on a subsidy for the Canadian Pacific railway or any other line.


Arthur Meighen: They were not appointed to investigate the Canadian Pacific railway.


George Perry Graham: Has my hon. friend
figured out the compound interest in regard to the Canad in Pacific railway?


Arthur Meighen: Up to the time the Canadian Pacific railway was in operation?


George Perry Graham: I would like to find the figures that my hon. friend made in that respect.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is making a point. If he wants to make it clearly, let him bring the Canadian Pacific railway subsidy up to the date of operation as against the National Transcontinental railway up to the date of operation.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend knows what he did and tried to do last night. It is just as unfair to charge compound interest on the subsidy to the Transcontinental, be the time long or short, as it would be to charge interest on the subsidy to the Canadian Pacific railway up to the present time.


Arthur Meighen: Without compound interest at all, but figuring the interest at the least rate we pay, or the rate of 3i per cent, it amounts to 1235,000,000 more than the report says.


George Perry Graham: Then, my hon. friend is a better figurer than I am.


Arthur Meighen: No, the report figures it at 3 per cent, which is almost one per cent below what we actually pay.


George Perry Graham: I think if my hon. friend will look into it he will see that it is different. Last night I stood more interruptions than any man in this House has ever stood in making an important statement, and I will say further that I am informed I was interrogated from the galleries through one of the members of this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I knew nothing about it. Had I known it I should have promptly stopped it.


George Perry Graham: I like to answer all reasonable questions, but when a member starts in to make a prepared statement of this kind I do not think it is fair that his speech should 'be broken into.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member-?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. Sit down.


Arthur Meighen: I can speak with the hon. member's permission. Did he refer to me in his last remarks?


George Perry Graham: I saw notes coming in from the outside, not one but several; and a great many questions were asked me, and I was told before the House rose that they were sent by a gentleman from the gallery. If that is not true I gladly take the denial of my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: They never came to me. I did not know that the gentleman that the hon. member refers to was sitting in the gallery. I never got any note from any gentleman. I never got any communication from any person, and I never asked any questions suggested to me by anybody else.


George Perry Graham: I accept the statement of my hon. friend. Now, having got over that difficulty, my hon. friend will hold himself entirely responsible for my having to go over these figures again:
Cash aid received from the Dominion	$ 29,944,660
Cash aid from the provinces.. . .	412,878
Cash aid from municipalities.. ..	464,761
Lines handed over	 37,785,320
Land valued at ?5 per acre.. ..	174,081,010
Total aid without any interest
added	 242,688,629
The capital of the Canadian Pacific railway on June 9, 1913, was, according to their own statement, $455,276,084. That makes a total of $697,964,713, or a capitalization spread over the whole system of $70,437 per mile. But, Sir, I might add that this is not all that the Canadian Pacific railway got or all that they should have put into their line. I think that $5 per acre is perhaps too large a sum in that calculation.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, it is not.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps it is not. That is the calculation I made. Then, it is well known that the Canadian Pacific railway stock to-day does not sell at par, even when distributed amongst the original shareholders, but that for every hundred dollars charged to capital the company has received $175. During recent years it would be unfair to say that the capitalization, even taking my figure of $70,437 per mile, at all represents the amount that is in the road, or ought to be, because for the stock sold they got $175 a share.
Then, there is another point. This includes all the branch lines, some of which did not cost $15,000 per mile, some of which were laid witn iron rails, some of which were laid practically without ballast in the prairie country, and these are all

included in this capitalization. Strip the main line of the branch lines and there would be at least from $8,000 to $10,000 a mile to add to the capitalization of the main line. That is a very mild estimate. My hon. friends behind say that I should place it at twice that amount. Well, put it at $10,000 and you have $80,000 per mile as the capitalization of the Canadian Pacific railway without the 75 per cent premium.
But there is something further. During the last few years the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have expended out of earnings on that line, and on account of other companies, at least $100,000,000 in betterments that do not appear in the capital stock at all, and which they could not spend in the way they did under the Inter-State Commerce Commission. I am not criticising the expenditure, as it was probably good business. But that ought to be added to the capitalization as well. If you take this into consideration, the capitalization of the Canadian Pacific railway would be much higher than the cost of the Transcontinental railway per mile from Prince Rupert to Moncton and the Canadian Pacific railway is not, and on account of its position, never can be, a road equal to the Transcontinental.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Who owns it?


George Perry Graham: The people do not own
one foot of it and will never get any rental in the way of interest or from any investment they have in that road. I want to make another calculation, but lest there might be some mistake, I am not going to make it myself. I want to allow some other person to make it for me, in whom, I think, the Solicitor General has more confidence than he has in me. I think he had a good deal in me at times. I am going to ask you to take the figures given to this House by the Finance Minister of Canada. In speaking in this House on June 3, 1913, in support of aid to the Canadian Northern, the hon. the Finance Minister (Mr. White) said this:
What did the Canadian Pacific railway get? They got $25,000,000 in cash; they got 25,000,000 acres of land which have turned out to he worth a greater sum than the capital stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I shall not take it on the basis of today's value; I shall deal with it on the basis at which it was deemed proper it should be taken at that time. The 25,000,000 acres of land were stated to be worth from $1 to $1.50 an acre. With the development of this land, which has been brought about not only by the Canadian Pacific railway, but by all these other
railway companies which have been built, it has turned out to be worth a sum in excess of $250,000,000. What else did they get? They got in addition to that 700 miles of completed line of railway from Prince Arthur's landing to a point west of Winnipeg, 500 miles; and from Port Moody east through the Fraser canyon, 200 miles. They got all these grants from the Dominion Government in consideration of their undertaking to build the line. What would that subsidy amount to at that time? It is the very opposite of an extreme statement to say that the cash subsidy given to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in consideration of building the line would run at least to $25,000 or $30,000 per mile upon the part of the line which they constructed.
The Minister of Finance himself said this; it is a most moderate estimate, but I will take it for my calculation. Thirty thousand dollars a mile on the part of the line which they constructed, roughly speaking, would be from $22,000 to $25,000 a mile on the balance	of their	main	line.And mark you, Mr. Speaker, that on some of the lines at this end of the main line, subsidies were given under other names to what is now the Canadian Pacific railway, which do not appear in these figures at all. The Canadian Pacific railway got the benefit of these subsidies in taking over these roads.	Forty-six	million	dollarspractically,	capitalization; $25,000	permile, would	make about	$71,000	a	mile,
calculated by the Minister of Finance himself. But add to that the enhanced value of the main line by cutting off all the branch lines and the cheap lines, and you have at least $10,000 more per mile, to put it very mildly. There you have $81,000 a mile. And, if to that we would add the premiums they received on stocks; if to that we would add the hundreds of millions of dollars they have expended in betterments, out of revenue from the Canadian Pacific railway and from other companies, we would have a capitalization far and away in excess of the cost of the Transcontinental railway from Moncton to Winnipeg.
Mr. EMiMERSON: And you have not calculated in that the exemption from taxation and customs duty.
iMi. GRAHAM: Yes, there are other items in the agreement with the Canadian Pacific railway which are not calculated in this at all. After figuring all that, we come again to this point: that, having a road of a higher standard that has not cost any more than the Canadian Pacific railway, we own 1,804 miles of that road,

and we own not a foot of the Canadian Pacific railway.
I want to clear np another point which has been raised, and that is as
5 p.m. to what was meant hy the free rental period of seven years given to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. I say it was a subsidy pure and simple, and should be treated like every other subsidy. It should be treated as an outright gift on which no interest is to be calculated, as no interest was ever calculated on any subsidy given to any other company. I am going to ask the House to take a leading authority for this opinion also. Speaking of the Transcontinental railway in this House, a gentleman named the Hon. Mr. White, Minister of Finance of Canada, said:
The Government of Canada undertook to build that line (the Transcontinental), and from the day it was undertaken by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, their interest ceases for seven years. The Dominion of Can-' ada loses three per cent upon $175,000,000, and money is worth more to-day to the Dominion of Canada than three per cent. But take it on that basis, and you have a direct subsidy to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company of $5,000,000 per annum, or $35,000,000 for seven years.
The Minister of Finance of Canada, in his statement before this House, treated the seven year rental free period of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company just as I have treated it, namely, as a subsidy, and there is no other fair way to treat it in comparing it with other subsidies to other companies.
Some gentlemen have said that owing to the high cost of this road it would be impossible to operate it at all; others have said it could not be operated at a profit. We were told by the acting Minister of Railways that it would be a burden on the people. I pointed out last night that the head of the commission, Major Leonard, who is building this so-called burden on the people, said it is not a burden on the people at all, but an asset. I can place before the House a few figures that will show, that with the estimate of traffic, given by Mr. Tye himself to this commission, trains can be operated from Winnipeg to Moncton, not only to pay the running expenses, but at a small profit, or at least some profit to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. That is, if the standard of the road is placed back where it was in 1911. Mr. Tye, in his evidence before the commission, gives an estimate of the probable traffic to be expected between Winnipeg and Quebec. This
[Mr. Graham.3
estimate is very conservative, but it will answer the purpose. As Mr. Tye gave no estimate east of Quebec, the same number of trains per day has been assumed between Quebec and Moncton as between Quebec and Cochrane, namely five per day. This gives an average for the whole line from Winnipeg to Moncton of 8 -5 trains peT day, both ways. I had an estimate given me a day or two ago, of eight trains per day, but this is an estimate worked out on Mr. Tye's own estimate of the traffic.


Mr. AMES:: Eight trains each way?


George Perry Graham: I have said that I speak of a total of 8-5 trains per day. I want to explain here that local trains will interfere perhaps with the calculation one way or the other. There will be local trains from Cochrane east, and local trains perhaps from Cochrane west. On the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario there will be freight going west from there, and freight coming east, in, and down that line. They are not through trains but they are taken at an approximation and calculated as equal to through trains, by a practical railway man, and based on the figures given by Mr. Tye himself. Railway statistics of the United States and Canada indicate that a charge of $1.65 would be an ample amount to allow as the cost of running a train a mile over this road, or a total charge of $3,000 to run a train from Winnipeg to Moncton, or a total charge of $25,500 to operate the 8-5 trains over the line each day. Over a road of this standard, an average of 1,000 tons per train is a conservative allowance, and I might say that these trains, if the road is left up to its standard, could carry 2,000 tons just as easily almost as 1,000 tons. Indeed, one of the standard locomotives could haul more than 2,000 tons, and 2,000 tons is a very moderate estimate, and Mr. Leonard himself put the estimate at 1,600 tons. For the purposes of this calculation, I will say that these trains would average
1,000	tons, and that makes a total tonnage of 8,500 tons per day.
The latest returns of the Canadian Pacific railway show that the average gross revenue per ton per mile is in the neighbourhood of three-quarters of a cent per ton. As a considerable proportion of the Transcontinental tonnage will be wheat, a lower average should be taken, say, one-half cent per ton, or $9 to transport a ton from Winnipeg to Moncton. I want to explain that this is the average. There is much of the traffic that will pay a much higher average than that, and much of it will pay a lower rate.

Grain, of course, will pay a rate very much lower than that, while manufactured articles going west will pay a much higher rate. The Canadian Pacific railway receives about three-quarters of a cent per ton per mile, and this calculation is averaged on half a cent per ton per mile. This rate applied to the 8,500 tons handled per day gives the company a gross revenue each day of $76,500. In this calculation I have not figured any passenger trains at all. But it may be well to be on the safe side, and say that the tonnage may not be this large, but the passenger traffic will certainly make up for any difference in that calculation, and the extra tonnage that can be drawn will again help to make up the deficiency. 1 believe the conclusion is a very moderate one. The following then is the situation:
Gross revenue to the company from
operating- 8.5 trains per day .. ..	$76,500
Cost of operation	 25,500
Interest charges per day, as per commissioners' report	 14,800
Total charges per day .. . .	$40,300
Net revenue per day	 $36,200
If you cut this calculation in two, and that is giving absolutely all the facts against the project, the company will still have sufficient money to pay the operation of the road, the interest to the Government, and will have at least $18,000 a day left for other charges and expenses. That is what the experts of the commission themselves estimate will be the traffic of the road at an early date; but when you take into consideration the traffic that must accrue from the West to the East and from the East to the West during the years that are to come, as the eastern and western provinces develop, as the northern part of the province of Ontario opens up with farm houses dotted here and there, it is no mad proposition to say that in ten years the traffic of this line will be doubled and, instead of this line being a burden, in spite of all the pessimistic talk of hon. gentlemen opposite, it will be a profit-making line to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company of Canada. I have thought it fair to go to the extent of working out this calculation with a man who has some experience in these matters, and I have based it on the figures given by the commission in order to show the capitalists of the old land that, when the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company ask for money, they are not being placed by the people of Canada in a position where they cannot earn interest on their indebtedness.
I want to turn to another phase of the same question. I am sorry that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is not here. My conviction is that the Prime Minister of Canada and the city of Halifax; that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the city of St. John, and the Postmaster General and the city of Quebec, are being misled at the present time as to the benefits to be derived from the Grand Trunk Pacific by our ocean ports. I say that they are being misled and are taking it for granted that Halifax, St. John and Quebec under the present conditions will receive the benefits that they expect to receive from this great undertaking. I say that they may not. I will point out to my hon. friend from Quebec county (Mr. Pelletier), as I know he is interested, why I think so. I firmly believe that, when he considers this question, he will use his influence to see that the wrong that has been perpetrated on the city of Quebec, on the city of Halifax and on the city of St. John, as our ocean ports, is remedied without delay. How was it expected that with this railway we would be able, particularly at Halifax and St. John and I might also include Quebec, to compete with American ports? Not by building a road as good as any other road. That would not have the desired effect. To reach the American ports requires a larger haul than to St. John and Halifax. The object in. building this road to such a high standard was that, by the superior standard of the National Transcontinental railway, the difference in distance might be overcome. I discussed that question with the late Mr. Hays; I discussed it with Mr. Chamberlin apd they assured me time and again that what they hoped to accomplish in making our Canadian ports what we all want them to be, could be accomplished only through having their road able to carry a bigger load than any competing road. I have discussed the question of grades. I want to point out again to the Postmaster General, to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries representing these ocean ports that, to put it mildly, they are on unsafe ground in acquiescing in the changes in these grades. Last night I quoted as high an authority as there is on the continent of America on grades, and he distinctly says, on his authority as an engineer of great experience, that velocity grades on a new line and in our country are not to be depended upon for carrying the load that can be carried by a train loaded for a level line. He



stated that most emphatically. If that is the case, if the people of the old land believe that-and this engineer is an influential man-they will at once say:	Here is
another instance why we should not give the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company money fully to equip and operate this line, because it is an inferior line according to the highest authority, and is not the line which they told us they weTe going to be able to operate so cheaply. Mr. 'Chamberlin made that absolutely clear in a letter addressed to Major Leonard which I will read again. He had in mind the very matter, to which I have referred, that the only way to make these Canadian ocean ports a success is to have a road better than any other. He at once took exception to this Government changing or altering the gTades on the National Transcontinental railway, which he had -agreed to operate and which the country had agreed to build as he wanted it, so far as grades and curves were concerned: This is his protest:
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 be in compliance with the agreement nor satisfactory to this company and cannot be accepted.
(Sgd) E. J. Chamberlin.
Within a very few months after this Government came into power, Mr. Chamberlin served them with notice that, if they changed the grades on this road, he would not accept the change. I should think that in the face of that the Government would have hesitated long before they would have proceeded with changes on the work. Not only did they proceed with the change of grades west of Cochrane to which Mr. Chamberlin objected, but they introduced similar changes by the dozen between Cochrane and the city of Quebec. I was asked by an Ontario mar whether I would

do anything that would prevent traffic coming down the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway from Cochrane, and I said: You do not know your man. I am not from the province of Ontario only; I am proud to be a resident and a native of the province, but when I am in the House of Commons I am from the Dominion of Canada. If that line were run through my own constituency, I would take the same view I do now. This is a great national undertaking for the people of the Dominion of Canada, and any effort made to cripple any part of it is not creditable to the men who make that effort. My desire is not to make an attack but to point out that Mr. Chamberlin, in so many words, informed the Government that if they made these changes he would not accept the road. He has never gone back on that notice, and the changes have been made. Let me read some of the changes that have been made west of Cochrane:
At mile 175, from station 1,784 to 1,817, there are 2,700 feet of .45 against eastbound traffic instead of four-tenths.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the hon. gentleman reading from?


George Perry Graham: From a statement I made in the House last year, based on an examination of the profiles by an eminent engineer:
Then follows 1,000 feet of level and immediately 1,300 feet of -65 against westbound traffic, an increase here in the grades both ways.
At mile 177, station 1,876 to 1,889, there is
1,400	feet of 3/10 against eastbound traffic, followed by 1,000 feet of 8/10 against westbound traffic, another distinct increase in the grade.
At station 1,928 to 1,936, there is 800 feet where the 4/10 grade against eastbound traffic has been raised to .76, an increase of practically 100 per cent, followed Dy 1,600 feet of 6/10 grade against westbound. At mile 179 there is a siding. Some slight changes have been made at this point, but they are trifling. At mile 180, station 2,024 to 2,039, there is a stretch of 1,500 feet where the grade has been raised from 4/10 to -48 against eastbound traffic. At mile 181, station 2,104 to 2,115, the 6/10 grade against westbound traffic has been raised a trifle to .63. At mile 182, station 2,154 to 2,169, after 1,400 feet of level track, it is immediately raised to .25', which runs for 1,800 feet against westbound traffic.
A distinct violation of the agreement which will, if it means anything, increase the freight rates against the manufacturers of eastern Canada who want to send their goods to the West over this line.
Possibly that would not be a momentum grade. There is no momentum, as I gather

from the profiles, to compensate for the rise in the grade from 6/10 to '75. At mile 183, there have been several slight changes from, the original, introducing what the engineer^ call 'sags.' At mile 184, from station 2,261 to 2,265, after 400 feet of level there are 1,000 feet raised from 6/10 to 8/10 against westbound traffic. At mile 185. following 1,300 feet of .31 against westbound traffic, 800 feet were raised to 8/10. At mile 187, station 2,385 to 2,401, a grade of 4/10 against eastbound traffic was raised to .42 for 1,600 feet.
This shows that there seemed to be a desire to change the grade just a little. Not one farthing would be saved by such a slight change as that.
At mile 188, station 2,471 to 2,475, there is something over 500 feet of level, followed by 1,475 feet, and the grade was raised from 6/10 to 8/10 against westbound traffic. At miles 190 and 191, station 2,594 to 2,616, there is 2,200 feet of 4/10 raised to 7/10 against east-bound traffic. At mile 193, station 2,720 to 2,741, there is 2,100 feet of 4/10 raised to .62 against eastbound traffic, and at station 2,751 there is 1,000 feet of 6/10 raised to 8/10 against westbound traffic. At mile 194, station 2,760 to 2,770, the grade has been raised against eastbound traffic to 6/10. At mile 196, station 2,884 to 2,900, after 1,600 feet of practically level track comes 1,500 feet where the grade has been raised from 6/10 to 8/10 against westbound traffic. At mile 197 to 199, sags again have been introduced, as stated before, apparently to save a few loads of fill, without having any regard to the apnearance of the road. At mile 200, station 3,090 to 3,110. after
2,000	feet of 4/10 grade against westbound traffic, the grade suddenly rises to 8/10 against westbound traffic for 2,000 feet. At mile 202, station 3,225 to 3.240, there is 1,500 feet where the grade of 4/10 against eastbound traffic has been raised to .51.
These changes west of Cochrane were made in the face of the protest of the President of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and of a notice that if the changes were made the road would not be taken over by the company.
I come now to the changes made east of Cochrane-and that this materially affects the cities of Quebec, St. John and Halifax I say without any fear of contradiction. I will repeat in the presence of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries what I said when he was out: that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in St. John, the Prime Minister in Halifax, and the Postmaster General in Quebec stand on very dangerous ground in allowing these changes to be made or to remain made in the grade of the line from Winnipeg east, because Mt. Chamberlin says that if they are left as they are he will not take the road. If he does take the road, the consensus of opinion of very good authorities is that he will never be able to haul 1291
as much tonnage per train as he could have hauled had the grade been left at the standard. If this contention be true, St. John will get little benefit from the Grand Trunk Pacific railway; if it be true, Halifax will get little benefit from the Grand Trunk Pacific railway; if it be true, the benefits expected by the city of Quebec will be largely diminished by the putting in of these grades. If it be possible that the power of haulage may be decreased, would it not be a safe thing for these three members of the Government, coming from the great ocean ports, to insist that that doubt be removed, and that everything be taken out of the way that might prevent the Grand Trunk Pacific from feeding traffic into our great Canadian ocean ports and receiving traffic therefrom. It is common sense that they, should do that, and I believe that it will be done before very long, if I know the temper of the people of these cities when they understand the situation, as I hope to be able to point it out to the Government.
Now, I come to the grades that have been changed east of Cochrane. Hon. gentlemen may laugh, but this is not a very laughing situation. This is a situation in which the Dominion of Canada, by an agreement with a company, is investing $181,000,000, one of the great objects in view being the development of our own Canadian ports. The violation of that agreement is not a small matter, particularly when the gentleman who is at the head of the operating company that should lease this line says he will not take over the line at all if these grades are put in now. I shall give the changes made east of Cochrane:
At mile 86, what was originally designed as a four-tenths per cent has been raised to a six-tenths per cent grade. At mile 90, station 1,545 to 1,660, there is another rise in grade, 1,500 feet of .56 against eastbound traffic instead of four-tenths as per original instructions, and at station 1,694 there is 600 feet of .53 grade against eastbound traffic instead of four-tenths.
The very first change made east of Cochrane is made against eastbound traffic and against the cities of Quebec, St. John and Halifax
At mile 93, there is 2,000 feet where a slight sag has been introduced without any apparent reason except for the purpose of introducing it.
At mile 99, station 2,160 to 2,172, there is 1,200 foot level, then 2,000 feet of one per cent grade instead of six-tenths against westbound traffic, originally contemplated, followed by a slight grade against eastbound traffic.
The same argument applied to 86, will, I believe, apply to this grade, and I leave it to the staff themselves, if they look over the pro-

files carefully, if they will not find in at least two places a grade where there is no attempt at a velocity or compensating grade, if it is not a straight run from the level at the grade, I am not prepared to say at what mile it is.
At mile 101, station 2,226 to 2,233, there is 700 feet of level, then 1,300 feet of .84 grade against westbound traffic instead of six-tenths, which merges into 3,300 feet of six-tenths. On the 700 foot level, a full train will be expected to get up sufficient speed, not only to climb 1,300 feet of .84 grade, but added to this without any easement of grade at all, a stretch of 3,300 feet of 6/10.
And I say now that a loaded train of empty cars, perhaps being taken back in a rush to Winnipeg and the West to receive grain will stall on this grade under the best conditions.
Again, before the 6/10 grade begins there is a continuation of .84 grade for 1,300 feet, so that the original intention that the train would only have to climb the 6/10 grade is altogether obviated, and the reasoning that there will be a great reduction of speed will apply to this grade as well as to the other.
Then, on contract 14, at mile 65, there is
1.400	feet of 4/10 against westbound traffic and then a stretch of 2,200 feet rise of from 6/10 to .73 running into a long stretch of 6/10. The same argument as to the necessary speed of a train when striking the 7/10 grade in order to assist it up that 2,200 feet, and also the additional distance of the 6/10, is applicable.
At mile 175, from station 1,784 to 1,817 there is 2,700 feet of .45 against the eastbound traffic instead of 4/10. Then follows 1,000 feet of level and immediately 1,300 feet of .65 against westbound traffic, an increase here in the grades both ways.
At mile 177, station 1,875 to 1,889 there is
1.400	feet of 3/10 against eastbound traffic, followed by 1,000 feet of 8/10 against westbound traffic, another distinct increase in the grade.
At station 1,928 to 1,936, there is 800 feet where the four-tenth grade against eastbound traffic has been raised to .76, an increase of practically 100 per cent, followed by 1,600 feet of six-tenth grade against westbound. At mile 179 there is a siding. Some slight changes have been made at this point, but they are trifling.
At mile 180, station 2,024 to 2,039, there is a stretch of 1,500 feet where the grade has been raised from 4/10 to .48 against eastbound traffic. At mile 181, station 2,104 to 2,115, the 6/10 grade against westbound traffic has been raised a trifle to .63. At mile 182, station 2,154 to 2,169, after 1,400 feet of level track, it is immediately raised to .75, which runs for 1,800 feet against westbound traffic. Possibly that would not be a momentum grade. There is no momentum, as I gather from the profiles, to compensate for the rise in the grade from 6/10 to .75. At mile 183, there have been several slight changes from the original, introducing what the engineers call ' sags.' At mile 184, from station 2,261 to 2,265, after 400 feet of level there are 1,000 feet raised from 6/10 to 8/10 against westbound traffic. At mile 185, following 1,300 feet of .31 against westbound traffic, 800 feet were raised to 8/10. At mile 187, station 2,385 to 2,401, a grade of 4/10 against eastbound traffic was raised to .42 for 1,600 feet. At mile 188, station 2,471 to 2,475, there is something over 500 feet of level, followed by 1,475 feet, and the grade was

raised from 6/10 to 8/10 against westbound traffic. At miles 190 and 191, station 2,594 to 2,616, there is 2,200 feet of 4/10 raised to 7/10 against eastbound traffic. At mile 193, station 2,720 to 2,741, there is 2,100 feet of 4/10 raised to , 62 against eastbound traffic, and at station 2,751 there'is 1,000 feet of 6/10 raised to 8/10 against westbound traffic. At mile 194, station 2,760 to 2,770, the grade has been raised against eastbound traffic to 6/10. At mile 196, station 2,884 to 2,900, after 1,600 feet of practically level track comes 1,500 feet where the grade has been raised from 6/10 to 8/10 against westbound traffic. At miles 197 and' 199, sags again have been introduced, as stated before, apparently to save a few loads of fill, without having any regard to the appearance of the road. At mile 200, station 3,090 to 3,110 after
2.000	feet of 4/10 grade against westbound traffic, the grade suddenly rises to 8/10 against westbound traffic for 2,000 feet. At mile 202, station 3,225 to 3,240, there is 1,500 feet where the grade of 4/10 against eastbound traffic has been raised to .51.
I find that the following grades were changed east of Cochrane, in district '0/ contract 14:
At mile 115, station 2,996 to 3,000, there is 400 feet of a level and 3,000 feet of six-tenths against westbound traffic, and 1,300 feet of .49 against westbound traffic. At mile 125, station 3,476 to 3,495, there is another change, making six-tenths grade, which, while being only the standard grade in the agreement, still is an increase over what was intended originally, and a violation of the chief engineer's instructions. At mile 141, station 4,360 to 4,370, there is 1,000 feet of seven-tenths grade against westbound traffic, an increase over the standard. Then from 4,370 to 4,390 there is 2,000 feet of six-tenths grade, followed by 1,150 feet where it drops to four-tenths, which is increased again from station 4,405 to 4,417 for 1,200 feet to six-tenths. This shows that the train will not only have to climb the increase of one-tenth of one per cent over the standard, for the 1,000 feet, but it must keep up this momentum for
2.000 feet on a six-tenths grade. In fact, for 5,350 feet it is here continually climbing. At mile 157, station 5,206, there is 1,200 feet of practically level stretch, then 2,100 feet of four-tenths against eastbound traffic, and 1,600 feet of a grade of a little over five-tenths against eastbound traffic, this being another increase in grade. At mile 167, the four-tenths grade is changed into 1,200 feet of five-tenths and 1,200 feet of three-tenths, both against eastbound traffic. At mile 181, there is another change from six-tenths to nearly eight-tenths against westbound traffic. At mile 189, there is 3,000 feet raised from four-tenths to five-tenths against eastbound traffic. At mile 191, station 1,121 to 1,137, there is 1,600 feet of level, but at station 1,145 there is 800 feet of 1 per cent grade against eastbound traffic which must depend for its safe and successful operation in momentum or a reduced train load proportionately.
I put these figures again on ' Hansard ' to show these changes in grade divided into east and west of Cochrane. They were taken from the profiles by a competent engineer. I did not locate them last year as east and west of Cochrane. I want to

make clear again, because this is of paramount importance, more important than any party gain or consideration, that, there being a difference of opinion, some of the most competent engineers in America contending that these grades do not produce as good a road as a four-tenths and six-tenths, a grave doubt has been raised, to put it mildly, of the efficiency of this road with the velocity grades. It is therefore the duty, I say, of the gentlemen representing Halifax, Quebec and St. John particularly, to see that this doubt is removed and these velocity grades replaced by four-tenths and six-tenths per cent real grades.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Has the hon. gentleman given the name of the engineer from whom he obtained these figures?


George Perry Graham: I submitted these profiles last year to Mr. M. J. Butler and he had an assistant with him. I did not tell him what I was going to do with his statement, I asked him to make out the grades and to give me the figures. The profiles have been before Mr. J. B. Berry, one of the greatest authorities on this continent and the opinion he gave me on them I gave to the House last night. He had these profiles all before him, as I submitted them myself and asked his opinion, and he is wholly disinterested in the information he gave. I think his authority will not be questioned.
I was saying a few moments ago that the late Mr. Hays and Mr. Chamberlin, in discussing this question of the standard of the road with me some years ago, took the ground absolutely that the only way in which St. John and Halifax could receive the benefit of the Grand Trunk Pacific traffic, as was intended, was by building a road, not equal but superior to the standard of American roads; so that the superiority of the Canadian road over the American roads would overcome the difference in distance as between Canadian ports and American ports. As Minister of Railways, I insisted that, wherever possible, this high standard should be maintained, and that there should be no doubt as to the efficiency of the road. If there is any doubt about velocity grades injuring the efficiency of the National Transcontinental railway, should not the members of the Government who represent these great ocean ports of St. John and Halifax remove that doubt? Do they not owe it to themselves and to the cities which they represent? Halifax, St. John and Quebec
are the three ports of entry for all the traffic that comes across the Atlantic to the Dominion of Canada or goes out that way,
It is well to develop the port of Quebec, and it is well to spend millions in the city of Halifax and in the city of St. John, but if these cities are not to get the benefit of our own road, then I say that the large expenditure being made in these great ports is being made for other railway companies, and not for the National Transcontinental railway. After spending millions of dollars, why take any chance-to put it in the mildest form-in order to save a comparatively small amount, and Mr. Berry says a far smaller amount than is named by this commission. I put it strongly because I feel the situation. 1 discussed it thoroughly with the late Mr. Hays and Mr. Chamberlin some years ago, and we arrived at the conclusion that our great Canadian ports could not be kept up unless the high standard of the road was maintained. I urge the Prime Minister, as representing Halifax, and the Minister of Marine, as representing St. John, and the Postmaster General, as representing Quebec, to look into this matter most thoroughly, and not take the word of any engineer who may say that this is as good a way to build a road as any other, or even the word of an engineer who says it is not as good a way. They should remove the doubt that has been raised so that there can be no mistake, so that if the Canadian ports are not developed it will not be the fault of the Grand Trunk Pacific construction. If I were discussing a party question, I would not take up so much of the time of the House, but I feel that this is of vital importance to the Dominion of Canada, and should not be made a football for any one province as against another, or for any one set of ideas as against another. We want the trade of Canada for Canadian ports, and the Transcontinental was constructed for that purpose; and if we take any chance whatever when we know the situation, then in the years to come there is one man in the Dominion of Canada that will not be responsible for the consequences if they are not up to the expectations of the gentlemen who represent these ports.
In the city of Quebec some changes have been made, and while for the present moment those changes will be for greater benefit in	the way of
labour for the city of Quebec, I want to call the attention of the Prime Minister,
20,34


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. gentleman
shows me one plan where the word 'tunnel' is stricken out. I see that on the same plan the words * St. Male shops ' are also stricken out. However, these shops are now in course of construction with 600 men working.


George Perry Graham: That is what I say; notwithstanding the finding ' of this commission, these shops are being built. What I say is that these maps were given me by this Government or its officers, and that in one of the maps the tunnel is stricken out and in the other the shops are stricken out.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, both are stricken out.


George Perry Graham: Why?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Ask the people who struck them out; I do not know, I know the work is going on, and that is better than mere words on all the plans which you may show.


George Perry Graham: I know it is and I am finding fault, not that the work is going on, but that the maps were given to me in order to carry out the statement which was handed to me. These maps are not true. It is unfair. I am going to read the report given to me in a return and I am going to call the attention of the hon. acting Minister of Railways and Canals- to it. I want the Postmaster General to listen because he is conversant with the situation. What I invite attention to is this:
Estimated cost of Quebec Terminals under present plans.
Cost of work done and right of way taken over from the Quebec Bridge Company between Point a Pizeau and Quebec bridge (including track material)	$ 287,169 90
Cost of grading to date, Quebec
bridge to Champlain Market.. 543,000 00 Estimated cost of completing grading, Quebec bridge to Champlain
Market	 57,000	00
Cost of track material, Point a
Pizeau to Champlain Market. .	40,000	00
Cost of land, Point a Pizeau to Champlain Market (includes to
deep-water line)	
1,368,050	00Estimated cost of station and terminals at Champlain market ..	60,000	00Total	$2,355,219	90
Joint Terminals.
Estimated cost of joint terminals, on which the Government' pays as annual rental a sum equal to 2i per cent:
Canadian Pacific railway property
at Quebec	$3,300,000	00
Additional land to be purchased for
joint terminals	
800,000	00Terminal station and yards to be built by Canadian Pacific railway	
1,500,000	00Total	$5,700,000 00Annual rental, $128,250, capitalized at 4 per cent	
3,206,250 00Land and right of way	
285,780 10Total	$5,847,250 00
Can my hon. friends now see why the tunnel is stricken out of this map because it is not given to me in this statement at all? This statement given to me by the commission of the cost of the present arrangement leaves the shops of the Transcontinental railway miles away from any part of the main line. But this statement is incorrect because the Prime Minister said they were going to build the tunnel and the acting Minister of Railways and Canals said so too. I understand it is in the plan. Why is it left out of the statement that is given to me?
There is another error in this statement in order to bring the cost below' the cost of the old plan. The annual rental of $128,250, capitalized at 4 per cent gives $3,206,250. Why is it capitalized at 4 per cent when the Transcontinental railway is only going to pay 3 per cent? That reduces the amount by about a million dollars. Taking that $128,250 as the proper sum, we know that the -Grand Trunk Pacific will never pay 4 per cent, as they are required to pay only 3 per cent; therefore, their capitalization ought to be practically $1,000,000 more than it is given. If we have to pay interest on that at 3 per cent, the cost, without the tunnel, is as high as the cost under the old plan with the shops on the main line of the Transcontinental.
I want to point out something further, and I may say here that it is very difficult to get at these things when information of this kind is given to me. I want to point out to the Prime Minister and to the Postmaster General, to show that there is a spirit somewhere that does not want the tunnel at Quebec. They can figure it out, but the plans given to me. and the statements given to me, show no connections between the Transcontinenta

railway and its own shops, or with the Union Canadian Pacific railway station. If we take the correct figures, we find the capitalization at four per cent to be $3,206,250. The amount capitalized would be something over four million dollars. The tunnel will cost, at the very lowest valuation, at least $1,500,000, for it will have to be a double tunnel. The old scheme would cost $6,406,152, while the new scheme will cost $8,416,000, and the Grand Trunk 'Pacific Railway Company will be playing second fiddle to the other companies in the city of Quebec.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to conclude. I have discussed this question from higher than party motives; I have discussed it with the main object of showing that this report is unfounded and untrue in its chief findings. I have tried to show that the gentlemen who composed this commission had their views fixed, so far as the Grand Trunk Pacific railway is concerned, long before they ever were put on this commission; I have shown that one was an enemy of the policy, and the other, an enemy of the project. I have shown that they were totally unfitted, no matter what their other qualifications might be, to serve independently on such an investigation into the construction of the Transcontinental railway.
I have tried to show that the Government of Canada will not act on the findings of this commission, because every day of its life the Government of Canada is violating the chief findings of the commission. I have tried, as conscientiously as I could, and with as much force as I am possessed of, to show, particularly to the representatives from Halifax, St. John and Quebec, the result that may accrue to those great Canadian ports, if these hon. gentlemen are not alive to see to it that the high standard of the Transcontinental railway be restored, and restored immediately.
I have tried, as faithfully as I could, and in all earnestness and conscientiousness, to warn the Government against allowing this attack on the Grand Trunk Pacific directly, and indirectly on our great Canadian enterprises, to go unanswered and unchallenged. I have urged, and I urge again, that the Prime Minister should rise to the situation, and so far as the attack on this great undertaking is concerned, should denounce this report as unfounded, which it is, and which every man in Canada who has studied it, knows it to be.
I have said that the legitimate industries of Canada and the legitimate undertakings (Mr. Graham.]
of Canada are on a sruod basis, and the financiers of the world need have no hesitation in continuing to invest their money in this Dominion. I have tried, feebly it may be, to tell the country and the financiers of the world that the men of Canada will stand side by side, the peers of any men in any country in the world, for honesty, for ability, and for integrity. It is in the interest of the people of Canada, rather than in the interests of party; it is in the interest of the great undertaking in which every man, woman, and child in Canada is concerned; jt is in the interests of the British Empire itself, that nothing be done to loosen the bonds of confidence that exist between the motherland and the young dominions across the seas. Sir, it is in the hope that the Prime Minister of Canada will rise above his party; it is in the hope that he will rise higher than partyism, and repudiate a report which affects our national welfare and our financial standing at the present time that I make one more appeal to the right hon. gentleman.
I have spoken from conscientious motives; I have spoken at length; I have devoted much energy and time to a study of this question; and, in the years to come, if St. John, if Halifax, if Quebec, if the eastern part of Canada, do not receive the benefits they expected from this great enterprise, then the member for South Renfrew will have his conscience clear in the knowledge that he has done his duty in notifying and warning the people of this country, and the members of this Government, and the members rejiresenting these constituencies of what he conscientiously believes the evil result of all this will be.
Before taking my seat, Sir, I move, seconded by Dr. Pugsley:
That the report of the commissioners appointed by the Government to inquire into the construction of the Transcontinental railway is so wilfully partisan and misleading- as to be wholly unreliable; that the manifest object of the said commissioners was to misrepresent for party purposes rather than to investigate in the public interest, without regard to the serious consequences to the country or this great national undertaking; and that for the appointment of such commissioners, and for accepting and endorsing their report, the Government deserves the severe censure of this House.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I am sure that hon. members on both sides of the House will be pleased to know that T do not pro-

pose to occupy one-fourth of the time that has been occupied by my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) in defending the policy of the late Administration and in attacking the report of the Commission now before the House. If I recollect aright, in commencing his speech he said that this report bore upon its face the imprint of partiality and unfairness, and that any one who read the report would come to the conclusion that it was a partisan one from beginning to end. He even went so far as to say that the report was so partisan and unfair that even members of the Administration and other hon. members on this side did not believe in that report themselves after perusing it. If that is the case, I can only say that I cannot comprehend for one minute why it has been necessary for the hon. gentleman to devote eight hours to attacking the report and to attempting to defend the late Administration. I venture to say that the hon. member for South Renfrew has never devoted the same amount of time, study and energy to any other speech in his political career that he has devoted to the speech he has just delivered. I want to congratulate him upon the physical energy he has displayed in delivering that speech. I do not know that I can congratulate him upon the contents thereof. His speech, from its length, in my opinion, was not intended to elucidate the question before the people of this country, but was intended to befuddle their minds. What the people want to know is this: First of all, what was the object of this railway; secondly, what were the promises and representations made at that time by the Government as to its cost; thirdly, what has been the cost of that railway; fourthly, what has been the reason of the excessive cost of the railway; and lastly, has the railway accomplished the purposes for which it was intended? If we can answer these five questions, we shall have solved the questions as to whether or not the report is a fair and impartial one, and as to whether or not the promises of the late Administration have been carried out.
Let us see what was the object of the railway. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in introducing the measure into the House of Commons, stated that the primary object of the Bill for the construction of the National Transcontinental railway was to convey freight from East to West and from West to East at a reasonable cost; in other words, to make the cost so low that this railway
would relieve the freight situation in the West; that it would facilitate the handling of traffic, and that it would do so at the least possible cost; that is, that this road would act as a regulator of freight rates from east to west. It was upon that assumption and principle that the people of this country approved the construction of a National Transcontinental railway. The Conservative party never opposed the construction of a National Transcontinental railway. They opposed the means and methods by which it.was proposed to construct that railway, but they agreed that there was a need for a second national transcontinental. railway.
I want to take up this question from two aspects. In the first place I will take up the representations made at that time by the Liberal Administration that this railway could be built for $13,000,000. I understand quite well that that statement was made by the then Prime Minister upon the understanding that what we would pay out over what we would take in would amount to only $13,000,000. It is upon that basis that I propose to discuss the first branch of this case. In discussing that, as it is ten years ago since these representations were made, I intend to give the quotations from ' Hansard ' to show the representations upon which the people of this country ratified the Bill for the construction of the National Transcontinental railway.
On the 30th of July, 1903, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, at page 7676 of ' Hansard,' spoke as follows:
Therefore let our friends on the other side of the House take note of this fact:	That,
with the exception of a few years' interest, to which I shall allude later on, we shall have this portion of the railway built by the Government from Moncton to Winnipeg without the cost of one dollar to the Canadian people. We shall receive interest upon the money advanced at the same rate, whatever we give with the one hand we shall receive back with the other.
I am fair to admit that the then Prime Minister meant by that statement, that we would receive 3 per cent upon the cost of construction of the eastern section of this railway and that we would receive 3 per cent rental in return after the interest for the first seven years, but that the interest for the first seven years which we would lose would be $13,000,000. Therefore he told the people of this country that $13,000,000 was all that it would cost for the construction of the National Transcontinental railway.
On page 7691 of 'Hansard' Sir Wilfrid Laurier spoke as follows:

*038
The sum total of the money to be paid by the Government for the construction of that line of railway from Moncton to the Pacific ocean will be in the neighbourhood of $12,000,000 or $13,000,000 and not a cent more. Now, Sir, what is $13,000,000 in the year 1903-it is about our surplus of revenue over expenditure; the surplus for this year will pay for the construction of this road.
Again at page 7695, Sir Wilfrid said:
The cash subsidy which is promised and which is to be given under this contract to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company will not exceed $13,000,000 or thereabouts. Now, Sir, I think under the circumstances that I can appeal with some confidence to the judgment of the House to ratify, and to ratify with earnestness and with joy, the contract which I have the honour to lay upon the table.
This was fallowed by a speech from the Hon. Mr. Fielding. I shall not read his quotation because it is too long, but it was simply to say that he corroborated all that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had said. A report by the Globe of this speech concludes as follows :
When Mr. Fielding- sat down at 11.20, after speaking for nearly four hours, there was a tumultuous outburst of cheers.
As these statements were made in Parliament, there was a sufficient justification for the people of this country to believe that the total cost of the National Transcontinental railway would be $13,000,000. That statement was followed up by the authorized and revised version of the campaign literature which was placed before the public in 1904. I remember that literature quite well, because in 1904 it was like butting up against a stone wall to run up against the policy of the Government of the day, namely a National Transcontinental railway for $13,000,000. On a page of that pamphlet in large black type, there was the following heading:
A Transcontinental railway for $13,000,000. It is an actual fact, an indisputable fact, that $13,000,000 will cover every cent of the country's expenditure in connection with this railway.
I have in my hand a copy of the Owen Sound Advertiser of 1904, the Liberal organ in my riding. I am going to quote from the speech of the Hon. A. G. MacKay, formerly Minister of Crown Lands in the Ontario Government and late leader of the Opposition in the Ontario Government. Let us see what he said to the people of my constituency upon that occasion.
Referring to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway scheme, he dealt effectively with the question, showing what would be the result of Government operation of the road. He then went on to'ask where would the estimated cost of the road, $13,500,000 he when this railway went 
through as a colonization road and opened up . 16,000,000 square miles of country growing valuable spruce which will be increased in value in this way? The money necessary for its construction could be borrowed in England for 3 per cent, and as the Government would receive an equivalent of 3 per cent rental from the Company it was simply a matter of receiving the money from the Company with one hand and paying it out with the other on the interest and it was no hard or expensive business to transact.
I am therefore perfectly justified in saying that no matter what the present leader of the Opposition meant when he spoke in the House as I have stated, certainly the country believed that we were going to get a national transcontinental railway for $13,000,000. I am going to take the right hon. gentleman at his word; I am going to compare what he now says was his meaning with the facts and figures as they exist to-day. I am going to make my computations upon the basis of four per cent, and I will give the House the reason why. I have taken the trouble to ask the Finance Department what is the rate of interest that we have paid on all that portion of the national debt which has been paid off in the last ten years, what is the rate of interest which we will have to pay on that portion of the national debt which we will pay off in the next ten years, and what is the rate of interest which we will pay for the loan of $25,000,000 which we raised the other day. I think hon. gentlemen will agree that that is a fair way of getting at the root of the matter. What are the facts? My questions were as follows:
What is the average rate of interest paid on that part of the national debt which matured in the last ten years?
The answer was 3.82; we will say 3.83.
What is the average rate of interest paid on that part of the National debt maturing in the next ten years? and the amount of said debt as maturing?
The answer was 3.74; we will say 3.75. Our last issue of $25,000,000 of 4 per cent bonds sold not at par but at 99, which means that we are paying more than 4 per cent for them. The Finance Department tells me that it cost .23 per cent for commission, brokerage and expenses of loan. If you add .23 per cent to 3.83, the cost of the ioans which expired in the last ten years, you have 4.06. If you add .23 to the cost of the national debt which will expire in the next ten years, you have 3.98, and the cost of the loan which we have just put through, adding .23 per cent for brokerage, commissions, is 4.25. The cost of the three loans, the $27,000,000 which will mature,
nIARCH 25, 1914
the $38,000,000 which did mature within the last ten years, and the $25,000,000 which we have just put through averages iYio per cent. So that in reckoning the cost of. the National Transcontinental railway to the people of this country, I am justified in saying that it is costing us 4 per cent. If we had the money we could pay off a portion of our national debt and save 4 per cent; if we have not the money we have to pay 4 per cent to get it.
According to the statement of the commission, which the hon. member for South Renfrew does not deny, the cost of the Transcontinental, with interest computed to date of its completion, will be $181,000,000. I placed it at $180,000,000 before I got these revised figures. For the first seven years, as we all know, we make an absolute and complete gift to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway of seyen years interest on $180,000,000, which, compounded at 4 per cent, amounts to $56,867,000. In addition to that, we pay interest on the bonds of a portion of the cost of the mountain section at 4 per cent for seven years, making a direct gift to the company of $13,473,000. Then, because of a blunder which was made by the late Administration by reason of the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific being improperly drawn up, we were led into another expenditure in connection with the implementing of the bonds of the western section which, notwithstanding the efforts made by the Finance Minister, will cost us $10,000,000. At the end of the ten year period we will be getting three per cent on that $180,000,000 and paying four per cent. If you capitalize the difference of one per cent on the cost of the railway-because we get only three per cent rental-you have $45,000,000 more. What does it all mean? It means that instead of the $13,000,000 which the present leader of the Opposition said this railway would cost the country, taking it upon his own basis the amount i3 $125,000,000. I defy any member on the other side of the House to say that these figures are wrong. $125,000,000 is the pure gift which we make to this company, which we do not get back, and for which we have no recourse. I hope hon. gentlemen will all understand that this amount does not represent the cost of the railway; that is the figure which the hon. member for South Renfrew said was a bonus or subsidy. Did you ever hear the question of bonus or subsidy mentioned when hon. gentlemen opposite went to the country in 1903? Did they tell the people at that time that they were
going to give the company a straight gift of $125,000,000? The hon. gentleman said that we should consider that as a bonus or subsidy to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Taking his own argument, we have a subsidy of $125,000,000 for 1,800 miles of railway, $75,000 a mile. Hon. gentlemen will see, therefore, that my hon. friend has not been fair; he had not figured it out; he did not think what he was saying when he said we were giving that interest as a subsidy to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. He did not know that he was telling the people of this country that we were giving them a -subsidy of $75,000 a mile, besides building the railway ourselves.
I now propose to deal with the cost of the railway. In order that there may be no mistake about this matter, I will quote again from ' Hansard.' On July 30, 1903, the then Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), spoke as follows in this House:
It is our duty to provide immediate means whereby the products of these new settlers may find an exit to the ocean at the least possible cost.
' At the least possible cost ' solves the whole -question. If these means are not obtained at the least possible cost, you cannot get the volume of trade; if your rates are too high you will not -get the traffic. The means of transportation, must, therefore, be obtained -at the -least possible cost if the railway is to fulfil the purposes for which it is being constructed. He goes on to say:
To those who would advise to pause, to consider, to reflect, to calculate, and to inquire, our answer is: No, this is not a time for deliberation, this is a time for action. The flood of tide is upon us that leads on to fortune; if we let it pass, it may never recur again.
That i-3 what M. P. Davis said when he got contracts 16 and 17: The flood of tide is upon me that leads to fortune; if I let it pass it may never recur -again. So he kept hold of contracts 16 and 17, the flood of the tide of fortune. For eleven months the tide was dammed back, and when it receded it left upon the sands of time the sum of $740,000 for M. P. Davis. The flood of tide was indeed upon him; if he let it pass it might never recur again. Then my right hon. friend went on to say:
We cannot wait, because time does not wait.
But M. P- Davis waited for a year
Time lost is doubly lost-

M. P. Davis evidently thought that time lost was doubly gained so he held these contracts for a year. (Reading):
It is not of to-morrow, but of this day, of this hour, of this minute-Heaven grant that it is not too late.
And no man echoed that sentiment more fervently than Mr. M. P. Davis, when he got his $750,000 for nothing.
But that is not all. In the same debate Sir Wilfrid said:
It has been stated and restated in all possible tones from the faintest wail to the indignant protest, that we are launching into railway construction of gigantic magnitude through a country of which we' know absolutely nothing and without taking the usual elementary precautions of having a previous exploration. I say again there is not a shadow of truth in this charge as I shall show later on.
But I have to say this more, that we have a wealth of information on the subject; we have more information on this scheme than ever was possessed by former governments when they decided upon the Intercolonial or the Canadian Pacific railway.
But I shall be asked what about the Rocky mountains? My answer in regard to the Rocky mountains is: that we have mountains of information, we have mountains of books, pamphlets and reports from traders, from explorers and from' engineers.
Any one who to-day would care to look into the reports now accumulated in the Archives or the Railway Department will know that country just as well as he will know his own home.
That is what Sir Wilfrid said. But what did Mr. Blair say? Mr. Blair, the man who was at the head of the department, the man who knew what he was talking about; Mr. Blair the man who was not consulted when this contract was entered into or when the Government was committed to it, because he did know what he was talking about; Mr. Blair who resigned from the Government because he would not commit himself to this foolish expenditure without the necessary information. And what did Mr. Blair say?
He was not in favour of impetuously rushing into the construction of the Transcontinental railway above Quebec through an unknown country to Winnipeg and the West until we knew something about it, until we had the fullest possible information about it.
So that we have the late Government representing themselves in this position: We know all about that railway, we know all about that country, we know it as well as we know our own homes; we have had engineers out there, we have taken the necessary borings, we know the kind of material, whether rock, hard pan, clay or common excavation; we know all'about it, we have mountains of information, and we tell, you, knowing that, that this railway

will cost, according to the usual subsidy requirements, with a grade of one per cent and a curvature of not more than ten per cent, $49,132,000.
But, said Mr. John Charlton, when we are going to build a Transcontinental railway that kind of a railway will not do. It is all right enough on the ordinary subsidized railway to require grades of one per cent and a curvature not exceeding ten per cent, but we want a first-class railway, we want a railway with a grade of -04 per cent and 4 per cent maximum curves. That is the kind of railway Mr. Charlton speaking in this House said he wanted, and that is the kind of railway that the then Minister of Finance, after revising his estimate and adding twenty-five per cent, said he would give the people. What did Mr. Fielding say?
I propose to add 25 per cent to my first estimate of the cost of construction of the eastern division, and to add 25 per cent to the present value of seven years' interest on that portion of the road. This is equivalent to an advance on the cost of $21,000 to $31,000 a mile on one part and from $25,000 to '$35,000 for another part. That is a pretty liberal estimate and ought to build the kind of road called for by the hon. member for Norfolk.
Referring to the late Mr. John Charlton. That was a road with a -04 per cent grade and a four per cent curvature. So we were there informed by the late Government that that was intended by them, and in the same year, after the Amending Act of 1904 was passed we find that the instructions given to the engineers bear out this idea. The report of Mr. Lumsden, June 30, 1905, is contained in the report of the Railway Commission for the year before, that is from June, 1904, to June, 1905. The instructions therein were as follows:
District engineers were furnished with printed instructions for their guidance and for that of the engineers in charge of parties under them, giving full particulars as to their various duties. They were also instructed to adhere to grades not exceeding 0.4 per cent adverse eastbound or 0.5 per cent adverse westbound although in regard to the last mentioned it was changed to 6 per cent in one or two exceptional cases, the maximum curvature being limited to 4 degrees.
I point that out for this purpose. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) devoted eighteen columns of ' Hansard ' for the purpose of proving that, they had a -04 per cent gradient and a four per cent curvature on the National Transcontinental railway and therefore his assumption was that it cost more than it would have otherwise cost; when, as a matter of fact, we were promised in the

beginning, and the instructions were given to the engineers that we should get that grade and that curve and yet we were told it would cost only $61,000,000. So we may wipe out the seventeen pages under that head, as we are simply getting the kind of railway we were told we would get for $61,000,000, and that does not account in any way for the greater amount that this road has cost the country over the estimate. I want to say that at the time this contract was brought before the House, as I said before, the Conservative party did not oppose it, but we did move several amendments. One amendment, for instance, was that the rental of the eastern division should be secured upon the property of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. You will understand that, as the situation is now, if the Grand Trunk, Pacific did not pay the rental on the 1,800 miles of the eastern division, we would have no lien whatever on the western division for the payment of that rent, and no lien upon the Grand Trunk railway itself, which is supposed to be behind this thing and which, as Mr. Fielding said, was to be in it and of it and form the whole thing. We moved another resolution that, as the Grand Trunk railway was getting all the benefit from the Grand Trunk Pacific contract, the Grand Trunk Railway Company should therefore assume the obligations. That was voted down. We moved a great number of amendments with the object of bettering the conditions of this contract, which were all voted down, but we never opposed the construction of the railway itself. Now what do we find? Notwithstanding that we were to get the same kind of railway which my hon. friend from South Renfrew says we are getting to-day, for $61,000,000, it is costing five times that much. That means at 3 per cent a rental of $5,400,000 a year, or $14,800 a day, or $616 an hour. Now let us see in detail what the railway is to cost the country, taking it from a capital point of view, that is the cost of the railway itself to Canada. In the first place we have $180,000,000. Then we add to that seven years' interest at 4 per cent, which is $56,857,720. Next we have seven years' interest on the mountain section amounting to $13,472,099. Then, the implementing of those bonds which cost the country $10,000,000, that makes $260,339,819. In the next place we have to pay the difference between 3 per cent and 4 per cent, that is one per cent, on $180,000,000 for all time to come, and that
capitalized makes $45,000,000 more. That makes $305,339,819. I add to that the cost of the Quebec bridge because, notwithstanding what my hon. friend from South Renfrew says, I have come to the conclusion that the Quebec bridge is more useful for transporting trains over the St. Lawrence than the armouries that are being built by the Minister of Militia, and it would not	have	been built	had
it not been for the National Transcontinental railway. So I add	the
cost of the Quebec bridge, $23,314,099.
I do not know whether I should say anything about the Quebec bridge, but I would like to say this. My hon. friend says it should not be included as part of the cost of the National Transcontinental railway. I am free to admit that Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not include it in his estimate of what the road would cost, nor did Mr. Fielding include it, but I think the people of the country will come to the conclusion that it should be included; and in view of the fact that Mr. Fielding included part of the cost of that bridge I think that is another reason why it should be included. My hon. friends on the other side should not be very proud ox their record in connection With that bridge, at any rate. In the first place, the contract was given to a local company of political friends, the whole paid-up capital of which was only about $40,000, to build a bridge estimated to cost $8,000,000 or $9,000,000. They gave the contract to a company of that kind, who only put $40,000 into it, one-half of which was paid out in directors' fees attending the meeting. The company, of course, was unable to finance the work and asked the Government to finance the bonds, which it did to the extent of something like $6,000,000. The Quebec bridge through the fault of some one-I do not say the Government-fell into the river at a time when the Government had guaranteed the bonds of the worthless company, and the Government had to put up $6,000,000 themselves, for which they have never got a cent to this day. The bridge is lying in the bottom of the river; perhaps I should not say that, because the Government had to pay $50,000 more to take the scrap iron out of the river. That is the history of the Quebec bridge, except this: that the estimated cost of the Quebec bridge including what has fallen in the river, what we have spent to date, and what will be necessary to complete it, is $23,000,000, nearly twice as much as Sir Wilfrid Laurier said the whole National Transcontinental railway would cost. Including the Quebec

bridge I have now the cost of construction up to $328,000,000. If I am wrong in these figures I want hon. gentlemen on the other side to correct me, but I may say that I have verified them. What has cost the country $328,000,000 in cash is going to produce this company a rental of $5,400,000, that is a return of 1.63 per cent on the capital cost, assuming that the Grand Trunk Pacific are able to carry out their obligations when the time arrives. But that is not all. We are not satisfied with putting up $328,000,000 in cash. We have guaranteed the bonds of the mountain section to the extent of $56,000,000 more, and we have guaranteed the bonds of the prairie section to the extent of $11,000,000 and given them a loan of $10,000,000 as well. So that the total obligations we have assumed in respect to the eastern section and guaranteeing the bonds of the western section, amount to $406,000,000. Just a word in reference to the $328,000,000 that we will have paid out in actual cash of the people of this country for the National Transcontinental railway and the Quebec bridge. The whole national debt of Canada. on the 1st of this month was only $317,165,000, so that we have the amazing spectacle of having to pay out for the National Transcontinental railway in cash $11,000,000 more than the whole national debt of Canada and what have we got for it? No probability of reduced rates.
These figures are made upon the assumption that the Grand Trunk Pacific are going to carry out their obligations. Let us see whether it is probable that they will carry out their contract. They will have to make a sum sufficient to pay working expenses, betterments, and general maintenance of the road, and above that a clear profit of $5,400,000 for rent on a bald 1,800 miles of railway running through a new and practically uninhabited country. Is there any probability that they will be able to do that? If you look at the report of the Canadian Pacific railway of last year, you will find that, with a total mileage of 12,000 miles, and running through all the populated districts of our Dominion, with all its vast resources, with the experience it has gained and the customers it has made during the many years it has been in operation-even with all those advantages their working expenses are equal to two-thirds of the gross revenue of the company. If you put the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, the eastern section of 
which runs through more or less barren country, on the same basis as the Canadian Pacific railway, that portion of it will have to earn $16,200,000 in order to enable the Grand Trunk Pacific to carry out its contract and pay 3 per cent on the cost of construction of 180 millions. Is there a sane man in this room who believes that railway can do anything like as well as the Canadian Pacific railway? I think I am quite safe in saying that for the first ten years of its existence it will not be able to pay more than its working expenses, and for that reason I am quite justified in saying that fox the last three years of the ten year term the rental would not be paid; the contract provides that if they are not able to provide this 3 per cent interest over and above their working expenses, they are allowed to capitalize that portion of the 3 per cent which they are not able to earn above the expenses, and they will, no doubt, do so under the terms of the agreement. Upon that basis, capitalizing three more years will amount to $21,600,000. Capitalizing three more years interest of the mountain section bonds-and they are allowed the same privilege with respect to that-will give $11,250,000 more. Add tnat to the above cost of $328,000,000 and you get $361,000,000 which would1 be a charge against that road at the time that we could first take possession of it, upon default. In addition to that, we have guaranteed their bonds to the extent of $78,000,0044 making a total liability in cash and bonds against the road before we could enter into possession of it, of $439,636,000. I think I am safe in assuming that they will not carry out their obligations in that respect. Wfien we have arrived at that point, when we have spent $328,000,000 in cash and have guaranteed bonds to the extent of $78,000,000 at the end of the ten years whom have we got for our lessee? Have we got the Grand Trunk railway? No, we have the Grand Trunk Pacific. And who are the Grand Trunk Pacific? How much have they paid into the treasury on account of this great national undertaking? You would think that in an undertaking running up into the hundreds of millions we would be dealing with a company worth something commensurate with those figures, but what do we find? According to a return which was brought down we find that the Grand Trunk Pacific was composed of seventeen promoters who put in $400 each, making

$6,800, and the Grand Trunk, not the Grand Trunk Pacific, paid in less than $200,000. That is, we have as our tenant a company which has only paid $206,000 and we are ' handing over to them a road which will have cost us in cash $328,000,000 iand a guarantee of $78,000,000 as well. If the road does not pay, if they cannot pay the rent they simply drop out and that is the end of it. You cannot get blood out of a stone. That is why we moved that as the Grand Trunk were getting all the benefit of this contract they should guarantee the payment of the rent. We made a motion to that effect but it was voted down by my bon. friends opposite, so that we may be in the position of having a worthless tenant against whom we have no recourse, if we cannot get the money out of the road itself.
It has been said over and over again that the construction of the National Transcontinental railway was a partnership between the Government and the railway. Let us take it upon that basis. The element of partnership, as I have always understood it, is a ommunity of interest, a community of profit and the profit is the determining element in the partnership according to the amount of money that each party to it has invested. In the present instance we will have invested $328,000,000 by the Government and the Grand Trunk will have guaranteed bonds to the extent of about $20,000,000 for the Grand Trunk Pacific. Let us see how the profits are and how they will be divided between the two parties, the Government on the one hand and the railway on the other. This is a contract that was drawn by the late Administration. Let us see what the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk Railway Company get out of this contract as compared with what we get out of it. This is what I call the great divide.
First, they get one per cent interest on $180,000,000 of the cost of construction because we pay four per cent and they give us three per cent and that one per cent capitalized is $45,000,000.
Second, we give them a dean gift of rent for the first seven years of the eastern section which is the equivalent of $56,867,000.
Third, we gave them a clean gift of interest on the mountain section bonds amounting to $13,472,099.
Fourth, we had to make them a gift of $10,000,000 to implement their bonds.
Fifth, we gave them a guarantee of $67,133,000 on their mountain section bonds
to enable them to build the mountain section.
Sixth, we gave them permission to capitalize three years rent and interest after the first seven years, to the amount of $24,633,000.
If we take over the road after we have paid $328,000,000 upon it, under the provisions of the contract, we keep it for how long? We keep it under the contract until the road becomes a paying concern and then we hand it back to the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Grand Trunk Pacific keep it how long? So long as it is profitable, as it is able to pay the rent. When it does not pay the rent what becomes of the road? It comes back into the hands of the Government again. How long do we keep it? Until such time as the road becomes profitable and back again it goes into the hands of the company. It is a case of heads I win and tails you lose for all time in so far as this contract is concerned.
But that is not all. We allow the Grand Trunk railway to take $25,000,000 of the common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific as a present without paying anything for it, to keep it and to do as they like with it. They have a perfect right to take that $25,000,000 of common stock and sell it, put it on the market. It gets into the hands of bona fide holders and they may pay any price they like for it. We allow the Grand Trunk to get this $25,000,000 of common stock, we pay $328,000,000 and they put up a guarantee of $20,000,000-an unfair division of the liabilities and the profits. We put up $328,000,000 in cash as against a $20,000,000 guarantee, they take the whole of the $25,000,000 and we get none of it. Again, I say, it is a case of heads I win, tails you [DOT] lose.
Not only that, but we have allowed them to construct separate branch lines from the main line. They have built . separate branch lines themselves, and we have no security from them on these lines. .For the construction of the lake Superior branch line they received the following sums by way of assistance:
Dominion of Canada	cash	$1,209,000
Provinces cash	 378,000
Municipalities cash	 350,000
Ontario Government land grant,
675,000 acres at $2 per acre . . . .	1,350,000
For this branch line therefore from lake Superior Junction to Fort William, they received in cash and land grant $3,287,000. What for? To tap the freight which would naturally go by way of our own line through the province of Quebec, to allow

it to go down over their own line to Fort William and thence by boat, thus robbing our own line of that trade. But if we had to take over the line of the National Transcontinental railway we would find ourselves in this position, that they keep their lucrative western lines and their branch line to Fort William and elsewhere, while we keep the unremunerative line running through Quebec, and we cannot help ourselves. That is the kind of contract, that they have made for us.
But that is not all. Perhaps this does not directly affect the question, but it does more or less. They allowed the Grand Trunk Pacific, which is a railway company and not a contracting company, a company that never turned a shovelful of earth in [DOT]connection with railway construction in its life, to come in, tender, and receive contracts for the construction of this road to the extent of 117,000,000. They did not do a single thing in the way of carrying out the contract at all, but they got a straight commission of 5 per cent, and in that way they received a rake-off of about $850,000 clear to themselves-another instance of why that road is costing so much money.
At what point are we now? We have arrived at the point where we must consider whether or not we can accomplish the object we had intended, and that is cheaper transportation. What have you got for the purpose of effecting cheaper transportation? You have 1,800 miles of railway costing over $180,000,000, and according to the figures of the hon. acting Minister of Railways and Canals, costing $102,000 a mile. Do you think that a railway costing $102,000 a mile is going to help you cheapen freight rates in their country? Do you think that a railway that has cost that amount of money will cheapen freight rates when you have no control whatever over those freight rates, that shall be charged not * only on the western section but also on the eastern section, except what is provided by the common law of the land through the Railway Commission. There was no reservation made as to freight rates. You have no justification for asking the Grand Trunk Pacific to lower its rates on a railway which is costing $102,000 a mile if its earnings will not justify a cut. Therefore, I say that we have not done anything to cheapen freight rates.
Now let me give you a few figures in reference to the Canadian Pacific railway. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) gave a few figures this afternoon,

but they were all argumentative and based upon a certain assumption. I want to give you some figures that I have taken from authoritative sources. I want first
to show what the cost of the Canadian Pacific railway system was ir 1886.
Canadian Pacific Railway borrowed . $44,250,000 Took over from Government railway
estimated at	 35,000,000
Proceeds of sale of land and
townsites	 13,500,000
Common stock amounting to $65,000,000 sold realizing	 30,000,000
Rental leased lines, capitalized ..	25,000,000
Total	 172,750,000
This is the amount that the Canadian Pacific railway paid for 4,500 miles of railway. In other words, in 1886 they had a railway which cost them $38,300 a mile, as compared with $102,000, the cost of the National Transcontinental railway. But somebody will say:	That is not a fair
comparison; you should take the charges that are against the Canadian Pacific railway and compare them with the charges against the National Transcontinental railway, by which I mean the funded debt, mortgages which are charged against the property itself in the one case, and compare that with the funded debt and mort- . gages which are charged against the property in the other case. Well, let us take it on that basis. The Canadian Pacific railway has 12,000 miles of railway with a funded debt of $235,000,000. That is $19,500 a mile. In that is included steamships, but I will give you the benefit of that. The Grand Trunk Pacific, with 1,804 miles on the eastern division has a funded debt of $180,000,000 on the western section and the lake Superior branch, according to Poors Manual for 1913, which is the best railway authority upon these. matters, the funded debt is $126,000,000. These figures show $306,000,000 of a funded debt against 3,799 miles of railway, or $80,000 per mile funded debt on the Grand Trunk Pacific, as compared with $19,500 per mile on the Canadian Pacific railway. But, said my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), that is not fair; give us all the debenture stock, common stock, preference stock, and all other stock standing against the Canadian Pacific railway, and compare that with all the stocks and bonds of various kinds against the National Transcontinental railway, and let us see how it stands. Well, let us see; let us take the debenture stock, common stock, preference stock, and all other stocks of the Canadian

Pacific railway. The funded debt of the Canadian Pacific railway is $235,000,009, the preference stock $74,000,000, the common stock $260,000,000, or a total of $569,000,000. Deduct $23,000,000 from that for the steamships, because there are no steamships connected with the Grand Trunk Pacific, and it leaves $546,000,000 of all kinds of charges against the Canadian Pacific railway, or about $45,500 per mile.
The Grand Trunk Pacific has a funded debt of $306,000,000, preference stock $20,000,000, common stock, $25,000,000, and I think I could add $20,000,000 more for the stock they have issued themselves, and which we have not guaranteed in any way, and that makes a total of $371,000,000 or practically $100,000 per mile, or, more than double that of the Canadian Pacific railway.
Take it in any shape you like, and you find yourself in this remarkable position, that, while you are building the Transcontinental railway for the purpose of cheapening rates, it has cost more than double what the Canadian Pacific railway has cost, and we have been complaining that the rates on the Canadian Pacific railway are too high. I think I am safe in assuming that by the construction of the Transcontinental railway we will get no relief from high rates in the West.
Let me see what has been the reason for the excessive cost of construction of the eastern section of the Transcontinental railway. I make the charge, notwithstanding what has been said by my hon. friend (Mr. Graham), that one of the elements which has entered into the excessive cost of this railway is the manner in which the tenders were called for and the contracts let. There are twenty-one contracts, covering the- entire length of the eastern section of the Transcontinental railway, and let us see what were the conditions imposed on the tenderers. I should have thought that the proper way to have proceeded would have been to divide the work into fifty-mile sections, but the Transcontinental Commissioners divided it into sections to suit themselves, and they provided that the tenderers should not only put up a cash deposit with their tender, but that they should put up such further security as the commissioners might require, not exceeding thirty-three per cent; and they said to the tenderers: if you do not put up that thirty-three per cent security within ten days, you will be liable to forfeit the deposit you have already put up in cash.
What position would that put the contractor in, who was not a favourite of the commissioners, who did not stand in with them, and who was not on the inside track? The tenderer knew that if he got the contract and was not persona grata to the commissioners, the commissioners would say to him: here is your ten per cent or whatever deposit you have put up, and if you take this work which will cost six million dollars you will have to put up a further security of two million dollars within ten days, and if you do not do so you have to forefeit your ten per cent deposit. Well there are not many men in Canada, who, taking a six million dollar contract- and one man took a thirteen million dollar contract-who could put up not only a deposit of five or ten per cent on that, but who could within ten days put up [DOT]security for one-thiTd the contract price, or two million dollars.
Now if these commissioners had insisted on these terms in all cases, that might have been some excuse for them, but what did they do? At page 21 of the report is set out the twenty-one tenders, covering the whole National Transcontinental railway eastern section, and I find that the total amount of these tenders for grading was $65,000,000.
I find that the total amount of the deposit put up was $2,285,000 or four and one-third per cent of the contract price. The amount which the commissioners could require the contractors to put up, in addition to that, was $21,727,000; but, strange to say, the amount which they actually did require these favoured contractors to put up in all, was only $4,239,000, or six per cent. In other words, the commissioners said to those who tendered: you must put up four and one-third per cent deposit in cash, you are liable to put up thirty-three per cent more, but, as a matter of fact, when
9 p.m. we know whether we have favourite contractors or not, we will only exact six per cent in all.
The result of this was that for nine contracts, which covered one-half the line, only five firms tendered. In one case there was only one bid, while in all the others there were only two bids, and the result was that M. P. and J. T. Davis secured 204 miles; M. J. O'Brien secured 246 miles, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company secured 256 miles.
And, having so advertised the contracts, that only the very richest contractors could undertake the work, what do we find? We find that contracts were sublet to 100 subcontractors, and we say that if the condi-



tions had been reasonable, there would have been more tenders put in, there would have been more competition, and many of these 100 sub-contractors would have tendered in the first instance, and would have done the work at the lower price which they got from the head contractors, in the second instance as sub-contractors. My hon. friend (Mr. Graham) entered into a tirade against the report of the commission because it referred to the sub-contracting. I have no fault to find with sub-contracting, and the charge made is not what my hon. friend seems to think. The charge is: that the Transcontinental Commissioners let the contracts, in the first place, in such a way and with such onerous conditions, that only a certain favoured few could tender, and having done that the commissioners allowed these favoured contractors to assign the contracts to the men who should have got the work in the first instance.
Let me give an example of this: in contracts Nos. 16 and 17, the contract price which the contractor eventually received was $7,400,000, and that contract was allowed to remain untouched for a period of eleven months. The work was in a portion of the country which, at the time the contract was let, was inaccessible to a very great extent, and consequently the tender prices were very materially higher than would otherwise have been the case. The successful tenderers were M. P. and J. T. Davis, and the commission allowed that contract to remain untouched for about a year, when the other ends of the railway being closer to the work, and the work having become more accessible, M. P. Davis, without doing a single tap on the job, in any way, shape, or form, was able to sell his contract to another firm, at a clean profit of ten per cent. He was able to sell that contract to Mr. O'Brien, at a profit of ten per cent, which amounted to $740,000 and he did that without doing a single -stroke of work. In addition to that, he was paid six per cent on his deposit, during the whole time it remained with the Government. I will read Mr. O'Brien's evidence on that point, and the hon. member for Renfrew has been good enough to admit this, because he could not help it. He is quite ready to admit what is in black and white and what Mr. O'Brien himself swears to.


George Perry Graham: That seems reasonable.


William Sora Middlebro: My hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) reminds me that when Mr. Davis got his control, and when 
he was allowed to wait for a year without doing a single stroke of work on it, he started to hawk it about and to endeavour to sell it like any other commercial commodity.
He had a good thing from the commission and he knew it. He had good prices. He started to hawk the contract around. He said to one man: I will give you the contract if you will give me 20 per cent. He offered it to another man if he would give him 15 per cent. At last he gave it to Mr. O'Brien for 10 per cent. I will read Mr. O'Brien's evidence at page 529 of the report:
Q. When you took these contracts Nos. 16 and 17 east of lake Nipigon, oft the hands of Davis & Company, did you go over the work?- A. We sent a man over it.
Q. And you looked over it?-A. Yes.
Q. And you made a bargain with Davis to take it off his hands?-A. Yes.
Q. Were you substituted for him in the contract or are you sub-contractors under him?- A. I think if my memory serves me right, that we just stepped into Mr. Davis' place.
Q. And his security remained?-A. Yes.
Q. Did you put up any security?-A. Not in that case, we are paying our share of the amount.
Q. What do you mean by saying you are paying your share of the amount?-A. We would have to pay that money anyway.
Q. Do you mean to say that you pay the interest on the deposit?-A. Half of it.
Q. And you also pay Mr. Davis 10 per cent on the gross?-A. Yes.
Q. How much more did you pay him?-A. That is enough, I suppose.
Q. I think so, but I was just wondering how generous you might be?-A. It is conceded that I am generous.	'
Q. On that work which you took from Mr. Davis, do you think you will have a fair profit? -A. Yes, I think we will make a fair profit.
Q. You took the contract after sending a man over the work?-R. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you negotiate this bargain with the Davises?-A. Well, I concluded it in Montreal.
Q. When you negotiated with the Davises, did they want any more than 10 per cent?-A. Yes.
Q. What did they ask you?-A. 15 per cent,
I think.
Q. Did they also ask you to pay interest on the deposit?-A. Well, you see it was like this: Mr. Davis' deposit was up. His deposit is there yet. I said to them, the first thing to do was to leave that undisturbed, the commission is paying 3 per cent for this deposit, and the money will cost us more. Of course we could not get it for 3 per cent so I suggested myself paying the other 3 per cent, which made 6 per cent and it cost Mr. Davis nothing. My suggestion was accepted and that is the way it stands.
Q. So that you and the Government are paying the interest on the deposit?-A. Quite true.
Q. And Davis gets clean and clear 10 per cent on the gross cost of the work?-A. Yes.
Q. How did you bring him down to 10 per cent and give away half a million dollars difference between the 10 per cent and the 15 per
jvIARCH 25, 1914
cent?-A. We would not give him more than that and besides there were others who were negotiating as well as us and they were not offering as much, so that I think we went a little better to get the work,
Q. As compared with the prices on the adjoining contracts, how do the prices on contracts 16 and 17 compare?-A. I think they compare favourably with the prices on the adjoining works.
Q. That is to say they are higher?-A. That is what I mean.
Q. You could afford to pay Davis 10 per cent on the gross cost and still make as well out of it as you did on the adjoining works?- A. That is my recollection of the figures.
Q. That is the way you viewed it?-A. Yes.
Yet my hon. friends wonder why the Transcontinental railway has cost so much. When they can let the contract in such a manner, on such terms and allow the contractor to hold the contract over for a yeaT until the prices come down to such an extent that he can make $740,000 without doing a single turn and then hand it over to Mr. M. J. O'Brien who can still make a reasonably fair profit on the work, is it any wonder why the Transcontinental cost so much? As I said before, the Grand Trunk Pacific, backed by the Grand Trunk, came in and took $17,000,000 worth of the contract. What for? Are they behind the commission too?
Have they the favoured entrance? Are they, with the Grand Trunk, the firm that can put up the money? They have never built a line of railway; they have never owned a shovel or a wheelbarrow. They did not build a foot of the Grand Trunk Pacific although they took $16,000,000 or $17,000,000 worth of the contract. They simply came in as the favoured contractor who could put up a depoisit; they signed their name and handed the contract over to the man who did the work and took a rake-off of $850,000. Yet my hon. friends opposite ask why the Transcontinental railway has cost so much. It was partly due to their unbusinesslike way in calling for tenders.
Let me give you another instance of why this railway ha3 cost so much. I do not intend to give many of these instances because they become tiresome, but I will just give one or two instances to show what I mean. Contract No. 11 was called for in the usual way. There were several tenders on the contract. The lowest was that of the Grand Trunk Pacific at $1,691,000. The next lowest tenderers were Macdonell and O'Brien at $260,000 higher. Remember that. The Grand Trunk Pacific did not do any work. They never intended to do any work, 1301
and they immediately began to look for somebody to whom they could hand over the contract. They sold the contract to whom? To the man who had bid $260,000 higher on a contract of $1,691,000. Macdonell and O'Brien said:	We will throw
off the $260,000; we will come down to your figure of $1,691,000 and will give you 5 percent as well. They gave the Grand Trunk Pacific $105,000 to step out and then according to their own evidence, they made a profit of $500,000. Is it any wonder that the National Transcontinental railway has cost $100,000 a mile, when this is the manner in which the contracts have been let?


Mr. MORPHY:: Does that principle run through all the work?
Mr. M1DDLEBRO: Yes. Perhaps one of the easiest ways of making money is for the engineer to certify that the common excavation is solid rock, and that is one of the hardest things to detect. If the engineer says that, he converts thirty cents into $1.50 for every cubic yard of material he certifies in that way. The strangest thing about this contract is, that, notwithstanding the fact that the Government had stacks of information, that they knew this country as well as they knew their cwn home, in almost every instance the estimated amount of common excavation largely was converted into solid rock. Here is one instance. In contract No. 10, the estimated solid rock was 779,000 cubic yards. By some inconceivable means that was converted into 2,712,000 cubic yards or four times as much as the estimate. Do not forget, however, that excavation in solid rock is worth five times as much as in common clay. The excavation in loose rock was estimated at 211,000 cubic yards. That was converted into 1,513,000 cubic yards. Then they estimated that there were 4,242,000 yards of common excavation; but because common excavation is poor paying work, they got that down to 1,501,000 cubic yards. So far as the quantity is concerned, they were fairly accurate. The estimate of the total quantity was 5,233,000 cubic yards, whereas the actual amount returned was
5,727,000	cubic yards. Nobody will find fault with that. If they made a mistake of even twenty per cent of the quantity, nobody would find any fault. They made practically no mistake in the quantity, but in the quality, and the difference between the two qualities is what produces the money. This is how it figures out. According to their estimate there would be solid rock excavation to the value of $1,169,000.

Remember that this is only in a contract for 100 miles.
They converted that into $4,068,000. According to their estimates there would be loose rock $105,000; they converted that into $756,000. According to their estimates there would be common excavation $890,000; they cut that down to $315,000, with the result that according to their estimates this 100 miles of cutting and filling which was to cost $2,000,000, cost $7,108,000.


Mr. BRODER:: Who were the contractors?


William Sora Middlebro: O'Brien and Mc-
Dougall. O'Brien was the gentleman who put up the large deposit; the same man who took the contract over from Davis at ten per cent; the same man who took the contract from the Grand Trunk Pacific at five per cent and made $500,000. According to the calculation which I have given they made a profit of $1,275,000 on these three materials alone, and on the whole contract they made a profit of $1,547,000. Let us see what Mr. O'Brien himself says in regard to this; you can get no better evidence of recklessness and extravagance than the evidence under oath of the men who get the benefit of that recklessness and extravagance. Mr. O'Brien had contracts for work on the Transcontinental railway amounting to $26,000,000; I am going to -read what he himself said with regard to this classification. I quote from page 533 of the report:
Q. Did you ever get paid for clay, where you had the three classifications of solid rock, loose rock, and common excavation; did you ever get paid for clay with these classifications at solid rock price?-A. I have no recollection.
Q. If you signed a contract embodying the three classifications, solid rock, loose rock, and common excavation, in your most bountiful frame of mind you would never expect clay to be classified as solid rock?-A. Ordinary clay?
Q. Yes?-A. Oh, no.
Q. You would not have clay, no matter how hard, if it was not mixed with stones, classified as solid rock?-A. I think not.
Q. So therefore when you talk of solid rock you mean rock?-A. Do you means rock ledge?
Q. You mean rock, stone?-A. Yes.
Q. And when you talk of indurated clay, you expect that it is to be loose rock, don't you?- A. Well, it depends. As I said before if it is mixed with rocks of all sizes and kinds, then I think it should be classified as solid rock.
Q. Where did you ever get it before?-A. I never worked on specifications like that before.
Q. I am not talking about specifications, when, under Heaven, did any one ever pay you for clay mixed with rock of less size than a cubic yard, as solid rock, before the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners set the pace?- A. I have no recollection myself, except as I say in Nova Scotia in the eighties.
Q. In Nova Scotia, where you had signed a contract for solid rock, loose rock, and common excavation, did they ever pay you solid rock
[Mr. Middlebro. 1
prices for any kind of clay intermixed with stones of less than a cubic yard?-A. I have no recollection of it.
Q. You have no recollection, have you, of anybody or any railroad ever paying solid rock prices for clay intermingled with stones of less size than a cubic yard?-A. Well, where the stones are thickly assembled.
Q. Keep outside of the Transcontinental practice now, and give your answer?-A. I said before, so far as the other roads are concerned and under the specifications under which we were working, I had no recollection that it came that way, and perhaps we were not properly entitled to it.
Q. Have you worked for the Canadian Pacific railway?-A. Yes.
Q. Have you worked for the Canadian Northern railway?-A. Yes.
Q. Have you worked for these corporations in grading?-A. Yes.
Q. Now then, have you not, as a matter of fact, in the case of the Transcontinental railway, been paid for material as solid rock for which you were only paid as loose rock in these other cases, never mind the specifications now ?- A. I have no doubt as to that.
Q. That is right, is it?-A. That is right I believe.
Q. To use a familiar phrase, this assembled rock was a new one on you when you got Into the Transcontinental?-A. Do you mean that assembled rock is a new phrase?
Q. Yes?-A. Yes.
Q. It is a new phrase and a might good one for you, is it not?-A. It is very appropriate.
The contractor himself, therefore, admits that he got paid for material as solid rock which should not have been so -classified, and that he got paid for loose rock which should not have been so classified. In this way you will readily see that he would be overpaid to the extent of thousands of dollars, and the commission found upon this evidence-evidence which must be accepted, having been given by the persons most directly concerned-that $1,300,000 was lost to the country in that respect.
The hon. member for South Renfrew seems to think that because upon such evidence as this we complain of this loose classification, we are reflecting upon the staff of the Railway Commission and upon all the district engineers and subengineers connected with the work. That is not the point we -take. The point we take is that the head of the commission insisted upon these -classifications and the district and sub-engineers were bound to follow the instructions given. We charge that the commission smothered the opinions of Chief Engineer Lumsd-en and made him classify higher than he otherwise would have done. First Mr. Hodgins resigned because he refused to classify this material higher than he himself thought it should be classified. He was

kicked out, and Mr. Lumsden was appointed. Mr. Lumsden said his opinions were smothered and overridden, and he resigned because he was standing by the country and trying to resist the demands of the contractors. I will read part of his evidence, which appears on page 390 of the report, as follows:
Q. Will you tell us how you happened to be persuaded to make this compromise classification ?-A. While at La Tuque with the commissioners on their car, they brought up the subject of solid rock, the interpretation of the solid rock, and I then stated that my interpretation of it was that it meant rock in ledges, or boulders over a cubic yard, or masses of detached rock over a cubic yard. They all disagreed with me; that is, the commissioners and the contractors; and the only person who sided with me on that occasion was Mr. Woods, assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Then, after returning here, opinions were handed me by, I think, the chairman-I cannot be positive who handed me these opinions-of different K.C.'s on the interpretation of the specification.
He was smothered by the commission; he was smothered by the contractors; he was smothered with legal opinions; he was smothered out of his opinion that these men were getting more than they were entitled to get. Finally, he said that he could not remain in there with dignity to himself, and he resigned his position as chief engineer of the National Transcontinental railway.
Let me for a moment refer to a few other similar cases. I may say that I have not had time to make as thorough a preparation in this matter as the hon. member for South Renfrew did; most of what I am giving I have picked up since the debate began. This afternoon, while the hon. member for South Renfrew was referring to us as maligning the district engineers, I looked over this evidence myself for the purpose of observing the attitude of these engineers. And I find that, almost without exception, these sub-engineers come forward to this commission and say:	We did not believe
in the classification that was forced on us, but we were bound to do it in that way following instructions from the head office, from the fountain head of authority. One can hardly blame them. Being in that position, earning their daily bread, if they did not do as they were told they would be told to get out. I wish to quote briefly from the evidence of one of these sub-engineers named Halliday.


John Hampden Burnham: Where did the money
go to?


William Sora Middlebro: We have a pretty good idea, but we cannot quite prove it yet. Mr. Halliday, at page 269 of the evidence, was asked:
Q. Could you consistently have given any solid rock for that material which was composed of clay and sand, which we call cementing material, and stones less than a cubic yard ?-
A. No, sir.
Q. So that the instructions and the assembled rock clause is your authority for calling this material which is composed of loose rock, clay and sand, solid rock ?-A. Yes.
That man says: I did not believe it was solid rock, I did not believe they were entitled to $1.50 per yard. I would not certify it, but I had my positive instructions from headquarters and could not do otherwise. We are not blaming that man, certainly we aTe not blaming him to the extent that we blame the commissioners who issued the instructions and who seemed to have in mind the fact that tlmy wanted to make the roaid cost as much as it could cost. I remomibeT reading in the Globe not very long ago a report of a meeting addressed by the hon,. member for South Renfrew before the Liberal club of Toronto University, and one poor innocent young Liberal there, the chairman of the meeting, in introducing Mt. Graham, said: Look what the Liberal party have done for Canada, enumerating the various policies but winding up by saying: Look at the huge amount of money they have spent on the Transcontinental railway. Even my hon. friend himself had to smile when he heard that-but he is justifying it all to-day.
I shall take the evidence of another of these sub-engineers, Mr. Dick, found at page 261 of the evidence:
Q. Can you conceive of anything else being included in it, if you confine it to rock ?-A. No.
Q. But you did include something else in it, did you not ?

A. Yes.
Q. In your personal opinion, ought there to be anything else included in it ?-A. Well, I have just classified according to my instructions. We got instructions supplementary to the specifications, giving the chief engineer's ruling, and were guided by those instructions.
Now, while he does not say specifically that that was because of the changed instructions, I think that the fair inference is that he had classified it in that way because he had instructions from the head office.
At page 278 we have the evidence of Mr. Black, who had had eleven years experience on the Canadian Pacific railway. He was asked:
Q. In the classification on the Canadian Pacific railway work did you ever classify such.

material as is known on the present work as assembled rock as solid rock ?-A. No, sir, not as solid rock.
Q. Did you ever know of any material which was not rock being- classified as solid rock on the Canadian Pacific railway ?-A. I never had a case.	.
Q. You never heard of anyone else, either, classifying mixed material as solid rock ?-A. No, sir.
So in the whole report you will find the sub-engineers, with few exceptions, would not have classified this material as solid rock, if left to their own judgment.
I wish to say a word or two with reference to wooden trestles. My hon. friend from South Renfrew seems to claim now that it is not proper, economical railway policy to build standard wooden trestles when constructing a railway. I may say that the best v ay of estimating what is the most economical way of building a railway is to see what those men are doing who are experts in that line. The hon. member for South Renfrew has told us that Mr. Kelliher, engineer on the Grand Trunk Pacific, is a man whose experience and whose intelligence as a railway engineer cannot be questioned. He is am engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific 'and the engineer supposed to be directing the building of the western section of that railway; and we must assume that the Grand Trunk Pacific, who will own* the road, are going to build it in the most economical fashion possible so that they can carry freight at the lowest possible rates. What do we find on the western section of this railway? Do we find all steel and concrete structures in their bridges and trestle work there? No, we do not. I have a letter heTe from Mr. C. Schreiber-and by the way the hon. membeT for South Renfrew will not question the accuracy of Mr. Schreiber's statement, because he said that he is one of the most reliable men we have on the railway engineering in Canada. If it is a good thing, an economical thing to do as we have been doing on the eastern section of the Transcontinental railway, that is to go in at once for expensive steel bridges instead of doing as is usually done, build trestles and fill them up afterwards when required, by train haul fill, when you can haul economically, can any one tell me why that course was not adopted on the western section? On the contrary, we find that on the western section, the Grand Trunk Pacific, who are building it themselves for their own use as their own road, in the most economical manner, built, on the prairie section, eleven steel bridges and 197 wooden bridges 
and 1,687 wooden culverts. On the mountain section, they built 57 steel bridges and 209 wooden bridges and trestles and 1,388 wooden culverts. I think that proves conclusively that the proper, economical manner of building a railway to produce the best results and the cheapest freight rate is to do as those do who know what they are talking about, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Grand Trunk railway and the engineers of those railways. It is evidently not the proper method to do as has been done on the eastern division, apparently for the purpose of increasing the cost in the first instance, building permanent steel structures from the first, thus increasing the cost and delaying the completion of the road.
I wish to speak briefly on the Transcona shops. I do not pretend to have studied the question of the Transcona shops from the legal standpoint, but what passes through my mind is that if it was intended that these shops were to be built by the Government, would there not have been some specific mention of an item which was to cost $4,500,000? In the second place, if it was intended that these shops were to be built by this Government and to be used exclusively for the eastern section of the Transcontinental railway, was it not reasonable to suppose that they would have limited their use to the rolling stock of the eastern division of the railway? What do we find? We find shops costing $4,500,000 placed at the end of the Government railway, placed at the centre of the complete railway from the Pacific down to Moncton. That looks to me very much as if the shops were intended to be used by the Grand Trunk Pacific for their western section, 1,800 miles, just as well as for their eastern section. In other words, we are supplying shops so large that they must be intended for the use not only of our own line but of the entire Grand Trunk Pacific line, the western line as well. The hon. member for South Renfrew says that these shops are admittedly larger than is called for for present use, but that they will provide for future development. Where will the future development come from? It cannot come from eastern section branch lines because we have no eastern section branch lines, and the development will have to come from the western section and its branch lines, such as that from lake Superior junction to Port William. The Grand Trunk Pacific ooimipany have now been authorized by this Parliament to build 8,000 miles of branch lines in the West. They have built 1,000 miles of branch lines. They have had the-'r

bonds guaranteed to the extent of $15,000,000 by the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan for the purpose of building these branch lines and these two provinces have authorized an issue of bonds for five more branches.
And these two provinces have authorized an issue of bonds for five more branches, and the inference is that those shops were put there at a cost of probably two or three million dollars more than they should have been, for the purpose of meeting the development of the western section of the Transcontinental railway and making the Government of Canada pay for it by placing it at the end of the eastern section.
My hon. friend has referred to the question of the letting of contracts for the Welland canal, which of course he is quite entitled to do. I want to say to my hon. friend that I have taken the trouble to look into those contracts to see the conditions of tendering there and I find that the contractors were asked to put up a certain deposit and they knew they could not be called upon to put up any more. They were not called upon to put up any more. Those deposits in the aggregate were less than five per cent of the aggregate contract price. What is the result? The result is that for the first section there were ten tenderers, for the second section seven, for the third section nine, and for the fourth section nine tenderers. With regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific there was one tenderer for one contract, and only two tenderers for each of the other eight contracts. In one case we have competition and no competition in the other, with the Tesult that the work of the Welland^ canal is all being constructed within the estimates of the Government engineers. That is the difference between the two contracts.


Mr. CROTHERS:: Less than the estimates.


William Sora Middlebro: My hon. friend says at less than the estimates. I say they were at least within the estimates.


George Perry Graham: Not built yet; it makes all the difference in the world.


William Sora Middlebro: In conclusion, I think I have shown that this railway will never be able to reduce freight rates in the West because of its exceptional cost. If the Grand Trunk Pacific at any time are charged with having an excessive rate what will their answer be? They wil come before the Railway Commission and say: This railway has cost us $102,000 a mile, heTe are our working expenses, here are our
bonds and our stock; we are not able to pay a dividend nor even the rental and we cannot possibly reduce our freight rates. You are in the position then of having paid for something which does not answer the purpose for which it was intended and have paid three or four times the estimated cost. And this Government having been elected on the representations which they made to the people it is high time something was done by a commission for the purpose of letting the people know exactly what the railway is costing and the reasons therefor, and that there is no prospects in future of reduced railway rates in Canada by reason of its construction.


Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.):: At this very late hour, I hope my hon. friend will pardon me if I do not attempt to follow him in his very interesting historical references to things that took place ten years ago: matters of policy that have been discussed and rediscussed both in Parliament and in the country, questions of policy upon which two general elections were run, and decided adversely to the views of my hon. friend. I want to get down to the real question under discussion. Do not let us get away from the fact that the question we are discussing now is an amendment on going into Supply, condemning this Government for submitting to this House and the country the report of Messrs. Staunton and Gutelius in regard to the construction of the Transcontinental. So far as I am concerned, I will keep pretty close to that subject.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend says,
hear, hear. I hope that when he has an opportunity to address the House, he will not do as my hon. friend from North Grey did, but will get down to brass tacks and talk about Mr. Gutelius and Mr. Staunton.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let Laurier finish his
work.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend from Calgary seems to be somewhat excited.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a bit.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend from
North Grey has discussed the real subject of the report to some extent, and before I am through I promise that I will try to answer any arguments he has put forward in reference to such matters as classification. When gentlemen opposite assumed the reins of office a little over two years ago, we all knew they were seized with a bum-

ing desire to create a scandal, if possible, out of the construction of this great national enterprise. By hook or crook a scandal must be created. Of course, the most important thing in the whole matter was to find the machinery by which to create the scandal. They hunted this country from one end to the other to get the men. Finally they got two men against whom, personally, I have not a word to say. One is a lawyer, a Tory, a would-be politician, from the city of Hamilton, a man who is stated to have said in this city before men who are in this city to-night, that it did his Tory heart good to get a chance to get after these horrible Grits. The other man is an engineer who was, I understand, originally a United States citizen. I am not saying anything against hiim on account of his citizenship because, if he possesses the proper engineering qualities, he is qualified to pass judgment on the work of the late Government and the late commission. He came to this country ten or twelve years ago, and shortly after coming here was employed by the Canadian Pacific Bailway Company to do a certain amount of work in the West. When that work was finished, this gentleman was taken to the head office in Montreal and placed in a position of some responsibility, I admit. I understand he was assistant to the chief engineer. That chief engineer resigned and went back to the United States, but Mr. Gutelius was not promoted to the vacancy. Another man was appointed, and Mr. Gutelius still remained in his old position. That man retired, and still Mr. Gutelius was not promoted. After remaining in the office in Montreal for some time, with no experience whatever in field work, classification or construction work, simply doing ordinary routine work in the office, Mr. Gutelius was taken out of the engineering department of the railway and sent to North Bay in the operating department, and made divisional superintendent in a road which was completed twenty-five years ago. All he had to do was to report on what went on from day to day, and month to month, a position which has frequently been referred to as the bone-yard by engineers and railway employees of that great company. For some strange reason not made public, this is the gentleman whom my hon. friend the Minister of Bailways took up out of the woods around North Bay and brought down here, not only to blacken, if possible, the character of the late Government that is a small matter-but to make 
a report which has done Canada more harm and will do Canada more harm than this Government could do it good in ten years. The report has gone out to the people of this country and to the financiers of the world from whom we borrow money, that the Grand Trunk Pacific can never possibly earn enough money to pay its expenses and interest. It has placed the Grand Trunk in a position where they will find it almost impossible to borrow more money. It has told the people of this country that we have squandered $40,000,000 of money. It has done this country incalculable injury. These are the two gentlemen employed by my hon. friend to make this report, and it is with this report, and this report alone, that I wish to deal in the few remarks I shall make.
We know that some four or five months ago an inspired article appeared one morning in the Conservative press throughout this country to the effect that the Investigating Commission had found that something like $44,000,000 or $45,000,000 had been absolutely wasted, and worse than wasted, in the construction of the Transcontinental. That was heralded all over the country, and sent to Europe, to the United States, in fact all over the world.
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Cash), at the beginning of this session, produced' here a paper published in Los Angeles, California, with a great big headline declaring that: The Liberal Government of Canada stole $45,000,000. Then you will remember that we had the further statement in the Conservative press of this country that the Liberal party had stolen a lot of money. Finally they screwed up their courage sufficiently to bring down a sort of synopsis of what the report was going to be and they sent that broadcast over the country. If you want yellow journalism in its very essence-yes,	in its quintessence-go into the library and get the front page of the Montreal Star the morning after that statement appeared. All the lesser Tory journalistic lights throughout the country published practically the same report only they could not afford as much space and they could not put on as big headlines.


Mr. MUBPHY:: There was not as much in it for them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend (Mr. Murphy) says there was not as much in it for them, but in so far as it paid them

they pursued exactly the same tactics all over Canada. We at once wanted the evidence upon which this most wonderful report had been made. We were told that they would get it for us as soon as they could. The evidence was being printed in a newspaper office in the city of 'Montreal and, day by day, as the evidence was printed, certain deductions from the evidence were dribbled -out to the Tory newspapers and the people of Canada were flooded with these unfair and dishonest statements for over a fortnight before we even could get the documents in our hands. Finally we got.the documents in our hands and wanted to discuss them a week ago in order to place the matter before the country at the earliest possible moment, but we were politely asked to allow it to stand over for another week and of course we had to consent.
Now we are here to discuss this matter but after the wonderful and masterly speech made by my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) yesterday and this afternoon, it is almost unnecessary for any hon. member of this House to take up any further time. But in order that we may supplement, if it be possible,- to some extent, the exhaustive statement made by my hon. friend from South Renfrew, I desire to say a few words upon this important question. In so far as I am concerned, and I think I am speaking for all my hon. friends on this side of the House, we intend to give the truth of this matter to the people of Canada. We hope that this truth will filter beyond the bounds of Canada and that those people in other parts of the civilized world who have read the false and damaging statements sent out as a result of this report will be to some extent placed in possession of the facts and that they will entertain a somewhat different view of the people of this country than that which no .doubt many of them have entertained as a consequence of reading these reports.
I have read every word of the evidence which has been submitted to us and if one will refer to that evidence he will find that these two commissioners were obsessed by certain ideas. They had not bees in their bonnets but one would imagine that they might almost have had wheels in their heads. Mr. Lynch-Staunton had but one theory and that was to prove by every witness that there had been overclassification and that the overclassification existed in allowing as solid rock what has been called
assembled rock and also the converting of what he called common excavation into loose rock. Mr. Gutelius, on the other hand, did not care two straws about classification but his theory was:	Wooden trestles and
velocity grades. That is the substance of the examination of all the witnesses by these two gentlemen.
I was not only pleased, but somewhat surprised, something like a week ago, in attending a dinner given by McGill students in Montreal at a statement made by Mr. C. H. Cahan, a gentleman well known to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), a gentleman well known all over eastern Canada as a lawyer of repute and not merely a lawyer of repute, but, as he stated on that occasion, a Tory of the Tories, a man who had opposed the Liberal party 'all his life and who was the leader of the local Conservative Opposition in Nova Scotia for some years. My hon. friend may have seen in the newspapers what the hon. gentleman stated on that occasion. The newspapers did not put it half as strongly as Mr. Cahan stated it but he said that it was not playing the game fair, as the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) used to say to us, by means of a star-chamber investigation_ to take people before them without the assistance of counsel and to get information which was false, which characterized one-half of the people as dishonest and the leader of a great party as being responsible foT this condition. It was not playing the game fair, he said, to send these reports broadcast'over Canada and over the civilized world. Let any man acquainted with the principles of fairness and justice recognized in courts of law in getting at the facts of a case, read this evidence through, and he will come to the conclusion that there has been a determined attempt to paint the picture as black as it could be painted. If you read this evidence through you will find that these two gentlemen have acted, in the prosecution of this inquiry, very ' much in the regular police court style.
They brought witnesses before them, and practically all the witnesses, except three or four, were men in their own employ who were being examined, men with families that had to be fed, men whose positions meant something to them and men to whom it meant a good deal to ^ be summarily dismissed from the positions that they occupied as resident engineers. This was the class of men that these gentlemen brought before them. This was the class

of men who were dragooned, in so far as it was possible, into making statements which would bear out the theories of these two inquisitors, because I cannot call them commissioners. If my hon. friends want an illustration of the manner in which these witnesses were treated I would refer them to a witness by the name of Mr. Charlton. I do not know who Mr. Charlton is, but we find his evidence at page 225 of the case. Hon. gentlemen will find evidence extending over four or five pages showing that Mr. Lynch-Staunton went at him ten times, and Mr. Gutelius ten times. They had to take ten runs at the man in order to get him to give the kind of evidence they wanted. The kind of inquisition which they conducted regarding this man practically characterized their treatment of every man who appeared before them. There was a deliberate attempt to bulldose the men under their control, to bulldose the men to whom they were paying money, to bulldose the men who were looking to them for a living and this was done in order to induce them to make statements to carry out the pet theories of these two inquisitors.
There is one thing that I will give these two gentlemen some degree of credit for and that is that they have carefully avoided making the direct statement that there was fraud on the part of anybody from the head man down to the resident engineers.
I submit that you can read that report from cover to cover and you cannot find a solitary statement imputing fraud to anybody. You do find there statement after statement that the road cost more money than it should have cost. You find statement after statement that if wooden trestles had been used instead of solid fills it would have cost less money. You do not have to go to Mr. Staunton or Mr. Gutelius to have them tell you that. Why, any ordinary farmer in the country could tell you that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: And you would not have to pay him so much for the information.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You do not have to pay $'65,000 to get two men to tell you that, and it will be $100,000 before we get through with it. You do not have to get $65,000 men to tell you that if you put in wooden bridges instead of steel bridges, it will cost you less money, and you do not have to get such expensive men to tell you that if you build a road with a one per cent grade instead of a 0-4 per cent grade, it will cost you less money. Why, [Mr. Carvell.j
in many parts of the country if you take one per cent grades or one and a half per cent grades you practically have no work to do. because you simply go up one hill and down another; that is a velocity grade.


An hon. MEMBER:: A toboggan.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Mr. MACDONALD:: And Sir Alexander
Lacoste.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, Sir Alexander
Lacoste.


William John Macdonald: A good authority for the hon. member for St. Antoine.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, and it ought to be a good authority for any man in this House, whether he comes from the province of Quebec or elsewhere. Here were men of the highest standing in the legal profession giving their opinion as to what was the proper construction of the clause of the specification referring to solid rock. Perhaps I bad better read this clause of the specification, so that there may be no doubt about it, it is to be found on page 98 of the exhibits.
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.
The question arose as to whether the word ' masses ' meant a solid mass of rock of one cubic yard or over, or a mass of rock composed of a number of smaller pieces cemented together so as to make it a solid whole. I put that in my own language, but I think it fairly well describes the contention between the parties.
All the eminent counsel to whom I have referred gave it as their opinion that the proper construction of this clause of the ' specification was that, no matter how big or how small the pieces of rock were, so long as they were rock fastened together, they were solid rock under that specification; and that if that material was found, the contractor was entitled to the solid rock price for removing it. Then they appealed to Mr. Newcombe for his interpretation of that specification. His interpretation will

be found on page 384 of the evidence. This wonderful engineer, Mr. Gutelius, after reading Mr. Newcombe's letter, still says that Mr. Newcombe did not agree with the contention of the other gentlemen, but that he agreed with Mr. Lynch-Staunton and himself in their interpretation of this clause of the specification. Therefore, I will read Mr. Newcombe's letter and let hon. members and the people of the country judge whether Mr. Gutelius was able to understand the English language properly or to appreciate the true meaning of a legal opinion given by such a man as Mr. E. L. Newcombe. The letter, dated the 6th day of January, 1908, and addressed to the secretary of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, is as follows:
Referring to your letter of 20th ultimo with which you submit the correspondence with regard to the classification of excavated material and the interpretation of clauses 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the general specifications for construction of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway, I have the honour to state that upon consideration of the papers submitted X see no reason to differ from the classification stated by the chief engineer in his letter to the commissioners of 16th ultimo except as to the statement that 'rock assembled (the individual pieces of such assemDled rock exceeding one cubic foot in size). . . such as in the Judgment of the engineer may be best removed by blasting,' is to be classified as solid rock excavation under clause 34. I do not understand upon what principle the chief engineer limits the size to pieces exceeding one cubic foot. The specifications speak of rock found in ledge or masses of more than one cubic yard which in the Judgment of the engineer may be best removed by blasting. If 'rock assembled' may be regarded as a mass of rock and if it may be best removed by blasting, I do not see why under the specification it is material whether the individual pieces exceed or are less than one cubic foot in size, and if 'rock assembled ' is not regarded as a mass, the minimum limit of size which can be classified as solid rock exceeds one cubic yard.
In the rest of the letter Mr. Newcombe says that this is purely a question for the engineers to decide on the ground and as the matters come up. As to the construction of that clause of the specification, however,
I have read Mr. Newcombe's opinion, and yet Mr. Gutelius stated that he did not consider that Mr. Newcombe agreed with those gentlemen as to its construction.
After that, Mr. Lumsden, who was at that time chief engineer of the commission, went to Mr. Collingwood Sohreiber.
I do not think it is necessary fur me to give a certificate of character for Mr. Collingwood Sohreiber, a man who has been at the very zenith of the engineering profession of this country for the last thirty or 
forty years, a man who has had to do with every big railway undertaking in Canada since Confederation, a man whose word would be taken by any engineer in Canada, by any railway contractor in Canada, by any politician in Canada, whether Liberal or Conservative. Mr. Collingwood Schrei-ber was appealed to by Mr. Lumsden, and I think no person would deny the fact that Mr. Lumsden was not at first in accord with the gentlemen whom I have named in his interpretation of this clause of the specification. Mr. Lumsden is a very old man; and when the commission had him before them, it is almost a work of art to watch the manner in which they guided this poor man along. They did not ask him any questions they said to him: You did so and so, and he said yes; and you did so ard so and he said 'yes.' He said 'yes' to everything they said to him. Amongst otter things he said that he was always opposed to this classification. In some way his views were smothered out and he was compelled to accept the views of others. I might say that at that time Mr. Collingwood Sohreiber had been assigned a special position as consulting engineer for the Government. He was perhaps in the most independent position in which any man in Canada could be on this question. Some of the gentlemen who had given their legal opinion were paid counsel for the contractors, and perhaps my hon. friends will argue that their opinion should not be taken as of very much value because of that fact. Here is a gentleman who had been in the employ of the country for a third of a century, who had been chief engineer of the Railway Department, who had been taken out of that position and had been given, almost as an honourary position, that of consulting engineer for the Government and for the Transcontinental Commission, the man whom everybody employed as the last resort for an interpretation on an engineering question. Mr. Schreifoer was sworn and gave his evidence on page 447. I will only read a portion of it. My friends can follow it up and they will find that I am giving in a nutshell the substance of this gentleman's opinion, as follows:
Q. Do you know that Mr. Lumsden construed that clause 34, which is the one relating to solid rock excavation, so as to exclude from solid rock excavating everything which was not rock?-A. Yes.
Q. Would you agree with that?-A. Everything which was not rock certainly would be excluded.
Q. And afterwards Mr. Lumsden tells us

that he was shown the opinions of several eminent counsel, obtained by the contractors, to support their contention respecting the construction of these specifications, and that, as the opinions differed from him, and as the commissioners differed from him, that he was brought to make a modification of his own views of the specifications; did you know that?-A. I knew that eminent counsel had submitted their views with regard to the specification, but I did not know that he had modified his views.
Q. He tells us that he did, and X think in the Lumsden inquiry he said he did; he is made to modify his views so as to include in the classification material which was not solid rock, when mixed with solid rock; that is, the matrix in which the rock lay?-A. Do you refer to what he calls assembled rock?
Q. I do.-A. Yes, I was aware of that assembled rock, but I did not know he did not agree about it before.
Q. Do you know that he at first contended that even in assembled rock none of the interstitial material should be classified as solid rock?-A. No, I did not understand that. What I understand by his assembled rock, was that it was fragments of rock cemented together in bodies of not less than a cubic yard.
And so it goes foT the rest of that page and part of another. In other words, Mr. Collingwood Schreiber, says that he exercised no influence over Mt. Lumsden and that he did not know that Mr. Lumsden disagreed with him or with anyone else. A few days after that Mr. Lumsden issued what is called the famous blue print. A copy of this blue print will be found as No. 16 in the book of exhibits. In this famous blue print an illustration is given of the cuttings which ought to be classified as solid rock, and the one particularly referred to now is No. 5. No. 5 shows the number of pieces of rock of different sizes, all smaller than a cubic yard, securely joined together by some sort of cementing material. That blue print is sent out to the engineers and they are told that when they find material of that kind they are to classify it as solid rock. Prom that time forward when this material was found it was classified aa solid rock, and it was so classified according to the instructions of the chief engineer of the commission. The chief engineer told the engineers to do this because he was convinced, and every other man about him was convinced, that the only proper way to construe that specification was to construe the material referred to as solid rock. This was rock in masses of one or two cubic feet; of course, if it was a cubic yard there could be no question as to its being solid rock. That document is signed by Hugh T. Lumsden, chief engineer, and is dated at Ottawa, January 10, 1908. The commissioners had nothing to
do with this classification or with this blue print.


Herbert Brown Ames: Perhaps some pressure was brought to bear.
~Mr. OARVELL: Where was the evidence of pressure? I want the hon. member for St. Antoine to answer that, and I will give him an opportunity to do so. Will my hon. friend not explain it? He cannot do so. The member for St. Antoine is doing what he has been doing for the last four years making insinuations which he cannot prove. The hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who have discussed this question and many of the newspapers throughout Canada which have discussed the matter have been up to the same tricks as those of the hon. member for St. Antoine to-night.
I tell the hon. gentleman that he cannot put his finger on a particle of evidence to prove that Mr. Lumsden was ever coerced by the commission or any member of it. We have heard enough of this kind of thing during the course of this discussion, and the time has nearly come when we ought to put a stop to it.
As I was saying, this material was subsequently classified as solid rock. But the commission produces the evidence of different persons to show that they had never seen this classification before. My recollection is that they got that evidence from M. P. Davis and M. J. O'Brien, contractors of large experience, who said that they had worked with other railway companies and had never met with this classification. I suppose that the hon. member for St. Antoine, if I were not here to watch him, would argue that because M. P. Davis and O'Brien said that something was crooked, or there must have been some unfair or dishonest collusion between the contractors and the engineers, and the engineers must have been giving M. P. Davis classifications to which, he was not entitled. It must be borne in mind that out of $65,000,000 worth of grading on this road only $1,800,000 is involved in this assembled rock proposition.


William John Macdonald: A tempest in a teapot.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: During the last seven
years there has never been a session of this House-except the last, when hon. gentle-, men opposite let us discuss the navy- during which we have not heard this same old story, which has been heralded from one end of the country to the other, about the immense amount of thieving that was going

on in connection with the classification of gravel as solid rock. But, as I have said, according to the biased and unfair report of Gutelius and Staunton, only $1,800,000 is involved in this matter. I think it will be admitted without any hesitation that these gentlemen have made the case just as strong as they possibly can. So far as Staunton is concerned, that was his whole business; that was the only interest he had in the whole investigation. Every man who was called before Mr. Staunton was asked this question about assembled rock. Perhaps I can do no better than give the evidence of Mr. Grant with regard to this matter. Mr. M. P. Davis and the gentlemen wbc gave evidence along this line had never in their experience met the same kind of material, but Mr. Grant, a man of as large experience as they, a man of much larger experience than Mr. Gutelius, when it comes to the construction of railroads, a man who for the last twenty years has been engaged in construction work and classification work, a man who is so big that this commission did not dare to dismiss him, a man whom they have kept in their employ up to the present time, and whom they will keep in their employ until the road is finished-


Herbert Brown Ames: A strong advocate of mountain grades.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would advise my hon. friend to keep quiet. He will have an opportunity of speaking later.


William John Macdonald: His business is to
insinuate.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is right, or to take pictures that do not show things as they are-to take pictures from the wrong angle.
I would call my hon. friend's attention to the evidence of Mr. Grant, which he will find on page 380 of the report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Take a picture of the hon. member for Carleton.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am always pleased when I get my friends on the other side a little excited, for I feel then that I am getting under their hides. It is always a matter of congratulation to me when I make them feel uncomfortable, and that is what I am trying to do to-night. I am going to try to give my friends the whole of the facts with regard to this matter of classification, and if I can make them feel a little more uncomfortable than they have felt in the past, I shall be somewhat gratified. I think I may safely say that I am giving 
my friends opposite something which they have never heard before. On page 380 I find this evidence given by Mr. Grant:
Q. Did you ever come across the term 'assembled rock' before?-A. I did not.
Q. In the other specifications with which you are familiar did you have any trouble to classify all sorts of material without using such a classification as assembled rock?-A. I never classified anything else as solid rock on any other road except ledge rock and boulders over a yard.
Q. And you never found it necessary to find any kind of solid rock such as assembled rock?-A. No, because the specifications of the other roads as a rule would define anything or would include an item for anything out of the ordinary such as on the Cape Breton railway we had classification for gypsum. On other roads we would have a special item for shale rock, rock debris, and such material as that.
Q. Where it occurred in sufficient quantities to justify a special price?-A. Yes.
There is the answer to the whole question. Mr. Grant had met with this class of material, but in every case he had an item in the specifications to cover it. On the Transcontinental it was found in two places; it was found in New Brunswick-not a very large quantity-it was found west of Quebec, and, I think, to some extent east of Quebec. This matter came up, and I have given the House the history of it. I would like my hon. friends, if they wish to be fair, to say if they see anything crooked or dishonest in that proposition. They have got to assume that every man who gave his opinion on this was either a fool or a knave. I think they have got to say both. They have got to assume that every man was crooked. That Mr. Colling-wood Schreiber was crooked, that Mr. Newcombe was crooked, that Mr. Gordon Grant was crooked, and that all the men under them and every man connected with this work, from the highest down to the lowest, was crooked and trying to defraud the Government in this classification. What have they got against this? Mr. Speaker, I make the statement here with a full sense of its importance, the only opinion they have put up in this House against that proposition is the statement of Mr. Geo. Lynch-Staunton, the man who started out to prove this whole commission to be a set of crooks if it could be done by hook or by crook. My hon. friends cannot find in the evidence, or in the records of this Parliament or in the records of the commission, the opinion of any man of any importance, in Canada or out of it, to substantiate that proposition, except the opinion of Mr. Geo. Lynch-Staunton- and then they want you to say that the

whole commission, all the engineers and everybody connected with it, were a set of crooks and stole from the coffers of this country $1,800,000, because Mr. Staunton says he does not agree with their interpretation of that classification.
I wish to refer briefly to the evidence of Mr. Woods, which I think it important to have for this reason, that the Grand Trunk Pacific are to pay interest on the total cost of the construction of this road at 3 per cent after the expiration of seven years from its completion for the term of forty-three years; therefore it is in the interests of the Grand Trunk Pacific to have this road built as cheaply as possible, consistent, of course, with proper grades and curves and a proper roadbed. Now, if anyone will read the evidence of Mr. H. A. Woods, he must be convinced that Mr. Woods tried in every way to have the road built as cheaply as he could consistent with the idea that it must be a first-class road. So I look upon the evidence of Mr. Woods on this question as perhaps being of greater importance than of that of anyone else. He is a man whom 1 know well; he has had long experience in the railway world, and is a man of sufficient importance to be made assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, a man who has occupied that position from the beginning of construction to the present time, who is there to stay, doing justice to himself, to his company and to the Government as well; a man who is trying to work this matter out just as>
honestly as it can be done. Mr. Woods' statement is to be found at page 431 of the evidence.
Q. You say there was an amendment made to the specification?-A. Yes, which I think had the approval of the Government.
Q. You think that amendment or blue print issued by Mr. Lumsden, dated January 7, 1908, widened the definition of solid rock, so as to include material which had theretofore not been classifiable, if X may use that word, as solid rock?-A. I think so, yes.
Q. To what part of the blue print do you refer as having that effect?-A. I refer to where it shows a stone of smaller dimensions. I refer to number 5; it shows smaller fragments of rock, ' Rock in masses of more than one cubic yard, which, in the judgment of the engineer, can be best removed by blasting.' I mean that that it is not solid rock in the ordinary acceptance of sold rock, but it was decided to term it solid rock, because it is as difficult to move as solid rock.
Q. I do not think you have read that carefully, because it does not say ' rock in masses ' ?-A. It does.
Mr. Woods was not ithe man to be browbeaten by Mr. Lynch-Staunton. Remember that Mr. Woods is not in the Government employ, and the moment Mr. Lynch-Staunton starts to crowd something down his throat he contradicts him. Mr. Staunton goes on:
Q. Pardon me, it does not; it says * rock in masses,' just exactly as the original specification said. It does not say * rocks in masses ' but rock in masses, and the original specification said rock excavation. I have tried to find out how this modified the specification, and I have been unable to do so personally? A. Well, it probably grew, if you will allow me to say so, out of the interpretation placed upon article 35 by the engineers, in which masses, although not solid, not ledge, might be termed solid rock.
That is all the .evidence I wish to give on the question of solid rock. I have given shortly practically all the facts in connection with it, and I have stated that in the report of these gentlemen they state that $1,800,000 is practically the amount which they claim was paid for solid rock classification, or that should have been paid by reason of introducing this assembled rock question.
I come next to the loose Took, and I will go over that very hurriedly. There has always been a great deal of talk about the loose rock classifications. You will find the specifications for loose rock also at page 98 of the exhibit. It is known as section 35.
All large stones and boulders measuring more than one cubic foot and less than one cubic yard, and all loose rock whether in situ or otherwise, that may be removed by hand, pick or bar, all cemented gravel, indurated clay and other materials, that cannot, in the judgment of the engineer, be ploughed with a 10-inch grading plough, behind a team of six good horses, properly handled and without the necessity of blasting, although blasting may be occasionally resorted to, shall be classified as * loose rock.'
The only place on this road where this loose rock classification became important was on contracts 14, 15 and 16, and, to some slight extent, on 13. There the engineers found a peculiar condition of affairs. They found a material which some of them called gumbo and some blue clay. It was not rocks from the size of your fist up to a cubic foot in diameter, but it was a material which cost more to remove than the ordinary material which would come under the classification of loose rock, and the question arose as to whether the engineers were justified in classifying any of that material as loose

rock. I want ito put this clearly, and I think I am putting it practically as it works out. In order to test the question as to whether this could be classified as loose rock or not, the question arose: Could it be successfully ploughed with a team of six good horses, properly handled, drawing a 10-inch grading plough? If, in the opinion of the engineer this could be done, the material ought not to be classified as loose rock, but, on the other hand, if it was the opinion of the engineers that that could not be done, it should be classified as loose rock. Therefore the question came up: Could this material have been ploughed by a team of six horses such as I have described as set forth in the specification? All the engineers contended that a large amount of this material could not be ploughed by a team of six horses.
I think practically three-fourths of the witnesses who appeared before the commission were examined on this point. I am not going to read the evidence as it would take too long. But I would like to read the evidence of two or three witnesses as it describes what the work was like. On page 221, you will find the evidence of a Mr. Holland, an engineer who had been in British Columbia, on the Canadian Northern railway, on the Quebec, Ontario and Hawkesbury line and who was finally promoted to the position of divisional engineer on contract No. 14 or 15. He describes one of the cases in which they attempted to make this plough test:
Q. You say you made no tests; do you know whether any tests were made ?-A. Well, there was one test made at Mettagami. I did not see it myself, but I saw the result of it.
Q. That was a plough test ?-A. That was a plough test.
Q. Where was this plough test ?-A. Mileage
134.
Q. Who made it ?-A The sub-contractors, Videau and Overend.
Q. What did they make it with ?-A. Grading plough and four horses.
Q. You saw it after it was ploughed ?-A. Yes.
Q. How much did they plough ?-A. They ploughed a strip five or six hundred feet long.
Q. How wide ?-A. Twenty feet.
Q. Did they turn it over ?-A. Parts of it [DOT] the plough would jump out.
Q. But, generally speaking, did they turn it over ?-A. Yes, they turned it over.
Q. What shape was it in when it was turned over ?-A. Just one length; it did not break or crumble.
. Do you mean turned over like a piece of rubber ?-A. Yes.
Q. How long afterwards did you see it ?-A. Next morning.
Q. How long did it take to fall apart ?-A. It was picked apart.
Q. How long would it take to fall apart ?- A. A week.

Q. It would crumble all up in a week ?-A. Some of it, not all of it, some never would.
Q. Does not all this crumble when it is exposed to the atmosphere ?-A. Not all; some hardens.
Q. That which does harden will crumble by a blow ?-A. Yes, it has a tendency that way.
Q. How long had this surface been exposed to the atmosphere that was ploughed ?-A When I saw it?
Q. How long had it been exposed before it was ploughed ?-.A. They ploughed it the first thing, as soon as they grubbed it.
Q. Do I understand that this was the original surface of the soil ?-A Yes.
Q. And do you mean to tell me that that stuff turned over and stood like a ribbon ?-A. Yes, not a ribbon for two or three hundred feet, but for fifteen or twenty feet it was a ribbon.
By Mr. Gutelius
Q. Were there any pieces longer than a foot or two ?

A. Well, they ran over that.
By the Chairman:
Q. What was the average ?-A. Well, they looked to me to be much longer than the plough, and the plough is eight feet.
Q. What did they do with that stuff when they turned it over ?-A. They picked it and wheeled it in a dump.
Q. Did you see any of them cross it with a scraper ?-A Yes, we tried to load the scraper, but could not get the stuff in.
That is the evidence of an engineer of repute who saw this plough test made. He had no hesitation in saying that while you might possibly plough that ground you could not possibly plough it in such shape that it could be removed. You might as well break it to pieces with a pick and *shovel in the first place, as have to do that after it has been ploughed.
Then there is the evidence of a Mr. Balkam, whom I know personally and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows him too, a man of the highest reputation who has been in the engineering business for probably a quarter of a century. He has worked in many parts of Canada and knows as well, probably, as any man on the Transcontinental how material should be classified, a man of sufficient importance that from the day he went on the road his career was a series of promotion after promotion until four years ago he assumed the position, practically, of assistant to the chief engineer of the work. The man who held the title of assistant was MacPherson, but the man who did the inspecting and engineering was H. M. Balkam. He travelled over the road from Moncton to Winnipeg, week by week. Every contract received his particular attention and inspection. Mr. Balkam was sworn and gave evidence, which you will find on page 317:
Q. Explain, please; you are doing the explaining?-A. Well, the fact that you can pull a team through it is no use. You plough for a certain purpose, to break it and handle it. If ploughing made this clay readily handable, I

would consider it ploughing:; otherwise, X would not.
Q. You thought it could he turned over, but you classified without seeing it done?-A. There was never any plough work on this to my knowledge.
Q. You concluded that you would never accomplish your purpose by ploughing?-A. You had not accomplished your purpose.
Q. You concluded you had not accomplished your purpose?-A. Yes.
Q. What reason have you for concluding that?-A. My Judgment.
Q. How did you arrive at that?-A. Because a man is supposed to exercise his reason.
Q. How did you arrive at that ?-A. From the nature of the material.
Q. Had you ever tried it in your life oh that kind of material ?-A. Not just exactly on this kind of material.
Q. So that you had no experience in it; you could do no more than guess, could you?-A. Oh, yes.
Q. How can a man form a judgment without experience?-A. You know it is a tough, hard material. You can form some idea by the way a pick or shovel works on it how a plough would work it.
Q. How was it taken out?-A. A great deal of it was blasted.
Q. Was there any continuous blasting in the whole district ?-A. Yes, there has been continuous blasting in my time.
I have given the evidence of two men as to the nature of this material. It all comes down to the question of one man's judgment against another's. The whole question is, could that material be properly and economically ploughed into such shape that it could be removed? If in the judgment of the engineer it could not be so ploughed, the engineers were not only right but were practically compelled to find that this should toe classed as loose rock and not as common excavation. After the change of Government and the change of commission, following out the old policy that everything passible must be done in order to show that something wrong or crooked had been committed, a man was chosen by the name of Goodwin, who was at one time, I think, a divisional engineer on the Transcontinental but who had been dismissed from his position-I know not for what reason, 'but his services had been dispensed with. This man was found somewhere around North Bay and was made inspecting engineer over the whole work. He was [DOT] sent out over sections 14,	15,	16, not to
properly inspect them, I submit, but to find fault and make trouble if he possibly could, and he went the limit in trying to find fault. He at once attempted to make a plough test. I will not take the trouble to read his evidence, but hon. gentlemen will find the plough test described on page 293 by a man named Mattice, an assistant district engineer. Let me show how un-131,
biased and perfectly fair-minded Mr. Goodwin was in his attempt to find out whether the land could be ploughed, and whether or not these engineers -were crooks and thieves because they had returned a certain percentage of it as loose rock instead of common excavation. He went into the Cochrane yard, a place within forty feet of a cut along the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, a cut that had been taken out years before. On one side of this land was the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway and on the other side the Transcontinental. Both railways had been taken out for some two or three years. A little piece of land was left in the middle that time had drained out. It had become dry and ceased altogether to have its original consistency. It was no more like the ordinary land in that country than bog is like solid rock. This man cleared the bush from it, got a team and. a plough, and ploughed it. He found they could plough down to the extent of three or four feet. He then comes back to the Government and says: I ploughed that and I did not have to use my horses, I only had four; and because I ploughed that piece of land that had been drained out for years, forty feet from the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, therefore I say the whole division of 400 miles could have been ploughed and consequently every engineer who returned this as loose rock instead of common excavation is a crook, the Government are crooks, and the commissioners are crooks, and there was some sort of unholy conspiracy between the Government, the engineers and the contractors. I want to ask any hon. member-I do not care what his politics may be-if he considers that a fair statement to the country as to the condition of that material. You only have to state the proposition to show its unfairness. You only have to do that in order to show that it was an unfair test meant to give an unfair result and meant to take an unfair advantage of the men who made this contract. Then Mr. Goodwin comes back and says:	I tested that, and as a result of
my test I am satisfied that the engineers classified $670,000 worth of material as loose rock which should have been classified as common excavation, and, therefore, the Government have been mulcted by that amount of money. I have gone as hurriedly as possible into these two questions of the classification of solid rock, assembled rock and loose rock.
I want to go back upon that question



for a (moment. When hon. gentlemen opposite took possession of this road it had not been finished; every contractor had a big deposit with the Government. My hon. friend from North Grey found fault with the big deposits, but the big deposits were there. More than that, the greater jproportion of their ten per cent remained in the hands of the Government, because the Government had kept a drawback of ten per cent in order that they might be perfectly safe. In addition to that, they had a lien upon the plant and they had enough to pay this $700,000 three or four times over. They had the money in their hands. Did they take it out of the hands of the contractors? Not a dollar of it. They paid practically every dollar of it over to the contractor. When my hon. friend from South Renfrew said last night that the Government did not believe .the report of these commissioners was he not justified in doing that? If my right hon. friend believed them, if the Minister of Railways and Canals believed them, if the Government as a whole believed them, would they have paid these men for the classification which they said was dishonest?
This commission have in some way attempted to create the impression that there was a steal, that there was some kind of an understanding between Davis and the Transcontinental Railway Commission. They only insinuate it, ftihey dare not state it. I do not have to tell you that Mr. Davis is one of the wealthy men of Canada. At the time that these hon. gentlemen came into poweT they probably had a million of Mr. Davis' money in their hands and there was not' half of that amount involved in overclassification in connection with the Davis contract altogether. If they believed that they were right and that Lynch-Staunton was right with reference to classification,
I ask again, why did they ipay this money over to Davis? I would like my right hon. friend to answer that. I think my right hon. friend could give the most accurate answer of anybody in this House to-night. He knows why they did not take it out of the hands of Davis, we know why they did not take it out of Davis, and we know why they did not take it out of any one.	*
We know that in connection with contracts 14 and 15, after these gentlemen got into control, they reported that a certain amount of money should be taken out of the contractors on account of loose rock IMr. CarvelL j
classification. They did do it; they transferred a certain number of thousands of yards from the loose rock column to the common excavation column and the contractor said: Put that back or I will fight it out. Did they fight .him? No sir, they put it back, paid him the money, paid him his drawback and his deposit and they released his plant. Then, they say that these gentlemen did not construct their work in time. My hon. friend from North Grey has had a good deal to say in connection with contracts No. 16 and 17.
I do not suppose there is an hon. gentleman who will discuss this question but will rehash this old story about contracts 16 and 17 in connection with which they say that Davis made an unfair profit. They say that he made $746,000 without doing anything for it. The commissioners _say that, because he did not commence this work when he should have commenced it, the Government should fine him $5,000 a month according to one of the conditions of the contract. Why did they not fine Davis? Why did they pay back Davis' deposit? There must be a reason for this. Either they do not believe the truth of that report dr they are not straight with the country, one or the other-I care not which one of the dilemmas they have chosen to hang their hats on. This Government do not believe their commissioners or they are not playing the game with the country fairly. If they believed the report of the commissioners they would fine Davis $5,000 a month. When they pay him back his deposit I think it is proof positive that they do not believe the report of the commissioners and that that report was only printed for party purposes and for the purpose of making the people of the country believe that there was something crooked with the old Government.
It was a dishonest report and it had a dishonest object because if these hon. gentlemen did believe that it was an honest report they would carry out its provisions and fine Davis $5,000 a month and also fine the other contractors, They would not pay these men the solid rock price for assembled rock and they would not pay $600,000, at the loose rock price, for material which they claimed should only be paid for at the common excavation price. I think this is a matter of sufficient gravity to demand an explanation, not from men like Lynch-Staunton or Gutelius, but from the Premier who is really responsible for the commissioners, responsible for the Minister of Railways, responsible for the commissioner

of the National Transcontinental railway, and responsible to the people of Canada for the way in which they managed these financial matters as between the commission and the contractors.
The commissioners give instances of the ways in which money was taken from the country. They do not say that work ought not to have been constructed but they say that they were not necessary. Before I close I want to give a few illustrations in order to show the absolute unfairness, unreliability and, I would almost go as far as to say, the latent dishonesty of the report of these two commissioners. I will refer to three or four instances in my own province because I have some personal acquaintance with conditions there, and therefore I can speak about them more intelligently. I now come to what is known as the Coal Creek fill in connection with which they say that something like $250,000 was uselessly expended. My hon. friend will find the reference to this matter at pages 94, 95, 96 and 97 of the report. The facts are these: In the location of the railway between Chipman and Moncton they came upon a deep and wide ravine which had to be crossed. If they were going to build the road up to the grade which had been established this fill had to be crossed either by a wooden trestle, a steel trestle, or a solid fill. The distance was something over 2,000 feet and. I think that in the centre it was probably 75 feet in height. After a great deal of engineering *consideration and figuring it was decided by the commissioners that this valley should be crossed by means of an embankment at each end and that the middle thousand feet over the small stream should have a steel viaduct or trestle. That was decided upon and the work was proceeded with. Later on the contractor made a proposition to the commission by which he agreed to fill this thousand feet with solid material and put an arched culvert in the centre for the same money as it would take to build the viaduct. I ask hon. members opposite if they do not consider that a good business proposition, from the standpoint of the Transcontinental Railway Commission. If you can get a fill seventy-five feet deep with solid material, in place of a steel viaduct, without spending any more money, is it not good business? There was no guesswork about what the viaduct would cost, and they figured out how many thousand yards of material it would take to fill the hole, and they, saw they could afford to pay the contractor thirty cents a yard, and that in the end it 1314
would cost exactly the same as it would to put in a isteel viaduct. The price was low, but the contractor said he would take it at that price, and it was distinctly understood in the agreement that there was to be no overhaul; he was to get the material where he could and fill the hollow for thirty cents a yard. He proceeded to do so. Before they got far they found that the material they expected to use was of a soft consistency, and that when heavy quantities were placed in the fill it would slush out at the bottom,'and that it was not safe to build the fill of that kind of material. But, the contractor had made an agreement to fill the hollow up with solid material at thirty cents a yard, and he did so. He did not do it with common excavation but with solid rock, and it took about 290,000 cubic yards, and he did it for thirty cents a cubic yard. I ask any engineer in Canada to tell me if it is possible for a man to move that material for less than sixty cents or seventy-five cents a cubic yard. I say that the contractor must have a splendid equipment and the most perfect conditions possible, to remove such material for seventy-five cents a cubic yard. And yet, that man removed the material and put it into the embankment for thirty cents a cubic yard. If you want any proof of that you can find it at page 96 of the report.
Another condition of affairs arose. They had decided to make an embankment of solid material leading from the bank on each side, up to within this thousand feet. That was the original understanding, and that was the contract the contractor entered into with the commissioners. And when they came to fill up the approaches, they found that the material available was not sufficient because it would slush out at the bottom, and they found they would have to go forty miles to get proper mall p.m. terial, unless they took solid rock. One would think, from reading this report, that a special trade was made by which they agreed to pay this man $1,101 per cubic yard for putting in that solid rock. The report reads:
This rock borrow was approved of by the Grand Trunk Pacific (the contractors for this work), and paid for at the special rate of $1,101 per cubic yard, this rate being authorized by Order in Council, passed on January 13, 1911.
Before that the report says:
As will be noted from these reports, the amount of available common location for the construction of this fill was largely ever-estimated, and it became necessary to borrow rock:

to the extent of 205,876 cubic yards, to complete the embankment.
Is there a man in this House who can read that without -coming to the conclusion that the Government paid the contractors $1,104 per cubic yard for filling up the embankment. That is what the inquisitors meant; that is the meaning they intended to convey, that is what they have been preaching all over the country. And yet, if you look at page 96 of the report, you will find that the material that went into that was paid for at thirty cents a yard and not at $1,101, and the contractor lost, I believe, from $75,000 to $100,000 in putting in the fill. The commissioners knew that. These figures -are so juggled-and I cannot -use a milder term-by this commission, that although knowing that, they tried to lead the people of this country to the conclusion that there was a steal made, and that the Transcontinental Commissioners made a contract to fill this at thirty cents a cubic yard but finally paid the contractor $1,104 a yard. More than that, these gentlemen tried to create the impression that this special price of $1,101 per cubic yard was made in 1911. Why, there was a return brought down in this House in 1909 or 1910 on the motion of Mr. Crocket, then member for York, which return showed that away back in 1908 that price of $1,101 was provided for rock borrow. And yet these gentlemen try to make the people believe that this was done in 1911, after the work was finished. The reason for the rock borrow was, that they found that in particular places they could not get common earth to borrow for making these big fills, and the contractor said: you figure how much rock it will take to fill up a certain hole, and then we will take the price which you will have to pay for common excavation and we will put it in for that price. Here is the way it figured out: we all know that when.you dump earth over an embankment, that naturally it will spread out, what is known as 14 to 1. If you have an embankment fifty feet high in the centre, it will he 150 feet wide in the bottom, because it will go out seventy-five feet from each side of the centre line, the slope being 14 to 1. On the other hand, we all know that if you dump rock in, it will not go out to the extent of li to 1, and the result is that you would probably not have much more than one-half of such actual material in a dump of solid rock as you would in a dump of common excavation. Therefore, taking the 
solid contents of these different fills, they figured out, in the first place, how many cubic yards of earth it would take to fill, and then they took how many cubic yards of rock it would take. Then they know that the earth will settle to a much greater extent than the rock will, and the rock is measured in situ. Then, when the rock is broken by explosives, it expands and the result is that a yard of rock in situ will give more than a yard and a half in the dump. Taking all these things into consideration, they found that $1,101 for rock meant only the same cost to the country as forty cents for ordinary common excavation, and that is the way this price of $1,101 was arrived at, three or four years before the date given by the commissioners in this report. I say, Mr. Speaker, that if you had no other evidence than this, you have sworn evidence right there to condemn these men as making a dishonest, unfair, and partisan report for dishonest, unfair, and partisan purposes. They did use a large amount of solid rock and they used it in the approaches to that thousand feet span, and they would have to use it, no matter whether they put in steel or not. They had to make this embankment any way, and if the common material there was not sufficient, they had to get proper material, and they used rock borrow at $1,101, and the change made in that respect did not amount to one ten cent piece to this Government one way or the other.
They would have had to fill those embankments, no matter whether they put in steel or solid material. So far as the thousand feet which was originaly to have been in steel is concerned, it was put in in solid rock at 30 cents a cubic yard, and the contractors lost probably $60,000 or $75,000 in doing it. That is one illustration, and is one of the big things which this partisan commission find and send broadcast over this country as evidence of mala fides on the part of the former Administration.


Herbert Brown Ames: If I understood my hon.
friend rightly, he said that 282,000 cubic yards went in at 30 cents a cubic yard?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Where was that put in?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In the thousand feet, in place of the steel.


Herbert Brown Ames: Where were the 205,000 cubic yards put in?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In the approaches.


Herbert Brown Ames: In two different places?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: At each end.


Herbert Brown Ames: That would be 487,000 cubic yards?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is right.


Herbert Brown Ames: Part of it at 30 cents and part of it at $1.10$?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No doubt of it at all, and these approaches would have to be put in, no matter whether steel was put in the middle or not, unless wood trestles were put in. That is another question entirely; but if you want to build a railroad, you want to build a proper one, and not put in wooden trestles that will burn down. My hon. friend has understood my meaning. I did not have to read the report because I knew all about it beforehand. I have been on the spot and have seen the work. My hon. friend will find it all in the report, if he will only spell it out. The commissioners, however, never intended it to be spelled out; they intended to create the impression that a huge steal had been made; that the contractors had agreed to build this at 30 cents a cubic yard, and had received $1.10 for doing it. That is only one instance of the unfair statements made by the commission from beginning to end. Their very conclusions are intended to give the same impression. They will be found on page 97, as follows:
When it was discovered that the cost of this All was to he so largely in excess of the estimate the local officials should have reported the matter to headquarters, when some means might have been found of overcoming this extra expense, involved by borrowing 205,876 cubic yards of rock at $1,101 per cubic yard.
When the commission are putting it down in black and white, they are very careful to use the amount which went into the approaches. They did not say that this went into the fill; they tried to leave the impression that something crooked took place over the filling of that Coal Creek fill. My hon. friends would say: Give us a wooden trestle, 75 feet high and 2,000 feet long.


George Perry Graham: They would not say so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I do not think they would, but the commissioners say so. The other commission said:	We will build
solid approaches to within a thousand feet and then we will put in a steel viaduct. They were able to make an arrangement by which they got this approach filled up with solid material, and it is there for a
thousand years or for ten thousand years if the world lasts that length of time. Would a steel viaduct he as good a piece of railway construction as solid rock fill? Would it be as much in the interest of the country? Yet that solid rock fill has not cost the Government of this country one dollar more than it would have cost to put in a steel trestle. The commission criticise this as one of the great examples of extravagance, and I think you will not have very far to go to read into it as one of the examples of fraud in making up this $40,000,000.
Let me give a few more illustrations of matters about which I know very well. If my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. .Ames), who is doing me the honour to follow me very intelligently, will Tead mis report through, as I am satisfied he has done, he will find that these commissioners take up every one of those twenty-one contracts seriatim. In the first place they give the number of tenders, the amounts of the tenders, the successful tenderers. They give then the estimated quantities and the actual quantities. I do not for a moment wish to deny that the actual quantities differ from the estimates. I do not want to deny that there is a laTger quantity of classified material than there was in the estimates. I do not think it makes any difference whether there is or not. The question is not what the engineers estimated. It is what the contractors found. When they say that th^y found 1,000,000 cubic yards of solid rock, the question is, did they find that quantity. If they say that they found 2,000,000 cubic yards of loose rock, the question is, did they find that quantity. Is an official or a Government to be bound hand and foot by an estimate made by an engineer as to the probable cost of something 100 feet under the surface? It would cost a huge sum to bore test pits on every cutting in the rock, It would take years to do it and would be simply impracticable. All that engineers can do is to use their very best judgment. In this case they did so. They found that they could tell practically the number of cubic yards of material to be removed. They said: We believe from our observations that there will be so much loose rock and so much solid rook to be excavated. If it turned out that they were wrong in their estimates, is that an evidence of fraud? It is put forward in this report as such, and I am afraid that, before this debate is over, some of my

hon. friends opposite will say-yes, my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middle-bro) read to-night from one of the contracts the estimate made of solid rock and the actual quantity of .solid rock, and 1 believe that he has gone home feeling justified that there is a big steal because there turned out to be more solid rock than the engineer estimated. Yet he did not do himself, nor this House, nor the commission, nor the contractor the justice to get at the bottom of the work and find out whether that cut was properly classified or not.
Another very common mode of finding fault with the construction of this railway is to say that the contracts were sublet. I am coming to that in a moment. I would like my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), when he follows me as I presume he will, to tell me how iri the world you would build a railroad in any other way than by subletting the contracts, and how you would go to work to let the construction of that road, 200, 300 Or 400 miles in the wilderness to men who are able to take ten miles and build that amount of the road. Let us forget that we are talking politics; let us forget this Lynch-Staunton, Gutelius report and get down to common sense. This matter has been referred to by my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). I only refer to it here by way of illustration. When my hon. friends opposite are called upon to act, they act in exactly the same way as our party has acted, as any business man will act. Wlien it came to letting the Hudson Bay railway, they let it in 150 or 200-mile contracts. Why did they not let it out in ten-mile contracts? When it came to the Welland canal, they let it out in contracts for $1,000,000 to $6,000,000. Why did they not divide that up into smaller contracts so that the small fellow with the steam shovel and perhaps a few horses could go in and do the work? They know that that man could not do the work. They did not let out the Hudson Bay railway in ten-mile cantracts to small men, because they know that the small men have not the finances to carry on the work. They let it out in 'big contracts for the very same reason that the Transcontinental Commission let it out in big contracts; because in doing so they were sure to get men of sufficient financial ability to ensure the construction of the road with no loss to the Government. I wonder if my friends opposite were ever on railway construction work?
I wonder if they know anything about the work connected with the construction of a 
railway? Do they realize that the main contractor-we will say M. P. Davis, 'because he seems to be the bete noir of my friends opposite when he takes the contract for the construction of 100 miles of railway in a wilderness section of Quebec or Ontario, has to finance the undertaking from start to finish? Do they realize that when he lets the work to a sub-contractor he has to stand 'behind him financially? Do they realize that he is the man who has to advance the money to that sub-contractor with which to buy horses, wagons, ploughs, picks and shovels? Do they realize that the main contractor has to take the responsibility for the wages that are paid? Do they realize that if the sub-contractor goes broke as he has done many times-the main contractor is the man who has to stand behind him? Do they realize that horses die and are killed in the course of the work? Do they realize that it takes possibly $100,000 of machinery to carry out a fifteen or twenty mile contract? Do they realize that that machinery depreciates in value at least 20 per cent in one year? Who is going to furnish this $100,000 of machinery? Your small contractor cannot do it. Can a man with half a dozen horses, a few dump carts and a pile of twenty pound rails finance a scheme like this? The 'commissioners appear to think that he could. If these commissioners know anything about railway construction they are crooked; if they do not know anything about railway construction they should never have been put on the job.
I do not know that any other argument is necessary to meet the assertion of the commissioners with regard to sub-contractors.
My hon. friends opposite proceed to say; Oh, the sub-contractors made money; they made profits on the work. With regard to every one of these twenty-one contracts, in order to prejudice the minds of the people of this country and make them believe that the men connected with the work were crooked, they tel] you the prices received by the main contractor and the prices at which he sublet the contract. This they did, forgetting that the main contractor has to advance the money; forgetting that he has to put up the plant; forgetting that he has to supply the horses, the machinery, the bread which the men eat; forgetting that he has to stand all the loss that takes place. Yet they say, figuring the price which the main contractor got and the price at which he sublet the contract, that so much profit is shown and that the contractor put this money in his pocket, never

having lifted a finger to earn it. I can only say again that if they believe that, they are not fit for the job, and if they do not believe it, they are crooked.


Herbert Brown Ames: What did M. P. Davis do for his $740,000?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend cannot
get me away from the subject which I am discussing; he will have an opportunity later of talking as long as he wants to.
Mr. AMES. What did he give the country for his $740,000?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That was an assignment of the main contract. I will tell you what he did, he put up the deposit which my hon. friends opposite say was so large; he left that deposit there until the work was completed, and took the chances of losing it if the work was not completed according to contract.


Herbert Brown Ames: Was $740,000 not more than double the amount of his deposit?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know, and I do not care.


Herbert Brown Ames: You should know.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I suppose Mr. Davis
made a dollar on the contract, just as my hon. friend makes a dollar on his shoe business, and does not do anything for it, either. I am finding no fault with my hon. friend because he does not drive the pegs himself; he has his money invested in the business, and 1 think he is entitled to ^ a reasonable profit. My friends opposite will continence to see, I am sure, in what a ridiculous position they are placing themselves in respect of their commissions. By the time we are through with them, they will curse the day they ever thought of Gutelius.


John Dowsley Reid: Do not swear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
John Stanfield: That is a mistake; I want the hon. gentleman to withdraw that assertion.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will withdraw it, but that is what the newspapers said. At any rate, my hon. friend will not deny that he made a very hurried trip to Ottawa on accouift of Gutelius.


John Stanfield: I did not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, I will withdraw
that also, but a good Tory newspaper in my hon. friend's own town must be wrong.


William John Macdonald: A newspaper that the hon. gentleman owns himself.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My friends opposite are not through with Gutelius by any means.
I can prophesy this much: just as soon as the hon. acting Minister of Railways becomes Minister of Railways and Canals he will be through with Gutelius.


William John Macdonald: They do not intend to keep him.


John Dowsley Reid: The best man we ever had.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), who,
I am sorry to say, is not here to-night, has had something to do with Gutelius, and he is not through with him either. There are a lot of Tory politicians in the Maritime provinces who know something about Gutelius, and who wish they were through with him.
As I have said, these two gentlemen have pointed out the profits made by these contractors. I want to give to the House, from my own personal knowledge, two illustrations of the almost dishonesty of these statements.


George Perry Graham: Why use the word
' almost?'


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The matters to which I am about to refer were within the knowledge of Gutelius and Staunton, or if they were not they ought to have been, because they were matters of public notoriety in the province of New, Brunswick, having been threshed out in the courts in the provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. As a matter of fact they referred to these very matters in the report itself, deferring to contract 3, on page 27 of the report, the commissioners give the price which the main contractor received, and the price which the sub-contractors received. They say:
The value of the work done by subcontractors at their rates.. ..	.. $280,766
Amount paid Toronto Construction
Company for their work	 352,291
Profit	 * *	72,145
Percentage of profit, 20 per cent.
On another part of the page they say:
The Toronto Construction Company had four firms of contractors who undertook the grading on this forty-mile stretch, and another firm of sub-contractors for the concrete work. We

are, however, advised by the Toronto Construction Company that their concrete subcontractors failed and they were obliged to finish the work themselves.
I am reading this from the report of the commission, thus showing that the investigators had gone into the thing deep enough to know the whole story. The facts are that the concrete man fell down on his work-that is just one of those things to which I have been referring. The contractor falls down on his work and the loss is sustained by the main contractor. In this case a man named Ferguson was sub-contractor. He went wrong. I am not going into the details, but in the end the main contractors were obliged to pay him $10,000 to get rid of him. That this amount was a total loss to the main contractors was sworn to in court both in the	province of New Brunswick, and in the city of Hull, Quebec. Then they were compelled to fight two lawsuits on account of this sub-contractor. One was a case tried in the constituency of my hon. friend from Victoria and Madawaska. As usually happens in cases of that kind, the verdict went against the corporation and the Supreme Court set it aside. Another suit was by an Italian, against this construction company and that was fought out in Hull. As usual the verdict went against the corporation. It was taken to the Court of Review, argued twice in Montreal and finally decided in favour of the company. I want to tell my hon. friend that to my own knowledge these two lawsuits cost this company $6,000 to $7,000. There is a ease where $16,000 or $17,000 was absolutely lost, and instead of that company making a profit of $72,000 that meant that they lost $16,000 of that profit. This is a small matter, but it takes off a pretty big slice from the $72,000. These are matters about which Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton should have known and I believe did know and yet they did not hesitate to publish to the House and to the country that this company made $72,000 out of the contract.	-


William John Macdonald: What is the total value of the contract?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: $350,000. Another illustration is on contract 5. I have explained to the House the arrangement made between the commission and the different contractors that they would have a right to put in what they called rock borrow at $1.10J per yard. What I am saying is a matter of co .ion knowledge, not fMr. Carvell.]
only amongst contractors on the Transcontinental in New Brunswick, but among many other people as well. You will find at page 29 of the report the particulars of this contract No. 5. This was the big contract, the contract in which occurred the big viaduct, the contract which cost most per mile of any on the whole road. The commissioners give here the main contractor's price and the sub-contractors' prices, as in every other case, and figure out that the main contractors made I think something like $699,000 profit. But that was on a big work amounting to $2,518,000. They say this was a profit of 27J per cent. One of the sub-contractors of the main contractors were two young men, sons of one of the principal stockholders in the main company. And these two young men took the contract for this rock borrow, for which the Government paid $1.10J per yard, at the ridiculous rate of 75 cents per yard. I do not know why it was done, but it was done anyway, and you will find at page 30 the report of this sub-contract; solid rock borrow, main contractors, $1.10J, sub-contractors, 75 cents. It was necessary to have one of these big fills put in as early as possible in order to get the steel to the big viaduct. The result was that these sub-contractors worked day and night and summer and winter for a year and a half to get it through and lost about $50,000 on the transaction. The sub-contractors did not have that much money, or	anything like	it. The	result
was that the $50,000 came out of the main contractor-and Mr. Gutelius knows it, or ought to know it. There i? nc+ a contractor on the Grand Trunk i'ac fic in New Brunswick but knows it, hardly a business man but knows it. They knew that the main contractor lost about $50,000 on th's roc!: borrow and this $50,000 should have come off the profit; but Mr. Gutelius and Mr. Staunton do not say that, they do not hesitate to tell the House and the country that these men have made all this profit. I venture to say that if you went from Moncton to Winnipeg and could find out the inside history of all these contracts you would not find a contract on the whole road that was free from such things as this


Herbert Brown Ames: Why did the main contractors have to pay that $50,000? Were they legally bound or was it just because of the relationship between them?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They had to pay it. Does not my hon. friend know that they had to pay for the wages and the supplies? These

20fi9
young men did not have any steam shovels or any heavy plant. They had to buy three steam shovels and a lot of donkey engines and track equipment, as well as furnishing probably thirty of forty horses. They had to spend $100,000 on plant to carry out the work. These young men did not have the money, they were like the rest of the subcontractors ; and the main contractors advanced the money with which to buy the plant.


Herbert Brown Ames: They loaned it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: All right, they advanced it anyway, they paid the money out. Then they had to pay the wages every month and whatever the expenses were and when they came to settle the matter up in the end they found they were $50,000 out of pocket. That i3 the way it works out, that is what I have been trying to explain and I do not believe that there is any contract on the road in which you will not find that something has happened exactly as I have described in reference to contract No. 5.


Hugh Guthrie: Is there anything in the evidence about the $50,000?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I am saying that it is well known to every contractor in the Maritime provinces. It is something about which my hon. friends can satisfy themselves, the commission can give them the information. The chief engineer knows all about it, he has been over the work again and again. Mr. Woods, the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, knows all about it. They all know all about it and I believe that Mr. Gutelius and Mr. Staunton knew all about it, but they took mighty good pains not to say anything about it.
I have given you three illustrations taken from these contracts in New Brunswick that I know all -about myself, and I have pointed out the manner in which these gentlemen have, in my judgment, absolutely suppressed the evidence necessary to give the real facts of the case. Do you wionder that the hon. member for South Renfrew told you that he did not believe the Government believed in the truth of this report, and do you wonder that we attack it and ask this House to pass an amendment to the motion to go into Supply, condemning the Government for asking the country -and this House to accept such a report?
We (have heard a good deal about the question of overbreak and improper classification. I have described the classification. I am going back now to another
phase of it. My friends -say that there was practically collusion existing between the commission and its engineers and the contractors by which the contractors were allowed to take out much larger quantities of solid rock than were necess-ary because they were getting a big price for it and making money out of it. Witness after witness was examined as to how much overbreaks ought to be taken out. One man said from 25 to 30 per cent. -I think the commission find as a fact that a man ought not to be fined if he takes out 20 per cent more than the actual prism measine-ment of the cut. My friend the acting Minister of Railways will understand that if you put in -a blast of explosives -and you have a rock face of 10, 20, 30 or 40 feet high, you have to take that out wide enough and deep enough to meet your prism measurement, you cannot hew that as you would with ,a chisel. You have to put in enough explosives to take it out, because if you leave what is call-ed a toe at the foot it will cost-you three or four times as much to take that out as it is worth.
In every case they took out more than the actual -amount required. As I stated before, the commission found that twenty per cent would not be an unreasonable amount, but evidence was given by engineers to the effect that twenty-five per cent or thirty per cent would not be unreasonable. In contract ' F ' it was admitted that they took out more than twenty-fivie per cent in many cases. The engineers said they wanted the material to fill up holes and the chief engineer said:	You must get out so. much
every month. And they took it out and filled up the holes and very little material was wasted. Trouble arose about this overbreak. They said it was unfair classification and therefore something which should be condemned. We threshed this out in the House time and again between 1907 and 1910, and in the end it became so serious that a board of arbitration was appointed and sent out to make a report. My hon. friend from Renfrew has already referred to that. I need only say that under the National Transcontinental Act, in case the engineers could not agree upon any question of this kind, it was to be referred for final decision to a board of arbitrators composed of the chief engineer of the commission, the Grand Trunk Pacific engineer and a third man to be appointed by them, if they could agree. If they could not agree, the third man was to be appointed by the Chief Justice of Canada. They failed to

agree and the Chief Justice appointed Mr. Collingwood Schreiber. They went out on the work and finally found that about
525.000	yards of overbreak was taken out more than should have been. They said the contractor must not receive pay for that
500.000	yards. Messrs. Staunton and Gute-lius report that the amount should have been a little over 700,000 yards, but my hon. friend the acting Minister of Railways knows that since this Government came into power they have settled with that contractor not for 500,000 yards, not for 700,000 yards but for a sum not much more than half the cost of the 500,000 yards.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know anything about that.


William John Macdonald: Who was the contractor?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: J. D. McArthur.


Mr. GERMAN:: When	did they settle?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Since	this Government
came into power. They have paid that man probably a quarter of a million dollars more than the arbitrators said he should have got.


William Manley German: I think the minister
should know that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is another proof that they do not believe the Staunton-Gutelius report. They know it is not a fair report. Either it is a fair report or it is crooked, one or the other; if it is straight, the Government is crooked, and they can take which horn of the dilemma they like.


William John Macdonald: They are both
crooked.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not making any assertions. I am only giving the arguments and my hon. friend the acting Minister of. Railways can make the application. The more we delve into this thing the more we feel that the minister, at least, realizes he has made a mistake. They were so anxious for political capital against their opponents that they chose two men not one-quarter big enough for the job, who simply went at it blind and reported everything that came into their small minds in order to hurt their opponents. Now the whole thing is acting as a boomerang against the men who have to father the report. And that report is to be sent broadcast all over the country. I am told that they are printing a quarter of a millions copies, so that one may be put in the hands of each elector, to make a little political capital for themselves. But I hope that my hon. friend, now that we have [Mr. Carvell.j
pointed out the iniquities of the report, will cancel the order and leave well enough alone, or bad enough alone.


George Perry Graham: The people will cancel the Government.


Herbert Brown Ames: I would like to ask the hon. member a question. Did it ever strike him as strange that there was no trouble about overbreak on the line between Graham and Port Arthur where the Grand Trunk Pacific used wooden trestles?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know anything about it. We are not investigating that part of the line. The Government of this country did not build that portion, but the Grand Trunk Pacific. My hon. friend may know. He has been over the line, but I have not. I do not see the application. If my hon. friend will point out to me any section of the National Transcontinental railway on which that occurred, I will try to answer him. I do not think he can.


Herbert Brown Ames: If you wish me to make my point clear I will do so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I understand the point of my hon. friend. He says that there were wooden trestles on the Grand Trunk Pacific line from Graham to Port Arthur and no overbreak on that road. I do not know anything about that. The Government of this country had nothing to do with it. My non. friend might as well say there was no overbreak on the Canadian Pacific railway through the Rockies.


Herbert Brown Ames: The hon. member recognizes the significance of my question.


William John Macdonald: Has the hon. mem-bef seen the classification on that road?


Herbert Brown Ames: That is not the point. The point I wish to bring to the .attention of the House is this: wherever there was not a demand for an unnecessary fill, there was not a corresponding increase in overbreak.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is my hon. friend such a simpleton as not to know that these holes have to be filled up some time? If the Grand Trunk Pacific chooses to fill these trestles two or five years from now, or the Government chooses to fill them as construction proceeds, where is the difference?
I do not know what my hon. friend is driving at.


Herbert Brown Ames: There is a great difference
in the price of material used.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to ask my hon.
friend a question. Will he tell me why this Government has not obeyed the findings of their arbitrators, and why they have allowed McArthur a quarter of a million dollars more than he ought to have got according to the findings of the commission?


Herbert Brown Ames: You will have to ask somebody else.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: When my hon. friend is asked a question germane to the issue he gets behind anything, rather than give a straight answer. He knows the trouble.


Herbert Brown Ames: out, after everything had dried up, after the rain had broken up the small pieces, and after the surface had all been smoothed down and the grass had grown up. There was an entirely different condition of affairs. The net result of Mr. Goodwin's and Mr. Gutelius' efforts with reference to contract No. 1, a contract involving $2,000,000, was that they reported that about $45,000 should be taken off this whole amount after it had been settled by Ithe Board of Arbitration. That was a Grand Trunk Pacific contract, too. Then they came next to contract No. 2, but they did not touch that at all. Contracts Nos. 3 and 4 were sub-let to the Toronto Construction Company, and they took abouit the same amount from them. Then they came to the Kitchen contract- contract No. 5-and they took about $35,000 from him.
Either these men were right or they were wrong in taking from the contractors this amount of money, either they were honest or dishonest, either they were ignorant or they were knowing-I do not know which they were, and my hon. friends can take whichever hom of the dilemma they choose. If Gutelius and Goodwin were right in taking that $35,000 from the Kitchen contract, they should have taken it off and kept it off.	If they were
right in taking $35,000 from the Corbett contract, they should have taken it off and kept it off. But they were up against men who knew as much as they did, and both Corbett and Kitchen said: We will not allow this thing to take place; we will fighit you. Having got up against two men who had a good deal of sand and a little money besides, they said to them: Come, let us reason together, let us see if we cannot compromise this matter; we say that the commission should take this money off, but we do not want to take it off; let us get' together. The result was that they allowed on No. 1 contract about $18,000, and on No. 5 about $15,000. I want to know if these men are big enough for their jobs. If these men were right in taking off that money, were they right in making the compromise and in paying money wthich they ought not to have paid? Remember, they had the money in their own hands. At that time they had probably $100,000 of Mr. Kitchen's money in their own hands, probably more. Although they had that amount of money in their hands, did they keep it out? No, Sir, they [Mr. Carvell. 1
did not keep it out. They quibbled, but when they found they were up against a lawsuit they backed down.
M.r. AMES: Had the contractors the engineer's certificate?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The contractors had the ordinary progress estimates.


Herbert Brown Ames: Signed by the engineers?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly, they got them month by month. But my hon. friend cannot get behind that. If my hon. friend will read the contract he will find that everything is put up to the final decision of the chief engineer. No matter what the progress estimates say, it is the chief engineer who decides, and if they cannot agree with the chief engineer, then it is submitted to arbitration. It only comes back to this again that these men, in order to find fault with the former commissioners, in order to prove that there was something crooked, started in to do that which they did not have the manhood to stand up to and see through to the end. Then they said that they could take $35,000 off these contracts, but they did not have the sand to stand by that declaration, and when they found themselves face to face with a lawsuit, and when they found themselves up against the judgment of bigger men than themselves, they backed down, just as you would expect men of that class to do, and - they said: Lei us settle this. These contractors, rather than have a lawsuit over a paltry sum of $15,000 in a contract involving $2,000,000, accepted the settlement. They will go before the country and they will say: look at these crooked engineers, they allowed Kitchen $15,000 more than they ought to have allowed him, and we will make him give restitution. That is an illustration of what has been going on, ever since these gentlemen took possession of this road in 1911.


Air. KYTE:: Are these district engineers
still in the employ of the Transcontinental Commission?	.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Some of them are. Mr. Foss was kept in their employ until the month of January last and then he was told that they had no further use for him.
I do not know why they kept him; he had nothing to do and they paid him a big fat *salary for doing it. I am glad they did, .however, because he is a man for whom I have the highest esteem. There was no-

body more surprised than Mr. Foss at being kept on, but I presume they kept him on for some purposes. There are some lawsuits that are not settled yet, and perhaps they kept him on to have a string on Mr. Foss, but if they did they did not know their man, and when the lawsuits come on, a.: probably they will, you will hear of Mr. Foss and have his opinion put up against that of Mr. Gutelius.
I am sorry the Minister of Marine is not here, because I have a few things I would like to say in his presence, and I am also sorry the Prime Minister is not in the House. As an eastern man, if there is one statement in this most remarkable document to which I take more violent exception than to another, it is the concluding paragraph of the report, at page 138, which reads:
This commission does not think that the National Transcontinental railway should have been constructed east of Lfivis, which was done at a cost of $35,000,000, first,-because the Government at that time had a railway in operation between L6vis and Moncton, the Intercolonial; second,-because the National Transcontinental railway would only be thirty-three miles shorter ; third,-because the gradients on the National Transcontinental railway are greater than those on the Intercolonial railway ; and fourth,-because the grades on the Intercolonial railway can be reduced to four-tenths per cent, east-bound and six-tenths per cent westbound, whereas it is practically impossible according to the construction of the National Transcontinental railway, to reduce the 1.10 per cent grade at 146 miles west of Moncton and the 1.10 per cent grade at lake Polienagamook.
There are two reasons why I violently dissent from the conclusion found in that statement. In the first place, while it may not be a false conclusion, it is an unfair conclusion from the facts. They attempt to leave the impression that the general grades, on that portion of the road east of Levis, are greater than they are on the Intercolonial. These gentlemen know better than that, but they also know there are thousands of people in the country who will he deceived by the false statement they are making. It is a fact that there are two points on the road, between Levis and Moncton, on which there is a grade of 1-1. The reason for that is, that they figured out that two engines will draw the same load on a 1-1 grade that one engine will on a 0-4 grade. Therefore, in two cases where the cost of making the 0-4 road would be exceedingly excessive, they resort to what is called a pusher grade. In one case, it is something like ten or eleven miles long, and in the other case it is thirteen miles long, and these grades are on different divisions. This means that for
heavy traffic they would simply have to keep an extra engine at the foot of these . grades. On the 500 miles between Quebec and Moncton there are only two spots where they have exceeded the ruling grade of 0.4 east and 0.6 west. But if the present Government introduced these grades everywhere, then you would have to keep an engine everywhere there was such a grade, and you would be reducing the hauling capacity of the road to a one per cent road. That is a thing that these commissioners did not report to the public, but they tried to leave the impression that this road is practically a one per cent road. They know better than that.
These gentlemen find a great deal of fault with the construction of the Little Salmon river viaduct. I know that my friend from St. Antoine will say that Mr. Foss advocated the construction of pusher grades at the Little Salmon river viaduct, and I admit that. But if that had been done, the character of the road would have been degraded. The hon. member will have to know something about the history of the location of this road in the province of New Brunswick to understand the real reason why this report was made. It was made for the purpose of eliminating expense, and Mr. Foss stated that probably one and a half million dollars or a little more could have been saved by putting in a pusher grade across the Salmon river, a few feet above the water level, rather than building a viaduct. But if that were done you would be getting back to what the Intercolonial is; you would be degrading the whole road. If you put in that kind of grade at Coal creek and Chipman crossing, you would have the same condition of affairs. It is purely a question of policy whether the Government should have adhered to the 0.4 road or not. I do not have to call on the evidence of engineers to tell me that you can haul more freight and haul it cheaper over a level road than you can over a
12 m. hilly road. Neither do I have to be told that on a velocity grade, if you strike a slippery rail, or if your engine is not steaming properly, you are stalled, and there is nothing to do when you are stalled but cut your train in two; haul over the hill what cars you can, and then come back for the rest, losing several hours and eating up all the profit you get for carrying that freight. Any man who ever drove an automobile knows what you can do and what you cannot do on a velocity grade. He knows that you start down a hill on one side, and sometimes you

will get over the opposite hill, if everything is all right, but sometimes your carbureter is out of order and you will get stalled.
Or it is a question whether your gasoline is as good as the last tankful was. It is a question of a hundred different things. The same question that applies to a man driving an automobile over a velocity grade applie to an engineer who is trying to haul freight over a velocity grade. While I am not an engineer, I profess to have some common sense. So far as I am concerned, if there is anything for which I give the old commission credit it is for the fact that they were willing to accept the opinions of the best engineers in the world; that they wanted to build a road that would carry the grain from the West to the seaboard and carry back the manufactured articles.
There is one thing that my hon. friends have failed to recognize in all this transaction. We were not doing as the former Conservative Government did, when they subsidized the Canadian Pacific railway. I am not finding any fault with the Government for the assistance they gave to the Canadian Pacific railway. I have a wonderful admiration for the Canadian Pacific railway except at election time. I am a very good friend of the Canadian Pacific railway and they are very good friends of mine except at election time. When an election comes on, they absolutely put out of my constituency every man who they think will vote for me.


Mt. MICHAUD:: And send him up to my constituency


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. As a railway corporation they have done a wonderful work in developing and opening up Canada. The old Conservative Government gave them $25,000,000, some million dollars of completed road and land which is worth at least $300,000,000 to them. They exempted them from taxation; they gave them a subsidy on pretty nearly every mile of road they own in Canada. The Conservative party have assisted them in every form from the beginning of the road down to the present day and they are still assisting them. They are assisting Mackenzie and Mann; they gave them $17,000,000 last year and are going to give them $50,000,000 this year.


Herbert Brown Ames: Not on your life.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend from
Calgary is not here, so I am safe in making this statement. Remember that every dollar of money, every acre of land, every
I Mr. Carvell.l
exemption from taxation, everything which they have given to the Canadian Northern railway or the Canadian Pacific railway, they have given to those railways. It has gone from the people of Canada. We have no string upon it; we shall never get it back; we do not expect to get it back; it is theirs and theirs absolutely. Every dollar we are putting into the National Transcontinental railway is our own money, no matter whether it be $161,000,000, or whether you add compound interest for the next fifty years and make it $300,000,000 or $400,000,000 by simply compounding the interest long enough, no matter how much the road may have cost in the gross or per mile, no matter whether we have absolutely solid fill instead of wooden trestles, no matter whether we have steel bridges instead of wooden ones, no matter whether we have 0.4 per cent grades on which we can haul 2,000 or 2,500 tons per train as compared with 800 or 900 tons on the best road in Canada outside of the National Transcontinental railway, no matter what conditions may exist the Nation Transcontinental railway belongs to the people of Canada. We are leasing the railway to a company which will pay us three per cent for forty-three years, and at the end of that period every dollar put into that road, every dollar of improvement upon it, every bit of improvement that has taken place in the country along the location of the road, everything that has gone into that road will come back absolutely to the people of Canada, exactly as we gave it to the railway only made more valuable by the improvements, by the opening up of the country and by the business developed. In my judgment it is one of the finest assets which the Dominion of Canada possesses to-day. If I had not enough faith in the future of this great country to justify the building of a road like that, when it is our own road and will come back to us, I would consider myself a pretty small Canadian and not fit to occupy a seat in this Parliament or in any other parliament in Canada. When my hon. friends come to discuss this question I hope they will not fail to realize the difference between the fact that, as far as other railway companies are concerned, we are giving money away by tens and hundreds of millions of dollars, whereas in this case we are putting the money into our own road; we are going to receive interest on it for forty-three years and then the road will come back to us and will be the property of Canada and of every man who lives in Canada. There is every difference in the world between the two

cases. What is the use of handing over to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to operate a road built of wooden trestles, with velocity grades on which you cannot do business. What is the'use of it when it comes back to us? If they fill these trestles later on, we shall have to pay for the work. My hon. friends do not imagine for a moment that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are going to fill these trestles. My hon. friends say: Oh, but we could have filled these trestles more cheaply than you did. They try to prove that by saying that the Grand Trunk Pacific railway said: We will fill these trestles for 25 cents a yard. Do they realize that probably 50 cents a yard was the average cost of filling up these holes? It is in the evidence; it is a well known fact, something that Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton took great pains to keep in the back ground, that it has cost practically 25 cents a yard to build those trestles. When those trestles have been built, you will have to cover them up. You cannot take them out and use them over again. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company said: After the trestles are built for us, we will haul material and put it down there for 25 cents a yard. They could afford to do so but they would not build the trestles in addition to that. The ordinary contractor does not build standard trestles as a rule; he builds temporary trestles. The great majority of these fills were made with pony equipment, donkey engines as they are called. The contractors run out a trestle; they fill up a grade probably ten, fifteen or twenty feet; then they raise the grade and put another temporary trestle on top of that. It probably does not cost them more than three or four cents a yard for temporary trestles, whereas if they had to build standard trestles it would cost them 25 cents and the cost of filling them in afterwards. How much would the people of this country have saved if wooden trestles had been built instead of standard ones?


George Perry Graham: Very little, if anything.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The commissioners take care to say, in regard to every one of these contracts, that the contractors make so much money on this and so much on that. In every case they say that the contractors made money on their train-hauled material. I believe that the contractors made more money on the train-hauled material than they ever expected to make, and I believe that there is perhaps no item in the specification that was so profitable to the
contractors as was the train-hauled material, and why? When these gentlemen were called upon to tender, they only tendered for a price for train-hauled material per yard. These prices all averaged around forty or forty-three cents. They were basing their price upon their previous experience, and they had been building railroads of one per cent grades; they had never built a four-tenths road. When they got down to a four-tenths road they found that they were able to haul their material for a great deal less money than they could on a one per cent road. I do believe they made money on it; I will give my friends an illustration. In New Brunswick a firm of sub-contractors engaged on contract 6 had a splendid standard outfit, and could haul twenty to twenty-one cars of gravel to the trainload. 'That same firm are building a Gutelius road in my county at the present time-one of those tramways with seven and eight degree curves and over one per cent grades. It is costing the province of New Brunswick a nice penny to build it too. The province of New Brunswick has guaranteed the bonds for $25,000 a mile; it is one of those Tory political roads. Now they are coming back to the provincial legislature for an additional guarantee of bonds to the extent of $10,000 a mile, and I suppose they will get it.


George William Kyte: Where is the money going?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is going into the hands of a Yankee by the name of Gould. I wish my friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries were here, because he is particularly interested in that line. In addition they get from this Government a subsidy of $6,400 a mile.


George William Kyte: Is it let to sub-contractors?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Every yard of it. The contractor has not a shovel, a cart-even a horse. He has nothing there but an automobile.


George William Kyte: Send Gutelius after him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Gutelius knows all about him; Gutelius is one of his particular chums. They are building one of Gutelius's favourite roads-the same contractors, with the same engines, the same shovels, the same outfit, and they are able to haul at the very best seven cars of material, and sometimes only six, to the train. This illustrates the difference between a four-tenths road and a one per cent road.


Pius Michaud: Is it a surface road?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is practically a surface road. There is no doubt of the fact that they are making a lot of money out of it. However, I am pointing that out merely to show the results of operations so far as the two different kinds of roads are concerned; when these contractors get on a four-tenths road I do believe they make money on their train-hauled material. Do you mean to tell me that if a man tenders for a contract against the whole world-and in every case the low man gets the contract-it being found later that he is going to make money on a certain portion of his contract, the Government should say to him: We made a mistake; you are going to make money on that particular part of your work; we will take that from you and you can finish the part of the work on which there is no profit? It is all very well for Gutelius to preach that principle, but no man knows better than he that that does not work out in actual practice. This is but another evidence of the utter nonsense of the whole report.
There is another reason why I object to the last clause of this report even more strongly than to the other misstatements it contains about the character of the road. If there is any portion of this Dominion which did not make any too good a bargain when it came into Confederation, it is the Maritime provinces. I do not say that these provinces would like to withdraw from Confederation; we are in, and perhaps it is best for us to stay in, but up to the present time it has been a losing game. We have had no opportunity of selling our produce to the rest of Canada; we have had to find a market for our produce, with the exception of coal, and, perhaps, potatoes, wherever we could. On account of transportation and tariff conditions, we have been compelled to buy our machinery, flour, clothing and, to a considerable extent, our manufactured articles, from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It has been a long, hard and up-hill fight. If the Maritime provinces have not increased in population as rapidly as the other provinces of Canada have, it is because of the economic conditions against which we have been fighting. We have paid our proportion of the $100,000,000 which has gone into the construction of canals, and we fire getting not a dollar in return for it. We are paying our share of all the millions of dollars that have gone into great public works-millions of dollars in the harbour

of Montreal, millions in the harbour of Quebec, millions in Toronto, millions in Vancouver, millions in Victoria, millions all through this .country.


Mr. STEVENS:: Millions in Halifax,
millions in St. John.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Very few. We are coming to our own at the present time, but we started only four or five years ago to do it- no thanks to this Government. We have paid our shares, and we have paid it willingly. Any man from the Maritime provinces who will vote to sustain this report is a traitor to this country and has not the best interests of his province at heart. I will watch this vote with interest. I want to see what attitude my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will take on this question; I want to see what attitude every other member from the Maritime provinces will take in the matter. It is said that we should pay our share of the $150,000,000 for building a railway from Winnipeg to Quebec, though the Maritime provinces have no rights of extension in the eastern provinces, no right to obtain the benefit of cheap transportation from west to east or to build up their ports. Do my hon. friends tell me it is reasonable to expect the Maritime provinces to accept a situation like that? Are my friends the Prime Minister and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries going to vote for a proposition of that kind? If for no other reason than the nature of the conclusion of this report, I would feel that every man from the Maritime provinces, no matter on which side of Mr. Speaker he sits, is in honour bound to condemn this report not only by his word but by his vote and by every means in his power. It should be condemned if for no other reason than because of the gratuitous insult it offers to the people of the Maritime provinces in its concluding words. In the first place the matter to which it refers is a question of policy which was settled by the people of this country in two elections: it does not concern these commissioners at all. The report offers a gratuitous insult which I do not believe the Prime Minister knew was in the document or he would not have allowed it to be circulated in its present form. It is there, however, and the Prime Minister must take the responsibility.


John Howard Sinclair: The acting Minister of
Railways approved the report.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was not here and I did not hear his remarks. I must confess that I had a better opinion of him.

I think I may be pardoned if for a few moments I refer to a matter connected with the Grand Trunk Pacific railway which is not dealt with in this report. In the province of New Brunswick the people were led to believe that the city of St. John would be one of the terminals of the road. The late Government when in power had made arrangements to build the road of which I have been speaking, the Valley railway, which was to be the connection between the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and the city of St. John. My hon. friends the enemy have possession of things down there now; they are building a tramway, which I have described, which does not go within 25 miles of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. It does not go to St. John, and they never intend that it shall go there.
It starts from the Canadian Pacific railway at Andover, and it is going to end on the -Canadian Pacific railway at Westfield, at least that is my prophecy, and it will only be a matter of a week or so now until we see if my prophecy is correct. Years have gone by, and not a finger has been lifted to give St. John access to this great work. We are paying our share and getting no benefit, and as far as I can see years more will go by and we will not have any chance of participating in the benefits I wish that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) were here to-night.
I hope that before the debate concludes he will take the people of New Brunswick into his confidence and tell them what he is doing and what ihe hopes to do in order to give his own city connection with this work, and put'the people of that city in a position to receive their portion of the benefits which they have fondly hoped they would receive from the expenditure of millions on this great project. He is not here; I am afraid he will be as mum on this question as he was during the debate in this House on the famous Gutelius agreement by which our rightful freight business is carried by Mr. Gutelius, for one-half what it -actually costs to transport it, away to Halifax. The hon. minister was very anxious to have a chance to talk about it, so anxious that he got the Minister of Public Works to adjourn the debate in order that he might discuss it later on. The resolution went to the bone pile and is there yet, it has never been called up and never will be. The minister has not had an opportunity to discuss it, he never will, and I am afraid he will be quite as silent in this debate as 132)	REVISED
he has been on all other matters referring to his own -city, his own constituency, and our great commercial port. These things are not in the report, but they are of great importance to all the electors of New Brunswick, and of more special importance to the electors of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries than all of us put together.
I have discussed this report at greater length than I intended. It is a rather fascinating subject; a man might speak for three or four hours to-day and go on for three or four hours more to-morrow because, Sir, it is, in my judgment, so unfair, so full of unfair statements, so unfair to the Liberal party, so unfair to the former commissioners, so unfair to Canada as a whole, that a man hardly has parliamentary language in which to describe his real feelings, not only towards the report but towards the men who are responsible for it-and when I use that expression I do not mean simply the two tools, Gutelius and Staunton, but I mean the whole Government that stands behind it. I hope that before the debate concludes the acting Minister of Railways will be convinced, as he must in fact now be convinced, that it is a partisan report, founded upon false premises, founded upon lack of evidence, a report not justified by the evidence, a report not in the interests of the country, and that he will see that the Government will either accept the amendment of the hon. member for South Renfrew or formally state in the House that they do not father the report, do not stand by it-because we know by their conduct that they are not standing by it-and that they will by their words say to the people of Canada, as they have been doing for months by their actions in allowing moneys which these men say should not be allowed and doing a hundred things which these men condemn, that they do not endorse the report. I have tried to present this matter exactly as I feel about it, not only from the standpoint of my native province but of Canada as a whole. As the hon. member for South Renfrew said, this is not a question involving New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, but a question involving the good name, the honesty, the business reputation and the financial standing of the whole of Canada. That report is one which I believe has done more to injure our fair name in the markets of the world than anything that has happened in our lifetime and is something which I hope never will be repeated. I certainly hope it will never be repeated merely for party purposes, for that has been the whole object and aim of this nefarious report.



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Stanfield the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Reid the House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Thursday.
Thursday, March 26, 1914.