1914-04-02

FIRST READINGS OF BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 138, to amend the Dominion Lands Act-Mr. Roche.
Bill No. 137, to amend the Dominion Forests Reserves and Parks Act.-Mr. Roche.	.
Bill No. 138, to amend the Irrigation Act.
-Mr. Roche.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 134, to amend the Inspection and Sales Act.-Mr. George E. Foster.
Bill No. 135, respecting a certain Patent of Rudolph Goldschmidt.-Mr. Fripp.

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

Mr. CARVELL:: 1. How much has it cost for repairs and renewals for the dredge formerly officially


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY SURVEY STAFF.
Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	Has the Intercolonial railway a staff of engineers employed in surveying near Doi-chester and Sackville, New Brunswick, with a view to double tracking and the securing of improved grades and curves ? If so, who is the engineer in charge, and is he a former employee of the Canadian Pacific railway ?
2.	Who are employed as engineers or otherwise assisting in the work, what are their ages and nationality respectively, with what railways were they employed just previous to their engagement by the Government railway, and are any of them American citizens ?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes. H. S. Clarke. He is not a former employee of the Canadian Pacific
Railway Company.
2. Name. Age.
H. S. Clark.... 26
G.	H.	Patterson	26S.	W.	Brodeau	28G.	E.	Dowling	43C.	R.	Magrane	18A.	E.	Oulton..	20J.	W.	Johnstone	20
Previous
employment.
Can. Northern Ry. St. John & Quebec Ry St. John & Quebec Ry.. Nat. Trans. Ry.
Can. Pacific Ry. None.
Can. Northern Ry.

Name	Age.	Previous employment.
B. H. Smith.. 20 St.. John & Quebec Ry. V. H. Carruthers 20 Ncne.
J.	E. Stulz.. ..	17	None.E.	C. McCall..	22	Intercolonial	Ry.N- Bettis	
19	None.G.	Bishop....	20	None.
R. Herrington.. 2.3 Nat. Trans. Ry.
W.	Ohearn....	17	Intercolonial	Ry.F.	McKinnon..	42	Intercolonial	Ry.
S. W. Brodeau, G. R. Magrane and J. E. Stultz were born in the United States.
Government of Canada to or with the Canadian Northern Railway Company, or any of its subsidiary lines, or propositions or any part thereof, since the inception of the same?


Mr. REID:: Canadian Northern railway'.
Paid to
Cash Subsidy.	Granted. December 31.
Swan River	section.	. .	374,606	$	374,606O.	& R. R.	Ry	
1,534,526	1,534526E. Y. & P,	Ry	
91,200	91,200$ 2,000,332	$ 2,000,332


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY TERMINALS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. EMMERSON-
1.	Has the Government any knowledge as to the ownership of the so-called Canadian Northern Railway System terminals at Montreal. Winnipeg, Moosejaw, Vancouver, Port Arthur U°ly *Iann' Quebec and at other points respect-
2.	Is the Government aware as to how and m whom the title of the right of way of the said Canadian Northern railway through Carleton county, Ontario, is vested ?
Mr. REID:: 1.	The terminal property referred to, with the exception of Vancouver and Port Mann, is owned 'by the Canadian Northern Railway System Terminals, Limited, the [DOT]capital stock of which terminal company is owned by the Canadian Northern Railway Company. The terminals at Vancouver and Port Mann are owned 'by the Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company, the stock of which company is all owned by the Canadian Northern Railway Company.
2.	The title of the right-of-way through Carleton county, Ontario, is owned by the Canadian Northern Ontario railway.


INVESTIGATION BY RIMOUSKI ADVOCATES.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: Canadian Northern	Al-	
berta Ry			$ 2,832,024
Canadian Northern Ontario Railway.		
Toronto-Sudbury ..	. .$ 1,872,960	$1 1,S72,960
Toronto-Ottawa. . ..		1,363,122
Hawkesbury-Ottawa.	. . 369,872	369,872Ottawa-Port Arthur	. . 10,920,000	6,518,516$14,762,832	$10,124,470
Canadian Northern
Garneau-Quebeo	$
St. Jerome branch.. . . Rawdon branch	
Quebec Railway. 523,820	$	523,820
97,280	97,280
86,468	86,468
$	707,568	$	707,568
Canadian Northern Pa- *
ciflc Ry	$	6,300,000	$	4,349,930
Halifax and South
Western	Ry	$	1,364,210	$	1,364,210Total	$28,254,942	$21,378,534
Guarantees. Authorized. Canadian Northern
Ry	$17,256,5S4
Canadian Northern
Alberta Ry	 6,719.99S
Canadian Northern
Ontario Ry	 35,770,000
Released to December 31.

$59,746,582	$39,937,822 19
t	SUC,h have Messrs- Louis Tachfi ant
"L oa f' J\0u!.10t' advocates of Rimouski, re 1911 ? 0r 16 mvestiSatior>s held by them sine.
2. How many investigations have been helc by each of them ?


Mr. CODERRE :: 1.	Railways and Canals:	Louis Tache,
$511.23; Post Office, Louis Tache, $260.15; Post Office: J. N. F. Pouliot, $400.
2.	Railways and Canals: eleven investigations by Mr. Tache; Post Office; ten investigations by Mr. Tache; four bv Mr. J. N. F. Pouliot.


AID TO CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY
Mr. BURNHAM:: What aid has been promised, given or otherwise arranged for, directly or indirectly, by the 
No land was granted direct to Canadian Northern railway, but this company has received from the contractors who constructed the Lake Manitoba Railway and Canal Company, the Winnipeg and Hudson Bay railway and the Manitoba and South Eastern railway, 4,002,848 acres.


'SAFETY FIRST' ENGINEER.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Who is the Mr. Long who lectures the employees of the Intercolonial on the Safety First?
2.	Does that gentleman draw any pay from the Government for such lectures? If so, what is his salary ?
3.	Is he a British subject?


Mr. REID:: 1. Mr. John Edwin Long is an expert

Safety First engineer previously employed with the New York Central and Hudson River railways, and is employed by the Canadian Government railways as such.
2.	$175 per month.
3.	No.


MR. JUSTICE CLEMENT'S TRAVELLING EXPENSES.
Mr. BOULAY:: What is the amount paid by the Government to the Hon. Justice Clement, of British Columbia, as travelling expenses, and which was declared by the court to have been illegally drawn by him?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 


L'ASSOMPTION PROPOSED WHARF.
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1. Does the Public Works Department intend to include in the Supplementary Estimates this
session an amount sufficient to cover the expenses of the construction of a wharf in the town of L'Assomption, on the L'Assomption river?
2.	Have petitions or requests been filed towards securing such construction?
3.	What are the reasons for delaying the work?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	This information cannot be given until the Supplementary Estimates are laid before Parliament.
2.	Yes.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


QUEBEC-LEVIS MAIL CONTRACT.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: Who has the contract for the conveyance of the mail between Quebec and Levis, and what is the amount of contract?


Mr. PELLETIER:: No contract has as yet been executed. The department expects to close the negotiations which have been going on for -some time with the La Traverse de Levis, Limitee.
FRASERVILLE 20th BATTERY.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	What hall has been rented at Fraserville for the accommodation of guns of the 20th Battery C.F.A.?
2.	Who is the owner or proprietor ?
3.	What is the amount paid for rent ?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	No hall has as yet been rented for the accommodation of guns of 20th BatteTy. There was rented, however, for a period1 of six weeks last fall, a building known as 1 Dube's Hall ' for $100. This was for a provisional school only.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
attorney.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to inquire from the Quebec Harbour Commission as to who has taken Advocate Stewart's place as its legal adviser and as to his salary ?
2.	If so, when does he intend to make such inquiry and will he inform the House of the result ?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1 and 2. On March 12 last, in reply to an inquiry, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries informed the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau) that the department had no information as to whether or not Mr. Stewart, attorney for the Quebec Harbour Commission, had been replaced by any one else, or what the salary attached to the position was. Since then

there has been no further inquiry with regard to the matter. If the hon. member desires the Department of Marine and Fisheries to get tsueh information for him, and will so state, the minister will be pleased to communicate with the harbour commissioners with a view to obtaining the same, and will inform the House of the result.


L'ISLE VERTE WHARF.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Was there any complaint laid before the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, informing them that the earth, etc., taken from the inside of the wharf at L'Isle Yerte was being deposited in the channel of the river ?
2.	If so, was any answer given thereto ? If so, by whom and what was its nature ?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Yes, a complaint was sent to the Department of Marine.
2.	Yes. The Assistant Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries advised the Public Works Department, under whom these dredging operations were being carried out, as to the complaint made. The chief engineer of the Public Works Department reported that the dredged material was placed oil the channel of the river, and could not in any way interfere with navigation, and moreover, that all the dumping would be carried away by the ice in the spring. The complainant was so informed by the Assistant Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Sexsmith.-For a return showing what it cost the Government for bottled and distilled water in Ottawa since January 1, 1912, to March 1, 1914 ; what it is costing the Government per day now for bottled and distilled water.
Mr. Sinclair..-For a return showing total amount paid for pensions by the Department of Militia and Defence for the year ending March 31, 1913; the number of militia officers at present on the pay roll of the permanent corps; the number of private soldiers at present on the pay roll of the permanent force; the number of private soldiers who joined the force during 1913 ; the number who deserted during 1913; the gross amount .expended by the Department of Militia and Defence for the salaries of officers and officials of every kind in the employ of the department at Ottawa or elsewhere during the fiscal year 1912-1913 ; the gross amount paid out for services to the private soldiers of the permanent corps during the said year 1912-1913.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called;
Mr. OLIVER. I desire to a9k the Minister of the Interior (Mr. RoeheA if he is
[Mr. I lazeii, J
prepared to make a statement concerning the action of the Government with regard to immigration into British Columbia. The Order in Council which prohibited the immigration of artisans up to the 31st of March has, of course, expired; and I am sure the House and the country will be glad to know what action, if any, the Government intend to take.
Mr. ROCHE:: That Order in Council has been continued for another six months.


THE MISSING KARLUK.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. OLIVER:: I wish to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) if any action has been taken by the Government toward sending an expedition in search of the Karluk. I saw a statement to that effect in the newspapers and would like to ask if it is correct.


John Douglas Hazen: The statement which the
hon. gentleman saw in the newspapers is entirely incorrect. No such action has been taken.	.


THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
[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 31.
Mr. L. J. GAUTHIER (St. Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a good deal of reluctance tha/t I have decided to take part in this debate, and when I look into the difficulties connected with my speaking at this stage, I realize that they are two-fold. First of all, coming into the discussion after various hon. gentlemen who from both sides of the House have contributed well-prepared addresses on the question at issue, it may be thought that it will be impossible for me to avoid falling into tedious repetition. Secondly, I may say that I intend to discuss the matter not as a partisan, but from the general standpoint of public and provincial interest. I may assure you, Sir, that I will not worry the House with quotations, and I will not roam through a mass of engineering technicalities, because I am not conversant with that side of the question, and it would not affect the point of view which I take in regard to this matter. As it iE necessary for the proper presentation of my views that I should deal with the history of the road, I will, with the permis-

sion of the House, make an analytical sketch of the discussion which took place in the House when the legislation providing for the construction of the National Transcontinental railway was enacted and how the work was executed. And I will then come to the report of the commissioners and endeavour to point out what is the duty of the Government in that regard.
When the legislation creating the National Transcontinental railway was brought down in 1903, the Government met with a very hostile opposition from many quarters. First of all, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company could not view without apprehension the invasion by a competitor of the territory- of which they had at the time a practical monopoly, and those who were friendly to this national corporation claimed that it was not fair for the Government of Canada to use public money and to pledge the credit of the country to create a competitor to a private concern. They contended also that the Canadian Pacific railway had done much for the development of our western country and that it was nothing but just that it should be allowed to reap the benefit of its long years of expenditure. To this line of argument the Government of the day answered that it was true that the Canadian Pacific railway had done much for Canada, but that Canada had done its share for the Canadian Pacific railway. It was true that through the campaign of literature carried on by the company, immigrants had been induced to take up the land of our western country; but at the same time the development of that country was such that the Canadian Pacific could not give satisfaction to the western part of Canada, and that the creation of another company would not bring undue competition to bear upon the Canadian Pacific railway, which was unable to face alone the development of our western prairies.
Then, the Government of the day had to face the opposition of the Tory party. It has been said that the duty of the Opposition is to oppose, and the Tory Opposition of that time did their best to oppose the idea of Canada's building a transcontinental railway. The opposition of the Tory party assumed many aspects. Some hon. gentlemen of the Opposition claimed that the construction of the-Grand Trunk Pacific railway should terminate on the shores of the Great Lakes. Others thought that if the Grand Trunk Pacific had to be built it would be better to build it from Winnipeg
to North Bay and there link it up with the Grand Trunk railway system. Other members of the party, having at their head the late member for the county of Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), contended that if it were necessary to build a National Transcontinental railway, it would be better to build, as a substitute for the project of the Government, a line running into our colonization territory so as to connect it with other lines of railway running south to north from the St. Lawrence river. Not only had the Liberal Government of 1903 to meet the opposition of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and those who were friendly to it; not only had they to meet the opposition of their opponents in this House, but they had to face also the opposition of one of their own friends. The Hon. Mr. Blair, who up to that time had been Minister of Railways and Canals, severed his connection with the then Government because he held the view that it would be unfair to the Intercolonial railway if the Government should build a railway which would parallel the Intercolonial railway, and which would be leased to another company. Mr. Blair was in favour of extending the Intercolonial railway over the Canada Atlantic from Montreal to Parry Sound so as to compete as a Government-owned railway for the traffic of the West.
He claimed that building the road as the Government intended to build it involved an unwarranted expenditure, that it was useless for the Government to enter upon such an undertaking, that the railway would traverse a barren country, that the road would never make expenses. It was said that the Government had not sufficient data to go on with such a huge undertaking. If any hon. member will read the debate that preceded the adoption of the law creating the National Transcontinental railway, he must admit that this is an accurate synopsis of it. The Government of the day claimed that this opposition was not well founded. They had every confidence in the future of this country; they thought that the time was ripe for Canada, in justice to our western farmers, to secure for them an outlet for their produce to the markets of the world. At the same time, they so designed the railroad that it would do justice not only to the West but also to the Bast; not only to the new country west of lake Superior, but also to the old provinces that at first constituted the Dominion of Canada. You hear very often that there are men in this country who think that Canada begins on the shores of the Atlantic

and ends on the eastern shores of lake Superior. On the other hand, you have some Canadians who are under the impression that Canada begins only west of lake Superior. In my own province, there is a class of politicians who, on the public platform and by every other means, trying to arouse prejudice, claim that the province of Quebec, being one of the oldest and being inhabited by descendants of the French race, should not welcome immigration to our shores because the greater the immigration the sooner we shall see the province of Quebec completely outvoted; for, of course, in this country the majority must rule and must enact the laws. I belong to the province of Quebec; I am proud of my province and of my race; but, thank God, I do not want to stop the development of this country. Canada should do her utmost to develop the western part of our country, and it is only just that she should give to those who have come to throw in their lot with us every opportunity for success; we must not give them any reason to regret that they have come to work hand in hand with us. But at the same time, the older provinces have a right to be heard, to secure at least justice from the central Government of Canada. The National Transcontinental railway was designed to provide an outlet for the produce of the West, to afford that competition with the Canadian Pacific railway for which the farmers had been asking, to open new regions in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, and to keep the trade of our great western country for the benefit of the whole of Canada. That was the design of the National Transcontinental railway; but when the Government of that day submitted this measure to the consideration of Parliament, the faith of their Administration was pledged. It was not only the policy of the Liberal party and Government, but it was enacted as the law of this country. It was and is a contract entered into by the Parliament of Canada on one side and the Grand Trunk Pacific on the other side. The Government of Canada represented the provinces. What was the reason that we submitted to the electors of this country in the general election of 1904 for accepting that policy? The reason, Sir, was that every province was having its share of justice. It is true that the money of the country was being spent to create an outlet for the West; but the contract entered into with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company was acknowledged and accepted by the electorate of Canada because every province 
and every part of the electorate was receiving its share of justice.
I shall not discuss what was to be the cost of the National Transcontinental railway, and the reason is very clear. I claim that in 1904 the principle of the construction of the road was accepted by the electorate. From 1904 to 1908 the Government of the day had begun the expenditure of the money, and everybody in this country realized that the road was going to cost more than the original estimate. But it was an issue in the general election of 1908. We went before the electors and discussed that single question. What was the motto of the campaign ? ' Let Laurier finish his work; let the Government finish their work; let the Government go on with the expenditure; because what this country requires is a railway built according to the conditions of the contract and of the law enacted by the Parliament of 1903.' I do not defend this measure because it is a measure of the late Administration; I defend it as it has been enacted and as the work has been proceeded with, because it is in accordance with the contract agreed to by Parliament. The Minister of Justice, speaking in this Chamber, said that there was a contract in reference to the pension fund, and that it had to be respected. If it was only right that that contract should be respected, as the hon. Minister of Justice said, have I not a right to say that the contract entered into with the Grand Trunk Pacific should also be respected by this Government? The same principle and the same reasoning are involved. But there are other reasons. The road has been paid for partly out of the surplus of the different administrations and partly by the selling of bonds unloaded on British investors. What induced the British investors to buy those bonds? It was because a contract had been entered into by the Parliament of Canada guaranteeing the bonds and the construction of a first-class railroad. Yet this Government of 1914 are degrading the road; and are they not also degrading the value of the securities held by the British bondholders? This is the first time that I have seen an administrator-although the Government of the day claim to be masters of this country, they are only its administrators-appointed to manage the affairs of an estate, doing his utmost to degrade the asset which has been confided to him to administer. What a feeling of security the spreading of this report will engender in the minds of bondholders all over the -world ! The ministers on

the Treasury benches may claim that they are spreading this report broadcast to show what kind of administrators their predecessors were; they may claim that it is in the public interest; but how can it be in the public interest to create a false impression abroad that the Government of this country have indulged in bribery and wasteful expenditure of the public money? What benefit will that be to the community? None whatever.
There is another phase of the question with which I wish to deal. Not only have the bondholders' securities been degraded by this Government, but the different provinces are not being treated fairly. When the different provinces entered into Confederation they gave to the central Government all their sources of revenue and kept themselves all the departments which involved expenditures. That is why, at different times, provincial governments have come to the central Government and asked for a better repartition of the revenues of the country. They have made their case so clear that the Government at Ottawa had to enact legislation giving a bigger proportion of the taxes to the provinces. The revenues of the provinces are small compared with the revenues of the Dominion, but their expenses are great. When the legislation creating the Northern Transcontinental railway was enacted, the governments of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, having every confidence that the compact would be kept to the letter, incurred great expenses in surveying land and creating villages, so that they' would be in a position to help in the development of this country when the railroad was in operation. Do you think for one minute, Mr. Speaker, that the Government of the province of Quebec would have gone to the expense they have incurred at La Tuque, and all the other villages along the line, if they had believed that with a change of Government the railroad would also be changed, and that instead of these villages being on the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific, they would be only on a local line carrying practically no through traffic? I say no, not for a moment would they have incurred that expense. Since I have had the honour of occupying a seat in this Chamber, I have seen members from the Maritime provinces stand up to defend the rights of their provinces, and lately I have heard one of the representatives of the province of Prince Edward Island asking that the law
be set aside in order that Prince Edward Island should retain its present representation in this House. The members from the Maritime provinces were fighting for the rights and prerogatives of their provinces, and no one denied them that right. When the members from the province of [DOT]Ontario claimed their rights and pointed out the duty of the Government towards their province, no one denied them that right. Nor was any dissatisfaction expressed when western members claimed certain rights for their provinces. But every time that a member from the province of Quebec stands up to assert the rights of his province, immediately you will hear, or see in the press, that that man is raising a race cry, or is indulging in peanut politics. I claim that the province of Quebec has as much right as any other province in this Dominion to be treated fairly. I do not claim that it should be given favours. No. All we are asking for is justice-justice for every part of this country.
Through this bargain, the people of the West were afforded the outlet for their products which they were demanding. Does any one contend that when this Government decided to degrade the road, justice was done to Ontario, to Quebec, or to the Maritime provinces? Certainly not. This contract was enacted by Parliament, on the understanding that the people of Canada would be treated fairly according to its terms, and the Government in ea deavouring to destroy what Parliament did in 1903 is renegade to its duty. That is npt what this Government was elected for. In 1903 the Parliament of Canada enacted this legislation; in 1904 the electorate of Canada sustained the Government for passing that legislation, and in 1908 the people of Canada, knowing that the expenditure was larger than at first estimated, imposed on the late Administration the duty of continuing the work. Under these circumstances Mr. GuteMus and Mr. Lynch-Staunton, or Staunton-Lyneh, have no right to come here and for a fee of $65,OCO to impeach the Parliament of 1903 and the opinion of the electorate of Canada in 1904 and 1908. If the present Government wanted to repeal this legislation, why did they not bring forward a measure to do so in 1912, in 1913, or in 1914? They knew that even their supporters would not sustain them on such a proposition; they knew that under our democratic system such conduct could

lead to nothing but anarchy. Why did not the Government, before degrading the road, consult the electorate and get their approval? They dare not do so, because they knew the people would not sustain them. In spreading broadcast the report of this commission, which was made for the definite purpose of inuring their opponents in the public mind, do not they know that they are creating a precedent which may be bad for them when they leave office? They will not be long in power; they are sowing the wind now, and later they will reap the whirlwind. Since they came to office there are some acts of administration which they have carried out, and which are dear	to	them, but	do they think
they will ;be satisfied, if after having, in their opinion, done the best for the country their successors should cancel the legislation they have enacted? On the 4 p.m. whole, the electors of Canada are an honest people; there may be individual exceptions, but on the whole, I assert that the electors of Canada are . actuated by good principles. When the Liberals were defeated on the 21st of September, 1911, the people of Canada said to the Tory party, administer the affairs of the country according to your own ideas, but the people gave the Tory party no mandate to destroy what had been in existence. They were charged to develop this country, not with Turning (its ctedit; they were charged to make the country prosperous- prosperity they did not bring to the country, but they should have at least remained within the lines of their mandate. If the Tory party could do nothing for the prosperity of the country, they should at least not have destroyed that which they had been charged to keep intact.
To the Prime Minister, who has been listening to my remarks, I say: there are in Canada a large number of electors who put their confidence in the Conservative party now in power, because they thought that under the right hon. gentleman they would have a clean, honest, and progressive government. Does the right hon. gem tlernan think he has respected the confidence of the people by appointing -a commission, such as we are now discussing, and becoming responsible for his party's press bureau sending false statements broadcast throughout the country, twelve months before the report was presented to Parliament, so as to create the false impression that the country had been swindled 
out of $40,000,000, when on the report being presented it is found .that it does not corroborate such assertions? It is not fair to the country, it is not fair to Parliament, it is not fair even to the right hon. gentleman himself that such an attempt should have been made to mislead the people. I know that we cannot force certain hon. gentlemen on the Government benches to have confidence in the Opposition, but above party politics, and above the desire to remain in office, there is -the public interest which should always be respected.
With these few remarks, I hope that the report as it is now will be the vindication of the late Administration; and let me hope that before it is too late the Government will come back to the old contract and will restore to the road its former degree of efficiency. If they do not do so, we will wait for them at the polls, where they will receive their condemnation, because the contract must be adhered to as is was signed and concurred in by Parliament in 1903, and, approved by the people of this country in 1904, and in 1908.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (P-ictou, N.S.):: Mr. Speaker, eleven years ago the Government of the day came to this Parliament with a proposition that the time had arrived in the history of Canada when we should enter upon the construction of a second transcontinental railway. They submitted to Parliament an agreement made with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company of Canada and containing in its recital a statement of the reasons which had induced the Government to enter upon that enterprise and to ask the Canadian people to provide the funds necessary to carry it into effect.
It is perhaps just as well for us, in the inception of our consideration of this question, to see what was the original idea in regard to this enterprise. I read from the contract made on the 29th day of July, 1903, between the Government of the day and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company:
Whereas, having regard to the growth of population and the rapid development of the production and trade of Manitoba and the Northwest territories, and to the great area of fertile and productive land in all the provinces and territories as yet without railway facilities, and to the rapidly and expanding trade and commerce of the Dominion, it is in the interest of Canada that a line of railway, designed to secure the most direct and economical interchange of traffic between eastern Canada arid the provinces and territories west of the Great Lakes, to open up and develop the northern zone

of the Dominion, to promote the internal and foreign trade of Canada and to develop commerce through Canadian ports, should he constructed and operated as a common railway highway across the Dominion from ocean to ocean, and wholly within Canada.
That is the germ of the proposition put forward at that time toy the Liberal1 party and approved on the repeated occasions on which the electorate were called upon to discuss it.
Although we have this report, ridiculous in its character, mischievous and false in its allegations, put before the Canadian people at this juncture, there never was a time during the last six years when any Conservative of responsibility was prepared to take the position that this transcontinental railway should not be constructed where and when it was proposed to be constructed by the Liberal party. We are told by hon. gentlemen opposite that, when this proposition came before Parliament, the then Premier of Canada told the Canadian people that the railway would cost only $13,000,000, and that the then Minister of Finance said that it would cost only $61,000,000. Led us consider for a moment the truth of these allegations and how far this question of cost entered as an element into the consideration of Parliament when it passed that Act in 1903. Every one knew that the northern part of Canada between Winnipeg and Quebec and between Quebec and Moncton had undeveloped resources of the greatest possible extent. General information was to be had in the various departments of the Government in regard to this, and the statement of Mr. Schreiber is to the effect that there existed in regard to tihe condition of that part of the country preliminary reports made by surveyors such as Sir Sandford Fleming. From that information Mr. Schreiber gave to the Minister of Finance of that day estimates upon which the latter based his figure of $61,000,000. Every one in Parliament at that time knew the conditions under which the estimate was made. Every one knew that no test pits had been sunk, that no experimental surveys of the land had been made as to the location of the road and so as to arrive at definite figures. Therefore no one would be able to say within $10,000,000 whatthe road would actually cost. Although the Conservative members in all the intervening years have declared that the present leader of the Opposition stated that the cost of this railway was to be only $13,000,000, every one of them knew that the leader of the Opposition 144
was only speaking of the interest upon the cost as estimated by Mr. Schreiber. But hon. gentlemen opposite did not accept these figures. What did they say? My hon. friend the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), a member of the present Cabinet, told the country at that time that the railway would cost $73,000,000. My hon. friend the member for Peel (Mr. Blain) told the country that it would cost $100,000,000. The late Minister of Railways, the Hon. Mr. Haggart, said that it would cost $125,000,-
000.	The hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) said that it would cost $150,000,000. You, Mr. Speaker, then gave an opinion in regard to its cost. You knew that it would cost more than $13,000,000 or $61,000,000. You said that it would cost $125,000,000. You were not deceived. It was stated by a prominent member of the Opposition of that day, the hon. member for West Toronto (Sir Edmund OsleT), that tl e railway would cost $200,000,000. The right hon. gentleman who leads the Government to-day said that the railway would cost anywhere from $75,000,000 to $100,000,000 and that on account of the four-tenth per cent grade, it was impossible to tell in advance within $10,000,000 of what it would cost. When we went to the people in 1904, my right hon. friend's organization in the province of Nova Scotia declared tthat Ithis railway would cost $130,000,000. In the election of 1904, every Conservative who asked the support of the electorate, pled with the people that they should oppose the Government because it would put an untold burden upon his constituents, and every Conservative quoted figures in dollars and cents to show just how great a burden was to be placed upon his constituents as the result of the construction of this railway. What occurred? The cost was not the issue; that question was not worrying Parliament at that time, because Parliament had before it the fact that the Intercolonial railway of Canada, running from Quebec to Sydney, had cost the people of this country $78,953 per mile, and was aware of the cost of railways in the United States and other countries. In New South Wales, railways not of this high standard cost $64,000 per mile; in Germany, $107,000; in France, $126,000; in Russia, $83,000; in Austria, $87,000. In Great Britain, with her expensively prepared road beds, the average cost is $272,000 per mile. These data were quoted in Parliament in 1903, and Parliament and the country knew that the cost of this enterprise would be very great, and they accepted that responsibility.



What position did the leader of the Government, then leader of the Opposition, take at that time? Was it cost that he was inveighing against? Not at all. He said this railway should be built from sea to sea, so that our ocean ports on the Atlantic -at the termini of this much-abused Quebec and Moncton section-should be developed, and that the lines should be owned by the Government. The slogan of the Opposition then was not cost, it was: Are we to have a Government-owned railway or a railway-owned Government? That was the question on which they went to the people. So, when these hon. gentlemen complain of being deceived about the cost, there is not a man of them who was here in 1903 but knows that he is drawing a red herring across the trail, that on the discussion of this report he is attempting to bolster up the most ridiculous document ever presented to a free Parliament; and he laughs in his sleeve when he talks of cost and argues that the estimates of 1903 were the important point. Did not the people of Canada know?
Mr. 8EXSMITH: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend did not believe his leader if he did not know. In 1904 the people of Canada declared that they wanted a new transcontinental railway built with the object and according to the terms set forth in the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. And the Government of that day was returned. They initiated the construction of the road. Here and there, in the intervening years, we heard some discussion about the question. In 1908, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), now Minister of Trade and Commerce, gave his estimate of the cost of the Transcontinental. Speaking in this House, he said that the cost would be $155,000,000. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), speaking in this House in 1908, said that, exclusive of the cost of terminals, the construction of this railway would involve an expenditure of $114,000,000, as estimated by his engineers. The present leader of the Government (Mr. Borden) in 1908 estimated- and this was when very little had been done in the way of construction-that the cost of the road would be $161,724,185, or, adding the cost of terminals estimated at $5,000,000, the cost would be in round numbers $167,000,000. These were the statements made to Parliament by members on either side previous to the general elections of 1908. And the Government that went to 
the people in that year making these statements as to the cost of the railway was overwhelmingly sustained and returned to carry on the enterprise which they had inaugurated.
I have attempted to deal frankly with this question of cost, for there never was a greater bugaboo than the statements of hon. gentlemen opposite on this question. The party organs discussing the eloquent speech of my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) cannot but admit its masterly character, but they say he failed to deal with the question of the cost of the enterprise. Now, I wish to meet that question squarely as proposed by my hon. friends on the other side; and I have shown that no Conservative in Parliament was deceived on this question of cost in 1903, 1904 or 1908, that all parties in this House before going to the country for confirmation of their position estimated that the cost of the railway would be from $100,000,000 to $150,000,000. But on the 30th of September, 1910, four years ago, Mr. MacPherson, now assistant to the chairman of this commission, estimated the cost of the road at $143,000,000, or $78,000 a mile. On the 10th of March, 1911, Mr. Gordon Grant, then and now chief engineer of the road, estimated the cost at $145,339,000 or $80,565 a mile, not including the cost of terminals. That is the estimate that was given when the Liberal party went out of power in 1911. When hon. gentlemen opposite came into power that course was entered upon which has led to the bringing down of this report. An estimate was prepared by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) in February, 1912, which he submitted to Parliament, declaring that the cost of the road since they had come into power had gone up to $171,000,000, or $95,000 a mile. In other-words, while Mr. Gordon Grant, the chief engineer, who has the confidence of this Government, declared under Liberal rule that the cost was going to be $145,000,000, hon. gentlemen opposite to the injury of the country, jumped the estimated cost to $171,000,000. Then after a year of their own Administration, on the 18th of April, 1913, they changed the estimated cost again, bringing it down to $161,307,800. But in that amount is included $16,000,000 for terminals and other expenditures, the amount of which has been determined solely and exclusively by this Government. So, you have the exact result as to the cost of this railway what it was placed at 'by the Liberal party in March, 1911, $145,000,000; for if you deduct from the $161,000,000 the

amount of money that has been spent or is being provided for by this Government in regard to terminals, $16,000,000, you have an estimate for the road of $145,000,000. The result of all this is that, with the exception of the abnormal estimate in February, 1912, the object of which is now apparent, and with the same engineer responsible for every dollar of the money that has been paid on this Transcontinental for the last six years in office to-day, you have the estimated cost as put forward by the Liberal party four years ago absolutely sustained. So, I assert without fear of contradiction, that at no time since the inception of this road, since there were given to the public estimates made by engineers dealing with this question after full examination had been made, has the expectation and asserion of the Liberal party upon this question been shown to be untrue or false in any particular, nor has it been shown that the country had been misled by one iota in regard to the matter. The Canadian people in 1903-4, in 1908 and in 1911 declared in favour of a second transcontinental railway and declared that that railway was not inaugurated one moment too soon; and I assert that there is not a man of any responsibility on the Government side who holds his seat here to-day who was prepared to go to the people in 1911 and declare that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had done wrong when he asked the people in 1904 to build this railway.
In 1908 we had the scandal election; that was the time when charges of all kinds were hurled against the Government of the day. The aftermath of the activities of that period were statements made upon irresponsible platforms and in the nondescript press throughout the country as to the enormous corruption that was going on in connection with the construction of the Transcontinental railway.
When hon. gentlemen on the other side have nothing else to talk about, they allow their imaginations to run riot, and they make absolutely irresponsible assertions in regard to this question on the platforms and in the press. When by a curious turn of fate they were given the responsibility of dealing with the affairs of this country, they tried, through the Morine commission, to make good the charges that had been hurled against the late Administration; but when Morine made his exit, when the investigation being conducted by the commission of which he was the chairman met with a sudden death, hon. gentlemen found themselves upon the horns of a 144i
dilemma. They had to invent something new along the same line; so, they said, here is the Transcontinental railway; we will proceed to appoint <two commissioners about whose opinions we have absolutely no doubt. We will pick out men this time who know their business, and we will provide conditions under which they will bring in some kind of a report which we can use as political material. They disregarded altogether the effect of such a report upon the credit of the country. I am sure that many hon. gentlemen who sit opposite know, from the advice which they have received from business men in their constituencies and elsewhere throughout the country, that a great mistake has been made in connection with this report. The hon. Minister of Finance does not sleep on any easy bed these times; by every mail communications from London and elsewhere tell him of the gross error that was made by this Government in sacrificing Canada's credit in order to make good their pre-election assertions. Why did hon. gentlemen not have a parliamentary investigation if they believed that an investigation was necessary? Why did they not appoint a special committee of the House of Commons to deal with the matter, and to deal with it in the clear light of day?
My hon. friends have no confidence in themselves; and, being afraid to trust themselves to dp the partisan work, they got two partisans to do it for them. Why was not a Royal Commission of judges appointed? Why did not hon. gentlemen opposite, if they believed that there was .any wrongdoing in connection with this matter, select from the bench of Canada men who are absolutely free from any suspicion of partisan taint, and ask them to investigate the whole matter and bring in a report, the statements contained in which would be considered of some value? My hon. friends could not find anybody on the bench who would suit them, and they selected their own commissioners. They were hand-picked men.
At North Bay, in the constituency of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, lived Mr. Gutelius. Born in the United States, and having been 17 years in this country, Mr. Gutelius, although occupying positions on different railways of this country, did not think enough of Canada or of British institutions to take out his naturalization papers. 'Well,, says the Minister of Railways, I have a proposition to

make to you, Mr. Gutelius. You go on this board and investigate the Transcontinental rail-way construction; do the thing right, according to my taste, and when you get through I will make you general manager of the Intercolonial railway at a salary of $20,000 a year. All I want you to do is to become a British subject and prepare this report as I would like it prepared. That was a very tempting offer. My hon. friend the Solicitor General said: Why make'this imputation with regard to Mr. Gutelius when the hon. ex-Minister of Railways 0noted Mr. Berry? I will tell you why. There is a great deal of difference between a witness giving evidence and an alien coming into this, or any other British country and working under a commission from the Crown in which he .has not sufficient confidence to swear allegiance to. After Mr. Gutelius was appointed, he became naturalized and entered upon this work.
And what about Mr. Staunton? Will any hon. gentleman on the other side say that Mr. Lynch-Staunton was not a partisan? There is not a man. in the province of Ontario who does- not know that Mr. Lynch-Staunton. has been one of the most active and aggressive Conservative partisans in the province for a long period of years. Whenever the Ontario Government wanted to obtain legal services they sent for Mr. Lynch-Staunton.


An hon. MEMBER:: That was because
of his ability.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That may be right;
I am not saying anything about Mr. Lynch-Staunton's ability; but I am saying that, the Government having intimated that they were going to have a close and rigid investigation into the circumstances connected with a certain matter, and that they were going to appoint a non-partisan and impartial body to conduct that investigation, the members of it, no matter how able they might be, should not be men who at the same time are in the pay of the Tory party.


Mr. LALOR:: He is a good Irishman,
too.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not know
whether he is of the same stripe as the Minister of Militia and some other hon. gentlemen opposite; of course, in the estimation of some hon. gentlemen, the question as to whether or not he is a good 
Irishman would depend on whether he came from the North or from the South. I am afraid a good many other gentlemen on the other side would not think very much of the Irish party of Mr. Lynch-Staunton, so far as I have any knowledge of it. But while he was conducting this alleged investigation he was in the pay of the Ontario Government. He went to Detroit in February of last year and appeared before the International Joint Waterways 'Commission as counsel for the province of Ontario; so that while drawing his $25,000 from this Government for his services in connection with this commission he was being well paid by the Ontario Government for the specific services which I have mentioned. Is there a man in this House, is there a man anywhere, who knows the ethics of matters of this kind, who thinks that Mr. Lynch-Staunton was an absolutely impartial gentleman who would approach the consideration of this matter with that judicial feeling which ought to be possessed by any man, who undertakes to perform such an important duty for the Government of the country? Everybody knows that the suggestion of his being impartial is absurd, in view of the facts which I have stated.
These two gentlemen were selected to save the face of the Conservative party after the failure of Morine, and what they have given to this country is not a judicial finding or determination, but a political pamphlet, nothing more or less. It is no wonder that my friend Mr. Cahan, the former leader of the Conservative party in the province of Nova Scotia, and a close personal friend of the present leader of the Government, not only took the advantage of the occasion of his addressing a body of students in Montreal to denounce this tribunal, its ex parte proceedings, its methods of dealing with important public questions and its utter disregard of the rights of the public, but, being specially interviewed, sent broadcast throughout this country his disapproval, as .a Conservative, of the farce that has been enacted before the Canadian people in the appointment of these men and their utilization as commissioners to investigate the construction of the National Transcontinental railway.


John Hampden Burnham: Whom would you have appointed?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have already intimated to my hon. friend that the proper course would have been to have had at least a parliamentary investigation or, fail-

mg that, to have appointed a royal commission of judges.


John Hampden Burnham: You admit it should
have been done anyhow; that is the great point.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is very clever.
I will admit this, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative party, after the Morine episode, saw that they were in a hole, and as they had talked so much in regard to the question of the Transcontinental expenditure and corruption, it would never have done for them to have appointed judges or to have had a parliamentary investigation in the broad light of day. There was only one thing for them to do and that was to appoint these men whom they especially selected, and especially provided in advance that these men would make the report which they did, and as to that there can be no possible question.


Mr. BORDEN:: I desire to say that that statement is absolutely without foundation.
Mr. MACDONALD Which statement?


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member
stated that the Government had provided in advance the character of report which these gentlemen would make.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not say that.


Robert Laird Borden: I so understood him.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did say that this Government were in a position, that in order to save their faces they picked out two men whom they knew would make a report upon this question that would, as far as it could, save the faces of the Conservative party. That is what I isaid.


Robert Laird Borden: I desire to isay that the
Government knew nothing of the kind.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right hon. friend did not know .anything of the kind?


Robert Laird Borden: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then my hon. friend has the audacity to suggest to this House-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, ordeT.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not at all; that is
within order. If I cannot say that an hon. member has the audacity, I would like to know what I can say.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have only to say that according to some very well established English rules, the word ' audacity ' is hardly parliamentary.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would like to be
sure as to that. You have rather developed some new rules in regard to narrowing down the rights of the Opposition to use language in regard to this Government, and I would like to have some authority. If I cannot say that this Government has audacity, I would like to know how I can discuss their acts in regard to any question.
If audacity is not a quality that we are permitted to attribute to a Government whose acts we are discussing, what is it that one can say in regard to them? Nerve, temerity, or what other expression can I employ? If the leader of the Government did not know all about Mr. Gutelius and Mr. Staunton beforehand, there were other members of his Government who did know what kind of a report they were going to bring in, and I am sure ;my right hon. friend, whose denial I am bound to accept, can only speak for himself, because there are some other members of his Govern-nient into whose minds he cannot enter. My right hon. friend cannot question the assertion which I make, that there were members of the Government, who when Mr. Gutelius and Mr. Lynch-Staunton were appointed, knew the kind of report they would bring in and what they were going to say.
Mr. BORDEN I desire to say, as my hon. friend has appealed to me, that I do absolutely question that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You only question it?


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member said I could not question it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right hon. friend is not omniscient, and his knowledge in regard to governmental matters is confined,
I am sure, to matters that come within has own purview. I think he will toe bound to admit that there are members of his Government who have thoughts and conceptions in regard to matters that he cannot fathom.
After all these preliminary investigations, after all these questionings, after all this bartering with the American citizen who transferred his allegiance and provided this report for a permanent salary of $20,000 a year, after all that, when you get the document, the commissioners have not the audacity or nerve to allege that there had been any corruption in regard to the construction of the railway. You can search the report from end to end to find the slight; est allegation of corruption in connection

with the construction. Other things they did say. They went beyond the purview of the Order in Council appointing them to declare that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister of this country did not know what lie was talking about. Where do they do that? When they declare that this line of railway from Quebec to Moncton should never have been built. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister was a strong supporter of the proposition that the line from Quebec to Moncton should be built. My right hon. friend in his own constituency, in a manifesto which he issued in newspapers throughout the province of Nova Scotia, previous to the election of 1904, declared that he was the best friend of the Maritime provinces, he wanted to build this railway from Quebec to Moncton; but he wanted to build it as a Government work.


Mr. CARVELL:: He said so in St. John.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: So that when these
commissioners undertook to say in the report, as they did say, although they were not asked to do so by the Order in Council, that:
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
They said they knew more than the Prime Minister about the matter.
Is the province of New Brunswick the only province by the sea? My right hon. friend and I come from a province which has some pride in its place in this Confederation. We have been wont to look forward in after days to a condition under which there shall come to us there, at the entrance of this Dominion-the outgoing place and the incoming place of Canaida-the trade of all this country behind. A local road in New Brunswick? Is that what the Premier told the people of our province in 1904? Let me give you what he did say in Halifax on October 28, dealing with the charge that he was not the great friend of Halifax and its port and that he was not actually in favour of this Quebec-Moncton section. He said:
My friend the Minister of Finance spoke of some remarks of mine speaking- at the Empire Theatre on the 7th of the month referring to the Quebec-Moncton section of the road.
If Mr. Fielding meant to state that I was opposed to the building of a shorter line between Moncton and Quebec he stated that for. which he never had and has not now the slightest warrant.

That is where my right hon. friend stood in 1904, and that is where he still stands. What was said by Mr. T. E. Kenny, an old member of this House and the first colleague of my right hon. friend. Speaking in Halifax in October, 1904, Mr. Kenny said:
We should vote for Borden and O'Mullin supporters of a party pledged to build a road across the continent as a great work with its termini on the Pacific and on the Atlantic in Canadian ports.
And how was that railway ever going to get down to Canadian ports by a shorter route if it had not been built from Quebec to Moncton? My right hon. friend issued a manifesto which appeared in the Halifax Herald of October 26, in which he said:
The Government, (that is, the Liberal Government) seeks to impose upon the people liabilities amounting to at least $150,000,000.
Just fancy these gentlemen whose souls are vexed over this question, of cost.
Their leader knew what he was talking about. In 1904 he told the people of Nova Scotia that the road would cost $150,000,000 under conditions which absolutely failed to safeguard our national interest. My right hon. friend said: I am in favour of the principle of a new transcontinental railway stretching from sea to .sea. I am a better friend to you than is my opponent, because I want to have a Government-owned railway, not a railway-owned Government. And yet this commission that he appointed-I do not think he really did appoint it, and I think he is ready to disclaim his responsibility for it-this commission says that that section should never have been built at all, although the reference never asked their opinion on that point. The commissioners further say:
This commission does not think that the National Transcontinental railway should have been constructed east of L6vis which was done at a cost of $35,000,000
While there may be some reason for the construction of a railway through the timber districts in the eastern portion of the province of Quebec, the construction of the railway from Edmundston to Moncton was not justifiable because of the lack of local business along this line which two years of operation has already proved.
That statement shows that the commissioners not only were reckless in their inquiry into facts, but did not know what they were talking about as regards conditions in the eastern part of the Dominion. Mr. Gutelius had nothing to do with railroading in eastern Canada previous to his appointment as commissioner. If Mr. Staunton ever came to the Maritime prov-

luces, and had a glimpse of the line extending eastward and of the seaports, I think he came down there impregnated with the narrow view which has already been expressed by isome hon. gentlemen, that there should have been a railroad constructed from Cochrane to Winnipeg so that all the traffic in the winter months might come down through the province of Ontario and go on to Boston and other American ports. That would have been a nice thing for the eastern seaports	of	this	Dominion. Splendid
Canadianism that! The commissioners did not care a snap whether the terminals of the Transcontinental were in Canada or not. They were perfectly willing that all the great trade of the West in the winter months should be drained down through the province of Ontario and on to Boston and New York. These gentlemen dealt with something they had no business to deal with. They declared that the present Prime Minister did not know what he was talking about in 1904 when he declared that the eastern section should be built and that it -would be a good thing for Canada. The Prime Minister stands for that to-day. He would not dare to go into Nova Scotia and say that for all the days to come we in our little province are not to share in the development of this great Hinterland; that the Transcontinental line shall not bring the trade of the West to the eastern ports of this country. Out in British Columbia to-'day guarantees, assistance and subventions are given with a lavish hand, and for what purpose? To get one more transcontinental railway into that province? To get four. The Grand Trunk Pacific is already going to Prince Rupert, but the assistance of this Gov-eminent and of the provincial Government is given for the purpose of getting the Canadian Northern railway to make its terminus at Port Mann. British Columbia can have four transcontinental terminals, but poor Nova Scotia is told by Messrs. Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton, who are bigger than governments and bigger than the Premier of this country, that the Government and the Prime Minister of this country do not know what they are talking about, and that Nova Scotia cannot have this railway-that the line east of Ldvis should not have been constructed.
I am sure that my right hon. friend agrees with me on that phase of the report, and I think he will agree with me on another phase; that he and his Government are responsible for every dollar that was spent
in connection with the construction of the Transcontinental since September 30, 1911. There can be no question about that. The exhibits furnished with this report give a statement of the cost of the road up to September 30, 1911-not money, mark you, that has been actually paid out at the time, but the amount of work done and the value of it as estimated by the engineers. Taking all this work, I find that the total amount done up to September 30, 1911, was $108,730,700. A very large proportion of that amount had not been paid out at that time. The payments were made subsequently, and a most conservative estimate would show that no more than $95,000,000 was paid out by the late Government previous to their going out of power. If the estimate made by this Government as to the cost of the road is correct, then this Government is responsible for an expenditure of at least $67,000,000. This commission takes everything that was done down to the date of the report as if the late Government was responsible for it all. Have gentlemen opposite been so very careful in regard to this matter? Take for instance the cost of grading. The amount spent for grading up to September 30, 1911, under the late Government, was $64,706,000; and taking the estimated cost of grading, which is $107,000,000, it will be seen that this Government has spent $42,359,000. This Government, its officials, and its commissioner are responsible for that payment. Not only that, but they are rseponsible for the final settlement with the contractors. They were the men who had to settle with the contractors, and if there was any improper classification, if there was any unususal expenditure in any department, the men that had to O.K. those .accounts, whose certificates had to be obtained before a single dollar was paid, were the chief engineer and the present commissioner; so that for every dollar expended after September 30, 1911, this Government is entirely responsible. What was the oondit'on of affairs at that time? Length of road, 1,804 miles; 1,866 miles of grading Lad been completed and 1.659 miles of track laid down; bridges were completed to the extent of 82.75 per cent.; telegraph lines had been built on 982 miles of the road; cost of the road per mile up to that date, $63,700. All that is included in the expenditure of $108,000,000, and the payment of a large portion of that amount was still held in reserve, That phase of the situation has been entirely ignored by the commission.

Mr. A. DeWITT FOSTER: Who signed the contracts?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What contract are you talking about?
Mr. A. DeWITT FOSTER: All the contracts that were let.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do you not know ? It does not make any difference who signed the contracts; the question of how much should, be paid under the contract was a question to be determined by this Government.
Mr. A. DeWITT FOSTER [DOT] They could not determine the terms of a contract already let.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Could they not? The amount that was to be spent under the contract could only be determined since 1911 by this Government and its friends.
Mr. A. DeWITT FOSTER: The Teport has only been in for about two weeks, and the Government could not have known two years ago what was in that report.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I knew the -hon. member did not know what he is talking about. What I am saying is that since 1911 Mr. Leonard, the appointee of the Government, and he alone, could determine what money was to be received by anybody. The fact is that if this railway has cost $161,000,000, at least $65,000,000 of that will have been spent entirely and solely upon the responsibility of the Conservative Government, who have been in control of that enterprise since September, 1911, and it is just as well the country should know that.
Why have these commissioners dragged in every possible item in order to make the expenditure seem large? The hon. member for St. Hyacintbe (Mr. Gauthier) very ably pointed out the injury which was being done to Canada by these misrepresentations. Why did. the acting Minister of Railways want to add the cost of the Quebec bridge to the cost of the Transcontinental railway? Why did he try to make out that the Quebec bridge was part and parcel of that railway project? Why did be try to make it be believed that if it were not -for the Transcontinental railway the Quebec bridge would never have been considered? I had the curiosity to look up something about the history of the Quebec bridge, and I find that the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) speaking at a banquet in Quebec in 1907, declared that the Conservative, party and not the Liberal party was entitled to credit for the in-
ception of the Quebec bridge. He told his listeners that the Conservative party had promised it, and he said:
The Quebec bridge has been promised us by important Conservatives. That promise was not kept, and that was an error. The electors should always insist upon the accomplishment of any promise made, and they should prefer that fewer promises should be made and these carried out.


Mr. MURPHY:: Who said that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Hon. Mr. Pelletier said that, speaking at a banquet given to the Prime Minister. Then Mr. Monk, the late Minister of Public Works, speaking in tlie Transcontinental railway debate said:
I mention this because I have always been favourable to the Quebec bridge project, and the Conservative-party, as members of this House are well aware, were committed to assist in the construction of this bridge before IS 96.
Therefore, hon. gentlemen opposite, in discussing this matter, will please remember that on no less authority than the Postmaster General and the former Minister of Public Works, the Conservative party promised the construction of the Quebec bridge long before there was 5 p.m. any thought of a transcontinental railway.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Seven years before.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes. Let us look at one or two other features of this report. For the sake of carrying out the real purpose of this commission, Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton did not confine themselves to an error of half a million dollars here and there. They refer in one place to the money which was ' unnecessarily expended in building the railway east of the St. Lawrence river.' It worried these two great economists and statesmen to think that this national railway should have its termini on Canadian soil. They say that without including the section east of the St. Lawrence river, at least $40,000,000 was needlessly expended in the building of the road. I defy any man to go through this report from beginning to end, and, taking the figures set out by these two gentlemen that they total up more than $28,392,000. In some cases they refer to alleged engineering mistakes, or to wooden trestles having been used instead of steel, and they give specific instances which they repeat after including their cost in the totals; but taking every possible suggestion they make, they are between nine million dollars and ten

million dollars away above anything they have given details for. They speak of $40,000,000 having been needlessly expended, when, on their own figures, it is only a little over $28,000,000; but $10,000,000 is nothing to these gentlemen when the fair name of Canada is to be defamed for party purposes. Let me give another illustration of this. They say in this report that the classification prescribed in the contracts was ignored, and that the contractors were overpaid $3,300,000 on improper classification. But, taking the very figures they themselves give, their computation is $37,082 too much.
Whenever they speak of the Transcona shops they say that they are entirely too big; that only half the money need have been spent on them, and they always refer to them as having cost $4,500,000. But take the estimate of Mr. Grant, the chief engineer, as to the cost of construction, which you will find in these very exhibits, and his last statement shows that the cost of these Transcona shops would be $4,238,000, and not $4,500,000, so that these commissioners are $260,000 wrong there. Then, with regard to the Winnipeg terminals, you find that according to the engineers' statement of the cost up to date, these commissioners are $1,642,000 too high. All through, this report is grossly misleading. Why should these two gentlemen proclaim to the world that $40,000,000 might have been saved, when, after all, their star chamber investigation, after all their ex parte dealing with witnesses, browbeating them and distorting and misrepresenting the facts, the total amount they could gather together by the grossest exaggeration was only $30,000,000. But, when they wanted to carry out their object and to defame the country, $10,000,000 is a bagatelle to them. These gentlemen state that the alleged engineering mistakes on this railway cost the country $9,945,000, and it does seem to me that in regard to this question of engineering mistakes, hon. gentlemen opposite have, wittingly or unwittingly, misled the public mind to a very great degree. The suggestion is made that the commission were the people who decided what ought to be paid to a contractor. As a matter of fact, the commission had nothing to do with the matter, except to pay the amount certified by the chief engineer. This is what the statute says upon the subject. I am reading from chapter 71, section 18:
No money shall be paid to any contractor until the chief engineer has certified that th* work for or on account of which it is claimed has been duly executed and that such money is due and payable, nor, until such^ certificate has been approved by the commissioners.
Therefore, before any contractor on the Transcontinental railway could be paid for assembled rock or for solid rock, he had first to have a valuation made by the resident or district engineer. Their reports would have to go to the chief engineer, who was responsible for the ultimate determination as to how much was to be paid. The chief engineer would send the account to the commissioners, who had nothing whatever to do with the classification except to certify the account. There is not in this House an hon. gentleman of the legal profession who, after reading that section, .would dare to assert that, unless the chief engineer of the commission wrongfully and knowingly certified to a wrong amount, it would be possible for the commission to pay a single dollar improperly to any contractor. What were the other conditions? While this railway was being constructed in this northern land, from Cochrane east to Moncton, west to Winnipeg, resident engineers and district engineers were on the ground. These men were all young Canadians, many of them fresh from college, on the threshold of life, ambitious to succeed, knowing that unless honesty and integrity were the qualities they possessed, they could never come to the front in their profession. The district engineers and the resident engineers, who saw every ton of stone blasted and every shovelful of earth removed, were the men who could determine whether an excavation should be classified as loose earth, as common rock, or as solid rock. These were the men who sent the reports to Ottawa. Unless this House is prepared to believe that not merely the district engineers and the resident engineers but every chainman, every rodrnan, and every transit man, who saw what kind of material was coming out and who knew whether it should be classified as solid rock or as common excavation, were criminals, then there is not the slightest justification for this huge item of $9,000,000. Hon. gentlemen, for party purposes and in the heat of party argument will make suggestions against the Government of the day and hold it responsible for things, for which perhaps on examintion they will find no justification for their assertions. Any hon. gentleman who approaches this question of classification with a fair mind knows that the men who were on the work would know

whether or not there was wrongdoing. If he is prepared to say that these men were criminals, then I am sorry for him because I do not believe they were. Not only would they need to be criminals, but the chief engineer himself would need to be a criminal. He has been in that position for the last five years. Hon. gentlemen opposite must have confidence in him or they would not continue him in this position. He has certified to every dollar that has gone out of the public treasury of this country for the construction of this railway since the autumn of 1909. Hon. gentleihen know that that statement is absolutely true and cannot be controverted. The chief engineer for two years previous to the Liberal party going out of power certified to every dollar paid to any contractor or to any man for work done on the Transcontinental railway. Yet my hon. friends opposite let loose their dogs of war; they assert throughout this country that $9,000,000 were taken wrongfully out of the public treasury by this public servant, whom they recognize as being competent and honest and whom they continue in office until this very day certifying to every dollar that is paid out. Was ever a more grotesque position presented to the people of any country than the one held by hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to this matter?
Who appointed the subordinates? It is on record in the public documents of this country that every man appointed under the regime of Mr. Lumsden was recommended by him. Every man appointed since Mr. Grant became chief engineer was recommended by Mr. Grant. These men had toiled in the northern wilds; they had been engaged in this pioneering and preliminary work and had done their duty. They had received the ratification of the Government of the day previous to 1911 and the ratification of this Government every day and every hour .through the chief engineer. Then Mr. Gutelius goes out and inspects the work. He looks at a cut and says: Why, the man that was here when this cut was made does not know anything about it. It is true that the stone that was blasted and the earth that was removed are now lying in an embankment perhaps hundreds of feet away; but I am Mr. Gutelius; I know more about it than the man who was here, or than Mr. Col-lingwood Schreiber or Mr. Kelliher or Mr. Woods or Mr. Gordon Grant. I know more about it than they do, although they went over all this territory and looked at every bit of excavation where any exception was 
taken to the classification. They formed their opinions, they certified to every dollar; they paid the money. I know more, says Mr. Gutelius, than all these gentlemen do, although I am only coming here four or five years after the line has been built and when trains are running over it. After the snows of the winter have come and melted away in the spring and after all the changes that come with nature's changes have come and gone, still this great man, Mr. Gutelius, knows more than all these people. Of course Mr. Lynch-Staunton does not know anything about engineering; he does not pretend to do so. Mr. Gutelius, I am told, knows something about engineering. He comes before the Canadian people and says: Although all these men were toiling and working on that railroad, I know more about it than they do, though I never saw the material, and in regard to high classification, ploughable clay and overbreak, he said these men had allowed $3,362,000 too much and a lot of items peculiarly within the knowledge of the engineer constructing the road should be entirely wiped out. Then he totals up all the alleged mistakes of these men who have been working on that railway for seven long years having everything certified to by responsible men and particularly by the chief engineer, whom the Premier of this country continued in office, and whom he proclaimed to the world as an honest man. The people of Canada are asked to believe this Mr. Gutelius who says that he has examined the work and that $9,000,000 might have been saved by these men. After all that, the people of Canada are asked to believe this grotesque proposition -that this man, Gutelius, could blow into this country after ali this was over and proceed to tell where $9,000,000 might have been saved. I say this proposition is so ridiculous that all that is necessary is to let the clear light of day shine upon it in order that we may understand it.
Now, Mr. Grant went over this question before. Mr. Grant was the arbitrator to determine these things. And this is what he says as to the value of the examination that could be made of a cut from which material had been taken. I quote from the evidence in the Lumsden investigation-Appendix to the Journals, of the House of Commons, volumn xlv, page 535:
Q. You told us, Mr. Grant, that even with very experienced engineers making a very cursory and very superficial examination of cuts, such an examination as Mr. Lumsden has described to us as made by the arbitrators in the first arbitration, would be insufficient to form

any opinion that would be at all reliable?-A. Oh, I don't think any engineer unacquainted with the work can go into those cuts now and they have been done for two or three years and form a judgment without considering very carefully what he is doing, and questioning the engineer who is on the ground, and getting all the information from him that is possible and also examining the material in the fill that came out o,f that cut, because when you go in a cut you see the sides, you don't see the material that is taken out of it.
The effect of that answer is to show that the men who came along inspecting in after days would have to get back to the engineer who was there when the work was done. So, the question was naturally asked Mr. Grant:	*
Q. While acting as assistant district, engineer or as inspecting engineer or as chief engineer, did you ever acquire any knowledge that would lead you to suspect the good faith of any of the engineers classifying?.-A. I did not.
Q. There may have been some errors of judgment, but you are satisfied that there was no bad faith on the part of the engineers classifying?.-A. I am perfectly satisfied. The proof of that is that the same men are on the line to-day, and if I suspected them of bad faith they would not be there.
In face of that testimony of the gentleman whom this Government hold out to the people as the responsible man who is to carry on this construction, of what use is it of Mr. Gutelius and Mr. Lynch-Staunton to come here with this party report, this political pamphlet, intended to misrepresent the political history of this country?
Another point in this connection should be noted. We have heard a good deal about classification. Hon. gentlemen have talked a good deal about that and have told us just where this country was losing three or four million dollars. Who ever heard of 'assembled rock'?-they ask. But Mr. Gordon Grant said that there were to be found in the Laurentian range, two particular districts, F and B, in which this material was to be found, which could only [DOT]be described as ' assembled rock ' and must be classified accordingly. I will just give Mr. Grant's evidence. I may say, we have heard a good deal about the McArthur contract. Having had the opportunity to go from Fort William to Winnipeg over this line, it seems to me that if bon. gentlemen opposite had wished to arrive at a fair conclusion in regard of this matter some of them at least would have taken a trip over that part of the road. There they "will find conditions which involve railway work of the heaviest kind to be found anywhere in Canada except in the Rocky mountains.


George Perry Graham: Not even excepting the
Rocky mountains,


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, the heaviest
kind of work. Here is Mr. Gordon Grant's evidence, page 534:
Now on the McArthur contract-if you do not know of course you will tell us so-can you give us an idea of the proportion of ledge rock and of assembled rock-A. Well, so far as I am concerned, this question of over-classification to me is a tempest in a teapot, and to illustrate that let me take the McArthur contract: there have been 15,200,000 yards of material moved on that contract.
Q. 15,200,000?-A. Somewhere about that. About 6,300,000 yards of solid rock. Now, about
350.000	yards of that is assembled rock and no more. Therefore if the whole mass were disputed, which would be absurd, you would not have much to kick about.
Q. Out of 6,300,000 yards of rock there is only how much of assembled rock?-A. About
350.000	yards.
Q. About 350,000 yards?-A. That is all they can dispute.
Q. And there is no dispute about the rest of the rock? The only dispute is about assembled rock?-A. So if you turned the whole thing into loose rock, which I say would he absurd, on the face of it, you would not have more than
300.000	yards to kick about.
Here is the duly accredited chief engineer of the Transcontinental Cbmmission recognized by this Government and held up to the Canadian people as responsible for every dollar spent on that line-and to he there, I suspect, until it goes into operation-who declares that this whole question of over-classification, which is being made the basis of misrepresentation in this report, is nothing but a tempest in a teapot.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Of course, my hon. friend knows more about it than Mr. Grant does. Now, let me quote from page 547, with regard to this question of assembled rock:
Q. Now, where you have found assembled rock, as I understand on district B there were very large quantities of assembled rock, and that assembled rock is taken out would It be feasible to put that with a slope similar to ledge rock when that is removed ? A. No, it would not; It would not be safe to do so, because assembled rock as you know consists largely of boulders, and that material won't stand up for any length of time on a slope of J to 1. It will for a certain time, but it is not safe. Therefore for the sake of safety all slopes on assembled rock cuts had to be flattened out to 1, and in many cases to 1J to 1, which of course increased the quantities to a very much greater amount than was estimated.
Q. I suppose wherever this assembled rock existed, the portion outside the theoretical slope for ledge rock would probably be greater

than that within the slopes, wouldn't it ? A. Yes, in the case of 1J to 1 slope it would practically double the quantity.
Q. Could that have been foreseen in any way, Mr. Grant ? A. No, it could not.
Q. Is there any fault to be attributed to anybody in connection with it ? A. None whatever.
Now, I referred a short time ago to the fact that $60,000,000 of the cost of this Transcontinental Tailway lies at the door of hon. gentlemen opposite. If they wanted to economize, if they wanted to reduce this amount of expenditure, the estimate of which they have given to the country, the power is with them. One would think, to hear them talk, that the Liberal party were still in power controlling the construction of the Transcontinental. But it is two years and a half since the Liberal party went out of office and their responsibility ceases. Hon. gentlemen opposite, through their officials, are the mm who have to certify the payments for contractors. Not only must Mr. Grant certify, but their specially .appointed commissioner, Mr. Leonard, who does not seem to please the Winnipeg Telegram, but who has the confidence of the members of the Government, and who is supposed to be especially the watchdog of the treasury in this matter, must certify to everything. We have heard a great deal of the McArthur contract. I was surprised, on looking over the Auditor General's Report, to find that this Government was paying out money with a liberal hand. In the financial year ending March 31, 1913, they had paid out, largely to contractors, $13,766,000. When they, came into office, and so became responsible for this work, they were in this position:
They found that a large measure of security had been provided by the wise forethought of the men who were dealing with the matter when the Liberal party was in power. The final estimates had all been passe 1, every dollar of security was in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite. This is the statement of Mr. Grant on page 539 of the report of the special committee:
Q. Well, in the matter of both over-classification and overbreak, I want to come back now to the position of the Transcontinental Commissioners. No final estimates have gone out with respect to any of this work in which there is in your opinion some over-classification and some access of overbreak allowed. There are no final estimates gone out at all?- A. There are no final estimates gone out at all.
Q. It is all subject to revision and correction?-A. Yes.

Q. Now, the Transcontinental commissioners have certain securities and guarantees. What do these guarantees consist of?-A. Practically speaking, about three times as much money as there is in dispute on any contract.
Q. So that taking the extreme view of all the classification, and of all the overbreak that is said to be allowed in excess of what ought to be allowed, the commission to-day has absolute security in cash?-A. For double the amount.
Q. For double the moment anyway?-A. Yes.
Q. And then in addition they have all the plant as security?-A. Yes.
So that when hon. gentlemen came into power they had the whole matter in their own hands. If there was over-classification; if any one of the hon. gentlemen on the other' side who talked so loudly in the House and out of the House previous to September 30, 1911, knew that any contractor had obtained money improperly, he and his party could have seen that the country got it back. Have we heard of anything of that kind? No; hon. gentlemen have gone along paying out money to M. P. and J. T. Davis

the gentlemen whose names have been bandied about in this House during the last ten days by hon. gentlemen on the other side. Last year this Government paid to M. P. and J. T. Davis upon contracts 7, 8 and 9 something like $869,000.
Then there was Mr. Fauquier. Our friend the Solicitor General the other night, when the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) was speaking, referred to what Mr. Fauquier had said about mass. For curiosity-and I may say that I am going to watch the Solicitor General very closely in future when he quotes evidence-I referred to the evidence of Mr. Fauquier, and I found not the slightest suggestion of any kind to warrant the assertion of the Solicitor Gen' eral in that regard. In fact, Mr, Fauquier told the commission that if they wanted to find out all about this matter, they should subpoena his brother, who had the documents and all the information in his office. But they did not subpoena his brother, and his evidence was not obtained. To Mr. Fauquier hon. gentlemen opposite paid out, down to March, 1913, $529,000; in fact, reference to the Auditor General's Report will show that hon. gentlemen opposite went on paying money to these contractors every day from the time they came into power, without questioning the payments in any way whatever. It was a case of the responsibility of the Administration on the one hand and the exercise of political claptrap on the other; hen. gentlemen went on paying money to these contractors without attempting for one moment to stand by their political claptrap game wherein they

alleged that the country should be protected in regard to this matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not permissible to apply the words 'political claptrap' to hon. members of the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have spoken in a general way about the Conservative party throughout the country who are playing a political claptrap game with regard to this matter. I think I can make that assertion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the words were applied to anything which took place outside this House, they would not be unparliamentary, but it is not permissible to apply them to members of the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I spoke of the Conservative party applying the claptrap game as a whole on the one hand, and of the responsibility of these gentlemen holding the reins of power, on the other. These gentlemen, who had to see to it that the Administration of this country was carried on, holding in their hands security for double the amount of any sum that is alleged to have been misspent, went on paying these (contractors without protest, on the certificate of the chief engineer of the road. Further than that, they paid to one contractor more than the amofunt provided |for by the award of the arbitrators. They do this on itbe one hand, and on the other hand they carry out this political claptrap business of talking about the country losing $40,000,000 in the construction of this road.
I want to make another citation with regard to the question of grades and the statement made by the chief engineer, Mr. Grant. He was asked the advantage of building the road up to a high standard, to which he replied that it would be a paying proposition, while the adoption of the lower standard would result in a loss, and a failure to earn the expense of running the road. I need not go into this question in detail; the hon. ex-Minister of Railways went into it at great length, and I would be taking up time unnecessarily if I were to make further reference to it.
Let us analyse some of the other assertions made by these gentlemen, in order to see how anxious they were to find some grounds for alleging over-expenditure. They said there was no necessity for building engine houses so permanently; that had cheaper engine houses been built, the oountry could have saved $800,000. With that divine inspiration which they assume in dealing with this whole question, they
say that only four station houses were needed in the whole of that northern country between Moncton and Quebec. This terrible Railway Commission, the report alleges, had the temerity to build sixteen stations, and because 'they did so, the country lost $204,000. What does Mr. Lynch-Staunton know about freight sheds and station houses? What does he know about how many station houses should be constructed in that northern country, or what kind of freight sheds should be built? Yet he has the unction to sign his name to a report which tells the country that $300,000 would have been saved if cheaper freight sheds had been built. Here is another amusing thing. Eighty-pound i-ails were used in the construction of the road. There is no reason why our friends opposite, if they were sincere in their desire to be true accountants and wanted to do what they talked about when they had no responsibility, should not have ordered that 65-pound instead of 80-pound rails should be used in the remainder of the road. But they did not do so; they went on laying the 80-pound rails; yet they charge this terrible Railway Commission with being extravagant in using 80-pound rails in the sidings, whereas if they had used only 65-pound rails the country would have been saved $340,000.
And so the game goes on. Then these gentlemen, who were in possession of all the wisdom that ever was heard of in regard to railway construction, said: Why, what was the necessity of double-tracking certain pieces of road up there? This commission appointed by the Liberal party had the temerity actually to double-track six miles, they thought it was in the public interest to do so; but they did not know anything about it; we know all about it, they should not have double-tracked that six miles, and so would have saved the country $679,000. And so they go on along these lines, and after they have strained every possible suggestion, gone into every ridiculous hole and corner, drummed up every suggestion of a fault that could be found, they arrive at the end of their labours without being able to allege that there was any corruption on the part of anybody connected with the road, and they have to misrepresent the total of the alleged errors which they find, to the extent of $10,000,000, in order to have a good round figure to talk about in the country. Who is responsible for this report now that has been laid before Parliament by this Govern-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friends do not think that is true. I would like some hon. gentleman on the other side to say what this Government ever did for the good of Canada.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: They have made you very tired.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend from Simcoe has been as peaceful as a lamb since he sat on that side of the House. We never hear his sweet voice now, as we used to hear it when he was in opposition.


William Humphrey Bennett: No need to now.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I can assure my hon. friend that I find myself in the best of health and am not a bit tired. I repeat, after two and a half years of Conservative rule my right hon. friend is still living in the past. All he can think of is some of the old stories he used to retail in 1908, some figments of the imagination like the yarns about the Transcontinental. He has created commissions to bring in Teports which injure Canada at home and defame her abroad. The action of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) in asking this House to declare that this report is one which should be absolutely condemned as untrue and as misrepresenting the facts is one which should receive the honest consideration of every hon. gentleman in this House. There is one consolation about this matter which the people of Canada are beginning to find out and are becoming more certain of day by day, and that is that the report has no basis in fact and is purely the result of partisanship, written by partisans and written for

a party. The one result of this report will be to hurt Canada in other portions of the world where the facts are not understood as they -are here. Everybody here will soon know how little weight should be attached to this report, and I hope that every hon. gentleman in this House will do his duty to Canada by supporting the motion of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways.
Mr. GEO. W. FOWLER (Kings and Albert):	Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman
who has just taken his seat (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) has followed the custom of the old-time lawyer who, when he had a really	bad case,
used to abuse the other side. Almost the whole of the hon. gentleman's speech was made up of abuse. He criticised gentlemen on this side of the House because they appointed a commission to lay before the people of Canada-whose trustee this Government is-the exact condition of affairs with regard to the Transcontinental railway and the tremendous expenditure of money connected therewith. That was a duty which this Government owed to the people of this country, a duty which they have well and nobly performed. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) says that this is a cheap report, that it is no good, and yet the ex-Minister of Railways spent seven hours in attempting to answer this cheap report, made by a partisan lawyer and a Yankee engineer of no aoeount whatever according to the hon. member for Pictou. Let me say that in all the history of Canada there has never been .a state paper submitted to Parliament higher in character than the report of Messrs. Staunton and Gutelius. It is -clear and concise, moderate in its tone-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. FOWLER:: -yes, and temperate in every way, showing absolutely no trace whatever of partisanship. It is strong, of [DOT]course. Why? Because the evidence on which it is based, is strong. Would you expect a watery namby-pamby report with such evidence as the commissioners had before them on which to base their conclusions? No. If they had been commissioners like the late Government would have appointed, then we might have expected a milk-and-water report, but they were not that class of men. They gave a report which is clear and concise, which covers the whole ground and there is not a word -or a line of that report that is not based .{Mr. Macdonald.{
on strong and conclusive evidence. And they published the evidence with the report. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat was not as eloquent in his peroration as lie usually is. He had such a bad case that he laboured very hard. I recognize the fact which every man in this House must recognize that we have no more eloquent speaker in this House than the hon. member for Pictou. When he has a good case it is a delight to listen to him, but I felt sorry and pained for the hon. gentleman when I isaw him labouring so hard with his case.
I could have understood some other Liberal members of this House talking blue ruin, but I thought the member for Pictou was more up-to-date. I thought he was more patriotic; I thought he had a greater regard for the welfare of Canada than to be guilty of such preaching. Has the gloom of adversity; have the cold shades of opposition, so chilled the heart of the member for Pictou that he imagines the gloom which possesses his soul, pervades the whole of Canada. I can understand that the hon. gentleman feels badly at being in opposition, because he was assured by his leader that were the Liberals returned to power in 1911 he would be one of the elect. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition will not deny, that while my hon. friend from Pictou may not have been so assured in words, he was given good reason to believe that if the elections of September, 1911, had turned out differently, he would have been taken into the Administration and had the word 'honourable ' prefixed to his name. And, Sir, my hon. friend from Pictou apparently imagines now that because his own soul is chilled with disappointment, and filled with deep and abiding gloom, his condition is that of all Canadians. The hon. gentleman need not worry about that.
The hon. gentleman speaks of browbeating witnesses, and he tells us that the National Transcontinental Railway Commissioners were brought before these commissioners and browbeaten. Can you imagine Simon Napoleon Parent being browbeaten by anybody? The hon. member (Mr. Macdonald) has a very vivid imagination, but it cannot reach far enough to encompass such an idea as that. Then, there was Michael Patrick Davis, the contractor; do you imagine that a man with the brazen brow of Michael Patrick Davis could be browbeaten by a little chap like Gutelius? Such an idea is absurd. Then Mr. O'Brien was upon the stand, Mr. O'Brien the great contractor; Michael J. O'Brien. I do not know what

the ' J ' stands for, but you can call it Jeremiah if you like, and the title Jeremiah would probably fit him, because now he is in the slough of lamentations, without any friends that are any good to him. His friend was the ex-Minister of Railways. There is one thing about Mr. M. J. O'Brien that I admire, and I admire it very greatly -he understands what gratitude means. There were many contractors who reaped fortunes when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, but they have not all shown their gratitude in the splendid way in which Mr. M. J. O'Brien did, on one occasion, in South Renfrew.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight oclock.


George William Fowler: When the House rose at six o'clock, I was referring to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). One statement made by him was that no one was deceived as to the cost of this railway. I do not know what the hon. member means by that statement, because it contains a serious reflection upon his leader, the exPremier of this country, who stated that, not the total cost but the total burden of cost, would be $13,000,000. I had the honour of being a member of this House at the time when the right hon. the present leader of the Opposition introduced the National Transcontinental Bill, and I heard him make that statement. Will the total burden of cost of this railway upon the people of this country be only $13,000,000? It will be many times that sum; yet the hon. member from Pictou says that no one was deceived. Was it because no one believed the right hon. gentleman? Is his reputation for veracity and for business ability such that, when he makes a business statement to this House and to this country, the people do not take it at its face value? I cannot read any other meaning than that into the statement of the hon. member for Pictou. We were told by the hon. the then Minister of Finance that, not the total burden of cost but the total cost of this railway from Winnipeg to Moncton, built up to the standard of 0.4 per cent and 0.6 per cent grades, would be $61,000,000. Did the people believe that statement? According to the views of my hon. friend the member for Pictou, they could not have believed that statement, because he says: No one was deceived. When you add the interest to the cost of construction, which is the cost to the 145
people of this country, you will find that the cost will be more than four times the estimate given by the then Minister of Finance; but my hon. friend the member for Pictou says that no one was deceived with regard to the cost of this railway.
He says that the present Government is responsible for every dollar expended upon this road from that memorable 21st day of September, 1911, a black-letter day in the record of my hon. friends opposite. The hon. gentleman must think he is talking to an unintelligent public. The people of Canada are too intelligent to swallow any such stuff as that presented to them by the hon. member for Pictou. If your honour had not decided that the words ' political claptrap ' were not proper in this House,. I could find no words more suitable to characterize this statement of my hon. friend's; but as you have already given that decision, I forbear making the statement.
Every contract for the construction of this railway was let before the 21st of September, 1911. Contracts that need not have been let until perhaps even now were let before" the election of 1911. In case anything happened my hon. friends opposite wanted their friends to have the pickings. Every contract wa3 let and they were specification contracts and the price was set opposite every item in the specification. There were instances where such things as this occurred. On items for which the contractor was to get $17 per cubic yard for concrete work, he sublet the work for $7 a cubic yard, making a rake-off of $10 without doing a stroke of work. Could the new commissioners do anything in regard to it? They were absolutely powerless; they could not repudiate the contract solemnly entered into by their predecessors in office. That is why the money was expended since the coming in of the present Government and the appointment of the new commissioners. It was not the fault of the contractors that they were receiving these huge sums. There was no fraud so far as the contractors were concerned. The fault and the fraud, if there be fraud-and if there was not fraud there was the grossest ignorance and incompetence and my hon. friends can take whichever horn of the dilemma they choose-and the incompetence and ignorance lie at the door of the commissioners appointed by the late Government.
My hon. friend the member for Pictou, who I regret is not in his seat at present, tried to make out that we were opposed to the building of the Quebec bridge. The Con-

building of the bridge was mooted a number of financiers in the city of Quebec thought it would be an excellent plan to form a company to build the bridge, and they organized themselves-into a corporation, the name of which, I think, was the Quebec Bridge Company, of which Mr. Parent was the president. It was a company with large capital, not less than $1,000,000, and as they were going to build this huge bridge, the greatest that had ever been built, it was necessary to have lots of money, and they made a call upon the shareholders of the company by which they produced the magnificent sum of $40,000, 4 per cent on the capital, which amount was put in the treasury. They then elected their directors; any man who had a large amount of money was elected director with a large salary, so that long before the bridge tumbled into the river they had drawn out through the directors the whole of the original' capital. They got a subsidy from the city of Quebec; they got a subsidy from the province of Quebec, and they got a subsidy from the Dominion Government, and then they started to build the bridge. The same M. P. Davis who made $3,500,000 out of the Transcontinental railway was the gentleman appointed by the Quebec Bridge Company to build the bridge. Having started the work, they drew the subsidy from the city of Quebec, they drew the whole or a part of the subsidy from the province of Quebec, .and they drew a portion of the subsidy from the federal Government. When Davis had his substructure nearly finished, the company did not have enough money to pay him. The federal Government would not pay them any more money under the terms of the subsidy, but they had taken power to issue bonds against this bridge. They owed Mr. Davis $160,000, and they handed over to him $400,000 in bonds to pay that debt of $160,000, which meant that his bonds were worth only forty cents on the dollar. The br dge was going to cost $5,000,000 or $6,000,000; all subsidies did not amount to more than $1,750,000; there was only $40,000 of the original capital in the treasury-it had all been drawn out by the directors-so it looked as if the bonds were not going to be worth much. No superstructure had been provided for, and there was no money to build it; it looked as though that M. P. Davis was an easy mark. But those who thought so did not know their man. What happened? Mt. Parent, who was a very influential man at that time in the province of Quebec, came to IMr, Fowler.]
Ottawa and induced the late Government to guarantee the bonds of the Quebec Bridge Company for $6,000,000; so, by the stroke of a pen, by the passing of the necessary Act, the bonds which M. P. Davis had taken at 40 cents on the dollar were worth 100 cents on the dollar-the result being that M. P. Davis was in pocket the sum of $240,000-this simple, innocent M. P. Davis who had been fooled into taking $400,000 of the bonds of the Quebec Bridge Company. Is there a man on the other side of the House so innocent as to suppose for one moment that there was not a secret understanding between Mr. Davis, Mr. Parent and the Government at Ottawa when he accepted these bonds at 40 cents on the dollar, that they were to be implemented by an Act to be passed to make the bonds good? That is how M. P. Davis made $240,000 out of the people of this country.
What thoughts the Quebec bridge calls to mind. If there ever was a monument to the incompetency and to the incapacity of ia government it is the Quebec bridge. Six million dollars of the public money of this country went tumbling into the river. But that was not the worst part of it. More than seventy men-mechanics, the very pick and flower of Canadian workmen -went down to death and burial in the waters of the St. Lawrence river. Let me say that to-day those unblessed bodies are terrible witnesses of the incapacity of the late Laurier Government. What was the matter? Why did the Quebec bridge fall? It did not fall because heavy trains had crossed upon it; it did not fall from any great earthquake that had taken place or any terrible storm which carried away the Forth bridge. Sir, before it was half way across the river it fell of its own weight. It fell because of blundering, faulty construction-and who was to blame? Oh, they say, the engineer was to blame. But before the bridge fell the late Government, not that wonderful Quebec Bridge Company, had assumed the responsibility for its construction. Whom did they appoint as the supervising engineer? Tire very man who designed the bridge, Mr. Cooper, the consulting engineer for the Phoenix Bridge Company, contractors for the bridge. By reason of that man's ignorance and unfitness for his job that bridge fell and carried these men to death, and caused the destruction and loss of $6,000,000 of the public money of this country. Was it not possible for that Government to have obtained men- competent to super-

vise the erection of the bridge? There were yet living that famous band of engineers who had designed and built the wonderful Forth bridge, that triumph of engineering skill. They could have been obtained. But no, so fond at that time were out friends of the American engineer that they thought they had to go across there and secure tne very man who was the consulting engineer for the Phoenix Bridge Company. What was our loss was Mr. M. P. Davis gain. He gained $240,000 by that Quebec bridge transaction, in addition to whatever sums he may have made on the contract. That is not the only thing. Take contracts 16 and 17. By these two contracts M. P. Davis made $740,000 without ever turning a hair.
I thought the defence of the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. 'Graham) on that was splendid. It stands out in my memory from his whole speech. Why, he said, if Davis had built the road we would have had to pay that $740,000 just the same. Was not that a splendid argument? Was it not a wonderful answer for a man who had filled the prominent position of Minister of Railways in a federal Government in this country? The only defence he could offer for a straight steal, a straight loss to the people of this country, of $740,000, was that if Mr. Davis had built these two contracts himself it would have cost that much just the same. Those tenders were called for at a time when they should not have been called for, when there was no necessity for calling for them. I say here without fear of successful contradiction, the facts show it and the fair inference to be drawn from the facts shows it irrefutably that that tender was let at the time it was let in order that some pet of the Government might be able to make .a large sum of money. There can be no question about that. No man is so innocent as not to realize that. Owing to the inaccessibility of the country tenderers naturally put their figures up. The work was to begin at once and to be completed at once. Davis puts in his tender, gets the two contracts and never goes near the place. He waits for eleven months and then sells the contract to O'Brien, Macdougall and O'Gorman for a rake-off of 10 per cent-and the commissioners agree. Who are the commissioners? Parent, the same gentleman who helped O'Brien to carry off the $240,000, the very same Mr. Simon Napoleon Parent. Ten per cent! And then they waited for months and a little work was
done. By the terms of the contract the whole contract was to be completed at a period when only twelve and a half per cent of the work had been done on 16 and nothing had been done on contract No. 17. What were they waiting for? Until Fauquier Bros, got their two contracts at either end of the work completed so that they could get in their supplies cheaply to this work and make this huge rake-off. So the contract was transferred, by the consent of the comipissioners, and Mr. M. P. Davis made his nice little rake-off of $740,000. So it is between him and his friend Parent. On the Quebec bridge he got $240,000 which, with this $740,000, makes in round figures $1,000,000 that M. P. Davis got without ever having been up there or done anything. But that is only a trifle, a trifle as light as air. What is a million dollars to a Grit contractor? It only helps him to be in a better position to open up the head of the barrel when elections come around. These were not the only transactions where Davis profited from the late Government. There was the lighting of the Cornwall canal, familiar to all of us who were members of this House in the old days when we were in the cold shades of opposition-but were not half as glum as our friends opposite, we did not cry blue ruin or think the country was going to the dogs because there was a certain obsession in the minds of the people and they allowed themselves to be governed by the party that never had the genius for government, and always made a blunder when unfortunately they got the reins of power, but it will be so long before they get them again that gentlemen sitting on the other side will all be gathered with their fathers long before. It was amusing to hear the hon. member for Pictou this afternoon bewailing the fact that this rascality in connection with the building of the Transcontinental railway had been uncovered, because of the effect it was going to have on the money markets of Europe. Yet my hon. friend from Pictou could stand in his place and say that this country was going to destruction, that the Minister of Finance of Canada could not sleep at night by reason of the awful condition financially of the affairs of this country-that would do no harm of course. I quite agree that it would do no harm, people know too well the reason for this awful wail that is going up from the other side of the House to take any stock in it or to have any confidence in it. I am glad my hon. friend has at length returned to the House. I hope he has had a good

dinner. I was lonesome without him. I wanted to see his smiling face across from me because however he may wail about blue ruin he is always smiling.
There is a small matter-but small matters like straws sometimes show which way the wind blows-the matter of farm crossings. I do not know whether reference has been made to the farm crossings in this debate, but just to give a palpable instance of the magnificently efficient way in which these commissioners handled this business I would point to the farm crossing known as Delisle farm crossing. Delisle had a farm of fifty-five acres, and he offered this farm to the commission for $3,500, little less than $70 an acre. The right-of-way agent reported that that was too much, and so they only bought 5.23 acres, for which they paid $100 an -acre, with damages of $277, and a further payment of $500 for damages. That made $1,300 altogether. The railway went across this man's farm, and it was necessary for him to have a crossing to get his cattle to water; so they enlarged the size of the culvert in order that he might drive his cattle through it. What did the enlargement of size of this culvert cost? It only cost $23,635. My hon. friend from Pictou did not observe that. The total cost, therefore, was $24,317, and they could have bought the whole farm for $3,500. There was another case, the Perron farm [DOT]crossing, but it came a little cheaper. The [DOT]extra cost was only $21,000. My hon. friend from Pictou is not the only gentleman who has made a speech in this House on this matter. I have in mind now an hon. gentleman opposite, the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Garvell). Has there ever been a subject discussed in this House upon which the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., has not been heard? I sit and listen to the hon. member for Carleton, and am amazed at the vast knowledge he possesses on every subject. I marvel, and I think e.an it be possible that one mortal mind can hold such vast stores of knowledge? He is a comparatively young man, and if he had devoted to study only those hours usually devoted, it would not be possible for him in the short time he has lived on this earth to have become the walking encyclopedia that he is to-day. Does he ever sleep, or does he spend the still watches of the night prowling about acquiring knowledge and more knowledge? We had a debate last year upon the Naval Bill. Some hon. IMr. Fowler.]
gentlemen doubtless remember it. You at least, Mr. Speaker, remember it, because you were obliged, by virtue of the high office which you hold, to sit and listen to those long, dreary speeches. It seems to me that the emoluments of that office and the dignity that pertains to it are dearly bought when you have to listen to such speeches as were made on the Naval Bill by our friends on the other side of the House. My hon. friend from Carleton made a speech on that subject, and told us all about the construction of warships, ancient and modern, from the triremes of ancient Borne to the caravels of Columbus, from the flat boats of the Bideau canal to the super-dreadnoughts of Great Britain. All were an open book to him. He not only constructed the hulls of the ships, but filled them with the magnificent machinery that propels them. He launched two units, one for the Atlantic coast and the other for the Pacific coast. He put in engines, and in the debate showed a knowledge of the building of an engine not surpassed by Parsons, the inventor of the turbine, nor by Kudyard Kipling, the writer of Mc-Andrews' Hymn.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. member is rather getting away from the point.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Speaker, I hope
you will withdraw your objection, as I am enjoying the hon. .gentleman's remarks very much.


George William Fowler: I am sure my hon.
friend is the last man to squeak; I know him too well. When it comes to agriculture, the hon. member knows all that pertains to that science. He is familiar with agriculture, from potatoes to peas, from milking a cow to grooming a horse, from the proper rotation of crops to the best soil in which to grow mushrooms. He can tell the Minister of Agriculture what sort of farm to select and where to select it. He has a thorough and complete knowledge of the subject. But the subject on which he is really at home is electricity. When he speaks on that subject you can see the veritable sparks flashing from his eye and the little blue flames playing about his corrugated brow. My hon. friend from Carleton can find nothing wrong with the conduct of the commissioners charged with the construction of the Transcontinental. Could there be any act of a Liberal Government so bad, so heinous, that my hon. friend could find

anv thing wrong with it? Or could the present Adm'nistration do anything, however good, that my hon. friend 'would not find fault with? So my hon. friend's criticism of the report of this commission is robbed of a weight that it might otherwise have, when we know that he condemned it before he read it, simp'y because it was the report of a commission appointvote on this question. In the debate of September 22, 1903, when I was addressing the House, Mr. Logan, who was then a member, put this question to me:
May I ask the hon. gentleman If he is opposed to the building of the short line between Moncton and Quebec?
I replied, and my answer is to be found in ' Hansard,' 1903, volume 5, page 12046,
ed by this Government.
I just wish to refer to one other remark that my hon. friend made in his speech the other day. I was a little surprised that you, Mr. Speaker, who are somewhat tended with regard to the rules of debate in this House did not call the hon. gentleman to order. He .said:
Any man from the Maritime provinces who will vote to sustain this report is a traitor to this country and has not the best interests of his province at heart. I will watch this vote with interest.
I hope he will watch it with interest and with principle, too. If the hon. gentleman would only vote on principle and watch with interest, I am afraid he would have to leave his party. He further said:
I want to see what attitude the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will take on this question.
I do not think the hon. gentleman really had any question in his mind as to what attitude the Minister of Marine would take, nor indeed as to what attitude every other member from the Maritime provinces, on this side of the House, would take on the question. I was a member of this House in 1903, when this Transcontinental Bill was launched; I was not afraid then to state the position I was going to take witli regard to the line from Quebec to Moncton.
I am not one of those who votes for a measure simply because it brings a temporary benefit to my province. My interest in this Confederation is not bounded by the limits of the province of New Brunswick; my interest in my country extends from* Halifax to Vancouver, and from the boundaries south to the northernmost limits of Canada. I hold that man a traitor to his country, who, for the sake of some temporary advantage to a locality, is willing to vote for a measure which he knows in his heart is not in the best interests of the whole country. The hon. gentleman need have no uneasiness as to how the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will vote; he need have no uneasiness as to how every member from the Maritime provinces on this side of the House will
in these words:


George William Fowler: was to be $61,000,000, when constructed up to the standard of the contract. That was what was promised by the Government of the day, but there are other facts which stand out just as clearly and just as distinctly. These other facts are: that the bu-den, so far as the country is concerned, must be measured at four times the figure mentioned by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when he introduced the scheme. It is just as clear and just as distinct also, that instead of the entire cost being $61,000,000, it is over $240 [DOT] 000,000, counting the interest upon which the lessees will not pay rental, and in the face of that enormous excess over the estimated cost, the road is no better than the contract provided for.
. Then there is another salient point, and it is, that there has been a wanton waste in the construction, of more than $40,000,000 that has been filched from the pockets of the people, and that friends of the late Government have been improperly allowed to make huge and undue profits on the work. I say, Sir, that not in the history of Canada has such great incapacity and incompetence been shown by men charged with the performance of a great national undertaking, than has been demonstrated by the Laurier Government and its commissioners in the building of this Transcontinental railway.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North):: party and the people of Pictou county, that office for the time being. That is the happy position occupied by the hon. member for Pictou. How does his position compare with that of my hon. friend the member for Kings and Albert? The office was there in the gift of his leader, who had the goods to deliver, of exactly the quality that my hon. friend desired. In the hands of his leader was the office that my hon. friend was looking for, that he was praying for. He put himself in the market the moment the door was open; on the first day of the fair he was on the spot. What is the matter? A story is told of an old Irishman whose wife died. Her name was Sarah Jane Hinckley. He wanted to put a tombstone over her grave. The sculptor asked him: what will be the epitaph on your wife's tombstone?
' Oh,' he said, ' I do not know; I would just like to write across the stone there " What is the matter with Sarah Jane Hinckley; she's all right." ' I suppose our Sarah Jane Hinckley from Kings and Albert thought that he was all right for the position, for anything that the Prime Minister had to offer. But unfortunately the right hon. gentleman who had the goods to deliver did not think that the hon. member had the capacity or the qualities necessary. Has the hon. member the consolation of saying that his leader did not know him? Has he the satisfaction of saying: Well, if he had known my excellent qualities better, he would have given me the office? He cannot say that. From 1908 to 1911 his leader knew him intimately, and had some knowledge of him when he was not a member of this House. He saw him perform; he knew his points; he knew all about him. He saw his gaits in his various attitudes and positions. Therefore, the excuse cannot be that the hon. gentlemen did not know my hon. firiend. The reason is that his leader knew him too well. So much the worse for the feelings and the experience of my hon. friend when he comes to discuss the feelings of a disappointed office-seeker. He is somewhat in the position of the ubiquitous Irishman who was on his trial and was told, 'Pat, do not be frightened; you will get justice.' Pat said, That is just what I am afraid of-that I will.' My hon. friend was no doubt afraid that he would get what was coming to him, because of the knowledge his leader had of him, and the unfortunate thing is that he got just what was coming to him. These are my reasons for yielding at once to the vast experience and knowledge of my hon.
friend when he comes to deal with the heart-rendings of a disappointed office-seeker.
What did the hon. gentleman tell us about the contracts that were let and the subject which we are particularly dis-' cussing upon the motion and the amendment before the House? We were told by the hon. member that there were great irregularities, and he began to point them out by showing that contracts were not properly let and that there was squandering of money and dishonesty from one end of this transaction to the other. I am sorry that the mind of the hon. gentleman is so constructed that he cannot conceive of honesty anywhere except perhaps under his own hat. Does the hon. gentleman know of anything that was irregular, anything that savoured of wrongdoing with regard to this huge undertaking from Winnipeg to Moncton? There are some men in this country who cannot conceive of anything being done honestly or in a straightforward way. They think there must be something wrong about it. I submit that, on account of the latitude allowed the hon. gentleman to discuss the motives of parties and of men, 1 am quite in order in pointing out to him the history of his party in regard	to matters of this kind.
The people of Canada have been very kind indeed to the Conservative party. If ever there was a party in Canada or anywhere in the civilized world that has had opportunities of showing what it could do for its country, it is the Conservative party of Canada. They were honoured with the confidence of the people at Confederation and remained in power until 1873 under the leadership of Sir John Macdonald. Why did they lose the confidence of the .people in 1873? Simply because when they came to manage a big transaction in which great sums of the people's money could be handled rightly or could be handled wrongly, they handled those moneys wrongly and dishonestly-they squandered and stole the money of the people. And so they were turned out of power. But, as I have said, the people were indulgent to the Conservative party, and called them back to power in 1878. But can the leopard change his spots or the Ethiopian his skin? The Conservative party were but a short time in office when they were back at their old tricks. By reason of the tactics of their great leader, Sir John Macdonald, they remained in power down to his death. And

what was the cause of his death? He died broken-hearted because of the scandals that broke out around him; the tide of corruption ran too strong against him, the conditions were such that he could not face them; he died of a broken heart because of the sins of the party he led. Why did they go out of power again? Because of the Curran bridge scandal, the Soulanges canal scandal, the McGreevy-Connolly scandal, and the thousand and one other scandals that arose in connection with their handling of the public funds. I can understand why the hon. member for Kings-Albert cannot conceive of any political party doing things honestly, for he is a lineal descendant, and fellow-workman of the party whose record I have just related.
And what have they brought home to us in the fifteen years when we were in power under our distinguished leader? We were told year after year, and day after day, by those hon. gentlemen when they were in opposition, that the moment they got into power they would throw light upon the book-keeping, the contracts and all affairs involving money in the public business of this country and they said they would rend the heavens with the disclosures they would make of the doings of our Administration. The change of government came, and every public record which could be used for the purpose of disclosure was within their control. They have been in power for two years .and a half; they have had commission after commission, searching-party after searching-party, and down to this day they have not been able to put their finger on one fifty-cent piece of the people's money spent under the Laurier Administration that was not properly used. If there is anything that they know, I, as a humble follower of the great leader of the Liberal party, and as a humble member of this party, defy them to produce it, and to show the people wherein either as a party or as individuals belonging to that party we have done anything unworthy of the cause we represent or the name our party bears. It is an easy matter to slander either an individual or a party, especially here in this House where the cloak of privilege is thrown over the shoulders of the speakers. But I challenge the hon. member for Kings-Albert to say in the open the things concerning Mr. Davis that he has said in this House-that Mr. Davis was stealing money from the treasury of Canada, that he was receiving money, improperly and with the assistance

of the commission. If he will go outside and say these things concerning Mr. Davis and the commissioners, I promise him, he will get an answer from the Supreme Court of this country that will not be to his liking. It is easy to make general statements without anything to back them up; and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that there was not a single statement made by the hon. gentleman with regard to Mr. Davis or the commissioners that he could back up with facts. Now, I can very well leave the record of our party there. We have a leader, we have a record, we have a policy that received the commendation of the people. I think it ill becomes the hon. gentleman who has just addressed the House, or any gentlemen of the party to which he belongs, to throw stones at us in view of the rickety glass house in which they themselves have lived for the last forty years.
The hon. gentleman challenged us to show any statement in this Gutelius-Staunton report that was not backed up by the evidence. Well1, Sir, this report contains the statement that money was squandered by the Transcontinental Railway Commission in 'building a double-track railway, whereas they should have built a single-track railway. I had a controversy with my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) the other night on that point. And, with his usual capacity for acrobatic performance and jumping everywhere except where he was asked to jump, the hon. gentleman avoided the point. I asked him to show where in the Act it was provided that this was to be a single-track railway. And what did he do? He produced a contract under which the contractor bound himself to build a singledrack railway. And he was cheered to the echo by the ' intelligence ' of the hon. gentlemen who sit around him, and they all said, what a masterful lawyer that young chap is. The	hon.	gentleman endeavoured to prove that Davis had a contract to build a single track railway; of course, he said, that is the law; that is what is in the statute. I submit that that is not the law, and that is not what is in the statute. I do hope that the reputation of the member for North Ontario as a lawyer does not depend upon the assertion which he made in that regard. But this assertion was followed up to-night by another along the same line made by the hon. gentleman who has just addressed the House. What is the law on this point? Chapter 71 of the Acts of 1903 very clearly and specifically

slates the power of the commission in this regard. Section 8 says.:
The eastern division of the said Transcontinental railway extending from the city of Moncton to the city of Winnipeg, shall he constructed by or for the Government in the manner hereinafter provided and subject to the terms and provisions of the agreement.
There is not a word in this section about single track railway. Here is section 15 of the same Act:
The commissioners shall have, in respect to the eastern division, in addition to all the rights and powers conferred by this Act, all the rights, powers, remedies and immunities conferred upon a railway company under the Railway Act and amendments thereto, or such general Railway Act, in so far as they are applicable to the said railway, and in so far as they are not inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of this Act shall be taken and held to be incorporated in this Act.
My hon. friend appeared very learned the other night and got his friends to laugh because I took the point in law that there was no restriction on this commission as to what kind of railway they should build. Here is the statute from which I was quoting on that occasion, and which I stand by now. I say that the statute does no more than give the amplest power to these commissioners' to build any kind of railway they want to build. If I did have any doubt about this matter it was removed long before the hon. member for North Ontario spoke by the observations of the hon member for South Renfrew, who held this book out the other night to the Solicitor General and asked him to find in it or anywhere in the law governing this subject a provision that the road must be a single track road, and the Solicitor General, with all his ingenuity and ability to get rid of a difficulty, had to succumb to the inevitable and acknowledge that there was no such provision. What becomes of the challenge of the hon. member for Kings and Albert, directed to me as the next speaker, to point out in this report anything inconsistent with the facts and the evidence submitted? There is not in this report, from one end to the other, a particle of evidence which in the slightest degree supports the contention that only a single track railway should be built. I submit that even if the law said that a single track railway should be built, which it does not say, what was actually done is incidental to the building of any railway, that is, the making of provisions for double tracks and sidings at the termini of the road. There is, therefore, nothing at all in the point which hon. gentlemen opposite have attempted to make to the effect
that hundreds of thousands of dollars were lost in the double tracking of this road.
The hon. member foT Kings and Albert challenges us also to name one assertion made in the synopsis of the commissioners' report which is not backed up by the evidence. I want to give one more illustration, and then I am through with that part of my remarks. I wish to point out, not only to the House but to any person who may think it worth while to read my observations, that this report is not reliable because in dozens of instances statements are made which are not borne out by the facts. While I do not propose to go over the whole of these instances, I want to point out that when the evidence of any person is found to be defective in several material points, the value of the whole of his evidence is practically destroyed. Hon. gentlemen in this House who are lawyers and who have to deal with the weight of evidence, know that if a man goes on the -stand and is caught in stating what is not the fact on several points, so far as the court is concerned, while he may tell the truth in some instances, the value of the whole of his evidence is practically destroyed because he is found telling what is not true. I simply wish to apply that principle to this report, and to ask my hearers to conclude that the report is entirely unworthy of confidence. On page 6 we are told that the commissioners were wrong in their methods 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 sublet it to upwards of 100 subcontractors, 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 for that part of their work which they let to subcontractors.
For the proof of that statement we are referred to page 19. It may be tedious to you, Sir, and to the House to listen to the evidence to which we are referred, but a concise statement of facts is made on page 6 of the report, and at the foot of that page we find the words: ' See page 19.' One would therefore expect to find on page 19 of the report evidence to substantiate the charge that tenders were improperly called for. Here is page 19: ' Methods of award-

ing contracts and the consequences.' Permit me to read this evidence, and let me remind hon. gentlemen again that we expect to find on this page evidence of misconduct in respect to the calling for tenders:
As there are several important matters considered under this head, an explanation of some length is necessary to their understanding.
For construction purposes, the 1,806 miles of railway to be built was divided into 21 sections, the length and location of which will be seen on exhibit No. 9.
The commission furnished under forms (see exhibit No. 10), which included a unit price schedule for various items of work and material connected with the intended contract and named everything which the engineers thought might enter into the construction of the railway in all its ramifications. The tenderers were required to fill in the schedule with their prices per yard, per pound, etc., for excavating and furnishing material.
Before advertising for tenders the engineers made an estimate for each section of the quantities and cost of the various materials and works named in schedule expected to be moved or provided, to be in a position when the tenders were received by placing the prices mentioned in the tenders opposite these items to determine who are the lowest tenderers. A glance at the schedule will make the above quite clear.
The contractors were required to tender on a general contract to do everything towards the building of the railway excepting the supplying of the steel for the tracks, the building of steel bridges, depots, shops, warehouses, freight and fuel sheds. For some reason unknown to us although the other buildings were excluded the engine houses and section houses along the whole line were specifically included in the general contract and, for some other reason quite impossible to understand, it is provided in the contract that the prices named should not apply to engine houses and section houses. That this was deliberately done appears from the fact that the secretary drew the attention of the commissioners to the omission. Later (see 'buildings,' page 80) we will have something more to say about this peculiarity of the contract, which practically allowed the contractors to fix their own prices.
It was open to the commission to inform the tenderers of the quantities which the engineers estimated would be included in their contracts for the purpose of letting them know what the engineers thought as to the magnitude of the contract.
After consulting with Mr. Collingwood Schreiber, who strongly advised that estimates be not exhibited to the tenderers the commissioners decided that they would not give to the contractors this information, and would [DOT]furnish them only with profiles and plans. ( Exhibit No. 11.)
The contractors themselves considered that the engineers' estimates were strictly private. (Page 494.)
Where the information is not open to all it is most unfair that any one tenderer should ebtain 'inside information' because, if he knew the quantities he might put a very high price against an item on which he knew the engineers

had not estimated or had only estimated for a small quantity without any fear of the total under that head bulking so large in the entire price as to imperil his chances, or he might, as was done by Fauquier Bros., put a very low price on an item which the engineers had mistakenly estimated at a very large amount.
In awarding the general contracts the first step was to advertise for tenders. A copy of an advertisement is appended. (See exhibit No. 12.) In submitting their tenders the tenderers were to fill in in the column headed 'rate' their price for each of the 103 items enumerated.
That is the whole of the evidence on page 19. I submit to you and to the hon. gentlemen in this House that there is not one word there to substantiate the charge that tenders were improperly called for and that opportunities were given to some tenderers that were not given to others. These are at least two instances in which there is not the slightest evidence that there had been any wrong-doing as far as the commissioners were concerned.
We have a charge elsewhere in this report of the investigating commission that momentum grades should have been adopted and the statement that if they had been a great saving would have been effected. The investigators report that the commissioners and the Government were to be condemned, forsooth, because they did not follow such a course. We have the evidence furnished by the investigating commission themselves upon that very point, and what is it? Not one syllable from the officers whom the commissioners were obliged to follow and these rulings and decisions they were bound to observe, to support the contention made in this report that momentum grades should have been allowed and that they would have been equally effective and efficient in the construction of the road. Here is the evidence furnished by the commission, and I submit to you that there is no danger of their furnishing anything but what they had to; they would certainly not furnish anything favourable to the commissioners who had the construction in hand. On August 9, 1905, there is a letter to Mr. H. A. Woods, assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, from Mr. D. MacPherson, the assistant chief engineer of the commission. That letter reads:
August 9, 1905.
H. A. Woods, Esq.,
Assistant Chief Engineer,	.
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway,
Montreal, P.Q.
Dear Sir,-Would you kindly send me a set of your speed and distance diagrams for cal-

culating momentum grades, giving details of weights of engines used.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd) D. MaoPherson.
On August 14, there is a reply to that letter:
Montreal, Que., August 14, 1905.
Mr. D. MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Engineer,
Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-Replying to your letter, of August 9, asking for a set of our speed and distance diagrams for calculating momentum grades. I beg to say that we have not considered momentum grades, iri any way, in our located lines, and I question the utility of doing so on grades as low as we are using.
For details of weight and engines used, I have to say that we propose to use the new Government specifications for bridges, using the ' heavy' class of engines. This I understand gives the weight of engine and tender 355,440.
Yours truly,
(Sgd) H. A. Woods. Assistant Chief Engineer.
Then there is a letter addressed to H. D. Lumsden, Esq., as follows:
November 20, 1905.
H. D. Lumsden, Esq.,
Chief Engineer,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Attached is correspondence I have had with our district engineers and with the assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, on the subject of virtual grades.
You will see that some of our engineers are in favour of using same in certain places, and some are not. Mr. Woods is not in favour of using them.
Here is the point: Mr. Woods is the engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, who are to take over this road under a contract when it is finished, and we have here the statement that Mr. Woods is not in favour of using momentum grades:
They are of course only suitable for undulating country and not for long stretches of couth try on maximum grades.
Engineering has been described as the art of making a dollar earn the most money, and a judicious use of virtual grades at points where the locomotive engineer has a chance to ' take a run at the grade,' would undoubtedly save money in construction and admit of the line being operated with maximum virtual grades of 0.4 and 0.6 though the actual grades would appear on the profile as steeper. Of course, if we have actual grades of 0.4 in locations where the engine can get a run at them, they can be operated as virtual grades or less slope, and the haulage capacity of the engine will be greater than on a virtual grade of 0.4. Will you kindly let me have your ruling early as to whether or not we shall use virtual grades where possible? Please return file.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd) D. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Engineer.
The reply to this letter is as follows:
D. MacPherson, Esq.,
Assistant Chief Engineer.
Dear Sir,-In reply to your letter of the 20th inst. re actual and virtual grades. I am certainly of the opinion that we must adhere to actual grades so far as our construction is concerned, and all district engineers should be so instructed. Should any exceptional cases arise they should be submitted to this office, but you must bear in mind they must be approved by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company before they can be adopted. I return herewith all correspondence.
Yours truly,
(Sgd) Hugh D. Lumsden.
That seems to be all that passed between the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the engineers of the commission in connection with this matter. The question was brought up by MacPherson, who submitted it to the chief engineer of the Transcontinental. Mr. Lumsden said that it was not in compliance with the terms of the contract, and therefore there was no use talking any further about it, and he ordered his assistant engineer to instruct the engineers from one end of the line to the other accordingly, and that was the end of it. The commission appointed to construct this road were given under the Act a chief engineer who had general control of the whole work, absolute control over the final estimates, and actual control of what should be regarded as final in connection with the whole work. When such a man gives an opinion to the commission that a certain grade is to be followed, and that there is no use talking about anything else, would it be conceivable for one moment to suppose that the commissioners, who were bound to follow that man's advice, would put up their own opinion against his and say: We will change the grade and change the contracts? Where would this work have been if the commissioners had not followed the advice of the best authority on engineering which this country put at their disposal? They were bound to follow the advice given by the chief engineer, and in following that advice they did what was right. We have heard a great deal about clap-trap this evening. My references have no bearing on the language of anyone in this House, but I submit that, so far as business is concerned, this report is clap-trap of the worst possible kind, and not deserving of the least possible attention of this House or of any respectable portion of the community to which it is supposed to be submitted.

The investigating commissioners also raise the point that the Transcontinental Commission did not follow the advice of the legal authorities of the Government, and that if they had any legal authorities themselves they did not consult them. I submit that that is not fair; it is not what I would call honest. I find here upon the record a question put to Mr. Grant which strikes me as not being a fair and proper question. Mr. Lynch-Staunton asked him the following question:
Q. You were not aware that the commissioners were asked the opinion ot a legal adviser in respect to the matter of the construction that they were putting on this assembled rock?
Mr. Grant, with the answer practically put in his mouth, says:
No, I am not aware. So far as I know, they did not.
Q. Don't you think it was poor business for them not to have asked a legal opinion?-A. I suppose it would have been better.
But all this time Mr. Staunton had in his hand the letter and the opinion which appears on page 384 of the report in respect to this very subject of classification. If there is anything wrong about the classification-I do not agree for one moment that there is-that is certainly a matter not brought home to the doors of the commissioners. They accepted the plans and specifications put in their hands by the officers of the Government. By whom were those plans and specifications prepared? They were prepared by Mr. Woods, by Mr. Butler, and by the engineer who was the adviser of the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Collingwood Schreiber. These three capable men met and prepared the plans and specifications, approved them so far as they could approve them, and handed them over to the commission as being the plans and specifications on which the road was to be built. What remained to the commissioners was simply to accept those plans and specifications and to carry out the work to the best of their ability. If there was anything wrong with those plans it was certainly not for the commissioners to correct them, but for the experts of the Government.
I wish to bring to the notice of the House a very remarkable state of affairs. At the time this contract was entered into and the plans and specifications were agreed upon, there was in the office of the Railway Department of this country, as Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals and as chief engineer of that department, a gentle-

man of very high repute as an engineer, a gentleman of learning and ability and a man of affairs in this country-Mr. M. J. Butler. Mr. Butler, of all men had knowledge, from the origin, of those plans and specifications. He had intimate knowledge of how the building of this high-class road was arrived at, he knew what advice he had given to the Government with respect to it, and the responsibility which he took upon himself in connection with preparing the plans and the advice he gave in regard to the grade to be used on the Transcontinental. It would strike you, Mr. Speaker, that a royal commission that was looking for the truth and the truth only, a commission that wanted to get at the foundation of this matter and put the facts before the people, would have called as its first witness Mr. Butler. Mr. Butler knew all about the business better than any other man in this country. But what happened? The commission sat day after day, wandered about from place to place, took photographs and snapshots of themselves on the hillsides whenever it was pleasant and sunny enough for them to be out. From the day they were appointed till they handed in this report they were wandering all over the country taking evidence here and there. Mr. Butler was available to them; he was in the city of Montreal and could have been called at any time. His evidence would certainly have been valuable to the people of this country, and would have been the best evidence, and the kind of testimony the people of this country want; but from the day the commission started until they handed in their report Mr. Butler was not examined and the people of this country and the members of this House are not given the benefit of his opinion. If the commissioners wanted to get at the real facts, why did they not call Mr. Butler, the man of all others who knew all about it and could give an opinion as to why they decided on an 0.4 per cent grade one way, and an 0.6 per cent grade the other? I do not know why they did not call him-I do not want to make any harsh statements- but, judging from the general character of this report, and the aptitude with which the facts are suppressed and the facility with which matters are put forward which are detrimental to the interests of the Liberal party, and which throw a slur on the capacity of the engineers of the National Transcontinental Commission, 1 nave the right to draw the conclusion that the evidence of Mr. Butler was kept in the background because it might throw on this whole business

a light that they could not hide under a bushel, and so the only safe thing to do was not to examine him at all. Mr. C. A. Young was the commissioner in charge of the Winnipeg end of the work, and one would naturally suppose that he would be the first man they would call as a witness. He had to deal with the matter, and he was the best evidence, because he was on the spot and knew all about it, but Mr. Young was never called, and not one word of his testimony is. printed in ths blue book. What I have said about the evidence of Mr. Butler I say about the evidence of Mr. Young, namely, that his evidence was the suppressed by these gentlemen because it would not suit the kind of instrument they were preparing, and the contract they undertook.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Worse than that, they
had a discussion with Mr. Butler, and it was never incorporated in the evidence.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am told by the non. member that they had an opportunity of discussing with Mr. Butler what his evidence would be, and when they found it would not suit their purpose they left it out altogether. That is the kind of a report we are called upon to treat seriously.
1 wish to point out further, that so far as Mr. Lynch-Sitaunton put himself in opposition to the opinion of anybody else who had a right to give a definite and considered opinion in connection with this matter, he was found to be wrong. He put himself forward as an authority on the question of what kind of buildings should be erected, and the manner in which the railroad, with all that appertains to it, should be operated. These commissioners put their opinion against the authority, of such a man as Sir William Whyte, chosen as arbitrator by the contending parties, and Sir William Whyte turned down that opinion when it was submitted to him, and gave the nr st emphatic decision against Messrs. Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton as far as concerns the operation of the road and its equipment. One would think that when the award of the arbitrator was against the opinion of the commissioners, they would accept that as being the law, as happens, in every other proceeding o.f this kind. If a judge differs from his brethren on the Bench, and he is overruled, and the majority give a decision settling what the law is for the time being, the dissenting judge does not go out and say: I am right and the others are wrong; he accepts the dictum if the majority. That was what Mr. Lynch-
Staunton should have done when the decision of the tribunal was against him, but instead of that we find him reporting to the King, as represented by the Governor General, that he still adheres to his own opinion, as against the decision of Sir William Whyte.
Then Mr. Lynch-Stauhton gave his opinion on a law point in connection with the contract, and against Mr. Staunton's opinion we have the opinion of the Minister of Justice, a gentleman of wide practice and experience on the Bench and at the Bar; the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice, than whom there is no more capable lawyer in the Dominion ; the opinion of a former distinguished Minister of Justice, Sir Allen Aylesworth, agreeing with the present Minister of Justice and the deputy minister; the opinion of Mr. A. J. Brown of Montreal, a lawyer, whose opinion I understand is of considerable weight, and the opinion of the Law Clerk of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission, and yet, when the report comes down to the House, in spite of this	array of	authority10 p.m.	against	him, Mr.	Lynch-Staunton	still adheres to hisown	legal	opinion.	Of course,	that was
done for the purpose of reflecting upon the National Transcontinental Railway Commission, and upon the late Government.
On the question of classification, I would point out that Messrs. Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton seem to know very little about assembled rock. I rather think that when the people of Canada come to understand the genesis of this report, for which this country had to pay $63,000, they will reach the conclusion that while the commissioners are ignorant on the subject of assembled Took, they are very astute upon the subject of assembled falsehoods.
On exhibit 16 of volume 2 of this report, we have a diagram of what Mr. Lumsden, the chief engineer, handed out to his subordinates. He pointed out in diagram No. 1 a certain kind of rock in ledges; in diagram No. 2, rock in boulders over one cubic yard; in diagram No. 3, conglomerate rock or plum pudding stone; in diagram No. 4, detached ledge rock in mass over one cubic yard; in diagram No. 5, rock in masses of over one cflbic yard reassembled rock); in diagram No. 6, shale rock. He summarizes at the foot of the page as follows:
No. 1 is a mere matter ot measurement by the engineer.

No. 2 is a mere matter of measurement by rock measurers.
No. 3 is a mere matter of measurement by the engineers.
No. 4 is a mere matter of measurement by rock measurers.
Nos. 5 and 6. To form a judgment as to whether or not it is best removed by blasting, the chief engineer must view the work in progress or leave it to be decided by the engineer in charge, whose duty it is frequently to visit the work during its operation and be governed thereby and act accordingly.
This is signed by Hugh D. Lumsden, chief engineer, and put into the hands of his subordinates; and the commission and everybody else had to follow this report and the law as laid down there by the chief engineer. As I said already, I submit to the House and to the country that there was nothing left to the commissioners but to follow the instructions as laid down by the gentleman given to them as the man above all others who was to direct them as to what was assembled rock, shale rock or common excavation or whatever else they had to deal with in connection with this work. That being the case, I submit that no ease of any kind has been made out against the commissioners.
We have a right to suppose that, before such slanderous charges would be made against the personnel of the commission, there would be some evidence to back them up. I have no brief for the hon. gentlemen who composed that commission, and many of them personally I did not know at all. I had slight acquaintance with the commissioner from Winnipeg, Mr. Young. I believe he is a man of excellent standing in his own city; I have never heard anything to the contrary; and we have to assume until the contrary is shown that he is an honest, capable man, and, of course, as far as this commission and this evidence is concerned, there is nothing to the contrary. As far as the former premier of the province of Quebec is concerned, I submit that he can very well afford to laugh at the criticism levelled against him by hon. gentlemen opposite. He is a man of first class standing in his own province. Not only is he known in that province favourably and well, but he is known from one end of this country to the other as a big man. I submit that, when the day came for the distinguished gentlemen who led the Government of the time to find a man to take the place of Mr. Wade, it would be difficult for him to find a more capable gentleman than Mr. Parent, the exPremier of the great province of Quebec. The old adage would well apply to him in

regard to the speeches made on the other side yesterday and to-day in reference to him. I have heard him say: 'Well, on a beautiful moonlight night, you hear the dogs barking; you hear a lot of noise; but what does the moon do? The moon moves majestically on.' This gentleman, who is and who has always been of high repute in his province, can well afford to hear those barkings and move majestically on in his business and pay no attention to them. If my hon. friends opposite go outside the shelter and protection they may have in their various callings, and say anything about this gentleman, when they are brought to task, they will find that Mr. Parent is the respected gentleman that he always has been, and that his repute and standing in the country are not to be molested or maligned by cheap jack talk, such as we have heard in regard to him yesterday and to-day in this House and elsewhere.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the expression ' cheap jack talk,' as applied to hon. members, is not proper in this House.
Mr. McKENZIE; Well perhaps not, Sir.
I come now to my own province of IS ova Scotia, and refer to those hon. gentlemen who had charge of this commission. We had as the first gentleman who was made chairman of this commission the hon. Mr. Wade, who was for many years a member of this House and well known to yourself, Sir, and many other hon. members. I submit that dn his day, when he was appointed and for many years before he was appointed to this position, Mr. Wade took second place to no man in any province of the Dominion as a gentleman, a man of affairs and a lawyer. While ' he was in charge of this work, he did it well, faithfully and with great display of ability' It is a poor tribute to his memory that gentlemen opposite try, at this time, when he is silent in death, to cast reflections upon his memory by stating that he was a party to giving false information and handing out contracts in a false way and doing things for the purpose of carrying on improperly and dishonestly the affairs of the great undertaking of which he was made chairman and as regards which he had great responsibility. I submit that it is slanderous to him and that it is a pity that hon. gentlemen opposite should think it worthy of them to make such charges against a man who is unable to defend himself.
I come to the hon. gentleman from the

county of Antigonish (Mr. Mclsaac), who took the position of commissioner at the death of Mr. Wade. He does not require any defence at my hands. He was a member of this House for many years, and I submit, without disrepect or disparagement to any other member, that there was never a man in this House who more correctly and more properly behaved himself and was more respected in this House than Mr. Mclsaac. As has been pointed out to me, when it came to the finding of a successor in the great county of Antigonish, which was honoured for many years as having for its representative the distinguished gentleman who was at one time Premier if this country, the right Hon. Sir John Thompson, the mantle of Sir John Thompson fell upon the worthy shoulders of Mr. Mclsaac. He was the gentleman selected by the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier to fill the position of Commissioner. Before Mr. Mclsaac came into this House, he was an honoured representative of the county of Antigonish in the local legislature, a member for many years of the Government of Nova Scotia, a distinguished member of the Bar of his province, a man of means, a man of affairs, and acquainted with the many vicissitudes in the progressive province of Nova Scotia.
He came here to give his time and attention to the building of this railway. And there is not a man living who can put his finger upon one spot in the character of Mr. Mclsaac. There are Nova Scotians here who are supposed to know something about Mr. Mclsaac and about Mr. Wade, now dead and gone, and I challenge them to put a finger upon one stain upon the character of these men in connection with any business they ever handled. As to the suggestion that lawyers should not be at the head of this business, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no class of men in the community who are better fitted for such business than lawyers, if you get the right kind of lawyers. It is all nonsense to say that a lawyer knows nothing but how to read statutes and give opinions upon points of law. If a lawyer has a wide practice-as these lawyers had -he has to deal with every kind of business. In a real estate case, he must know something about land measurements, he must know something of the cost of building, both the price of material and the price of labour. I will not go into all the cases; but if you have a practical, experienced lawyer, you have a man whose 146
training brings him into touch with eveTy kind of work. -For that reason, to sneer at lawyers being at the head of the work, is not doing the lawyers justice. The man trained as an engineer may know how to measure a rock cutting or estimate the quantity of material moved, but that is a small matter in comparison with the expending of many millions of dollars and in comparison with the whole work to be done on this road. The man who can deal with prices, men, and matters generally is better equipped for such a work as this than the man who is a specialist in one thing and knows little of others that enter into these projects. So, it is not doing justice either to the Government or to the men who were in charge of the work to sneer at those men because they weTe lawyers. Nor is it fair to sneer at them because the work cost more than it was supposed to cost at the beginning. An hon. member on the other side told us the other day that the commission appointed by the United States Government to build the Panama canal was composed mainly of engineers. Are we asked to believe that there was no over-expense there and that the work is being carried out within the estimate first made? I believe that the estimate given for the construction of that great work was .somewhere in the vicinity of $150,000,000. The expenditure has been $400,000,000, under this great and competent staff of engineers, and the work is not yet finished. If the Government of the United States, with a commission of engineers, naval and military, the best men that could be found, spends over $400,000,000 for a work that was estimated to cost $150,000,000, what have we to say against a commission here, because, forsooth, the work under their charge overran the estimate made in the first place?
The reason why we started this work in 1903 is very well known to you, Mr. Speaker, for you were then in the House at that time and a very active member. Those reasons are set forth in the preamble of the statute, which is as follows:
Whereas by reason of the growth in population and the rapid development in the productiveness and trade of Canada and especially of the western part thereof, and with a view to the opening up of new territory available for settlement, both in the eastern provinces and in the West, and the affording of transportation facilities for such territory, and for other reasons, the necessity has arisen for the construction of a National Transcontinental railway, to be operated as a common railway highway across the Dominion of Canada, from



ocean to ocean, and wholly within Canadian territory ; and whereas an agreement has been entered into, bearing date the 29th day of July, 1903, between His Majesty the King of the first part, and Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, G.C.M.G., C.B., and others, representing therein and acting on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, a company incorporated by an Act of the Parliament of Canada passed at the present session thereof, of the second part, making provision for tfoe construction and operation of such a railway; and whereas it is expedient that Parliament should ratify and confirm the said agreement, and should grant authority for the construction in manner hereinafter provided of the eastern division of the said railway between the city of Moncton, in the province of New Brunswick, and the city of Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba : Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
As has been pointed out, this enterprise was fully discussed in this House at that time. I do not know that there ever was a subject before this House that received a more thorough threshing out than this. The people were asked to give their judgment upon it, and by an overwhelming majority they declared in favour of the Government carrying out this enterprise. The work was commenced. Then, in 1908, there was an opportunity again for the people to pass judgment; and again, the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who was then Premier of Canada, received an indisputable and overwhelming mandate to go forward with this great undertaking to a satisfactory completion. These are the circumstances under which the Government undertook the work and were carrying it on. The hon. member for Kings-Albert told us that he was always opposed to this undertaking. It is possible he was. He says he was elected in 1904, and his opposition was well known. But when the people of Kings-Albert had an opportunity of understanding the subject, when they had the opportunity of knowing what the nature of this enterprise was and what it meant to the Dominion, when the hon. gentleman went back to his constituency in 1908, they defeated him by a sweeping majority. So, his own experience in his own county and in the province of New Brunswick is certainly no proof that the feeling in that great province is against this enterprise. If the hon. gentleman was opposed to it in 1904, I am not surprised that when the Prime Minister came to select his Cabinet he did not take in the hon. gentleman.	For the right hon. leader
of the Government (Mr. Borden) was in favour	of	building	the	road.
He proclaimed from the housetop- eveiv-
where in the province of Nova Scotia that he was in favour of the building of this road. Remarks to that effect were quoted from his speeches here to-night; what is the use, therefore, of a member coming here and telling us that he was against it? His leader, whom he supported and whom he now supports, was in favour of the building of this road from Quebec down to the Maritime provinces. When the right hon. gentleman was confronted with quotations from his own speeches this afternoon, made by the hon, member for Pictou, he took no exception to them, and we must take it for granted that these quotations were correct, that those were his views at that time and are his views to-day, and that he is in favour of the building of this road into the province of New Brunswick and down to the Maritime ports.
We are told by the hon. gentleman from North Ontario that this road should never have been built east of the Quebec bridge. If this road was not to be built east of the Quebec bridge, why should it be built to the bridge? No good purpose is to be served by building the road to the bridge, and stopping at that point. If the purpose of this road is to bring the grain from the West to navigable waters; if its purpose is to bring the grain to a point where it can get from the cars into the steamers, that purpose is accomplished the moment the road reaches Montreal. Why, then, should the road go to Quebec? For no purpose at all, but, in the face of their supporters from the province of Quebec, hon. gentlemen opposite do not dare to say that the road should not be built to Quebec. But why let the road go to Quebec when its purpose is accomplished when it reaches Montreal? If hon. gentlemen contend that the road is not to go further than Quebec; if the purpose, as has been pointed out, is to create a transportation route via Cochrane to the city of Toronto and to open up a canal system so that the traffic which is now going through	Montreal will go through Toronto, the logical conclusion at which we must arrive is that there will be no further necessity for building the road east of Cochrane; that Toronto should be made the central point of the route and that the rest of the road should be dropped. No road has ever been built on this continent on such a high standard as the Transcontinental, and that being the case we cannot compare the cost with that of any other road built in Canada or the United States. It is all very well to

say: you could have saved money by building wooden bridges; you could have saved money by having steeper grades; you could have saved money by having sharper curves. Of course you could. That reminds me of an advertisement of a milk seller which I saw in a newspaper some time ago;
' you can buy milk cheaper here, but it will be cheaper milk.' You could certainly build the road cheaper, but it would be a cheaper road. It would not be the kind of road we want; it would not be the road that would suit the circumstances and necessities of the provinces of New Brunswick Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and, indeed, Canada at large. What is the .purpose of the road? I have read from the statutes that the purpose is to connect the West with the East and to develop our seaports. If this road is not built in a way that-will make it superior to every other road and, by the completeness of its equipment and the nature of its grades, overcome differences in distance, it will not accomplish the purpose for which we have built it. It has been pointed out that there is a difference of at least one hundred or possibly one hundred and fifty miles in favour of Portland for traffic coming from the West. If we built a road of the same capacity and the same grades as the roads that are now going to Portland, why should we think that men who are routing grain from the West are going to route it to St. John and Halifax when they have the opportunity of routing it by the shorter and cheaper route to Portland? It is out of the question. Our only opportunity of competing for that trade and keeping it within 'Canadian lines is to have a better road. If we have a better road we can afford to run the trains faster, and we can afford to give cheaper rates. These are the things we are looking for, and these are the things we hope to accomplish by the building of this road. We are told, forsooth, that something which we thought would cost one dollar is going to cost three. Are we going to stop because of that? Is that the capacity of Canadianism, the capacity of the Government of this country? Because we find that a thing that is going to make a great commercial country of this Canada of ours will cost three dollars instead of one, are we going to stop there, throw up our hands, say we cannot do it, and allow this traffic to go through a foreign country? The statement that we should have only one road going into the province of Nova Scotia and into the province of New Brunswick is simply 146}
absurd. If it takes three great transcontinental railways ,to carry the present* traffic, how are we to get that traffic to the seaports of the Maritime provinces with one road, badly built, not in the proper place, with bad curves and bad grades? The Intercolonial was never made to pay properly; the fault must be somewhere, and when it cannot handle the present traffic, how can we hope that it will carry the traffic of the West, its grain and other great commodities, to the cities of Halifax, Sydney, North Sydney, Louisburg, and other cities that are waiting for that traffic? If three or .four railroads are necessary to carry the traffic across the continent to Montreal or Quebec, it is the greatest possible absurdity to suppose that one poor railroad is going to handle it from Quebec to St. John, Halifax or farther east, where we hope it will come when the greater development takes place. Traffic is something like a river that runs down from the glens and hillsides; it begins small, but as it flows towards the sea it gets bigger and bigger and only reaches its full volume when it enters the larger body of water. The same thing is true of traffic; it begins small, and as it goes on towards the great seaboards it gets bigger and bigger, and it requires better roads and better facilities to handle it. That being the case, if we hope to send to the ports of St. John, Halifax, Sydney, North Sydney, Louisburg and the other great ports of the Atlantic seaboard the great traffic which is being handled by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Canadian Northern railway, which is getting bigger as it comes east, we must provide sufficient facilities to handle it.
For that reason I submit that it is noanswer to the question to say that we are going to handle the whole trade by the Intercolonial. It cannot be done, and it was to overcome that difficulty that this project was launched and is being carried forward. For that reason it receives the support and sympathy, beyond question, of the Canadian people, and particularly of the people of the Maritime provinces. I watched with interest the speech of the hon. gentleman who preceded me, but he has not once said that he was opposed to the building of this road through New Brunswick and to the port of St. John. He simply said that he stood by the position which he took in 1903 and 1904 when this question was being discussed in the



House. We did not hear what that was, he may have been opposed to certain conditions, but I am not aware that he ever took the broad ground that he was altogether against the building of that road. What does the Prime Minister think of his Solicitor General, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister himself was in favour of the building of this road, not only from the West to Montreal and Quebec but into the Maritime provinces, and particularly to Halifax and St. John. He says he was in favour of its construction, and yet the Solicitor General, who was put forward the other night as the great champion of the Government, says that the whole thing is a pyramid of folly. He pays his leader, who was in favour of the building of this road, the great tribute of saying that his leader was supporting a pyramid of folly.
I would like to hear the Solicitor General or any other man, from the Maritime provinces or from this House, going to tell the people of the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island that the building of this road, which is likely to give them the proper connections which they have looked for for years and which is going to bring to these great ports on the Atlantic the influx of trade and business that we have expected, that the stream of trade is to be cut short at the Quebec bridge or at Cochrane, and that we need not hope to receive in the future any of the great advantages which we have hoped for. We must yet enjoy these advantages, as neither this nor any other government would dare to go back on the promises made to the people in the past, and to dash the hopes raised by the building of this road. As I have said, it is no answer to say this is costing too much, if the money is properly spent, if we have value in the road, if the proper bridges are put in. Steel bridges are more expensive than wooden, but when they are built we have steel and not wooden bridges. Low grades are more expensive than higher grades, but when we have them we have the right kind of a road, a road that is going to pay and answer the purpose with which we started out. When the people have value for their money, they have nothing to complain of, and I am sure that they will not complain. We heard a good deal from our friends opposite a few years ago, during the last election particularly,	about	the	trade	of thiscountry	going	north and south

and not east and west. We were to keep our trade in our own lines, within our own borders; but what is the legitimate outcome of the theory that is now being put forward? If they degrade the road from Cochrane down to Quebec, smash it up so that it will be of no use, make its curves so sharp, its grades so bad and everything in connection with it of so low a standard that it will be incapable of carrying out the project we have in view, where will the traffic go? It is bound to go where the old Grand Trunk traffic always went, instead of going east and west to the extreme limits of Canada as it ought to go and we hoped it would go, it will be cut off at Cochrane or Quebec, and then this Tory theory and alleged Tory patriotism of bringing the traffic to the extreme end of Canada in the east will be of no more service, for we hear from our friends opposite that there is no intention and never was any intention of putting this road in commission beyond the Quebec bridge and that it is a pyramid of folly, as has been said by the Solicitor General who is, I suppose, voicing to some extent the ideas of the Government of which he is, if not a member, a very close ally. I wish to point out, as a Maritime province man, that the Intercolonial has never answered the purpose for which it is said to have been built. The Intercolonial railway is a part of the terms of Confederation. It was built for the purpose of creating traffic and trade between the Maritime provinces and Canada, as Canada was known at that time It was supposed that the Intercolonial railway would carry our fish, our agricultural products, and our coal to the markets of Montreal, Toronto and other western points. That was the purpose the Intercolonial railway was supposed to serve, but it was built in such a way, with such poor gradients, that that purpose was never accomplished, that trade was never created, and for that reason we were never satisfied that the terms of Confederation were fully carried out in that connection. Now, after a wait of forty-five years, we thought that this new road, would fulfil the conditions under which the provinces down by the sea had entered Confederation. But it appears that if hon. gentlemen opposite have their way that hope will also be blasted and we will not have our expectations in that regard fulfilled. At present there is no gTeat traffic from the west going further east than St. John and Halifax, but we are only at the commencement of the development of our

trade, we have not reached even ten or twenty per dent of the great development of this country. We have magnificent harbours on our Atlantic coast, such as Halifax, St. John, Sydney and Louislburg. Right in the island of Cape Breton we have six magnificent harbours. We expect that when.the full fruition of this undertaking is obtained, "when the traffic of the West is in full blast, these ports, the ancient port of Louisburg and the magnificent harbours of Sydney and North Sydney, will receive their share of this traffic. We have the right to expect that our magnificent fish and our other products such as iron and steel will go to the West on this road that will carry cheaper and better than any facilities we have had up to this time. That being the case we have always looked forward to the completion of this Toad up to the high standard which was set at the beginning and which I am sure will be carried forward to the end.
The Government and hon. gentlemen here representing the Government to-day may think that the appointment of this commission is a mere trifle, that they can appoint any kind of a commission they want and can put in their mouths any kind of a report. How is this commission appointed? It is not a haphazard affair, its appointment is based upon a statute of this country. Is it appointed by any one of the ministers? I do not think so. The commission is appointed as the representative of the Crown according to chapter 104 of the Revised Statutes of Canada:
The Governor in Council may, whenever he deems it expedient, cause inquiry to he made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada, of the conduct of any part of the public business therof.
The Crown is called in. The Governor General appoints a commission but of course he has no responsibility. He takes the names of the men submitted to him and the responsibility rests directly on the Government. In 1912 that chapter was amended by the Government of to-day as can be seen by chapter 28 of the Acts of that year. I submit that the report that the commissioners sent here is absolutely illegal, absolutely improper, and absolutely in violation of the law put upon the statute books by this Government. ' The hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. S. Sharpe) specifically stated last night that there was a question of forgery in connection with this matter. It is very plainly hinted by the commissioners who committed that forgery. They hint that there was wrongdoing by some persons.
When they find that somebody is guilty of wrongdoing or suspected of wrongdoing, what are they called on to do? Chapter 28 of the Acts of 1912 says that if anything is discovered in the course of the inquiry which requires further investigation or which brings a charge home to somebody,
the commissioners may allow any person whose conduct is being investigated under this Act, and shall allow any person against whom any charge is made in the course of such investigation, to be represented by counsel.
Then follows the important part:
No report shall be made against any person until reasonable notice shall have been given to him of the charge of misconduct alleged against him and he shall have been allowed full opportunity to be heard in person or by counsel.
That is the law placed upon the statute books by the Government of to-day. The report before us simply bristles with charges of this kind, charges of theft, of squandering and fraud of every kind. Who could listen to the speech of the hon. gentleman from Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) to-night and not believe that hundreds of cases of wrongdoing had been discovered by this commission. The very chapter under which these commissioners were acting says that if charges were discovered the persons charged must be brought before the tribunal to answer the charges. The chapter says further:
No report shall be made against anybody until the law is complied with fully.
I submit that this commission did not follow the terms of the Act under which they were appointed, and that they have made slanderous reports and charges against citizens of this country without giving 'them any opportunity of answering the charges made against them. I spoke of Mr. Cahan a moment ago. He describes himself as a Tory of the Tories, a strong follower of the leader of the Government and an associate of his in politics. He surely would not raise the hand of rebellion against the Government unless he had the strongest provocation. He evidently knew of this statute and of the power under which the commissioners were acting. Speaking in the city of Montreal a few days ago in regard to this matter, he said that the whole thing was ridiculous and absurd, that it was no better than an ex-parte trial before a magistrate. That is the kind of investigation upon which thousands of reputations are to be blasted in this country. That is the kind of report which the Government is spreading broadcast throughout the country. I have


An hon. MEMBER:: And taxed his own Bill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Thursday, April 2, 1914.
^ The House met at Three o'clock, the
Speaker in the Chair.



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

Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Have Messrs. L. Omer Beaulieu, Ste. Foye Belleau, J. P. Jolicoeur, Chas. Smith, E. H. Cimon and Emile Galley, advocates of the city of Quebec, acted since the 31st of March, 1913, as Government commissioners, to inquire whether public employees had to be dismissed for political partisanship or for any other reason ?
2.	Who among the above named have acted as commissioners for such purposes?
3.	What investigations have been held by them or any of them, where, at what date and regarding what employee?
4.	What amounts have been paid since the 31st of March, 1913, to each of them in salary or expenses?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	No.
4.	Post office: Mr. J. P. Jolicoeur reported on charges of partisanship against the postmaster at Guay, Quebec, under date the 24th March, 1913, but his account for this investigation, amounting to $103, was not paid until the 9th April, 1913. Mr. Ste Foye Belleau reported on charges of partisanship against the postmaster at Blandford, Quebec, under date the 12th February, 1913, but 'his account for this investigation, amounting to $37, was not paid until the 3rd April, 1913.
Public Works: The sum of $660.98 was paid to Charles Smith, Esq., Quebec, on the 30th April, 1913, but in connection with an investigation held in 1912.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY EARNINGS.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What were the gross earnings during the period from April 1 to December 31, 1913, on the following divisions, respectively,, of the Intercolonial railway:	Halifax to Moncton-
Sydney to Oxford and to Truro; Moncton to Campbellton; Campbellton to Riviere du Loup and Riviere du Loup to Ste. Rosalie?
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.	Mr. REID:
Division	1913 October Earnings	t 1913 November Earnings	1913 December Earnings	1914 January Earnings	^ Total EarningsMontreal & Ste. Fla vie	
Ste. Fla vie & Moncton	
St. John & Halifax	$ cts. 419,431 82 223,891 85 290,013 18 181,092 22	$ cts. 385,451 50 233,406 63 282,291 67 146,838 14	$ cts 393,996 03 232,559 02 313,669 29 153,945 71	$ cts. 309,165 95 181,228 01 259,6C7 44 130,261 40	$ cts. 1,508,045 30 871,085 51 1,145,641 58 612,137 47Sydney & Truro & Oxford Bch.	1,114,429 07	1,047,987 94	1,094,170 05	880,322 80	4,136,909 86


PURE BRED LIVE STOCK.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	Is W. H. Corning, Chegoggin, N.S., a representative of the Department of Agriculture, live stock branch, to purchase pure bred animals in Yarmouth county, N.S.?
2.	If not, who has been appointed as his successor ?
3.	What is the maximum price allowed by the department for each of the following animals respectively,-boars, rams, stallions and bulls ?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1. No. Mr. Coming's connection with the live stock branch was of a temporary nature, he having been authorized to purchase boars and rams for distribution in the Maritime provinces last fall. No boais
[Mr. Rogers.)
or rams are being purchased and distributed at the present time.
2.	Mr. Coming's appointment having been of a temporary nature only, his connection with the Department of Agriculture terminated with the completion of the work last fall. There can, therefore, be no question regarding the appointment of a successor. No further distribution of boars or rams will be undertaken until the coming fall. A distribution of stallions and bulls will be carried out this spring, but, in point of fact, no instructions have, as yet, been issued regarding the purchase of pure bred sires in the Maritime provinces.
3.	The maximum price authorized by the department for boars, rams, stallions and bulls, is as noted below:

Eastern Western Canada. Canada.
Stallions	
$575	$600Bulls	
140	160Boars	
25	40Rams	
25	35
The prices noted for stallions and bulls are authorized in connection with the purchase during 1914. The prices noted in the case of rams and boars were authorized in connection with the purchase during 1913. Tne prices to be allowed for rams and boars for distribution during 1914 have not yet been decided upon.


YARMOUTH HARBOUR DREDGING.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	How many tenders tor dredging at Yarmouth harbour were received in 1913?
2.	On what dates were the tenders received?
3.	Who are the persons or companies tendering and what were the prices asked by each
tenderer?	.	.
4.	Have deposits made by the tenderers been
returned?


Mt. ROGERS:: 1.	Six.
2.	September 4, 1913.
3.		
	Class	Class
	'A' per	[DOT] B ' per
	cu. yd.	cu.yd.
W. J. Poupore Co., Ltd.-		
	$	Cts.
Outer and inner harbours..	10 00	17s
Reduced to		6 00	
Maritime Dredging and Construction Co., Ltd.-		
Outer harbour	17 50	392Inner harbour	6 90	222Coastal Dredging and Construction Co., Ltd.- ,	Outer harbour	14 00	56Inner harbour 	3 00	24Boulders	2 50	Halifax Dredging Co., Ltd.-	Outer harbour	2 75	56Inner harbour	2 75	26Beaver Dredging Co.-	Outer harbour	4 90	4/aInner harbour	28}Northern Dredging and Con-	24}struction Co., Ltd.. . [DOT]	8 50	
4. Yes.


SHERBROOKE-SUNNY BRAE MAID SERVICE.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	When was the latest contract made lor carrying the mails between Sherbrooke, N.S., and Sunny Brae?
2.	Who is the present contractor?
3.	What is the contract rate?
4.	Were tenders asked for?
5.	If so, what are the names of all parties who tendered, and the amount of each tender?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	1st July, 1913.
2.	J. S. Cameron.
3.	$1,100 per annum.
4 and 5. The previous contract expired on June 30, 1913, and, as the price was reasonable for a tri-weekly .service of 90 miles per trip and the inspector having reported the service as being satisfactorily performed, the contract was renewed without inviting tenders.


TADOUSAC WHARF.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Who was the contractor for the construction of the wharf at Tadousac, Quebec?
2.	What was the amount of the contract?
3.	Has the contractor been paid in full?
4.	Has the Department of Public Works retained a percentage out of the contract price for claims against the contractor? I>f so, what was the percentage?
5.	Have any of the claimants been paid by the department?
6.	Is it the intention of the department to pay the respective claims of Charles Grenon and Thomas Louis Villeneuve, who, as alleged, both furnished timber to the contractor and have not yet been paid?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Napoleon Warren of Chicoutimi.
2.	$31,795.
3.	Yes, contract earnings paid in full.
4.	The department retained $4,737.64 out of the contractor's security deposit, in order to protect the claims filed against him.
5.	A number of claims, after having been proved and admitted by the contractor, have been paid. Payment of others is proceeding as they are proved from time to time.
6.	The amount remaining in the hands of the department may not be found to be sufficient to pay all claims in full but these claimants will receive payment, proportionately, to the other claimants.


MILITIA EXPENDITURES.
Mr. PARDEE:: What has been the total militia expenditures for each year since the year 1896?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1896-97		.. ..$2,478,179
1897-98			 1,746,731
1898-99			 2,561,056
1899-1900 			 3,684,294
1900-01			3,168,717
1901-02			 2,669,038
1902-03		
1903-04			 3,603,715
1904-05			4,012,742
1905-06		
1906-07			 4,377,309
1907-08		
1908-09		
1909-10		
1910-11			 7,009,822

1911- 12	 7,729,948
1912- 13	10,272,759
These figures include civil government salaries, &c., and expenditure for aid to civil power, but not pensions.


RIMOUSKI HARBOUR.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Who were the tenderers for the improvement at the harbour of Rimouski, and what is the amount of each tender?
2.	Who designed the plans and specifications?
3.	Who gave the approximate cost of the work and prepared the estimates thereof?
4.	What is the estimated cost of such work, as submitted to the department by the local engineer?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Scow measurement:	Paul Raymond
and Jos. 0. Talbot, $334,250; O'Brien and Doherty, $497,801.80. Place measurement: Raymond and Talbot, $355,445.50; O'Brien and Doherty, $501,023.40.
2 and 3. Mr. J. A. Tremblay (then district engineer).
4.	$361,144.	,


THE AURORA MENACE.
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Has the Aurora Menace, published at Aurora, Missouri, been prohibited from the Canadian mails?
2.	If so, when did such prohibition take effect?
3.	For what length of time is said prohibition?
4.	What were the reasons for same?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Has the Aurora Menace, published at
Aurora, Ont., been prohibited from the Canadian mails?		 
2.	If so, when did such prohibition take
effect?	,
3.	For what length of time is said prohibition?
4.	What were the reasons for same


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: An authorization to publish in Aurora, Ontario, the same paper referred to in the preceding question has been refused for the same reasons.


HOMESTEAD REGULATIONS.
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Did the Minister of the Interior announce at Medicine Hat during the month of August, 1913, that he intended to change the homestead regulations so that homesteaders on land not well adapted to grain, raising, or on land difficult to cultivate, might have the option of substitution of ownership of a given number of cattle for the required acreage of breaking at present required?
2.	If so, has any change yet been effected?
3.	If such change has not yet been effected, is it the intention of the minister to make such change? If so, when?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1. The Minister of the Interior stated at Medicine Hat on the occasion of his visit to that city in August, 1913, that it was his intention to propose a change in. the Dominion Lands Act, so as to substitute stock raising in lieu of grain raising on land not suited for agriculture.
2 and 3. A Bill is now before Parliament for this purpose.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Carroll.-For a return showing: how many certificates for promotion have been asked from the Civil Service Commissioners since the 31st March, 1913 ; how many of such certificates have been refused, and to whom; and the reasons given in each case for such refusal.

Robert Laird Borden: That when this House adjourns on Wednesday next the 8th April, It do stand adjourned until Tuesday the 14th April.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As it is impossible
for many members who live at long distances from Ottawa to reach Ottawa on Tuesday by leaving their homes on Monday, I would suggest that the day of re-

assembling should be Wednesday instead of Tuesday.


Robert Laird Borden: If we postpone the resumption of work it means another day or perhaps more at the end of the session. However, if it would be a very great convenience to some hon. gentlemen living at a distance, I personally would have no decided objection and would move to amend the motion accordingly.


Frank Oliver: I would support the suggestion of the hon. member for Pictou. When it takes a member two or three days td go or to return from his home, it is not worth while making the journey unless he has a day or two at home.
Motion, so amended, agreed to.


POSTAGE ON ENGLISH MAGAZINES.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there any truth in
the statement in the press that the postal regulations as to English magazines and newspapers are to be changed? I see that the statement is attributed to my hon. friend the Postmaster General that the regulations have been done away with, but I read in the Herald of last night a cablegram purporting to give denial of that statement on behalf of Mr. Farnell, secretary of the Post Office Department in England. What truth is there in that statement?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: During the last
three years English magazines have been sent to this country, and the British post office has collected a postage of one penny, or two cents, on each magazine. The time limit fixed in that arrangement expired about twelve months ago. It has been continued since for periods of three months each. The British post office has been asked to make some other arrangement, but they have not yet done so. The period of the last extension has not yet expired and, as Mr. Farnell states, the matter is now being negotiated.


NATURALIZATION ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called,:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: From a return relative to the amendment of the Naturalization Act, I find that the Department of Justice of Canada and the home authorities have practically agreed upon the terms of a Bill which will carry into effect imperial naturalization, not only in Canada but throughout the empire. I notice by the press that a 
Bill embodying this principle has passed the House of Lords and that its passage through the House of Commons will be facilitated. Does the Minister of Justice propose to introduce the Bill referred to in this Parliament during this session?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I expect to be able to introduce that Bill in a few days. It is now being prepared. While, of course, our Bill is based upon the Bill passed by the home Parliament, it will be necessary to make certain provisions of our own with regard to the method of granting naturalization in Canada.


THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
[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 April 1.
Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate one would almost need to apologize for offering any further remarks in regard to the matter which has now been under discussion for one full week in this Chamber. I promise that my remarks shall be rather general than detailed, and that I shall present to the House my own view of the findings of the commission, formed after a very careful perusal of the report and of the exhibits and the evidence which accompany it. I shall do this in as fair and impartial a manner as I can.
I, for one, do not think that the Government made any mistake in appointing a Royal Commission to investigate the affairs of the National Transcontinental railway; nor do I think they made any mistake in giving to that commission the wide powers they gave it; I suppose it was appointed under chapter 104 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. Opinions in Canada since 1903 or 1904 have conflicted a good deal in regard to various matters concerning the construction of the National Transcontinental railway. Charges and counter charges were made in the House, in the press and throughout the country, particularly on the occasion of two heated general elections in Canada, one in 1904 and one in 1908. I do not think that in the general election of 1911 the question of the National Transcontinental railway played much of a part. When the present Administration took office they made, no error in deciding that a Royal Commission should be ap-

pointed to investigate the affairs of the National Transcontinental railway. The initial mistake, the overmastering blunder which the Government did make was in its selection of thepersonnelofthatcommission. Had two or three individuals been selected in whose ability and non-partisanship the people of Canada had confidence, I doubt whether any discussion would have taken place in this House in regard to this report -at all events, there would have been little discussion. I do not believe that the Government or the Minister of Railways could have selected two men in whom the bulk of the people of Canada would have had less confidence in the matter of presenting an independent non-partisan report on the National Transcontinental railway. It was for the Government to choose the commissioners and in making the choice it did of Mr. George Lynch-Staunton, K.C., and of Mr. Gutelius, they made their initial blunder-a blunder that has shown itself in all the proceedings of that Commission down to the day the report was presented. The report is not the outcome of a judicial, independent, and non-partisan inquiry-exactly the reverse. I know Mr! Lynch-Staunton very well and esteem him very highly. I have met him in many cases and recognize his legal ability. I know that for the last six or seven years the Ontario Government has been his chief client. He has appeared on behalf of the Ontario Government before committees of this House time and again. He is a partisan from the beginning. As a campaigner at general elections, he is one of the most active men in the province of Ontario, never an election passes but Mr. Lynch-Staunton is to the fore in Western Ontario, in every little village where a number of Roman Catholic families happen to be gathered together you will find Mr. George Lynch-Staunton as a speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Guthrie: That statement I know
to be correct not only with regard to the riding which I have the honour to represent, but as regards the riding of my hon. friend from North Wellington (Mr. W. A. Clarke) and other ridings in western Ontario. Mr. Staunton took an active part in the election of 1904 when the transcontinental proposal was probably the chief question before the electors. It was during that campaign that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister announced that it was better to have a government-owned railway than a railway owned government, and I remember a very
fine portrait of my right hon. friend with that quotation underneath. As I said, Mr. Staunton took an active part in that election and I have no doubt followed his leader in every respect. In the election of 1908 the Transcontinental was again the main issue though not the only one, and once more Mr. Staunton was one of the chief speakers of the Conservative party throughout western Ontario.


John Hampden Burnham: Would my hon. friend allow me to ask a question? Does he consider that because he is a Liberal that fact disqualifies him from giving now, or at any other time, a judicial and impartial opinion on this question?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I do not think it
does, for the reason that I am going to discuss the case solely upon the material which has been brought down by the commissioners. At the present time I am discussing the personnel of the commission. Following the election of 1908 there was not a great deal of discussion of this particular question. We drifted into trade and other matters until the change of Government in September, 1911. Very shortly after that, this Royal Commission was appointed. Mr. George Lynch-Staunton, fresh from the stump, with his preconceived ideas about the Transcontinental which he had heartily condemned, was appointed chairman of the commission to investigate the construction of that road. I submit that he was not a fit and proper man to place in that position. If he spoke what he believed in 1904 and 1908-1 am sure he did-he never believed in the National Transcontinental railway and he never believed that the eastern branch should be built. He was a prejudiced, biased commissioner from the first. I know little or nothing regarding Mr. Gutelius except what I have heard in the course of the debate, but I submit from what has transpired in the debate that we are bound to conclude that Mr. Gutelius was as greatly disqualified as was Mr. Staunton to act upon that commission, considering his preconceived notions and his record as a railroad man. There are some facts which are not controverted: he was an American railroad engineer; after coming to this country he was on the engineering staff of the Canadian Pacific railway for a number of years; later, he was made divisional superintendent somewhere in New Ontario, at North Bay, I think. There he came in contact with the Minister of Railways and Canals, and I have no doubt

that was their first meeting. He was taken under the wing of the Minister of Railways and Canals in regard to local politics in the province of Ontario. He was afterwards employed by the Minister of Railways, then a member of the Ontario Government, in connection with the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway. When the Hon. Frank Cochrane became Minister of Railways and Canals in this House he brought Mr. Gutelius along with him, intending to keep with him a man who had been so useful to him in the past and was likely to be as useful again in the future. Mr. Gutelius at present is filling a position worth, I believe, $20,000 a year. This prize has been dangling before his eyes for a long time, and at last he has landed it. A man occupying the position that Mr. Gutelius did should hardly have been appointed to a commission which was to investigate the Transcontinental, unless he was absolutely free from the influence of any minister of the Crown, and of all political parties.-I do not take very much exception to the fees which were paid to Messrs. Gutelius and George Lynch-Staunton. If the work was done I do not know that they were overpaid, although I am one of those who believe that the result of their work is practically useless as an independent report of what has transpired with regard to the road. When that commission was appointed, I fancy the Minister of Railways and Canals knew his men pretty well. There are many eminent judges in Canada who might have acted on that commission, there are eminent engineers who might have been chosen on that commission, unbiased and free from partisanship of any kind. There are eminent engineers, eminent lawyers, eminent judges in other countries, in the United States for instance, where conditions are very much the same, who might have been employed. Independent, practical, thorough men could have been found by the Government without difficulty had the Government desired to find them. The Government made the initial blunder of appointing two men who were of the most partisan character, one counsel of the Ontario Government, and who for the last eight or ten years had condemned this railway and its construction; and the other a man who had an office of $20,000 a year dangling before him all the time under the Minister of Railways and Canals.
Under these circumstances, could you expect an independent, unbiased report? 
I submit you could not, and I submit to my right hon. friend that if, upon any non-political question, he was called on to appoint a commission to arrive at fair and just conclusions, he would not select the men who were selected in regard to the National Transcontinental railway.	Had
he selected his commissioners	from
amongst the judges of Canada, we on this side would have had nothing to complain of. Had he acted as the former Government did-and	I have heard that
criticised during the course of this debate -there would have been no cause of complaint. When a report was brought up in regard to the Civil Service by Mr. Courtenay and two others, and there was a clause referring to some fraudulent dealing by some branch of the Civil Service, what did the late Government do? They appointed Mr. Justice Cassels, judge of the Exchequer Court, to examine into the question. As soon as he was named I think all parties were satisfied that it would be a full, fair and impartial investigation. Why did the Minister of Railways and Canals not pursue such a course in the present instance? I cannot tell, v I believe he knew or could assume what kind of a report he was going to get before his commissioners actually took office.
Now, there is a significant fact at the very beginning of the report which one must Tefer to. It is well known that the powers of the commissioners were very broad, and, as I submit, if the road is to be completed at the end of the present year, they should not have put in their report until it was completed, and this report should merely have been an interim report. While the powers of the commission were very broad, they have, themselves, limited the scope of their operations to the 1st October, 1911. In other words, all that they sought to investigate were the doings of the other fellows. What did the Liberal Government do in regard to the Transcontinental railway when they were in power? Under the Order in Council appointing them their duties were fuller than that, and they should still have been on the inquiry and remained on the inquiry until the end of the present year, when it is said the road will be completed. Who gave them instructions to stop at the end of the regime of the late Liberal Administration? It does not appear from the report. Did they take that upon themselves? I fancy they did;

that they thought they would look after what the Liberals had done and avoid what the succeeding Government has done without taking the advice of anybody on the subject at all, and without receiving any instructions. That thought came to them as the natural way of treating the affair. That showed the bias of their minds, and it is for that reason that I am pointing it out, and for that reason alone. The first clause in the report of the commissioners states that they only examined the work up to the first of October, 1911. What work did they examine? The surveys and preliminary work having been done, tenders were advertised for, but they were not advertised for until 1907. The first contracts were not let until 1907. The late Liberal Government was in power during the construction of that work during 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910 and a little over half of 1911. For the last two and a half years the work has been entirely in the hands of the commission appointed by the present Administration-four years or four and a half years under one Government and two and a half years under the other Government. Why, then, should not this commission have completed its work; why should it not have continued to tne end of the present year and shown us what had been done by the Conservative Government, or by the commission appointed by the Conservative Government, after the first of October, 1911? They did not do so, however. They had no directions, as far as I know not to do so. I am not concerned so much with that as I am with the fact that acting upon their own motion, following the prejudice and bent of their own minds, they were only concerned with the other fellows, in order to find out if they could show anything in regard to them, and they were not concerned with the commission appointed by the present Government.
There are certain minor features in regard to the report which I propose to deal with, and deal with rather briefly, because the commissioners in their report have rather epitomized their views in the first few pages. In the first instance, they say that the late commissioners of the Transcontinental railway, who were appointed by the late Government, caused a loss of $8,800,000 in connection with the letting of contracts. The commissioners state that had there been no sub-letting of contracts that money would have been saved to the people of Canada. I ask any one in this House to go over that report as carefully as I have and find the facts and the evidence to support that finding. You can add up all the various amounts that they say represent undue and unnecessary profit and they make only between $6,000,000 and $6,500,000. But then, what they state to be inordinate profits and improper allowances only form what may be called a matter of opinion at the best. The commission finds that a great mistake was made in letting these contracts in too large bulk. Let us see how that figures out. We have covering 1,800 miles, twenty -one contracts, or an average of 851 miles per contract. What they suggest is that contracts should have been let in blocks of fifty miles, and they say that if that course had been followed a great deal of money would have been saved. Would business men recognize the statement made by the commissioners as something they should act upon? Very often the cheapest way of letting a contract is en bloc, and then allowing the contractor to sub-let. That is the way in which a man will let a contract for his own store, offices, or house. There has to be some man of financial strength at the back of a large portion of the undertaking. If you let a contract in small blocks, you get a lot of small men in who have not the necessary financial strength; they at once go to the bank with the contract and ask the bank to finance them, and generally land in trouble before their contract is completed. What difference would there have been between letting these contracts at 85| miles on an average, as they were let, and letting them at 50 miles as the commissioners think they should have been let? Not a fraction of a dollar would have been lost or saved to the people of Canada by adopting either method. The usual rule, whether in the building of one's own house, of a canal, of a railway, or of any great public work is that the contract goes to one contractor who sublets it to the various trades. The most homely illustration is the case of your own house. You let a contract for $5,000, to build your house, and immediately the stone and brickwork is sub-let to one man, the woodwork to another, the painting and glazing to another, the plumbing and wiring to another man, and so on all the way down. The principle is that each of these sub-contractors will make a profit, and that the main contractor will make a profit also. That is what the late commissioners did in regard to the Transcontinental railway, and that is precisely what the present Government is doing in regard

to the Welland canal and the Hudson Bayrailway. It is also what the present Government will do in regard to the construction of the new departmental buildings. Sub-contractors, I believe, have already taken their sub-contracts in regard to the Welland canal. Was ever a railway, even a small one, built in Canada by a single contractor? I had to do with the building of a railway only sixteen miles long, which now forms a portion of the Canadian Pacific railway, and the contract was let to the firm of Booth and Company, well known contractors at that time, but three or four sub-contractors went in under Booth and Company, and then a second range of subcontractors were taken in to build that road. How would we have saved any money had we shortened -the blocks of the Transcontinental railway to 50 miles and let each block to an independent contractor? Would not that contractor have had his profit? Certainly he would; he would have sublet his contract and the men who had the subcontracts would also have had their profits. There would be those two profits and there might be middlemen mixed up in the transaction, because every ntan who enters into a contract does so with the intention of making a profit out of it.
1 have gone carefully over the twenty-one contracts let on the National Transcontinental railway; I have read the
4 p.m. evidence in regard to them; and I have seen the commissioners' statement. There is practically no evidence with respect to the letting of these contracts which would justify the bald statement of the commissioners that, if some other plan had been adopted, $8,800,000 would have been saved to the people of this country. Any one with any business judgment or common sense, who examines that statement, will see that the commissioners have only made an estimate of the saving. The commissioners take the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific and say that they took the contract and sublet it on the understanding that they were to receive 5 per cent profit. Then the commissioners say that the subcontractors let the work at a lower figure than that at which the Grand Trunk Pacific had received the contract and etill made a profit of from 20 to 25 per cent, and that consequently the country lost that money. Is not one of the very best tests of the genuineness of the tenders and of the contracts to be found in the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific were by far the largest tenderers? They tendered successfully on
[Mr. Guthrie.2
contracts Nos. 1, 3, 4, II and 14 at a total of $9,333,000, and sublet them all. They tried to force an assignment of contracts Nos. 16 and 17, which were two of the largest, on a basis of 10 per cent over and above actual cost, but they did not get tho?'>
contracts. They tendered altogether on 17 out of the 21 contracts advertised, and their tenders amounted in all to $38,436,789. Why did they do it? The reason that would suggest itself to the mind of any sensible man is that they desired to protect themselves, by seeing that the work was not being let at too high a figure. They had been building railroads in old Canada, and iD new Canada and they knew what railroads cost. They tendered on all the big contracts, first to protect themselves, and secondly, to ensure that there would be no extravagance and no wrong doing. All these contracts which the Grand Trunk Pacific obtained were sublet on a five per cent basis of profit to them, and the subcontractors made whatever profit they could on the prices at which they received the subcontracts. With these facts before us- can it be said that there is anything fair and just in the finding of the commission that on these twenty-one contracts, had different methods been purused, $8,800,000 would have been saved to the people? I believe that any judge reading this report, would say without hesitation, that there is not a jot or tittle of evidence to support the finding of the commissioners. The most one can say in regard to the finding is that it is guess work; it might have been or it might not have been.
What we on this side of the House say is, that the tenders were properly advertised; the contracts properly let, the profits, be they great or be they small, properly earned, and just as they would be earned in any other business organization entirely outside of the Transcontinental Commission. We say also that the Hudson Bay railroad will be built in precisely the same manner by this Conservative Government. The largest contractor on the National Transcontinental railway is the same Mr. J. D. McArthur who has obtained three very large contracts on the Hudson Bay railway, and has already sublet portions of them. He is not bound down in any way in regard to subletting on the Hudson Bay railway; he can sublet every yard of his contract, and on such terms as he sees fit. And the Minister of Railways and the Government have agreed to that, with full knowledge of what Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton have reported on that system in the case of the Transcontinental railway.

Why, the Government, as stated -by the hon. member for Soutih Renfrew, will not itself follow the advice of the commission. Summarized in one or two pages of this report is a plain argument that you should let your line in small blocks and thus avoid subletting. Have you done it? No, this Government has rejected that advice. They have let the whole thing, practically to one man who, I am informed, has immediately sublet the whole thing, and sublet at a profit to himself and to his subcontractors. How much will the people of Canada lose on that transaction if the standard set up by the Investigating Commission on the Transcontinental is to be accepted? Why, of course, it is not to be accepted. The Government has taken the correct way of doing business, it has gone about the matter of the Hudson Bay railway construction in a businesslike-way. And so with the Welland canal which, while short of mileage, is estimated to cost $50,000,000. Will the Government follow the advice of Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton in carrying out that work? Indeed, they will not. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) says that the average contract on the Welland canal is $5,000,000, and the minister will not subdivide it. He says he wants men of responsibility, men of financial ability, men who are able to invest 'half a million or a million in a plant. These are the men he wants to deal with, and they can sublet to their heart's content if only they build according to contract and specifications. Has the Government done wrong in that transaction? Messrs. Staunton and Gutelius would say they have. Do the Government think that the report of Messrs. Staunton and Gutelius is a businesslike report in that respect? They do not or they would have followed it. As a matter of fact they have completely disregarded it in the case of the Hudson Bay railway and in the case of the Welland canal. And so, Mr. Speaker, this ridiculous point involving $8,000,000 or $9,000,000-forms a big item in this total of $40,000,000 which they say was extravagantly spent. What utter rubbish.
I will not deal at length with the $4,500,000 which these commissioners allege to have been improperly expended in the shops at Transcona. I noticed that in speaking of it the hon, member for South Renfrew puts it at $6,000,000, but the amount given in the report is $4,500,000.


George Perry Graham: They omitted the Quebec shops, intentionally, because their friends are building them.


Hugh Guthrie: I wish to point out to
the right hon. Prime Minister that this is another instance in which Mr. Lynch-Staunton has shown his bitter partisanship. He must have known that he was bound to follow the rulings of the engineers and the Department of Railways and Canals, as well as the rulings of the Department of Justice, which rulings were to the effect that these Transcona shops formed part and parcel of the construction of the road and should not be set down as part of the operating cost. This was brought to the attention of Mr. Lynch-Staunton time and time again. The law clerk of the commission, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Newcombe, Sir Allen Aylesworth, the present Minister of Justice, all agreed on this point. And in the face of that Mr. Lynch-Staunton still has the audacity-on his own opinion and after noting the contrary opinions-to find that in this total of $40,000,000 the sum of $4,500,000 on account of the Transcona shops must be included. What was this man doing? What member of this House would do such a thing? What other commissioner would say so? In spite of the plain language of all these opinions and rulings, Mr. Staunton says: I give my opinion and I will put that $4,500,000 down as unwarranted expenditure. Surely, that shows the animus of Mr. Lynch-Staunton in this matter. The Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) in speaking on this subject, said that it showed the bona fides of Mr. Staunton that he had given in his report the opinions of other people and had given reasons for his own. In my humble judgment his bona fides would have been much better established if he had said:	In deference
to the opinion of the Justice Department, I will omit to place that $4,500,000 spent on the Transcona -shops among the items of wasteful expenditure. Let the Prime Minister take cognizance of another fact with regard to Mr. Lynch-Staunton-and I only mention this to show his animus, to show his frame of mind, to show that he was determined to come to a conclusion against the late Transcontinental Commission. In 1912 the question of the Transcona shops was being discussed by Major Leonard, the commissioner. It was urged that the shops were too large, that the railway would not require such shops for the next quarter or half century, and that too much money altogether was being expended, so that a large part of that expenditure was mere waste. They sent for an expert to the United States, Mr. Hodgins, of New York, a man thoroughly acquainted with



the requirements of railways and the construction of shops to be used in connection with them. No Liberal Oovernment had anything to do with the choice of Mr. Hodgins, no Transcontinental commissioner ever appointed by a Liberal Government had anything to do with it. The present commission sent for Mr. Hodgins and got his opinion with regard to these shops at Transcona. His opinion is on ' Hansard,' and I am not going to read it again. The Prime Minister heard the hon. member for South Renfrew read it, or I suppose he will do this side of the House the justice to read it himself. He will see that Mr. Hodgins complimented the National Transcontinental Railway Commissioners in every way possible with regard to the construction of these shops. He said they were not too large for the trade present and expected on the road; he said they had been economically, constructed; he said their floor space was better used and their machinery more modern than almost any other car-ishops in the world. Yet, in the face of the report of this expert, Mr. Lynch-Staunton finds that $4,500,000 for these shops is unwarrantable expenditure. Another point I make is that he suppressed that report of Mr. Hodgins in his report as, commissioner. It should have been mentioned, or, at the very least, it should have been referred to. This all goes to show that Mr. Lynch-Staunton and Mr. Gutelius were not there to act fairly and squarely, but were prejudiced and biased in the extreme. It shows that they were men who under the circumstances were not able to bring in an entirely independent report. Their prejudice had become a ruling passion.
Then, there is the big question of momentum grades. I have not a great deal to say on that .subject. There is a tremendous sum charged as having been unwarrantably expended by the Transcontinental Commission on momentum grades. Well, what is the history of that matter? This was to be a railway of a very high standard, of the highest standard of railway across the continent. The conditions under which it was to be built, the standard to be employed throughout, was a matter of agreement between the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific, who were to be the' lessees of the road for a period of fifty years, and to pay three per cent as rental upon the whole cost after the first seven years for which they used the road. It was directly to the advantage of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to

see that not one dollar was unnecessarily expended in the construction of that road. Their own engineer was on the work the whole time. If he could not agree with the commissioners' engineer upon any point, the matter had to be settled by arbitration. If the two engineers, one for the Grand Trunk Pacific and one for the National Transcontinental Railway Commissioners, could not agree as to who should be appointed third arbitrator, the Chief Justice of Canada was to perform that duty for them. What could be fairer than that? They knew what they wanted; they wanted a road of a higher standard than any that crossed North America, and they were prepared to pay three per cent on what it was to cost. Nothing was said about momentum grades until very recently; in fact the first question in that regard arose during the time that Mr. Lumsden was chief engineer. Mr. Lumsden himself was not in favour of momentum grades. In his evidence, he says that he has not had much experience with them, but he does not .say that they would add anything to the usefulness of the railway. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company was not in favour of momentum grades; they refused by letter to permit the commission to put momentum grades on the road between Winnipeg and Moncton. That letter, which was read in the House last night, and appears in yesterday's ' Hansard,' was written by Mr. Woods, assistant engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, who was on the work, to Mr. Lumsden. His language was quite defiant. He said:	We object to your putting in
momentum grades; it is not part of our bargain. We want the actual grade of four-tenths against eastbound traffic, and six degree curves-no greater grades and no greater curves. That surely is sufficient notice to the Government and to the Transcontinental Commission as to what the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company want, and as to what the commissioners could do and could not do. Nothing more was heard of momentum grades until Mr. Lumsden's retirement in 1909, I think it was, and Mr. Gordon Grant's appointment to the position of chief engineer. It is true that in a letter written by Mr. Gordon Grant the assertion is made that in certain places momentum grades might be used, and the commissioners have stated in their report that according to Mr. Grant's evidence the use of momentum grades was quite proper.

Hon. gentlemen can look over Mr. Grant's evidence from beginning to end without finding a single statement on the subject of momentum grades. To Mr. Grant's letter recommending their use, the company replied that they would not have them. Time has gone on; the commission has changed. Major Leonard, appointed by the present Government, is now sole commissioner. He seems to be a stickler for momentum grades, but he should bear in mind the letter which he received in July, 1912, from E. J. Chamberlin, president of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, stating that the company would not permit the use of momentum grades. The last clause of that letter is as follows:
I beg to say if this work is done in accordance with what I understand to be your recent instructions it will not be in compliance with the agreement or satisfactory to this company, and cannot be accepted.
Surely that is positive language. But what has been done? Hon. gentlemen, in defiance of the warning of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, have proceeded to put in from thirty to thirty-five momentum	grades-for what purpose I know not, unless it be to give the Grand Trunk company an opportunity to get out of their contract to operate the road under a fifty-year lease. If they make that salutary change; if they degrade the road, and put in something which has not been agreed upon by both sides, when the road is completed and they ask the Grand Trunk Railway Company to execute the lease for fifty years, the company can say: you have not kept your agreement; you have not lived up to your contract. We warned you and your engineers and your proper officers, and you did this in defiance of our warning. The same is the case too, I am informed, with respect to steel bridges-The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is entitled to a first-class road. It does not want wooden trestles, it wants steel structures; it is willing to pay for them, and it is agreed with the Government that they shall be installed. Yet these commissioners assume to find that the late commission did wrong in living up to its agreement and in erecting steel structures on the railway. They state that in their opinion the Government might have saved $6,200,000 if they had adopted momentum grades, which the Grant Trunk Pacific railway say they will not accept. That letter of Mr. Chamberlin's was, no 1471	...
doubt, before the commissioners; why did they suppress it? Why did they not put tt in their report? They may offer the excuse that the report covered a period which ended in October, 1911, and that the letter is dated June 12, 1912, but I notice that in many of their calculations of payments the figures are given to December 31, 1912. There is a good deal of dispute about the question of momentum grades, and it would appear to me to be a controverted question. I heard a New York railway man say that his company were spending $20,000,000 this year to establish actual grades and cut out curves. I know that certain western roads in the United States are doing the same thing; I believe the Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk railways are doing the same thing-the Grand Trunk did it at Guelph, anyway. I believe that the best railway practice to-day is to get rid of wooden structures and momentum grades as rapidly as possible, and to put in actual grades and steel structures. That is evidently what the Grand Trunk Pacific Company want, and that is evidently all the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are going to take when the road is completed. How do the commissioners make up the amount of $6,200,000 which it is alleged we would have saved if these grades had been put in? Their estimate is the wildest kind of a guess; they have arrived at the amount by taking 10 per cent off $62,000,000 worth of fill and excavation. They have no reason for taking ten per cent off that amount; none of their engineers show any reason for doing so, and one engineer, Mr. Berry, of Chicago, whose remarks were quoted by the hon. member for South Renfrew7, says it is a wrong practice .to go upon. That is an indication of the material of which this report is made up.
I shall not take up the time of the House by going into many other questions, but I am going into the matter of the classification of the work. It is alleged that a large amount has been overpaid by reason of over-classification and in connection with overbreak.
The commissioners say:
The amount charged for excavation of solid rock or assembled rock which is described as ' fragments or rock cemented together by interstitial material ' was improperly introduced after the contracts were signed, and though $1,835,051 was paid for 'assembled rock,' there is no material on the line which can possibly be marshalled under that head.


Mr. EMMERSON:: It was paid before Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton signed the report.


Hugh Guthrie: I am aware of that, because the report was not signed until last February. I believe myself that the finding of Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton was wrong, and that they made a pure guess at the amount, and that is apparently what they did on nearly every point of their investigation. I do not believe for a minute that McArthur got anything more than fair treatment. What reliance can we put on this report when the Government say: We will knock 75 per cent off Gutelius and Staunton's estimate, and deduct only the other 25 per cent; whereas our commissioners found a payment of $640,000 unwarranted, we will cut that down to $150,000. Personally I think that was a fair settlement. But what does the Government think of the report?
I cannot go through all the items as I have taken up too much time, already. There is absolutely no foundation for the findings in this report. They are repudiated by the men who, we hope, are going to take this road over. What about their statement as to the $6,200,000 for momentum grades and the $8,800,000 because we let the work out in big contracts, unreasonably large sections? It is the purest kind of buncombe when you come to read it. Then in regard to overbreak; competent men say that you cannot properly examine that, after a lapse of a year or two, and certainly the commissioners could not examine iton contract 21 in the neighbourhood of Winnipeg where the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) lives, and knows what is going on. The Government would not take the Gutelius-Staunton report on that, and indeed it is uncertain on what points they will endorse it, probably on none.
I blame the Government not because they appointed a commission, but because they appointed such commissioners. If they had appointed independent men who were not biased politically they would have done a service to the country, and such commissioners would have found that the road had been well and economically constructed and at the highest standard of any transcontinental railway in America. We have heard about Mr. Fielding's estimate of $61,000,000 and how before the election of 1908 the road had cost $112,000,000, the estimate being almost doubled in four years. But the cost of labour and material had gone up and we were building a better and more expensive road than was perhaps originally anticipated. Under the late commission appointed by the Liberal Government the road was kept up to standard, and there was no attempt to degrade it or to substitute wooden trestles foT steel bridges. We tried to carry out the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific to the letter and if the company should repudiate the contract it will be the fault of Major Leonard, of Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton, and of the Government which backs them.
Mr W H. BENNETT (East Simcoe): The hon. member foT South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) devoted a good deal of his time, particularly at the beginning of his speech, to the standing and reputation of the two o-entlemen who have acted as investigators in this matter. He says that Mr. Staunton was prejudiced at the outset and m proof of that he states that from time to time Mr. Staunton has been employed by the Conservative Government of Ontano. it by reason of that fact Mr. Staunton is a partisan, is not my hon. friend a partisan because while the Ross Administration was

12 and 1 o'clock at night; that three or four other gentlemen had seen him there; that he could not possibly deny, in the face of three or four witnesses, that he had been there, and that he could not possibly give any explanation as to why he was there. If that had been the day of the detectaphone, Mr. Parent's neck would have gone into ti e basket the same as Berard, Bergevin, Mousseau and the rest of the gang.
1 will not refer to the Quebec bridge and the part played by Mr. Parent in regard to that, when Mr. M. P. Davis picked up only a mere trifle of a quarter of a million dollars at the expense of the people of Canada. There is a little village called Deloraine in the province of Manitoba, with a population of 400, and there was a Mr. Charles Young living there. No one had ever heard of him as a railway man. He was a farmer and a grain dealer in a small way. He was brought out from his retreat and made a commissioner to oversee the expenditure of over a hundred million dollars. Fancy the feelings of Mr. Charles Young when he landed at Ottawa with a salary of $7,000 a year as a commissioner on this railway. He said: now here is the chance of my life. He knew McGregor of Brandon who had been out in the Yukon and had picked up a fortune; he had heard even of the immortal Sifton, the multimillionaire, and therefore he looked around to see what there would be in it. An inquiry was held in this House a few years ago which showed that under this same Mr. Young-he as the representative in that part of the country on the commission, having to do with the matter, no less a profit than $250,000 accrued to a couple of hotel keepers up there, from certain lands sold to the Grand Trunk Pacific. It is true that Mr. Young said he knew nothing about it; it is true that the hotel keepers said he had nothing to do with it; but was it not wonderful that a couple of hotel keepers, living out in Moosejaw, wandered in and picked up some land, and in a few months sold it at an advance of a quarter of a million dollars to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway? And, more than that, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company protested against the purchase of this land which Mr. Young was forcing through.
Let us take the other commissioners in order, because I think the public should be fully seized of their competency of these gentlemen. There was Mr. Mclsaac. I have nothing to say about him. He sat in this House; he was a gentlemanly, kind-hearted man; but it must have been a surprise to him when he was precipitated into 
the position of commissioner. Mr. Mclsaac was, in my opinion, an honest man, but he got into mighty poor company and as a result he became very weak as the proceedings went on. He was examined by this commission; and as reported on page 600, when he was questioned as to the idea of letting contracts in such extensive sections, he said: that his own opinion was that the system was altogether wrong, but that he had to give way. He said further that he thought it was improper to ask contractors to tender under the terms that they should put down a deposit and then be called upon for an indeterminate amount afterwards? There was Mr. Mclsaac, innocent and honest, hoping to put the party right in this deal if possible, but above all things hoping to hang on to his salary of $7,000 a year. He meant well; tried a little, and failed much.
Then we have Mr. W. S. Calvert. If you refer to the Parliamentary Guide, you will find that Mr. Calvert lives at Napier. A man told me that there was a blacksmith shop and a hotel at Napier, but the hotelkeeper lost his license and the hotel was turned into a country store. I want to give Mr. Calvert the reputation 5 p.m. of being a modest man. Mr. Calvert was examined in this inquiry and his evidence at page 614 reads:
Q. When you joined this Board, were any particular duties assigned you, in connection with the business of the road?-A. No, nothing in any particular way. I was just appointed a member of the board and we went on in the usual way that a board does. We did rather understand that each one would look more particularly after individual sections: for instance,
I was on ' D ' and ' E.' . . .
Q. Were you present at La Tuque at the time the contractors and Mr. Lumsden were there? -A. No. I never was on the work with Mr. Lumsden.
Q. Was Mr. Lumsden in the employ of the commission while you were there?-A. No. Mr. Grant had been chief engineer for some time before I came on.
On page 615, to show the thorough grasp Mr. Calvert had of the duties of the commissioners, I read:
Q. What is the difference between actual and virtual grades on a railroad?-A. I do not know that X can just answer that properly.
Q. Did you ever hear that matter discussed? -A. No, not if you put it that way. In fact,
I may say I was not very conversant with momentum roads until this question came up.
Q. Do you know anything about curvature in railroads? Did you ever hear it discussed at the time you were on the board?-A. Oh, well, sometimes, I suppose, the question was discussed, but not very much at board meetings.

Q. You never became very familiar with it?
__A. I would not like to say so.
Q. You could not form any judgment as to curvature?-A. X would not like to give an opinion on a thing like that.
There is a letter here that will go to show what Mr. Calvert thought primarily was his business. It is signed by Mr. Mattice, the district engineer, and reads as follows:
Mr. Calvert is asking that no appointments be* made to the staif in future without his consent, and these instructions must, be carried out, except in so far as cooks and building gangs are concerned.
Even the district engineer thought that Mr. Calvert's knowledge was so restricted as to the requirements of a railway that he was not even to have the recommending and selection of a cook.
With such a commission as a starting point; Mr. Parent, a discredited and discarded politician of Quebec, according to the reports of his own friends, Mr. Mclsaac, a decent, honest, inoffensive citizen, who had never been in the capacity of commissioner before, and Mr. Calvert, who frankly admits his utter inability to cope with the situation, what a playground it was for the Minister of Railways and Canals and the contractor? who loomed up in the gloaming to go after the public treasury! When the Liberal party went out of power, their nightmare was: what will turn up in regard to this railway and all that has been done in the past, and the Liberal press took up the cry. From the outset it was announced: Here was a wonderful railway, and, even if it had cost a great deal of money, it was a first-class railway no matter what it had cost. But the public were becoming a little dubious about that, knowing that even a good thing can cost too much. These gentlemen had to try to square themselves by showing that this was a judiciously built road. So, the hon. member for South Renfrew was to be immortalized, and the proper medium for his immortalizing was found, of course, in the Toronto Globe. They gave him some special advertising, with a view to helping these gentlemen out. It so happened that in the year 1912, Mr. Charles M. Hays died and a vacancy was created in the presidency and general managership of the Grand Trunk railway. Mr. Smithers, the vice-president, was coming on to Canada, and it was announced in the Toronto Globe in its issue of the 15th of May, 1912, in effect:	Hon. George
P. Graham has been asked to accept the position of president and general manager of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. It
said this is a striking tribute to his ability and worth, to his practical knowledge, his powers of initiation and his thorough understanding of the railway problem in Canada. These were given as the reasons the Grand Trunk management sought his businesslike administration. I do not think that surprised Mr. Graham, and if the truth were known, probably it would be found that he was in Toronto on the day when that report was given circulation. But, as with a good many other reports, that was the end of it. However, it served its purpose; it went from one end of the country to the other that Mr. Graham had been offered the presidency and general managership of the Grand Trunk railway, and this gave him a good advertisement before the people. Mr. Smithers arrived on the 24th of May, and the $50,000 per . annum salary of the position which they said had been dangled before Mr. Graham faded away, 'and Mr. Graham, naturally did not get the position, I merely mention that to show that these gentlemen had been anticipating the troubles that were to beset them, and so this cheap advertising in the Globe was given the hon. gentleman.
As to this letting of contracts in large sections I wish to make one point here. There is a vast difference in the letting of these contracts and the letting of an ordinary contract for a public building. Suppose that tenders are called for a public building and one is accepted at $25,000; you have there the total amount involved. But the tenders on this Transcontinental were of a more far-reaching character. As an example, take the tender of McArthur Brothers on section 1. That tender was for about $13,000,000, but when it was moneyed out, they received $20,000,000. The reason is that the work was done by schedule, and the work being so done, it was to the advantage of the contractor to do as much work under his contract as possible. We can understand how, under such contracts, immense sums were obtained by these men in addition to what is was originally intended should be paid to them.
A great deal has been said about the question of the 'additional deposit which might be called for. I shall not deal with that at length, for to do so would be to trespass on the good nature of the House. But I wish to endorse everything that has been said which went to show that this system was in the interest of the big contractors and of these alone. The contractors

knew, and so did the board when a tender put in at $13,000,000 might ultimately money out at $20,000,000, both contractors and board knew that all tenders were of a very large order. So we find the very unfair proposition laid down that the tenderer should first put up a certain sum as a deposit, and then be subject to the will of the board to increase that amount. This prevented many men from putting in tenders. There was this further: under the terms, the successful tenderer, if not able to comply with the increased demand made upon him, stood the chance of losing what he had put up in the first place, Mr. Mclsaac placed himself on record as objecting to that condition. There was another gentleman who objected to it, and the treatment of his objection showed the futility of entrusting men with power which they were not able to use. At page 603 of the evidence contained in this report, we find that the Finance Minister of that day protested to the board against this condition regarding a further deposit. The letters of Mr. Fielding and the evidence of Mr. Mclsaac are set forth in the report What superhuman power, if we may so term it, intervened to balk the wishes of the Minister of Finance, the man who above all others is charged with the custody of the public money? But, in any case, the result of his being overruled was that those who wished to tender were subject to these onerous terms.	.
I wish to deal for a few moments with some of the gentlemen who tendered. Mr. M. P. Davis tendered for a number of these contracts, and it is needless to say that he secured a large proportion of them. The Quebec bridge, which was referred to last night, netted him a quarter of a million dollars. He had had the Cornwall canal of unhappy memory, from which, it is said, he made so much money that he himself could not estimate it. Then he had that priceless gem, the water-powers on the Soulanges canal, granted him when the present leader of the Opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was Prime Minister and acting Minister of Railways and Canals, and granted by him in defiance of the report of the chief engineer -_>f that branch. What was the Soulanges canal deal? In 1902 Mr. Davis made application for powers on what is known as the Cedars section of the Soulanges canal. He asked for a twenty-one year lease, at a Tental- no, I will deal with the rental in a moment. In due course the matter was referred to fMr. W. H. Bennett.]
Mr.' Thomas Munro, engineer of that system of canals. Mr. Munro reported on the 18th of February, in the course of which he said:
If trade is to grow it will be advisable to adopt means of electrical traction to facilitate the passage of laden barges. The whole question is of much importance, so much so that it should have the fullest investigation before any action is taken, at least, such is my humble opinion.
That report of Mr. Thomas Munro was before the right hon. gentleman, who in the absence of Mr. Blair was acting Minister of Railways and Canals. On that report an Order in Council was passed in the month of April giving Mr. Davis, for the paltry sum of $3,000, that enormous water-power for sixty-three years from that date, for the term of the lease was twenty-one years with two renewals of twenty-one years each. I have heard eminent contractors and engineers say that the rights given to Mr. Davis were worth not a paltry $3,000 a year, but over $250,000 a year. Is it to be wondered that Mr. Davis was right in the foreground, and that he was able to deal with this Government on very advantageous terms?
Let us examine these twenty-one tenders. Nine contracts embraced half the line, and for these there were only five tenderers. These were secured by Davis, O'Brien and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and the return made to Mr. Davis on the section which he sub-let-let it be remembered that Mr. Davis did none of this work himself, as the contracts were handed over to others-amounted to the neat sum of $3,500,000. It is a striking, fact that when Mr. McArthur tendered on contract No. 1, he was forced by the board to deposit with the department over $1,000,000, but when Mr. M. P. Davis tendered they asked him for a small payment only, and did not request a second payment at all. The right hon. leader of the Opposition may be in a position to explain how Mr. McArthur was compelled to deposit more than $1,000,000, while Mr. M. P. Davis got off scott free. Another firm, Hogan and Macdonell, who did not seem to be on friendly terms with the commissioners, were compelled to deposit $794,000 when their tender was accepted. If a man could get hold of Mr. M. P. Davis and in solemn and quiet stillness, ask him what he thought of the whole thing,
I should think that he would say, like Warren Hastings of old, * that he was amazed at his forbearance when he considered his opportunities.'

Let us now take contracts 16 and 17, with which Mr. M. P. Davis was most concerned. It is well for the House to bear in mind the dates which I am about to give. The contracts were let on October 29, 1908. The work on contract 16 was to be completed by December 3, 1910, and the work on No. 17 by March 11, 1911. In September, 1909, they had not commenced work on these sections, and on September 16 Mr. Davis assigned the contracts and cleared up $740,000. What was happening in the meantime? Mr. Hays had written a letter to the commissioners on October 8, 1909, protesting against the contract being allowed to stand any longer, and asking, in view of the fact that nothing had been done, that new tenders be called for. There is no doubt that Mr. Hays felt very strongly on this question, and that he had his own opinion of the board. He knew that the man in authority was Mr. Parent, and as he and that gentleman evidently were not on good terms-my own opinion is that Mr. Parent would be more or less closely linked up with M. P. Davis, considering what Mr. Parent's reputation has been in the past- Mr, Hays addressed no less a personage than the then Prime Minister, asking for an explanation, and for an arrangement. He wrote:
My Dear Sir Wilfrid,-
On the 29th day of October, 1908, the National Transcontinental Railway Commissioners awarded two contracts for the construction of about 204 miles on sections ' D ' and ' E ' of the National Transcontinental railway. The first section starting on the west end of Fauquier Brothers' Abitibi contract, in the province of Ontario, about 100 miles west of Cochrane, for a distance of 104.24 miles; the second contract commencing at the terminations of the first and joining Fauquier Brothers' contract north of lake Nipigon, a distance of 100 miles. By the terms of these contracts the work was to commence immediately after the execution of the agreements to be proceeded with continuously and diligently under the personal supervision of the contractor until completed, the date of completion being 31st December, 1910.
This work is remote from rail transportation, the closest point being 100 miles west of Cochrane. The prices at which the work was awarded were very high and consequently sufficient to allow contractors to build tote roads or some other means of transportation and getting in supplies so as to immediately commence work. To the best of our knowledge no attempt has been made as yet to open this work, and the indications are that while the work, as before stated, was let at very high prices on account of the difficulties of transportation, it Is now the intention of the contractors to haul their material over a portion of the Fauquier Brothers' work track, on which will be completed the present season, say about 50 miles, and haul along right of way to their own section 50 miles distant.
This delay will add largely to the profits of the contracts with no commensurate advantage so far as the National Transcontinental railway is concerned, and under the circumstances I will ask that the Government arrange for the cancellation of existing contracts and ask for new bids which can undoubtedly be obtained on very much reduced schedule prices, particularly so if it is known that the contractors will be enabled to haul their, material and supplies over such portion of Fauquier Brothers' work as track has been laid upon.
Considering that this was such a large question, one would have expected that the then Prime Minister would have answered Mr. Hay's letter. No answer was made, however; the letter was referred to Mr. Parent, and he was instructed to look into the question whether or not, in the interests of the Government of the country and of the Transcontinental railway, the suggestion of Mr. Hays should be carried out. As a result, what happened? Davis turned around, sold out the contract and made $740,000. In the innocence of his heart the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals the other night asked what difference it made to the country whether or not Davis made a profit of $740,000-the country had to pay it anyway. But had there been honest and straightforward competition, the McDougall firm would have been quite willing to do the work at $740,000 less than the tender that Davis had made. It is computed by the investigators that upwards of $8,000,000 would have been saved to the country had these contracts been let out in smaller sections and had more favourable terms been given. If on that contract $740,000 could have been saved, is it not a fair inference that a large amount could have been saved on the others as well? By applying this percentage of loss to the gross amount that was paid out, it may be seen that the report has proved that a large amount of money might have been saved.
Hon. gentlemen on the other side-and I give them credit for it-have taken up for discussion in connection with this matter points which may be largely questions of judgment. 1 am free to admit that at a public non-partisan meeting of fair-minded men it would be a fair question to argue whether or not momentum grades are a desirable thing to be used in any railway. I quite admit that hon. gentlemen opposite are sagacious and wise when they bring the question of momentum grades to the foreground with a view of attempting to discredit the report of Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton. I am not going to say that all engineers agree upon this question and,

if they do differ, the first point to be considered is what is the ordinary practice of railway companies. The most important part of the Grand Trunk Pacific road is the part that runs from Graham to Fort William, as that part of the road will carry the greatest amount of traffic. No hon. gentleman opposite can successfully deny the statement made by gentlemen on this side of the House time and again that that section of the road from Graham to Fort William has a large number of momentum grades. I invite any hon. gentleman on that side of the House to show that that is not the case. No part of the Canadian Pacific railway is used more than that part between Winnipeg and Fort William, because the bulk of their traffic is carried between these points. By a statement of the Canadian Pacific railway authorities in the House the other day, it was established that there are no less than eighty-five momentum grades on that section of the Canadian Pacific railway.
Why, then, if it is good railway engineering for the Canadian Pacific railway to have on the best part of their line a large number of these momentum grades, should they not be used on the main line of the Transcontinental?
The opinions of one gentleman have been cited time and again on all things pertaining to engineering. I shall quote the opinion of this gentleman, Mr. Gordon Grant, on this question. He says, at page 615:
Disregarding ordinary sags in long fills or fills over soft ground, it has been considered inadvisable to bring up to profile grade, at present, and contractors' prices for the unnecessary work. There are, as you will see, only two places where virtual grades have been adopted, and the saving effected with this slight change amounts to $27,797. They are both well within velocity limits, and will not affect the hauling capacity of a locomotive to the extent of a single pound. The introduction of virtual grades in railroad construction, for the purpose of economy in first cost and subsequent economy in operation, by reason of reduced interest charges, cannot be considered other than a good business proposition.
There is the answer of Mr. Grant; and the hon. gentleman will not deny that on this Grand Trunk Pacific road there is a large number of what are called pusher grades. With a pusher grade the alignment is not preserved. One of these so-called momentum grades cannot affect the running of trains more than a pusher grade would. The estimate by the commissioners of the unnecessary expenditures in that respect is $6,200,000
We now come to a point somewhat analo-

gous to the question of momentum grades. I refer to the grade at La Tuque. Mr. Lumsden submitted to the Transcontinental Railway Commission a proposal in reference to the grade at La Tuque. The proposition of Mr. Doucet will be found at page 100. His proposal was to'have a so-called pusher grade instead of preserving the line as was done; and his estimate was that there would thus be a saving of one million dollars. A reference to the evidence of Mr. Mclsaac will show that he gives as one reason for the imposition of this second unascertained amount to be paid by the contractors was that they were guided by Mr. Lumsden's advice in that respect. If they were to be guided on purely financial questions by the engineers why should they not have been, guided in matters of engine eering? Here was the position. The engineer had recommended that a pusher grade should be substituted and had advised that one million dollars would be saved in that way. In defiance of that the commission, at the instigation of the Government-because the evidence shows, that they consulted the Government of the day through the then Minister of Railways and Canals- set the engineer's opinion at defiance and at La Tuque 'alone one millioini dollars was lost to the country.
One subject on which the hon. member for South Renfrew dwelt with pleasure, was trestles. He quarrelled vigorously with the estimate of the commissioners that $5,500,000 was wasted on bridges, embankments and trestles; and he gave a great many opinions of his own. At page 2179 iof ' Hansard,' the hon. member said:
The reason for not using wooden trestles is that they are not reliable and they are not modern railway construction through a country like ours and everybody knows it. . . . It would have been absolutely wrong, next to criminal, (for the Government to have done anything else, and still this Government is distributing a report saying that we could have saved on wooden trestles $2,947,000-and they dare not attempt to save one farthing themselves. I challenge this Government to show me where they have adopted a wooden trestle or a wooden bridge in preference to a steel structure. In modern railway construction, where the Government is taking over a completed road and not where the company itself is going to operate the road and is going to do the filling, it would have been, I say, nearly criminal to put in these wooden bridges. . . . The Grand Trunk Pacific is the company that owns the road west of Winnipeg and it can fill its own line at any time; but it will be compelled by good railway practice to fill it inside of eighteen months.
There can be no doubt that the hon. member for South Renfrew made the point strongly that good railway practice would

necessitate dispensing with wooden trestles, *and I suppose he still sticks to that. It has been repeated by other hon. gentlemen on his side. The hon. member had better travel a little through Ontario if he wants to find wooden trestles which have stood, not for eighteen months as he says, but for eighteen yeaTS. Between Peterborough and Lindsay, on the Grand Trunk railway, where hundreds of millions of bushels -of grain have been hauled, where fast passenger trains pass every day, there are wooden trestles to a height of 75 feet; and jet the hon. gentleman says that good railway practice would have abolished them long ago. I suppose he will admit that the Canadian Pacific railway is a fairly well managed road, perhaps not as well as the hon. member himself would manage it, although I do not think he has been offered the management of the Canadian Pacific railway as they say he was that of the Grand Trunk. I assert that there is no better piece of Tailway, no higher-priced construction, than the road from Port McNicoll to Bethany, near Peterborough. There the hon. gentleman will see a trestle a quarter of a mile long which was built by the Canadian Pacific railway four years ago, over which they are carrying trains of [DOT]60 loaded cars, each containing one thousand bushels of grain. And yet this great expert, this sought-for gentleman who was asked to take the place of the late Mr. Hays, says that good railway management will fill in wooden trestles within eighteen months after construction. The hon. gentleman should travel a little. He will admit that the Pennsylvania is a fairly well run railway. On that line near Washington, I think over Chesapeake bay, there is nearly three-quarters of a mile of trestle work; and yet trestles are condemned by this Solon of railway building, this greatest expert on railways in Canada. The hon. gentleman is publishing a speech, which, although it extended over seven hours, is being sold at the low price of one cent a copy. When people read that speech, in which he says that good railway practice compels the filling of these trestles within eighteen months, the people of this country, especially Tailway men, who do the hon. member the honour of reading his speech, when they come to his remarks on trestles and see the crass ignorance displayed by him on that question, will say: If that is all the hon. member for South Renfrew knows about
trains it was high time that the control of the Railway Department was handed over to some person else. I hope that we shall hear no more about trestles after that. If there was any one scheme that lent itself to the cupidity and greed of contractors under this board, it was the construction of trestles. See how it worked out. In the first place, they were paid by the foot for the trestles used in constructing the road. Then the contractors were to be paid 55 cents a yard for all fill, and they were to be allowed for all over-break. What a prospect that was, under this kindly and benevolent board, for a railway contractor !
In the first place, instead of breaking down on either side to the extent of twenty per cent, which is good railway practice, the contractor was allowed to break to the extent of forty per cent. And what was thfe result? His train was there, he had to stop and load the overbreak on the cars and as there was a double quantity he was successfully handling it that much cheaper. This overbreak on which there was a large profit was then taken to the dump and used for filling around the trestles. How these contractors must have smiled knowing that they were getting fifty cents a yard for dumping this overbreak in the fill while the Grand Trunk railway were only getting twenty-five cents a yard. Is it any wonder in the face of these facts that the commissioners report that there was a waste of $5,500,000 on trestles and embankments?
Then as regards sidings. Some hon. gentleman opposite laboured the other day to show that the building of six miles of siding was permitted under the Act. Commissioner Mclsaao disagreed as he understood that the specifications called for a single track. Was there any sense or reason in parallelling the main line with six miles of siding? I can understand as every man can, the necessity of having a siding long enough to pocket say a couple of trains. But why a siding of six miles? I will ask the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) whether he can give me any reasonable explanation for that six miles of siding and I will be pleased to sit down while he answers.


George Perry Graham: Where was this six
miles of siding?


William Humphrey Bennett: I think it was at Trans-cona.


George Perry Graham: That is only four miles.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was it not near Graham?


George Perry Graham: There is no place where there was six miles of siding. The six miles is made up of siding at different places.


William Humphrey Bennett: My recollection is that
at some place there was six miles, hut as I cannot lay my hand on it just now I will take the hon. gentleman's statement that . it was four miles. Fancy the management of a railway company putting four miles of siding alongside their main track! What did it mean? It meant that it was necessary to pocket four miles of trains there, in order to allow the trains on the main line to go by. The thing is absurd on the face of it and I tell the hon. member for South Renfrew that he cannot find a siding of four miles in the whole system of either the Grand Trunk railway or the Canadian Pacific railway. It is apparent that the reason those sidings were put in was to enable the contractor to make more money. Take the McArthur tender for instance. The tender was for $13,000,000 but when finished out it amounted to $20,000,000. Hon. gentlemen are well within their rights in discussing cases in this report involving a question of judgment, but there are cases of reckless expenditure which they do not attempt and will not attempt to discuss, because they are so palpably absurd that no man would have the temerity to stand up anywhere, much less in this House, and attempt to defend them. Take the case, cited time and again of the farm offered to the board for $3,500. The commission refused to buy the farm and deliberately built a culvert connecting the two parts of the farm. As a result of that, and of the expenditure incurred in connection with the other farm crossing case, the country had to pay $60,000.
Hon. gentlemen opposite also assailed the commissioners for saying that the portion of the line east of Levis should not have been built and that the $35,000,000 spent thereon, was wasted. In answer to that I say that the commissioners' finding is justified by every inference than can be deducted from the .situation, as it presents itself to-day. There is nothing in the whole contract between the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific to compel the Grand Trunk to send a single bushel of grain or a single pound of freight over that eastern section. That was shown when the contract was up some years ago. In the meantime what have the Grand Trunk railway been doing? Have they made preparations for traffic at St. John or Halifax by spending a single dollar?

Not at all. The very moment the contract was entered into and construction commenced, the Grand Trunk started operations to deflect this trade to Portland; and all the time this railroad was under construction it must have been known to the then Government that such was the case. What was the first step the Grand Trunk took. The town of Midland is their principal port for shipping grain either to Montreal or Portland. Directly the contract was signed, the Grand Trunk spent a large sum of money, probably about $3,000,000, in the construction of docks and elevators at Midland to accommodate the traffic that would come from the Northwest and be carried to Portland in the winter and to Montreal in the summer. A glance at the map shows that that traffic never can go to the ports of St. John or Halifax. In the first place, the Grand Trunk will do what the Canadian Pacific railway are doing; they will have a port on the upper-lakes, from which they will ship their grain in the fall of the year to Montreal, and when navigation closes the grain will be taken to Portland, and the Canadian Pacific railway will do as they are doing, and continue to take their traffic to St. John. Moreover the situation is such today in the Maritime provinces that after the grain for export has gone by, no grain at all will go to the Maritime provinces in the winter months. The grain will leave the Grand Trunk Pacific at Cochrane and by an arrangement with the Ontario Government will come down to the province of Ontario and be distributed for use in the flour mills, just as is being done to-day. And here will stand this railway, unused in the winter months. There will not be any large trains of immigrants coming in who might travel over that road because it is the shorter route. Passengers will travel either by way of Chicago, or by the Canadian Pacific railway to North Bay, or passing up to Cochrane they can take the Grand Trunk Pacific there if they want to patronize that road. The whole thing stands as a monument of blundering incapacity on the part of the late Government. Worse than that, by reason of the enormous sum the railway has co-st, the rates will for all time to come be so abnormal that it will not be a paying road for the Grand Trunk Pacific.
My hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said:	look at the position
of Mr. Chamberlin; Mr. Chamberlin protested against momentum grades. I have no doubt that Mr. Chamberlain protested


'vPRIL 2, J 93 4
[Stage Direction]
against momentum grades, and I think he was a wise man to protest against them. Why? Mr. Chamberlin knew the enormous expenditure that would be incurred in the construction of this road and when the present Government came into office he was seeking for an opportunity to put up some excuse in order to try to evade the bargain of taking over the road as the company are bound under the contract to take it over. I assume that was the reason he wrote that letter. It was good business and good policy on his part as the representative of the Grand Trunk railway.
These hon. gentlemen may go before the public of Canada and discuss this report on its merits. They may assail Messrs. Lynch-Staunton and Gutelius, but the bold fact will stand out that after the late Government had stated that they had complete surveys, that they had employed competent engineers to make these surveys and that it was a fair estimate to say that the road would only cost $61,000,000, it will have cost 300 per cent more than that. That is a fact that cannot be gainsaid, and that they cannot get away from. The report discloses a condition of blundering incapacity-I fear I must almost say of idiocy- that is without precedent in the administration of public affairs. The public will consider the stamp of men who composed the commission and, having regard to their reputations, their special unfitness and incapacity to deal with the construction of this road. The Government were well within their rights when they instituted this inquiry. The gentlemen who conducted the inquiry and made the report bring the facts out so boldly and so strongly that hon. gentlemen opposite, being shy of argument, at every turn have endeavoured to justify themselves by the assertion that the questions dealt with are only questions of ordinary opinion and judgment. I am prepared to vote against the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Renfrew for the reason that I believe the Government have done right in having the investigation and because I believe that not only have the investigators brought to the task ability and a conscientious regard for the faithful discharge of a public duty, but that they have produced a report which will be of great interest to the people of Canada, one which will be a source of information to them and one which amply justifies the Government in employing them to conduct this inquiry.
Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Speaker, if powers of vituperation and a low order of abuse will pass current for argumentative skill, then I think my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has earned the congratulations of his friends who gathered so quickly into the House the moment he undertook to speak. My hon. friend's speech has been very much indeed like the report-the alleged report-which is involved in the motion of my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). There is in it a poverty of argument and of fact, but it is resplendent in assertion. I do not feel that I am called upon to follow my hon. friend in that line of argument. Were I to attempt to do so I know that I must ignominiously fail because I have neither the inclination nor the ability to follow in the trail blazed out by my hon. friend. It seems to me that my hon. friend, in taking that course, has given away entirely the case of hon. gentlemen opposite. I was not very much surprised that my hon. friend did take that course; I rather anticipated it. The gentlemen on the other side who have taken part in the discussion are for the most part rich in such powers, and in the absence of any fact or argument, they have indulged to the full in vituperation.
There has been circulated throughout this country a .document called the Federal Press Bulletin, and in the copy which came into my hands, I find a repetition, perhaps the original, of the speech of my hon. friend from East Simcoe, of my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) and of my hon. friend from Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler). I find this document full of headlines, in glaring print, and it goes through the country as a substitute for facts, but entirely impoverished as to argument. It gives us a clue as to the object of the report. This report has been characterized as a partisan and non-judicial report upon a great national undertaking, and as a campaign document to be circulated broadcast throughout the length and breadth of Canada. In the absence of facts, in the absence of argument, these statements and headlines, baseless as they are, are sent throughout the Dominion.
It is very unfortunate that the political life of Canada should be so degraded, that a national undertaking should be treated in such a manner. It is a shame, a disgrace, and a blot upon the fair name of Canada. When we consider the inception of this work, and the object to be attained, the

crime committed by the Government of the day in connection with this undertaking becomes very evident.
It is my purpose and it certainly will be my effort to deal solely with the issue. My very first temptation is to follow my hon. friend, the acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) in his statement in regard to the Intercolonial railway and the canal system of the Dominion. It is a practice that has been followed for the last quarter of a century that the Minister of Railways should annually present to the House and to the country a statement of the affairs of the Intercolonial railway, and on a more opportune occasion I hope to show how glaringly inaccurate is the statement presented by the acting Minister of Railways. The issue that is presented before this House and the people of this country at the moment, would be clouded if I were to attempt now to deal with matters relating to the Intercolonial railway. The proper consideration of the Gutelius-Staunton report is not a matter of abuse by hon. gentlemen either on the one side or the other. The question is whether there were facts to substantiate that report; whether the gentlemen responsible for it are able and fit to discuss the question, and whether they inquired into this subject honestly and without bias. To that issue I will attempt to devote myself as briefly as I can.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Speaker, when
the House rose, I was stating that it would be my sincere effort to confine myself to the issue. The hon. acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) made his annual budget, in the course of which he referred to the report of the commission appointed to investigate the affairs of the National Transcontinental railway. He was followed by my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) in a comprehensive and, in my judgment, unanswerable, analysis of that report. That speech was a condemnation of the report and of its authors. The facts and arguments were so magnificently marshalled by my hon. friend that the whole issue of the debate was changed, and the onus was thrown upon the Government, who, through their acting Minister of Railways, had undertaken to uphold that report. My hon. friend (Mr. Graham) tore to shreds and tatters the fabric so

carefully prepared by these commissioners in nearly two years of labour. That commission, let it be noted, was issued on the 29th of January, 1912, and the work of the commission was completed early in 1913 -certainly before the 1st of May of that year, because, for some weeks before that date, one of the commissioners, Mr. Gute-lius, was engaged as general manager of the Intercolonial railway. Thus, after practically a year's work this commission must have been in a position to report. Why is it that that report was delayed for nearly twelve months? In answer to a question asked in this House, it was stated that the report had been signed by Mr. Gutelius on the 12th of February, 1914. That report was evidently a laboured one, certainly it must have been a studied one; for, after the work of the commission was complete, nearly a year was occupied with its preparation. Rumour states that these commissioners were not unaided in their preparation of that report. When we first came here in January last, the rumour in these corridors was that the commissioners were in labour and were aided by the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) to bring forth this report.


John Dowsley Reid: Only rumour, and baseless.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not vouch for
the truth of it.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no truth in it whatever.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Solicitor General is not a member of the Cabinet, but he is a member of the Government, and of all the members of the Government, in the couise of a week's discussion of this subject, he is the only one who has attempted to justify this report. It is he who is called upon to act as its godfather. He replied to my hon. friend from South Renfrew. But he did not answer him, and the statements and arguments of that hon. member still stand. I certainly admire the analytical and methodical intellect of the Solicitor General, who commands the admiration of hon. members of both sides of the House. I want to give honour where honour is due, but with all his keenness of intellect, the Solicitor General failed to move the structure which my hon. friend from South Renfrew had erected. The hon. member for South Renfrew had marshalled his facts and his arguments, and as he proceeded step by step the props that supported this

report fell; and in the end he left it sprawling upon the floor of this House with not enough life in it to make it worthy of notice. In the words of Lloyd George applied to an issue presented by the Tory party ( in England-' it might be compared to a decapitated fowl running headless around the Tory farmyard, and the last	cackle was out of	it.'
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the report was left with merely the echo of a cackle since the hon. member for South Renfrew wielded his weapon against it. This report can be said to be superlatively a nebulous indication of the conditions which the commissioners sought, in the interests of the Tory party, to demonstrate as existing, but the existence of which they ignominiously failed to prove.	In all its nakedness and
emptiness this report is merely a nebulous indication of what the commissioners would prove if they could. We can only conjecture whence the commission had its origin, and for what purpose? I have no complaint as to the course taken by the Government in issuing a commission. It was their right; perhaps they felt it to be their duty, but the character of the men whom they appointed, and the result of the work they did, condemns the Government in the taking of any action whatever in respect to the matters. The commission and its work is discounted by the most influential member of this Administration-a very distinguished, I might also say a very illustrious member of this Government as compared with those who sit around him. I refer to that veteran of the Conservative party, the hon. Minister of Trade and 'Commerce (Mr. Foster). The hon. minister seemingly does not on all occasions concur either with the attitude or with the action of his colleagues. It will be recalled that not many months ago there was an election in Lanark, owing to a vacancy caused by the death of the lamented Mr. Haggart, whom we all kindly remember and whose memory we honour. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce was speaking of commissions during that election, and he is reported to have used the following language:
The Lord knows we have plenty of commissions going up and down the country. They are as plentiful as berries in Kazabazua; they waste good ink and paper on reports which are put on the shelves and never read.
I wonder if my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce had in mind this 148


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
report when he used those words. He must have had knowledge of it; he knew that it was in course of preparation, and he may have had some inkling as to its contents. Having that knowledge, I wonder if in making these remarks he had any reference to the report which has been tabled and which has been referred to in such strong and unanswerable terms by the hon. member for South Renfrew? There was no action or suggestion of action in this regard by the Government at the time of that election, yet the preparation of the report must have been practically completed. He mentions this report; he mentions these commissions and their general character. Evidently he does not agree with the course pursued by the Government in appointing so many commissions.
I am sure that if he were here to-night, and if he were called upon to address himself with regard to this particular report, his language would be much stronger than his language with respect to the results of the work of commissions in general. If all the Government commissions do as badly as this one has done, we should gaze upon the worst lot of bankrupt statesmen the world has ever seen.
John Hampden Burnham: Grit, or Tory?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I care not how you classify them; in the heavens above or on the earth beneath it is quite inconceivable that there should be a parallel to this report. I do not wish in any way to indulge in personal condemnation of the members of the commission. Attention has been given to them individually; my references will be to them collectively in their official capacity and with regard to their work. All I have to say is that they seem to have been square pegs in a round hole. Of all the fundamental tragedies presented in the affairs of this life, none is more lamentable than the attempt of men to do things which they are either incapable of doing or unjustified in doing. I have said that I have no complaint with respect to the Government and their action in issuing a commission. It all becomes a question as to the bona fides and as to the intentions of the Government in creating it. If they were desirous of honest inquiry; if they really felt that some great wrong had been perpetrated by the National Transcontinental Railway Commission and by the Government which was responsible for their appointment, then indeed they were justi-


EDIIION
[Stage Direction]
fled in taking such action. But when one reads this report; when one reads and reflects upon the action of these commissioners, the question arises as to the bona tides of the Government in making the appointment. If they were honest in their desire to have this matter judicially investigated and considered, their manifest duty in the interests of the people of this country would have been to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry that would at once command the confidence of the people of Canada. If such a commission had been created it would have proceeded to inquire into the facts and circumstances connected with the transactions of the commission appointed to supervise the construction of the National Transcontinental railway. It is true that the appointment of the commission of inquiry was, in a way, an accusation against the commissioners responsible for the construction of the road, an accusation against the Government which appointed these commissioners. Would it not have been fair play and British justice to have held that inquiry in the presence of those commissioners and to have permitted them to be present when every witness gave his testimony ? It would have been the duty of any such commission of inquiry to permit those in the position of accused to have counsel to represent them and to cross-examine every witness. That would have been a judicial inquiry, and one in accord with ithe honest desire of any Government that sought, in the interests of the people, to investigate affairs connected with the construction of such a great national undertaking. That course was not taken, and I am sure that no lawyer in this House, reading over that evidence, will say that the method of examination was at all in harmony with the rules relating to evidence that prevail in the meanest courts in the land. Leading questions were put to witnesses. If the witnesses did not answer as they were asked, then the retort was made: You are not with us, you are hot with us. With whom? With the commissioners. For what purpose? Evidently they conceived their purpose to be to hunt and nose around and secure evidence and only evidence that would sustain their .theory, that would if you will, justify the suspicions and the innuendos of the party which appointed the commission. All other evidence was to be rejected and condemned, and if evi-

dence was suggested that was in any way out of harmony with their preconceived ideas, then the witness was charged with being out of harmony with them and out of harmony with the objects which they had in view.
Some reference has been made to the fact that Mr. Gutelius was an American citizen. It is a suspicious circumstance that he was appointed on January 29, 1912, and that within one month or six weeks he was impelled, by whom inspired I know not, to seek naturalization in the courts of this country. I would not condemn Mr. Gutelius or his evidence oecause he remained an American citizen; rather I would have had respect for the man who would not sell his birthright for the mess of pottage that was offered him. Why was it? Unfair criticism has been made of the fact that any reference was made to Mr. Gutelius being an American citizen. In 1903, 1904 and 1905 questions arose with respect to the construction of this railway; and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, preliminary to the execution of this great national undertaking, had sent out survey parties to that great north-land with a view of securing all possible advance information in connection with a proposed route for a transcontinental railway, and the fact that Americans were employed on those survey parties was made a political issue. Attempts were made to prejudice the people because of the employment of American engineers in making these surveys and the Government of that day appointed a Royal Commission. Did they appoint any party hangers-on?; did they appoint any one interested in sustaining the charge or in refuting it. No, they appointed judge Winchester, one of the judges of the Ontario courts. The Conservative party of that day were so sensitive to the idea that none but British subjects should be engaged in any work in connection with even surveys, that a great hullabaloo "w-as made, the subject was agitated in the newspaper press, the labour men were appealed to, and passions were aroused; and, when these gentlemen opposite, having announced that as their rule of conduct when in Opposition, are found now on the Government Benches appointing -an American citizen, they are certainly susceptible to criticism. I care not as to the citizenship of Mr. Gutelius. I believe in reciprocity of brains as I believe in reciprocity in material things between this country and the United States. Canadians in every walk of professional and in-

i
dustrial and business life are holding eminent positions in the United States, and there should be reciprocity in that regard. But when a man like Mr. Gutelius comeB into this country, an American citizen, and lends himself to the perpetration of this work which he apparently was asked to do with an evident purpose and intention, no words can he too severe in condemnation and in criticism of his conduct. The very fact that he ceased to be an American citizen for the mere purpose of enabling him to draw $20,000 or more a year from this Government is something which detracts from his honour, as I am sure all will agree. The report is now before us, and the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has moved an amendment which clearly states the issue. It contains the kernel of the subject which this Parliament should debate and upon which this Parliament should pronounce judgment; and it reads:
That the report of the commissioners appointed hy the Government to inquire into the construction of the Transcontinental railway is so wilfully partisan and misleading as to he wholly unreliable; that the manifest object of the said commissioners was to misrepresent for party purposes rather than to investigate in the public interest, without regard to the serious consequences to the country or this great national undertaking; and that for the appointment of such commissioners, and for accepting and endorsing their report, the Government deserves the severe censure of this House.
The onus of defence is upon the Government. Before we can properly and satisfactorily deal with this report we must have in memory the inception of this great undertaking. It will be recalled that at tne beginning of this century, in 1901-2 there had been brought about a great change in the sentiment of our people with respect to transportation facilities. The great West was filling up and it was necessary that something should be done. We were called upon to meet the conditions of that aay, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then Prime Minister, took hold of the question. We had, up to this date, been expending hundreds of millions f dollars in subsidizing railways in which the people of this country had no ownership. The leader of the Liberal party conceived it to be his duty in the interest of the people, and to solve the transportation problem, to build a great railway to take care of the transportation of the products of the West. It was to be a railway from ocean to ocean, passing entirely over Canadian soil, and ensuring, if possible, the shipment of Canadian products through Canadian seaports, in summer and in winter.
The idea conceived by the right hon. gentleman was presented to Parliament and discussed. While it was not opposed by the people of the country it met with the strongest opposition of certain railway interests. We all know that the Canadian Pacific railway, which up to that time had held a monopoly of transportation privileges in Canada, were most strenuously opposed to the idea of such a railway as that proposed, because they did not want a high grade road in competition with their own. Another great line of railway, a transcontinental in embryo at least, the Canadian Northern railway, were also opposed to the idea. Whether it was because they thought they should be entrusted with the construction, the maintenance and operation of such a railway I do not know; whether they were jealous of the men who secured the privilege of engaging in this great work, I am not here to state, but I do know that their opposition was strong. The Conservative party, who steeled themselves against interfering in any way with the one transcontinental line then in existence-not all the way through Canadian territory, because a part of it ran through Maine-came to the support of this combined opposition, and they have opposed the road ever since. Has the fact that the Canadian Pacific railway opposed the inception and the construction of this competing line anything to do with the opposition of the present Administration? Is this report bom because df opposition on the part of the Canadian Pacific railway? It would almost seem as if the appointment of Mr. Gutelius, an ex-employee of the Canadian Pacific railway who, it is said, was loaned to the Government of Canada, was a connecting link, which lends strength to the suspicion that the Canadian Pacific railway were interested in the condemnation of the construction of the railway and of the Government responsible for its construction.
It is self-evident that to rebut the charge of partisanship against the commissioners the Government must explain what public object is to be served by this report, which has not one redeeming feature. Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton have condemned the National Transcontinental railway in its inception; they have condemned its construction, they have condemned the personnel of the commissioners entrusted with the responsibility of constructing the road, and we are now called upon in the face of a report which is unsupported by evidence,
[Stage Direction]
to lend ourselves to a general condemnation not merely of that .work, but of Canada and its people.
When the Government approve of the condemnation in the report of the personnel of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission because the lawyers upon it did not have expert knowledge in the construction of railways, I wonder how it is that when only the other day they appointed a man to inquire into the construction of a railway in the constituency *of my hon. friend from York (Mr. McLeod), they appointed Mr. R. A. Pringle, a lawyer -an eminent lawyer, it is true-but he is sent by this Government down to New Brunswick to inquire into the construction of a railway built because of a subsidy given by the Government.
The great principle the Government evidently seek to have established is to degrade this great national railway. They say that this road has cost too much. The [DOT]Gonservative Government appears in a new role when they pose as economists. They are vicarious economists. Their frugal spirits are exercised over the horrible extravagance of their predecessors, but they conveniently forget the great Canadian Pacific railway scandal which is a part of the life history of the Conservative party. They have forgotten the scandal over the St. Charles branch, built in the province of Quebec as a part of the Intercolonial railway; they have forgotten the [DOT]Southampton railway in York, N.B. They, in assuming this role, are at variance with their latest slogan: ' Dash away and spend the money,' a declaration by an hon. member from an eastern province, which was applauded to the echo by the hon. members who surrounded him. They have forgotten all that, and they claim that the Liberal party were extravagant in the expenditure of public money because they constructed a line of railway of a high standard. I feel constrained to make some reference in respect to the gradients of this railway. I am not going to call in engineers, I am not going to ask you to consider the technical evidence that is given in respect to momentum or velocity grades, or whether low grades are necessary. But I will bring forward the evidence of a man who, I am sure, will command the confidence of every person in Canada.
This report contains one self-evident truth and the only statement of truth, apparently, that I find in it, ils where it says that the cost of a railway depends principally upon its design. I am sure that all will unite in concurring in the truth of that statement

by the commissioners. It does depend upon the character and design of the road. The Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific railway entered into an agreement for the construction of a great national road over Canadian territory of a certain character and of a certain design, and one whose first cost would be its last cost. Therein lies the difference as between the ideas of the engineers. The question of first cost is a very important one. It is important from many standpoints and it is particularly important with respect to the cost of operation. I will not deal with the differences of opinion and theory among enginers; but I will cite James J. Hill who is a practical railway man, not merely in respect to the creation and construction of railway"!, but with respect to their operation as a business proposition. In June, 1906, Mr. Hill was invited by the Canadian Club of the city of Ottawa to address them, and the subject of his address was ' Transportation.' His words were deemed to be words of wisdom. It was at a time when the fame of Canada had gone abroad with respect to the construction of this great national undertaking. It was heralded abroad that Canada was to construct a line from ocean to ocean with a grade of 04 per cent going east and of 0'6 per cent going west, with very small curvatures and he pointed out that this remarkable fact elicited the attention of the people of every land and particularly of the United States. We took pride in it ourselves. We were going to have a,t Quebec a bridge with the longest span in the world. We were going to have a transcontinental line of railway from ocean to ocean over our own territory of a character that was unexcelled anywhere on this continent and we took pride in the fact. Naturally, our newspapers were speaking of it. The magazines of the United States contained reports month after month lauding the pople of Canada and adventis-ing to the world her great resource® and wonderful development. Mr. Hill just about that time came to Ottawa, and in the course of his remarks before the Canadian Club he said:
In building a railway the principal objective is to overcome the law of gravitation. The nearer the level you can get your road, the better not only for the builders but for the people who will use the road. Your terminal facilities and your grades are the most important if you are going to get a low rate. Winnipeg is the gateway from the West and always will be. What they need out there is an outlet to the market.
These are the utterances of a great railway constructor and railway operator. I

233T
present his testimony in answer to all the evidence that may he given in theory by those who have been trained as engineers. Here is the practical side. Here is a man who has to do with a transcontinental railway, whose business is transportation from the great fields of the American west to the seaboard. He unquestionably lent the weight of his opinion, at a time when there was mo controversial question, at a time when he was tendering advice to the people of Canada in regard to their great work, and his testimony must be convincing and must outweigh the mere theories offered by this or that engineer, however eminent. Remember that this question had been considered; remember that the specification and the design of the road, as contemplated by the agreement and by the Act ratifying it, had been signed by the respective parties to the agreement, by the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific, by Mr. Schreiber, the engineer of the Government, and by the engineer of the Transcontinental Commission. That specification and that design was accepted and was brought before Parliament, and Parliament was made cognizant of and approved the character of the Toad, and the people of Canada endorsed Parliament. The building of this road created in the minds of Canadians everywhere a pride in their country, and in the Government which had the courage to undertake such a great work in the interest of the people and to develop out rich resources.
In regard to the opinion of Mr. Butler, I am sure that he will be considered a very eminent engineer, not merely a theorist, but a practical engineer. His testimony given with respect to grades and curvatures has been already cited, and I will not indulge in tedious repetition with respect to it.
There are many things in the report to which I might refer, but I will simply come to what may be considered the final word of the commissioners as they bid farewell to the Government in their report. They condemn first the construction of the eastern section. They had arrived at the decision that if it should have been built at all it wais prematurely built and that there might have been delay. The Government now in power say the line should not have been constructed east of Quebec.
Mr. S. SHARPE; Mr. Blair said that.
Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend
wants to shield himself behind Mr. Blair.
It is true that Mr. Blair, in the interest, as he thought, of the Intercolonial railway, condemned the proposed construction of that line. Mr. Blair and the people of New Brunswick and of Nova Scotia wanted a competing railway that would ensure the transportation of the products of the West, in winter particularly, to the ports in the provinces of New Brunswick and of Nova Scotia. That was the great object they had in view. Mr. Blair thought that the Intercolonial railway could do that work,, but Mr. Blair was wrong in that. I took that position at that time, and I stand by it now. The Intercolonial railway, immeasurable though the good is that has been done by it, could not, in competition, furnish to the seaports of the Atlantic provinces the products of the West as against Portland and Boston, which are so much nearer. Mr. Blair knew, as I know, as many eminent engineers know, that in order to make it possible for the Intercolonial railway to convey the products of the wheat fields of western Canada to St. John or Halifax, it would be necessary to reduce the grades on that railway.
It is well known that if you attempt to get even a 0.4 per cent or a 0.6 9 p.m. per cent grade over the Intercolonial you will lengthen the line between Levis and Moncton by over 100 miles. I have that on the authority of two very eminent engineers, and it is certainly reasonable. Any one who travels over the Intercolonial railway knows that you have to travel up and down hill, and that in order to get over the Metis grade, which is one of the highest grades on the Intercolonial railway, the railway has to climb hills, and even the passenger trains have to be split up. It is not many months ago when, travelling to my home from Ottawa, I was on a passenger train containing twelve cars, and I think an official car, and in seeking to go over that grade it was necessary to break the train. That, it is true, is not a frequent occurrence, but it is not unusual. To improve the grades on this and other sections of the Intercolonial, as proposed by /this same Mr. Gutelius, would mean that the route of the railway would have to be lengthened in zig-zag fashion. As you go-down along the St. Lawrence, you would have to travel up the tributaries of that great river, up and back, up and back, until you cross the divide between the St.

Lawrence waters and the Baie des Chaleurs waters. That would lengthen the line. The difference between a 0-4 per cent grade through central New Brunswick and a 1 per cent grade has been demonstrated to be about 100 miles. That is not mere conjecture, it is a fact demonstrated by the actual surveys made and the evidence presented to this Parliament. What was the great object of going to St. John and Halifax? In the first place, they wanted to reduce the distance between Winnipeg and Canadian seaports. Compare the Canadian Pacific railway with the Intercolonial railway as part of any -system and you find that the distance between Winnipeg and Moncton is about 200 miles shorter than by the Canadian Pacific railway route. That was an immense advantage. It is true that in going through New Brunswick difficulties were found which, perhaps, had not been anticipated. Much has been said with respect to the high bridge built at Chipman in the county of Queens. That bridge, high and expensive though it was, was constructed and as a result of its construction the line was shortened by nearly thirteen miles. In order to have built a road of 0-4 per cent grade, you would have to travel nearly across to Nashwaak and go north to the Intercolonial railway and you would come seventeen miles north of the present line to Chipman, and you would have had a line of the same grade as that which has been obtained by the construction of this -bridge, it is true, but a line thirteen miles longer. Did the investigating commissioners mention this? Did they ask the Transcontinental Commissioners why they built this bridge at Chipman? No, they -did not even seek evidence with regard to it; that would not have suited their purpose.
Now, there is one other feature with respect to this eastern section. I have here the utterance of a gentleman who should have the confidence of hon. gentlemen opposite. It will be remembered that in 1905, questions were arising in this House every day with reference to delays in the construction of the line between Levis and Moncton. Mr. Crocket, now a judge of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, appointed by this Government, then a member of this House representing the county of York, repeatedly called the attention of the Government to the delays. On one occasion-and this was only one of -many occasions-he spoke upon this subject. This speech was delivered on the 9th of April,

1906, and is reported at page 1443 of ' Hansard ' of that year:	,
Mr. Butler makes a calculation in which he says that the same motive power that will haul 660 tons on the Intercolonial railway, will, by the line secured haul 1,260 tons going east and 990 tons going west. Now, taking that both ways it would be a saving of 41 per cent in the motive power according to Mr. Butler's figures. The same percentage is derived from the figures which Mr. Butler gives in reference to the cost of hauling a given quantity of pay tons over the Intercolonial railway as compared with the proposed Transcontinental railway.
He goes on:
It will thus be seen that the annual operating cost to the Intercolonial railway for the said quantity of freight is $3,016,711.21, while that of the Transcontinental will only he $1,782518.72, a saving in -favour of the Transcontinental of $1,237,192.47, which capitalized at 4 per cent per annum equals $30,854,812.25.
That as I stated would show a saving of 41 per cent in the cost of the operation of the Transcontinental railway by reason of its superior grades.
And further:
We realize that this can very readily be made a pretext by the Government if they are desirous of acceding to the wishes and yielding to the interests of the Grand Trunk Pacific Kailway Company by abandoning this section of the road. I sincerely hope, however, that they will not do so and I believe that the people of the Maritime provinces will insist that the Government implement, in the words ot the Prime Minister, the solemn pledge that this Parliament has given in connection with the construction of this line of railway. I -think it will be conceded .upon all hands that the assent of the representatives and of the people of the Maritime provinces to that measure at all was secured upon the faith o-f the undertaking that the road would be built not only to Quebec but that it would he carried from that point eastward to Moncton.
Mr. Crocket was then speaking on behalf of the Opposition, and his utterances, I am sure, met with the approval not only of his own friends, but also of those who supported the Government of that day. But to-day, in support of the proposition stated by these commissioners that this eastern section should not have been built, we find arrayed a united band of Government supporters.
Every speech made by hon. gentlemen opposite coming from the province of Ontario has emphasized the fact that that portion of the Transcontinental should not be built. Are hon. gentlemen opposite consistent? Did the Conservative party in 1903 or in 1904 bring forward any amendment to the Government proposition, condemning the construction of the line east of Quebec? No such motion was ever presented. The commission appointed to investigate the build-

ing of the Transcontinental say that that line should not have been built, and one reason which they give is that there would not be any traffic. If I had time I could quote from the remarks of the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) and of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) to show that they have repeatedly stated throughout this debate that there would not be traffic and that the construction of that portion of the line was unjustifiable. Does the Government concur in that idea? Does my right hon. friend the leader of the Government approve that sentiment? If so, why is he spending $30,000,000 of the people's money in constructing terminals at Halifax and $20,000,000 for terminals at St. John? If the eastern section is not to participate in the traffic from the West; if the grain and other products of western Canada are not to go to the Canadian seaports in winter or in summer, surely the Government are to be condemned for adding $50,000,000 to the $35,000,000 which their commissioners state should not have been expended in the construction of this railway east of Quebec. It seems to me that the Government do not themselves believe in the conclusions of the commissioners with regard to the construction of that line.
There are many things that I could and would say to justify the action of the Liberal party in constructing a line of railway from ocean to ocean over Canadian territory. This has been done; the people have paid their money, and they own the road. The people of eastern Canada contributed to the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, a railway in which the Canadian people have not one cent of direct ownership, and they have rendered aid to the Canadian Northern Railway system. They have contributed to the construction of our great canal system; they have been called upon to contribute to the construction of a new Welland canal to cost upwards of $50,000,000; they are called upon to contribute to the Trent Valley canal, and it is proposed that they shall contribute to the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. It is also proposed that they shall aid in the deepening of the St. Lawrence canals in order that Toronto may be made a Canadian seaport. The secret of the obtaining of running rights over the Temiskaming and Northern railway from Cochrane to North Bay was divulged but recently in connection with the great delegation that came here. I will not enter into the details, but this report emanated from an ex-official of the Canadian Pacific Tailway, a gentleman whom I should fairly suppose to be in close communion with that great railway. That gentleman advocates, as did the Grand Trunk Pacific originally, stopping at North Bay and having the traffic come down through the American seaports because that would be the natural channel. The present Minister of Railways is wrapped up in that proposed railway centre, North Bay. The scheme is openly proposed; true, it is but visionary, but speculators in land around North Bay are trading on the idea that the traffic of the Grand Trunk Pacific will find an outlet through North Bay, that it will come down through Toronto, and that a portion of it which does not seek an outlet through Montreal and Quebec will find its way to the seaboard through American ports. ' The scheme is against the Maritime provinces seaports; it is against the Canadian seaports, and I make the assertion that every movement of the chessboard since October, 1911, has been carefully planned and is in the direction of the consummation of that scheme. This report is brought forward to bring aid and comfort to those who wish to carry out that idea. Let us not sail under false colours; let it be recognized that if the traffic goes via North Bay we aTe going to be an adjunct of the United States, in so far as our export business is concerned, in winter at least. My right hon. friend the leader of the Liberal party has certainly received the support and commendation of the people of eastern Canada because they believed that he was determined that the products of the West should find an outlet through Canadian seaports, and every act of his and of his Government gave strength to that idea. Had he continued in power the people of eastern Canada would have had confidence in his carrying out that idea to its fullest fruition. But there is a sense of alarm in eastern Canada with Tespect not merely^ to the traffic of the Grand Trunk Pacific going down as I have -stated, but with respect to the destiny of the Intercolonial railway. It, too, will be made contributory to the companies that have had the monopoly in this land for too many years. This Government seem to be lending their aid to the idea, and I hope that it is not too late to have the movement arrested.
I would wish, Mr. Speaker, that I could have had more time to deal with this subject, because in its many phases it is a big one. There are many things connected with the matter that can only be explained at some length, but time will not permit me to deal with them.

One word as to the cost. They say that this road has cost over $100,000 a mile. Have the people of Canada forgotten the construction of the St. Charles branch ? Do they not know that the Government of that day, under Sir Charles Tupper as Minister of Railways and Canals, constructed a line from St. Charles junction down to Levis, a distance of about fourteen and a half miles, and that the cost per mile of that railway was nearly $125,000 per mile ? Yet our friends of the Conservative party to-day stand horrified at the thought that a transcontinental line of railway of an entirely different and much higher standard, has been constructed for an amount per mile of about $100,000. If that road had been completed up to the standard designed for it, it would have been without a peer on this continent.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the amendment of my hon. friend from South Renfrew is sustained by the evidence, by the facts, by the circumstances, by the actions and attitude of the Government of the day, and I shall have a very great deal of pleasure in voting for that amendment.


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, although this debate has lasted now for more than a week, everybody will agree that the time which has been spent upon it has been time well spent. It has already cleared the atmosphere, it has already removed and dispelled many misconceptions which were floating in the air and which were darkening the fair name of Canada. But the discussion has taken so wide a range, and so many issues have been brought into it, which, although connected with it are entirely irrelevant to it, that it may not be out of place that I should recall to the attention of the House what is the true question now before it. My hon. friend who sits beside me, (Mr. Graham), in concluding the powerful indictment which he brought against the Government and the commission, asserted that the report which has been laid upon the table by the Government was so wilfully partisan and misleading as to be wholly unreliable. This is the effect of my hon. friend's amendment, and this is the question which is now before us. Is this report reliable or not reliable ? Is it true or is it not true ?
Is it partisan or is it fair ? That is the only question with which we have to deal at this moment. The volume in which the commissioners have placed their views as to the construction of the National Transcontinental railway bears upon its 
first page these pompous words:	' Report
of the National Transcontinental Railway Investigating Commission.' It has pleased Messrs. Staunton and Gutelius to place upon the volume which they have placed before us this high sounding title ' Report of the National Transcontinental Railway Investigating Commission.' Of course, as we know, paper is impassive, and has to receive everything that is put upon it; but, Sir, if, according to the fitness of things, there should be some connection between title and text, no title could be worse chosen than that which has been placed upon this book. It would be more in accordance with the fitness of things, looking at the report itself and the evidence connected with it, to call it ' The Comedy of Errors, by Messrs. Lynch-Staunton and Gutelius,' for, Sir, in that so-called report there are so many misstatements of fact and so many mis-statements of law, that the book should certainly be called a comedy, or something worse. The counterfeiter who tries to palm off a spurious coin upon the community places upon it the visage and the inscription of the true coin of the realm, and for some time he may deceive the community; but sooner or later the fraud is detected, and the counterfeit is revealed. So it is already in respect to this report. The fraud is discovered, the counterfeit is fully revealed in all its hideousness; and to that counterfeit the Government have been accessories both after and before the fact. They became accessories after the fact when they circulated that report; they became accessories before the fact, when they appointed commissioners who, it was well known from their antecedents, were notorious partisans and could not give us any other report than the distortion of facts which they have placed before us as their opinion on the construction of that railroad.
When this Government came into office they were besieged by their followers and friends to have an investigation into the construction of the National Transcontinental railway. The press of the party had repeated again and again that in the construction of that railway there had been, to the detriment of the community, not only gross errors but fraud. There were assertions that millions of dollars had been diverted from the purposes for which they should have been employed, and had gone into the pockets of individuals for private gain, or still worse. Under such circumstances I am not at all surprised that the Government should have

come to the conclusion that a commission should be appointed. If they believed all that had been said in the press, then, like the rest of the party, they must have worked themselves into a frenzied conviction that their opponents had been as dishonest as had been represented. But even if they did not believe anything of the kind, for my part I do not blame them for having appointed a commission. A (work of that magnitude might well have been the subject of investigation so that the public might know the whole history of the transaction from first to last, but, Sir, while I dio not attach any blame whatever to the Government for the appointing of a commission, I blame them- and this is a ground of complaint which they cannot avoid-because in the selection of the commissioners they did not do justice to their opponents, to themselves, or to the community, at large. Every consideration would seem to require that the Government should have appointed men who, from their well known character, from their reputation in the land, from their antecedents, would have afforded to the community a guarantee that the investigation would be fair and honest, free from fear and free from favour; that the commissioners would disguise nothing, that they would 'naught extenuate nor aught set down in malice,' and that they would make a true deliverance according to the evidence. Is that the character of the two men who were appointed as commissioners? I do not hesitate to say-and I believe upon this I can appeal to the fairness of every man who sits in this House, whether on this side or on that-that in a court of justice these two men would have been challenged for cause, and would not have been allowed to sit upon the jury. As to Mr. Gutelius, I do not want to say anything of him but what is known to the community. In 1911 he was, I believe, an employee of the Canadian Pacific railway in a minor capacity; he did not hold any high office. It is said of him, and I have heard it on good authority, that he took an active part in the election of 1911. Be that as it may, the fact is that no sooner had the present Government and the Minister of Railways come to office, than Mr. Gutelius became the close adviser of the Minister of Railways. From the humble position which he occupied in the employ of the Canadian Pacific railway, and which, as I am told, commanded but a very modest salary,
he was hoisted into the office of general manager of the Intercolonial railway; hoisted, I say, and at a salary of $20,000 a year, which Mr. Gutelius is now receiving. That position had been occupied for more than thirty years by Mr. Pottinger at a salary that at no time exceeded $6,000 a year. Without saying anything derogatory of Mr. Gutelius, I say that it would be a lucky day for him, if, when he leaves the position he is now occupying and which has been occupied by his predecessor, he carries with him one-half of the respect which is now surrounding the white hair of Mr. Pottinger. It has been said that it is not fair to any man to put him in the position to choose between his salt and his duty-not fair to the man who earns the salt and not fair to the man of whom the duty is demanded, because sometimes there will be strong temptation when a man has to make such a choice. After having read the report which I now have before me, it seems to me that I am not doing an injury or an injustice to Mr. Gutelius when I say that, in my opinion, in this investigation he was truer to his salt than he was to his duty.
And what of Mr. Lynch-Staunton? If Mr. Gutelius was not known in 1911, the same cannot be said of Mr. Lynch-Staunton. Mr. Lynch-Staunton was very well known. I have nothing to say against him personally. He is, as I understand, a good lawyer, though in my opinion there are better lawyers than he. He is a partisan, but I do not find fault with him for that. I do not know of a man in this House who would disclaim being a partisan. I would not, for my part, but, partisan as I am, I say there are some offices to which a partisan should not be appointed. My hon. friend the Solicitor General dealt with that question; he anticipated the reproach. I have said before, and I am glad to say again, that I am an admirer of the subtle intellect of my friend the Solicitor General, but on this occasion it was hard for him to defend the appointment of such a partisan as Mr. Lynch-Staunton. This is the way, however, that he attempted the task. Speaking in answer to my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), the Solicitor General said:
The hon. member knows that in our selection of judges, whose office doubtless compares in dignity and in consequence with that of a commissioner, we are compelled to resort to party lines on one side or the other for appointees; and so the same objections which the hon. member hurls against Mr. Lynch-Staunton

could be hurled against every man appointed to the bench by the Government of which he himself was a member.
It is not exact to say that we are compelled to resort to party lines on one side or the other in making appointments to the Bench. But we have held on both sides that party affiliation was not a bar to the appointment of any man, I believe that experience has shown that though we have appointed men to the Bench who have been actively engaged in politics, of very few, if any, can it be said that they were political partisans when on the Bench. On the contrary, I have no hesitation in saying that in many instances the experience obtained in political life has been of good .service to a judge. We expect that as soon as a man ascends the Bench he shall ignore altogether party lines, and if we thought *he would remain a partisan we would not think of appointing him. The moment a man has been called to' the high functions of arbiter between man and man, if he is worthy of the office, he ought to forget that he ever belonged to a party, and honour his oath that he will administer justice without fear and without favour. Is that the oath that was taken by Mr. Lynch-Staunton? No, Mr. Lynch-Staunton took no oath at all. But even if he took no oath, at all events according to the tenets of our morality, the moment Mr. Staunton received his appointment, if he was to act in a judicial 'spirit, it was his duty then and there to cease to be partisan. Can that be said of Mr. Lynch-iStaunton? It is known that he remained so much a partisan after his appointment, that he left his duty at Ottawa as commissioner to take part in an election. It is obvious that Mr. Lynch-Staunton remained a partisan to the end, and when he wrote that report he was fresh from the campaign in South Bruce. Such were the commissioners.
Let us see how these commissioners performed their duty. If their object in this investigation had been to have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, one would imagine that the investigation *would have taken place in the full light of day, and that all the proceedings, would have been in open court. It is a maxim of law, it is a maxim of justice and it is a maxim of fair play, that there is no fair trial except free and open and public trial. Is that what was done? No, Sir, the commissioners sat in camera. The public were not admitted to their sittings, the press was excluded.	They shunned the
light, and no light was allowed to filter

through except such light as suited the good-will, or the caprice, or the intent and purpose of the commissioners.
If you want to see the immense distance which separated >the Cosnsetrva/tive party in 1913 and in 1880, look at the investigation that took place jn 1880 upon a very similar matter. If there is one man in the history of Canada whose name stands emblazoned as the very incarnation of righteousness and honesty it is Alexander Mackenzie. Alexander Mackenzie, dead, is a model for all men, but Alexander Mackenzie, living, did not escape the fangs of calumny, and when Mr. Mackenzie left office in 1878 there were some accusations against him as there were accusations against those who lost office in 1911. The accusations had reference to the! construction of the Intercolonial railway by Mr. Mackenzie, and a commission was appointed by Sir John Macdonald in 1880. Who was the commissioner? The commissioner was not a partisan of the class of those who "were appointed in 1912; the commissioner was Mr. Frank Shanly, an eminent engineer of that day. There is no greater name, I believe, in the engineering history of this country than the name of Frank Shanly, unless it be that of his brother, Walter Shanly. Mr. Frank Shanly was absolutely disconnected with politics. The sittings were open, the public were admitted, the press were there and from day to day the public could follow the history of the construction of the road as it was told by the witnesses. No obvious cross-examination was avoided, and everybody knows that there is no evidence which can be accepted as a final expression of truth until the evidence has been subjected to the supreme test of cross-examination. Nay, more, I believe, and I assert, that if this investigation which we have to-day, and the result of which is set forth in the report of Messrs. Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton, had been in the open, and reported from day to day by the press, the results of the investigation would not have been expressed in the terms in which they are expressed in this report.
As to the manner in which the report, ox the result of this investigation, was submitted to the pulblic, I h-ave a word to say. Tn this the commissioners showed themselves not only to be experts, but to be artists as well. The proceedings were behind closed doors. Nobody was admitted, but by some mysterious process which has

not been explained yet, from time to time statements appeared in the press as to what was going on in this investigation. It was stated in the first paragraphs that were sent sent to the press that these commissioners were making awful discoveries. Later on the insinuation was to the effect that millions of dollars were discovered to have been abstracted from the public treasury in connection with the railway. Then the report was to the effect that $40,000,000 had been taken from the treasury in the construction of the road. At last the report was placed upon the table, in manuscript, or to be exact, in typewritten copy. It could not be taken possession of, it could not be read, it was not printed, but an abstract was placed in the hands of the press which could not have come from any other source than from the commissioners themselves, for they alone knew the contents of fheir report, and in the press of Canada, on the day following, it was stated that as a result of the investigation, the commissioners had discovered that $40,000,000 had been robbed from the public of Canada in the construction of the Transcontinental railway.
We have the report in our hands to-day; we have been able to study it, and, Sir, what is it? It is an unblushing partisan libel. From every syllable partisanship oozes out in an endless flow of misrepresentation and distortion. But, amid all these insinuations, amidst this mass of suppressed and distorted fact, one feature stands out clear and true, and that is that there has been no graft in the construction of the National Transcontinental railway. You say that it cost $160,000,000, but not one dollar has been diverted from the object for which it was voted by Parliament. If it be a fact that it has cost $160,000,000, -every dollar of that amount has gone ini to the construction of the road. The only fault that they charge against us is that we have built too well, too substantially, with too much hope in the future, and too great faith in Canada. Mistakes there may have been; I am prepared to say that mistakes there were, but there is no cause for any man who supported the late Administration to blush at the construction of that road. Our faith in the country was great, but not greater than it should be. Our expectations were high, but not higher than they should have been, and to-day I say that the railway will realize everything that was hoped from it provided that it be not degraded by
the men into whose charge it has passed. The commissioners having sought, and sought in vain, for scandals, determined to establish the theory that there had been extravagance and unlawful and fraudulent expenditure.
This report is divided into two parts. The second part contains a detailed statement of all the cases in which it is asserted that there has been fraudulent or extravagant expenditure. The first part is simply an epitome of the second and this is how the commissioners summarize their findings:
We And 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.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: How these
hon. gentlemen cheer! How happy they would be if that statement were true! But, if that statement is false, is there a term strong enough to characterize the calumny which has been perpetrated by the commissioners against the fair name of Canada? I call upon these gentlemen who pretend that this report is true to show us how the commissioners have been able to make up that sum of $40,000,000. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) stated yesterday that, on their own figures, they fall short by at least $10,000,000. Torture the figures as you will, take the detailed statements given by the commissioners themselves, and you cannot make up to $40,000,000 what they charge as losses of Canada. I say more; I say that in that report there are statements as to illegal expenditures made by the commissioners which not only cannot he maintained, bult which are untrue and dishonest. As an example of this, I call the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to the finding of the commissioners in regard to the Transcona shops:
The country has been committed to the expenditure of $4,500,000 for the erection and equipment of the Transcona shops at Winnipeg, which, in our opinion, are not authorized by law and which are, in any event, twice as large as are required for the purposes of the eastern division.
It is stated that this sum of $4,500,000 spent on the Transcona shops has been spent contrary to law. This is the opinion

of Mr. Lynch-Staunton, given in this report, which has been circulated to the extenit, I understand, of a quarter of a million copies. According to Mr. Lynch-Staumton, this $4,500,000 has been illegally spent. When Mr. Lynch-Sftaunton issued that statement he knew that that money had been spent according to law and not contrary to law. Mr. Lynch -Sit aun ton, later on in his report, at page 121, discusses for some ten pages his legal opinion that this expenditure was not according to law. Before I proceed further, I will show how my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) has dealt with that subject. In answer to my hon. friend the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), he made use of this language to which I call the attention of the House:
The hon. member for South Renfrew says that the Transcona shops are another source of great pride to him; that if he had to build them again he would build them just as they are now; and that Mr. Lynch-Staunton is entirely wrong when he argues that the building of the Transcona shops, as a plant for repairs, was beyond the powers of the commission and should have been done by the Grand Trunk Pacific. I was aware, before the ex-Minister of Railways rose, and I think most of us were aware, that Mr. Staunton in that opinion did not agree with the deputy Minister of Justice who gave the late Government his opinions and who gives this Government his opinions. We knew that Mr. Staunton was running counter to the opinions of eminent lawyers in tins country, and we knew it was the duty of the Government to heed the opinion of the Department of Justice, but I was not aware, and I am not yet aware, that it was a crime on the part of Mr. Staunton to give his own opinion even if it did differ from that of the deputy minister.
No, it was not a crime for Mr. Lynch-Staunton to give his opinion and to defend it, but it was a crime for Mr. Lynch-Staunton to give to the public his opinion that this money had been spent contrary to the law, when Mr. Lynch-Staunton knew that the courts and competent
10 p.m. authorities had decided against him. Lawyers will differ. That truism is as old as the first day there were two lawyers in the world. But when lawyers differ, there must be competent authority to settle their differences, and there are only two ways in which differences of lawyers can be determined, and that is either by having recourse to the tribunals established by law or by voluntary arbitration. In this case it is quite true that Mr. Lynch-Staunton was of the opinion that the shops at Transcona should have been charged to the Grand Trunk Pacific and not to the Government. But
this was a case in which Mr. Lynch-Staunton was of one opinion and all the other lawyers were against him. The Deputy Minister of Justice was against him, Mr. Atkinson, the counsel of the commission was against him, Sir Allen Aylesworth was against him, Mr. Brown, the battonier of the Bar of Montreal, was against him, and I think I may say that the Minister of Justice was also against Mr. Lynch-Staunton on this matter. But this, after all, is of no great consequence. The matter had still to be decided between the Grand Trunk Pacific on the one side and the Government on the other, and what took place ? The Minister of Railways himself took pains to have the difference of opinion settled. The Solicitor General said the other day that the Government were bound to abide by the opinion of the Department of Justice. So they were; but on this occasion they did not do so, because, while it is true that Mr. Lynch-Staunton was of one opinion and his opinion had been contradicted by the Department of Justice, the Department of Railways did not follow the advice of the Department of Justice, but the Minister of Railways asked Sir William Whyte to act as arbitrator and to decide the question between the department and the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. On the 4th of December, 1912, the following joint telegram was sent to Sir William Whyte by the Minister of Railways and Mr. Chamberlin. I need not say that if there is a man in Canada who is accepted as an authority on railways, it is Sir William Whyte, former first vice-president of the Canadian Pacific railway. The telegram is in these words:
Will you act as sole arbitrator between the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific railway to fix the rental to be paid for use of that portion of the Transcontinental railway line between Winnipeg and lake Superior junction pending completion of the entire line through to Moncton. If so, necessary information will be sent you directly and arrangements made with the Grand Trunk Pacific officials at Winnipeg to furnish train so that you can go over the line and make the necessary examination; also any other information.
Upon the assent of Sir William Whyte, the reference was given to him, stating the point for decision, and that point was:
Are the shops at Transcona and repair shops at divisional points or, any of them to be regarded as a portion of the eastern division, -within the intent and meaning of the agreements of July 29, 1903, and of February 18, 1904, and Acts affirming the same?
If not, what is the proper rental for the use of such shops, or any of them by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for any railway purposes they may desire?
fSir Wilfrid Laurier.]

This is the form in which the matter was submitted to Sir William Whyte. And the judgment upon the matter pronounced by Sir William Whyte put an end to all contention upon this point, whatever may have been the previous opinion of Mr. Lynch-Staunton. Sir William Whyte's judgment was:
With respect to the shops at Transcona, considering their location and the circumstances under which they were produced and furnished, and the specifications; and interpreting the said agreements and Acts in the light of modern railway practice, and considering the contemplated use of the said eastern division by other railways, I award, order and determine that the said shops are to be regarded as and are a portion of the said eastern division within the intent and meaning of the said agreements of the 29th of July 1903 and the 18th of February 1904 and Acts confirming the same.
I further award, order and determine that all repair shops at divisional points are to he regarded as and are a portion of said eastern division within the intent and meaning of the said agreements of 29th July, 1903, and of the 18th February, 1904, and of the Acts confirming the same. I consider these are a material part of the railway and necessary convenience for its proper, and efficient operation.
In the face of this, I say it was dishonest on the part of Mr. Lynch-Staunton and Mr. Gutelius to say that this was still a matter of legal opinion. It was no longer a matter of legal opinion; the matter had been settled, and it was settled against the opinion of Mr. Lynch-Staunton. If the matter was still a matter of legal opinion, the Government could go before the courts to have it determined, but the Government know that they are precluded from that course, and that the matter is closed forever. Yet, Sir, the report has been sent broadcast throughout the country that in this matter the Transcontinental commissioners illegally spent $4,500,000.
Now, what about classification? The investigating commissioners say that about $3,200,000 has been illegally spent through over-classification. This matter also is no longer in issue; and it is no longer in issue because, so far as the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific are concerned, it was arbitrated and decided. The arbitrators in this case were men of the highest eminence -Mr. Kelliher, for the Grand Trunk Pacific; Mr. Gordon Grant, for the Government, and the third arbitrator, a man of eminent respectability, one of the best men in his line that we have in this country, Mr. Collingwood Sclireiber. So far as the Grand Trunk Pacific, who objected to this classification, are concerned, the matter is at rest. But what about the contractors?
Can the opinion of Mr. Lynch-Staunton and Mr. Gutelius be raised against the contractors? My hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) answered that yesterday, when he told us that the Government had actually paid these contractors. The Government have not confidence enough in the opinion of Mr. Lynch-Staunton to follow it in matters of law, but they are quite ready to distribute his opinion for partisan purposes.
Before I leave this part of the subject, there is one thing as to which I feel particularly bound to say a few words, I refer to the contracts on sections 16 and 17 held by Messrs. M. P. and J. T. Davis, and with which my name has been connected. It is quite true, Sir, that in the month of August, 1909, I received a letter from Mr. Hays complaining of the delay of Messrs. Davis in carrying out their contract. I do not know that it is necessary that I should read that letter-the House is familiar with it. Suffice it to say that in that letter Mr. Hays called my attention to the fact, as he alleged, that Messrs. Davis had done nothing at all towards the completion of their contract, that they were in default, and that therefore the contract ought to be cancelled. This afternoon my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) rather took me to task for not having answered that letter. How does he know I did not answer it? He could not know from the report, because the commissioners did not ask me. It so happened that at the time this letter was written to me I wias mat in Ottawa, I was in the country, but the letter was forwarded to me from my office, and I answered it in this way:
Arthabaska, P.Q., August 12, 1909.
Dear Mr. Hays,-X am in receipt of your avour of the 2nd instant. I propose to return o Ottawa before the end of this month and if lOssible will see you in passing through Mont-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Wilfrid Laurier: And I saw Mr. Hays when passing through Montreal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Wilfrid Laurier: What more
could I do than discuss the matter with Mr. Hays? Will any one suggest what else I could have done? I did one other thing, I referred the matter to Mr. Parent, the *chairman of the commission. I have to take issue with some of the statements that were made in that letter of Mr. Hays advising me that Messrs. Davis had done nothing at all towards the completion of

their contract. Having been appealed to, I thought it might be my duty to make some inquiry as to how the matter stood and I learned that it was contended on the part of Messrs. Davis that they had taken steps towards proceeding on their contract. Everybody knows that in railway construction in those distant far-north parts of the country which were then without communication, it was the first duty of a contractor, and perhaps the most difficult, to get supplies to the scene of his operations. Generally, this could only be don'e in the winter. Messrs. Davis had two lines by which they could try to reach their contract; one of which was by the Temiskaming railway, and then taking advantage of the railway westward towards Cochrane which was then under construction. The other course was to take the supplies by the Canadian Pacific railway to Nipigon, then use Nipigon lake, carry supplies to the northern shore of that lake, and then use rivers which flow from the north, or, if the rivers could not be used, build a line across. I was told that Mr. Davis had sent a party of surveyors to Nipigon to survey the country and to ascertain whether or not he could take his supplies over that line; I was told that he was engaged in that work during the entire winter, and that he found that- there would be no advantage in using this line in preference to the Temiskaming railway, and there the matter stood. It was represented to me that the snmmer was lost and that they had to wait for the next winter. It was a question whether Mr. Davis was in default; I came to the conclusion that it would be a very risky thing to attempt a lawsuit under such conditions, and that when the contractor had done what he could it would not be fair to him to take any such course. Messrs. Gutelius and Staunton., however, take a different view. On page 52 of their report they say:
This letter does not contain one reason-
That is the letter of Mr. Parent in answer to Mr. Hays.
which justified the commission in its refusal. The contractors were clearly at that time a whole year in default and could have no legal or moral claim to any consideration from the commission.
The commissioners say that Messrs. Davis were clearly in default. Where did they get that evidence? The commissioners examined Mr. Davis under oath, and examined him upon this very contract. If they believed Mr. Davis to be in default, should they not, in justice to him, have asked him whether or not he was in de-

fault and to have asked for his reasons? We have here the evidence of Mr. Davis; every hon. gentleman has it in his hand, and can read it-and not a question, was put to. him upon this point-., I shall read to the Hou.se all the questions which were put to Mr. Davis with regard to contracts 16 and 17, and which will be found on pages 658 and 659 of the report:
Q. In connection with contracts 16 and 17, there were two contractors tendering, M. P. and J. T. Davis and the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. Was there any arrangement between you and the Grand Trunk Pacific railway in connection with these contracts?-A. No, sir.
Q. You sub-let these contracts to Mr. M. J. O'Brien and his associates?-A. Yes.
Q. Was there any arrangement between you and M. J. O'Brien in the tendering for these two contracts?-A. No, sir.
Q. M. J. O'Brien did not know he was going to get that contract if you secured it?-A. No, sir.
These were all the questions asked by Mr. Gutelius on that particular point. But the chairman took a hand in the matter, and proceeded to examine Mr. Davis. These are the questions which were put to the witness by Mr. Lynch-Staunton:
Q. I want to know whether of not there was ever any pressing by the commission to you to commence the work on contracts 16 and 17?- A. No, we got that contract.
Q. Yes, but I am just asking you that. I inquired from Mr, Ryan and he tells me there was not. I just want to have a confirmation of It on your part.-A. I do not think so.
Q. Do you know whether or not there was ever any pressing or urging by the commission to O'Brien and Company to speed the work after they obtained assignments of the contract?-A. No, sir.
One would have imagined that the chairman would have asked Mr. Davis: you have had that contract since October, 1908; what steps did you take towards the performance of your contract? One would have thought that in this way Mr. Davis would have been given an opportunity to state whether or not he had taken any steps to carry out the contract, and if in the opinion of Mr. Staunton the steps taken had not been sufficient, he could have asked Mr. Davis to give reasons to justify his default. Not a question was asked Mr. Davis along this line; yet the commissioners have the audacity to say that Mr. Davis was in default.
I ask every hon. gentleman who sits on the other side of the House: is that the kind of justice they would like to have meted out to them? Is that the kind of treatment they are pleased to call British justice? Is it not a principle of British justice that a man is given an opportunity to state his case and give his reasons before a judge

finds him guilty and passes sentence upon him? I say that the very element of simple, ordinary justice was denied to the man who was reported by the commissioners as being in default. I call this not justice, not fair play, not honesty; I call it partisanship, pure and simple.
But it is in the conclusion of their report especially that the commissioners show their animus and disclose the spirit which has inspired their conduct in this whole matter. In that part of the report they attack the construction of the line from Levis to Moncton. What was their authority for doing so? The construction of the line was a pure question of policy, within the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament and of the	Canadian people.	Can we conceive of the Government asking these two men to report upon a question of policy which had been twice submitted to the	Canadian people?	No, Sir, the
Canadian Government knew better; they did not confide such authority to the commissioners. The Order in Council called for one thing and one thing alone, and that was the investigation into the construction of the road. The Order in Council asked:
For an investigation in respect to the Transcontinental railway between Moncton and Winnipeg, now being constructed under commissioners in accordance with the National Transcontinental Railway Act of 1903, chapter 71, and such investigation should be of a full and comprehensive character, covering all matters bearing on the actual construction of the railway and expenditure thereon, whether direct or indirect, the system adopted for such construction, and the management of the undertaking generally.
Their mission was to investigate how the money had been expended; whether it had been expended economically or otherwise, fraudulently or otherwise, extravagantly or otherwise, but they had no authority whatever to pass judgment upon a question which was one of policy-whether it was wise or unwise, politic or impolitic, to construct that radway or any part of it. Having no authority, then, to do so, why did they go into that question? Not content with that, they made a comparison between the Transcontinental and the Intercolonial. What was their authority for that? They had none whatever. Where did they get their information? They examined fifty-eight witnesses, and, speaking subject to correction, for I do not pretend to know the depositions of these fifty-eight witnesses with such minuteness as to be able to risk a definite statement, I submit that they did not get their information from
anything that was deposed under oath by any one of these witnesses.
But, Sir, the source where they found the condemnation of this part of the railway is not far to seek. That was an echo of the speeches of Mr. Lyneh-Staunton in 1904 and 1908. He simply put in condensed form what he had been stating in more extended form on many platforms in the province of Ontario. I say in Ontario because we must remember that, as far as that part of the line is concerned, the Conservative party was not a unit upon it. There were those in the Maritime provinces who were in favour of that extension of the line; but in the province of Ontario, on the contrary, every member of the Conservative party was against the construction of the line not only from the St. Lawrence to Moncton, but from Cochrane to Quebec as well. In this very debate the Minister of Customs, now acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid), gave us the benefit of his opinion. On the day this debate commenced the Minister of. Customs said:
I believe that if the Grand Trunk Pacific had been permitted to carry out the charter as proposed by them when they came to Parliament, namely, to build a line from North Bay through to the Pacific coast, at least $100,000,000 would have been saved to the people of Canada.
Of course, if the Grand Trunk Pacific had been allowed to build only from North Bay westward probably the country would have saved $100,000,000, and if the Grand Trunk Pacific had not been allowed to build at all,, the country would have saved $200,000,000. Not very long ago the Minister of Finance condemned the building of the line east of ' Cochrane. He said:
If a fraction of the money that has been spent on the National Transcontinental railway between Moncton and Cochrane had been spent for agriculture, I do not believe this question of the high cost of living would have been to the front to-day.
I am sorry that my hon. friend the Finance Minister is not in his seat, if he were, I would recall to him that in these words of his there is a little bit of demagogism. Let that pass to-day, we can meet again at. Phillipi. But there is the opinion of my [DOT]hon. friend the Minister of Customs, reflecting that of the whole Conservative party of Ontario, that the line should have been built from Cochrane westward, and that the whole line from Cochrane eastward should have been set aside. In dther words, .the opinion of the Conservative party in the province of Ontario was that we should have built the railway from the West to Cochrane, and.

then let the Grand Trunk Pacific bring the trade to tthe old Grand Trunk system with Portland as its terminus. We would have saved $100,000,000, says my hon. friend the Minister of Customs, but how much would we have lost of national honour, national profit and nationhood. I have to say to my hon. friend the Ministter oi Finance that there were overwhelming reasons why this road should have been built east of Cochrane, reasons of a local nature, and reasons of a national character. When we started the idea in 1903 there were many misgivings as to the character of the country which we would open north of the Laurentian mountains. It was supposed that that section of the country, which had up to that time been uninhabited, was uninhabitable, that it was a desert and could be nothing else. We had information, also, that in that section of the country there was a high plateau equal to any portion of the valley of the St. Lawrence or of the valley of the Great Lakes. We now know, the fact is beyond dispute at the present time, that there is a valley east and west of lake Abiti'bi, 700 miles long and between '60 and 100 miles in width, of the most fertile soil there is on this continent of America, which will grow everything that is grown in the valley of the St. (Lawrence or the valley of the Great Lakes except pears and peaches. We know that there are immense rivers flowing from the mountains towards Hudson bay with immense capacities of water-power development. We know, further, that the resources in pulpwood are incalculable, and that if the Governments of Quebec and Ontario are wise and understand how to husband their *wealth, these resources will be inexhaustible for all time. It is not a rash prediction to say at this moment that within the life of men now sitting in this [DOT]Chamber the greater proportion of the paper manufactured on the continent of America will be manufactured along that line of railway.
Sir, this being the character of the country, and for local reasons alone, setting aside for the moment any reason [DOT]of a national character, I ask the Minister *of Finance would it have been fair that we should have built that railway west -of Cochrane and left undeveloped that portion of the territory from the St. Lawrence to Cochrane? Would it have been fair that the province of Ontario

should have had the benefit of that development, and that the province of Quebec, which contributes its share to the revenue, should have been left behind? Sir, that would be intolerable to think of; and if the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs will reflect upon their language of the past, they will henceforth come to the conclusion that this line is one of the best portions of the Transcontinental railway.
What of the portion of the line from the St. Lawrence to Moncton? I had better first quote at length the conclusion
of the commissioners:
This commission does not think that the National Transcontinental railway should have been constructed east of L6vis, which was done at a cost of $35,000,000 first,-because the Government at that time had a railway in operation between L6vis and Moncton, the Intercolonial; second,-because the Nations* x ranscontinental railway would only be 33 miles shorter; third, -because the gradients on the National Transcontinental railway are greater than those on the Intercolonial railway; and fourth,-because the grades on the Intercolonial railway can be reduced to four-tenths per cent eastbound and six-tenths per cent westbound, whereas it is practically impossible, according to the construction of the National Transcontinental railway, to reduce the 1.10 per cent grade at 146 miles west of Moncton and the 1.10 per cent grade at lake Pohenagamook.
The traffic on the Intercolonial railway is such that it will in a short time be a business proposition to reduce its gradients which when completed will make it the low grade line between L6vis and Halifax, rather than by, way of the National Transcontinental railway, and it is inconceivable that the grade revisions on the Intercolonial railway above referred to will cost more than half of the amount of money expended in the construction of this portion of the National Transcontinental railway.
This is very positive language; but truth and justice will in the end prevail. Justice did prevail in the end, and the end is not far off. It comes in the next paragraph to which I invite the attention of the House. After the building of that section of the railway has been absolutely condemned by Messrs. Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton, they go on to say:
While there may be some reason for the construction of a railway through the timber districts in the eastern portion of the province of Quebec, the construction of the railway from Edmundston to Moncton was not justifiable because of the lack of local business along this line which two years of operation has already proved.
After all, there was some local reason for building a railway through the timber districts in the eastern portion of Quebec. While there was some reason for the con-

struction of a railway through that portion of the province of Quebec, the railway should, according to the commissioners, have been left in the fields as the Intercolonial was at Levis years ago, and should not have been prolonged to a point where it could become a transcontinental railway. What sort of reasoning is that in the mouths of these commissioners? If I were to ask these commissioners what local traffic there is on the Canadian Pacific railway between Sudbury and Port Arthur on the lake Superior line, they would have to tell me that there is not one dollar of local traffic on that section of the road. But is that any reason why the Canadian Pacific railway should not have been built? If I were to ask these commissioners to show me one of the many transcontinental railways on this continent every inch of which is productive of local traffic, they would have to admit that there is not one. Could there be anything more partisan than this condemnation of the Transcontinental railway because 99 miles of it, or something like that, would not be productive of local traffic?
The commissioners have admitted that there might be some reason for the construction of a railway through the eastern portion of Quebec, and so there is. Many years ago a charter was given by this Parliament for the construction of a railway in that very section of country; and many years ago that very road was subsidized by the Parliament of this country. It is well known in Quebec that a respectable and powerful company, the Quebec Central Railway Company, was ready and anxious to build a railway in that district. Was it not better if there was need for a local railway that we should make it a part of the Transcontinental? But	all these
reasons of a local nature are superfluous in this debate. The day is past for criticising that enterprise. To-day the necessity of a railway from ocean to ocean and on Canadian soil is no longer disputed, it is admitted everywhere. It is not disputed in the city of Halifax, which has never received from the Intercolonial the share of the traffic of this continent to which it is entitled. It is not disputed in the city of St. John, which, to bring to its port the western trade, has made sacrifices of almost heroic proportions. It is not disputed in the city of Quebec, which has built its hopes of a new birth on this transcontinental railway. It is not disputed in Montreal, which is anxious to be 149
connected by branch lines with the trunk lines. It is not disputed in Winnipeg; it is not disputed in the western provinces, whose stupendous production is seeking an outlet in all directions, north, south, east and west. When we remember, as has been stated more than once on the floor of this House by my hon. friend from Edmonton, that this year we have
400.000.	000 bushels of grain with only
18.000. 000	acres under cultivation, And when it is remembered that we have
150.000.	000 acres immediately available for tillage, 'and another 150,000,000 fit for tillage with but little preparation, it is evident to any man who has a proper conception of Canada that we must have that railway in order tO' do justice to all parts of Canada. Such were the views which influenced us and such were the views which were not accepted by our opponents. If the Conservative party could not rise to the height of this conception perhaps it was more their misfortune than their fault, but it is their fault to-day if they degrade that road from the original conception of the Transcontinental railway simply to make it from Cochrane a local road; a branch for the *Canadian Pacific railway.
Some time after the Conservative party came into office we learnt that the character of the road was degraded, and momentum grades had been substituted for the uniform grade specified in the contract. I do not propose at this moment to enter into technicalities as to the effect of momentum grades, but there is one thing which I am going to state to the Government and upon which I impeach them, and it is that they have made those changes without consulting the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and have thereby given the Grand Trunk Pacific power to repudiate their part of the agreement.
When Major Leonard was appointed as commissioner of this railway we were told that at least we had a man of railway experience capable of dealing with these matters. His, it was said, was an experienced hand. We had a right to expect that when Major Leonard decided to change the grade of the railway and the character of the *road, he would take the trouble of getting the consent of the Grand Trunk railway which is to lease that road and have joint supervision of it. But we know from a letter addressed' by Mr. Chamberlin to the commission that no such precaution was taken. On the 18th day of July, 1912, the following letter was addressed to Major Leonard by Mr. E. -T. Chamberlin:



July 18, 1912.
Major E. W. Leonard,
Chairman, Transcontinental Commission, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear sir,-I learn from our engineers that the standard of work on that portion of the Transcontinental railway between Lake Superior Junction and Cochrane, which was at the outset adopted and has so far been complied with, is being departed from, and that instead of four-tenths grade and permanent structures, you have authorized grades up to one per cent and the erection of temporary wooden structures. In regard to this I would call attention to clause 7 of this agreement of the 29th July, 1913 which provides that the work of construction of the eastern division shall be done according to the specifications approved by the company and shall be subject to the joint supervision, inspection and acceptance of our chief engineer and the chief engineer of the commission. I beg to say if this work is done in accordance with what I understand to be your recent instructions, it will not be in compliance with the agreement nor satisfactory to this company and cannot be accepted.
Mark the words, and cannot be accepted! So, according to this, the Grand Trunk Pacific is at liberty to refuse that part of the road and the consequence will be that the traffic will go as far as Cochrane, then, instead of going to Quebec, will he turned to the right towards the old Grand Trunk system whose terminus is at Portland in American territory. We have had no reason yet assigned to show why this change should have taken place, except the reason of economy. How much has been economized upon that? We have not yet learned. The commission have told us that if momentum grades had been adopted, $6,000,000 would have been saved, but the commission has not told us, Major Leonard has not told us, the Minister of Railways and Canals has not told us, how much this change of grade has saved to the country. It would be a very small sum after all and for that small sum the future of the road is put in jeopardy.
Nor is that all. Since the commissioners set out to find fault with what has been done by the old commission and to show their extravagances, how is it that they have not set down as one of the extravagances of the commission the purchase of 300 acres of land at Cap Rouge at $350 an acre for the purpose of putting the workshops of the Transcontinental railway at Quebec? This selection was made at Cap Rouge as a site for the workshops. It is no longer an issue now. The Government is bound to build workshops upon that section of the road. That has been settled by the arbitration of Sir William Whyte. The old commission was to build the shops at Cap Rouge, but now Major Leonard has changed

the site to St. Malo. Two or three days ago the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny) asked me if I was opposed to the transfer of the shops from Cap Rouge to St. Malo, and I understood the point of that question very well. The point is that St. Malo is in the constituency which it has been my pride to represent in this House for more than thirty years. I .could not very well understand the animus oi the hon. member but, Sir, my answer to his question is that if this transfer of the site is in the interests of the railway I am for it; if it is against the interests f the railway I am against it. The only guide I have in this matter, the only guide my electors, whom I know well, have in this matter is that we should do everything that can be done to make that railway a success and to give the city of Quebec the opportunity of having the trade which must come from the West over the road. That is the first, last, and only consideration. Whether the change is right or wrong I await the opinion of the engineers, and I want to know what the reasons are which induced the engineers to change the shops from Cap Rouge to St. Malo. Reasons there must be since we have now at the head of the commission an experienced railway man,-Major Leonard. I am sure that Major Leonard will explain to us what advantage there is to this railway in moving the shops, which are projected on the railway at Cap Rouge, a few rods only from the St. Lawrence, and putting them in the valley of the St. Charles at least eight miles from the railway. The shops to-day are not on the railway. Somebody may say: surely you do not mean to tell me that these shops destined for the Transcontinental railway are not upon the line of railway? I say they are at least eight miles from the line of railway and to get access to them a new line has to be built, or, as I am told, a tunnel has to be built. My hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) told us one day that he wanted to have a tunnel in order to find the heart of Quebec, and know where it is, and the Prime Minister told us also when he was in Quebec that we were to have a tunnel to communicate with the shops and the station. If this tunnel is built I understand that the distance will be shortened and that the shops will not be eight miles from the railway, but only about half a mile. At all events, that is the condition of things. But we must presume that it is all right, although it sounds very absurd, because it was done by a man of railway experience.
If it is all right to take these shops eight

miles away from the line of railway and put them in the valley of the St. Charles instead of in the valley of the St. Lawrence, then, Sir, we must condemn the commission for having spent $100,000 in buying the site for the=e shops at Cap Rouge.
But that is not all. There is also to be a station somewhere in Quebec. The late commission had selected the Champlain market site for the station, a site at the very point where the line reaches the St. Lawrence, and if the station had been put there, passengers could leave the station and walk directly on the steamer. Now it appears that a new arrangement has been made with tiie Canadian Pacific Railway Company whereby there shall be no station on Cham plain market, but the station shall be at the Palais, in the valley of the St. Charles, a considerable distance from the Champlain market. The site of the Champlain market had not been selected at haphazard; the commission had taken every precaution to select the proper place for the station. In the month of October, 1906, the following circular was issued by Mr. Parent:
Ottawa, October 2, 1906.
Dear Sirs:-
Re Quebec Terminals.
1 have the honour by direction of the board to advise you that the commissioners have had under consideration the matter of terminals at the city of Quebec for the National Transcontinental railway, but consider it desirable, before making a recommendation to the Government of Canada on this important question, to obtain an expression of opinion from the accredited representatives of the railway and steamship companies having interests in the city of Quebec, the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, and the Quebec Board of Trade, on the question of joint terminals.
The commissioners have accordingly arranged to be in the city of Quebec on Friday, the 12th instant, and would be pleased if your corporation would have a representative present to discuss the matter. The meeting will take place at the Transcontinental railway offices, 147 Mountain Hill, in the city of Quebec, at 10 a.ni., Friday, October 12 instant.
Besides the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company, the following corporations have been invited to send representatives to the meeting: The Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk railway, the Intercolonial railway, the Delaware and Hudson railway, the Great Northern railway, the Quebec Central railway, the Quebec and Lake St. John railway, the Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company, the Allan Steamship Line, the Dominion Line, the Leland Line, the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, the Quebec Transport Company, Limited, Mr. E. C. Fry, Lloyds agent, etc., the mayor of the city of Quebec, the chairman of the Quebec Board of Trade, the chairman of the Quebec Shipping interests, Mr. Power, M.P., Quebec West, and Arthur Lachance, M.P., Quebec Centre, have also been invited to be present.
149i
All the parties here invited, except the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, were present on the day mentioned, and a motion was passed referring the matter to a large committee, which in turn appointed a sub-committee, which consulted agents, and made a report. On the 20th day of November, a month later, the committee met again, and on that occasion the Canadian Pacific railway was represented by Mr. McNicoll, and the following resolution was then adopted:
Recommended that the Champlain market be made the passenger and freight station for the present, at the same time contemplating that at a future date a passenger station be built on the upper level of the city. Recommended that a terminal company be formed by the different railways using the terminals to take over the bridge and its approaches and all the terminals. That part of the cost be assumed by the Government and part by the railways interested as may be agreed upon hereafter, and that legislation be passed at this session of Parliament to sanction such an agreement.
Acting upon this unanimous resolution of all the interests of the city of Quebec, the Champlain market was determined upon as the station, after numerous and complicated negotiations with the city of Quebec. When we went out of office, plans were ready, tenders had been asked for and the contract was signed for the completion of that station. That contract has been cancelled by the present Government in order to have the station not in the valley of the river St. Lawrence but in the valley of the river St. Charles in conjunction with the Canadian Pacific railway. What reason can be assigned for such a change ? I have yet to hear a single valid reason why the Transcontinental railway should lie made an adjunct, a branch line, of the Canadian Pacific railway. If there is to be a joint station, I could understand why the joint station should not be in the valley of the St. Charles river, but in the valley of the St. Lawrence river, in the vicinity of the Champlain market; but to carry the station from the St. Lawrence river over the other side of the hill, into the valley of the St. Charles river, is putting a blemish on this great national enterprise.
What lias been done since then ? Three years or more have elapsed, and to-day, if I am correctly informed, the plans are not yet prepared for the building of a station at the Palais. Two days ago the following paragraph appeared in the Quebec Daily Telegraph:
Quebec may secure the desired union railway .station-some time.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is right.


Robert Laird Borden: Who says that?


An hon. MEMBER:: All of us on this side.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to tell the hen.
gentleman who made that statement, whoever he may be, that Messrs. Gutelius and Lynch-Staunton are equal in character, reputation, and record to any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, bar none, from the highest to the lowest; and, that their character, their reputation and their record can be compared favourably with those who have assailed them in this House.
Now, just one or two observations with regard to these gentlemen. There are some
hon. gentlemen in this House, I do not know whether they knew better or not-my right hon. friend did not go quite that far, but he did carry an insinuation along the same line-who sought to impress the idea upon the people of this country that ordinary usage had been departed from in that these gentlemen had not been sworn to the faithful performance, of their duties. The right hon. gentleman avoided saying that directly, though he endeavoured to insinuate it, but he knew better, as did others on that side of the House I desire to say that the statute under which these gentlemen were appointed makes no provision for having them sworn, and my right hon. friend knew that when he made the insinuation. I challenge my right hon. friend to name one Royal Commission appointed during his fifteen years of office the members of which were sworn, and so I hope we shall not hear more of any such suggestion.
The character and record of these gentlemen have been condemned, hut the highest tribute that could be paid to the thoroughness of their work is the bitterness of the attack that has been made upon them. We were told by the hon. member for South Renfrew that the report is so contradictory and partisan on its face that it condemns itself and requires no refutation, and yet the hon. gentleman spoke for seven hours in a most unsuccessful and vain attempt to refute it. The character of the two gentlemen is called into question by hon. gentlemen opposite. Mr. Lynch-Staunton is a lawyer in the province of Ontario who, in the eyes of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, hears the unspeakable disgrace of being a member of the Conservative party. That, of course, was enough to condemn him in their eyes from the first, but, so far as I am aware, no suspicion of a reproach has ever been levelled against George Lynch-Staunton in respect of his personal or professional career. Mr. Gutelius was in a still more perilous position, ior he had to endure the misfortune of having been horn in the United States, and, .according to the expressed assertion or direct insinuation of many hon. gentlemen opposite, his report is absolutely untrustworthy for that reason. There are in this country many thousands of citizens of Canada -men in the East and men in the West-who were born in the United States

of America,- and I do not think we have any better citizens than the hundreds of thousands who have come to Canada from the United States during recent years. [DOT]But, according to the conception of hon. gentlemen on the Liberal benches, these men are to be regarded with disdain and to be looked upon as objects of abuse; and their statements are to be considered as absolutely untrustworthy because originally they were citizens of the United States, although they have seen fit to become good citizens of Canada, and to participate with us in the abundant opportunities which here reward their industry and intelligence. When hon. gentlemen in this House, whoever they may be, descend to argument or suggestion of that kind, it is very evident to me that their case is overwhelmingly weak.
It has been suggested that these two gentlemen were particularly under the influence of the Minister of Railways and Canals. One hon. gentleman told us that Mr. Gutelius was a personal friend of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and that therefore he would be sure to do whatever the Minister of Railways would desire. As a matter of fact, Mr. Gutelius had never met Mr. Cochrane until he was called to his office for the purpose of inquiring whether he would take up certain duties in connection with the Intercolonial railway, and undertake the investigation which has been carried out by Mr. Lynch-Staunton and himself.
Reference has been made to the supposed partisan character of this report and to the fact that Mr. George Lynch-Staunton. being a member of the Liberal-Conservative party, could not be supposed to be capable of making an impartial and judicial examination of this question. I would like to remind hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House that when certain matters were under discussion in 1908 and again in 1910, and when we moved for a Royal Commission, on both occasions the whole question was relegated to the investigation and consideration and report of a committee, first upon the Hodgins charges, and then upon the Lumsden charges. The majority of the Committee in both cases was of course composed o.f Liberal members. May I ask those who have put forward this charge whether or not the hon. gentlemen on the other side who constituted the majority of that committee and made the majority report, were partisans, and if so, 
whether their reports were absolutely untrustworthy? Hon. gentlemen are on one of the two horns of the dilemma; either the investigations which they held in 1908 and 1910 were, according to their own statement, a mere mockery, or, on the other hand, their assertion that Mr. George Lynch-Staunton's report is partisan because he is a Conservative, does not stand. I desire to add in this connection that so long as hon. gentlemen opposite remained in power, they deliberately and successfully attempted, from first to last, to burke every investigation demanded by the Conservatives. Investigation was burked in 1908; it was burked again in 1910; and when, after it was burked in 1910 before a Committee of this House, we came solemnly before Parliament and asked that a Royal Commission be appointed to investigate the matter, what was the answer? Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House stood by and voted it down, and if these gentlemen who are now in the shades of Opposition had remained in power there would never have been any investigation of the Transcontinental railway. No one knows that better than my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). It is somewhat amusing to hear these hon. gentlemen talk now. All this story of overbreak, of excessive classification, of waste, extravagance and unjustifiable expenditure, was put forward by the officials of the- Grand Trunk Pacific railway; put forward over and over again through the letters of Mr. Woods, their chief e-ngi-neer; put forward over and over again and brought to the attention of the Government, and now, after the work has been almost wholly completed, what answer is given to us by some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House? The answer is, that the hour is past when any effective investigation can be held. Vote down an investigation when there is an opportunity of doing it in the most effective way, then, when the time is past when it can be done effectively, stand up and say: it is too late now; we voted you down when there was an opportunity of holding an investigation, and now the facts can never be disclosed. If hon. gentlemen on the other side are satisfied with their attitude in that regard, I for one cannot congratulate them upon it.
My right hon. friend has not gone so minutely into this report as did the hon. member for South Renfrew, but he said sufficient to make it clear that he possesses very much less knowledge of the evidence and of the report itself, than even he

possessed in 1903 with regard to the cost of the National Transcontinental railway. My hon. friends on the other side of the House do not agree very well among themselves. Some of them say there should have been no investigation; some of them say there should have been an investigation; some of them say there should have been an investigation by a committee of the House, although in 1908 they burked any such investigation for the alleged reason that it should be carried out by experts, and not by a committee of the House. Some of them say it should be by a Royal Commission, and some of them say the contrary. Thus it will be seen they are not very well agreed among themselves; but I suppose I may accept the statement of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, who told us frankly to-night that in his judgment there ought to have been an investigation, although he finds fault with the personnel of the commission. May I ask him why he did not appoint a commission in 1908 or 1910 when these charges were brought to his attention? To-night he says there should be an investigation, and is it not a fair question to ask him: Why did you not give the investigation when in 1910 we asked you to investigate, and when you had the power to name the personnel of the commission yourself? My right hon. friend is silent. Let me give the answer for him. It is that he never intended, had he been returned to power, to have any investigation.
I think that hon. gentlemen opposite, after all, should be rather grateful to this commission, and I shall tell them why. They ought to be grateful because the commission has shown that if proper care and supervision had been exercised, and if the Transcontinental commissioners had been of the right stamp, the right hon. gentleman and his Minister of Finance would have been out in their estimate of the cost only 200 per cent instead of 300 per cent. The commission have shown that this road might have been built for $120,000,000 instead of $160,000,000, but of course there does come the sting that the commission assert that the remaining $40,000,000 was needlessly spent and represents the waste and extravagance that was practised by their commission; and practised, as it would appear from the record, entirely with their concurrence and approval. The situation
reminds me of an incident that once took place in a Nova Scotia court. A solicitor had put in a defence in an action against him upon a promissory note. He declared that he had signed the promissory note as accommodation for another person and under an agreement by which the plaintiff had agreed to give to him all his legal business in consideration of his becoming surety upon the note. The judge who tried the ease decided as a matter of fact that no such agreement had ever been made. The case went on appeal before Mr. Justice Thomson, who, in giving judgment, dilated upon the disgraceful character of the defence, and said something like this: The learned judge, in his effort to save the defendant from the disgrace of his defence, found it necessary to disbelieve his evidence on oath. And so, this commission, in its endeavour to show that this road could have been built for only double the estimate of the late Government, found it necessary to show that that Government had been guilty of a great deal of waste and extravagance and negligence, to say the least.
What were the conditions in 1903 when my right hon. friend undertook to build the Transcontinental railway? We had the Canadian Pacific railway, a well established transcontinental road; we had in the West the Canadian Northern railway, recognized as a considerable system with no connections in the East; we had the Grand Trunk railway, a great railway system in the East with no connections in the West; and we had the Intercolonial railway, connecting Quebec, and, to a certain extent Ontario, with the Maritime provinces. The Canadian Pacific railway had experienced many vicissitudes but it had then become firmly established. My right hon. friend has paid himself the compliment of saying that he undertook the project of building another transcontinental railway. I will go a little fartner and say that in 1903 or 1904 or thereabouts, he embarked upon the project of building two additional transcontinental railways. I say that, because, in 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1908, 1909, 1910, and last but not least 1911, the Canadian Northern railway, under legislation passed by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, had acquired the status of a transcontinental railway, and they expressly and definitely recognized it as such in an Act which they passed in 1911. The Canadian Northern railway had established itself in the western part of Canada.

and had four thousand or five thousand miles of line. The Grand Trunk railway in the east of Canada had many lines of railway, and a great mileage, but it had no connection in the West. Thus the question arose as to another national transcontinental railway, and as to the connection of the Canadian Northern railway with the East, and as to the connection of the Grand Trunk railway with western Canada. My right hon. friend embarked upon his policy, and I then suggested to this House, on more than one occasion, that whatever was done with regard to the development of further transcontinental railways in Canada, the six hundred or eight hundred miles north of lake Superior ought to be eliminated, so far as the cost of carriage was concerned, so that the West would be brought close to the East, in the way of transportation; and the tolls otherwise payable over that six hundred or eight hundred miles of uninhabited territory, affording no local traffic for the present at least, would be absolutely abolished. My right lion, .friend has referred to that mileage here to-night. Let me say to him that while it was undoubtedly necessary to have one railway through that country, I would think that any government might very well pause before embarking upon the project of building three railways across eight hundred miles of such territory. When my right hon. friend speaks of binding Canada together by transcontinental railways, no project could have more usefully served that purpose than to have acquired one national transcontinental railway across that area of eight hundred miles, double tracked, if you like, as traffic developed, and to have that line of railway operated free of cost to the producers of Canada, whether in the East or in the West. By such a policy it was entirely open to my right hon. friend to have' done infinitely more to build up the national ports of Quebec, St. John, and Hailfax, and to bring the East and West of Canada together, than by the plan he did decide upon.
Let us leave that for a moment and see [DOT]whether there was any need for an investigation into the proceedings of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission. My right hon. friend, in 1903, and his followers throughout the country, said that Canada was to have a national transcontinental railway for $13,000,000.
My right hon. friend did not mean that the cost of the road would be $13,000,000, but he did intend to say that the actual cash outlay to Canada, for interest during the seven year period of no rental, after 
the completion of this road, would be no more than $13,000,000.. I have in my hands one of the campaign documents, issued in the election of 1904, wherein it is boldly stated that Canada under the policy of the Laurier Government was to have a transcontinental railway for $13,000,000. If at that time my right hon. friend had said $300,000,000 instead of $13,000,000 his followers would not have cheered so lustily. What was their estimate? His Minister of Finance estimated the .cost at $61,415,000 for a road with 0.4 per cent grades and 6 degrees of curvature. It has cost $100,000,000 more. Why? I would have thought that the hon. member for South Renfrew, and particularly the right hon. gentleman himself who boasts of being the author of that project, would have taken some portion of their time tonight in explaining to the people of Canada why that road exclusive altogether of interest has cost $100,000,000 more than they said it would cost. Mark you, there was no question about it -in the House, and there was no question about it in the country. Let me quote from that campaign document :
The feature of the bargain in regard to which most of this is done is the financial arrangement. It is an actual fact, an indisputable fact, that $13,000,000 will cover every cent of the country's expense in connection with the railway.
An indisputable fact indeed! It has cost in all $300,000,000. It has cost without consideration of interest or rental $100,000,000 more than their estimate. My right hon. friend sat down after a two-hours' speech in which he gave not a single word of explanation as to the increased cost. It is right that the people of Canada at the present time, when this Administration has a certain responsibility for that which has been bequeathed to them as a legacy from their predecessors, should know just what this road is costing Canada, and what it is likely to cost Canada in the future. My hon. friend boasts of the bargain as a monument to his wisdom and foresight. The road from Moncton to Winnipeg, according to the engineers appointed by my right hon. friend, will cost $161,307,800. The construction will cover a period of eleven years and for the purposes of estimating interest I take four and a half years as an average which, at 3| per cent amount to $27,220,670, or a total of $188,528,470. I have taken my estimate of the rate of interest from the permanent officials of the Department of Finance. Everything here that does not appear in the record I have taken from the

report made to me by permanent officials of the Government of Canada who were also permanent officials under the Administration of my right hon. friend. Add to the $188,526,470, seven years' interest during which no rental is payable, which amounts to $47,488,729, and you have a total cost, when the road is taken over and interest begins to be payable, of $238,017,199. this country under the bargain made by my right hon. friend must pay without recourse on the bonds guaranteed on the mountain section ($56,342,000), interest at 3 per cent for seven years, which amounts to $11,831,820. The country must also pay the cost of implementing the bonds under the agreement of 1904, clause 8, which will probably amount to to about $12,000,000, but which I am placing at the lowest estimate, $10,000,080. This gives a total of $259,929,019, which does not include the Quebec bridge, the cost of which has been placed at $17,000,000; it does not include the interest for three years on $188,528,470 at 3^ per cent in case the net earnings of the eastern division are not sufficient to pay that rental, which would amount to $21,209,343, these two amounts totalling $38,209,343. Thus we have a grand total of $298,138,462 as the actual cost to the country of a road that was to be built at an actual outlay to Canada of $13,000,000. If the seven years' interest during the non-rental period were capitalized at the end of that period, the last item of interest would be $26,766,937, bringing the grand total up to $303,70o,976, and that would not be an unfair method of computation.
I have not taken into account the fact that there will be in future a one per cent loss on the rental, because while we receive 3 per cent we must pay 4 per cent, and, that being capitalized, as pointed out by my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro), would amount to $4o,000,000.
I have not taken into account the loans, $25,000,000, and the guarantee Am the western section, $70,000,000.
So I think under the circumstances my right hon. friend will agree that the estimate which he made in 1903 was very misleading to the people of this country, and that he carried the general election of 1904 upon statements which have been absolutely and wholly falsified by the actual facts.
Under these circumstances, is there any man in this House, or is there any man in Canada, who will say to me that it was not the absolute duty of this Government
upon obtaining offioe to make a thorough and impartial inquiry as to why the cost of this road was so enormously in excess of that which my right hon. friend declared in 1903. And. let it be borne in mind that when we suggested in 1903 that no survey had been made, that the country had not been explored, and that my right hon. friend was taking a leap in the dark, his only answer was to point to a number of documents on the table and to inform us on this side of the House that we had mountains of information. The mountains of information were evidently not of a very reliable quality.
I place the situation before the country to-night, as one for which the present Administration is not responsible. We raised our voices against it in speech and by vote; we declared that before this project was undertaken there should be a reasonable businesslike inquiry, and that the highest eloquence and the most glowing periods of my right hon. friend in his speech in 1903 were a poor substitute for the reasonable businesslike inquiry which any reasonable man in this country would have insisted upon in respect of his own affairs.
My hon. friend the member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) has gone into the question of responsibility. He said that for everything but $98,000,000, I think, the present Administration is absolutely responsible. As I understand him, $105,000,000 had been paid out before we came into power, and, further, a great deal of work had been done which was not paid for. But does the hon. member for Pictou or any other hon. gentleman in this House suppose that the mere fact of a change of Administration enables the Government of the country to destroy or nullify contracts which have been solemnly entered into by their predecessors? Let us look at that idea for a moment. Suppose the directors of a bank undertook to erect a very expensive bank building, and made a contract for its erection, and that at the next meeting of the shareholders they were turned out of office as hon. gentlemen opposite went out of office in 1911; and suppose that the new directors said to the persons with whom the former directors had made a binding contract: We will not pay you, we were not the directors at that time. Could any one, whether lawyer or layman, have so little comprehension of the binding effect of a legal contract as to put forward any such argument? Yet that is precisely

the argument that was put forward by my hon. friend from Pictou. Absurdity can -go no farther. When these hon. gentlemen, in 1905 and 1906, made contracts and bound this country to these contracts, it would be absolute repudiation if we attempted to get rid of them, and, even if we attempted to repudiate, the courts of the country would not permit us, as the hon. member for Pictou and his friends know perfectly well-
The hon. member for Pictou and other hon. members have referred to the personnel of the old commission. I was going to say a word or two with regard to that, but the hour is late and I shall refrain. All I have to say is this: If Sir Thomas Shaughnessy and Mr. Chamberlin when commencing to build a railway should employ a dry goods merchant, a druggist, and a barber to supervise the work, they would be pursuing very much the same course as was pursued by the late Administration!, for the Minister of Railways and Canals stood in the same position in regard to the National Transcontinental railway as Sir Thomas Shaugh-nessy would stand in regard to the construction of any new line of the Canadian Pacific railway. These hon. gentlemen have attacked Mr. Leonard on the ground, forsooth, that lie had had no experience.
I have a letter under my hand which shows that Mr. Leonard, for twenty-five years before he undertook this work, was engaged continuously in railway construction and operation, and I doubt if you could find any morn in Canada who has had a longer experience in that work than the man whom my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) selected as chairman of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission.
I did intend to go into this report to some extent had time permitted, but my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middle-bro), my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) and other hon, gentlemen on this side of the House have dealt with it very fully indeed. I have read this report carefully, and I have listened patiently to the criticisms that have been made on it. It may be that here and there yon may be able to put your finger on some trifling error or inadvertence, and it would be singular indeed if such were not the case, as these commissioners, like all the rest of us, are merely human. But in the [Mr. Borden. J
face of everything that has been stated to the contrary by hon. gentlemen on the other- side of the House, and after listening most carefully to what they have had to say, I assert most confidently, and I am prepared to back this assertion by argument wherever necessary, that the report from begining to end, is substantially correct in every important particular. I am not now referring to questions of law or questions of policy, into which the commissioners have gone to some extent, but to the findings of fact. In so far as questions of law in regard to the Transcopta shops are concerned, the commissioners have stated frankly the opinion of the Minister of J ustice, and Mr. Lynch-Staun-ton has disagreed with it. My right hon. friend and the hon. member for South Renf-ew seem to think that if Mr. George Lynch-Staunton entertained a conscientious opinion in regard to that he should have suppressed it, but I say that it was his duty to state it. In regard to the line from Quebec to Moncton, Mr. Lynch-Staunton has differed from views which I have publicly expressed in this House and on the platform but, I do not hold Mr. Lynch-Staunton in fault for that, in so far as he has felt himself called upon to make any statement in regard to the matter. I point out, that this very fact shows that these gentlemen were not under the control or influence of the Government, and that they iwere free to express their own thought and belief.
My right hon. friend and the hon,. member for South Renfrew reproached us for circulating and publishing this report. What were we to do with the report when it came in? Were we to hide it? It might have been very consoling to them if we had adopted that course, but was it, or was it not, our duty to bring it down and lay it on the table of the House? What is behind this cry about our circulating the report and publishing it? These hon. gentlemen are very mucn concerned about the report because it justly reflects upon their administration of public affairs, and they can be excused for being a little insistent and a little angry. But. I would like to say that if there was in the report, from first to last, as glaring a mis-statement as I heard from my right hon. friend to-night, I would send that report back for correction, or I would suppress it. He has stated that 250,000 copies of the report have been printed by the Government and circulated throughout the country. The actual facte are that

10,000 copies in English and 4,000 copies in French have been printed and my right bon. friend is only about 2,000 per cent out of the way in his statement.
Some reference has been made to the McArthur payment. While I had intended to go over some other mattters, I will not detain the House farther than to deal with that. It has been stated that the commissioners should be condemned because the Government have made a certain settlement with Mr. McArthur, who had contract No. 21. I am very g^d that, first, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German), secondly, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and, lastly, the right hon. leader of the Opposition have made some allusion to this, because it enables me to give a certain object lesson to the country and to the House, as to the actual results of the policy carried out by the late Administration. After certain questions had been raised as to over-classification and overbreak, an arbitration took place between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Government. If I remember correctly, that arbitration was carried out by Mr. fcelliher, Mr. Collingwood Schreiber, and Mr. Gordon Grant.
As a result of that arbitration deductions were made in the contractor's estimate- of February, 1911, amounting to $512,821.16. It appears from some figures given by my right hon. friend that the deduction in respect to the work done up to the arbitration was only some $429,000, and I suppose the increased amount of $512,821.16 was due to some further estimates made afterwards in respect to which a like deduction was made. Mr. Gordon Grant, on January 23, 1913, submitted to the commissioners Mr. J. D. McArthur's final estimates on that part of the contract extending from mile 2.8 to mile 242. On the same date the board passed a resolution, which I have here, and as it is a matter of some importance, I think I had better place it upon 'Hansard.'
Extract from the Minutes of the Commission, January 23, 1913.
Letter from the chief engineer, dated 23rd instant, submitting for approval final estimate in favour of J. D. McArthur, for work d,one between the east end of the Transcona yard and the east end of his contract, known as No. 21, being from mile 2.8 to mile 242, district ' F,' under the contract between the commission and J. I>. McArthur, dated May 15, 1906, was read, and the said final estimate approved by the commissioner on the condition that contractor McArthur shall accept the same in full settlement of all claims for work done on that portion of the line covered by the said
estimate; and the secretary was directed to write to Mr. McArthur furnishing him with* a copy of the said final estimate for his information ; and if there are any items in it which he disputes, he will bring it to the attention of the chief engineer for further consideration ; in the event of a satisfactory settlement with this final estimate, including all such large questions as classification, overbreak, excavations under water, etc., being arrived at with the contractor, then the unpaid estimates for work done on the portion of the contract between the east end of the Transcona yard and the Red river may be paid, less the usual ten per cent hold-back.
Then there is the following letter from Mr. McArthur under date of January 28, 1913, giving the reasons why he could not accept the final estimate. I think it is fair to the, present commission, to Mr. McArthur, and to the Government that I should place these reasons before the House, and state distinctly what was done in regard to the payments of this claim.
Ottawa, January 2S, 1913.
Mr. P. E. Ryan,
Secretary* the Commissioners of The Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of yours of the 24th instant, which enclosed an estimate designated as being final for that portion of my contract with your commission, from mile 2.S to mile 242, being part of contract No. 21.
This final estimate I cannot accept for the following reasons: It is not in accord with the progress estimates that were made by the excommissioners' engineers, while the work was in progress, estimates made by them in good faith with the full knowledge and consent of the ex-commissioners and the chief engineer, and on which they were perfectly well aware I was paying my sub-contractors, and they in the same good faith were paying their station-men.
I understand large deductions have been made in this final estimate by reason of an award made on my work by a board of arbitrators, appointed by the ex-commission and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, to settle certain disputes that existed between themselves, but which disputes the ex-commission knew perfectly well were no concern ul mine, and for that reason I was not a party to this arbitration and was not represented thereon.
Such being the case I herewith decline to accept any deductions on my work that were made by this tfbard of arbitrators. My contract was made with the commissioners and I must protest and strongly object to any deduction being made on the work by an arbitration board to which 1 was not a party, or on which I was not represented.
Soon after the work was commenced the question of overbreak in rock cuttings came up and finally a meeting was called by the chief engineer under instructions from the commissioners to discuss and decide the matter. This meeting took place at Ivenora and was presided over by the commissioners' representative, C. A. Young. The chief engineer, the district engineer and division engineers took part in the

interest upon it because it was unnecessarily and unjustifiably incurred. And if my hon. friends on the other side can find any consolation or comfort in the result that, is brought about by their default and the default of the commission appointed by them, I venture to say they are not doing justice to their own intelligence.
That, Sir, is a full, complete statement of the claim made by Mr. McArthur. I venture to say that the present Government made the best settlement they could make under circumstances and conditions brought about by the late Administration and their commission. The unfortunate part of the whole situation at the present time, is, that in respect of a great many other sums which ought not to have been incurred or paid out, the Government of this country will find itself confronted with the same legal difficulty which confronted it when Mr. McArthur refused to abide by the arbitration to which he was not a party, and threatened to take the Government of this country into court to enforce his claim.
/I will not go into the report. I had intended to do so, but the hour is late. Let me say in conclusion: The Government finds itself confronted with the problem of seeing to the completion of two transcontinental railways which were initiated, supported, subsidized and guaranteed by our predecessors in office. We are confronted with the question of seeing them completed or of leaving them uncompleted. The responsibility for initiating the policy which has brought about that condition and for imposing this problem upon the country rests upon those who were then in office and are now in Opposition. But the responsibility for dealing with the situation which they created rests, as it presents itself to-day, upon the Administration. We are not afraid of that responsibility, and we shall deal with it as best we may. In dealing with it, especially in so far as it involves contractual or semi-contractual obligations affecting the public interest, we have to take into account the fact that as ' the King never dies,' so the King's Government never ceases though one party may go out of power and another party may come in. We shall give to the situation, which we did not create and which was brought about against our vote and our protest, the best of our energy and the best of our efforts with a full and abiding sense of the responsibility that rests upon us as trustees for the people of Canada.
The Ho-use divided on the proposed amendment of Mr. Graham.
That the report of the commissioners appointed by the Government to inquire into the construction of the Transcontinental railway is so wilfully partisan and misleading as to be wholly unreliable; that the manifest object of the said commissioners was to misrepresent for party purposes rather than to investigate in the public interest, without regard to the serious consequences to the country or this great national undertaking; and that for the appointment of such commissioners, and for accepting and endorsing their report, the Government deserves the severe censure of this House.
. TEAS:
Messieurs
B61and,	^aurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Bickerdike,	Lemieux,
Boivin,	Loggie,
Bourassa,	Maclean (Halifax),
Boyer,*	vlacNutt,
Buchanan,	McCoig,
Bureau,	vlcCraney,
Cardin,	McCrea,
Carroll,	McKenzie,
Carvell,	McLean (Sunbury),
Champagne,	McMillan,
Charlton.	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Chisholm (Antigonish), Marcile (Bagot),	
Chisholm (Inverness),	Michaud,
Cruise,	Molloy,
Delisle,	Nesbitt,
Demers,	Neely,
Devlin,	Oliver,
Douglas,	Pacaud,
Emmerson,	Papineau,
Ethier,	Power,
Fortier,	Proulx,
Gauthier	Reid (Restigouche),
(St. Hyacinthe),	Robb,
Gauvreau,	Seguin,
German,	Sinclair,
Hughes	Thomson
(Kings, P.E.I.).	(Qu'Appelle),
Knowles,	Tobin,
Kyte,	Truax,
Lachance,	Turgeon,
Lafortune,	Turriff,
Lanctot,	Verville,
Lapointe	Warnock and
(Kamouraska),	White
Lapointe (Montreal,	(Victoria-, Alta.)-67.
St. James),	
NAYS:	
Messieurs	
Aikins,	Lavall6e,
Alguire,	Lewis,
Ames,	Macdonell,
Armstrong,	Maclean (York, O.),
(Lambton),	McCurdy,
Arthurs,	McKay,
Ball,	McLean
Barker,	(Queens, P.E.I.).
Barnard,	McLeod,
Barrette,	Marshall,
Beattie,	Meighen,
Bellemare,	Merner,
Bennett (Simcoe),	Middlebro,
Best,	Mondou,
Blain,	Morphy,
Blondin,	Morris,
Borden,	Morrison,

Boulay,	Munson,
Bowman,	vTantel,
Boyce,	Nicholson,
Boys,	Nickle,
Brabazon,	Paquet,
Bradbury,	Paul,
Bristol,	Pelletier,
Broder,	Rainville,
Burnham,	Reid (Grenville),
Burrell,	Robidoux,
Carrick,	Roche,
Chabot,	Rogers,
Clarke (Wellington),	Schaffner,
Clements,	Sevigny,
Cockshutt,	Sexsmith,
Currie,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Davidson,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Doherty,	Shepherd,
Edwards,	Smith,
Elliot,	Stanfield,
Fisher,	Steele,
Foster (Kings, N.S.).	Stewart (Hamilton),
Fowler,	Stewart (Lunenburg),
Fripp,	Sutherland,
Garland,	Taylor,
Gauthier (Gaspe),	Thoburn,
Girard,	hornton,
Green,	Thornton,
Guilbault,	Walker,
Hanna,	Wallace,
Hartt,	Webster,
Hazen,	Weichel,
Henderson,	White (Leeds),
Hepburn,	White (Renfrew),
Hughes (Victoria, O.), Wilcox and	
Kemp, .	Wright-105.
Lai or,	
PAIRS:	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Crothers,	Clarke (Essex),
Foster (N. Toronto),	Pugsley,
Glass,	toss,
Jameson,	Richards,
Thompson,	Law,
Smyth,	Gordon,
Stevens,	Clark (Red Deer),
Bennett (Calgary),	Martin (Regina),
Coderre,	Pardee,
Cromwell,	3rouillard,
Martin (St. Mary's),	Lamarche,
Baker,	Kay,
Cochrane,	Jraham,
Lancaster,	Juthrie,
Clare,	Cash,
North r up,	Lovell,
Parley,	Murphy,
Wilson (Wentworth),	Wilson (Laval),
Rhodes,	Macdonald.


George Perry Graham: Had I not been paired with the Minister of Railways, I should, of course, have voted for the amendment I proposed in regard to the National Transcontinental Railway report'.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I am paired with the Secretary of State. Had I voted I should certainly have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ROSS:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Middlesex. Had I voted I should have voted for the amendment.


Mr. KAY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Brome. Had I voted I should have voted for the amendment.


Mr. STEVENS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Red Deer. Had I voted I should have voted against the amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: I was paired with the hon. member for Lincoln; If I had voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Amendment negatived, and main motion agreed to.
SUPPLY.	.
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr.' Blondin in the Chair.
Department of Militia and Defence-Contingencies, $8,500.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the meaning
of the item ' .sundries, further amount required, $2,500 '?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: It is for Bell telephone, telegrams, travelling expenses of Fenian Raid Board, expenses of w.ashing towels, transporting mails, postage, subscriptions and petty cash.
Department of the Interior-Contingencies, $35,000.


Mr. BUREAU:: Would the minister explain the part of this item which relates to clerical assistance?


William Roche: A large number of persons have to be temporarily employed during the summer months, and this is to pay their salaries.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What is that temporary
help required for? $35,000 is a large amount.


William Roche: We have had during the
summer months as many as 120 temporary clerks. There are over 800 employees in the department, and there are times when the permanent staff are not able to cope with the work.


Jacques Bureau: Are these temporary
employees in the outside service?


William Roche: No, they are in various
branches of the inside service of the Department of the Interior.
Department of Customs-Contingencies, $5,000.


Jacques Bureau: What are the sundries
in this item?


John Dowsley Reid: 
John Dowsley Reid: There are some small things we have to attend to.
Department of Inland Revenue-To provide for the promotion of one clerk from the first *division, subdivision B, to first division, subdivision A, with the rank of secretary, from October 1, 1913, $250.
. Mr. BUREAU:	Who is the clerk to be
promoted to the first division?


Mr. NANTEL:: Mr. Taylor, who is replacing Mr. Himsworth


Jacques Bureau: What are the sundries?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Extra employees during the session, and travelling expenses, etc.


Jacques Bureau: How many extra employees are there during the session?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Four.
Post Office Department-Contingencies- Clerical and other assistance, $15,133.32.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Before the minister takes up his main Estimates, he ought to respond to the Orders of the House and bring down the returns that have been ordered. The returns that are brought down from his department are different from those of the other departments. Every one of his returns is carefully edited; somebody goes over them carefully and abstracts letters which are frequently necessary in order to carry on the sense of the correspondence. Where the Postmaster General is shown by the file to have written a letter, the letter in reply to which it is written is frequently not on the file. Often these missing letters contain the essence of the whole matter, and the file becomes absolutely unintelligible owing to their absence.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Of course, the standing instruction^ are that private correspondence should remain on the private file, and public correspondence on the public file.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You did not observe that rule in the Department of Labour; you did not observe it in regard to me, but brought down letters marked private when it suited you to do so.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I cannot follow what my hon. friend says as regards the Department of Labour. I am informed by my friend the Prime Minister that the right hon. leader of the Opposition has made a general complaint about that. Hon. gentlemen behind my hon. friend will bear me out that if they write about any return which is incomplete we try to supply the information required. In a large department like the post office, a document may be easily overlooked, but we are always glad to supply any information that may have been omitted by the officers preparing the files. If *my hon. friend will let me know what returns he particularly wishes, I shall take special trouble to press the matter and have the returns prepared. A member of the Opposition has a right to receive returns containing information desired before the Estimates are discussed. Owing to the large number of returns ordered from my department, we have not yet taken up my Estimates. We are well under way in that respect, and hope to take them up before very long. If there are any special files not yet brought down and especially needed, I shall do my level best to meet the wishes of hon. gentlemen.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I quite agree that it it not expedient, when an Order of the House is issued, that private correspondence and communications from representatives in Parliament should be brought down. I merely wish to observe that when the hon. gentleman's colleague the Minister of Labour produced to this House certain private letters I wrote to a previous' minister, that exemplary rule was broken. I made no complaint at the time because I had no objection to the correspondence being made public, but several hon. members in this House regarded it as a very peculiar circumstance. When my hon. friend brings down a return in answer to an order of this House and produces a letter written by himself, or an official of his department referring to another document which he has received from somebody, when that latter document is not brought down the whole thing becomes unintelligible. Whoever in the hon. gentleman's department is responsible for this matter should comply with the order of the House in making the return.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Since the Postmaster General is willing to revise some of the incomplete returns brought down, might I ask him to add to the return brought down the other day about the-purchase of a parcel post and rural mail boxes a list of the

members of the House who were canvassed by 'the department in regard to the choice of boxes. I understand that about seven boxes were inspected in the office of the superintendent, Mr. Bolduc. Mr. Bolduc says that he took a canvas of ninety-two members of the House and the majority reported in favour of a certain box. I would like to know the names of the members consulted. I have asked several members on this side of the House but they have not been asked to pass judgment upon the boxes. I think Mr. Bolduc should give a list of the names.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I understand my hon. friend to say that Mr. Bolduc said so many members were canvassed,, but that he did not give the names.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. He said that over ninety members had been consulted. I do not object to that, it is only fair that the members should see the boxes. Some years ago we had the boxes in room 96. where all the members could see them. Mr. Bolduc says in this case that of the ninety odd members canvassed, seventy-five were in favour of a certain box.


Mr. STANFIELD:: Regarding these boxes I may say that I was not invited to go in to see them, but I happened to be in there one day and Mr. Bolduc asked my opinion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Perhaps ' canvas ' was not the proper word for me to use. I meant that the opinion of the members was invited.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I told Mr. Bolduc, who is the head of the rural mail branch, that as the boxes were for the benefit of the farmers of the country he might show them to members coming into his * office in order to get their opinions as to the best box. I did not ask him to keep a list of the members who saw the boxes. I simply asked him to take their opinions so as to find out which box suited them best.


Mr. MARCIL:: Will the hon. gentleman take the opinion of members as to the establishment of rural mail routes, or does he confine himself merely to our opinion as to the value of the boxes ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am always glad to hear opinions on both matters. What is the complaint about the routes P


Charles Marcil: Rural mail routes are in the interest of the whole community, Liberal and Conservative alike, and I want to know why members are not consulted 150
as to the establishment of these routes, since you are willing they should be consulted as to the kind of boxes. In my constituency the member was not consulted, but a man not even a candidate, was consulted. I wouild not like to give my opinion on the rural mail boxes at least, if I am not to be consulted as to routes.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The choice of a route is left with the inspector or one of his officers. He is supposed to consult the gentlemen who have signed the petition to have the .route. I have not had any complaint, so far, that the members have not been consulted.
1 a.m. Mr. MARCIL: If you do not
want the members to take any interest in the adoption of these routes, you are going the right way about it.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Might I be permitted to say that previous to 1911 the Liberal Government did not consult the member of a constituency as to mail routes, if he happened to be a Conservative.


Charles Marcil: You have now the opportunity to improve on that.


William Cameron Edwards: I am glad that my hon. friend thinks that method could be improved on. I am just giving my hon. friend the facts.
Administration of Justice-Further amount required, ?3,000.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is required on account of the expenses incurred in connection with the penitentiary investigation.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that an investigation was conducted into the fire at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, and that there was also an investigation at Kingston. To which does my hon. friend refer ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This bears on the investigation at Kingston.


William Cameron Edwards: I think the minister
might leave this item over if it is to do with the commission appointed to investigate conditions in our various penitentiaries. The hon. minister said he would leave one item over until the report came down. I do not feel like voting an amount to pay the expenses of this commission before I .see that report. I think I am taking a reasonable ground in making that objection. I am very doubtful if the commission. will b,e entitled to any pay. Of course, that is not an opinion in which a great many would concur. If this item fixes the amount that these men are to be



paid for their work I do not think it should (go through. I would like to know what amount these commissioners are to receive?


George Perry Graham: Does my hon. friend
want it struck out?


William Cameron Edwards: No, I do not feel that it should be struck out but I think that I am perfectly entitled to ask that the item which goes to pay the expenses of this commission should not he passed: until the commission has completed its work and presented its report.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Unless the report is satisfactory to you, you are not satisfied that the commissioners should' be paid?


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. gentleman
need not put words into my mouth that I do not utter. I will say all that I have to say without his assistance.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I put that question in the tone of inquiry.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There can be no possible objection to affording ever opportunity for discussing any question in connection with the penitentiary investigation. There are items in the main Estimates that are yet to be dealt with and they will afford that opportunity. This particular $3,000 is asked for as an addition to the sum voted for miscellaneous expenditures. The reason why our $10,000 vote for miscellaneous expenditure proved insufficient was that the expenses of the commission had to be met and they were not expected. The expenses of the commission have been incurred and have, in large measure, been paid in the course of the past year and we are dealing with the Supplementary Estimates for the year which has just expired. That is the only reason Why there is any desire to pass this item now.


William Cameron Edwards: The passing of this item would have nothing to do with fixing the amount they will be paid?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The amount that they were to be paid was fixed at a. certain rate per day together with a certain allowance for travelling expenses.


William Cameron Edwards: What was the per diem allowance of the commissioners?


Charles Joseph Doherty: $15 a day and $5 a day
for living allowance in addition to actual travelling expenses.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not think that is an exorbitant amount to pay commissioners 
if they are any good, but in this pirticular case I do not think these men are worth 15 cents a day.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What are the names of the commissioners?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. G. M. Macdonnell,
K.C., Dr. Etherington, Kingston, and Mr. J. P. Downey, Orillia.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And they are not worth
15 cents a day?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I can say that I am not willing to concur in that suggestion.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Downey is the superintendent of the Orillia asylum?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


George Perry Graham: How much has the commission cost? There is some reason for the request of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edvrards) although I would not be prepared to say that these commissioners were not worth 15 cents a day when the Government paid these other two gentlemen $65 a day. You are closing up the arrangement with these commissioners as I understand it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The report of the commissioners has not come in, so that their work is not absolutely completed. This is to cover the expenses incurred in the year that has expired.


George Perry Graham: How much have they
received?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 


William Cameron Edwards: When will this report
be brought down? Will there be an item in the minister's Estimates under which we can discuss the report and the remuneration of the commission?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not actually received the report yet. As soon as I have received it and have had time to take communication of it it will be brought down.
I am expecting it every day. I was told that I might expect it about the middle of the month of March but it has not reached me yet. I understand that it is actually in process of being typewritten. As to there being an item, I have no doubt there will be some balance to be paid to them which will, of course, be in the Estimates for the coming year. In any event there.are Estimates dealing with the expenditure on penitentiaries and I can assure the hon. gentleman that there will be no objection to his discussing this matter fully on any item.


Jacques Bureau: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: 
Jacques Bureau: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: I anticipate that they will be expected to be paid for the time that they actually devote to the preparation of their report. I have not yet seen the report.


Jacques Bureau: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: It covers simply what has already been paid to them in the past fiscal year.


Jacques Bureau: Paid?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: That means the amount paid against the appropriation for the expenses of the commission, that is to say for their per diem allowance.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What further amounts will be required to meet the expenses of this commission? It seems to be a pretty' large amount for so unimportant an item as it appears to be 150i


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot give any
amounts that would be accurate enough to be worth while. When the hon. member speaks of this as an unimportant item, he does not realize that the work of this commission was not merely an investigation of the conduct of the officials in one penitentiary, although that was an important feature of it. The commissioners were charged with making a general study and investigation of penitentiary systems in addition to that, and to make a general Teport of possible improvements to penitentiary systems.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Have the commissioners been to the Dorchester penitentiary? If not, is it their intention to go there?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They have not been to the Dordhester penitentiary, and there is no intention that they should go there. They are investigating the conduct of officials in the Kingston penitentiary.


Mr. McCREA:: What was the cost to the country in connection with the Harry Thaw case at Sherbrouke?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not the information. It would not come within the business of the Department of Justice to deal with that cost. [DOT]
Exchequer Court of Canada-Contingencies,


Herménégilde Boulay: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: A lawsuit was taken against Judge Clement and we were given judgment for the amount.


Herménégilde Boulay: Does the
fact of having had a judgment against Judge Clement free him from criminal proceedings being taken against any individual under the same circumstances?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The fact that he is a judge does not free him from his responsibility; but whilst the case was being tried, before the Supreme Court, it has been shown that it was by some kind of a mistake that the amount had been drawn by Judge Clement.

Dominion Police-Retiring gratuity to constable E. Spenard, '$1,764.17.


Charles Murphy: Does that item indicate a new principle?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, the law does not
provide a gratuity for the Dominion police, but it is the established custom to pay one. This particular man has served for almost thirty years and is now pronounced physically unfit for duty.
Penitentiaries, $120,000.


Jacques Bureau: I think we are entitled to some explanation on the various amounts.
. .Mr. DOHEIRTY: The supplementaries are larger than usual, because the requirements for the last fiscal year have been considerably under-estimated.
Mr,. BUREAU:	In what particular
branch? I just want to know if it is salaries, repairs, etc.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In connection with the estimates of the cost of living, providing food, fuel, etc. The estimates last year were made by a gentleman who is not now an inspector, who, although he has been an Inspector for a number of years, has not usually prepaied these estimates and who apparently under-estimated the expense of providing for the food of the prisoners, for the heating of the premises, etc.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Is there not for each of these institutions a fixed annual cost to which the minister must adhere?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Our population is sometimes larger one year than another year and sometimes we get certain articles cheaper [DOT]one year than another year. It is quite [DOT]impossible to say it is going to cost so much a year to feed the inhabitants of a penitentiary.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That does not explain the whole of the $120,000.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I pointed that out as one reason. At Kingston penitentiary very considerable works have been carried on. At St. Vincent de Paul there were paid for retiring gratuities some $8,000, and the renewal of the electric plant and increased cost of supplies account for the balance.


Jacques Bureau: That hardly covers the
first explanation of the minister that the amount is supposed to be for the increased cost of living and fuel. So far as the feeding of the prisoners is concerned, it is hard to get that to a cent because of the varying population. I do not think an increase in
IMr. Doherty.]
the population would account for the increase in the cost of fuel.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not say that the whole of this was caused by those things. I have pointed out another thing at Kingston and another very particular thing at St. Vincent de Paul. I mentioned food and fuel, the prices of which are not identical every year, and you may have one winter that calls for a greater consumption of fuel than another.
My hon. friend has misunderstood me or else I did not make, myself plain. As I pointed out, at St. Vincent de Paul there were gratuities of $8,000 and expenditure for renewal of part of the electric plant, while increased cost of supplies accounts for the balance. In Dorchester there was increased cost of supplies. An hon. member asks explanation with regard to Saskatchewan. When the institution was taken over* by Inspector Hughes the conditions necessitated an exceptional expenditure. A new building containing 106 cells had to be constructed, also new quarters for the deputy warden, a cement and concrete granary and storehouse, stables and pumphouse, and a new water system to replace the one provided by the Public Works Department in 1910.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is there any special
reason why we should remain here all night? The hon. minister has mentioned the purchase of additional land at Dorchester. I reside there, and I have not heard of any transfers. I see an additional amount of $5,000 for that penitentiary. I would like to get some information with respect to the additional offices created in connection with this institution during the past year and consequent additions to the salary list. Cannot this stand until to-morrow? If there is no special reason, I do not see why we should be asked to remain here all night.


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: These supplementary Estimates are for the year which ended the 31st of March.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They should have
been taken up sooner.


William Thomas White: Possibly, but the debate
on the Transcontinental has taken up the time. I postponed my Budget because of that. I think there should be accommodation on both sides. It would oblige us very much if we could get these Estimates through together with one-sixth of the main Estimates. In connection with these supple-plementaries, the expenditure has all been

incurred, the parties are entitled' to their money and they are waiting! for it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not wish to be obstructive, but there is one item in these Estimates relating to railways which will certainly take some time if it is what I think it is.


William Thomas White: The Senate adjourns tomorrow.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why should we be kept all night for the Senate?


William Thomas White: There is something to be said for that-


An hon. MEMBER:: A good deal.


William Thomas White: We wish to get the Supply Bill to-night if possible, and get the Senate to pass it to-morrow, and have the assent of the Governor General.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There are some items in these Estimates concerning which I should like to ask some questions and have some discussion. It seems hardly reasonable to place before us $3,000,000 of Estimates relating to every department of Government, and ask us to put them through without discussion, besides voting one-sixth of the main Estimates. This last, perhaps, is not so serious because we shall have further opportunity to discuss each item. So far as our friends of the Senate are concerned,
I should be sorry to see them discommoded, but I do not know that their work is so onerous or the time they give to it so great that they should not stay here as long as is reasonably necessary to do the work for which they were sent here.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The understanding was that one-sixth of the Estimates was to go through to-night, that the items already passed in Supply should be concurred in, and also that any of these Supplementary Estimates that were non-contentious should go through. I take it that these supple-mentaries can be gone over, but that any item that any hon. member asks to stand should be allowed to stand. There are several items in these supplementaries that will have to stand over. They cannot go through to-night unless we are to stay here until daylight.


William Thomas White: That position seems perfectly fair. The Government is not asking that any item in these Supplementary Estimates about which information is asked should be passed. But I would ask that items that are non-contentious should b*
passed that we make the Supply Bill accordingly and proceed in accordance with the understanding outlined by my hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee).


Mr. GERMAN:: To cure the matter, I
think I would say that they are all contentious.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Penitentiaries will
stand.


William Thomas White: Yes, penitentiaries stands.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps the hon. gen tleman would be willing to discuss on the main Estimates any matters which he wishes to bring forward, and allow these items to pass.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The only item I mentioned was Dorchester, and as to that I wish information which, of course, I do not insist upon having to-night, if my hon. friend will be prepared to give it later on.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Certainly, I shall be
glad to.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No doubt, it is the wish of members on both sides to be as courteous as possible; but the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) will understand that we have had experience with hon. gentlemen opposite on this point of allowing things to go through reserving discussion for some other time. I have a distinct recollection that last year we passed something like $150,000,000 in two nights after twelve o'clock. I see the hon. Minister of Militia (Mr. Hughes) smiles. He gave us two hours of his time last year, and then we had to put through about $10,000,000 of his Estimates and he did not even do us the courtesy of being present. Along between four and five in the morning we had to put these items through without even having opportunity to ask a question.


James Joseph Hughes: Hon. gentlemen knew
that these Estimates were all right.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would suggest to the Minister of Justice that he ought not to ask us to put ourselves in that position. But I would like to say, that if it were only the Minister of Justice, then, personally, I would favour letting them go through. But it will hardly do to make fish of one and flesh of another, and so I think we must stand upon our legal rights.


William Thomas White: We will try to carry out the arrangement outlined by the hon. member for West Lambton. Any item that any hon. gentleman asks to stand after considering it, I think might stand. But it is very

desirable that these Supplementary Estimates us far as possible should pa3-s.
Arts, Agriculture and Statistics-Experimental Farms-Further amount required to defray expenses arising out of losses sustained by fire at the Central Experimental Farm-Governor General's warrant, $25,000.


Charles Murphy: This -comes within the category of items with reference to which I sent to the Minister of Finance a note this evening saying that I expected this would come up this afternoon and asking him to bring down certain reports. The items to which I refer are covered by Governor General's warrants.


William Thomas White: I have not received that note.


Mr. BURRELL:: We had to get the Governor General's warrant, because we had absolutely no funds. The main barn at the Central Experimental Farm was burned last October, and we lost ' all the machinery and equipment, all the feed produced on the farm, and all the material which was to be used to feed 175 head of cattle, as well -as sheep and swine.


Charles Murphy: For what was the
amount expended?


Martin Burrell: $16,000 worth of feed was destroyed, and a portion of the appliances and machinery. We had to make immediate provision for that, as the stock was there and had to be attended to.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Was there any insurance?


Martin Burrell: I think not; the Government usually carry their own insurance.


Charles Murphy: I do not wish to start a discussion on this item, but a rather important principle is involved in connection with these Governor General's warrants.
I have no objection to this item going through if another be allowed to stand.


William Thomas White: As a matter of fact, it has not been usual in the past to insert in the Estimates amounts in respect of which Governor General's warrants have been issued, but I think it is a proper practice, and we .have adopted it this year. There is no objection to this item being allowed to stand if the hon. gentleman so desires.


James Hamilton Ross: What principle does the Government follow in regard to the insurance of its buildings?


William Thomas White: They carry their own insurance.


James Hamilton Ross: I know for a fact that the Federal Government carried insurance on certain buildings in my riding. For instance, there is insurance on a school building on the Munsel Indian reserv-e. Perhaps the Minister of the Interior can tell me something about it?
Mr. ROCiHE: I will inquire about the matter, and give my hon. friend the information.


James Hamilton Ross: I know the facts, but I should like to know the principle followed by the Government.
,, For the administration and enforcement of the Meat and Canned Food Acts-further amount required, $30,000.


Martin Burrell: After the Estimates had been prepared early in the year it -was found that the expansion of the work necessitated about twenty-two -extra inspectors in connection with the abattoirs throughout the country, and this is to pay their salaries and expenses.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: How many of these inspectors are there?


Martin Burrell: We cannot tell the
exact number; that will depend on the expansion of the whole business.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Does the hon. minister
insist upon the inspectors being veterinary surgeons?


Martin Burrell: Yes, all inspectors have to be veterinary surgeons, and in addition have to pass the departmental examination, which is a pretty stiff one. If my hon. friends will allow this item to pass I will giv-e them all the information they desire when my main Estimates com-e up for consideration.
Militia and Defence-Dominion arsenal further amount required, $60,000.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	In the investigation of the Dominion arsenal, it was found -that a great deal of material had been overrun, and on the 1st of November there was a shortage.


William Manley German: What does over-run
mean?


James Joseph Hughes: I do not want to go into the details of the matter to-night, but the $80,000 is for wages and material.


Mr. POWER:: Is any part of this amount to be used for the purchase of property?


James Joseph Hughes: None whatever.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Surely the minister can give some information as to the necessity for this vote. We might as well let the minister understand that if there has been something wrong in his department there are no secrets in Parliament, and we might as well have the whole of it.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. gentleman will have everything; he will get all the details that are asked for. It is to my advantage that everything should be brought into the open. On November 1, it was found that the $300,000 vote for the arsenal was practically exhausted, there being only $54,000 of it left with which to carry on work until April 1. I do not want to go into the details as I have not all the papers here. It concerns' the investigation into the arsenal.
A great deal of material had to be destroyed and quantity of material had been purchased in excess of requirements.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Improperly used.


James Joseph Hughes: Overproduction, purchasing raw material that was required. I do not wish to say anything against the former manager of the factory, who has since retired; tout he has expended more in purchasing material than he had ca culat-ed upon. It left the factory in this position that we would require $80,000 for the salaries and wages of employees and $30,000 for material, leaving a balance of $60,000 to be provided. There is $14,000 revote out of the $60,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: These figures stagger one. How much is the minister spending on that factory ?


James Joseph Hughes: $300,000 a year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: $300,000 thrown away, worse than wasted; and now the minister wants $60,000 more in order to make good the blunders of some of his officers. It is a wonderful record.


James Joseph Hughes: This is the same vote as for years past.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why not close the whole thing down anyway, what is the good of it?


James Joseph Hughes: I think it is a very good institution and that it serves a useful purpose.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why not turn it into a fertilizer factory and make something that would be of service to the country ?
National Transcontinental Railway-Refund of security deposited by George Goodwin on tender, station building between Cochrane and Superior Junction. $27,500.


John Dowsley Reid: This is a refund to Mr. Goodwin of $27,500. He tendered for some work on the National Transcontinental and that was the amount which he put up. He was the lowest tenderer, but was so low that he could not go on with the work and we are giving him back the money.


William Manley German: I do not remember seeing a vote of this kind for a refund.


Robert Laird Borden: It would not have been necessary if the refund had been made within a year, I know something about this personally, and I really think that Mr. Goodwin is entitled to get his money back. I think they were too sharp, they gave him notice within the time in which he might accept. I believe he stated orally that he would not accept, but his formal notification was too late and he was notified that his deposit would be forfeited. I think he is within his legal right. In view of this, I think he is entitled to have the money back.


Mr. KYTE:: Is it the practice to make refunds to tenderers who' for any reason refuse to enter into a contract ?


Robert Laird Borden: It depends altogether on the reason. Sometimes they are forfeited, sometimes they are not. The circumstances in this case appealed to me very strongly on behalf of Mr. Goodwin and I therefore spoke to the minister about it.


George William Kyte: I have in mind the case of gentlemen in Halifax who put in a tender in connection with the Prince Edward Island car ferry, whose deposit, a very considerable sum,' is at present in the hands of the Railway Department. An application has been made for a refund. Has any action been taken ?


Robert Laird Borden: I have had that under consideration also. I discussed it with the Minister of Railways. The minister holds a rather strong opinion on it, but I think, there is something to be said for the other side of the case. I hope to take it up with the acting minister.


William Manley German: It seems to me a pretty dangerous precedent to establish, to give back the deposit put up by a contractor because he is supposed to be too low. It is a question how far that should go.


Robert Laird Borden: I think cases of that kind should always be submitted to Parliament.
Board of Railway Commissioners-To pay expenses in connection with cases before the Further amount required, $35,000.


John Dowsley Reid: This is a vote for the Railway Commission. Much of the expenditure will be made in connection with cases coming before the board in which the public are interested, such as the western freight rates and the telephone inquiry.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: It includes travelling expenses ?


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, yes, everything.
Experimental Farms-Tobacco curing stations, $12,091.65.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Where are the tobacco curing stations?


Mr. ROGERS:: At Indian Head.
Port Credit, purchase of property for harbour, $344.20.


William Manley German: Has the Government purchased Port Credit Harbour?


Robert Rogers: I think we did, but I am not quite sure.


William Manley German: How much was paid for it?


Robert Rogers: I can get my hon. friend the information, and let him know tomorrow.
To pay claim of Hinton & Company, $500.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What is that?


Robert Rogers: This is to pay a balance due Hinton & Company on a contract.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Do I understand that the Department was to furnish the wire and cable, and that they did not arrive there in time? Is that the reason for this extra vote? The item is small, but it seems a most remarkable thing to make a contractor a present of |500.


Robert Rogers: We are not making him a present. $500 is the amount 2 a.m. required to settle the whole account between the contractors and the department.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the minister know whether the department furnishes the wire and cable?


Robert Rogers: That was in the contract.
Investigating claims in regard to Pelagic Sealing Treaty, $7,000.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What is that for?


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend is aware that under the treaty entered into with the United States, with Russia and Japan pelagic sealing is done away with. Canada is paid 15 per cent of the sealskins thrown [Mr. Borden, j
upon the shore by the United States, 15 per cent by Russia, and 10 per cent by Japan. The United States has paid us $200,000 as an advance payment. Pelagic sealing is now abolished.
That has been received. Claims were made by those who were engaged in the sealing business and in order to arrive at the amount which would be paid to those whose living and occupation have been interfered with, Judge Audette of the Exchequer Court was appointed a commissioner to investigate. Some 1,500 claims have been submitted. We had a sum placed in the Estimates for the year ended March 31, of -$10,000. Judge Audette has been proceeding with the work and it was found that the $10,000 was insufficient. Only a comparatively small amount will have to be voted in the Supplementary Estimates for the year commencing April 1, in order to finish the work which is now well under way and which will be finished during the summer. It is to make provision for this work that this amount is required.
Dominion Lands and Parks-To pay expenses connected with water power investigations and reports in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Railway Belt in British Columbia, $20,100.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is this a new item, or a further amount required?


William Roche: This is a further amount required.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What is this water-power investigation?


William Roche: We had a vote of $114,003 and we require $20,000 to complete the service.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Who compose this commission?


William Roche: It is not a commission. We have a water-power branch in connection with the Interior Department of which Mr. Challies is the head. Mr. Hendry is one of the water-power engineers.
Miscellaneous-British Columbia Better Terms Commission, $3,500.


Charles Murphy: What is that?


Robert Laird Borden: A commissioner was nominated on behalf of the province of British Columbia and one on behalf of the Dominion. The two men were appointed by Order in Council. The British Columbia case has been filed. The case for the Dominion has not yet been filed but it is in course of preparation. In the meantime a third commissioner has not been appointed as it is undesirable to bring him

from England before he is actually needed here.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Who are the commissioners on behalf of British Columbia and of the Dominion?


Robert Laird Borden: The commissioner for
British Columbia is Mr. Bodwell, K.C., and for the Dominion, Mr. Lash, K.C.
Expenses under the Canada Temperance Act __Further amount required, $20,000.


William Manley German: What is this for?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The expenses are very much increased. This is to cover the expenses already' incurred in the Tecent elections under the Act in the counties of Huron, Peel and Welland, and the cost of preparing the voters lists in the unorganized districts of Ontario. There was very little interest shown in the Canada Temperance Act for many years, and elections under it had become comparatively infrequent, hut it has been the custom to place in the Estimates $500 or $1,000 to meet the expenditure. This year the expenditure has been much greater on account of a kind of revival of the Act.
To provide for the purchase of 600 copies of the Parliamentary Guide-Further amount required, $600.


Mr. BOIVIN:: What is this $600 for?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: For many years the Government have bought 600 copies of this guide, but through a clerical error only $600 was provided for in the Estimates, and this is to correct the mistake.


Georges Henri Boivin: What becomes of the 600 copies?


Robert Laird Borden: They are distributed to members and senators.
Mr. CaRVELL: Is that annual?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Annual.


Robert Laird Borden: Formerly, I think, it was only every other year. But I think it is now carried on every year, in accordance with the practice of other parliaments.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is a very good work, and I did not intend to criticise it, but I merely wanted to know what becomes of the extra copies. There are about 210 members and 80 senators, and that would leave about 300 copies unaccounted for.


Robert Laird Borden: I could not give my hon. friend the correct information as to that. I imagine that some are sent to provincial authorities and exchanged for [DOT] documents of a similar character.
To provide for the expenses of commission to prepare plans relating to the cities of Ottawa and Hull, $8,000.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Can we have some information about this?


William Thomas White: The Government during the year appointed an honorary commission consisting of Mr. H. S. Holt, of Montreal, who is chairman, the other members being Sir Alexander Lacoste, Mr. Home Smith, and Mr. Frank Darling, of Toronto, t-he Mayor of Ottawa, and the Mayor of Hull. The Government took the matter up in co-operation with the two corporations, the city of Ottawa and the city of Hull, on the basis that plans should be prepared of Ottawa and Hull and their environments, including the laying of boulevards and squares, the location of public buildings, and generally to deal with the town-planning in the two cities upon the understanding that the Government would pay one-half the expense, the remaining half to be defrayed in proportion of population by the two cities. Both corporations agreed through their municipal authorities to that arrangement. This commission is . now engaged in the work of town planning. Engineers and a staff have been engaged. This amount of $8,000 represents- substantially the expenditure made up to the 31st day of March.


Charles Murphy: This commission is
separate from the Ottawa Improvement Commission?


William Thomas White: Yes.


Charles Murphy: Is the work of this commission to cease as soon as these plans are made and a general scheme outlined, or does their work continue?


William Thomas White: This commission is appointed only for the purpose of making the plans; it does not interfere in any way with the work of the Ottawa Improvement Commission.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Will either of the cities be called upon to contribute to the preparation of plans anything further than the amount they have already contributed?


William Thomas White: Not in respect of this particular commission. The joint arrangement between the Dominion Government and the two cities was that this commission should cause plans to be prepared, and the expenses of the commission and the preparation of the plans to be borne half by the Government and half by the two cities.

Nothing further is in contemplation so far as this commission is concerned. After the plans are prepared and the work done, what we have in mind is that all parties concerned, the Dominion, the two cities of Ottawa and Hull, the railways and other interested parties will all work together in the carrying out of those plans.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Have any plans been prepared yet?	*


William Thomas White: They are in process of preparation.


Charles Murphy: It is a matter of mutual agreement whether these plans will be carried out or not?


William Thomas White: The commission is charged solely with the duty of preparing the plans.
To provide for cost of liquidation and inquiry into the affairs of the Union Life Insurance Company, $20,000.


William Manley German: This is a large sum with so far varying unsatisfactory results. It seems that warrants have been issued for the arrest of certain people. I understand that Mr. Harry Symons is awaiting trial, and I venture to say that he was the most innocent man in connection with the matter and that the really guilty man, Mr. H. Poll-man Evans, is still at large.


William Thomas White: I am entirely willing that the item should stand, because it is an item of an unusual character. So far as expenditure is concerned, I think I can satisfy my hon. friend, although not to-night, that it has been well spent in the interest of the public. The Dominion Government has had nothing whatever to do with the prosecution of the parties in question.


William Manley German: Who has?


William Thomas White: The Ontario Government, which is charged with the administration of justice. The liquidation was for the purpose of enabling about 160,000 policy holders throughout the Dominion, for the most part poor people, paying five, ten, or fifteen cents a week, to obtain reinsurance. Otherwise they would have lost all that they had in this company. The inquiry was further prosecuted in Toronto under the Winding Up Act, with the view of ascertaining how the funds of the company were lodged. The inquiry was widened to take in some of the companies whose affairs were connected with the affairs of this company. So far as the matter to which my hon. friend has referred is concerned, the Dominion Government has nothing whatever to do with the prosecution of any one in connection with

the company. The liquidation was carried on in the city of Toronto before a referee, and he being an officer of the court and the inquiry being public, the Dominion did not consider it to be any of its duty to consider the mattter, of laying an information.


William Manley German: How much did Mr. Masson get?


William Thomas White: I think about $7,000. My hen. friend as a lawyer, I think, will be entirely satisfied with the account of the liquidator here presented and the expenses of liquidation.


William Manley German: It is a pretty stiff price to the liquidation.
Item stands.
Grant towards relieving distress caused by storm on Great Lakes-Governor General's warrant, $25,000.


Charles Murphy: That comes within the category of the items to which I referred my hon. friend earlier in the evening; but, on the understanding that we can discuss this on some other item dealing with Governor General's warrants, it may go through.
Mr. J. I). REID: All right.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend will make me repent of putting these items in the Estimates. It is a new departure.


Charles Murphy: It is not that, but it is the Governor General's warrants.
To provide for the settlement in full of the claim of Government of New Brunswick, for loss sustained owing to the leasing by the federal government of angling privileges in non-tidai waters of the province from 1875 to 1882, the province having disputed the right of the Dominion to issue such leases in 1875 $66,382.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is this a final settlement of the fishery claims?


John Douglas Hazen: This settles both claims.
Customs-Expenses of inspectors of ports, etc., $35,000.


George Perry Graham: Does this include Mr. Carstair?


John Dowsley Reid: He was not an extra
officer.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Is he a permanent officer?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. He is an inspector. We had one or two deaths on the inspection staff and we put him on.


George Perry Graham: Does he do any political
work?


John Dowsley Reid: No.

Customs-Miscellaneous-Printing and stationery, subscriptions to commercial papers, flags, dating stamps, locks, instruments, etc., for variouB ports of entry, express charges on samples, stationery and forms, legal expenses, premiums on guarantee bonds and uniforms for customs officers, $40,000.


George Perry Graham: Are the customs officers put in uniform now?
Mr. REID . I insisted that more of them at the different ports should have nice uniforms. I thought it better in the case of the officers who have to meet the public. We pay $5 extra on each suit, and it makes a considerable item.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to collection of revenue-Railways-Prince Edward Island railway-Working expenses-Further amount required, $65,000.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Did you lose that last year?


John Dowsley Reid: They lost $150,000 altogether.
Public Works-Chargeable to collection of revenue-Telegraph lines-British Columbia- Further amount required, $30,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why is the Dominion
building telegraph lines in British Columbia? I can understand it in the Yukon.


Robert Rogers: We build them not only in British Columbia tout in the Maritime provinces.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know there is a little Dominion line running along the Miramichi river.


Robert Laird Borden: And some in Cape Breton. Mr. REID: And in Queibec too.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I should have thought
that arrangements could be made with the telephone companies. Thirty thousand dollars is a pretty large amount, and naturally raises the question whether the Government is not launching out in a general scheme of telegraph lines. I could understand some lines having been built in the Maritime provinces or on the lower St. Lawrence for some reason or other and now we have to keep them up. But so large an amount as this would seem to indicate a general scheme. I should think that a fairly good line in British Columbia could toe built at $100 a mile. This is a 'further amount required.' How much is being spent altogether?


Robert Rogers: Last year through some
mistake a sufficient vote was not taken to cover the operation and repairs of the telegraph lines. At that time I took much the same ground as the hon. gentleman
takes, thinking that the Dominion had no business to go into telegraph lines. I was trying to bring about a settlement between the different provinces that they should take care of these lines themselves. This sum is required for the repairs and working expenses of the British Columbia system.
Land and Cable telegraph lines-Lower St. Lawrence including working .expenses of vessels required for cable service-Further amount required, $44,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It does seem to me that the minister is branching out to a very considerable extent when an expenditure of $44,000 is only a ' further amount required.'
I know that this includes working expenses of vessels. But surely the Public Works Department does not need to go into tlxe telegraph lines in the Maritime provinces and Lower St. Lawrence generally. We have telegraph and telephone lines everywhere;
I do not think you could find any place in New Brunswick ten miles away from a telephone. If there is any good reason for these government telegraph lines I should like to hear it.


Robert Laird Borden: This matter has been up for discussion many times. As I understand it the telegraph system was first extended into the thinly settled portions of the seacoast largely as a means of getting prompt news concerning marine disasters. For instance there is such a line through the thinly populated portions of Cape Breton and also on the north shore of the St. Lawrence. Then there is a cable somewhere in the Maritime provinces. Extensions have been made to these lines, I believe, for the convenience of the people in places where the telegraph companies would not establish stations. I do not know that it has been upon any distinct principle, but rather as a matter of expediency and for the convenience of the people.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It must have been a
large sum before when your ' further amount required' would build about four hundred miles of new line.


Robert Rogers: The statement supplied
by the department shows that this $44,000 is required to complete payments for the fiscal year on the working expenses of the land and cable telegraph lines in the Lower St. Lawrence and the Maritime provinces and the working expenses of vessels employed in the service. The amount includes such items as $7,800 for the steamship Tyrian, $6,000 for the Cape Breton and special amounts for the various telegraph lines.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is not for extensions then according to that?


Robert Rogers: No.


Mr. CLEMENTS:: I desire to put my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) right on his statement that a telegraph line should be built in British Columbia for $100 a mile. It is evident he does not know the conditions in British Columbia. There are many hundreds of miles of telegraph lines in that province that could not be built for less than $225 a mile. If there is one thing more than another that this Government, or any government can do to benefit the public of British Columbia it is in providing these telegraph lines.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That has all been
done.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Not yet.
Trade and Commerce-salaries of commissioners and officers and other employees; rents, day wages and contingencies under the Inspection and Sale and Canada Grain Acts, further amount required, $75,000.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Certain officers are appointed to carry out certain duties; is it not known at the time of their appointment what salaries they are going to receive? Have additional officers been 'appointed since the main Estimates came down, requiring a further sum of $75,000?


William Thomas White: I think the explanation desired by the hon. member may be found in the concluding paragraph of a statement which the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce sent me this evening, and which is as follows:
For the ten months of the current year to January 31, 1914, there was an increase in the cars inspected over the same period during the fiscal "year of 25,385 cars, and all previous records were broken.
A rather complete summary follows, showing just why this amount is required.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Tile sum of $75,000 is
required for salaries of commissioners and officers and other employees, rents, and so on, not heretofore provided for. As I understand it, under the Civil Service Act these men are appointed by the year, and their salaries are known, to the department. Are these officers men who have been appointed since the main Estimates came down? I do not understand why there should be any extra amount, because the department should know just what their officers are going to cost year by year.


William Thomas White: There is a permanent
staff and they should, and usually do, know what the salaries will be, subject to reasonable increase if business develops in the course of the ensuing year. I think the more important items, those of day wages and contingencies, are due to increase of business at the ports, and the extra permanent staff would tend to increase the amount to $75,000. I would suggest that, with the unanimous consent of the House, we might take concurrence for all the items in the main Estimates em bloc.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The suggestion is made to the House that these resolutions be concurred in en bloc without naming the items. These are the items already passed at previous sittings of the committee.


William Thomas White: And one-sixth of the remaining items.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As the resolutions are
of different dates they could not, in my judgment, be put through on one motion; but by putting through the resolutions without calling the items afterwards much time will be saved and I understood it was agreed that the items should not be called.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
Resolutions concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER read a communication from the Governor General's Secretary, announcing that the honourable Mr. Justice Idington, acting as Deputy of His Royal Highness would proceed to the Senate Chamber on the 3rd instant at four o'clock for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent-in certain Bills.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 3.05 a.m. Friday.
Friday, April 3, 1914.