1914-03-27

REPORT AND PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
Steamboat Inspection Report^-Hon. Geo. H. Perley.

Documents relating to tne Constitutional History of Canada, 1791-1818.-Hon. Geo. H. Perley.


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

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for Committee of Supply, and the proposed amendment of Mr. Graham thereto, resumed from March 26.
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of attention to the numerous speeches delivered on this subject, and I am sure that we cannot help feeling that the Opposition have been doing their utmost to becloud the issue. They have not dealt with many of the important features of the report; in fact, they have dealt with very few of the statements contained in it. The one object of practically every man on the Opposition side of the House who rises to speak on this question is to becloud the issue, and to condemn the men who had charge of bringing forward this evidence. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to think that the members of the Investigating Commission deserve the severest condemnation, when they know full well that practically every statement in this report is founded on facts gathered through a thorough investigation into the whole matter. They condemn Mr. Gutelius because he is an American citizen. One man will be doing that, and before he sits down, like the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), he will quote page after page of statements made by Mr. Berry, another American citizen. These gentlemen must realize that Mr. Gutelius has been a very great success in the business in which he has been engaged, not only in connection with the Canadian Pacific railway and other railways, but in connection with the business of this Government in respect to the Intercolonial. We find that Mr. Staunton is condemned for being a Conservative, and yet hon,. gentlemen opposite must know full well that practically all the prominent positions under the present Government are occupied by appointees of the men who left office a few years ago. The great industrial affairs of Canada under the present Government are largely conducted by men appointed by

the present Opposition when they were in office. I was surprised last night to hear the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) making the statement he did with regard to Major Leonard, the man at the head of the Transcontinental Commission. These are the words he used:
Major Leonard is a very estimable gentleman whom I know exceeding well and I have not a word against him, but is it not unfair to him to say that he never built or operated a railroad in his life and knows no more [DOT]about operating and building railroads than I or any other man in this country. Why put him up as a paragon of perfection in the construction and operation of railroads?
That is certainly a reckless statement for a man to make who, I am satisfied, is thoroughly conversant with the fact that Major Leonard has had much to do with the building of different railways in Canada, and in addition has held important positions in charge of water-powers. Major Leonard is not in town, but I was able to gather the following information:	He has
been chief engineer and manager of construction on a number of different railways. He was on the original construction of the Canadian Pacific railway north of lake Superior in 1884, as assistant engineer. About 1887 he was assistant engineer of construction on the Canadian Pacific railway between Montreal and Smith's Falls. About 1895 he was chief engineer of construction on the St. Lawrence and Adirondack railway, which joins the Canadian Pacific railway south of the St. Lawrence river, near Lachine. Subsequent to that he was chief engineer of the Rutland railway, and then chief engineer of construction on the Cape Breton railway. In 1896 he was manager of construction and in full charge of the building of the Canadian Pacific railway short line between Montreal and Ottawa. These are only a few of the facts that we might gather in connection with the successful life of Major Leonard. I am surprised that a man knowing Major Leonard as well as the hon. member for Welland must know him, should try to belittle that gentleman, occupying the important position which he does occupy. No matter what this Government may do, or what appointments they may make to positions of emolument under the Crown, hon. gentlemen opposite will take direct issue with their policy and manifest opposition to their appointments. They even go so far as to criticise the actions of their own men who continue to serve under the present Transcontinental Railway Commission. There are men employed upon the
construction of this railway, notably those in charge of the Quebec bridge, who were appointed when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office.
The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) who, I am sorry is not in his seat, appealed to the business men of this House to look upon this project as a business proposition and to 'consider it from a business standpoint. I appeal to the business men of this House to take a general view of this whole undertaking and in this connection I desire to call attention to the fact that the Minister of Finance in the former Government, in 1904, made the statement that the Transcontinental railway would only cost $61,000,000, while today it has actually been shown that it will cost at least $234,000,000. Hon. gentlemen opposite, because , of the reckless and extravagant manner in which they conducted affairs in connection with the building of this road, have been largely responsible for the difference between these two amounts. Had these hon. gentlemen considered some of the statements that were placed before them by their former Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair), they would have exercised greater care and more carefully considered their position before launching forth upon this extravagant project. Mr. Blair was for seven years Minister of Railways and Canals under the Government which recently went out of office, and he told the right hon. gentleman who now leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that it was not only unsound policy for him to attempt to build this road without satisfactory information and without proper plans and specifications, but it was most unwise for him to attempt such an undertaking involving such an enormous expenditure without a more thorough investigation of the conditions surrounding the project.
The man responsible to the people of Canada to-day for the putting through of this measure in the first place is the right hon. leader of the Opposition. The right hon. gentleman drove the Hon. A. G. Blair out of public life when he brought this Bill down in 1904, forced it through Parliament, and compelled the building of this great railway without sufficient information or data. Do you wonder that the present Government are compelled to take into consideration the enormous expenditures that are necessary in connection with the building of this road? Is it not a proper and a wise thing for us, who are connected with this Government, to ask


Mr. BELAND:: In how many instances
did the contract exceed the estimates of the chief en^ineeer of the commission?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If my hon. friend will turn to the report of tihe Transcontinental Investigating Commission, he will find that the men who estimated the cost of the Transcontinental railway had no data, plans or specifications on which to base their estimates, nor had they any	accurate knowledge of the character of the country through which the railway was to be built. The result is that the road has cost nearly sixty per cent more than the estimated cost prepared by the engineers in the first instance. The hon. gentleman shakes his head, but let me give him one or two specimens of what occurred. 'In the case of contract No. 1, the amount paid the contractor to December 31,	1911, was
$1,224,000 in excess of the estimated cost. On contract No. 2, the engineer's estimate was $376,000, and the gross amount of progress estimates paid to the 31st December on this contract amounted to $587,000, or nearly double the estimate of the engineers.	In another contract, the
engineer's estimate was $933,000, and the gross amount paid to the contractors was $1,042,000.	The hon. gentleman can go
through the whole list, and he will find that the engineers made these estimates without having plans or specifications or data, and apparently they simply guessed at it haphazard.
Were it not that the Government is forced to needlessly turn into this sinkhole, on account of original cost and maintenance, ten3 of millions of dollars, the Government could have undertaken other necessary works for the development of Canada. We had here yesterday, as I said, an influential delegation, urging assistance in the line of subsidies to hydro-radials in Ontario, so that the development of that province might be advanced, but the Prime Minister had to tell these gentlemen that the Government had to face such enormous expenditures in connection with the Transcontinental railway, and other works, that, while he would not say it was practically impossible to assist radial railways, he did not see that the necessary money would be available at the present time.
Hon. gentlemen opposite know that there are other projects of great concern to the Dominion that might be undertaken, were it not that this money has been foolishly and extravagantly thrown away on the Transcontinental railway. I, personally, would be very glad to urge on the Government the necessity for build trunk telegraph and telephone lines, but I have not the heart to do so, because the late Government has pledged the present Government to such enormous public works, undertaken far and away in advance of the needs of the country, that heed must be taken to our provincial demands. The hon. member for Edmonton realizes that. He was one of those who urged on the Government the building of the National Transcontinental railway, and he knows as well as he knows anything, that in view of the enormous cost of that road, and the money squandered in its construction, it will be impossible for the farmers of the West to obtain reasonable freight rates. The hon. gentleman knows that while the National Transcontinental railway cost the people of Canada over $100,000 per mile to build, the Canadian Pacific has only, cost $38,000 per mile. He knows also that the Intercolonial railway, in which we have $97,000,000 invested, and which we have been improving from year to year, has only cost, up to the present, $66,000 per mile. He knows also that the Prince Edward railway has only cost $31,000 per mile, and the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario $33,000 per mile. These are Government railways, but they were built with due consideration as to the return they would give on the actual investment. No one knows better than the hon. member for Edmonton that the Government of which he was a member were not justified in undertaking the building of a transcontinental railway, without first having furnished themselves with data and information as to its cost, and as to the service it would be able to render to the public, based on that cost
I remember the maps placed before us in 1904. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) knows, and we were able to show that this railway was compelled to cross the streams and rivers in this north land instead of following them up from Montreal and passing through other places that were proposed. If the proposition laid down by the right hon. the leader of the Government of the present day had been followed out, we would have had from ocean to ocean a national railway of which every foot of ground, every tie, every rail,

every telephone and telegraph pole would be owned and controlled by the Dominion of Canada, and we would have had a successful undertaking which would have been a great benefit to the people of Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite say the Intercolonial railway is not a paying proposition. How can they expect it to be a paying proposition when they have paralleled . it with another line costing $35,000,000, which will take away a large portion of	the	trade that would	otherwise
come to it?	.
What do we find in regard to the railway situation in Canada? I will merely give the round figures in my statement. In 1896 the money invested in railways in Canada amounted	to	$697,000,000.	In	3 911,	itamounted	to	$1,528,000,000;	in	1913,	to
$1,531,000,000. From 1896 to 1913, our population has only increased by about 1,500,-
000.	We have under survey, under contract and completed at the present time about 18,600 miles of railway. The details, which I have carefully ascertained, are as follows: Under survey, 6,557 miles; under contract, 8,591 miles; completed, 2,956 miles; in operation, 541 miles; total, 18,600 miles. This mileage is not included in the 29.300 miles already recorded in our books. When it is all completed, we shall have 47,900 miles of railways in Canada. It will be realized that we shall then have a much greater railway system than any other nation on the face of the globe, except the United States.
Let me give. the House a few more facts in regard to railway facilities in Canada. Our population is 8,000,000. When the present mileage under survey and under contract is completed, we shall have 47,900 miles of railway. The capitalization will be about $2,000,000,000; passenger revenue, $74,000,000; freight revenue $177,000,030; other revenue, $5,000,000; total revenue, $256,000,000; passengers carried, only
46,000,000; freight tons carried, 106,000,000.
The United States have twelve times our population and only five times our mileage. The United Kingdom has five and a half times our population and only half our mileage. Argentina has the same population and one-third the mileage. The German Empire has eight and a half times the population and will have 10,000 miles less of railway than has the Dominion of Canada. Therefore, I feel that, so far as railway transportation facilities in this country are concerned, it is time that we had a general stocktaking. We ought also to take into consideration transportation facilities on our

waters an dour great lakes. We have already invested $135,000,000 in our canals. The Welland canal will increase that by $50,000,000 and we shall soon have $200,000,000 invested in our canal system. In addition to that we are compelled to build the Hudson Bay railway and to buoy and light the Hudson Bay strait in order to protect the ships that will go in and out of that great channel. These matters are receiving the attention of the present Government, and the people of Canada should realize that they have in this Government a wise, sane and sensible body of men who are determined to conduct the affairs of Canada in a businesslike manner.
Let me go back to this report for a moment o.r two. It states that the actual cost or the interest is to be paid by the lessees. That statement has not been refuted. Hon. gentlemen opposite know that statements have been laid before them in regard to advertising for tenders, which statements have not been contradicted or refuted. In regard to the method of awarding. contracts, hon. gentlemen opposite say that, as far as M. P. and J. T. Davis were concerned, they were perfectly justified in receiving the amount of money that they did, namely, $740,000. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) supported that proposition in the strongest language possible. Yet these gentlemen know full well that, had these contracts been let at the time when operations were com: menced, when both ends of the road were carrying the material with which the contractors could construct that portion of the line, the commission would have been perfectly justified in obtaining for the people of Canada a saving of at least $700,000 or $800,000.
Hon. gentlemen opposite do not dispute the over-classification. The only statement I have heard in that regard is by the' hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), who stated that Mr. Berry would support their contention in this regard, that-after a year or two, when the material had been removed, it would be practically impossible for any man to come to a decision as to this over-classification. They did not dispute the fact that solid rock was classed as assembled rock and that large amounts of money were made in that way.
In regard to the ploughable clay, the statement made by the commissioners has not been refuted. The same is true in regard to overbreak and grades. Hon. gentlemen opposite have devoted a great

amount of time to momentum grades, when they know full well that the Canadian Pacific railway has to-day eighty-five momentum grades between Port Arthur and Winnipeg, and that these momentum grades are not causing any serious interference in the traffic on that road. They have devoted a great deal of time to the curvatures, and have said that it was a wise policy to make these great, sweeping curves instead of curves of reasonable size which would have saved so much to the people. They do not dispute the fact that had they used shorter curves no less than $2,400,000 would have been saved. We have heard a great deal also about the wooden trestles. But it has been shown that the Grand Trunk Pacific were ready to fill these trestles at 25 cents a yard after the road was in operation. But, no, this Transcontinental Commission said: Fill them in the most expensive manner; this country has unlimited resources, and we are willing to help the contractors in every way. Then, on the subject of the buildings and stations, these hon. gentlemen do not attempt to refute the arguments used against them. Nor do they attempt to deny that two prices were paid for handling the materials in many of these contracts. These were also the high embankments, the enormous amount of material unnecessarily removed,-the pictures in this report and the pages of evidence simply go to show that the statements made in their own defence by these hon. gentlemen are unjustified and unreasonable. They make no attempt to justify the expenditure of $61,000 for fences in a part of the country where there was not likely to be anything to interfere with the railway. Nor do they begin to refute the statements in regard to the Transcona shops. Those shops were built at the end of the line, where they could not possibly be of as great benefit to that railway as they would have been had they been built at a point to which the stock to be repaired could be brought by a reasonably short haul. The shops cost $4,500,000. There is not a doubt in my mind that the Grand Trunk should be compelled to pay-or at least they should have been compelled to pay- -a large portion of that cost, for they will make a great deal of use out of these shops in time to come. Imagine a body of business men spending $4,500,000 on shops for a new railway on which they knew there could not be more than a small amount of business done and providing for this new railway shops so large that the Canadian
Pacific railway could have had practically all their repairs done in these shops, with room left for all the repairs likely to be required on the Transcontinental. Then there was the Winnipeg entrance. You have heard how this entrance was built in such a manner that the country is compelled to pay tribute to the Canadian Northern railway in connection with the entrance to Winnipeg for practically all shunting and freight going in or out of that great city.
Now, just a word or two about the New Brunswick section. As these commissioners have said:
Large sums of money in interest have been lost by the premature construction of the New Brunswick section of the railway. In our opinion this section should not have been constructed at all. If one-third of the money had been expended on the Intercolonial railway it would have provided all the trunk line facilities for the province of New Brunswick which would be required for many years.
Construction was away in advance of the requirements of the people, and on the money thus expended the people of Canada are paying interest, while the rails are rusting and the ties rotting.	.
Is it not dear that we were justified in *taking the position we did in 1904? The leader of this Government (Mr. Borden) when leader of the Opposition, in 1904, urged the Government to extend the Intercolonial to the west and the coast and give us a Government-owned railway, and, in the eastern provinces, to extend the branch lines so as to assist materially in developing the country. This was a wise, *sound policy; but instead of adopting that policy hon. gentlemen opposite persisted in a proposition that has saddled upon the people of Canada an enormous expenditure. The leader of this Government has been right on all these great national undertakings. I am proud and glad to be the follower of a man who has shown such business ability, straightforwardness and strength of character. I remember well the seven long months we spent in this House in attempting to show the Government of that day the necessity of investigating this whole question and oi *securing full information before undertaking it. I remembeT the position taken by our leader at that time, and the long days he spent in placing before Parliament the figures connected with this undertaking in the effort to prevent the people of Canada from being saddled with this unjustifiable expenditure. And in the years since then we have seen practically

every statement made by our worthy leader justified and established. Look at the statement he made with regard to wihat this railway would cost. He was ridiculed throughout the length and breadth of Canada as a man who could not look ahead and see what was necessary for the development of our great Dominion. Hut the outcome is that practically every word he has uttered in support of his position has been justified. We are doubly proud to have as our leader a man of such statesmanlike foresight.
The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) made the statement time and again in the course of his remarks that we should look upon this as a great business undertaking and regard it from the business standpoint. While I condemn the hon. member for Teckless expenditure of the people's money in this great undertaking, and believe him to be worthy of special condemnation of the people for what he has done, yet I say that the man on whose shoulders rests the main responsibility for this whole undertaking, the man who committed the greatest blunder, was the man who attempted by this means to create a monument for himself, the right hon. leader of the Opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Instead of that monument being a work which will win for the hon. gentleman the approval of the people, it will prove to be, in fact it has already proved to be a monument of folly. If hon. members on both sides of this House will carefully examine the pages of this report, they can come to no other conclusion than that the present Government were justified in ordering this investigation, which they had promised before the last general election in the event of their being returned to office. In spite of all the talk that hon. gentlemen opposite have indulged in, there will be found within the pages of this report sufficient to condemn any body of men who will attempt to support it.


Mr. G. W. KYTE (Richmond, N.S.):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) introduced his speech in the House yesterday afternoon by giving the members a dissertation upon royal commissions. He referred somewhat facetiously to the appointment of commissions by the late Government and the alleged dissatisfaction of that Government with their findings. The hon. gentleman might, however, have found food for his facetiousness and for his philosophical

observations very much nearer home if he had confined himself to a review of certain commissions appointed by the present Government. We all remember that it was announced a few months after the present Government came into office that a commission was to be appointed to investigate the various departments of the late Government. A commission was appointed under the name of the Public Service Commission, whose duties it would be to investigate the expenditure of money by the large spending departments of that Government. The members of that commission were Messrs. A. B. Morine, formerly of Newfoundland; Mr. G. N. Ducharme of Montreal, and Mr. R. N. Lake, a former member of the House of Commons. After the commissioners had begun their work, items of news filtered out through the Conservative press, from time to time, intimating that gross mismanagement had been discovered in the various departments of the Government. Newspapers supporting the Conservative party gave information to the public that in the Department of Public Works great extravagance and unjustifiable expenditures had been discovered. Naturally the public mind was being prepared for the report of this commission which was going to result, as was fondly hoped by hon. gentlemen supporting the present Government, in driving certain prominent members of the Liberal parfy out of public life. The report of this commission was anticipated just as that of Messrs Lynch-Staunton and Gutelius was anticipated by the 4 p.m. Conservative press, as information from time to time was given out to the press by the commission appointed to investigate the National Transcontinental railway. But the Public Service Commission has not, so far as I know, up to this hour, presented its report to Parliament and I shall tell the House why. It may be remembered that in the House of Commons, in the month of April, 1912, the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) brought to the attention of the First Minister certain charges that had been made against Mr. Morine, the leading member of the Public Service Commission. Certain documents were placed on ' Hansard ' by the hon. member for Carleton which hal the result of speedily terminating the service of Mr. Morine as an investigator of the public service and of the different departments of the late Liberal Government. Mr. Morine, who was described by his former leader in Newfoundland as the 'greatest scoundrel who ever entered the Narrows,' had been appointed by the First

Minister to investigate the -conduct and the expenditure of public money by members of the former Administration. That report has not yet come down because the revelations and the disclosures made by the hon. member for Carleton as to the conduct of Mr. Morine in Newfoundland were such that his services were terminated by this Government, and no one was appointed to carry on the work which he had commenced. If the First Minister of this Government appointed a scoundrel to investigate all the departments of the late Government, is it reasonable to suppose that he would select angels to investigate the Department of th-ex-Minister of Railways and Canals? Mr. Morine was a former candidate of the First Minister in the county of Queens-Shelburne, N.S., in the general election of 1904. He took up his residence in Ontario, in the city of Toronto; and if reports be true, after he had completed his work as a commissioner to investigate the conduct of the exMinister of Public Works and other members of the late Government, he was to have been selected for high honours carrying with them great emoluments. We no longer hear of the Hon. A. B. Morine and the report for which the taxpayers of this country had already paid many thousands of dollars has not been brought down to this House.


Mr. BORDEN:: The hon. gentleman
asserted that the report of the Public Service Commission had never been presented to Parliament. The statement surprised me very much and I examined the Votes and Proceedings of last year. If he will look at page 172 he will find that that report was presented on the 9th day of December, 1912. It was ordered to be printed forthwith.


George William Kyte: Inasmuch as the primary
object of the inquiry was to present a report to Parliament which would reflect upon the conduct of the members of the late Government, and inasmuch as we have heard nothing of that report from hon. gentlemen opposite, we have reason to assume that there was not very much in it.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not discussing
what was in it; I merely wanted to correct the hon. gentleman as to a statement of fact. I am sure that he would desire to be corrected in such a statement. It would be most undesirable had no report been presented, and I felt confident that one had been presented.


George William Kyte: makes the statement that no member of the old commission had any railway experience, he is stating what is not within the facts.
When it comes to appointing men to occupy great positions in the railway or industrial world, on this continent at all events, it is not the rule to select those persons from men who have had any extraordinary or intimate association with those particular industries. For instance, it will be remembered that when the United States Steel Corporation lost its president, W. E. Corry, by resignation, they did not confine their choice of bis successor to men who had had intimate experience in the business of manufacturing steel and iron, but they selected for the head of that great corporation Judge Carey, an eminent lawyer in the city of Chicago. When E. H. Harriman, who was the head and front of the largest railway system in the United States, died, and it became necessary to appoint a successor, they did not go to the railway operators of the United States, but they selected Judge Lovitt, a lawyer, to carry on Mr. Harri-man's work. When the Dominion Iron and Steel Company wanted a president to carry on the work that had been conducted so successfully by the late James Ross they did not seek the services of a man particularly familiar with the manufacture of iron and steel, but they selected a very competent and excellent gentleman who was a banker in the city of Toronto, Mr. J. H. Plummer. When the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company required a president some years ago to take charge of the management of that large and important corporation in the province of Nova Scotia, did they confine their choice to men familiar with the steel and coal business? No. It is well known to the right hon. leader of this House that they selected his colleague at the Bar in the city of Halifax, Robert E. Harris, a distinguished lawyer in that city. Therefore, when the acting Minister of Railways criticises the Government because the men whom they appointed as commissioners were not railway builders, surely it is not a criticism that ought to have any weight in view of the practice that is followed by all the great corporations on this continent.
We are sometimes asked to compare the operations of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company with the operations of the Commissioners of the Transcontinental. To hear hon. gentlemen opposite

talk, one ' would imagine that when the Canadian Pacific railway was first conceived its original directors must necessarily and naturally have been men familiar with railway construction and operation. I have under my hand a list of the original directors of the Canadian Pacific railway, the men who carried out the construction of that railway in its earlier stages. The names of these directors are: George Stephen, Montreal, merchant; Duncan McIntyre, Montreal, merchant; John S. Kennedy, New York, banker; R. B. Angus, St. Paul, Esquire; James J. Hill, St. Paul, Esquire; Henry Stafford Northcote, London, Esquire; D. P. Grenfell, London, merchant; Charles Day Rose, London, merchant; Baron J. de Reinach, Paris, banker. Not a single practical railway man or engineer was to be found in the first directorate of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, so far as I have been able to ascertain from the records in the Library of Parliament. If the construction of that road could be carried on successfully and to the satisfaction of the men who put tneir money into the road, by men not railway builders or operators, is it not folly to suppose that in this day of our history, business men, bankers and professional men cannot be found to carry on a great and important undertaking.
But, Mr. Speaker, the acting Minister of Railways, in making the criticism that he did against the personnel of the former commission, had not in mind perhaps that certain criticisms more trenchant than he made against the late commissioners, had been made against the person who now occupies the position of commissioner. I have before me criticisms directed against the person occupying that high and important position, Major Leonard, that make the criticisms of the acting Minister of Railways appear by comparison like the recitation of a school girl in the second form of a kindergarten. I have here an editorial from the Winnipeg Telegram. It is not necessary for me to tell the members of this House that the Winnipeg Telegram is the leading Conservative paper in western Canada. It is the personal OTgan of the hon. Minister of Public Works and any observations that it makes in regard to public matters it makes on behalf of the Conservative party. From the Winnipeg Telegram of January 3, 1914, I read:
The growing dissatisfaction through the West, over the slow progress being made in

the construction of the National Transcontinental railway is being reflected in the animated newspaper comment of the press, regardless of party affiliation. In the East there is a similar echo of restlessness over the unsatisfactory state of this huge enterprise. This continued delay, inaction of those responsible for the work, and the fact that the project has already cost $55,000,000 more than the most exaggerated estimates called for, has provoked a feeling of uncertainty in the public mind, that is rapidly reaching explosive proportions.
Who is responsible for this extraordinary condition?
After the overthrow of the Laurier regime, the country hoped and expected the work would be prosecuted with vigour and ability. Frankness requires the acknowledgment that all the public has a right to expect in this direction has not been accomplished. The old commission responsible for much of this trouble, was dismissed, and new men appointed, but there was no improvement in action and efficiency. This is too clear, Mr. Borden's Government deserves the support of the people, and they have confidence in him, but there can be no question that a mistake was made in the selection of Major Leonard as Chairman of the Transcontinental Commission. This, Mr. Borden's warmest supporters to-day freely admit. The only virtue the commission can claim is honesty.
There is no dishonesty charged against the ex-members of the Transcontinental Railway 'Commission even in the biased report of the special 'Commission appointed to investigate the subject.
This is an excellent quality, but it does not tunnel mountains, bridge rivers, and construct railways. In the interests of the people, especially the people of western Canada, and with no desire to damage Major Leonard's reputation, the Telegram desires to affirm that his work, as head of the commission has been a distinct failure. The Telegram believes a mistake was made in choosing Major Leonard for this responsible position. He is not a railway builder, however good he may be in locating mining propositions. It is a pity, therefore, to spoil an excellent * prospector ' at the expense of the National Transcontinental project.
It is not necessary to go into details to indicate Major Leonard's unfitness for the position he occupies. The impression is growing that more progress could be made on the work, if the youngest engineer in the employ of the commission were in charge.
Hon. Frank Cochrane, the Minister of Rail-w'ays, is a busy man. He is an overworked minister, and he will continue to be overworked as long as he is burdened with incompetents like Major Leonard, in .control of great undertakings like the Transcontinental. The suggestion is freely made, that either Mr. Cochrane should take over this important work, or a commissioner be appointed with the ability and skill to expedite the work. The East as well as the West is vitally interested in an immediate improvement and will be satisfied with nothing less.
Then, on the 14th January, 1914, the Winnipeg Telegram returns to the attack: 136
But the Telegram reiterates Its statement that the people are tired of the inaction and incompetence of the Transcontinental Commission. Major Leonard's services have proven distinctly disappointing. The public have confidence in the Minister of Railways, and if Mr. Cochrane will take over the work, it will be handled expeditiously, and with intelligence. He enjoys a reputation for service; hut with Major Leonard as the head of the commission, to perfect the work on this huge public utility, he is practically helpless. The West wants to see something done, and the Telegram believes the East has equal wisdom. At the present rate, another private Transcontinental railway system will be completed before the National Transcontinental railway is ready for traffic. Yet the peoples' millions are backing this great enterprise, and all the resources are at hand to employ the genius of the railway world. Under these circumstances, it seems a pity that action is not taken at Ottawa along the line of public demand for more expedition in this undertaking.
I have looked through the report of Messrs. Lyneh-Staunton and Gutelius, in which they criticise the conduct of the late Transcontinental Railway Commission, I have read the evidence from one end of the volume to the other, and nowhere do I find a criticism so far-reaching, or so deadly, as that which the newspaper of the hon. Minister of Public Works has directed against Major Leonard, the present commissioner. The excuse given by the Minister of Railways and Canals for disbanding the old commission was, that the members of the old commission were incompetent because there was not a practical railway builder among them. It was said that the expenditure upon the construction of the road would be materially reduce! if a change were made. The Minister of Railways and Canals got up in this House and gave a certificate of character to Major Leonard as being the one man in Canada in whom he had confidence to carry out that work in the way it should be carried out. We have had a test of Major Leonard's competence and I do not desire to express any personal opinion as regards that estimable gentleman. It is my duty to put the report of Messrs. Lynch-Staunton, and Gutelius as to the capacity of the members of the late commission, and the criticism of the Minister of Railways and Canals of the members of that commission, side biy side with the criticism of the Winnipeg Telegram with regard to the com-pent-ence, the fitness and the ability of Major Leonard, the present commissioner.
The hon. member for South Renfrew, in the course of his observations the other evening, pointed out that in hi? opinion the report of the special commission was partisan and biased. Of course, it was open to hon. gentlemen opposite to throw



back the charge in the face of my hon.
friend from South Renfrew. I am not going to quote the opinions of members supporting the Liberal party, but I desire to place on record the opinion of a prominent member of the Conservative party in the city of Montreal as to what he thinks of the impartiality of the report presented to this House by these two special commissioners. I am going to put on ' Hansard ' a statement made by Mr. C. H. Cahan, K.C., an eminent lawyer of Montreal and who was prominent for many years as leader of the Conservative party in the province of Nova Scotia. Mr. Cahan was for some time editor of the Halifax Herald, a thick and th'in supporter of the Conservative party in good and evil report. Mr. Cahian was one of the candidates of the right hon. the First Minister (Mr. Borden) in the province of Nova Scotia in the election of 1904. This is what Mr. Cahan says in regard to the report of this commission :
I expressed my views very clearly at the recent dinner of the Maritime Province Association of McGill. In Canada we are apt to go to the extreme of condemning a whole political party not only for the frauds secretly perpetrated by individuals, but we also represent, as fraudulent and corrupt, alleged mistakes in policy and in details, in regard to which expert advisers may, in good faith, entertain .entirely different views.
No great engineering project was ever carried through to completion, in which large sums of money might not have been saved if the foresight of the engineers directing and controlling the expenditures had been equal to their hindsight. Most valuable knowledge and experience is always gained in carrying through a great undertaking which is utilized by amateur critics to condemn the works of engineers and others who are, in fact, more competent and equally as honest as those who criticise and condemn the completed work.'
In the matter of the Transcontinental railway construction, there were many questions of routes, of grades, of standards of construction, of main lines, sidings, shops, station houses, etc., in regard to which equally competent engineers may and do honestly differ. All expenditures of this nature should be eliminated in considering the charges and counter-charges of fraud and corruption with which the party press is now filled.
An honest opinion either upon general policy or in regard to details of construction does not and should not place a person or a political party in the criminal dock.
It must also be borne in mind that the inquiry which has been held was ex parte. It is similar to a preliminary inquiry and investigation before a magistrate. It should have no more weight than is usually given to the evidence taken at an ex parte inquiry. Individuals should not be condemned by Star Chamber proceedings. If evidence has been obtained by the Gutelius commission, which is sufficient, in the opinion of the Government, to place any contractors or others on trial, they

should be tried by and before a tribunal at which they can appear, with their witnesses, and be heard by their counsel. We must play the game of politics fairly, if we are to preserve the whole country from utter discredit. As it is, the press of one party now seeks to overwhelm their political opponents with indiscriminate charges of fraud and corruption, based upon an ex parte report, upon ex parte evidence, even before the persons charged have had opportunity to prepare and present their defence. We prefer to cast odium upon our political opponents, rather than to take effective means to bring individual culprits to the bar of justice.
And with what result ? The world at large accepts Canada at Canada's appreciation of herself. The unmerited opinion has been created in England and elsewhere that public affairs in this country are permeated with fraud and corruption. The financial credit of the country is impaired, and our material progress is seriously deterred. It would be far better for this country if we played the game and played it fairly, discriminating clearly between matters of honest difference of opinion, and fraudulent and corrupt dealings, and sparing no reasonable effort to bring those persons guilty of fraudulent acts before the courts of justice which are properly constituted for that purpose.
There is the opinion,, not of a Liberal, not of an ex-member of the Government which was defeated in 1911, and not of a partisan of the Liberal party or of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition.
That, Sir, is the unbiased statement of a leading Conservative in the city of Montreal, a man who knows whereof he speaks.
I stated a moment ago that Mr. Cahan, waB ' an eminent lawyer of the city of Montreal; he is more -than an eminent lawyer, he is an eminent financier. Through Mr. Cahan's enterprise and energy he has done much to develop the latent natural resources of the Dominion. In British Columbia, in Ontario, in Nova Scotia, in far distant South America, Mr. Cahan has organized corpora-' tions to develop public utilities, and he is obliged, from time to time, to go to the money market of Great Britain to raise capital for his great enterprises. No man, therefore, knew better than Mr. Cahan the deadly blow dealt to the credit of Canadian enterprises by this partisan report presented to Parliament by Messrs. Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton.
One of the important criticisms directed against the wisdom of the late Government in respect to the construction of the National Transcontinental railway, is, as to the building of the line from Quebec East to Moncton. It has been pointed out by the ex-Minister of Railways, and also by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), that when Messrs. Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton undertook to condemn the construction of the railway from Quebec East

to Moncton, they were passing upon a question of policy which had had the approval of the electorate of Canada in two separate and distinct general elections. In 1903, when this project was before the House of Commons, I do not think .the present Prime Minister was so convinced of his opinion that another railway ought not to be built through the province of New Brunswick.
I quote from ' Hansard,' 1903:
Mr. Borden: I say that If there is to be found a better and shorter line between Riviere du Loup, or any other point on the Intercolonial, and Moncton, -a line the construction of which will give to Halifax and St. John and the Maritime provinces generally a better fighting chance for western traffic than that which they have at present, I will support the construction of that line. But I will not support it with the object for which this Bill provides.
I will tell my hon. friend how I will support it. I will support the construction of that line as part of the Intercolonial railway. I do not believe in constructing that better and shorter line for the purpose of handing it over to the Grand Trunk or any other railway company; but I do believe in constructing it and keeping it for the people's railway. That is my position and it Is a position which I am ready to discuss in the Maritime provinces or anywhere else, with either the Minister of the Interior or any other hon. gentleman in this House.
The right hon. gentleman would not then approve of the construction of a railway through New Brunswick as a part of the Grand Trunk Pacific system, but with one eye on the province of Ontario and the other eye on the province of Nova Scotia, having in view the general election which would take place a few months later, he would not undertake to say that he was not in favour of a railway through the province of New Brunswick, but he wanted it built as part of the Intercolonial xail-<way. The reason for the criticism of Mt. Guteliue on the building of this railway through New Brunswick is because he says it is an interference with the Intercolonial railway, and he argues that by the expenditure of public money to reduce the grades and curves on the Intercolonial, the full benefit to be obtained from the Transcontinental railway would accrue to the Intercolonial railway. But that is not the stand taken by the right hon. Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman was not willing to give support to the Transcontinental railway scheme through New Brunswick, and he received his answer in the general elections of 1904. In that election eighteen Liberals were returned in Nova Scotia, to support the scheme to build a railway through New Brunswick, 1364
and the right hon. gentleman himself, for the first time in the history of Nova Scotia, a leader of a great party, had to go outside his province to find a constituency, [DOT] . in order that he might continue as leader. In the province of New Brunswick, the Tesult of that election was almost equally decisive, there being nine Liberals elected to four Conservatives.
In 1903, another distinguished member of the Conservative party spoke on the proposal to build a railway through New Brunswick, as part of the National Transcontinental railway; I Tefer to Mr. Bell, who then represented Pictou. While Mr. Bell was speaking, the Hon. Mr. Ross, then member for Victoria, N.S., asked him this question:
Is the hon. gentleman opposed to the road running to Moncton?
And Mr. Bell replied:
Mr. Bell: I am criticising this scheme. I say this, that if the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, wants the road to go to Moncton, it is not because he is very anxious to see grain shipped by Halifax or St. John, but because he wants to have some kind of an excuse to offer his people for supporting such an absurd proposition.
Mr. Johnston (Cape Breton) : Then the hon. gentleman is opposed to it?
Mr. Bell: The hon. gentleman is prepared to stand by the declaration made by his leader.
No leading member of the Conservative party in this House at that time had the courage that Mr. Gutelius has, ten years afterwards, to condemn the construction of the railway through the province of New Brunswick; on the contrary, they all left it to be understood that they were in favour of such a project, because they felt that the people of the Maritime provinces would demand its construction.
But the idea of building a railway through the centre of New Brunswick was not first conceived by the members of the late Administration, when they gave birth to the scheme to build the National Transcontinental railway. Away back in 1887, to my own knowledge, Sir Charles Tupper, who at that time was taking an active part in the support of the Conservative party in the federal election, made a public announcement in the city of Halifax in which he stated that the last act he did before he left England was to confer with his friend, Lord Revelstoke, who had agreed to underwrite the bonds for the construction of a railway from Harvey to Salisbury, across the province of New Brunswick. Sir Charles Tupper was always ready to back

up his argument with the inevitable telegram, and the statement was scarcely out of his mouth when a telegraph messenger rushed up to the platform and handed him a telegram which he read, amidst the plaudits of the Tory party, confirming his statement that Lord Eevelstoke had undertaken to finance a railway to be built through the heart of the province of New Brunswick. Again, in 1891, the Conservative party reiterated their pledges to build a railway across New Brunswick, and the fact that they had not carried out the pledge made by Sir Charles Tupper in 1887 presented the most awkward situation which they had to face in- that campaign. Never was there a time when the leaders of the Conservative party were not willing to pledge their faith and their honour to the construction of a railway across New Brunswick, but they forgot to implement that promise once the elections were over. The difference between the Conservative party and the Liberal party in this regard is, that whereas the Conservative party promised to build a railway through New Brunswick, and failed to do so, the Liberal Government and the Liberal party kept their promise, and built the railway.
I have, here speeches made by other members of the Conservative party in 1904, when the amendment to the agreement between the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific was under the consideration of this House. The present leader of the Government (Mr. Borden) then stated:
The Government have kindly and generously consented to bear the greater part of the liability necessary to build about 2,000 miles of railway in the Northwest Territories and they have refused during the past session to insert one single stipulation binding the Grand Trunk railway not to carry the traffic of that railway to Portland. We moved amendments for that purpose, they voted them down and when the agreement was opened up they still saw fit to withhold their hand from imposing on the Grand Trunk Railway Company one single syllable which would make it necessary that they should carry that freight to Canadian ports Instead of to Portland. Indeed, 1 understand that those who are interested in the welfare of Portland are not very much disturbed about the outlook. They have had the Grand Trunk railway freight before, and they expect to have it again. They have a sublime and earnest confidence that the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway through the Northwest Territories of "Canada will in no way interfere with the interests of Portland, but that all the traffic there gathered will go to swell the trade of Portland and that the ports of Halifax and St. John will be relegated to the same position that they have occupied in the past.

You will observe that the right hon. gentleman had no confidence in the good faith of the late Government in their proposal to build a railway across the province of New Brunswick, and that he wanted to make it appear that their lack of good faith in that regard would result in our freight going by way of Portland. The right hon. gentleman goes on to say:
Why is it that my right hon. friend's utterances now lack the earnestness which so char acterized them last year? He possibly may also remember that although the flood-tide was upon us last year, although time would not wait last year, not one single step has been taken by the Government to survey this eastern division. If the flood-tide was then upon us, if there was a crisis, if time would not wait, why has the Government paused during these six or seven months and taken no steps ro secure a survey of the country through which the eastern division is to pass? It has been whispered in some parts of the country where the eastern division is not popular, is it because the eastern division is to be dropped?
On that occasion the right hon. gentleman had not only very grave doubts but fears that the right hon. the Prime Minister of that day did not seriously and honestly intend to build a railway which Mr. Gutelius and Mr. Lynch^Staunton now so strenuously endeavour to condemn.
Mr. J. W. Daniel, member for St. John, spoke as follows:
Rver since that election my opponents have been giving all kinds of reasons for the result. I have heard it spoken of as an accident. I have also heard it stated that there were two gentlemen each of whom wished to be the candidate of the Liberal party, apd that the trouble which ensued when one of them w'as not selected was the cause of the overturning of the great majority which the late Minister of Railways had, and giving me my majority. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to give full credit for all the results which these, or any other circumstances which were peculiar at the time, had on the election ; but after giving them all due credit, I must make the assertion which is absolutely correct, that all these things put together would never have produced such a result as happened in the city of St. John, unless there had been something of a more close and intimate character with which all the people of the city had to do. There is no doubt in my mind whatever, Sir, that the result of that election was caused by the city of St. John with the policy of the Government, as crystallized more especially in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Bill. Because, while they did not believe that it was going to be of any special advantage to the country generally, they certainly came to the conclusion that it was going to be an absolute harm to them instead of a benefit. That feeling was general throughout the city of St. John. As far back as last August the merchants of S'. John met together and talked over this matter. They wanted to know what effect it would

have upon them; because this is an immense undertaking for Canada, as it would be for any country; and if there are going to be spent in this country some $139,000,000 or $149,000,000, it is impossible to say how many millions are going to be spent before this scheme is carried into effect. If all this money is to be spent in the whole of Canada where are the Maritime provinces to come in? That is what we were saying in St. John-where were we to come in. We found that we did not come in at ail.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker-I come to this point with some diffidence because people might think that I was trying to boom my own constituency a little too much-but I must say that so far as this extreme eastern section is concerned, there is no doubt that the business and commercial solution of the matter would be to build from Edmundston, or some practical point near Edmundston, right down the valley of the river St. John to the port of St. John. In that way you would get the shortest line and if there is any possibility of doing business on the line after it is built, you would have an opportunity of doing that business and getting some satisfactory results.
You will observe that Mr. Daniel was very strongly in favour of building the transcontinental from the town of Edmundston, but naturally he preferred that the terminus of the road should be in the city of St. John rather than in the city of Moncton. Mr. Daniel proceeded as follows:
Some of the changes made by this supplementary agreement seemed to be made for the very purpose of facilitating this action of the Grand Trunk railway and helping them to take their freight out of this country entirely to the port of Portland, Maine. If not, why should the Government ask Parliament to release this deposit of $5,000,000 as soon as the western section is completed? 11 the Government intend to carry on the building of the eastern section pari passu with the western section, why should we be asked to put this clause in? Because, if they really intend to build in that way, the eastern section would be built as rapidly as the western section, ana there is no reason whatever for asking Parliament to release that deposit as soon as the western section is built.
Them Mr. Gourlay, Conservative member for Colchester, spoke as follows:
Your mistake is not to have chartered a new company. If you are hound to build this railway, make the interest of the whole line one from the Pacific ocean to Halifax, so that when vour company gets a pound of freight in British Columbia, it will he bound to take it to Halifax or St. John. But you did not do that. You have, instead, amalgamated this project with a railway whose interest is to take the freight to Portland.
I have said that the Quebec-Moncton sectiop must be built, and I wish to put myself thoroughly on record on that score. I am for that section from beginning to end. If a mile of this crooked bottled-up railway is to be built, then build the Moncton section, because if Quebec is to he benefited at the expense of the
whole Dominion, we should have a little of the overthrow down in the Maritime provinces.
I will not hesitate to say on behalf of the Maritime provinces, that no line that does not go below Quebec, can ever benefit us. Once locate a line below Quebec, and then there is a straight course across the continent to Halifax, or to Country Harbour, or to rit John, and once the products of the great west are put upon this line and sent down there, they cannot go to Boston or to Portland, hut must go out on the Atlantic from Canadian harbours to the great markets of the old country. That is my ambition, and I believe it is the ambition of some of the gentlemen opposite, if they could only throw away their narrow party trammels and stand up like men, and proclaim what they really believe.
An attempt is made to delude us again, hut we know now, that a line making its terminus at Quebec will never benefit the Maritime provinces.
I wonder if Mr. Gutelius and Mr. Lynch-Staunton read the debate in the House of Commons on the subject of this great railway before they penned the report which condemned the policy of the late Government, thinking no doubt that they were condemning the policy of one party alone, whereas they were condemning the policy of both parties at that time.
Mr. R. D. Wilmot, another member for the province of New Brunswick, spoke as follows:
When it reaches the province of New Bruns-wick-^as I suppose it will by some means I consider that the easiest and most natural route for a railway would he down the valley of the St. John river to Fredericton, and from that point by a branch to Moncton via Shipman. That country has already been surveyed, it is. a level country and well suited for a railway Another branch could be built to the city of St John. The Prime Minister's proposition to build a straight line through the province of New Brunswick, I do not consider it at all practical. It would he very expensive and, from the knowledge we have of that section of the country, I do not think it could he buih without a vast expenditure of money. If you follow the valley of the St. John river, you have a natural road bed and the most direct route to tide waters.
There we have the opinion of the Conservative members of the House of Commons as expressed in that debate, and their opinion is strongly in favour of building the line through the province of New Brunswick.
I have here a resolution passed by the Board of Trade of the town of Truro on the 14th of February, 1890, as follows:
Resolved, that the Truro Board of Trade learns with interest of the proposed extension of the Grand Trunk railway system to the Maritime provinces connecting with the Intercolonial railway at or near Moncton, thus giving a competing line to the west as well as a short


Mr. A. D. FOSTER:: Who wrote that?


George William Kyte: clay fill in a particular place: ' you are dodging; you aTe not working with me in this.' Working with him, for what purpose? Not working with him to condemn the Transcontinental railway and the late Government, and to slander the Liberal party; but, more than all, he was not working with Mr. Gutelius to assist him in getting a job of $20,000 a year for running the Intercolonial as a result of this report on the Transcontinental. I am willing to let the last quoted evidence go, and leave it .to the judgment of the acting Minister of Railways and Canals as to whether or not Mr. Gutelius was an unbiased, impartial judge with whom to entrust the examination of these witnesses, .and to make a report of censure on the late oom-missSoneirs of the Transcontinental railway.


Mr. A. L. DAVIDSON (Annapolis):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to tender to the acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. J. D. Reid) my congratulations on the very satisfactory statement and the very progressive programme which he has outlined in respect to the Intercolonial railway. We in the lower provinces entertain the view- and I think we are justified in entertaining it-that only just now is the great experiment of public ownership of railways in Canada receiving a fair and impartial trial. We are not afraid of the result of that test, and we believe that this great experiment, conducted by an honest and efficient Government, will absolutely justify itself, and that the great development which is going on in connection with the Intercolonial railway will have the result of tremendously booming and developing the eastern part of Canada. It is not, however, to discuss the Intercolonial railway that I rise on this occasion. I intend to devote the few moments at my disposal this afternoon more particularly to the discussion of a report the publication of which a few weeks ago threw the people of this country into indignation, and threw hon. gentlemen opposite into panic -and alarm.
Before passing, however, to that phase of the question I desire to refer very briefly to the remarks of my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. G. W. Kyte) who has just resumed his seat. I was somewhat surprised at the complaint of my hon. friend in respect to the non-appearance of a report which was prepared some time ago in reference to the Civil Service. My hon. friend evidently was ignorant that that 
report had been filed, and of course he has not read its contents. He excused his ignorance in this regard by saying that he had heard no noise about this report, no cry of wrongdoing on the part of the Liberal party, and therefore he thought no report could have been made. I take it for granted that the hon. gentleman ought to have a pretty shrewd idea of what the nature of that report should have been. I am not going to discuss that report; I will merely say if my hon. friend would [DOT] read it he would find very many things therein contained not at all to the credit of the late Administration which he supported. I think, however, the Opposition have all the reports of commissions on their hands that they need at the present time, and I do not think they need discuss the report of any other commission just now. It seems to me that if they would bring to the discussion of this report their prayerful and repentant consideration, they would be doing all that this country expects of them.
The hon. gentleman also quoted at length a newspaper published in the city of Winnipeg which he claimed was reflecting upon Mr. Leonard in connection with the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The complaint alleged in the report was particularly with reference to the delay that had been caused in the building of this' road. The hon. gentleman was good enough to read to this House a section which expressly absolved Mr. Leonard from any dishonesty but accused Him of delay. It occurred to me while the hon. gentleman was reading this quotation that this Winnipeg paper must be very unfair if it blamed' Mr. Leonard mainly for the delay. It occurred to me that the party to which my hon. friend belongs was in power from 1903 to 1911 and that, therefore, if there was delay, certainly the 'blame was more with the late Administration than with any person else. I thought when listening to the quotation that the paper must be doing an injustice to the parties concerned and that it should have placed the blame more on the late Government than on the present Government. Imagine my surprise to learn that the hon. gentleman did not read the most vital part of that newspaper article. He read only a section or two sections of it, while in the very article from which he quoted there appears the following:
Who is responsible for this extraordinary-condition? Tears have passed since the date mentioned by the Laurier regime on which the system would be completed. The late Govern-

ment for years marked time on the work east ot' Winnipeg through incompetency or in order to afford greater opportunities for graft; but, whatever the cause, the fact is obvious that up to 1911, years of time and colossal sums were wasted by the Liberal Government on the eastern section of the National Transcontinental railway.
Of course, the hon. gentleman could never have perused the whole or he would not have been unfair enough to make such an omission in quoting it to th'e House; .but it is a curious coincidence that he quoted both ends of the article, but left out this very important middle. If the hon. gentleman's reading has extended to newspapers published in the city of Winnipeg, I would like very much to refer him to the columns of another newspaper published in that city, not a Liberal-Conservative paper but a paper edited by a gentleman who, for a number of years, sat in this House as a Liberal member and who, a little more than a year ago, contested the constituency of Macdonald in the Liberal interest. I just picked up one of these papers casually and ran across this almost by accident. The Winnipeg Tribune, in its issue of March 20, 1914, has this to say in reference to the matter:
If there is not either colossal bungling or blundering in connection with the enterprise, the public will be surprised. The whole business looks like such a colossal blunder, particularly in view of the fact that we have one or two transcontinental railway lines too many, that the Canadian people will yet be forced in sackcloth and ashes over the blundering railway policy of the former Government.
Is it not surprising that when my hon. friend's vision was scanning the columns of the Winnipeg press, that this article should have escaped his attention altogether?
Mr. Speaker, I am not one of those who would blame or censure the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) for devoting over seven hours of the time of this House to an attempt to excuse and explain away the findings contained in the report of the commission appointed to inquire into the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I think it was very much up -to the hon. gentleman to make a defence and to explain away, if it were possible, the very serious charges made by these commissioners. The people of the country would have gladly given him not only seven hours but seven weeks if necessary in order that he might have full opportunity to present an ample defence to these serious charges. But the trouble is not that he took so much time; the trouble is
that, notwithstanding the time that he took, notwithstanding the labour that he must have expended upon his defence, notwithstanding his known talents and ability as a debater, he was not able to dispose of the very serious implications cast upon his Administration and that of his Government, in this report.
The contention is put forward by hon. gentlemen opposite that this report should not have been published or circulated at a time when there is a money stringency in the markets of the world. They say that the circulation of this report, showing so much waste and extravagance, is calculated at this critical juncture to prejudicially affect the credit of Canada and credit of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which is seeking to borrow money in the markets of the world. That is a very extraordinary complaint to make, a very extraordinary theory to advance. It is a strange argument to put forward that we must not have disclosures, that we must not look carefully into the transaction of public business, or the conduct of public institutions at any time when there _ is financial stringency, for fear of injuring the credit of the people of this country. You might as well say that if you had an 'acquaintance, whom you were suspicious of having stolen your money, you should not bring the matter into the police court, or you should not institute an ihvestiga-tion for fear of injuring that man's credit. That is a very absurd and extraordinary position to take. .
The credit of Canada is too high to be affected by anything of this kind. If this report had not been published, if the evidence of wrong-doing had not been made public, it would have more injuriously affected the credit of Canada than the publication of the facts. It has been very evident for a number of years that there were irregularities in connection with the construction of this road. Business men and railway men all over the world have been advised of it, and if these irregularities had been winked at, it would have much more seriously injured the credit of Canada than bringing to the light this wrong-doing. But if the argument of my hon. friend is correct, if the publication of these facts is damaging to the reputation of Canada, and if we are to be blamed for making this report public, what is to be said of the Administration which made possible the evidence which we have disclosed? Very serious strictures have been

passed upon the personnel of the Commission-which has conducted this investigation. Every one of the hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken has, in some portion of his speech, roundly denounced and criticised the personnel of this commission. My hon. friend from Richmond referred to Mr. Morine, who was appointed by the present Government to investigate the Civil Service, and he informed the House that Mr. Morine was dismissed because a certain charge had been made against him. Well, herein is illustrated the difference between the methods of this Government and the methods of the late Government. Mr. Morine was not proven guilty in this Chamber; the evidence against him was of a very flimsy character but the Prime Minister held that a man appointed to hold an investigation, or to occupy a position of trust under this Government, must, like Caesar's wife, be above suspicion. And even though Mr. Morine was not proven guilty, our respected leader said that his services were no longer desirable because even the shadow of suspicion against him had been raised. I want to say right here that if Mr. Gutelius had been a Morine, or if Mr. Lynch-Staunton had been a Morine, we would have heard very serious complaints from gentlemen opposite about their past records. There is no doubt at all that hon. gentlemen opposite have been just as anxious to study the records of Mr. Lynch-Staunton and Mr. Gutelius as they were to study the record of Mr. Morine, and the fact that they were not able to place their finger on a single black spot in the records of these gentlemen, proves pretty conclusively that they are of the right kind. And, why should they not be proper persons to conduct such an investigation? I think hon. gentlemen will agree with me that it is very appropriate to have on this Commission a practical railroad man; I do not think there is any doubt about that. That being so, where should the Government look for a practical and efficient railroad man? That he must have had practical experience on some great railway, and a Canadian railway at that, is very evident. Surely, hon. gentlemen opposite would not wish the Government to go to the United States to get a railway expert; the hon. gentleman from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) would vehemently protest against that. There are, as we know, only three great railway companies in Canada; the Canadian 
Pacific railway, the Canadian Northern, and the Grand Trunk railway. Manifestly it would be improper to select an officer from the Grand Trunk railway, and manifestly it would -also be improper to select an officer from the Canadian Northern railway. Had the Government selected an official of the Canadian Northern to conduct this investigation, what a howl would have gone up from the hon. gentlemen opposite. Why, they would have said,- this railway corporation is on its knees before the Government asking for financial aid, and this creature of theirs dare not make an independent report-Therefore, the only railway from which the Government could properly make a selection was the Canadian Pacific railway, the one independent company in Canada which is not begging alms from the Government at the present time. We were told by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) that the Canadian Pacific railway is the best managed railroad in the world, and where could we get a -more competent man than from among the officers of that well managed railroad.
Why these objections from hon. gentlemen opposite to Mr. Lynch-Staunton? Manifestly, it is desirable to have an investigation of this kind, conducted 'by a barrister of repute, a man who knows how to weigh evidence, who knows how to crossexamine, and who knows how to get at the facts, and make proper deductions therefrom. But the great trouble with Mr. Lynch-Staunton is, not that he is a lawyer, but that he happens to be a Tory lawyer. The members of the legal profession, to which I have the honour to belong, hold, almost without exception, very strong poh-tical opinions; it is difficult to meet a lawyer who is- not a Grit or a Tory. The Government, therefore, had to select either a Liberal lawyer or a Conservative lawyer. It was, in my opinion, an act of kindness on the part of the Government not to select a Liberal lawyer for this particular work, because the past experience of hon. gentlemen opposite with Liberal commissioners has been so painful that the- Government was certainly considerate in securing the services of a Tory in this instance.
The hon. gentleman who is most concerned in this investigation, the late Minister of Railways, devoted a great deal of attention to comparing the relative value of a filled road and trestle road, and the relative value of a trestle bridge and a steel structure. I am quite sure the hon. gentleman did not intend to do the commissioners

an injustice in this respect, but it seems to me that all who listened to his remarks, without having previous knowledge, would conclude that the commissioners laid down the theory that a trestle road was better than a filled road, and that a trestle bridge was better than a steel bridge. But, you can search the report from beginning to end, and you cannot find any such statement. There is no doubt at all that a filled Toad is better than a trestle road, and [DOT]there is no doubt that a steel bridge is better than a trestle bridge, but the whole point, according to the commissioners and according to the evidence, and according to the intelligence of any thoughtful person, is that it is much more economical to employ trestles in the first place, and, later on, after the engineering difficulties are understood, and when you have some traffic on your road, when you have idle trains which you can utilize, when you understand the nature of the country through which the road passes, to replace these trestles with permanent structures. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Graham) claims a great deal of credit for this road, because it has been constructed with fillings instead of trestles. Well, if this is something to be proud of, it is not the Liberal Administration who is responsible, because we have the pronouncement of Mr. Fielding in the House of Commons, when the Grand Trunk Bill was introduced, which contradicts that. It was his intention not to build the road as the *ex-Minister of Railways says, it has been built, but to build it just as Messrs. [DOT]Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton have recommended it should have been built. I quote the remarks of Mr. Fielding at page 8574 ' Hansard,' 1903:
Now, we know that in the construction of a road, in the anxiety to get a railroad built, some things are done which may be regarded as almost of a temporary aharacter. In one place you put in a trestle which five or six years later you will fill - up, and make a permanent road. In another place you put in a small wooden bridge; in time when it commences to weaken, you put in a steel structure, and so on. The road is not finished when its nominal completion takes place, but it may be finished as time progresses.
Further on he says:
We will give them a completed road so far as any new road can be made so; but as years roll on, if the Government, being in the same position as the landlord to whom I referred, desired to make improvements on that road, if they desired, having regard to the permanency of the road, tot take out a wooden bridge and put in a steel structure; if they desired to fill up a trestle, or do one of the many things which hon. gentlemen opposite who are familiar
with railways will understand better than I do, then the Government will have the right to do that in the way of betterment.
So it is very evident that, if this road is so much better than other roads in Canada are when first completed, that result has been attained entirely against the original conception which Mr. Fielding had when he introduced the measure under the terms of which the road was built. Furthermore, the engineers appointed by the commission to construct this road never had any such purpose, because the first tenders called for made no provision whatever for filling of this character. When the first tenders were called for, it was assumed that the road was to be built just as every great railway builds its road-first, by building trestles, and subsequently filling them in. Consequently in the first tenders that were advertised for there was no provision requiring the tenderers to give any figures at all for filling.
I will read now a quotation from a letter of Mr. Lumsden, as recorded at page 76 of the report. This letter was written in reply to some inquiries made to Mr. Lumsden by certain engineers who had been approached by contractors with questions as to the price that would be paid for filling. Mr. Lumsden wrote as follows:
It was not the intention that the present contractor should be called upon to make very heavy fills, the material for which would have to be hauled by train, but that he should put in standard trestles in such places. Of course, if the contractor prefers to make up a fill by train-hauled filling, rather than put in the standard trestle, he can do so with your approval, and in such cases he must provide the necessary temporary trestle at his own cost.
It was not Mr. Fielding; it was not the late Administration; it was not the engineers orginally employed who were responsible for this great. improvement of which the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) boasts. The evidence herein contained shows conclusively that this change was made in deference to the wishes of the contractors; that they found it very profitable to do the filling when they could make use of the overbreak and could make fabulous sums by so doing. If this road is better than our other roads were immediately after construction, it is due to the fact that the contractors insisted upon that work in their own interest and that they benefited by it to the tune of over $3,000,000. The more this whole scheme is considered, the more evident it will appear that the whole railway policy of the late Government in this particular has been a colossal blunder. I do not want

to approach the subject in any partisan spirit or with any unfairness to hon. gentlemen opposite, but I think that any person who seriously reads Canadian history aright is driven to the conclusion that in this country of ours the record of the Liberal-Conservative party has been a record of constructive statesmanship. The great big things in Canada, the great national undertakings to which people of this country look back with pride, are the handiwork entirely of the Liberal-Conservative party. There has been levelled against the work which has recently appeared from the pen of that venerable statesman, Sir Charles Tupper, criticism to the effect that his book attributes all the great things in Canada to the Liberal-Conservative party. That is not the fault of the historian; it is the fault of history. Everything that has been worth while in Canada has been done by the Liberal-Conservative party, and the record of the Liberal party has been-and I say it without any partisan spirit at all- largely the policy of weak imitation of the poiicy of their opponents. In so far as they have succeeded-and in some respects they have succeeded-they have succeeded by following slavishly the policy of their opponents.
We will take for example the question of trade. For eighteen years they condemned the great fiscal policy of their opponents. When they got into power they followed that policy and by following it they managed for a while to continue to obtain the confidence of the people of this country; but when they departed from that policy, when they struck out for themselves, when they conceived the idea of mixing our fiscal policy with that of a country whose ambition was to make Canada an adjunct to itself, then -it was that they discovered that it was very much easier to copy than to construct. Undoubtedly it is a safer policy for a party to imitate than to construct.	.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Is that in the report?
Mr. DAVIDSON-Evidence of that is in the report in a very conclusive way. It is -manifestly easier to imitate than to lead, but there is a very apparent objection to this policy, namely that it usually takes the ability, the acumen, the strength of the originator to carry out that which the originator conceives. None but an Achilles can wield Achilles' sword; you cannot gain the powers of a giant merely by imitating his movements, and you cannot 
acquire the statesmanship of a great statesman merely by -combing your hair in the same fashion in which he combs his. It is a dangerous thing for a country like Canada, with many new works to be constructed, many great things to be done, to commit that work to a party of imitators. You want originators to handle the destinies of Canada, You never had a better illustration of the weakness of the policy of imitation than you have in the experience which the Liberal party have had with railways in this country. That proves conclusively to my mind that a party of imitators is a very dangerous party to which to entrust the administration of affairs. After -all, this wretched railway bungle is due almost entirely to the vanity of our opponents, who thought -that they could safely gain glory by imitating the tactics and policy of their opponents. There is no doubt that the Liberal-Conservative party in Canada reflected great credit upon itself by the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway. That was a great undertaking. The great statesmen who led the Liberal-Conservative party in those days, despite the misgivings of friends, and the strenuous opposition of opponents, went forward and -built that great work and won for themselves great glory and credit. They found themselves at last in the very fortunate position where even their opponents who had condemned them were obliged to grant them reluctant praise. Mr. Fielding himself in introducing this very Bill gave them rare praise, and he also gave away the secret as to the construction of this road. Let me read from bis speech as recorded in ' Hansard ' of 1903, at page 8591. This is what Mr. Fielding said:
*Perhaps there were some mistakes of location, perhaps some mistakes in the land policy, and in the clearer light of to-day we may be able to see that things were done then which had been better left undone. I am disposed to think that perhaps those thing's may after all have been only incidental to the difficulties of the time and to rapid construction. I do not hesitate to say, in the light of experience, that the Liberal party did entertain alarm and anxiety, which have been proved in the end not to have been fully justified. I for one have no disposition unfairly to criticise to-day. T frankly admit, as one who was then a young-man, that I was lead to entertain alarm and anxiety. To-day I say the policy of the Conservative party, subject to these qualifications which I have mentioned, has been justified, and in that respect the Conservative party has made a record which they can look back to with pride.
But while there was some excuse for doubt and hesitation in 1871 and 1887 there is none today. Are these gentlemen to learn nothing? We Liberals have learned something- by experience.

What was the experience ?


Mr. SOHAFFNER:: The country has had experience.


Avard Longley Davidson: Yes, since that time the country has obtained experience, an experience which has cost very much more. What was the experience that Mr. Fielding obtained ? His course of reasoning was very simple. He said: The Liberal-Conservative party made itself great by building one transcontinental line; we will make ourselves great by building another. And his party said: The name of Sir John A. Macdonald will go down to posterity as that of a great statesman because he built a national transcontinental line; let our leader have the same honour. And that is the reason this whole scheme was embarked upon, and it was embarked upon altogether contrary to the sanest and best opinions which were offered to the Government of that day. The man in that Government who should have known more about railway construction than any other was its Minister of Railways and Canals, and he opposed this scheme so strongly that he left his party, he left his position in the Government, on this very question. His idea was-and it was a very sensible idea-to acquire the Canada Atlantic, to extend the Intercolonial railway to the West, and, instead of building a line which would be a competitor to the Government's own line-which then had not enough traffic to make it prosperous-to tap with a line the great West, make this line the national highway, and make it a prosperous concern.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 10, respecting Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited. -Mr. Macdonell.
Bill No. 22, respecting Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited.-Mr. A. K. Maclean.
Bill No. 23, respecting British America Nickel Corporation, Limited.-Mr. Northrup.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 92, respecting the Premier Life Insurance Company.-Mr. R. B. Bennett. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: This insurance company, which was incorporated by Parliament, was given a certain time in which to obtain $250,000 of subscribed capital and $100,000 of paid-up capital. It has raised only $75,000 of paid-up capital, and is asking for an extension of time.


Mr. OLIVER:: How long ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Until 1916. For the information of my hon. friend, I might say that Colonel Saunders, of Edmonton, is one of the gentlemen interested.


Frank Oliver: Was there any objection to the Bill in committee ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It passed with amendment.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Eliza Jane McLaughlin.-Mr. McCraney.
Bill No. 123, to incorporate the Atlin Railway Company.-Mr. Michael Clark.

Avard Longley Davidson: When the House rose at six o'clock I was stating that this scheme for the construction of the Transcontinental railway owed its inception to the vanity of the Liberal party, who were ambitious to get the credit for constructing a transcontinental railway in this country, just as their opponents had the credit for constructing the Canadian Pacific railway; and, furthermore, that this policy was embarked upon against the avowed wishes of the only man in the Government of that day who was in a position to speak on railway matters, Hon. A. G. Blair, Minister of Railways and Canals. The other evening, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) referred to the speech made by the late Mr. Hays, then president of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway before the Railway Commission of this House, in which Mr. Hays pronounced a eulogy on that project. Is the hon. gentleman not aware that when the scheme was first submitted to Mr. Hays he was astounded at the proposal? The policy which was afterwards carried out was not the policy of Mr. Hays at all. What Mr. Hays proposed on behalf of the Grand Trunk railway was that the Government should assist in the construction of a railroad from Port Simpson to North Bay. In consideration of receiving that aid, the Grand Trunk Company were willing to pledge that all the



But the most original and the most surprising method of discouraging tenderers was the stipulation in reference to the security to be given. The advertisements announced that the tenderer was obliged to make a deposit of a substantial sum when putting in his tender, and it was stipulated further that within ten days of the awarding of the contract, he might be called upon to put up additional security, in default of which his first deposit would be forfeited. When inquiries were made of the commissioners, as to how much the tenderers might be called upon to deposit, in addition to the first deposit, they were told that they might be required to put up one-third of the contract price. I have listened attentively to the speeches made by hon. gentlemen opposite, but I have heard no one explain satisfactorily why that extraordinary procedure was followed. Under the law of this country, where a government contract exceeds $250,000, the tenderer is obliged to make a deposit of five per cent. Why in the name of all that is reasonable should a tenderer ' on this Transcontinental railway work be required to make a deposit of thirty-three and one-third per cent of the amount of the contract price? When the agreement was made with the Government for the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway the company was obliged to mate a deposit with the Government of $1,000,000 as security for the carrying out of the agreement, and when the agreement was made with the Grand Trunk Pacific they were obliged to give-and Mr. Fielding boasted of the enormity of the sum-$5,000,000 security; but I point out that if this extraordinary condition had been enforced by the Commissioners of the National Transcontinental railway, one contractor building only a section of the road would have been obliged to put up no less than $4,336,000. Of course this added security was never asked for, but at the same time the ordinary man who was called upon to tender was not expected to know this.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was sorry
afterwards he did not know it. -


Avard Longley Davidson: He was sorry after he did not know. It would look as if the persons who actually did bid on these tenders were fully advised as to what might happen, or at least it would seem that the only men who could prudently enter into an agreement of this kind were the men who had an understanding with the commission that the security would not be asked for. If

the intention of the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners had been to discourage competition, they could not have hit upon a better plan, and as a matter of fact the thing worked put in exactly that way. Two-thirds of the whole route, 1,133 miles, were actually given to only three different contractors, and on that vast mileage only four distinct firms tendered. The result was what anybody might suppose, the tenderers formed a circle exceedingly small and exceedingly select. The circle was confined practically to three fortunate tenderers, although there were eight others who were let in to a limited extent. These were the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Davis concern, and the associates of M. J. O'Brien. The Grand Trunk Pacific were awarded contracts for the construction of 353 miles, M. P. and J. T. Davis got 408 miles, and the associates of M. J. O'Brien were allotted 372 miles. It will be observed that one of the largest beneficiaries under this arrangement was Mr. M. J. O'Brien. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) informed us that before the contracts were finally signed they had to be submitted to him for his sanction. I do not say for a moment that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Graham) used any influence to have so many of these contracts awarded to Mr. M. J. O'Brien and his associates; neither do I say that Mr. M. J. O'Brien considered himself under any obligation to the late Minister of Railways for being so fortunate in this particular. But, the fact remains, that when the great political flood that visited this country in the year 1911 swept the Liberal party from power, and swept the late Minister of Railways out of his former constituency of Brockville, and when he looked out on the waste of waters like Noah's dove for a place whereon to rest, there was no spot in Canada upon which he could safely put the sole of his foot but the constituency of South Renfrew, in which M. J. O'Brien resided, and in twhich he had very large interests.
As I have said, the result of this whole scheme was to narrow very greatly the number of persons tendering for contracts. They formed a select and small circle, and I am bound to say, furthermore, that in their conduct towards each other they observed the very best of form; they were not rude enough to tender against each other; they were generous enough to see that the mileage was pretty evenly divided. I will give you the figures again: The Grand

Trunk Pacific, 353 miles; the Davis concern, 408 miles; M. J. O'Brien and associates, 372 miles. Very considerate were they, and more than that, they exercised so much Christian charity amongst themselves that they were absolutely willing to work for one another very much cheaper than for the Dominion of Canada. And so we see the spectacle, on contract No. 11, of the Grand Trunk Pacific and Macdonell and O'Brien tendering for the same job, the contract of Macdonell and O'Brien being thirteen per cent lower than that of the Grand Trunk Pacific. That was as cheap as Macdonell and O'Brien were prepared to work for the country, but when the Grand Trunk Pacific landed the contract, they were perfectly willing to take it over and pay the Grand Trunk Pacific five per cent on the bargain. So, they were willing to work for the Grand Trunk Pacific eighteen per cent lower than they would work for the Dominion. And what followed? It followed that the work of constructing this railroad got entirely into the hands of middlemen; middlemen who were not prepared to carry out the work, but were able to sublet it at enormous profits.
Uusually contractors expect sometimes to gain and sometimes to lose, and it is only the fortune of war for a contractor to lose money on some contracts. But the surprising fact occurs in connection with the construction of the National Transcontinental railway, that not one single contract was unprofitable to the contractors, and in almost every instance they made enormous profits.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Including the
Grand Trunk Pacific, which had no equipment to carry on such work.


Avard Longley Davidson: These men who tendered for this work did so, not with the intention of performing their contracts themselves, but with the intention of hawking them around and making a good thing out of them.
Let me give you briefly a digest of the results in this respect of the different contracts. Only one contract, I believe, was actually carried out by the firm who tendered for it and who received the contract. Every other contract was sublet in whole or in part. On contract No. 1, which was sublet, a profit was derived by the middlemen of $92,308. On contract No. 3 there was a profit of twenty-three per cent. On contract No. 4, there was a profit of twenty-three per cent. On contract No. 5, there was a profit of twenty-seven and one-half 137i
per cent. On contract No. 6, there was a profit of nineteen and three-fourths per cent. On contract No. 7, there was a profit on one item alone of $225,000. On contract No. 8, there was a profit on one item alone of $432,000. On contract No. 9, there was a profit on one item alone of $200,000. On contract No. 10, there was a profit of twenty-one and three-fourths per cent. On contract No. 11, there was a profit of thirty-two per cent. On contract No. 12, there was a profit of twenty-one and three-fourths. On contract No. 13, there was a profit of twenty and one-third. On contracts Nos. 16 and 17, there was a profit of ten per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And not one of
the middlemen did the work.


Avard Longley Davidson: And not one of them
did the work. The commissioners tell us that this was one of the ways in which a huge sum of the people's money was wasted.
We were told in previous election campaigns, and it was stated in this House, when disquieting rumours were raised in reference to the awful waste and extravagance exhibited in the construction of this road, that the people of Canada need not get excited over it; that, if there were any loss to be sustained, it was a loss to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company; that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company -was to take over the road and, no matter what it cost, to pay rental based upon the percentage of the cost, and that therefore they and not the people of Canada were the interested parties. This statement was not correct, because, as a matter of fact, under the agreement the company were to have the road free without any rental for seven years. Futhermore this company was to pay the Government only three per cent, whereas the money cost the Government something like four per cent. The further statement was made that, the Grand Trunk Pacific being thus, so greatly interested in the undertaking and having their engineers on the ground, the people might be assured that they would see that no money would be wasted and that the road would not cost more than it ought. When we read this report, we can understand why so few protests were heard from the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. They themselves received one-fifth of all the contracts and were able to make five per cent on them. That was the reason why there was no murmer from these people. Any one who reads the findings of this report is bound to accept them at their face value. By instances such as this, the commissioners say that no less than $40,000,000

of the people's money was wasted. I wonder if the people of this country realize how large an amount that is. Why, if that sum was devoted to the construction of public buildings in Canada-


Henri Sévérin Béland: Armouries.


Avard Longley Davidson: -seven public buildings costing $25,000 each could be built in every riding in the Dominion of Canada and there would be money left.
The question of good roads is a very live one in this country at the present time. One of the great grievances the people of Canada have to-day against the Liberal party is that they prevented the Government of this country from giving them good roads. What would this sum mean if it was expended upon the roads of Canada? It would build two macadamized roads across Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Mr. PROULX:: Who made this estimate for the hon. member?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was'not Fielding, and it was not Graham.


Avard Longley Davidson: The estimate, to any
one who knows arithmetic, is not a very difficult one to make. It is merely a case of multiplying the mileage of the road by what .a mile of it would cost. If the intelligence of my hon. friend can grasp that, he can work out t'he calculation for himself. If that money were devoted to building roads in the province of Nova Scotia, it would make a macadamized road of every mile of road in that province. Is it any wonder that the Liberal party wince under a report of this kind? Is it any wonder that they tried to prevent the commissioners from completing their task? Is it any wonder that they tried to prevent this report from ever reaching the people? They made those efforts'. In the last session of this Parliament this country witnessed the surprising spectacle of an Opposition trampling upon the Constitution, turning this House into a farce in order to prevent the Government from carrying out the programme which the people of this country approved. For week after week, month after month, this House was turned into a perfect fiasco by hon. gentlemen opposite, with the avowed purpose of driving the Government, which was then fresh from the people, again to the country in an election. They said their reason for this conduct was due to the fact that they objected to our naval policy. We pointed out to them that

while the policy of the Conservative party :n this respect was radically different from that of the Liberal party, it nevertheless was not a permanent one, and that, if it were embarked upon and subsequently the Liberal party were returned to power and their policy approved, our policy would very easily dovetail into theirs and no violence would be done. That did not satisfy them. They kept us here day after day, and exhibited the wretched spectacle to the people of this country of its Constitution being trampled upon and scenes of wild disorder being engaged in in this Parliament. The people of Canada wondered why this was done. They wondered what was back of this movement of the Opposition. Some honest people said: The trouble with those men must be that they are disloyal; they do not want to give assistance to the mother country. I am very glad to absolve hon. gentlemen opposite from the charge of disloyalty. 1 do not believe it was disloyalty that prevented them. I do not believe that either they or their masters, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway contractors cared very much about the naval policy. What they *oared about was this work of investigation that was going on. That is what they wanted to balk.


Edmond Proulx: How many miles of
macadamized road would $35,000,000 construct?


Avard Longley Davidson: I am afraid it would be a somewhat difficult task to make that calculation plain to my hon. friend. If he will come to me at the close of this session, I shall be glad to assist him in the calculation.
The contractors of the Grand Trunk Pacific and	the Liberals in	this
House considered that it was in their interest to have this investigation stopped. The contractors figured that rather than wait to be called upon to pay the forfeits which under the law they would be obliged to pay because of failure to perform their contract within the specified time, it would be better to take a portion of this money and devote it to election purposes, hoping that in this way the people might be induced to turn out this Government. So they were ready to resort to any methods to drive the present Government to the people. Had they succeeded in defeating the Government, it would have meant that we should have heard no more of "this commission's report than we heard



19S14

[Stage Direction]
of the Hodgins' charges and the Lumsden charges. But, fortunately, they did not succeed. They were out-generaled; they were out-manouvered; the King's business went on; the work of this commission went on. The result has been that this damning document has been put before the people of this country; and I am very wrong if, after reading this report and the evidence upon which it is based, it is not a very long time before the people of this country repose confidence in the Liberal party again.
But if that were the only consequence, we could view the result with a certain degree of equanimity. But unfortunately it is not. This road passes through a country which, if not to-day, we hope will be peopled to-morrow by a large, good Canadian populace. These people will depend in a very large measure upon the freight and passenger rates charged by this railway. More than that, the whole western country will be affected, for the rate on all lines will be in part determined by this transcontinental line. Hon. members from the West never get so eloquent, never get so tearful, as when they dilate upon the wrongs to which Westerners are subject by the awful freight rates. But when this road is completed and the people living along this line seek to use the road, they will find that in order to make wealthy contractors, in order, perhaps, to fill party coffers, because of wasteful extravagance, a burden has been laid upon their shoulders grievous to be borne. There are many future citizens of Canada not now living in this land, many Canadians not now born, who will suffer because of this transaction. Not only is the Liberal party condemned before this generation, but generations of Canadians will arise to call that party cursed.
Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Victoria, N.B.):: Then, as to land expropriation. About thirty-five eases in -my own county were taken to the Exchequer Court. With my hon. friend from Oarleton, N.B., (Mr. Car-veil) I defended the electors of my constituency. Out of those thirty-five cases the court upheld only two. In one instance where the tender was for $900, we got $1,800. In another case, where the tender was for $400, we got $1,000, and in another case, where the tender was for $200, we got $1,000.
Mr. Gutelius says that this is an enormous price but on the other hand we have a sworn judge, after hearing witnesses n both sides, in open court, not in a dark chamber, declaring that the land is worth so much. Mr. Gutelius says: I never saw the land, I do not know the conditions surrounding it, I know nothing about it, but it is an enormous price. He says that an enormous amount of money has been spent on curves, gradients, the shops at Transcona, the works at Winnipeg and elsewhere. This, Mr. Speaker, will give you an idea of the fairness of this report.
I read with a great deal of amusement the speeches delivered by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) in St. John in 1904. My right hon. friend said this railway was going to cost more than people expected, that it was going to cost over $100,000,000. Furthermore, he informed the people of St. John that every car loaded with the products of the West would go to Portland or some other American seaport. Hon. members who come from the West possibly do not understand how freight from the West goes to an American seaport rather than to a Canadian seaport. Portland, Maine, is probably 160 miles from St. John and there is this difference in the length of the haul. But it must be remembered that there is a great disadvantage in hauling over the Grand Trunk railway line on account of its high grades. The desirability of developing our Canadian seaports was not lost sight of when the late Government made arrangements with the Grand Trunk Pacific for the construction of this road. What do we find? In order to ensure that ever carload of farm products and other goods shipped from the West to the East would be routed by a Canadian seaport they inserted the following condition in the contract with that company:
The company further agrees that it shall not in any matter within its power directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those above approved and shall in all respects, in 
good faith, use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted, namely, the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.
Since last year the city of St. John has changed its mind about the remarks which the Prime Minister made in that city. The Liberal party, when it went out of power, was engaged in the great work of building a road to develop the ports of St. John, Halifax and Quebec. If this railway is not built up to the standard originally designed it will never be able to compete with the American seaports, because you cannot haul as many cars on a road with a 0.6 per cent grade as you can on a road with a 0.4 per cent grade. Our friends in St. John and Halifax were very greatly disappointed when the present Government took hold of the construction of this road. There is no evidence, in anything that has been presented in the report of Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton, to show that the money which has been expended upon this road has not been expended honestly.
There are on the other side of the House hon. members who are greatly disappointed with this report because the commissioners have absolutely failed to prove to the people that there is one cent of expenditure that has not been accounted for. These commissioners spent two years in an effort to find out if one cent has been misspent, but all they can say is not that there has been any wrongful expenditure, but that too much money has been spent. I can only say that we will have the very best road on the American continent and one that the people of Canada may justly be proud of.


Mr. O. TUEGEON (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, ever since the introduction of steam and railway travel in the world, and especially in America, it has been the 'laudable ambition of the people of the different provinces of Canada under the British flag to utilize the Atlantic ports which were placed there by the hand of Providence awaiting the further development of the western provinces and of our vast resources of soil, forest and -sea. While they were waiting, the necessity of bringing together those immense territories from ocean to ocean, which were to form the Dominion of Canada in the near future, and without the union of which no Canadian nation could have existed, impressed itself forcibly upon the minds of the people at that time. Without Atlantic ports, the old provinces of Canada would not have been able to rise to the position of a nation

because they would have been left for five or six months in the year at the whim of a collector of customs in the United States. The people of British and French origin were then all animated with the same desire to see the realization of the hope, which they had long indulged, of building up a united Canada and of shipping their products through a Canadian seaport. But, unfortunately, the Ashburton treaty was passed by the representatives of Great Britain and the United States, and Canada was left only the ports of St. John and Halifax, with their surroundings, which could be equipped as the future development of the country might require. Meanwhile the Intercolonial was constructed, and Halifax and St. John were placed in communication with Quebec and Montreal. Then, with the increase of population, the increase of traffic, and the vast development of the country, and its future being assured, the people of Canada decided, no matter what the cost, that they must endeavour to reduce the distance between the Atlantic and the Pacific, and decrease the cost of freight transportation between East and West, according to the dictates of the best science of the twentieth century. It was felt that no matter what the original cost, a first-class railway line should be constructed, by which, considering the lessened cost of operation, the people of Canada might have a reduction of, we will say, twenty-five per cent in the freight rates. I am not an engineer, nor a railway expert, nor even a lawyer, but I have heard the convincing speech of the ex-Minister of Railways, and I am able, without prejudice, to declare that he has demonstrated that the project formulated by the Liberal party in 1903 for the building of the Transcontinental railway, was a project in the best interests of the country, and a project which required some daring, and, in this age, Canadians must have daring if they are to progress. . I am not an engineer, but it does not require engineering skill to see that the report of Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton was not intended for the education, or edification, or enlightenment of railway engineers in Canada or elsewhere, but for the purpose of misleading the public. To-day we advance in a year as much as our forefathers advanced in a century; but Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton do not seem to realize that. The National Transcontinental railway was conceived in a spirit of patriotism, and one of its purposes was to effect a saving of twenty-five per cent
on the cost of transportation, and thus to add to the prosperity of the country. Mr. Gutelius, whom I have not yet met, seems endowed with a dual personality. There is Mr. Gutelius, of the National Transcontinental railway, who wants a transcontinental railway with heavy grades, and there is Mr. Gutelius, of the Intercolonial, who wants to strengthen all the bridges and to straighten out the curves on the Intercolonial railway, in order to save twenty-five per cent in the cost of operation, and for this purpose he is willing to spend $2,000,000 on 200 miles of road, an expenditure representing $18,000,000 for the Transcontinental. The Conservative party always want some kind of cry to delude the people; a few years ago, in Drummond-Artha-baska, they proclaimed that the Liberals wanted to send the children of the people as food for bullets in different parts of the empire, and now their cry is that millions of dollars have been wasted in extravagance by the late Government. I hear the hon. member for Peterborough make some remark, but I am sure he will agree with me that this report of Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton was not intended for the intelligent citizens of Peterborough, who know more about railroads than ever this report will teach them, but that its intention is to mislead others, who probably may not be so intelligent. I take a most serious view of this question, and so I wish to put on 'Hansard' some of the more salient paragraphs in this report, to show that tne intention was to mislead the electors into believing that there was extravagance in connection with the construction of the Transcontinental railway. It is very annoying for a true Canadian to have to read such campaign literature as is found in this report, and it is sad to think that two men could be found in Canada who would be guilty of such political animosity as the report shows these gentlemen were inspired with. Mr. Gutelius and Mr. Staunton may be all right as private citizens, but in making this report they were undoubtedly carried away by biased judgment and by political prejudice. Let me now read from the report a few extracts which I wish to put before the country .and which will be cited to the people of Canada. Take the following paragraph on the constitution of the commission :
Until the appointment of Major R. W. Leonard, in the autumn of 1911, no member of

the commission had any experience or knowledge of railway building or operation.
These words might lead laymen to believe that there was something wrong, .because the members of the commission had no engineering knowledge; but that point has been cleared up by the speakers who have preceded me. Those members of the commission had engineers to direct them in matters relating to engineering construction. They had the best engineers the country could produce-Mr. Lumsden, Mr. Gordon Grant and Mr. M. J. Butler, who a year or two afterwards .became Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, whose knowledge of engineering cannot be denied by any one in Canada. He is not surpassed in Canada, in fact, he is not surpassed in America, in regard to the construction and operation of railways. He is well known and admired by everybody for his talent as a railroad constructor and a railroad operator on other lines to which he has been attached. As regards the chairman of the commission, hon. members from Nova Scotia could speak more eloquently of Mr. F. B. Wade than I could myself. Everyone who was in this House in the early years of this century and who knew Mr. Wade, knows that he was an honest man, with great knowledge and experience in the construction and operation of railways in .western Nova Scotia.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have' referred also to Mr. Parent. He has been connected with great enterprises in Quebec; not only so, but before he was on the commission, he was for several years mayor of Quebec. During his two or three renewed terms of the mayoralty, he aroused the people of Quebec from their centuries of lethargy, and he was the cause of the great prosperity of that city to-day.
In regard to momentum grades, the report reads as follows:
Had momentum grades been adopted, as is the usual practice in high class modern railway construction-
I wish to call attention to these words, which to my mind are deceptive or are altogether wrong.
Had momentum grades been adopted, as is the usual practice in high-class modern railway construction, they would have in no way impaired the usefulness of the railway, or increased the cost of operation, or reduced its hauling capacity, and $6,200,000 might and should have been saved.
In regard to bridges, the report reads as
follows:
Had wooden trestles been used instead of train fill and steel structures, as was done by

the Grand Trunk Pacific on its portion of the line, and as is allowed in the best modern railway construction, they might have been in course of time replaced by fill and steel structures and $2,947,227 thereby saved without impairing the usefulness or reducing the hauling capacity of the railway or increasing the cost of operation.
In regard to train filling, the report says:
The commission had an offer from the Grand Trunk Pacific to fill wooden trestles at the rate of 25 cents per cubic yard. Had the commission made such an agreement to do the train filling after the road was opened, $3,250,000 would have been saved in addition to that included under the last heading.
In regard to the method of inviting tenders, the report says:
The rules adopted by the commission in advertising for tenders, the unlimited security required to be furnished by the contractors, and the proposal to let the work for the most part in unreasonably large sections, resulted in only five contractors tendering for 806 miles of the railway, and eleven contracting firms secured all the work and sub-let it to upwards of 100 sub-contractors, who, had the work been divided into reasonably large sections and the security required in other Governmental contracts only been exacted, would have in all probability competed in the bidding. As an indication of the handsome profits derived by these eleven firms, it appears that they were paid $8,800,000 in profits fon that part of the work which they let to sub-contractors.
I will read the chief paragraph of the report on the New Brunswick section, as follows:
Large sums of money in interest have been lost by the premature construction of the New Brunswick section of the railway. In our opinion this section should not have been constructed at all. If one-third of the money had been expended on the Intercolonial railway it would have provided all the trunk line facilities for the province of New Brunswick which would be required for very many years.
In conclusion, the report says:
We find that the Transcontinental Railway Commission, the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, and those having charge of the construction of the railway, did not consider it desirable or necessary to practise or encourage economy in the construction of this road.
We find that without including the money which was unnecessarily expended in building the railway east of the St. Lawrence river. $40,000,000 at least was needlessly expended in the building of this road.
This is the basis upon which these commissioners have framed their report, not for the education of the engineers of the country but for the purpose of catching the votes of the people of Canada at the next election. I am not an engineer nor a railway expert nor a lawyer; but it must be remembered that the country is not without authority from which the Canadian people can always find the best examples

for any large national undertaking which' any government may have constructed or may hereafter construct for the benefit of the people- I have as an authority a gentleman dear to me for many years, a true Canadian and a true Britisher, a man who has lived perhaps fifty years in advance of his time, but who has for many years enjoyed the respect, the admiration and the gratitude of the Canadian people, a man whom I am pleased to describe as a bright illustrious engineering genius, whose authority in the minds of the people of Canada will certainly be accepted in preference to the authority of Mr. Gutelius or Mr. Lynch-Staunton, or both of them, a man who had at heart the future interest of Canada, and of Great Britain as well. I refer to Sir Sandford Fleming. He is a man imbued with the desire for the good of his country, respected throughout Great Britain as well as in Canada whom Providence seems to take pleasure in preserving to an old age to enjoy the admiration and gratitude of the people of Canada.
That gentleman has left a lesson for Canada, a lesson which could have been studied to advantage by the gentlemen who are appointed as inquisitors into the construction of this railway. Sir Sandford Fleming was appointed chief engineer of the first great national railway undertaking of this country. I propose to read from his own writings to show his principles, - theories and methods. I am sure that when I bring before hon. members the views of this great engineer none will be able in their heart of hearts to approve the Gutelius-Staunton report. The appointment of Sir Sandford Fleming to the position of chief engineer of the Intercolonial was made by a Conservative government, was made by Sir John Macdonald himself in 1863, an appointment immediately sanctioned by the governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and approved "by the Government of Great Britain with praise to Sir John Macdonald for choosing a man of such ability. The commissioners of that day wanted to build the Intercolonial about of the quality of that approved for the Transcontinental by Messrs. Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton. Sir Sandford Fleming had to contend against that. He had to come up from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and plead before Sir John Macdonald for better conditions . of the road; plead with him not to allow the construction of wooden bridges and momentum grades but to have masonry for substructures and iron for superstructures, thus having permanent construction, instead of having to renew every seven or eight years. Sir Sandford Fleming wanted a railway worthy of the Canadian people and worthy of the country's
10 p.m. great future. Let me read a few-paragraphs from the work of Sir Sandford Fleming entitled, ' The Intercolonial: A Historical Sketch.' It is too bad the American engineer appointed to investigate the Transcontinental had not studied this work for his own edification before he took the job of making his report. First, I will give Sir Sandford Fleming's theory about the bridges:
One important point on which a serious difference of opinion arose was in regard to the bridges. In the specification submitted by the chief engineer to the Privy Council the abutments and piers were designed to be constructed of the best description of masonry with iron superstructure. It appeared to the chief engineer that great precautions should be taken with these structures to have them permanent. Iron and stone being the most durable materials, their use would remove risk of accident from fire, and from natural decay. And, although the first cost might be greater, the permanent structures would avoid the constant periodical charge for restoration which wooden work would require.
Then, later he said:
In January, 1869, the chief engineer made his first appeal in the matter, to the Premier, Sir John A. Macdonald, and he submitted at length the arguments why iron and not wood should be used. This letter was referred to the commissioners in the usual course. It has never been replied to; and the arguments advanced in that communication remain to this day without refutation. But the decision of the commissioners was sustained. Five of the bridges were however, exempted from the principle originally laid down by the commissioners ; otherwise, the order was given that all the bridges should be built of wood.
And further on he says:
He cited two instances of bridges on the Grand Trunk railway, under the management of Mr. Brydges, having been destroyed by fire but a few weeks before the date of Mr. Brydges' statement. Mr. Fleming contended that his estimates were correct, and challenged examination into their accuracy; and he further made a final appeal in favour of iron bridges.
After an examination which established that the estimates of the chief engineer were correct, the commissioners eventually withdrew their objections and recommended that all bridges over 60 feet span should be built of iron. But the chief engineer persisted in his efforts to have every bridge, down to the smallest span -24 feet-made of iron, and at last, by an Order in Council dated May 12, 1871, authority was given to have them so constructed.
With the exception of three structures built of wood by direction of the commissioners, against the protest of the chief engineer, all the bridge spans, of whatever width, throughout the line, have the superstructure of iron.
In another chaipter, writing on the engineering character of the line, he speaks

first of the climatic conditions of Canada- which, however, seem to have been forgotten or put aside for the preparation of the Gute-lius-Staunton report.
The climate of Canada has a marked effect on railway works. The frost is very severe; it penetrates the ground, where denuded of snow, to a depth of from three to four feet, occasionally even to a greater depth.
He makes a distinction between a national undertaking and a private undertaking, and gives the reasons why in the latter the work should be of high grade. Here is the opinion of Sir Sandford Fleming on this great question:
No portion of railway work is more important than its bridges. When a line is carried out by private effort, a circumscribed capital may compel the adoption of cheap structures.
I call the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to these words:
When a line is carried out by private effort, a circumscribed capital may compel the adoption of cheap structures. In some cases it is not the character of the structure, or its economy, which commends itself; but it is the necessity of the case, which limits the cost. A railway constructed to meet a national requirement, and situated like the Intercolonial, is controlled by no such limitations.
These words of Sir Sandford Fleming were used in reference to a national construction for Canada forty-five years ago, and to-day, when the necessities of the development of the West, which cannot progress any further without the winter ports of St. John and Halifax, are such that the people of Canada find themselves faced by the necessity of uniting the Pacific coast with the Atlantic coast by the shortest route possible for the great trade of Canada, they are more applicable than ever, much more than they were forty-five or fifty years ago. But Sir Sandford Fleming is a man who has lived fifty years ahead of his time, and his reasoning to-day should command attention, respect and the adoption by the engineers as well as the laymen of Canada.
A railway constructed to meet a national requirement, and situated like the Intercolonial, is controlled by no such limitations. It requires no argument to establish that in such circumstances all structures should be of the best form suggested by experience, and that the most durable material should be used. They are then permanently built, and require no subsequent renewal. The first expense is the one cost and in the end the durable structure is by far the least costly.
This is the basis of my remarks to you and to this House on this great question, which captivates to-day the attention not only of every hon. member in this House

but in the whole Dominion of Canada. I say that to-day, when the Government undertake to build a railroad or a canal, the people of Canada, the people of Ontario *-as the Government are undertaking to build a new Welland canal-do not expect that they will again build a nine-foot or ten-foot canal. This Government to-day is engaging in the improvement of the Welland canal at an expense of $60,000,00(1 or $75,000,000, an improvement which will be as much an advantage to the American people to the south as to the people of Canada or of Ontario, because it will only benefit the people of Ontario, it will not benefit the people of the Maritime provinces by the Atlantic coast. But I, as a Canadian, will never be influenced by sectional considerations, and I, from the north shore of New Brunswick, would vote with pleasure the $60,000,000 or $70,000,000 which may be required to complete the Welland as well as the Georgian bay canal. We will contribute our portion with pleasure, because the prosperity of one part of Canada will be the prosperity of their neighbours, and the wealth of a neighbour does me no harm. It is only by such patriotic and national considerations that we can expect to make Canada what it is destined to be by the end of the twentieth century.
I wish to call the attention of the members of this House to the distinction drawn by Sir Sandford Fleming between a national and a corporation undertaking. I listened with close attention to the address of my hon. and intelligent young friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen), a young man who has no more sincere admirer of his ability and his skill as an orator than the member for Gloucester. At the same time, while he has shown great facility in argument and figures, I am sure that the people of Canada and the farmers of the West who read his speech will be lost in its labyrinth of subtleties. They will require heavenly revelation to guide them through this labyrinth of figures and subtlety of argument, and I am sure that Providence is not prepared to extend to Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton that heavenly revelation, because they do not deserve it. It has been said and repeated in this House that the Canadian Pacific and the other companies, the Grand Trunk Pacific itself on the branches they are building, have used what he calls wooden bridges, wooden trestles, momentum grades. The people of the West know what happened in the case of the construction of the

Canadian Pacific railway. The Canadian Pacific railway was the first railway built through that country and it was built by the money of the people of Canada to as great or even a greater extent than has been the case with the National Transcontinental railway, which will remain the property of Canada. But in the building [DOT]of the Canadian Pacific railway as in the building of all corporation-owned railways through a new country, the road was built as cheaply as it could be done. Then, as years went on, they rebuilt the road again and again, having the people of the West to draw on in the increase of their freight rates. The people of the West have complained that they were being bled through their freight rates in order that the railway might rebuild its line every seven or eight years. At last they made it a perfect line, which will now afford much cheaper transportation, but the people of the country have paid for it. The people of the West have paid for the improvements from the Great Lakes to the Pacific coast. I say that without prejudice to any company, either the Canadian Pacific railway, the Canadian Northern railway or the Grand Trunk Pacific. They have succeeded through the people of Canada using their roads and paying the rates. Railway experts'state that 90 per- cent of the reductions in rates that have taken place in the last ten years have been due to the coming of the Canadian Northern railway. These reductions represent a saving in ten years of $17,000,000 to the farmers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and all that is the result of competition. For fifteen years the people of those provinces have been paying enormous freight rates to enable the Canadian Pacific railway to become the gigantic railroad that it is today. It i3 rich by reason of the money paid by the people of Canada in freight rates. Whenever a company has built a line, whether- trunk or branch, and has not had people to draw upon, it has failed in its purpose. If our branch roads in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, built in the early years of Confederation by small capitalists who could not afford to put their road in a good position, have not been improved, it is because the surplus revenue from passenger land freight traffic has all been used in maintenance, filling up the same holes every spring and keeping the road together. If we had built a road such as Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton suggest in their report, it would have been in the position of those Maritime railroads to-day.
If another authority is needed, I may cite Mr. Gutelius himself. Take the Intercolonial railway Gutelius. He wants to improve the Sydney branch of the Intercolonial, and is asking for authority to carry out a survey in order to improve that section. Let me read a newspaper clipping on this point:
The Minister of Railways, Hon. Frank Cochrane, has authorized a survey of the Intercolonial from Moncton to Halifax and Sydney, with a view to eliminating the present heavy grades, replacing light bridges with heavier steel structures, and finding out the cost and feasibility of a cut-off at Truro. The authority for carrying out the survey was given to General Manager Gutelius by the minister on February 2 last.
Mr. Gutelius, in his memorandum to the minister on the subject, states that by reducing the grades to a maximum of six-tenths the tonnage on the trains could he doubled, and by increasing the strength of the bridges, heavier motive power could be used on this section of the line. At present the maximum train between Sydney and Point Tupper is 540 tons. If the proposed improvements are carried out, the road could handle a train of 1,600 tons.
Mr. Gutelius says: * That would enable us to handle the Sydney business at less than half the present cost of transportation, and would reduce the total operation cost by twenty-five per cent.'
So says the Intercolonial railway Gutelius. He wants a couple of million dollars to improve the Intercolonial railway between Sydney and Truro, -a distance of [DOT]about 200 miles. If I am wrong in the distance, my hon. friend from Richmond (M,r. Kyte) will correct me.


George William Kyte: 280 miles.


Onésiphore Turgeon: At that rate $1,000,000 per hundred miles, he would want .about $18,000,000 to put the whole of tne Transcontinental in the same condition as the branch line between Sydney and Truro; and yet he talks about extravagance. He says money has been spent which need not have been spent for some years; but the farmers of the West need an efficient railroad now. The prosperity of our farmers depends upon a reduction in freight rates. A farmer is wealthy or poor according to the rate he has to pay to get his goods to market. To-day other men, besides Messrs. Gutelius and Lynch-Staun-ton, are giving their attention to the question of freight rates.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: It is a national issue


Onésiphore Turgeon: It is a great national issue to-day. Men, to-day, in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, are giving their attention to the best means of securing reduced freight rates and cheaper transportation for grain. They are talking not only of the Georgian Bay canal, not only of the Welland canal, not only of the Hudson Bay railway, but they are talking of connecting the Saskatchewan river by a system of canals with navigation on the Great'Lakes so that their grain may be transported by water from the prairies of the far west to its market. You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Government of Saskatchewan have taken up this question. The Government of Saskatchewan appointed a commission a year ago to study this important problem and they sent commissioners to England, France and Germany in order that they might consider means for further reducing the cost of the shipment of grain from the farms in the West to the markets of Great Britain, France and otheT countries. While we hope that they may be able to work out a practicable system of canals we must not forget that our country cannot get along with canal transportation alone owing to our climatic conditions and to the fact that in many parts of Canada we have winter for five or six months in the year. Then our canals are of no use and it is to railway transportation that we must look in order that the grain may be forwarded to its ultimate destination regularly throughout the year. It is not enough that the grain shall be rushed through to the markets during the months of October and November, thus reducing the price to the farmers of the West, but it is necessary that we shall make provision to keep transportation going on the whole year round, winter as well as summer, so as to enable the farmers to take advantage of the market as well as the possible reduction in freight rates.
The hon. gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Davidson) made reference to a suggestion that the road should have been built as far as North Bay only. I would like to have seen the hon. the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) in the House when this pronouncement was made. I would have liked to have seen hon. members from the province of Quebec, and especially from Quebec city and west of that point, as well as hon. members from northern Ontario who are expecting a great development to take place in the districts represented by them, and I would like to have heard their comment upon this proposal. The hon. the Post-

master General, hon. members from Quebec and the Conservative papers of Quebec are to-day extolling the Government for the works and improvements they are carrying on in and around Quebec and the money they are spending in order to promote the prosperity of the people of Canada generally and of that district in particular. I would ask, if, without the energy, activity and patriotism of the right hon. leader of the Liberal party (Sir Wilfrid LaurieT), the northern part of Ontario and of Quebec would enjoy the prospect of prosperity which presents itself to their view to-day. I would like to ask you if the right hon. leader of the Opposition had not been seconded, fortified and assisted as he was by men of the highest standing from the province of Quebec and from all over this country, such as Sir Charles Fitzpatrick and others, he would have been able, by the inauguration of this great national project, to ensure the prosperity of Quebec while at the same time benefiting the country at 'large. While the National Transcontinental railway shortens the distance between Winnipeg, St. John and Halifax, and while it develops the portion of the country through which it passes, it at the same time contributes to the welfare of Canada as a whole. I really cannot understand how people, especially from the province of Quebec, should not be most pleased because, by the exercise of his ingenuity and talent, my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has been able, while finding a means of enhancing the prosperity of Canada as a whole, to promote the prosperity of the people of northern Ontario and Quebec in particular. Simultaneously with the progress of other parts of Canada, Quebec is progressing and is becoming a great shipping port, which prosperity it would have lost but for the policy pursued by my right hon. friend. My right hon. friend realized that this great port of the province of Quebec was declining in public opinion, particularly among the commercial and shipping interests of Great Britain, who were insisting that all the trade should pass through the port of Montreal, and he has been able to retrieve the position of the port of Quebec, while at the same time benefiting the country generally. As a result of his policy, he has been able to make the port of Quebec what it is to-day, and our friends on the other side of the House should not have a word to say about fraud or extravagance because, but for the policy which has been

pursued, the stagnation which at one time characterized that port would have still existed.
That great man, Sir George Ross, who has been called away at a time when still greater services were expected from him by hiis fellow-countrymen, built the Northern Ontario and Temiskaming railway, and this was one of the causes of the defeat of his Government in 1903 or 1904. Yet, nothing has contributed more substantially to the prosperity of the province of Ontario than the construction of that public work. It has proved one of the greatest sources of revenue for the Whitney Government, and without it that Government would not be able to show a surplus at any time. This road was built into a part of the country which the opponents of Sir George Ross at the time declared to be of no value whatever, but which has proved to be of more value than any other part of that province, although it is only at the beginning of its development. Yet the critics of the Government of the day declared that the road should never have been built. Now, it is proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite that the National Transcontinental railway should stop at North Bay or Toronto. I would like to read to the House an extract from an article in the Montreal Gazette which was published a few days before the report of this commission was brought to the attention of the people of Canada. It is worth reminding the people of Canada how a man can speak the truth when he removes himself from political prejudices, and so I quote this article from the Montreal Gazette:
On the line of the Transcontinental there are some 230 bridges, the length of which would he, if all the spans were put together, 11 miles; weighing 61,000 tons : and costing 36.000.000. Among the bridges that span the Winnipeg river is one 300 feet in length. The Salmon river bridge, in the east, took 1,0S9 tons of structural steel.
The heaviest structure on the eastern division is the Little Salmon river viaduct-4,000 feet long, 200 feet high, and requiring 6,996 tons of structural steel.
The fact that 230 bridges were necessary in connection with the building of the Transcontinental gives a realizing notion of the truth of the saying that Canada is a country of distances.
The line passes over some of the largest and finest waterways in the world.
The bridge building in this connection has been carried out without accident-a record of note, considering the difficult nature of the work, the height in many cases and the rigours under which, in the winter, a considerable amount of the work was carried out.
An official description of the bridges and the difficulties encountered in the erection of them,
together with the nature of the country through which the line passes, has been prepared by the engineers engaged on the work and is full of fascination to those who are able to feel the interest and daring and heroism involved in such a vast undertaking-all- the work upon which was undertaken and carried out by men who, in risking their lives and suffering of all kinds of hardships, did not think they were doing anything beyond the day's work.
' And the day is not far distant,' said an official of the Grand Trunk Pacific, ' when the most desolate wilderness through which the line passes, will he composed of thriving communities. For that is the history of railways everywhere. And it will be the history of this great Transcontinental line, which, begun with misgiving, is to fill a largo place in our life and history. The need will declare itself more and more-all the time. That it. is to fill a large space Is proved by the energetic manner in which the Canadian Pacific railway is strengthening its position in the country, both east and west. That shows that it recognizes and provides for formidable rivalry.'
The Transcontinental Tailway will make of this wilderness, in northern Quebec and Ontario, the richest and wealthiest part of Canada, -wherein our people will live in happiness in the centuries to come. Out friends opposite have the hardihood to say that money has been wasted on this road, when that money has been spent simply to make the road as perfect as possible. Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton report that the portion of the road between Quebec and Moncton never should have been built, but would they say that the. section north of Ontario and Quebec never should have been constructed, -and that this fertile country should be left a wilderness? But for the patriotic foresight of Sir Wilfrid Laurie-r and -his supporters, the wilderness in northern Ontario and Quebec would not have been developed, and a wilderness it would remain for possibly another century. I assert, sir, that the time is not far distant when the winter ports of Halifax and St. John will not be sufficient to accommodate the trade of the West. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite who come from the Maritime provinces what they think of that portion of the report which says that the road should not have been constructed through New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. What does my hon. friend from Kings-Allbert (Mr. Fowler) think of the suggestion of Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton that we should have nothing but the Intercolonial railway along the north shore of New Brunswick?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer.
[DOT] 2172


Onésiphore Turgeon: My hon. friend was quite ready in answering and asking questions when he was on this side of the House; but to-night he is silent.


Mr. FOWLER:: I did not hear the hon. gentleman's question; will he please repeat it?


Onésiphore Turgeon: I do not think the people of the Maritime provinces would be satisfied if the Transcontinental railway were not extended so as to bring the fertile products of the West to the Maritime ports. Would my hon. friend oppose a road which means prosperity and increased population to New Brunswick, and which will bring the grain of the prairie provinces and the mineral resources of British Columbia to St. John and Halifax and other ports? We have the immense forests of British Columbia, and we have the immeasurable ooal fields of that province which the Conservative members from British Columbia do not appreciate as I do, and we want those products carried over the Transcontinental railway to St. John and Halifax. I am from northern New Brunswick, and if there is one man more than another whose selfishness might be aroused by the proposition to have another railroad in the centre of New Brunswick, instead of carrying all the freight over the Intercolonial past the doors of my constituents, I am that man. But the moment the Transcontinental railway was projected, and the moment it was said it would pass through central New Brunswick, then foT the sake of my province, and for the development of our resources, land the advancement of the interests of our people, I held up both hands in support of the project. Our population was around the borders of the province, along the Intercolonial from St. John to Fredericton, and from there to Edmundston, and we have there the centre of the province, with thousands of square miles of the best forests and every possible product. We have there immense virgin forests and water-powers of all kinds, which will cause to arise every possible industry all along the railroad. Would we have said to the people of Canada, ' We are losing our population and you must give us more representation because of that? We do not want any improvement if you give us representation without population. I take the ground that we should get population first and then we shall get representation. They say that we should have no railway construction in the Maritime provinces, and 
they quote the name of the late Mr. Blair. There is not a man in this House who is a more sincere friend of Mr. Blair than I. I admired him not only for his political sagacity, but for the justice he did to the people of my own town in a certain crisis. My town people and my country people still revere the name of Mr. A. G. Blair, as they did twenty years ago, when he sacrificed his political career for the sake of justice in the small town of Bathurst. At the very time of his resignation from the Government, no man in this House was so much devoted to that gentleman as I was, for the reasons I have given. But Mr. Blair, when as Minister of Railways and Canals he first visited British Columbia in 1898 or 1899, told the people of that province, at a banquet, that the tipie would soon come when Canada would have three transcontinental railways, and that that time could not come any too soon for him, I believe from the bottom of my heart that the only consideration which actuated that great patriot, statesman and politician, was his love for the Intercolonial railway and for St. John, which he represented; and he was afraid that the National Transcontinental railway might interfere with the progress and prosperity of the Intercolonial railway and of the port of St. John, which he had so much at heart. If the railroad, instead of being built to Moncton, had been built straight to St. John, so as to take the whole trade to that port, he would have acceded to its construction.
When the people of Canada have time to consider seriously, to digest, to ponder over the report, the speech of the exMinister of Railways and Canals, and other speeches made on this subject; when they look over the conditions of the country which are fast forcing themselves upon the notice of the Government and of the people, they will come to the conclusion that the members of this commission have issued an ex-parte report which does not commend itself to the attention of the best papers of the United States or of Great Britain either. I have not time to give quotations, but I have seen many papers in the United States censuring the report as made ex-parte, in star chamber, because the Liberal party were given no opportunity of proffering evidence of any kind. That kind of inquiry does not meet with the approval of the people of the United States or of a great many people of Great Britain. Although it has been said, and it may be true for a while, that this report may possibly affect the credit

of Canada in Great Britain, I trust in the intelligence of the people of Canada and of the people on the other side of the ocean that, when they consider seriously the vast distance between the two oceans1 and the political bias which has characterized this report, they will immediately come to>
the conclusion that, after all, as the report itself says, there has not been one dollar of graft in the construction of this road, which may have cost $181,000,000 or more. The commissioners in their report insist that the exact amount of interest which the company will have to pay will be $5,400,000 a year, -and they claim that this will affect the operation of the road. In the beginning of my remarks I stated that if the company does not operate the road, it will only be because the road has not been finished according to the terms of the agreement between the Government of Canada and the company. If the company operates the road, it will be operating a line which will be as advantageous as any other line, because, while the company may have $5,400,000 of interest to pay upon the large capital for the construction of the best road not merely in America but in tl)e world, it will have practically nothing to pay for the maintenance of the road, which is perfect in every respect, and it. will save in operation thousands of dollars every day, which will amply make up for that interest. It was with that object in view that Sir Sandford Fleming said that the more perfect a road, the greater the economy in its operation and in its maintenance.
He did not build such a road as Mr. Gutelius would have built. For while Mr. Gutelius might have saved $3,500,000 or $4,000,000 a year in interest on cost of construction, he would have provided a road on which every year millions would have had to be spent in maintenance, besides which there would have been the rebuilding of these bridges and the taking out of these momentum grades, at immense expense to the people. Sir Sand-ford Fleming believed in saving expense from the beginning. I have given you the principles and theory of this great man who, as I have said, has the respect of the people of Canada, a man who has helped on not only the prosperity of Canada but the unity of the empire.
As against the opinions of this engineering genius, as I may call him, we have the theories of a man who is not a Canadian, who has not a Canadian's ideas and aspirations, -a man who may be an honest man in his way and a good engineer, but 138
one who, judging from his report, will not be considered by the people of Canada a great engineer. Had he a reputation as an engineer, a reputation which he wished to preserve, he would not have put his name to such a report as this to go before the people of Canada and the world. If he had a reputation as an engineer, he sacrificed it for a mess of pottage at the hand of the Government in the form of a fee of $26,000, followed by $20,000 a year during the time he is 'loaned' by the Canadian Pacific railway to this Government. Think, Mr. Speaker, of a proposal of momentum grades under the climatic conditions of Canada for the transportation service of the great cities of Canada today, which are to be much greater in a few years. Thousands upon thousands of people will use this Transcontinental railway in the winter; many will come from the prairies and the cities of the West to greet their friends in the East at the Christmas and New Year season. We see the Postmaster General making every effort to have the mails which -are brought by steamers delivered as rapidly as possible in the great commercial centres. If this is needed to-day, what may we expect in twenty years? In twenty years we shall have a population that will require the best railway that civilization can offer. Who then would propose to have twelve or fifteen passenger trains a day passing over this route and the lives of these thousands of people subject to the peril of momentum grades in the winter season?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Hon. gentlemen may laugh and think this is a joke. But winter is a fact that remains in Canada-we have had it this season, certainly, as severe as any time within the last fifty years. The conditions that exist, and that will continue to exist, must be provided for. And when I find engineers whom I try to respect saying that on the route from Moncton to Winnipeg momentum grades should be a feature of a high-class railway, I cannot but feel that those engineers have sacrificed their reputations.
Let not our friends on the other side believe that I am afraid of public opinion on this question. In the first place, these investigating commissioners have not been able to report a single dollar of graft; and we know very well that had they been able to find a loss of even a thousand dollars in this way it would have been their greatest pleasure. But they were honest enough not to fabricate it when they did



not find it. I 'believe that the Liberal party has come out of this investigation stronger in public opinion than ever. This report shows that we have given the people the best road in America. The people know that that road, if not too much degraded, -between Quebec and La Tuque- will carry traffic at a rate to defy competition.
And should there be that 11 p.m. degradation of the road, it will be Quebec and the Maritime provinces that will suffer, though that road was built to afford protection for Quebec against the rivalry of Montreal and to save the trade of the Maritime provinces through the winter.
The hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) ventured the prophecy that not one Liberal member would come back from Nova Scotia after the next election.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Did he say that?


Onésiphore Turgeon: Yes. Why did he not say that not one Liberal member would come back from the province of New Brunswick either? In 1908 my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, (Mr. Hazen), who, I regret to see is not in his place, spoke at a meeting in Quebec. He was then Prime Minister of our province of New Brunswick, and in his speech he declared that not one Liberal member would come back from that province in the election then pending. A travelling agent who was present beard him and said:	What about Gloucester?
' Never mind Gloucester,' the hon. minister replied, 'not one member will come back;' yet nine came back, and only four of the friends of the hon. gentlemen opposite. I for one do not feel the results of this investigation or of this report. Meanwhile it is our duty to lay the Whole matter before the mass of the intelligent electors of the whole country. The engineers and great railway experts will not be affected by this report, and when this discussion is over and, after a little time, the people of Canada are able to ponder over that report and its consequences, they will turn against this Administration and its supporters, because they upheld such a report, by men who are biased, and had but two considerations-one a political consideration and the other, an engineer, whose mess of pottage was there before him. That engineer had so little Canadian aspiration that he worked for railway companies in Canada for ten years without taking out naturalization papers, and it

was only when he became a servant of the Government of Canada that, rather than sacrifice his position, his $26,000 or $20,000 a year and perquisites, he became a British subject. Hon. gentlemen opposite but two short years ago declared that it was disloyal and unpatriotic to send a bag of potatoes or a bushel of wheat to the United States-no truck or trade with the Yankees; yet they call in American engineers, and a body of men in Toronto who opposed reciprocity brought the stone for an immense building from the other side of the line. The Liberal party have nothing to fear but everything to hope from the result of this report of Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton. Mr. Staunton's political bias is well known; he would not contradict it himself. While he was still engaged in the making of that report as commissioner, he took part in the elections in South Bruce. The hon. the Solicitor General said that he had finished his report before he took part in that election; but it had not yet been made public, so that his interference in the election was quite unjustified.
I feel sure that when the people of Canada have seriously considered the false theories of railway construction advanced in the report and the advantages which the Liberal party has given to the people of the country at large, to northern Ontario, to northern Quebec, and to the Maritime provinces, they will say to Mr. Borden that he should never have made public that report, that he should have studied it more carefully before he allowed it to be circulated. I am prepared to give credit to the two commissioners for being fair enough not to place any findings of graft in their report, although I have no doubt that that was because they could not find any. Meanwhile it is the greater satisfaction to the people of Canada that on that commission there has been such an active political gentleman as Mr. Staunton, because it is well known in Canada and in England, where Mr. Staunton addressed people on the loyalty question and against American trade in 1911, that if there had been a dollar or a million dollars of graft he would have been only too glad to have exposed it to the people of Canada.
On motion of Mr. W. H. Sharpe, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.13 p.m.

Monday, March 30, 1914.