1915-02-15

Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved:: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: With regard to the report of the departmental committee which had under consideration the character, quality and suitability of the

boots supplied to the first Canadian contingent, laid on the table of the House to-day, I think it desirable and in the public interest, and also due to the various manufacturers who supplied the boots, that the report of the committee and all matters which it concerns should be referred to a special committee of the House, in order that the subject may be further investigated, if desirable, and that the committee may report to the House in due course its findings with regard to the whole matter. Accordingly, I shall move to-morrow, when motions are called, that a committee of seven members be appointed for that purpose. If my right hon. friend will give me to-day the names of three hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, I shall be glad to have their names included in the list of members of the committee.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: On Wednesday, February 10, the following questions were asked by the hon. member for Guys-bor-ough (Mr. Sinclair):
1.	Has an investigation been made regarding the quality of the boots supplied to the Department of Militia and Defence for the use of the Canadian volunteers?
2.	If so, who made this investigation and has the inquiry been closed?
The answers given by the Minister of Militia were as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Board appointed by the Minister of Militia. The inquiry has been closed.
There was in the press some time ago a report that the Minister of Militia had instituted inquiries in his own department, and it was also stated in the press that an inquiry had been instituted by a commission appointed by the Government for the purpose. Is it true that a commission has been appointed to conduct an investigation into this matter?


Robert Laird Borden: The inquiry was a departmental one, made, I understand, by a board appointed by the Minister of Militia.



REPORTED APPEARANCE OF AEROPLANES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Wilfrid Laurier: A report appeared in the public press to-day to the effect that aeroplanes coming from the United States had been sighted. Can the right hon. Prime Minister give me any information on this point?


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid that I am unable to give the point of departure of the aeroplanes in question. The only information I have on the subject is that about nine o'clock last evening the mayor of Brockville telephoned to me that three aeroplanes had crossed over Brockville, going to the north, and that one of them had turned a searchlight upon the town, lighting up very considerably the principal street. On receiving the information I communicated it to the chief of the general staff, with the suggestion that it should also be made known to the Commissioner of Dominion Police.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. 0. TURGEON:	(Gloucester, N.B.):
I rise to a question of privilege. My attention has been called to an article in the St. John Standard of the 11th instant, in which certain assertions of mine are misrepresented. I am reported as having used the following words at a recruiting -meeting:
I <lo not see how Britain can expect the men of Gloucester county to volunteer or enlist to light her battles when they are obliged to leave their homes and go to the United States to earn their living and a living for their families.
I brand that report as an infamous distortion of fact and language. Others may call it what they wish, but that is what I think of it. I believe that no member of this House-especially you, Mr. Speaker, who have heard practically all my utterances in this Parliament during the last fifteen years-would say that I would use these remarks before the people of Gloucester county. I believe too that the diatribes contained in that report are not the views of the editor who wrote it. It has been published, no doubt for a purpose, one month after I made the declaration in Tracadie; but every man from New Brunswick knows that I was the first to organize and call recruiting meetings in Gloucester coupty and along the north shore of New Brunswick, as is shown by the correspondence with the Canadian Patriotic Committee of St. John, New Brunswick, of which His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick is president and Mr. Jas. Gilchrist is secretary. At my instance, eloquent speakers have attended these meetings. One of them in Bathurst was addressed by a gentleman whose name is familiar throughout New Brunswick, more particularly to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Mr. F. M. Sproule, a member of
the legal profession, an ex-member of the legislature, one of the most eloquent speakers it has ever been my pleasure to listen to, and the next morning fifteen or seventeen young men from Bathurst enlisted before dinner. If I had allowed this statement to go without contradiction some one, not in this House or in New Brunswick, might have believed it. I did not wait until war was declared to pronounce my allegiance or my loyalty to the Crown. My allegiance was my birthright and my loyalty has grown stronger with each year of my life. At the last meeting I addressed I did say, at the end of my remarks, after calling on the young men to enlist, that the young men of the county of Gloucester had not responded as generously as I had expected, although more generously than those of any of the surrounding counties. The number was not to my satisfaction. I said that, owing to the hard times prevailing in Gloucester since the year before, owing to the depression of business, such as the closing of the iron mine at Bathurst by which three or four hundred men were thrown out of employment, many of whom had gone to the United States and were therefore not here to enlist, a larger number should have gone to the front. I shall not take up your time by reading the diatribe against me that follows, as I have said I do not think that the editor of the Standard himself believes it. If any further explanation is required at any time I shall be glad to give it.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 4, respecting the Alberta Central Railway Company.-Mr. Michael Clark.
Bill No. 5, respecting the Athabasca and Grand Prairie Railway Company.-Mr. Green.
Bill No. 6, respecting the Brantford and Hamilton Electric Railway Company.-Mr. Barker.
Bill No. 7, respecting the British Columbia and White River Railway Company.- Mr. Stevens.
Bill No. 8, respecting the Edmonton, Dun-vegan and British Columbia Railway Company.-Mr. Green.
Bill No. 9, respecting the Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Wilcox.
Bill No. 10, respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. E. M. Macdonald.
Bill No. 11, respecting The Hudson Bay, Peace River and Pacific Railway Com-
[Stage Direction]


pany, and to change its name to Winnipeg and Hudson Bay Railway Company.- Mr. W. H. Sharpe.
Bill No. 12, to amend the Independent Order of Foresters Consolidated Act.-Mr. Glass.
Bill No. 13, respecting the Montreal and Southern Counties Railway Company.-Mr. Bickerdike.
Bill No. 14, to ratify and confirm a certain	agreement	between	the	Canadian
Northern Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill No. 15, respecting certain patents of Duncan Donald McBean.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 16, respecting The Title and Trust Company, and to change its name to Chartered Trust and Executor Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill	No.	17,	respecting	The	Canadian
Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. W. H. Sharpe.
Bill	No.	20,	respecting	The	Canadian
Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Bradbury.
Bill	No.	21,	respecting	the	Canadian
Northern Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Blain.
Bill	No.	22,	respecting	the	Canadian
Northern Quebec Railway Company.-Mr. Guilbault.
Bill No. 2.3, respecting the James Bay and Eastern Railway Company.-Mr. Girard.
Bill No. 24, respecting the Ottawa and New York Railway Company.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 25, respecting the South Ontario Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 26, respecting the Southern Central Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Green.
Bill No. 27, respecting the St. Lawrence and Adirondack Railway Company.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 28, respecting the Toronto Eastern Railway Company.-Mr. Smith.

[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]
imperial government loans to

Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Has the Government made arrangements with the Bank of England to borrow certain sums of money?
2.	If so, how much has been borrowed up to date?
3.	How much money is borrowed each month?

4.	What is the total amount the Government has arranged to borrow up to the end of the fiscal year?


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: 
ISSUES OF DOMINION NOTES.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Has the Minister of Finance exceeded his authority and issued Dominion notes beyond what have been authorized by Statute?
2.	On what authority were these notes issued?
3.	What amount of Dominion notes have been issued over and above what is authorized by Statute?
4.	When was this additional issue distributed?
5.	Was any portion given to the Canadian Northern Railway Company? If so, how much?
6.	On what authority did the Minister of Finance hand over to the Canadian Northern Railway Company this money?
7.	If by Order in Council, what is the date or dates that authority was given?
S.	How much money was given to the Canadian Northern Railway Company on this authority and what are the dates?


William Thomas White: Issues of Dominion notes were made by the Minister of Finance under the authority of Orders in Council as follows:-
(a)	$10,000,000 in order that certain obligations of Canada might be met as they matured. These issues were made at various dates after November 2, 1914.
(b)	$10,000,000 advanced to the Canadian Northern Railway Company upon the security of $12,500,000 of that company's four per cent debenture stock guaranteed by the Dominion under the provisions of The Canadian Northern Railway Guarantee Act, 1914. These sums were placed to the credit of the Minister of Finance and paid out under the provisions of the deed of trust securing the issue of said debenture stock. This advance is repayable. May 1, 1915, with interest at five per cent per annum.
Particulars:	$2,500,000-Order in Council, September 5, 1914;	$2,500,000-Order
in Council, September 26, 1914; $2,000,000 -Order in Council, October 24, 1914; $2,000,000-Order in Council, November 20, 1914; $1,000,000-Order in Council, December 16, 1914.
(c)	$6,000,000 advanced to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company upon the

security of $7,500,000 of that company's four per cent bonds guaranteed by the Dominion under the provisions of The Grand Trunk Pacific Guarantee Act, 1914. These sums were placed to the credit of the Minister of Finance and paid out under the provisions of the deed of trust securing the issue of said bonds. This advance is repayable May 1, 1915, with interest at five per cent per annum.
Particulars:	$2,000,000-Order in Council, September 5, 1914;	$2,000,000-Order
in Council, September 26, 1914; $1,000,000 -Order in Council, October 24, 1914; $1,000,000-Order in Council, November 20, 1914.


BORROWINGS BY CANADIAN BANKS FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Have any of the Canadian hanks taken advantage of the special Act passed at the last session of Parliament and borrowed sums of money from the Government?
2.	If so, what banks have availed themselves of this opportunity, and what amounts has each one borrowed?
3.	Have any of the banks paid back any portion of this money? If so, what amount?


William Thomas White: The sum of $14,439,767.55 was borrowed by Canadian banks from the Government under the provisions of The Finance Act, 1914. Of this sum $7,047,267.55 has been repaid.
Mr. KYTE': I wish to say to the Minister of Finance that his answer to this question is not complete. The first part of the question asks if any of the Canadian banks had taken advantage of the special Act passed at the last Session of Parliament and borrowed sums of money from the Treasury, and the second part of the question asks what banks have availed themselves of this opportunity and what amounts has each borrowed. The Minister in his answer has not given the names of the banks or the amounts borrowed by them.


William Thomas White: The Government does not regard it as expedient to give detailed information as to the advances made to individual banks. This policy follows the precedent established in 1907, when loans were made through the Bank of Montreal and details were not only not giv*n as to loans to banks but are not even of record in the Department of Finance. I do not make this statement by way of criticism, because I think it was sound policy. There is another reason which I am sure will appeal to my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) why detailed information should not be given. In 10i
the letter which I addressed to the several chartered banks on September 5. 1914, giving notice of the proclamation which was issued by the Government under the authority of the Finance Act passed at the special war session in August, I stated:
All applications to the Treasury Board will be regarded as confidential, and it is my earnest hope that we shall have the hearty co-operation of the banks in bringing into effect the new legislation.
Under all the circumstances it would seem to me that my hon. friend might possibly be disposed to refrain from pressing his application for particulars.


Wilfrid Laurier: At this moment I express no opinion as to whether or not the information should be given to the House; I simply call the attention of the Minister of Finance to -the precedent of 1907, when, if my memory serves me, the advances were made either to the Bank of Montreal itself or upon guarantee of the Bank of Montreal.


William Thomas White: My right hon. friend is correct in this, that the Bank of Montreal made and guaranteed the advances, but that does not at all alter the fact that advances were made to banks from Dominion funds. There was the additional security of the guarantee of the Bank of Montreal, but there is no distinction in principle. If it is advisable to make public details of loans made to the banks upon any security, it would appear to me that the same principle would apply, although the security is enhanced by a guarantee of a bank, even though that bank may be an institution such as the Bank of Montreal. The principle is the same: Advances were made in Dominion notes upon security.
There is the further consideration, not necessary for me to emphasize unduly, that last September it was very desirable in the public interest that the banks should be made to feel quite free to avail themselves of this legislation which had a two-fold object, namely, first, to conserve the gold supply of Canada, and, secondly, to enable the banks the better to supply the commercial needs of the community. In those circumstances, I wrote the banks pointing out that such was the object of the legislation; and in order that they might be more readily induced to avail themselves of its provisions, I stated, as I have already mentioned to the House, that their applications would be regarded as confidential. Under those circumstances, I think it would be a violation of the understanding between them

and the Government that we should bring down details. As a matter of fact, the total amount advanced the banks has been comparatively small, as shown by the answer to the question of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), and a substantial part has already been repaid.


BUILDINGS RENTED BY GOVERNMENT.
Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	How many buildings have been rented by
the Government in the city of Ottawa since October 1, 1911?
2.	Who are the owners of the said buildings?
3.	Where are said buildings situated?
4.	What rent per annum is paid for each building or part of building?
5.	For what term are said buildings rented?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Thirty-six buildings.
2,	3, 4 and 5. Wm. A. Allan and S. H. Fleming; 2 rooms in Victoria Chambers; $1,080; 1 year to 20th April, 1915.
Sir H. N. Bate Realty Corporation; Suite No. 6 Aylmer Annex; $648; 19th August, 1914, to 30th September, 1915.
Sir H. N. Bate Realty Corporation; Suite No. 7, Aylmer Annex; $360; 17 months to 1st October, 1915.
Russell Blackburn; 2 rooms, 1st floor, 209 Sparks st.; $350; 1st May, 1914, to 1st May, 1916.
R. L. & R. Blackburn; Room 414, Union Bank Building; $371; 1 year to 9th November, 1915.
R. L. & R. Blackburn; part of 2nd floor and part of 3rd floor, and whole of 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th floors of eastern portion of the Union Bank Building; $28,986; 5 years to 16th July, 1918.
R. L. & R. Blackburn; 6 floors, Union Bank Building; $13,000; 5 years to 6th January, 1917.
R. L. & R. Blackburn; Rooms 608, 609 and 607, Union Bank Building; $1,154; 1st August, 1914, to 15th July, 1918.
R. L. & R. Blackburn; front room in basement, Union Bank Building; $350; 1 year to 21st August, 1915.
C. Jackson Booth; 3 upper floors of Booth Building; $16,495 ; 5 years to 1st November, 1918.
Bryson Realty Co.; 4 floors above ground floor in Lessors' Building on Queen St.; $8,596; 5 years to 25th April, 1919.
Bytown & Suburb Land Co.; 105 Murray St. (storage Printing Bureau); $2,390 ; 5 years to 14th July, 1919.
Wm. B. Morris; top floor Capital Building; $1,500; 2 years to 17th April, 1915.
Capital Storage Co. Ltd.; basement 136 Emmett St.; $1,650; from 13th August, 1914,

to end of war should it be longer than one year.
Eva C. Carling; 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th floors, Carling Building, east side Bank, between Sparks and Queen Sts. ; $13,000; 5 years from date of occupation, in January, 1914.
W. D. Morris, D. M. Finnic; property 128 Wellington St.; $4,000; 3 years to 20th November, 1915.
John M. Garland; 2 top floors of Imperial Building, corner Queen and O'Connor Sts.; $2,500; 1st November, 1912, to 1st October, 1916.
James Hope & Sons; third floor of Hope Building corner Sparks and Elgin sts.; $2,500; 3 years to 29th January, 1916.
Frank Jarman; 1st 2 flats and basement- 326 and 328 Queen st.; $1,560; 3 years to 1st April, 1916.
Journal Printing Co.; 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th floors Journal Building ; $11,592; 5 years to 12th January, 1919.
Journal Printing Co.; 770 square feet on 6th floor; $539; year to year.
Journal Printing Co.; 621 sq. feet in basement; $434.70; year to year.
P. Labelle; Building of Lessor corner York and Dalhousie sts.; $11,500; 5 years to 2nd January, 1919.
J. P. Laurin; brick building 95 George st.; $1,200; 2 years to 1st May, 1915.
Lord Furniture Co.; premises 2 stories high-64 and 66 George st.; $1,800; 15th February, 1914 to 20th February, 1916.
Dr. Frederick McKinnon; house 72 Elgin st.; $780; one year to 9th October, 1915.
E. R. McNeill & R. G. Stewart; 3rd and 4th floors Lessor's Building 198 and 200 Queen st.; $1,850; 5 years to 5th Sept., 1916.
W. H. Martin; basement of 174, 176 and 178 Wellington St.; $900 ; 3 years to 14th Dec., 1916.
Ottawa Masonic Temple Co.; ground floor and 1st floor New Masonic Temple; $6,141; 5 years to 15th November, 1918.
Robert E. Powell; premises 221 and 223 Queen st.; $900; 1 year to 1st March, 1914 (vacated.)
Quebec Buildings Ltd.; 5 rooms on 2nd floor and 2 on 3rd floor, Quebec Bank Building; Wellington st.;	$1,200;	1 year to 1st
May, 1915.
A. E. Rea & Co., Ltd. ; 3 upper stories of Rea Building corner Rideau and Sussex sts.; $44,034 90; 5 years to 9th September, 1919.
Rideau Club; premises in Rideau Ciu Building; $1,800; 5 years to 1st May, 1917.
Hiram Robinson; whole of Robinson

Block, S. side Queen st.; between Metcalfe and Elgin sts.; $15,200 ; 3 years to 1st Sept.; 1915.
J. L. Rochester et al.; premises 126 Queen st.; $90.1; to 1st May, 1916.
W. H. Stroud; 2 flats building 109 on Rideau st.; $1,677; 1st August, 1914; to 20th February, 1916.


ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF MILITARY PROPERTY.
Mr. MARCILE:: Is the Minister of Militia aware that a quantity of blankets, saddles, boots and food was burned about the time the expeditionary force of volunteers departed from camp at Valcartier? If so, what are the reasons therefor?
Major-General HUGHES :	No military property of any value was destroyed. Some property of civilian pattern brought into camp was destroyed, as was also some obsolete and worn out uniforms and some worthless articles not worth cost of removal. These latter are authorized under regulations to be destroyed on the certificate of the Senior Ordnance Officer, and under his supervision. Report of the Board herewith (filed with Clerk of the House.)


WAR SUPPLIES-BOOTS.
Joseph Edmond Marcile: L How many pairs of boots were purchased for the first expeditionary force of volunteers?
2.	From whom were such boots purchased, and what was the price paid per pair?
3.	Were the boots supplied satisfactory?
Major-General HUGHES:
1.	65,000.
2.	From Ames, Holden, McCready, Ltd., Montreal, $3-85 per pr.; Tetrault Mfg. Co., Montreal, $3-85 per pr.; The Slater Shoe Co., Montreal, $3-85 per pr,; Louis Gauthier Co., Quebec, $3-85 per pr.; John Mac-pherson Co., Hamilton, $3-85 per pr.; Hartt Boot and Shoe Co., Fredericton, $3-66 2-3 per pr.; Amherst Boot and Shoe Co., Nova Scotia, $3-80 per pr.
3.	Yes, taking into consideration the short time allowed for manufacture.


WAR SUPPLIES-HORSES.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	How many horses were shipped to England with the first contingent?
2.	What was their purchase price?
Major-General HUGHES:
1.	Total horses shipped to England with first contingent, 8,393.
2.	Average price paid, $173-32.


WAR SUPPLIES-MEDICAL.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	From whom were medical supplies purchased in Ottawa for the equipment of the first Canadian contingent?
2.	Did one Mr. J. E. Powell supply a quantity of medical supplies and bandages to the Government for the first Canadian contingent?
3.	If so, what amount was paid to Mr. Powell for these supplies?
4.	Is Mr. Powell's place of business in Ottawa?
5.	Did Mr. Powell solicit these orders or did some one act for him?
6.	If so, what is the name of the person who acted for him?
7.	Were steps taken to see that the prices charged for these goods were fair and reasonable?
Major-General HUGHES:
1.	Supplies for the medical services for the first expeditionary force were obtained from: Canadian Milk Products Co., Toronto; Ingram & Bell, Ltd., Toronto; Hartz Co., Ltd., J. F., Toronto; Wood, W. Lloyd, Toronto; Murray-Kay, Ltd., Toronto; Burroughs Wellcome Co., Montreal; Chapman, J. II., Montreal; Davidson Mfg. Co., Thos., Montreal; Frosst Co., Ltd., C. E., Montreal; Gilmour Bros. & Co. (agents, Johnston & Johnston), Montreal; Lymans, Ltd., Montreal; National Drug & Chemical Co., (agents, Seabury & Johnston), Montreal; Canadian Red Cross Society, Montreal; Mothersill Remedy Co., Detroit; Stott & Jury, Bowinanville; H. K. Mulford Co.; Ltd., Philadelphia; S. S. White Dental Co., Philadelphia; Chandler & Fisher, Ltd., Winnipeg; Eimer & Amend, New York; Kny-Scheerer Co., New York; Whitall & Tatum Co., New York; I. Flack, London, England; Idris & Co., London, England; Baird & Tatlock, London, England; Birkett, T. & Son, Ottawa; Brownlee, T. A., Ottawa; Eddy, E. B. & Co., Ottawa; Graham, Weldon J., Ottawa; Harrison, R. I., Ottawa; Macdonald & Co., W. B., Ottawa; Oliver & Sons, Ltd., J., Ottawa; Ottawa Truss & Surgical Co., Ottawa; Plant, F. H. (successors to Watson Carriage Co.), Ottawa; Powell, E. (agent, Bauer & Black), Ottawa; Rea Co., Ltd., A. E., Ottawa; Stevenson, S. J., Ottawa; Watts, E. R. & Sons, Ottawa; Preston Car & Coach Co., Preston.
2.	Yes.
3.	$18,163.
4.	Yes.
5.	(a) No. (b) The goods bought were manufactured by Bauer & Black, Chicago, whose Toronto representative, Mr. Shaver, gave Mr. Powell's name to the department as their Ottawa agent.
6.	Answered by 5.
7.	Yes.	*


LETHBRIDGE IMMIGRATION OFFICER.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Why was A. E. Humphries removed as immigration officer at Lethbridge?
. 2. When was A. H. McKeown appointed to the immigration service at Lethbridge and for what reason?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Owing to the fact that there was at that time practically no work to do in connection with immigration at Lethbridge, Mr. A. E. Humphries, whose salary was $1,300 per annum, was, on October 15, 1914, indefinitely suspended from his position as travelling immigration inspector.
2.	On November 1, 1914, Mr. A. H. McKeown was appointed as caretaker of Lethbridge immigration hall at a salary of $65 per month, it being found necessary to have some one in charge of the building there.


COUTTS, ALTA, QUARANTINE AREA.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Has any portion of the Government quarantine area at Coutts, Alberta, been leased or sold to private individuals?
2.	If so, to whom and when?
3.	What was the consideration In each case?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


DEATH OF HENRI NOTTAR.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Has the Government paid, or agreed, to pay, any sum to the widow and family of Henri Nottar, the French reservist, who was shot and killed by Sergeant George Hooten at the Drill Hall In Montreal?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the Government to compensate the widow and family of the deceased?


Robert Laird Borden: I am informed that a suit is pending in the courts between the representatives of the man who was unfortunately killed and the sergeant named in the question. No representations have been made to the Government on the subject. We will take the matter into consideration.


C.N.R. PAYMENTS FOR SERVICES.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What was the total amount paid the Canadian Northern Railway Company for transportation and all other_ services in connection with Valcartier Camp?'
2.	How much of the said amount was made up of express charges?
3.	Were all the accounts so paid the Canadian Northern Railway Company audited on behalf of the Government? If so, by whom?

Major-General HUGHES:
1.	$19,098.89 paid to date.
2.	$7,965.24.
3.	Yes, by an official of the Accounts Branch.


CHARLES P. LIVINGSTONE.
Mr. CARROLL:: 1.	Has Charles P. Livingstone, of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, been appointed to a position on the telegraph staff of the Public Works Department, or in any other department of the Government?
2.	If so, what are his duties, and what is his salary ?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Mr. C. P. Livingstone, of Glace Bay, was by authorization of the hon. the Minister of Public Works, appointed 15th December, 1914, to the position of superintendent of Government telegraphs in Cape Breton, with headquarters at Sydney.
2.	The duties of the position will embrace attention to the upkeep of the telegraph and telephone lines at present in operation; the establishment of new offices as required, and the conducting of whatever further construction work may be undertaken. The salary attached to Mr. Livingstone's position is at the rate of $100 per month.


I CL. RY.-ATLANTIC SUGAR REFINERY SITE.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	What price did the Intercolonial Railway receive from the Atlantic Sugar Refining Company for the site occupied by the latter company in St. John, N.B. ?
2.	What was the date of sale or acquisition of the property by the Atlantic Sugar Refining Company ?
3.	Has the Department of Railways been paid the amount agreed upon?
4- Has the Department of Railways received or collected from the Atlantic Sugar Refining Company the amount due? If not, what is the reason for the delay?
5.	What rate of interest is charged the Atlantic Sugar Refining Company for the postponed payments?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	$100,000, in addition to 5.51 acres of land in payment for 6.94 acres out of the 11.13 .acres previously granted but surrendered.
2.	Property was conveyed to the company by letters patent dater January 7, 1913.
3.	Yes.
4 and 5. Answered by No. 3.


EXPORT OF HORSES TO UNITED STATES.
Mr. DEMERS:: 1.	Are horses prohibited from being exported to the United States from Canada? If so, since when, and under what authority?

2.	Does such prohibited export of horses apply generally or are certain exceptions made?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Saddle, draught and pack animals suitable for use in war are prohibited export to any place other than the United Kingdom or British possessions, since August 9, 1914, under Order in Council based on Section 291 of Customs Act, Chapter 48, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906.
2.	Exception is made to saddle, draught *and pack animals which are not suitable for use in war; and to horses temporarily exported for racing or exhibition purposes.


MR. P. MORRIS.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Was Mr. P. Morris in the employ of the Customs Department as special and investigating officer at Chicago, in 1911?
2.	Is he now in the employ of that department?
3.	If not, did he resign, or was he dismissed?
4.	If the latter, what .was the cause for such action on behalf of the Government,' and what is the date of the Order in Council dismissing him?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Services dispensed with.
4.	His services were not further required in the Customs Department. The date of the Order in Council is November 8, 1913.


SIR CLIVE PHIDLIPS-WOLLEY.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Does Captain Sir Clive Phillips-Wolley hold an appointment in connection with the Department of Militia and Defence? If so, what appointment does he hold?
2.	What is the date of his present appointment?
3.	What is his remuneration?
4.	What are his duties?


Major General HUGHES:: 1.	Yes. He is an Assistant Censor and Special Service Officer.
2.	December 1, 1914.
3.	Seven dollars per day.
4.	Assistant Censor and Special Service Officer.


H.M.C.S. NIOBE.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Were any repairs or expenditures made during the year 1914, to or upon the H.M.C.S. Niobe?
2.	If so, what was the nature of the same, the total cost of such expenditures or repairs and by whom performed?
3.	At the outbreak of war, how many men were enlisted upon H.M.C.S. Niobe, and what is the total enlistment today ?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Halifax Graving Dock Co.,
Ltd., docking	$ 3,266 00
Halifax Dockyard, hull, fittings
and equipment	$4,335 17
Machinery and boilers.. 16,283 72 Armament	 158 86 2,077 75

3.	July 15, 1914-9 officers, 34 men. January 15, 1915-41 officers, 644 men.
MILITIA MEN IN BRITISH COLUMBIA. Mr. MACDONALD:
1.	How many militiamen have been on active service in the province of British Columbia since August 15, 1914, to February 1, 1915?
2.	What was the cost of maintaining the militia in British Columbia since August 1, 1914, to February 1, 1915?


Major General HUGHES:: 1.	Numbers have varied. The average number of non-permanent militia which have been on active service in British Columbia since 5th August, 1914, to tne 1st February, 1915, is as follows: August, 4,102; September, 3,728; October, 3,017; November, 3,348; December, 2,460; January, 2,065.
2.	$1,434,996.74.


E. C. WOOD'S LAND PATENT.
Mr. NEELY:: 1. Is the Minister of the Interior aware that Mr. E. C. Wood, now holding entry for the northwest 1 of section 24, township 35, range 24, west of the 2nd meridian, is said to have obtained a patent in Manitoba in 1892 or 1893 for the northeast 1 of section 36, township 4, range 3?
2. If so, why was Mr. Wood given this second entry?	-


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. Wood secured free homestead patent for the N.E.J 36-4-3-W.P.M., in July, 1898. When he made homestead entry for the N.W.I 24-35-24 W. 2nd Mer., on the 7th August, 1906, he was not entitled to a sec-, ond free homestead and not eligible to make entry. The entry was illegal and had to be cancelled. Mr. Wood claimed that his first homestead was a very poor quarter-section being totally unfit for agriculture, and that when he made his second entry he had no idea he was breaking the law. An official of the department reported that Mr. Wood had been in continuous residence upon the N.W. of section 24-35-24 West 2nd Meridian, since he made his entry and had placed valuable improvements on the quarter-section in addition to breaking

42 acres of land. It was considered it would be a great hardship to deprive Mr. Wood of the land and it was decided last October to permit him to purchase it at the rate of $3 per acre, being the value placed thereon by a homestead inspector-such sale to exhaust Mr. Wood's right to a purchased homestead.


NEW BRUNSWICK AND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY.
Mr. COPP:: 1.	*Has the Government purchased or agreed to purchase the railway running from Sack-ville to Cape Tormentine, county of Westmorland, known as the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island railway?
2.	If so, what was the price paid or agreed to he paid for said hire of railway?
3.	From whom was said railway so purchased?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	There is an agreement for purchase.
2.	To be $270,000.
3.	The New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Railway Company.


IMPORTS OF CORN.
Mr. ROBB:: What was the total quantity of corn entered at each of the customs ports of Athelstan, Dundee, Hemmingford, and Valleyfleld, during the year ending December 31, 1914?


Mr. REID:: Athelstan, 11,018 bushels;
Hemmingford, 2,019 bushels; Valleyfleld, 17,989 bushels. Dundee is not a customs port, and separate returns are therefore not available.


WAR SUPPLIES-SEASICKNESS CURE.
Air. COPP:: 1.	What quantity of Mothersill's Seasickness Cure was sent with the first contingent to England, and what amount was paid therefor?
2.	From whom were the purchases made?
Alajor-General HUGHES:
1.	20,000 boxes; $3,983.34.
2.	Alothersill Remedy Co., Ltd., Detroit.


REVENUE OF CANADA, 1912, 1913, 1914.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	What was the total revenue of the Dominion of Canada each month for the calendar year of 1912?
2.	What was the total revenue of the Dominion of Canada each month for the calendar year 1913?
3.	What was the total revenue of the Dominion of Canada each month for the calendar year 1914?


William Thomas White: The total revenue of the Dominion of Canada each month for calendar years 1912, 1913, and 1914 is as follows:
January. . February. March...
April. . . . May. . . . June,. ..
July. . . . August. . September October. . Nov mber. December.
1912.

12.099.769.22 *2,622,003 33 11,019,445.77 13,636,718.10 13,181,946 75
*740,827.96
14.619.201.22 14,445,849.42 14,475,483.52 14,758,946.72 14,297,778.28 14,142,180.59
1913.
$ 13.442,378.80 13,135,870.58 14,372,331.40 *2,686,625.91 12,145,455 78 14,818,919.33 14 3"4 316.25 *475 139 39 15,811.914.26 14,547,853.20 15,249,25S.36 14,225,590.16 13,536,9S1.32 12,931,466 77
1914.
$ 11,529,753.30 9,698,120.91 11,688 901.97 *2,0..2,229.89 9,848 998.51 11,723.162.90 12,088,228.50 *653,! 26.06 12,521,624.27 14,196,104.31 9,953,093.07 10,641,254.82 9,495,526.30 9,167,440.62
$16:, 202,825.77	$171,684,108.51 135,238,075.43
* Amount belonging to the fiscal year ended 31st March, but which did not until after close of fiscal year.
come to account
The answers which I have given to this question also cover the answer to question No. 1 asked by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte). If the hon. member for Richmond is content with that, he will probably accept this answer as an answer to his question.


WAR SUPPLIES-GALVANIZED IRON PAILS.
Mr. TURRIFF:: 1. How many galvanized iron pails have been purchased by the Government or the

Militia Department from the Dominion Machine and Supply Company of Ottawa?
2.	How much was paid the company for each pail?
3.	How many of the said pails were manufactured by McFarlane, Douglas Co., Ltd., of Ottawa?
4.	How much was the latter company paid for each pail manufactured by them? '
5.	By whom are the Government cheques issued to the Dominion Machine and Supply Company endorsed on behalf of the company?
6.	Who are the members or directors of the Dominion Machine and Supply Company?


Major General HUGHES:: 1.	Two thousand one hundred and sixty.
2.	$1.47J.
3.	Not known.
4.	Not known.
5.	' For deposit only to credit of Dominion Machinery and Supply Co.' Bank of Ottawa, Chaudiere Branch, 29th December, 1914.
6.	Not known.


SACKVILLE POST OFFICE SITE.
Mr. COPP:: 1.	Has the Government purchased a site for a new post office in the town of Sackville, county of Westmorland?
2.	If so, when was such purchase made?
3.	What was the price paid for said site?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with the erection of a new post office building at Sackville during the present war?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	In July, 1913.
3.	$8,000.
4.	The matter is under consideration.


VICTORIA MEMORIAL MUSEUM TOWER.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Has the Government undertaken to repair the tower of the Royal Victoria museum by day labour, or has it awarded a contract for the repair of the same?
2.	If the latter, to whom was the contract given and what is the amount thereof?
3.	Were tenders for the work invited by public advertisement? If not, why not?
4.	What is the official estimate of the total cost of the repairs?


Mr. ROGERS:: No; the department is
having tests made at the present time with regard to the foundation, but no work of repair has yet been undertaken. I am adding to the answer the report of Mr. Mon-sarrat, who made a very full report with respect to the museum:
Montreal, January 27, 1915.
Sir,-In accordance with the Order in Council dated January 5, 1915, authorizing me to examine the foundations of the Victoria Memorial Museum at Ottawa and report thereon, I beg to make a preliminary report as follows:
In order to deal intelligently with this matter there are points that should be definitely established, viz:
(1)	To what extent has settlement occurred in the foundations of the building.
(2)	Has such settlement affected the stability of the building.
(3)	Is this settlement still going on.
When these points have been determined, and if it is found that settlement is still going on, it would then be in order to point out what steps should be taken to prevent further settlement in the future.
After an examination of the building, I will consider this subject under two heads, namely:
(1)	The foundations of the main building.
(2)	Foundations of the tower and heavy cross wal\s.
Main Building.
With regard to the settlement of the foundations of the main building there can be no question. How much this has amounted to is, however, more difficult to determine. There seem to be no plans in existence which show the original elevations of the footings or piers, nor have any observations been made to determine the progress of the settlement. The amount of settlement, however, can be arrived at approximately by comparing the present elevations of footings which have been subjected to unit loads of varying amounts. On the outside walls of the building an estimate of the weights shows that there is approximately an average pressure on all the bearing areas of about three tons per square foot. On the interior sub-basement walls and footings of columns there are loads varying from one to two tons per square foot. The result is that the outside walls have gone down much faster than these interior walls or footings.
This movement is more plainly in evidence on the ground floor, which is supported at the centre, on two rows of columns resting on light interior walls in the sub-basement, and at the sides on the main walls.
Accompanying this report is a blue print dated January 27, 1915, showing elevations which I have had taken on this main floor. The cross sections and profiles shown thereon indicate at a glance what the settlement amounts to at all points on this floor.
The settlement around the four walls of the east and west wings is shown to be fairly uniform, although there seems to be about one inch more settlement towards the north face of these wings. From the cross sections of these wings it would seem that there has been between 5 and 6 inches settlement of these walls, assuming that there has been little or no settlement of the interior walls.
There is nothing to show that the interior walls in the two wings have settled to any appreciable extent. While the average elevation of the floor over these walls is about one inch higher in the west wing than in the east wing, yet it is quite possible that some of this difference may have occurred in the original laying of the floor.
The interior walls of the main building do not show such a regular line, the settlement being much more pronounced near the main tower and wings. This, however. can be accounted for from the fact that these walls, being incorporated in the heavier walls of the tower and cross walls, would be carried down simultaneously with the latter.
From the elevations taken it wTould appear that settlement of the walls of the main building amounts to from 5 to 9 inches. The slope of these walls is. towards the main tower, where the greatest settlement has taken place.
This indication of the settlement of the main walls is practically confined to the ground floor and basement. On the first, second and third floors, where the supporting girders extend from wall, there is little or no evidence that any such settlement has taken place.
As regards the stability of the walls of the main building, I do not consider that this has been seriously affected. If the ground floor had

been supported on long girders extending from wall to wall, similar to the floors above, there would be little or no evidence to show that settlement had taken place, except of course at points where it is incorporated with the walls of the tower and the heavy cross walls. Cracks have opened up in the walls of the east and west entrance, which would naturally be expected, but this result could not in any case prove serious, A few of the stone lintels and ,mullions of the building have been cracked but not to any serious extent. The greatest evidence of this settlement is shown in the basement, which is sub-divided into offices with light brick partitions. These partitions rest on foundations having a very much smaller load to the square foot of area. The result is that when the outside wall settled its tendency was to shear past these lighter walls or to carry that portion of the wall nearest the main wall down with the latter, thus opening up cracks in the brickwork. These partition walls are only one story high. and. outside of the unsightly nature of the cracks, their displacement has no bearing on the stability of the bu!lding. From a thorough examination of the basement I find that the relative action between these walls is practically uniform.
The question as to whether settlement of the foundations of the main building is still going on is one that at present I am not prepared to answer. While it is an undoubted fact that considerable settlement has taken place, it may be possible that the soil has become compacted to such an extent that further settlement has stopped. On the outside of the building there is nothing that would point to the fact that settlement had taken place for a considerable length of time. At the rear of the building there is a concrete sidewalk which was laid hard up against the base course of the walls, which sidewalk, I have been informed, was constructed three years ago. If settlement had taken place in that time I would look for some evidence of cracking or distorting where this sidewalk joined the building. It is possible that the ground under th s sidewalk may be more or less loose and that the walls, if settling, would carry the sidewalk with them. In this case, however, I would look for a tilting or cracking of this walk, which does not appear. While this point is not conclusive evidence, yet to my mind it is sufficient to raise serious doubts as to whether settlement is taking place at the present time.
In the basement, where the partition walls between the offices join the main walls, there seems to be a certain amount of evidence that a movement is still going on. Several occupants of these offices have informed me that cracks in the brick veneer of the main wall and in the partition wall have been opening up within the last eighteen months, and in one or two cases there seems to be evidence that the cracks have increased in length during the past few months. In other offices, cracks which had been puttied up two or three years ago, have opened very slightly. As the brick veneer on the main walls, has an air space of one inch or so behind it and is not cemented directly on the main wall, it may be that there is some local action taking place between the partition walls and this brick veneering which may be entirely independent of any pr sent action of the main walls. It would appear, how-

ever, from the consensus of reports, that the movement during the last eighteen months has been very slight. In view of the evidence obtainable, it would seem that the only way to determine whether any action is really taking place on the main walls of the building would be to have. ** series of accurate readings made on the outside cf these main walls, sue' [DOT]'endings to extend over a sufficient length of time to enable an intelligent and definite report to be made. I have taken steps to have such a series of level readings taken, and have given instructions that checks on these points be taken at regular intervals in order that this information may be obtained.
Main Tower and Cross Walls.
The settlement of the main tower and cross walls is considerably more pronounced than that of the main building. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that the load on the footings is very much higher. On the main tower the average pressure on all the foundations of the piers and walls amounts to about four tons per square foot. On the cross walls the load per square foot varies from three to four tons. As in the case of the main building, it is also difficult to determine exactly what the total amount of settlement has oeen. While the tower has gone down a certain amount as a ?vhole, it has, however, gone down much faster at the front wall, the rear wall being undoubtedly supported to a certain extent by the other walls intersecting thereat. At the present time the tower has an inclination from the vertical of about twenty-four inches, measuring from the highest point of the tower to the loot of the foundation. This means that the ex-tieme outer edge of the foundation is 10 J inches lower than where it joins the main walls of the building.
There is no doubt in my mind but that the displacement of this tower is sufficient to cause anxiety for its ultimate safety. In moving forward it is taking the main walls of the building with it. The result has been to open up serious cracks in a portion of this wall and cause serious doubts as to its stability. So great has been the movement of this tower that the steel beams of the 4th floor, which were resting on this tower, have, I am told, pulled entirely out and have had to be supported on special girders. The cracks in the walls between the cross walls of the main building and the tower have been opening up continually and have been filled up from time to time as they became apparent. It is, moreover, quite apparent that movement is still taking place. Last September, I believe, all openings at this point were plastered up, but at the present time this crack has opened up again about l inch, and at one point daylight can be seen through the wall.
An indication that the tower is still settling is shown by the sidewalk at the front entrance. Last September, I understand, a new sidewalk was laid at this point with a grade sloping away from the building. At the present time this sidewalk has an inclination in the opposite direction, or towards the building, and where it joins the building, is several inches lower than at points in the near vicinity. I would judge from the nature of the soil and the loads that have been distributed upon it that there is every possibility that settlement will continue to go on until the stability of the tower is seriously menaced. This menace is magnified

from the fact that as the tower continues to lean outward the centre of gravity also moves outward, increasing the pressure on the extreme toe of the foundation and thus tending to increase the rate of movement.
The cause of the trouble wThich has arisen in connection with this building is due entirely to the fact that the soil upon which the building was erected has had loads placed upon it entirely out of proportion to its supporting values. This soil is a type of blue clay which, under ordinary conditions, should be able to support from two to three tons per square foot. The bearing value of clay as a foundation, however, is uncertain and great difficulty is very often experienced in foundations on this class of material.
On the interior columns, which support a load of about one ton per square foot, there has probably been little or no settlement, although I cannot verify this fact. On the outside walls of the main building there is an average of three tons per square foot. This has proved too heavy a load for this material as the walls have gone down from 5 to 9 inches in the last seven years. The loads under the tower have averaged 4 tons per square foot, the settlement at this point being considerably greater than under the walls of the main building. It is quite evident, therefore, that the first point tc be determined is the bearing value of the soil upon which the building rests. I have taken steps to this end, and a series of loading tests on the soil in the basement of the building is now going on.
Recommendation.
I would recommend that nothing be done with regard to the walls of the main building until a series of observations have been taken over a sufficient length of time to enable me to determine whether further settlement is actually taking place.
With regard to the main tower, I consider steps should be taken at the earliest possible moment to prevent further settlement. This can only be done by increasing the bearing area under this portion of the building. This is entirely an engineering problem, and in a later report I will advise what, in my opinion, is the best means by which this work can be successfully carried out.
I would say that I do not consider there is any immediate danger to the building, or that ir will be necessary to close it to the Government employees or the general public so long as the present rate of settlement is not in-ci eased. I have made arrangements with the chief architect to have a series of readings taken at the point where danger might be expected, so that any increase in this movement would be immediately noted.
T think, however, in view of the foregoing that the necessary steps should be taken by your department to have repairs instituted in connection with the main tower and effected during the coming summer.
Respectfully submitted,
(sgd.) C. N. Monsarrat,
Hon. Robert Rogers,
Minister of Public Works,
Ottawa, Ont.


WAR SUPPLIES-FIELD GLASSES.
Mr. TURRIFF:: 1. How many binoculars or field glasses has
the Government purchased since August 1, 1914?
2.	From whom were they bought?
3.	What price was paid for them?
4.	Was there competition by asking different dealers to quote prices?
5.	If so, who were asked for prices?


Major General HUGHES :: 1.	4,624.
2.	From P. W. Ellis & Co., Ltd., Toronto, Consolidated Optical Co., Toronto, and the Topley Co., Ottawa.
3.	About 100 different prices were paid, ranging from $9.45 to $75, according to the type and quality of binoculars bought in each case. Those procured for the first contingent were of many different patterns.
4.	It was never a question of competition, but of getting the requisite number of binoculars of a satisfactory character in the time available. Generally speaking, the conditions did not admit of competition. Binoculars of a certain type and power were required; a sufficient quantity of these was not available. It was necessary to make the best arrangements for the provision of a more or less satisfactory substitute at reasonable prices.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
UNOPPuiSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
Mr. Sinclair:	For a copy of all tenders
for army stores that have been received and dealt with by the pepartment of Militia and Defence since August 1, 1914.
Mr. Macdonald:	For a copy of all letters,
telegrams, minutes of investigation and other documents relating to the dismissal of Isaac Arbuckle, foreman carpenter, Intercolonial railway, at Pictou, and of appointment of Alex Talbot to the vacancy.
Mr. Macdonald:	For a copy of all letters,
telegrams, minutes of investigation and other documents relating to the dismissal of James Brenan, fireman Intercolonial railway at Stel-larton.
Mr. Buchanan: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents in connection with the removal from the customs service at Lethbridge, Alberta, of Brown Pipes and A. R. Gibbons.
Mr. Buchanan: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents in connection with the appointment of A. H McKeown to the immigration service at Lethbridge, Alberta.
Mr. Buchanan: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents in connection with the removal from office of A. E. Humphries, inspector of immigration at Lethbridge, Alberta.
Mr. Buchanan:	For a copy of all tenders
in connection with the supply of lumber to the Department of Militia for the training camps at Medicine Hat and Calgary, and of the invoices for the material supplied.
Mr. Law: For a return showing th* names and addresses of all persons in Yarmouth county to whom the bounty under the Fenian Raid

Volunteer Bounty Act has been paid, the names and addresses of all persons from said county whose applications have been rejected and a list giving names and addresses of all applicants from said county whose applications have not yet been disposed of.
Mr. Murphy:	For a return giving the names
of all the transports hired since August 1, 1914, for the conveyance of troops, horses, stores and material to England, the name of each vessel owner, broker or other person through whom the vessel was chartered, the tonnage of each vessel, speed, rate paid per ton per week or month, minimum time for which engaged, date of agreement, date at which pay- commenced, date at which pay ceased, and the total sum paid by the Government for hire and other charges. '
Mr. Macdonald For a copy of all letters, telegrams, contracts, and other documents relative to the purchase of cars by the Intercolonial railway since July 1, 1914.
Mr. McCraney : For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, instructions, reports and other documents relating to an application by Udo F. Schrader for a grazing lease in townships 40 and 41, range 7, west of the 3rd meridian prov nce of Saskatchewan.
Mr. Robb: For a copy of all tenders, letters, and telegrams, including first and second call for tenders, for rural mail delivery in the township of Dundee, county of Huntingdon.
Mr. Nesbitt: For a return showing how many transport wagons were purchased for the second and third contingents, from whom they were purchased and the name of each person or firm, how many were purchased from each, the price paid per wagon, whether tenders were asked and whether any tenders were received that were not accepted, and if so what was the price tendered at.
Mr. Cockshutt:	For a return showing whether there have been any exportations of foodstuffs since August 1 last to European countries, other than to the United Kingdom, France and Belgium, and if so, their nature and to what countries.


I CL. RY.-FREIGHT RATES AND TRAINS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.), moved:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, by any and all persons whomsoever, had with the Department of Railways and Canals, or F. P. Gutelins, General Manager of the Intercolonial Railway, or any other official thereof, with reference to freight rates over that portion of the Transcontinental Railway, province of New Brunswick, and also with reference to the removal of the Y connection at Wabski, county of Victoria, between the said Transcontinental Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway at that point.
He said: I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) to a matter of very great importance to the business community of the western portion of New Brunswick. And in doing so, perhaps the better w'ay, in order to make it plain, is to refer to a matter which is somewhat personal. But I hope the minister will understand that this personal reference is only to illustrate

what is really a public matter; nor is it purely personal, as it refers to my connection with an estate and what affects me in that capacity affects many other business men in that portion of New Brunswick. The House is aware, of course, that the Transcontinental runs in a diagonal direction from the northwestern corner of New Brunswick to the southeastern corner. In its course it crosses the Canadian Pacific railway at a place called Wabski, near Plaster Rock. It crosses the Canadian Pacific railway at an elevation of from one hundred to one hundred and fifty feet. When the Transcontinental was under construction, a branch line of about a mile in length was made and a connection was in this way made with the Canadian Pacific railway. This branch line was constructed, paid for, owned and operated by the Transcontinental down to three or four months ago, when the connection was destroyed and the rails taken up, so that there is no possibility of getting communication between the two roads. About a year and a half or two years ago I had occasion to bring this matter of railway rates and connections to the attention of the minister, and I complained that the Government was not taking any means, or was not taking the proper means, to promote business and industry in that portion of the province of New Brunswick. I pointed out that the rates charged on the Transcontinental were so exorbitant as to be practically prohibitive. I dealt with this matter in this House on the 21st of March, 1913. The minister, I think very much to his credit, was greatly surprised at the statement I was making, so much so indeed that he challenged the truth of it and wanted me to give a case in which the Transcontinental practically refuse^} to do business or undertook to do it only at rates so high as to be practically prohibitive. I at once called his attention to a statement of facts. He will find the debate in " Hansard '' of that year, pages 6816 to 6818 inclusive. Of this I desire to read now only one paragraph:
I happen to be the executor of an estate and during the past three or four months I have hauled by team between three and four million feet of lumber a distance of fifteen miles over probably the most hilly road in New Brunswick, to the Canadian Pacific railway. I could have hauled that very same lumber to the Transcontinental railway, a distance of less than five miles, and practically all down grade, between the mill and the railway. The party whom I represented was alive at the time the negotiations started in November, he died in December and since then, as the executor of the estate, I have been carrying on the business.
[Stage Direction]
I went on to explain that we had hauled over 3,000,000 feet of lumber by team fifteen miles over a hilly road, and shipped it by the Canadian Pacific railway, because we could make more money than by hauling it five miles and shipping it by the Transcontinental. I will give the minister the credit of saying that he took up the case 4 p.m. energetically. He told me both publicly and privately that he would see justice done. The Transcontinental wanted 6 cents per cwt. to transport that lumber thirty-one or thirty-two miles, which means almost $1 a thousand feet on ordinary spruce lumber. That was prohibitive. He told me he would send Mr. Gutelius to me and have the matter arranged. While Mr. Gutelius did not come to me, yet, after considerable negotiation, an arrangement was made under which we were to get the lumber hauled at 4 cents per cwt., which would be practically $1.20 per thousand feet. That means that I was wrong in my first calculation-G cents per cwt. would be not $1 but $1.50 on ordinary spruce lumber. But I should think that $1.20 ought to be enough to satisfy even Mr. Gutelius, who, I presume, is animated solely by a desire to make money for the Government railway system. But, while the rate was exorbitant, still, in order to carry on business, we accepted it. In 1913 we did about the same amount of business, and got some money out of it, I am glad to say. We carried on the same business in 1914, and again made money. We had hoped to continue carrying on this business and still make money, but, early in the summer-I have forgotten exactly what date; I would give the minister the precise facts but that I have not the papers before me-the manager of the company was informed by the officials of the road that they would not accept any more freight at Wabski, that they were going to take up the connections, and that we would have to send our freight north on the Transcontinental to Theriault, which is practically fifty miles north of the connection at Wabski. There we should hand it over to the Canadian Pacific railway, who would have to bring it back on a line practically parallel to the Transcontinental and carry it to Boston. Fortunately for us, the Canadian Pacific railway charged the same rate from Theriault as from Wabski. If they had hauled the freight for the extra fifty miles for the same money we should have had no complaint to make. But it made a wonderful difference to other people. The man who had freight originating on the Canadian Pacific railway and wanted it
delivered on points on the Transcontinental, found the rate was prohibitive. But the Transcontinental, or Intercolonial railway authorities, not only wanted to haul the freight the fifty miles further, but wanted us to pay 7 cents per cwt. for hauling it, or 3 cents per cwt. in addition to what we were already paying. As the average of spruce lumber will weigh 3,000 lb. per thousand feet, this extra rate would amount to 90 cents per thousand. This meant practical prohibition. After negotiation, they offered to carry the lumber at li cents per cwt. additional, which would mean about 45 cents or 50 cents per thousand, which, in many cases, is a large proportion of the profit a man makes on lumbering operations in New Brunswick. I was told at that time that the difficulty lay with the Canadian Pacific railway, who were unwilling to accept freight at the Wabski junction. I took the matter up with Mr. Bamford, divisional freight agent of the Canadian Pacific railway, at St. John, to whom I wrote on the 3rd of October, 1914. This correspondence is brief, and I should like to read it so that the minister may have the facts before him:
I fear very much that the minister knows only one side of this case; otherwise he would never have been a consenting party to the business outrage committed upon the people of that portion of New Brunswick. I admit that the words " business outrage " are pretty strong, but I know of no other words in the English language which would correctly describe tlhe transaction.
On October 3, I addressed the following letter to Mr. Bamford:
Dear Sir,-As one of the executors of the estate of Michael Welch, of Bristol, who in his life-time carried on a milling operation at Fores-ton. Dp to last year the lumber was hauled to your road at Bristol, but as the mill is within seven miles of the Transcontinental, we hauled it to Juniper and handed it over to your road at Wabski.
We have now nearly three millions of lumber to send to the American market during the coming winter, and would commence loading this just as soon as the snow comes, provided conditions were satisfactory.
Last year we obtained a 17 cent rate from Juniper to Boston. I do not know how it would divide up, but I always understood the Intercolonial railway got the lion's share.
Not long ago we were informed that your company objected to taking this lumber at Wabski, and therefore, it could not be handed to you until it reached Theriault, some distance below Edmundston, and we were told the rate would be 20 cents. We absolutely refused to do any business at that rate and decided that we would be compelled to haul to Bristol, and close down the business. Gutelius then came down to 18J cents, but still persists in saying
[Stage Direction]
that your company objeeed to taking it over at Wabski, and therefore it must be taken to Theriault. This means about 50 cents a thousand, which eats up a.large portion of our profits, and if this condition of affairs continues, I see nothing to do but to close up the business.
Will you kindly write me and let me know just why this course is being pursued? If you are willing to take it at Wabski at the old rate, I will endeavour to give the matter such publicity that Mr. Gutelius will hand it over at that point. If, on the other hand, it is a mutual arrangement, probably the force would be so great, that the only move would be to shut down.
On October 19 I received from Mr. Bam-ford the following letter, which, in my judgment, was very satisfactory:
P. B. Carvell, K.C.,
Woodstock, N.B.
Dear Sir,-With further reference to your letter of October 3 in regard to lumber shipments from Juniper to Boston.
At Wabski the interchange of traffic has been permitted between the National Transcontinental railway and Canadian Pacific railway. A connection was put in at the time of the construction of the National Transcontinental railway to permit the contractors to get in their construction material. The connecting track was of considerable length and down grade. It is claimed by the Intercolonial railway that the steep grade rendered its operation very hazardous and difficult, particularly during the winter months, and that their train operating between Moncton and Edmundston was being badly delayed on account of the time taken to do the switching.
You mention in your letter that you were informed that the Canadian Pacific railway objected to taking this lumber at Wabski. This is not correct. Our rates are still in effect from that point to Boston, and on July 30, Mr. Grout wrote the Intercolonial railway to know if he would not continue the practice as it seems to him to be a very fair arrangement. To this he received a reply dated August 10. An extract read as follows:
' It has been decided that we will not transfer any more traffic at Wabski of any kind after the 15th Inst.'
In connection with this matter, I might mention that we have a published rate of 13 cents per 100 pounds at the present time from Theriault to Boston.
Trusting this explanation will be satisfactory.
Yours truly,	.
W. B. Bamford, Division Freight Agent.
In this letter Mr. Bamford puts the matter up to the Minister of Railways direct.. Without any doubt the blame comes back to the Minister of Railways-I am speaking now of the minister not in his personal but in his official capacity-for depriving the people of tlhat portion of New Brunswick of that railway connection to which as a matter of business justice they are entitled. I have given an illustration showing that the taking up of that connection and the denying to

the people of the right to do business means a matter of 50 cents on every thousand feet of lumber handled by one firm, with which I am connected purely in the capacity of an executor.
I do not know whether my reply to Mr. Bamford's letter is of any importance to the minister; if he wishes to see it I shall be only too glad to send the file over to him. I told Mr. Bamford that I was very glad indeed to learn that he was willing to carry out the arrangement; that I was then writing to the Minister of Railways and that 1 hoped to be able to succeed in having the old conditions re-established. I wish to read Mr. Bamford's reply, because it shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Canadian Pacific railway were not only willing but anxious to have this rate continued and to have this trade handed over to them at Wabski, and at no other point. Nevertheless, every business man in that part of the country was led to believe-I do not say by Mr. Gutelius personally, but certainly by the officials of the Intercolonial railway-that the Canadian Pacific railway were not willing to carry out this arrangement, and that it was in consequence of the protest of the Canadian Pacific railway that this connection was tom up and the people subjected to the extra cost. This is Mr. Bamford's letter, dated November 14, 1914:
Dear Sir,-I have your letter of the 4th inst., in reference to . the transfer of freight at Wabski.
We are perfectly willing to continue the interchange at Wabski, if the National Transcontinental railway will give us the business at that point. In the mean time, until I hear from you again I will not do anything further.
For your private information, we would prefer to have this traffic handed to us at Wabski, and so would a large number of saw mill men doing business in that district. We are in a better position to supply empty cars to handle the traffic than our competitors, having direct connection with the Maine Central, and as you are aware, they hand over to us from fifty to one hundred empty cars daily, and we will he glad to hand over a good share of them at Wabski.
I will he very glad if you will advise me the result of your negotiations with the Minister
of Railways, and oblige,
Yours truly.
I may explain that in reading over this letter a few days ago, I observed in it the word " private." I at once wired Mr. Bamford to inquire if I had his permission to use the letter, and received a reply giving me full permission to make any use of it that I wished to make.
After I had definitely ascertained beyond any doubt that the Canadian Pacific railway

were not only willing but anxious to accept trade at that point, I took the matter up with Mr. Gutelius, and here is a letter which I wrote him on November 4, 1914:
Dear Sir,-Some time ago I was informed by Mr. Welch, one of my co-executors of the Michael Welch estate, that you had refused to transfer any more freight at Wabski to the Canadian Pacific railway, and informed him that in future this freight must all go to Theriault, a point 50 miles further north, for which you wanted 3 cents additional. We promptly refused to have anything more to do with the road, when he was then notified that the rate would be reduced to li cents additional, or 6J cents in all, the net result of which means that we lose 50 cents a thousand on our lumber, and you haul it 50 miles and get the 50 cents. You possibly get out of it alive, we lose it absolutely. Mr. Welch was informed by your people that the Canadian Pacific railway refused to handle this freight at Wabski. I took the matter up with Mr. Bamford at St. John, and by his letter of October the 19th, he assures me that as early as July the 30th, Mr. Grout asked you to continue the practice as then established, to which you replied under date of August the 10th, as follows :
1 It has been decided that we will not transfer any more frame at Wabski of any kind after the 15th inst.'
This puts it up to your road without any question whatever.
I thought after appealing to the minister in the spring of 1913, that I had this matter settled once and for all.
Do you consider it a fair proposition that men along the line who would like to do business with you, shall be compelled to fight for the 5 0 cents which you get, which practically means their profits, when to the ordinary observer there is no necessity whatever for so doing? The Canadian Pacific are perfectly willing to accept this lumber at Wabski, and are also willing to give us a rate at Bristol with the view of transportation by team from the mill to that point. We have on hand now over two million and one-half of long lumber and over one million and one-half of laths, to be transported just as soon as the snow comes, and we would like to know whether you will still give us the rate in existence last year, or whether we will be compelled to haul this lumber 15 miles over the hills to Bristol, as will certainly be the case under present conditions. Hilda conduct may look like good railroading from your standpoint, but it is certainly death to the operator, along the line who is trying to do an honest business.
I am very anxious indeed to hear from you at your earliest convenience.
I have also been applied to by the Fraser Company, Limited, and others along the line who would like to continue doing business at Wabski, but will be prohibited should this unfair and unprecedented discrimination be continued. I would assume that you would like to continue doing business and until I hear from you to the contrary, am going to continue in that assumption.
Mr. HAZEN:: Where is Theriault?


Mr. CARVELL:: It is about half way between Grand Falls and Edmundston. It is
the point where the Canadian Pacific railway -and the Transcontinental cross.


John Douglas Hazen: In the parish of St. Leonard?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In Madawaska county. The distance from Juniper to Plaster Rock, now Wabski, is thirty-two miles, and from Plaster Rock to Theriault, fifty-one miles, so it is fifty-one miles from the crossing of the Tobique to Theriault. I have taken the mileage from the Intercolonial folder.
I have here a lot of letters with which I shall not encumber the record; there are letters from the Fraser Lumber Company and others protesting against this interruption of traffic, and asking me, as a member from New Brunswick, to do what I could in order to have this injustice remedied and I promised them, of course, that I would do what I could. As you will see, two or three months prior to these things I had been trying to do what I could, you may say. from a personal business point, but at least doing all I could to have the injustice remedied. I waited some time but got no answer to my letter of the 4th of November to Mr. Gutelius. I waited two weeks and it was a surprise to me that I had to wait that time in a matter of such business importance without the courtesy of an answer. So I was compelled to write to the minister direct, which I did on the 16th of November, as follows:
My Dear Sir:
I am enclosing you herewith a copy of a letter, dated the 4th inst., which I addressed to Mr. Gutelius, General Manager, Intercolonial railway, Moncton, to which I received no answer, and as the letter is complete in itself, it is unnecessary to repeat the statements therein contained.
I cannot tell you how sorry I am that Mr. Gutelius has broken up the arrangement which was made over a year ago, after a persistent and somewhat public attempt on my part to have things straightened out.
You will remember after discussing' this matter in Parliament, you promised me that Mr. Gutelius would come here and arrange matters satisfactorily. While he did not come, yet he put the rate at a point where we could do business, and live, but even than 4 cents a hundred for 30 miles in carload lots, is exorbitant. Now to add on another one and one-half cents means prohibition. I simply put the matter up to you, and ask you to see that justice is done.
It is now 12 days since this letter was written, and as it is so late in the season something must be done immediately if we are to continue doing business, and I trust I will be more successful in obtaining an answer from you, than I have been from Mr. Gutelius.
I wish to say, to the credit of the minister, that I was successful in getting a let-

ter back the day he received my letter in Ottawa and, more than that, I got an answer from Mr. Gutelius two days later, so that no blame can be attached to the minister for any discourtesy -so far as replying to my letter was concerned-but I am sorry to say that was the end of it. I received a second reply from the minister dated 18th of November and also one from Mr. Gutelius dated the 20th of November. I shall read the letter from Mr. Gutelius in order that the railway side of the case may be placed upon " Hansard " as well as the business man's side:
Dear Sir:
Re your letter November 4th.
The transfer between the National Transcontinental and Canadian Pacific railway at Wabski was closed for the reasons as described by our Agent as follows:
'The distance from our main line to the Canadian Pacific railway track is about three quarters of a mile and two per cent grade practically all the way. We handle all cars both to and from their line and do all the switching.
'Should there ever be a failure of equipment such as the breaking of a coupling and taking a string of loads down the hill the damage would amount to more than the gross traffic for several months.'
This connecting track was constructed by the Transcontinental people to enable them to get material and contractors supplies up to the Transcontinental grade from the Canadian Pacific railway. It was not contemplated that it would be a point of transfer and as such it carries with it hazards to life and property that cannot be safely undertaken.
General Traffic Manager Hayes advises me that the rate from Juniper to Wabski which you desire to perpetuate was 4 cents per 100 lbs. He also advised that an offer has been made to your people to haul your lumber from Juniper to Fredericton for 4| cents per 100 lbs. and explains that if the Canadian Pacific railway will give you the same rates from Fredericton to Boston points as they give from Wabski or Theriault that the aggregate increase which you would have to pay is a half a cent per 100 lbs. and further if the Canadian Pacific railway would give you the benefit of the reduced haul it would make the rate from Fredericton a half a cent lower than from Theriault which is about one hundred miles shorter and that your Boston rate would he the same as via Wabski and the effects of the entire operation would he to give you minimum rates and give the railways an opportunity to handle by minimum mileage at minimum risk.
From the above explanation you will understand I trust that the sole object in not making this temporary branch line a regular transfer point is based entirely upon safety of operation and that our offer to haul to Fredericton at the low rate relieves the proposition of any charge of discrimination on our part.
Yours truly,
F. P. Gutelius.
You will see that he puts the whole thing on the agent, just as if an agent at a small country station had anything to do with the tearing up of the connection between two railways, a matter so important that if it occurred on private railroads we would have an order from the Railway Commission within twenty-four hours.
I want to discuss this matter with the minister from two standpoints, first from the standpoint of the company which I represent, for it is a material matter to us, and then from the standpoint of the general public. First from our standpoint, look at the absolute inconsistency of the minister's general manager of the National Transcontinental railway. He refuses' to haul freight thirty-two miles for four cents, but is willing to haul it seventy-one miles for four and a half cents. Just think of a business man putting up a business proposition like that. He is willing to haul seventy-one miles to Fredericton for four and a half cents and not willing to haul thirty-two miles to Juniper for four cents and the only objection to the Juniper line is that it has a down grade of two per cent. Millions of dollars of business is done all over Canada and the "United States on short railways with, not two per cent, but three per cent ard four per cent grades. My hon. friend knows that the Canadian Pacific railway crosses the Rockies in many places with more than two per cent grades, and then they talk of the danger of failure of equipment and the danger of a string of loads going down the hill and being dumped. There is danger of that occurring in any railway operation if it is not run properly, and we are not going to assume thatjthe Transcontinental or the Intercolonial will handle business so negligently that they will allow loads to go down hill because there happens to be a two per cent grade on the hill. It seems to me it is the most childlike defence to any reasonable proposition I have ever seen advanced by a business man in my experience. Then he goes on to say: If the Canadian Pacific railway will do what they ought to do. Well, unfortunately, this Parliament has not very much control over the Canadian Pacific railway, not nearly as much as I would like, but this Parliament and this Government have absolute control over the other two roads, and no matter how unfair the Canadian Pacific railway may be, this Parliament is the body that has the power to say what the Intercolonial


Mr. COCHRANE:: What is it from Wabski?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Thirteen cents. Mr. Gut-elius agrees to have that freight for Fredericton for 4J cents but you add 14 cents and you get 18i cents, exactly the rate Mr. Gut-elius wants us to pay if he takes it round by Wabski. I do not care whether he takes it around by Quebec or any other place so long as he gets it to Boston and gets it to Boston at 17 cents a hundred. We would be satisfied but that does not satisfy the public. The Walsh estate is only one member of the public. He says that if the Canadian Pacific railway would reduce the rate and give us the benefit of the proportional mileage, although he does not suggest what it is, we would get a less rate, but unfortunately we have no power to compel the Canadian Pacific railway to reduce their rate from Fredericton to Boston and give us the proportional mileage. That is where the matter stands to-day. I do not care whether you haul by way of Theriault or by way of Fredericton-we pay fifty cents a thousand more than we paid last year. The Transcontinental railway haul this freight 32 miles and get 4 cents per 100 lb. for doing it. If they take it to Theriault they haul it 50 miles further and get 41 cents a hundred pounds for it, or they haul it a distance of 71 miles and get 41 cents for hauling it. It may be good railway business on the part of the Government to haul freight 50 miles for half a cent per 100 lb. but I cannot understand it. If they can make money by hauling that freight an extra fifty miles for half a cent they must be coining money when they get four cents for hauling it 32 miles. That may be quite plain to a railway man but I only try to size up things as they appear to an ordinary lawyer upon reading the rates, and I must confess that I do not understand it. Possibly my hon. friend, being a railway expert, will be willing to explain this most remarkable discrepancy as it appears to a lawyer.
Now, having discussed this matter from the point of view of the Walsh estate I desire to look at it from the standpoint of the public. If the Walsh estate were the only ones doing business over that line of railway it would only be a matter of their losing 50 cts. per thousand, closing up their mill and going out of business. But the Walsh estate is only a small proportion of the public which would like to use that road. I have protests from a very large number of mill owners. There is Donald Fraser & Co., who have the largest lumber mills in eastern Canada, a firm which are handling over a hundred million feet of lumber a year and a firm that handles probably-


Francis Cochrane: Not over this road?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I am not saying that.
I was just going to say that this firm handled over 15,000,000 feet of lumber at Plaster Rock, right at the point where the Transcontinental railway and the Canadian Pacific railway come together. -This is a firm that, under ordinary conditions, would be able to ship millions of feet of lumber over the Transcontinental railway if they gave them a rate at the present time to St. John. My hon. friend knows that during the last three or four months there has been a complete change in the lumber market in the maritime provinces. Prior to October and possibly November practically all the inland lumber of New Brunswick went to the American market. But on account of the war conditions existing in the old country British buyers are now taking it at a price away above the price that the Americans would pay for it and they are taking lumber which you could not give away in England in the past.


Francis Cochrane: But that would not
affect the subject you have brought up.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh, yes.


Francis Cochrane: No, the lumber would not go over the National Transcontinental railway, because instead of the Canadian Pacific railway giving it to the Transcontinental they would take it themselves.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But I will show you
how it affects the matter. The Fraser business is at the end of the Canadian Pacific railway at Plaster Rock. The Y connection between the Canadian Pacific railway and the Transcontinental railway is at that same point, the Frasers have 15,000,000 feet of lumber practically all going to the English market and they would have the opportunity of shipping it either over the Cana-



dian Pacific railway or the Transcontinental. With the Y connection gone not a foot can go over the Transcontinental railway.


Francis Cochrane: And would not either.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend says it would not. My hon. friend does not seem to want. to do business. There are 15,000,000 feet of lumber being manufactured this year and every year right at the point where he has taken out the connection between the Canadian Pacific railway and the Transcontinental.


John Douglas Hazen: Is it my hon. friend's contention that, if there was a connection between the Canadian Pacific railway and Transcontinental railway at Wabski, the lumber of Fraser's going from Plaster Rock would go right over the Tobique Valley branch of the Canadian Pacific railway to Wabski and then over the Transcontinental railway to St. John?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, not exactly, but
my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) does not understand Wabski and Plaster Rock are practically the same thing.


John Douglas Hazen: I know Wabski is a few
miles below Plaster Rock.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This crossing is perhaps two miles below Plaster Rock, but the Y connection runs north, so that the Y connection is practically at Plaster Rock. There is only a shunting yard. It is practically all in the same yard. The Y connection between the Canadian Pacific railway and the Transcontinental is located there, and it is practically all in the same place.


Francis Cochrane: Is the hon. gentleman absolutely fair there? The Fraser mill is on the Canadian Pacific railway.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Francis Cochrane: Do you suppose the
Canadian Pacific railway would be stiff enough to hold up a rate from there to St. John that would enable the Intercolonial railway to make this a transfer point to them when they would have just as far to carry the lumber as the Canadian Pacific railway and make this dangerous interchange between the two railways?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not admit it is a dangerous interchange between the railways. As to the business end of it, I am not in a position to say what the effect may be.


John Douglas Hazen: Taking it from Plaster
Rock or Wabski to St. John, what is the difference in distance by the Canadian Pacific railway and the Transcontinental railway and Intercolonal?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My impression is that there would be very little.


Francis Cochrane: The Intercolonial
would be longer.


John Douglas Hazen: The Canadian Pacific railway would be shorter.


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The difference is so
little that it never would be considered for a moment with respect to the question of the rate; the rate would be the same. I would be very much surprised if there would be 25 miles difference between the two railways. But that is not the point. No matter what has been done in the past, and no matter what my hon. friend may argue as to what should be done in the future, the fact remains that my hon. friend has put himself out of the race. He is not in a position to compete, because he has torn up the connection by which he could compete. When this track was torn up, the Frasers had half a million feet of hard-wood piled at that Y connection. They were using the Y connection for a piling ground. I know what I am talking about, because I was there and saw it. I am familiar with the location, and they had the lumber piled there. I do not know exactly what they have done about it, but I know that they had the lumber and that they had erected a large piling ground out on this Y connection about a mile away to the southward in order to get it away from the danger of fire and to get it where it could be piled.
In shipping to a distant point like Boston, it makes a great difference in the weight of lumber, and consequently a great difference in the rate, as to whether the lumber is dry or not. I have also a protest from Upham, who runs a business eight or ten miles below Plaster Rock, on the Canadian Pacific railway it is true, but who has done some business by shipping from the Canadian Pacific railway over to the Transcontinental, and I have also a protest from J. B. McLaughlin & Company. This means that every man engaged in the lumber and other business in that portion of New Brunswick has only one line of railway at his disposal, whereas he might have two com-

peting lines to carry his produce to the market. How the Minister of Railways sanctions a policy of this kind is something that I cannot understand. After this letter was written I wired to Mr. Gutelius, stating that we wanted to ship to Boston, and that if he would give us a seventeen-cent rate to Boston via Fredericton we would ship it that way, hut I got no answer to that telegram. We have been perfectly fair from a business standpoint; we have done everything we possibly could, and we only appeal to the minister when we cannot get an answer from the general manager of the railway to a, reasonable business proposition. All we have got from the minister up to the present time is courtesy, and I admit we have had that. The tracks have been taken up, the connection is gone, and we are sending our lumber to Boston at a loss of fifty cents a thousand. A large part of the lumber we intended should go to Boston is going to St. John over the Transcontinental, and therefore, so far as that is concerned, I do not think we are losing any money by it, but we know this is only a temporary condition of things. We are sending lumber to England to-day which we could hardly give away there a'year ago, and that applies not so much to quality as to specifications. Until a year ago we could only sell deals 3 x 7, 3 x 9, and 3 x 11, whereas to-day they will take almost any specification and pay a good price. However, when the war is over, that condition of things will cease, and then we will have to pay this extra fifty cents per thousand or stop doing business. How the minister can be a party to carrying on that unfair transaction, I cannot understand. I could understand it if this road were being operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific, because the Grand Trunk Pacific could maxe connections with the Grand Trunk at Levis or Richmond Junction, and they might get down to Portland and Boston in that way, but the Intercolonial Railway cannot do that. What the minister says is, that he will haul this lumber fifty miles further to Theriault and fifty miles further south to Fredericton, and hand it over to the Canadian Pacific railway and make the shippers pay for it. I hope the minister will be able to make plain what to me is particularly dense at the present moment. I wrote to Mr. Gutelius on the 25th of November and I protested as strongly as I could against the injustice, point-114
ing out to him that we were losing fifty cents per thousand, and I have received no answer and no redress of the grievance. What is true of the Walsh estate is true of many other business firms who do business, in that portion of New Brunswick and it:, applies to other business besides the lumber-business. Probably for all time to come the great industry in the central portion of New Brunswick will be the lumber industry. While there are some parts of that region which might be made profitable as arable land, I believe that the greater portion ol central New Brunswick will always continue _ to be more productive and more profitable as a forest area than as an agricultural area. The lumber operators in that portion of New Brunswick have to import hay, oats, fodder, and everything which goes to carrying on their business. The only way the man who lives on the Tobique or St. John river can possibly get in his supplies is by the Transcontinental railway, taking the freight up to Wabski on the Canadian Pacific railway, handing it to the Transcontinental at that point, and distributing it thence. Florenceville is possibly the great distributing centre for farm produce in New Brunswick and Florenceville is only fifty miles from Plaster Rock. The next fifty miles east of Plaster Rock is the great lumbering centre of New Brunswick, so that the farmer who has produce to sell in that portion of Carleton county and that portion of the province to the north, can best distrib ite his produce from that point. As it is today, the merchant of Florenceville who sells hay or grain must send it to Fredericton, eighty-five miles distant, thence to McGivney's, the junction of the Intercolonial railway and Transcontinental railway, another thirty odd miles, or in all twice the distance it should be sent, and that extra haul the farmer or the merchant has to pay.


John Douglas Hazen: How far is the haul by road from Florenceville across to the Miramichi waters?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Bristol is the nearest point. It is fifteen miles to Foreston and seven miles to Juniper, which would be twenty-two miles by team, and I think it is the hilliest part of the province.


John Douglas Hazen: I know the road.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the minister has been over the road he knows what it is like and he knows that while it is possible to team there, it is utterly impracticable	from	a	business standpoint.

I am pointing out to the minister the real facts in regard to the business of our country; I am giving nothing fanciful, nothing got up for political purposes, because there is no politics in this matter so far as I am concerned. This is business, something that affects not only the lumberman but the farmer, the merchant, the business man everywhere. It is an injustice which the minister would never have allowed had he been seized of all the facts. I have endeavoured to place the facts before the minister from an entirely unprejudiced standpoint. I have read all the correspondence between myself and Mr. Gutelius. I have given my side of the case and Mr. Gutelius' side as well, and I am willing to leave the matter to the sterlingly honest judgment of the minister. When he applies that judgment -and there is no other man in the House in a better position to apply a business judgment than he-I am sure he will come to the conclusion that the people of New Brunswick have been unjustly treated in the matter, and that we should have that track replaced and be given back the connection and the right to do business, which we had before this track was taken away from us.


Francis Cochrane: This siding was
put in for the use of the contractors in the construction of the Transcontinental. To throw a different light on what my hon. friend has stated, I may say that * the Canadian Pacific railway have a station and sidings at Plaster Rock, where this spur joins their line. On the Transcontinental railway it was never intended to have a station or a siding at this point. This was only a temporary affair built by the Transcontinental Commission long before I had anything to do with the matter. One can understand the difference between transferring cars from the Canadian-Pacific railway, where there is a station and a siding, for the construction of the Transcontinental, and transferring cars from the Transcontinental to the Canadian Pacific railway where you would have to leave part of the train on the main line of the Transcontinental and push the cars up a steep grade to the Canadian Pacific railway. It is not a proper place for a transfer; and I am satisfied that if the road was under the control of the Railway Commission, they would neither authorize nor permit a transfer there under existing conditions. I do not want to put the blame on my officials, because I was a party to the removal of the spur.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am sorry to hear it.


Francis Cochrane: My hon. friend says it is a proper transfer. I do not pretend to be a railway man; but as long ago as May, 1913, an engineer who was on the Transcontinental road a't the time wrote to the then superintendent, Mr. Brady, objecting, from the Transcontinental standpoint to this transfer. This is a question for an engineer, not for a layman like my hon. friend or myself. The letter is as follows:
May 31, 1913.
Dear Sir,-As no doubt you are aware, we now have two connections with the Canadian Pacific railway, Theriault at mileage 216, and Wabski at mileage 163.5. I would suggest that we abolish one of these points, and think that Wakski is the one that should be dropped, for the reason that we have to take our loads three quarters of a mile down a 2 per cent grade, with the risk of their getting away from us* and take the empties up the same grade. With the motive power we have had so far, our train has been frequently delayed from one to two hours. Last winter we had very often as many as twenty cars to lift at a time, and that meant four trains down the hill.
He is an engineer whose judgment I think my hon. friend will accept.


John Douglas Hazen: Who is he?


Francis Cochrane: Mr. H. B. Dibblee. I understand that my hon. friend some years ago recommended this engineer to the Commission, although I have no evidence as to that. From all I know, he is a good engineer; and I am quoting him rather than my own engineers employed at Moncton, who also take the position that this is a dangerous point for a transfer. For the justification of myself and of the management at Moncton, I may say that we would rather haul the freight the whole distance to Fredericton for the rate that we receive than have our employees down there run the risk of losing their lives. I am willing at any time to remove any dangerous point and to overcome the difficulty in some other way, even at a loss of money. To overcome the opposition of shippers to the proposed removal of this transfer on account of the difference in mileage to Fredericton or Theriault, which would replace Wabski, the rates accruing to the National Transcontinental railway were so adjusted as to minimize the increase in the through rates; and if for the shorter haul from Fredericton the Canadian Pacific railway would make the rates to New England correspond with those which they apply from Theriault, the aggregate through charges against the

1G5
shippers of forest products originating on the Transcontinental would be the same.
In view of the temporary operation of the Transcontinental, we have not been in a position to quote or arrange for through freights. We are greatly handicapped, because we have no outlets ourselves and unfortunately we connect largely with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, who have absolute control in many cases. We hope to overcome this as soon as the money markets will allow us, so that we may be able to give the people of New Brunswick two outlets to the markets to the south.
The rate from Juniper to Wabski was four cents, as rightly quoted by my hon. friend, but that four cents did not pay us, because we had no siding at Wabski. We had to leave part of our train on the line in order to shunt up to the station four or five cars at a trip. On the other hand, the Canadian Pacific railway could leave their train on the siding and take the cars down.
The distance from Juniper to Fredericton is seventy-two miles, and we have made the rate four and a half cents. Therefore the freight, instead of being fifty cents, is only seventeen and a half cents per thousand feet of spruce, or 3,300 lbs., according to my hon. friend. In order to meet the hon. gentleman's clients and the general public, rather than take the risk of this dangerous interchange between the two railways, we would haul the freight from Juniper to Fredericton; and, on the whole, I think we would make more money as well as protect our employees by not making this dangerous transfer. The trains running to Fredericton could drop the cars off at a siding much more quickly than the locomotives could shove the cars for three-quarters of a mile up the hill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What does the minister now say is the rate from Fredericton to Boston points?


Francis Cochrane: I am not giving that. I do not know it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do; that is the trouble. Fredericton is one hundred miles nearer than Plaster Rock to Boston points.


Francis Cochrane: Then your complaint is not against the Intercolonial railway or the Transcontinental; it is against the Canadian Pacific railway. If we haul the freight one hundred miles nearer to the Canadian Pacific railway, they can surely give the same rates or a little less.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister is all in error.


Francis Cochrane: I am not; I think my hon. friend will find that I am correct. If that proposition will not do, we will take the freight from Juniper to Theriault for five cents, not for one and a half cents, as my hon. friend quoted. To prove that my statement is correct, I want to quote a letter written by the I. N. Chase Lumber Company, a New England customer of Mr. Welch, one of the shippers from Juniper. It is as follows:
We are in receipt of yours December 17 regarding rates on lumber in carload lots from Juniper to New England points and we are greatly obliged to you for this information, the rate from Fredericton to New England to be used for furtherance. We had nothing like this before and thi3 gives us an opportunity to route shipments to New Haven points at a comparatively flat rate with shipments off the Canadian Pacific railway.
I want to assume the blame to a large extent of having this taken out. The matter was discussed with me before it was done, and the danger to employees was laid before me, and I O.K.'d the proposal.


Mr. P. MICHAUD (Victoria, N.B.):: I have been consulted by the Donald Fraser Lumber Company with reference to this siding at Wabski. I understand that they have a pretty difficult situation on account of this siding. The Minister says that there was danger at that siding on account of running the train down the grade. But I have known of the running of trains on that siding at Wabski. I understand that they never heard of an accident there. I understand that the Donald Fraser Lumber Company is under a serious handicap for lack of siding at that point. I wonder if the Railway Commission of Canada would not authorize a siding there from the Transcontinental to the Canadian Pacific railway, but I am told that the minister has made up his mind that there shall not be a siding at that place. I am sorry to hear that.


Francis Cochrane: But we will overcome that difficulty so far as these people are concerned. As soon as the bridge and railway are completed at St. Leonard's, we will have an outlet to our bow, and will take the stuff to St. Leonard's and exchange with either the Canadian Pacific railway, the Maine Central or whoever is building that road.


Pius Michaud: I know that as a matter of fact the National Transcontinental is not getting business that it might get on the line from Edmundston to Plaster Rock. There are lumbermen along that line who claim that they cannot get Intercolonial railway cars in which to ship their lumber. I have that

personally from the shippers themselves, who tell me that they use Canadian Pacific railway cars to ship their lumber. The minister says I am wrong; I am sorry to say that the hon. gentleman himself is wrong. I have approached Mr. Fleming, the superintendent of that division of the Transcontinental. I am told that it was the station agent at Edmundston who went over the Wabski siding to gather the facts about it, and I am sorry to say that he was not the proper man to collect that information and send a report. The officials at Moncton took it for granted that this report was all right, and Mr. Fleming, superintendent of this railway in my constituency, said to me that the decision arrived at by the officials *upon the report of this station agent was final. I am sorry that such a report should be made. It was even said that it would be of no use for me to go on with the matter, -because everything was settled. I am glad that in the near future the international bridge will be built at St. Leonard's, and we shall have better communications. Meantime the Transcontinental railway is certainly not living up to its op-
5 p.m. portunities in the province of New Brunswick. A great traffic is possible in the district through which this railway runs, but there have arisen these difficulties in making the connections with the Intercolonial railway and Temis-couata railways. I hope that for the future we shall have better communications and better operation of the road. I do not wish to criticise the minister, but I must say that on some parts of the line the people are not satisfied with the officials of the railway, but little heed seems to be paid to the opinion of the people in this matter.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton) :: I trust the minister will pardon me if I take advantage of this discussion on the management of the Intercolonial railway to bring to his notice again two matters on which we have had some correspondence. He is aware that there is a change in the line of the railway in the eastern part of Cape Breton, between the towns of Sydney Mines and Florence and the city of Sydney. The road runs by a new route for a distance of ten or twelve miles, and for the first time the towns of Florence and Sydney Mines are on the main line of the Intercolonial railway. While the road was not placed exactly where, on business principles, it should be, we are satisfied for the present that the change is a great improvement on the old condition. What I wish particularly to bring to the minister's notice is the fact

that though the town of Florence is a mining and commercial town of about fifteen or sixteen hundred people where considerable business is transacted, yet the regular train does not stop there. There is a very good passenger station and freight shed, all new. The minister will understand what a startling surprise it was to the people of the town to find that the express train did not stop there. It is unnecessary for me to point out how inconvenient it is for the people that, though they have a railway station in their own town, they must go to Sydney Mines or to the Bras d'Or station to get aboard a train. I brought this to the minister's attention a month or five weeks ago, and he replied very promptly that he had asked the officials to take the matter into consideration. I have been watching from day to day to see what was to be done, in fact, to see the trains stop at this important point. But nothing has been done. I hope the minister will see to it that the people of Florence are given the full benefit of the road. It was bad enough to be inconvenienced when the road was not running that way but now that the road passes the doors of the people, it does seem an unusual thing in the history of the Intercolonial railway that trains do not stop at a place of this size and importance.
Another matter I have to inquire about is the local connection between Sydney and the points in the northern part of the county. The minister is aware that in very cold weather the ice stops our ferry. We are then dependent for communication between the city of Sydney and the northern part of the county on the local trains of the Intercolonial railway. For years that connection has been satisfactory, but this year the old traditions have been set aside and there are no regular trains, but we have to depend upon freights passing through.


Francis Cochrane: That train is running now.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is only two days
since I got a letter -on the subject. There may have been improvements since, and if so there is no purpose in what I am saying. My information is that the regular train is not on, but if the minister says that the old service is restored, that is satisfactory.


Francis Cochrane: I am speaking only of the local train which runs there when the ferry stops. Do none of the trains stop at Florence?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: None but freight trains.
I do hope this matter will be taken up at once and proper accommodation afforded the people of Florence. If the old conditions with regard to the local trains were re-established that would be quite satisfactory, but my information is that the old conditions did not prevail after the ferry stopped this year.


Francis Cochrane: I have not before me the information with regard to Florence, as I did not know that the matter would be brought up to-day. I was informed on Friday that the local train which operates when the ferry service is discontinued is now running. In any ease I shall certainly be glad to obtain information with regard to Florence, and to see what can be done.


Mr. MACDONALD:: With the minister's permission, I wish to call his attention to a matter about which I have spoken to him privately: that is, the cancelling of a train previously running on what is known as the short line railway. The regular accommodation train is due in Pictou at 9.30 a.m. and, under the new arrangement, leaves at 11.40 a.m. A local paper says that on the four days during which the train had been in operation, owing to the extra work imposed upon it by reason of the taking off of the special it did not arrive in Pictou until about the time it was scheduled to leave. If the minister would extend the time of departure say to 1.30 p.m., the trainmen *would probably be later in reaching their destination at the other end, but the people would be enabled to get into the county town, transact their business and return the same day. May I have the assurance of the minister that he will look into this matter?


Francis Cochrane: Yes; I have made a note of it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister has read a letter from the Chase Company of New York with regard to New York and New Haven points. I happen to know that the combined rates from Juniper to New York and New Haven points are not at all the same as the rate to Boston points, but I am not sufficiently acquainted with the details to discuss the matter intelligently. I wish the minister to remember, however, that it costs our company 18J cents to get that material from Juniper to Boston, via Fredericton, and 18i cents to get it to Boston by way of Theriault, while under the old arrangement we could get it to
Boston for 17 cents. These are the things the minister cannot get away from.


Francis Cochrane: Your grievance is
against the Canadian Pacific railway.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No; the Canadian Pacific railway have their rate, and they will maintain it, so far as I know. I have tried at various times to induce the Canadian Pacific railway to cut their rates, but I never succeeded in getting them to do so. As a matter of fact, I succeeded only once in my life in getting the Canadian Pacific railway to change their rates, and that was a case of getting them not to lower them but to raise them. I had no trouble in getting them to raise the rate, the only condition being that I should agree to defend them before the Railway Commission if any one tried to have the rate cut down to its original figure. A Boston party did attempt to have the rate cut and I defended the company-successfully, I may say. That is the only success I ever had with the Canadian Pacific railway in that respect. It would be useless for me to ask the Canadian Pacific railway to reduce the rate from Fredericton to Boston; the minister knows that they would not do it. There is no use in mincing the matter; the minister knows quite well that in suggesting that I have the Canadian Pacific railway cut their rate, he is asking me to do what is impossible.


Francis Cochrane: No, I do not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, the minister has had something to do with freight rates, and he should know that I cannot have that rate reduced. The minister does know, however, that he can cairy out the agreement he made with me a year and a half oi two years ago, and that he can get that lumber to Boston for 17 cents per cwt. But that is only my own part of the matter; that does not touch the root of the question. If it were entirely my own affair, I am sure that I would not take up the time of the House in discussing it. The whole public is interested in this outrage. My hon. friend says that we have no siding at the junction point. That may be true, but it would not cost very much to put a siding at the junction point; besides, my hon. friend must take the bitter with the sweet. If he is going to run a transportation company he must supply the people of Canada with transportation. It cannot be all cream; there must be some skim milk in the transaction.


Francis Cochrane: Cream for the Canadian Pacific railway, but none for the people of the country.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It cannot be all cream for my hon. friend. In one respect I think the minister has hardly been fair in his discussion of this matter. I do not say that offensively, because the minister always tries to be courteous, with me at any rate. Perhaps it has not occurred to him that the distance from that junction point to his station at Plaster Rock is not more than a mile and a half. The minister has a station on the north side of the Tohique river, with enough yard room to hold a great many more cars than he will handle on the road for a good many years, especially if he allows the thing to run as it is running at the present time. When the minister puts forward as an excuse the absence of sidings or yard room, I think he is putting up a severe form of special pleading. It is like a drowning man grasping at a straw; I think my hon. friend will get very little protection from his suggestion in that regard.
The matter, then, reverts back to the main question: does the minister want to give the people of that portion of New Brunswick the rights to which they are entitled, or does he not ? I am very sorry indeed to hear my hon. friend say that he does- not propose to put back the connection. That is what I understood him to say; if I am wrong, he has an opportunity of correcting me. I repeat that I am sorry indeed to hear him say so, because, unfortunately, when my hon. friend puts his foot down, it usually stays down. Possibly, however , my hon, friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries may be able to bring sufficient persuasion-I shall not say influence-to bear on my hon. friend the Minister of Railways to induce him to have the matter straightened out.
Did I understand the minister to say that in so far as my company is concerned, he will haul this freight to Boston at the same rate that it cost us before ? I thought I heard him say so.


Francis Cochrane: No, I did not. I said that our rate would give you a shorter mileage.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then that grievance is not remedied; I thought my hon. friend would give me that assurance. My friend is in error as to the mileage. I am within a mile or two of being correct. It is not one hundred miles, but only about sixty-four from Plaster Rock to Boston than 
from Fredericton to Boston. McAdam Junction is a point common to both reads. As I figure it, it is one hundred and twenty-seven miles from Plaster Rock to McAdam and sixty-six miles from Fredericton to McAdam; that leaves a distance of about sixty-one miles against Plaster Rock. My hon. friend knows that the distance is not the only factor in the determination of freight rates; it is the competition that counts, the endeavour to get business at competitive points, and the fact that the Canadian Pacific railway are giving a lower rate from Plaster Rock and Theriault to Boston than from Fredericton to Boston is no fault of mine. It would not be that way if I could help it, but I am powerless.


Francis Cochrane: It is not our fault.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is not mine and it is my friend who is making my company and every other man doing business along that road lose money. I can only say again that I am sorry my hon. friend has flatly refused to remedy this grievance. But I hope that, even at this late date, some influence or compulsion will be brought to bear on my hon. friend which will cause him to relent and give back to the people the right so ruthlessly taken from them.	.


Francis Cochrane: I wish to impress the hazardous nature of the operation of making that transfer; that is the reason for our taking out the connection.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is surely not a reason.


Francis Cochrane: It is to me. When these men are under my charge we will not ask them to do a hazardous thing day after day Tf we can avoid it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Frank Broadstreet Carvell: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and correspondence had by Margaret Lynch, or any person representing her, with reference to the expropr iation of certain land belonging to the said Margaret Lynch in the city of Fredericton, province of New Brunswick, by the Intercolonial railway, and also of all letters, telegrams and correspondence had with F. P. Gutelius or any other official of the Intercolonial railway with reference thereto.
He said: This is very largely a private and professional transaction, but yet the matter has been so grossly handled that I -feel I am justified in calling the Minister's

attention to it in this public manner. I have done so privately, that is, by letter, and the minister, I think, did all he could, but unfortunately that was not enough to produce results. That is my justification for this motion. The minister is aware that, some time in the summer of 1913. the Department of Railways and Canals saw fit to expropriate quite a large lot of land in Fredericton belonging to a Mrs. Lynch. While, of course, the Minister of Railways has the legal right to expropriate any land, yet some discretion and respect for the rights of owners should be exercised. Mrs. Lynch is the owner of perhaps the finest residential grounds in Fredericton. It is the old residence of exGovernor Wilmot, one of the great men of New Brunswick, and it has been in the Lynch family a great many years. It consists of some ten or twelve acres. The old residence is a fine home surrounded by many beautiful shade trees. It is one of the most desirable properties in Fredericton, and that is saying a great deal because there is perhaps no town in Canada with more desirable places in it than Fredericton. The St. John and Quebec railway, commonly known as the St. John Valley Raliway Company, wanted a certain amount of this land for right of way sidings, warehouses, and generally in connection with their scheme. The railway company have never tried to purchase this land from Mrs. Lynch. An agent in Fredericton, who we understood was acting on behalf of the St. J ohn and Quebec Railway Company, wanted to buy the property from her two or three years ago. It was a private transaction, but nothing came of it. The next thing we knew the Intercolonial railway had filed plans to expropriate it. I have been prying into the affairs of the St. John and Quebec Railway Company during the past six or eight months and have got quite a bit of information in reference to it. I found in some of my excursions along that line that the St. John and Quebec Railway Company would have had to pay Mrs. Lynch for the land before taking possession, because if they took the land under the ordinary expropriation proceedings, under the Railway Act, they would be compelled to either buy it from this lady and pay her price or apply to the Court and deposit in Court such sum as the judge under such conditions might think fair and equitable. It seems that by getting my hon. friend to take charge of the matter for them they got rid of this inconvenience. They were able to get this land
without asking the owner for leave or license, they simply filed a plan in the office of the registrar of deeds and sent her avnotice that they had taken three or four acres of herjand. The next thing she knew a gang of navvies were on her land cutting down trees, tearing up the lawns and destroying the place; and when she protested they said: Well, what have you to say about it? We have the right, the Minister of Railways can do it. And when she said: I want my pay, they said: Go to the Minister of Railways and get your pay That was in 1913. I took the matter up for her, as her solicitor, and I attempted to get some sort of settlement with the Department of Railways and Canals, but I was put off and put off and put off. The ostensible reason given me at that time was that they might want more land and did not want to expropriate until they decided what land they wanted to take. They did take more land in the summer of 1914, a year afterwards; they filed another plan and made greater incursions upon her private property, cut down more shade trees, and reduced the value of the remainder of her property. They made her house, almost uninhabitable.


John Douglas Hazen: How near do they go to
the house?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They go, I would say,
within 100 feet speaking generally. I will send the plan over to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, because he knows the property very well. He knows where those beautiful fir and elm trees were. They are practically all cut down. The line runs from a point on Regent street in a diagonal direction right back of the house. It would probably be more than 100 feet from the house to the line of the railway, but the land taken is really in the rear of the house. I wrote a number of letters to Mr. Gutelius and, I am sorry to say, there as in another matter, to which I referred this afternoon, and I did not get the courtesy of a reply, and could get no answer or satisfaction whatever. I realized that as a lawyer the Crown had a right to take this woman's property, but while I realized that the Crown had that right, there was also the moral right to try and settle with her or otherwise to start proceedings in the Exchequer Court to fix the compensation that should be allowed her. All I asked Mr. Gutelius to do was to either settle with this lady or to apply to the Exchequer Court and have compensation fixed. He would do neither. So again I resorted to a course

which I find generally produces results and 1 appealed to the minister. I have not the correspondence here but the minister, 1 have no doubt, has it. I have pointed out the condition of affairs to the minister. I know I used fairly strong language. I think I told him that they were acting as-I have just forgotten the exact word and I would not like to use one for fear it might be a little too harsh-but at all events the language I used was not very complimentary. I realized that they had a right to take that woman's property, but they ought to pay for it or go to court and have the compensation settled. I got back at once a very nice letter from the minister and I got action on the part of Mr. Gutelius so that the minister again did exactly what he should have done.
Some week or two after I wrote to the minister I received an offer from a very reputable firm of solicitors in Fredericton who were acting as agents of the Government, but as the offer was afterwards withdrawn 1 do not feel like making it public. It was a very respectable offer. Unfortunately, Mb's. Lynch was away in New York at the time and I was unable to give an answer immediately although I did not think she would have accepted the offer as it was not high enough but it was a reasonable offer coming from the Department of Railway and Canals. The amount was as large as we would expect the Department of Railways to offer when the Intercolonial railway is presided over by the gentleman who is the general manager of that institution at the present time because his heart is not known to have any great enlargement excepting when it comes to the question of his own salary. We have not seen any contraction whatever of the valve of that gentleman's heart when it comes to taking money out of the coffers of the Dominion of Canada, but we have seen every evidence of the most sudden contraction when that gentleman is paying money to other people of Canada whose property he is taking away from them. Under these circumstances, and coming from this gentleman, I thought it was a very reasonable offer.
Before my client returned to Fredericton, where I had been for three or four weeks attending court, the solicitors to whom I have referred came and asked me if I would be willing to give up the offer I had received in writing as they had received instructions from Moncton to withdraw it. As we have always got along in a very friendly way, I, as a matter of professional courtesy, gave

back the offer, and, as far as the legal effect of the matter is concerned, it stands as though the offer had never been made. From that day to this nothing has been done. They have taken altogether five acres of this lady's home. They have taken land that is worth a great many thousands of dollars, and they have torn up her property with the most ruthless hand possible. I have begged them now for a year and a half to start proceedings in the Exchequer Court. Let us have a judge of the Exchequer Court settle the matter, let them pay this woman what he says she is entitled, to and we will get satisfaction. But we can neither get the Department of Railways and Canals to pay us nor can we get them to put us into the Exchequer Court, and I do not know, from the manner in which this matter is being dealt with, that Mrs. Lynch may not be able to go to the Department of Justice-and get a fiat in order to bring suit against the Crown. I cannot believe that the Minister of Railways and Canals is going to stand for any such conduct as that.
I cannot believe that the minister wants to take people's property in the high-handed and barbarous manner I have detailed, giving them neither compensation for their property nor the chance to have the compensation settled by the proper authorities.
I know my legal rights, of course, as well as any lawyer in this House does. I know that my client can apply to the Minister of Justice and get a fiat to start suit against the Crown, but I also know that this involves an enormous expense. It is the duty of the Crown, when they take any person's land, to start proceedings in the Exchequer Court to ascertain the compensation to be allowed for the land taken. Why the Department of Railways and Canals are carrying on this affair as they are I cannot/understand. I have tried to figure it out m my own mind, but I am at a loss every time I try to do so.
I can understand quite well why the St. John and Quebec Railway Company did not go on. They would have been compelled to have paid the money before they got possession of the land, or to have paid a certain amount into court before they took possession, and that meant paying out money. We know that the St. John and Quebec Railway Company have not been very flush of funds for some time. But not so with the Department of Railways and Canals. Why you have taken this highhanded method without giving us a chance to find out what should be paid to us as compensation is something I cannot understand. While this is to some extent a

private transaction, yet it is a matter of so much importance that 1 feel compelled to bring it before the minister in this public manner, and all I ask is that he settle with us or bring us into court and allow the "proper tribunal to settle the matter and let us get our compensation and be done with it. That is a reasonable proposition, one that I do not think the minister will deny is reasonable, and now that I have brought it to his attention, I feel sure that he will be willing to see that the proper machinery is put in motion, that no more clogs are placed in the wheel, and that this woman shall be accorded the right to which she is entitled as a British subject and a person whose land has been taken by the Crown while no compensation has been made.


Francis Cochrane: When I took charge of the department I found that thgre was a system in reference to the acquisition of real estate which had been in vogue on the Intercolonial railway for a long time. About six months ago I became so disgusted with it that I issued a new order with reference to the matter, and it requires that we must get two or three men to value property which we wish to acquire. To give you a fair illustration of what I mean, let me say that at a certain place on the Intercolonial we wanted to put in a track scale. We saw the owner of the property which would best suit the purpose of the railway,	and	he	offered	to letus have	what	we	required	for	$80.
In conformity with this system we appointed three arbitrators, and instead of eighty dollars they assessed us six hundred dollars, and that puts us in the awkward position of having evidence piled up against us if we take it to the Exchequer Court. I would cite another instance: We wanted to acquire a certain property and the owner only asked $2.25 a foot for it, but we appointed three arbitrators and they charged us $800 for expenses, for a secretary and everything else, and they assessed it at three dollars a foot. In these circumstances, I concluded it would pay the department to get a valuator of our own who would have no axe to grind and who would give us.a fair valuation, and if the owners were not satisfied with it, they could go to the Exchequer Court. My hon. friend (Mr. Car-vell) has stated that this property was for the Quebec and St. John railway. The first expropriation was not for the Quebec and St. John railway, but for the Intercolonial railway, for a freight-shed and track which
we needed, because of the changing of the station, and its area was 3.81 acres.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think it makes very much difference as to that.


Francis Cochrane: It does, because it
removes some of the ground on which my hon. friend based his remarks.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Suppose the Quebec and St. John railway had never been built, would the minister have expropriated that land?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, I would. The
hon. member stated that this property was 100 feet from the residence, but I have a plan here which shows it was 200 feet from Mrs. Lynch's residence.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is all wrong.


Francis Cochrane: I do not think so. It is quite a distance.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: About fifty feet.


Francis Cochrane: It is more than that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: At any rate, it is near her residence and you tore down her trees and cut through her summer house.


Francis Cochrane: We had three men
value this property, and the value that was placed on the 3-81 acres was $11,935, or $3,132 per acre, and in the case of the second expropriation the land had an area of 1 -15 acres. The total valuation made by these gentlemen was $15,575.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You made no such offer as that to me.


Francis Cochrane: No, because we considered it was altogether too large, and we believe so to-day.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We are convinced to
the contrary.


Francis Cochrane: The lawyer who is
handling the case for the Intercolonial railway is a gentleman of some repute, Mr. R. B. Hanson, and he protested against it. He says in a letter:
August 27, 1914.
Replying to your favour of the 26th instant, I beg now to give you some of my reasons for considering that the property taken from Mrs. Lynch is not worth more than 58,000 or $9,000. The Intercolonial railway takes approximately five acres of this property but only a portion of the part taken is on a streft. tit' bilanc is inaccessible at present and will be for the future unless the street is put through. There was no prospect of a street until after the Intercolonial had expropriated and built the freight

shed. The property immediately across Regent street, known as Scully's Grove, contains 14 acres. It is situated in as good a position, in fact better, as it had access not only to Regent street, but also St. John street, and it sold in 1911 or thereabouts for $10,000, for the whole block, and the executor of the estates thinks he made a splendid sale and so do I. A few years before (not more than three or four) the estate of Wm. H. Scully sold the same property to Charles Scully for $4,000. This was a bargain, of course, but it is also a fact to be taken into consideration.
The Randolph property, known as ' Frogmore,' situate on the same side of Regent street, but west of the Canadian Pacific railway, contains
22 acres. It has a fine residence, stables and outbuildings, with fine graded grounds and large gardens and fields, and could have been purchased at any time during the last four or five years for $18,000 at the outside.
The value of the land alone taken by the Intercolonial railway considered as a whole, having in view the uses to which it could be put before August, 1913, would not, in my opinion, exceed $1,000 per acre, which would aggregate, in the whole, about $5,000. The damages to the property adjacent are difficult to measure; the conditions have not changed. A railway ran along the edge of her property then. A railway runs along the edge of her property now. The only difference is that the railway which skirts her property now is some distance nearer her residence than it was in 1913. Without pretending to estimate all the consequential damages, I would think that $3,000 or $4,000 would be liberal.
I understood also that an offer of $13,500 was made to my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell), but he refused it. I am not in a position to prove that, but I give the statement for what it is worth.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Do you want me to answer that P


Francis Cochrane: I am not making any assertion about it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I may say that Mr. Hanson who gave me the offer gave it to me in writing, and I wish to state here that Mr. Hanson and I are the very best of personal friends.


Francis Cochrane: I understand so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: At that time I was acting as counsel with Mr. Hanson in a very large expropriation. I never saw my client and had no opportunity to, as she was away in New York. Three days afterwards, Mr. Hanson asked me if I would give to him the offer that had been made, as he had received instructions' from Moncton to that effect, and as a matter of professional courtesy I handed it back.


Francis Cochrane: You did not refuse it or accept it ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I had not the opportunity; I had not seen my client.


Francis Cochrane: I accept your word.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Hansen will bear out what I say.


Francis Cochrane: I will see that there is no further delay in sending the case to the Exchequer Court. I do not want to say that those men who valued the property have not acted fairly, but the man whom we sent down there agreed with Mr. Hanson as to the value, and he thinks he can sustain his opinion in the^Ex-chequer Court.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would the minister give me the names of the gentlemen who valued this land ? I understood there had been some gentlemen appointed 'but we never knew the result of their valuation until to-day, and it is interesting.


Francis Cochrane: I do not think I ought to give the names. We will try to prove that their opinion is right.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister does not want to give me the names ?


Francis Cochrane: I would rather not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They will be given in the court, and the minister might as well give them now. I do not think the minister has grasped the pointjf was trying to make. The fact is that great damage has been done to this lady's property. I will send to the minister a photograph showing what he has destroyed. You may talk about the Germans ravaging Belgium, but there has been nothing worse done in Belgium than the minister has done in this case.


Mr. COOHRANE:: I know all about it. I was on the ground before the expropriation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am sending the minister a photograph of the ground he lias cut up and run his railway through, and I wish I could get the photograph on "Hansard". It is not a question, however, how much damage has been done to my client's property. We will take our chances of convincing the Exchequer Court as to how much damage has been done. It is not a question of how much was paid for Scully's grove, because that is a matter for the courts to find out. Scully's grove is a baseball field on the opposite side of the street and a little farther towards the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks.


Francis Cochrane: It is good commercial property.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. It has not a building on it; I do not think it ever had. It has been used as a baseball field and as a general resort for athletes. I think it was sold for $7,000, as Mr. Hanson states.


Francis Cochrane: The railway runs
alongside of the property which we have taken and it would not be residential property.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I admit that Mrs. Lynch does not reside on every inch of this land, but it is all enclosed by her fences. It is land she did not want to sell to a railway company; she was holding it for other purposes; it is land which, as I said before, was probably the best residential property in Fredericton. It was formerly occupied by Governor Wilmot. Mrs. Lynch did not want a railway within 150 feet of her residence. When my hon. friend speaks about comparing the quantity of land taken with the Scully grove property, he is speaking as many railway people do when they take away people's land-they simply speak of acreage. Were I sitting as a judge of the [DOT]Exchequer Court, the last thing I would consider in giving damages would be acreage. The acreage, the actual land taken, is the last thing which an arbitrator should consider. It is the damage done to the rest of the property that counts.
Frogmoro, to which my hon. friend has referred, is nearly half a mile away from Mrs. Lynch's property.


Francis Cochrane: That is better residential property.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it is not. It is away out in the country. You have to cross the Canadian Pacific railway track and climb a hill in order to get to it. There is no comparison whatever. You could cut up the Lynch property into lots to-morrow, and you could sell every one of them in the course of two or three years. If you were to cut up the Frogmore property into lots, you could not sell them in twenty-five years, because the city of Fredericton is not growing rapidly enough. That, however, is a matter which we shall discuss when it comes to the court. The point is that my hon. friend has taken this woman's property, and he will not pay her nor put her into court.


Francis Cochrane: I will put her into court.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I hope my hon, friend will; that is all we ask. We shall be satisfied with what we get. If we cannot get more than $15,000 damages, or more than $7,000, the value that my hon. friend's solicitor puts on the property, I shall be much surprised. I think my hon. friend's solicitor has had his eyes opened. He is learning a lot of law on the right side of these arbitration cases; that is, the side of the owner, the person whose property has been damaged. If my hon. friend would write again to his agent, he would get a somewhat different valuation from what he got three months ago.


Francis Cochrane: I have not received
any.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend should
write to his agent again. I know the gentleman very well, and his mind has had a wonderful transformation during the last few months as regards the potential damage to property and the amount of damage that ought to be allowed for taking the land itself for severance and all those other matters that enter into the question of damages in an arbitration or Exchequer court suit. As I have my hon. friend's promise that he will put this matter into the court, that is all I want, and we will undertake, to look after the law of it and try to see that the lady gets the amount of compensation to which she is entitled.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Frank Broadstreet Carvell: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, contracts, and other documents relating to the operation of the St. John Valley railway, so called, by the Intercolonial railway, since the first day of July last past, and of all letters, correspondence, etc., had either with the Department of Railways and Canals, or with F. P. Gutelius, or any other official of the Intercolonial railway.
He said: Before this motion is passed, I desire to recall to the attention of the minister what we look upon in New Brunswick as the very unfair attitude assumed by the Department of Railways and Canals in the operation of the Valley railway, so called. While it may be possible that the minister is technically within his rights and is not compelled to do more than he is doing, yet, if he be right, it is the narrowest, most

technical construction of a statute and contract I have ever known since I entered Parliament. He agreed in the most solemn fashion imaginable, and this Parliament by statute provided, that if the province of New Brunswick built a certain road up to a certain standard-a standard set by the minister himself-and did certain other things, he would operate that road as part of the Intercolonial railway, and pay back to the province forty per cent of the gross earnings with which to pay interest on the bond guarantee, the 'balance, if any, to go to the company that built the road. Now, I am not here as the special champion of the Government of the province of New Brunswick, nor of the company that built the road. I have had occasion during the last three or four years to say' many things which were perhaps not entirely complimentary both to the Government and to the company. But the people of the province of New Brunswick have certain rights and privileges; they have a future before them, and they have certain debts which they must pay. Therefore, I contend, the Minister of Railways and Canals should carry out this contract made in good faith with the province of New Brunswick, whether he has the most friendly feeling towards the Government of New Brunswick and the railway company or not. This is a question bigger, broader and much more important than whether the province of New Brunswick has carried out its contract or whether the company has acted in perfect good faith. This is a matter that has caused great discussion in New Brunswick during the last two or three years; in fact, it has been one of the greatest bones of political contention we have had there since 1909. The subject has been discussed in this House many times, and I am not going over it now except to say generally that the people wanted a railway built along the river St. John through a country portions of which had been settled for a hundred years and which was without railway communication. This section contained some of the finest and most productive land of Canada, yet some parts of it were thirty and forty miles away from railway communications. Portions of this area had water communication during seven months of the year, but others had not even that. The great need was the need of railway communication. For some reason which I can hardly explain-and it does not matter for my present purpose-when the railways in western New Brunswick were built, they 
did not follow the St. John river below Woodstock. A branch line ran into Fred. ericton, but in the whole distance of one hundred and forty miles this point, Fredericton, about equi-distant from Woodstock and St. John, was the only point that had railway communication with the outside world. After years of agitation and, I am bound to say, considerable cross-firing between the Government of New Brunswick and the Government of the Dominion, what we thought a fair working basis was arrived at which was embodied in legislation passed in the session of 1911. Among the provisions of that statute were the following.
The Governor in Council is authorized to enter into a contract with any ra iway company already authorized, or which may hereafter be authorized by law, to construct a line of railway from a point on the line of the National Transcontinental at Grand Palls, in the county of Victoria, to the city of St. John, in the province of New Brunswick, a distance of about two hundred and twenty miles, the principal and interest of the bonds of which railway company, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 6, of the statutes of the province of New Brunswick, 1910, the Government of the province of New Brunswick has guaranteed, or may guarantee, to the extent of twenty-five thousand dollars per mile, and with the Government of the province of New Brunswick, for the leasing of the said line of railway when completed, with its appurtenances, and for its operation, equipment, maintenance, up-keep and repair by the Government of Canada, as part of the Government railway system of Canada, for a period of ninety-nine years and for the payment by the Government of Canada to the said province of New Brunswick, or to the said company, each year during the said term ninety-nine years, of forty per centum of the gross earnings of the said railway as or in the nature of rental thereof:	Provided, howtvr. that
the said contract shall be entered into only upon the condition that the said railway shall be constructed upon plans and specifications to bo approved of by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals and shall be up to the general standard of the said National Transcontinental railway through the said province: Provided further that the Governor in Council shall be authorized to enter into a contract, as aforesaid, for the operation of the said railway in sections, when completed and equipped, as follows:
(1)	Prom Fredericton to Woodstock;
(2)	Prom Fredericton, south, a distance of fourty miles;
(3)	Each twenty-five miles, thereafter, until the line be completed from Grand Falls to St. John.
That is an important part of the statement, because it gives the minister the right to go on and operate the road. When tire present minister (Mr. Cochrane) came into office in October, 1911, he found the contract drawn up between the Dominion
FEBRUARY 15, 19i5
Government and the Provincial Government and the St. John and Quebec Railway Company which we thought was satisfactory to all parties concerned. I think it had been signed by the Dominion Government, though I am not really positive about that. However, it had not been signed by the Provincial Government. But it had been drawn up at the conference of the three parties concerned, who agreed that it would be sufficient. During the election of 1911 the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) and his colleague in the Government of New Brunswick had promised all over New Brunswick that within a feiv days they would sign the contract. But the elections came, the Dominion Government was defeated, and the contract had not actually been signed.
The next year, in the session of 1912, that legislation was repealed in so far as the practical working out of the scheme was concerned, and new legislation was passed which necessitated the making of a new contract. The difficulty occasioned by the new legislation was that it provided practically no specification upon which the road should be constructed.
If I may be permitted to anticipate the answer of the hon. minister, I think he will say: Oh, well, you have not given me as good a road as I wanted; you have not given me a road which I can operate economically and at the same time pay you back forty cents out of every dollar. I am not sure that the minister will not go further and take the extremely technical ground that the road is not completed, that these sections have not been constructed and completed according lu the statute and that, therefore, he is not compelled to operate it under the statute. I want to discuss in a very cursory manner these two phases of my hon. friend's answer-because I know that will be his answer-in order to show him the fallacy of the principle under wnich he is acting. If my hon. friend has not as good a road as he ought to have, it is his own fault. If the road is full of twists and curves and crooks and hills and everything that is contrary to good railroading, then he has only himself to blame. When my hon. friend came into office he found upon the statute book legislation which provided for the construction of a railroad. One of his first official acts in so far as railways in New Brunswick were concerned was to pass an Act repealing the legislation which provided for the construction of a good railroad, and to give his political friends in the province of New Brunswick the right to build anything-so long as it consisted of a roadbed and two rails-and pass it over to him as a railway. I am not going to say that as a railway, aside from the question of -curves and grades, it is not a pretty good railway; perhaps I shall not be charged either with egotism or with excessive modesty if I say the course I took last year had something to do with making the road as good as it is. We had a rather severe investigation into this matter in the province of New Brunswick during the last year. We had shown up a great many things which have not redounded to the credit of the party in power in New Brunswick; we have compelled them to spend a great many thousands of dollars which they never intended to spend. Taking it all round, we have a pretty good roadbed; the difficulty is that it is not a very good road upon which to do business, because of the curves and grades.
I want to point out to my hon. friend wherein he has to thank himself for the difficulties under which he is labouring this evening. Chapter 49 of the Statutes of 1912 recites in the first place that by Chapter 11 of the Statutes of 1911 this Parliament agrees to operate the road as part of the Intercolonial. It goes on to recite the general substance of the legislation of 1911, and then it provides for assistance towards the building of three big bridges. That I will refer to later. I do not believe my hon. friend the Minister of Railways realized for a moment the true significance of section 10 of this Act when it was being passed. I wish the Minister distinctly to understand that what I am saying to him to-night is not personal. I have no idea in the world that the Minister knew what he was doing -I do not say that offensively-but his friends, to use a slang phrase, put it all over him, and now he is compelled to pay the penalty. The first part of section 10 reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in any other Act, the agreement set out in the schedule to this Act is hereby ratified and confirmed and declared to be binding upon the respective parties thereto, subject to the provisions of this Act, and the Dominion may do whatever is necessary to give full effect to the said agreement and specifications and to the provisions of this Act.
My hon. friend will see that with one stroke of the pen everything done in 1911 was set aside; an entirely new contract was opened up and the Minister was bound to it. The schedule referred to in section 10

was an agreement which had previously-been entered into between this Government, the Government of the province of New Brunswick, and the St. John and Quebec Railway Company. The St. John-and Quebec Railway Company was a provincial organization having at its head a very shrewd American gentleman, Mr. A. R. Gould-a man who knows how to put it over my hon. friend, or my hon. friend's friends, without any difficulty whatever. This contract was made on the 5th day of March, and the legislation was not passed until the 1st day of April, 1912. The legislation of 1912 simply ratified this contract and made it the law of the land in the place and stead of the legislation of 1911. The contract first provided as follows:
Whereas it has been agreed by the several parties hereto that the said Company shall construct the said railway under and pursuant to an agreement which has heen entered into between the company and the province, dated December twelfth, one thousand nine hundred and eleven, whereby the said province agrees to guarantee first mortgage bonds of the said company to the extent of $25,000 per mile.
Then, the enacting part of the contract proceeds as follows:	.
Now this indenture witnesseth.
That the said company hereby undertakes and agrees that the said railway, including the line of railway and all bridges connecting the same or forming part thereof as in the first paragraph of the preamble of this agreement set out, or intended so to be, shall be constructed and equipped in all respects up to and according to the specifications hereto annexed.
My hon. friend agreed that all they had to do was to build the railway up to the specifications annexed to the contract, and his department would take it over, operate it for 99 years, and pay back to the province of New Brunswick 40 per cent of the gross earnings. But the trouble is that there are no specifications annexed to the contract.


Francis Cochrane: There is a specification.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is not here.


Francis Cochrane: That may be.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can go further than
that, and say that we have never been able to get the specifications. If they are or have been in existence, I should like to see them and ascertain what kind of agreement my hon. friend made at that time. Then subsection 2 of the contract provides:
That the company shall complete the construction and the equipment of the said railway in all respects up to and according to the specifications hereto annexed and the requirements

as in the preceding clause set out on or before the first day of November, in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen.
There again the specifications are kept secret so far as the public is concerned. To-day the people of New Brunswick and the people of Canada in general have no knowledge of what the specifications were or what kind of railway these people agreed to build for the minister. Subsection 9 of the contract is as follows:
It is hereby understood and agreed by and between all the parties hereto, that during the first fifteen years of the term of the said lease forty (40%) per cent of the gross earnings of the said railway (exclusive of the bridges) and the bridges shall be paid by the Government of Canada to the Province of New Brunswick to be applied so far as necessary towards payment of the interest upon the said bonds so to he guaranteed by the Province of New Brunswick, and the surplus, if any, after payment of said interest to he paid semi-annually to the railway company; and during the first fifteen years of the term of the said bridge bonds the interest thereupon shall be paid and borne by the Government of Canada as further aid towards the construction of the said bridges.
The substance of that legislation was this: The minister agreed that when they completed the construction of the railway according to the terms of the specification- which we do not know anything about- they would agree to take that road over and operate it in sections and when the road was completed he would take a leasehold of it and would pay back to the province of New Brunswick 40 per cent of the gross earnings with which to pay the interest on the bonds. That is the contract which the minister made. Acting on that, the railway company went to work in the spring of 1912 and have since built 120 miles of railway running from Centreville in Carle-ton to Gagetown in the county of Queens, passing through York and Sunbury. The first of the sections referred to in the statutes of 1911 to which I referred the minister before, was from Centreville to Woodstock. That road has been built from Fredericton to Woodstock and, according to my information, has been completed.
I received an answer from the minister the other day as to whether the contract had been carried out; he said the road was not completed. I hope the minister will say in what respect the road has not been completed. I wish to say it has been completed, that we had an inspector this year, Mr. J. J. Taylor, who, I believe, tried to do his duty, a gentleman who, while not satisfied with the specifications, yet held the

company down to those specifications as well as he could, a gentleman who certainly made that company do everything which he could possibly conceive he was entitled to make them do under those specifications. He could not make them cut out one per cent grades by the hundreds and seven degree curves by the dozen because these were in the specifications. I think that the first protest that came to the minister over the character of the road came from Mr. Justice Crocket, then Conservative member for the county of York. He made very severe protests against the number of seven degree curves and one per cent grades they were inserting but all of no avail. Mr. Taylor made not only one protest but tens and dozens, and I think I may say hundreds of protests against the character of the road they were building, but all of no avail. In every case he was turned down. When it came to questions of the quality of the culverts and the width of embankments, the amount of ballast, the character of ties and all such things as that, he had his own way and in so far as he was allowed to be the judge of the question. My hon. friend has as good a railway as it is possible to give him; but whenever it got beyond the power of Mr. Taylor, the politicians interfered and my hon. friend has a railway about which he complains to-day and over which he will complain that he cannot do business at a profit. That is his fault and not the fault of his inspecting engineer. I have endeavoured to find out, if I can, wherein the road is not completed between Fredericton and Woodstock-and I might say it is also completed from Woodstock north, a distance of twenty-five miles, and they treat the two together. I have tried to find out wherein the two sections are incomplete. I am assured by gentlemen who ought to know, by the officials of the railway company itself, that the only thing which is not completed on that section of nearly eighty miles of road is a track scale at Woodstock which I believe has not been placed. It may be that my hon. friend can technically say that because a track scale has not been put in in a stretch of railway eighty miles long, the road is not completed and he is not compelled to operate it; but if he takes that ground it is the most literal interpretation of a contract I have ever heard and one which will not please his friends or any other person in New Brunswick.
The next thing is that portion of the road from Fredericton south to Gagetown. I tell my hon. friend the road is completed from Fredericton to Gagetown, a distance of thirty-six miles, going through the counties of York, Sunbury and Queens; and I have it from thq contractor who built that portion of the road, I have it from the railway company itself, I have it from gentlemen who live along the line of the road, it is common knowledge in New Brunswick, that this part of the road also is absolutely completed excepting that there may be a little riprapping to be done along some of the track, but that is a matter which has been left in abeyance and which may or may not be required. The Minister must remember that, by the contract, if it becomes necessary to do anything else in the way of capital expenditure he has the power to do that work and charge it back to the company. So if it should turn out that there were any little matters not entirely completed the minister has the power to do the work and charge it back to the company and the Intercolonial suffers no loss from the transaction. What do you suppose will be my hon. friend's answer as to his reason for not operating that portion of the road. It is no more and no less than the fact that the contract says the road was to be forty miles in length and it is only thirty-six miles and they have a road entirely completed with no exceptionally bad grades except one, although the curves are not what they might be. The railway runs through a portion of the province which has been settled for over one hundred years. It is a country which has no communication whatever with the outside world in the winter. One of the finest producing countries of Canada and is to-day without railway accommodation; and yet it has a railway entirely completed, ready for operation and the Minister of Railways refuses to operate it because he said to the company; you agreed to build a stretch forty miles long and have only completed thirty-six miles. That is the only reason the Minister can urge for his non-operation of that section. When it comes to the other two sections of the road, that is from Fredericton north to Woodstock and from Woodstock north to Centreville, he cannot urge that the sections are not completed because the road is completed from Fredericton to Woodstock and is completed not twenty-five miles but twenty-six miles north of Woodstock. If my hon. friend tries to apply a somewhat hairsplitting interpre-



tation of the contract he might say: I will operate that road up to within one mile of Centreville and then stop because I have entered into a contract with relation to a line to a point twenty-five miles north and this is twenty-six miles. He is operating the twenty-six miles. He is running one train a way a day over the road from Centreville to Fredericton. I am not complaining so much of the character of the service he is giving. I realize that it is a new road and that it takes time to work up business; and while I would like to see a little better train service, I wish to be reasonable. I hope that in the future we will have a better service than at the present, but it is a great advantage over no train service at all. In the twenty-five miles from Woodstock to Centreville I believe the road will get more freight than can be obtainedjrom any other twenty-five miles of purely agricultural country in Canada, and that is saying a good deal. It may be that for the last two months the minister has not been getting as much traffic as he might expect because, unfortunately, a great portion of the traffic originating in that section is potatoes, and there is no market to-day for potatoes in Canada or elsewhere, and I believe there are to-day half a million barrels awaiting shipment there. If the time comes, and it must come, when we can find a market for these potatoes, we will find that the capacity of the road will be taxed to the utmost and what is true this year will be true next year and every year. I repeat that I do not believe the minister will find twenty-five miles of agricultural area in Canada that will produce more traffic of a purely agricultural character than this twenty-five miles of road.
But when it goes beyond Fredericton, while possibly it is not as good a country, and while there would not be as much traffic, yet these people have no accommodation whatever, simply because the minister says: You agreed to build a road forty miles long, and you have only completed thirty-six miles. Yet the thirty-six miles takes in the large and thriving town of Gagetown, the shire town, and if the minister insisted on going the other four miles he would simply be going down four miles into the country. There is no reason why the company should have built the section beyond Gagetown, because that will come in connection with the next section. I have no doubt that the company never had any idea that forty miles would be required to be built, or that the minister would take any exception if there were not the exact forty miles built.

Now the minister maintains that he is excused from operating that road because they have not complied strictly with the terms of the contract. I do not believe that his colleagues, that the Government, that his followers in the House, that anybody in the province of New Brunswick, will agree with him in the excuse which will be put up for the non-operation of that portion of the road. I not only condemn the minister here, to-night, for not operating that road, but I condemn him for not operating any portion of that road according to the contract. The minister-and when I use the word " Minister " I mean the Government, because I want to make it perfectly clear that I cast no personal reflection on the present incumbent of the office-has not carried out his bargain with the people of New Brunswick, with the Government of New Brunswick, or with the railway company. He agreed by chapter 49 of the Statutes of 1912, in the most solemn manner possible, that when that road was completed according to certain specifications, he would operate it and pay forty per cent of the gross earnings to the people of that province. He has not done that. He shakes his head as much as to say, I suppose, that he does not intend to.


Francis Cochrane: I did not agree to it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did not agree to it? I have read the Statute.


Francis Cochrane: Let me answer for myself; you need not answer.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will try to let my hon. friend know what I want him to answer.


Francis Cochrane: You are trying to give my answer.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And when I have done I will be perfectly willing to listen to the answer which my hon. friend wishes to give. I said he made a contract, and he has broken his contract with everybody concerned. As far as the Government of New Brunswick are concerned, it does not bother me very much whether they are in trouble or not, and as far as the railway company are concerned, it is perfectly clear that they are not clients of mine, but if everybody had carried out his contract the same as this company have, perhaps we would not be in the mess which we are in to-day. As far as the people of New Brunswick are concerned, the people who have to pay the interest on this enormous debt which has been rolled up over their heads, they are concerned, and it is for that reason that I am calling upon the minister to

explain why he has not carried out the contract.
This road was completed practically ready for operation, and should have been in operation, last October. I do not say it was completed in the sense that every spike was driven, every shovelful of ballast had been placed upon the road, or that the last brush of paint had been put upon the station houses, but I do say that way back even in September this road was completed and fit for traffic. The roadbed was entirely completed long before that, and it was perfectly feasible to operate the road in October. The produce of that country, which is largely potatoes, was saleable in very large quantities in September and October, and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of potatoes grown in that country might have been gotten out if the minister had in an honourable spirit carried out the contract and operated the road. He did not do so, and the result is that this stuff is locked up to-day, there is no market for it, and I am afraid there will be no market for it. Today he is not operating the road according to his contract. I got an answer from him on Friday last, I think, and according to that answer no portion of the gross receipts of that road go to the province of New Brunswick. As I understand the contract says that no matter what the road earns, nothing goes to the province of New Brunswick.


Francis Cochrane: I did not say that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is what I understood the hon. gentleman's answer to be.


Francis Cochrane: No, I did not say that. You mean the present operation ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The present operation.


Francis Cochrane: There w;ll not be any.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I see; there will not be any other per cent. Am I right ? I think I have the faculty of understanding the English language when I read it.


Francis Cochrane: I misunderstood your statement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Whereas by the contract which Parliament made, the people of New Brunswick were to have forty per cent on every dollar earned, under the present agreement they get nothing; and, worse than that, the Intercolonial takes all, but if there should be a loss in operation, we pay half of the loss. What is the contract which my hon. friend made, or which Parliament made for him in 1912 ? I would like to know it. That is what I am find-124
ing fault with and that is what I want the minister to explain. Why should the people of New Brunswick be compelled to pay the interest on the bonds to something like three or four million dollars P We are liable to pay the interest on bonds to the amount of $4,000,000 and we are not getting one dollar out of the operation of the road with which to pay that interest, whereas, by the statute, by the contract made by Parliament, we are entitled to receive forty per cent of the gross earnings of the road with which to pay interest on the bonds. The minister may say: I do not think I am going to make money out of it. That is not the contract. He may say: You have not finished the road. That is not the contract. He may say: You have not built the kind of road you should have built. That is not the contract. He agreed, no matter what kind of a road we built, that he would operate it. He agreed that, so long as we built a section of 25 miles, he would take it over, and he agreed to take the whole of it. He agreed to pay forty per cent of the gross earnings for the purpose of assisting the people of New Brunswick to meet the interest on the bonds. These are things which the minister is called upon to answer. But he may say: Well, you agreed when the contract was made that you would finish that road to Grand Falls by the first of November, 1915. Let him quarrel with the people who made the contract, let him go to his friends the Government of New Brunswick, let him go to his friends of the St. John and Quebec Railway Company and ask them why they did not carry out their contract. But that is not the fault of the people of New Brunswick. It is not the fault of the men who have to pay the interest on those bonds. Just here perhaps my hon. friend may ask me whose fault it is. Why was that road not completed according to the contract ? It is all very simple. It has not been completed according to the contract because of the boodling, the worse than boodling, the almost pilfering of public money, by the men whose duty it was to safeguard the interests of the people of the province. He may say that if the road had been built through to Grand Falls he would have been able to get traffic from the Transcontinental railway and do a through business. It is not our fault that that has not been done. I have talked upon this question in the House a number of times. I have stated before, and I repeat to-night, that the road never was

justifiable. The whole scheme never was justifiable. The whole scheme was almost a business and political crime if it did not go through to Grand Falls and draw freight from the Transcontinental railway. The whole scheme was based on the idea that it was to be the outlet for transcontinental railway freight into the city of St. John, and without the transcontinental railway freight it was never feasible for a moment because there will not be sufficient traffic originating along that road, partly as a branch line of the Canadian Pacific railway, to give enough business to pay forty per cent on the bonds and yet leave sufficient margin to operate the road. It is, not the fault of the people that the road has not been built to Grand Falls. The minister's friends in New Brunswick may say to him: we cannot sell our bonds on account of the war and therefore we cannot extend the road to Grand Falls, but there never was a more unjust, unfair, and dishonest statement than that, and the minister's friends are simply deceiving him in the most scandalous manner possible-were it parliamentary to use a stronger term I would use it, but the minister can supply the term mentally without my saying it orally. The fact is that in 1912, when the money market was in splendid condition the province of New Brunswick and that railway company sold on the London market bonds for 170 miles at $25,000 a mile, and not for the 120 miles they intended to build. The actual cash brought from England, away back in May, 1912, amounted to $1,200,000, and that money is on hand or ought to be on hand from that day to this, and if it is not on hand to-day it is because some person in the province of New Brunswick, pretty close to the minister-


Francis Cochrane: Do you mean to say
I got any of it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.


Francis Cochrane: Or anybody in this House?
Mr. CARVELj. :	There is no question
about who is responsible; it is the Government of New Brunswick. They brought that money to Canada, and instead of putting it in the Bank of Montreal, in the Bank of Nova Scotia, or in the Royal Bank, or in one of the big trust companies, as they ought to do, they put it in the hands of a trust company in Montreal-with which I do not want to have any quarrel, and against which I have not a word of condemnation-that is at least not to be

compared with the big institutions to which I have referred. They put $4,000,000 in the hands of a company called the Prudential Trust Company, and the only qualification put upon the investment of that money was a letter written by the then Provincial Secretary of New Brunswick, the present member for York in this House (Mr. McLeod), addressed to the Prudential Trust Company, and telling them they were at liberty to invest that money as they thought fit, the only condition being that every three months they should send to the Government of New Brunswick a statement of the manner in which that money had been invested.
Now, if they have not got the cash to build that road, the fault lies with the Government of New Brunswick and the Prudential Trust Company. I do not want to go further; I do not think it would be fair to go further; I can only say that they cannot get the money, and they are putting it up to the people of the province as a reason why they cannot get the money, that the money market is in such a bad condition that they cannot sell their bonds. I think I am justified in the assertion I made a moment ago as to the word that ought to be used, when these people tell the minister that they cannot finish the road because they could not sell bonds to get the money.
Again, they may say to the minister: we have issued second mortgage bonds at ten thousand a mile and we cannot sell these second mortgage bonds. I tell the minister that it is not necessary to sell the second mortgage bonds. I tell him that if he can get the cash for the first mortgage bonds, or if the Government, or the Prudential Trust Company, or whoever has the money can dig up the money from the first mortgage bonds, I will find contractors who will take the second mortgage bonds upon their own responsibility and build the road. There is no trouble about that at all. The contractors who built the road from Woodstock to Centreville-I have no hesitation in giving their names, they are Kennedy & Macdonald of Antigonish, N.S., who were large contractors on the National Transcontinental-never received a dollar of the $10,000 a mile second mortgage bonds, but took the bonds themselves. The same is true of the Hibbard Company, which built the road from Fredericton to Woodstock, and the same is true of the Corbett Construction Company, which built the road from Fredericton to Gagetown. They took the second mortgage bonds of $10,000 a mile and financed them themselves.

I was solicitor for two of these companies, and I tell the minister they are perfectly willing to take these second mortgage bonds and to build the remainder of the road, providing they have the assurance that the money which ought to he in the hand's of the Prudential Trust Company is forthcoming. They will take that money and they will take these second mortgage bonds and they will build the road, and if the road is not finished it is not the fault of the contractors or anybody else, except the Minister's political friends in New Brunswick.
You may ask me why the money was put in the hands of the Prudential Trust Company. I will throw a little sidelight on the transaction, and only a sidelight, because I am not here to discuss everything that has been made public in New Brunswick during the past year. The Minister may say: Why did these men put that money in the place in which they did instead of in one of the big financial institutions of Canada? I can tell the Minister that there was a very good reason for it, a reason which was brought out in the investigation held in New Brunswick last year. We proved in that investigation that before the bonds were sold an agreement was made with the Prudential Trust Company that in case the money was left to them on deposit they would loan to Mr. Gould and his associates on their notes alone the sum of $350,000 which of course would come out of that trust fund. The money was brought from England in May, and between that date and the running of the provincial elections, $200,000 was paid over to Mr. Gould and his associates, on their own private notes. The notes were signed by Mr. A. R. Gould, a bright, shrewd, active Yankee promoter, who lives in the State of Maine a few miles away from where we live, by Ross Thompson, chief engineer of the road, by Mr. Lisman, a lawyer of New York, and by Mr. Macdonell, an official of the Canadian Pacific railway in Montreal. They advanced $200,000 before the election, and they increased the advance to $350,000 the next two or three months thereafter. Out of $350,000, I state here to-night that $100,000 was paid to a member of the Government of New Brunswick for the election fund for the elections of 1912, and I state here further that $97,000 of that amount is still owing by these gentlemen to the Prudential Trust Company. You now get some idea as to why the money was handled as it was, and the Minister of Railways can go back now and see why the road has not
been completed to Grand Falls and why he ought to be compelled to operate that road.


Francis Cochrane: Will the hon. gentleman let me know what this has to do with running the railway, and, even if it be all true, what has this Government to do with it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am trying to enlighten the Minister of Railways.


Francis Cochrane: I do not see where it comes in on the operation of the road.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am trying to show the minister why this road has not been completed. The minister may say: You have not lived up to the contract, and therefore I am not bound to operate the road and if I do not operate it you are going to lose the money.


Francis Cochrane: I never said so.
Mr, CARVELL: I have said so and I have shown the minister. The best evidence is that what I have said hurts him.


Francis Cochrane: Oh, no.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It has all the evidence
of it.


Francis Cochrane: Oh, no.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am trying to show
my friend why the money was squandered as it was, and that as a result of the squandering of that money the road has not been completed. I know that very strong representations have been made to the minister, to Mr. Gutelius, to the Intercolonial authorities generally, to operate this road according to the contract. I know that representations have been made by the Government of New Brunswick and by the railway company; and I know that they are all truly penitent to-day for their sins, and would like at least to have the road operated, because they realize now the crime that is being practised on the province. They realize that we are liable to pay interest on about $4,000,000 for the road already completed, and that we are paying or liable to pay interest on $L,200,000; which is in the hands of the Prudential Trust Company, and which should have gone into the building of the road. They are trying to make amends, and I know they have been importuning my hon. friend the minister to operate the road according to the contract; but so far as I know he has not done so. Instead of operating the road, instead of giving the people of New Brunswick that proportion to which they are entitled, he is giving them nothing; but

if there is a loss in the operation of the road, in addition to paying the interest on the bonds and bearing other burdens, they will have to put their hands into their pockets and pay one-half of any such loss. How long is this to continue? Is it to be forever? Will my hon. friend forever be able to find some quibble and say: Your road is not yet completed. No man can ever say that a road i.s completed 'if the minister or the other party to the agreement says it is not, because building a railroad is not like binding a book or building a house, but is something which any man can say is not completed. A man anight go back a hundred times and do everything the minister wants him to do, and yet the minister might say there was some other thing that should be done. There would never be a finality. Is the minister to take that course, or will he get off his perch and be reasonable and -say that this road is completed to all intents and purposes? I want to say on behalf of the railway company, for whom I hold no brief whatever, that they have honestly endeavoured to complete the road. I believe they have, during the last six months or a year, done everything which lay in their power to get that road completed, to see a finality of it, to get the Intercolonial to take it over and operate it according to the terms of the contract. But it seems there is nothing which they -can do, nothing which the Government of New Brunswick can do, no atonement for their sins which will satisfy their lord and master the Minister of Railways. It seems to be impossible to get him to carry out his part of the agreement and to place both them and the province of New Brunswick in the position in which they ought to be placed. I do not blame my'hon. friend if lie chides his friends in the province of New Brunswick very severely. In fact in my judgment he cannot castigate them strongly enough to repay them in any degree for the sins which they have committed. He can castigate them just as severely as he chooses, but there is no reason why he should castigate innocent people while he is trying to pay back a little of the political debt he owes to his friends in the province. Every one in the province of New Brunswick says that he should 9 p.m. complete the road; but it is not our fault if the road has not been completed. The sin rests at the door of his political friends in the province of New Brunswick. Let him wreak his vengeance upon them in any way he sees fit. I.et him not wreak his vengeance 
upon the innocent man who really wants the road constructed, the man who has not the railway facilities and who has to pay interest on that debt, because the road is not constructed. I may have spoken a little plainly to-night, but that was my intention. I may have said some things to-night which the minister may think I should have left unsaid.


Francis Cochrane: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think, however, I
have said enough to show the minister that he, unwittingly perhaps, is wreaking his vengeance upon the wrong party. He is making every one suffer when he is perfectly justified in making his political friends suffer in any way in which he possibly can. I believe I have given the minister sufficient information to-night to justify careful investigation into the matter so far as he is concerned; to justify probing into the whole transaction in order to find out whether or not the facts I have told him to-night are borne out by the record; to justify his going into the matter to see why his friends have not carried out their part of the agreement; to see whether the fault lies with the Government of New Brunswick or with the gentlemen who are their friends, namely, the railway company. I do not know that I can say they are his friends, because I know of no connection between this Government and the railway company, excepting that I know that until about six or eight months ago the railway company could get anything they wanted in Ottawa. When things did not go right in New Brunswick they came to Ottawa and got whatever they wanted. I believe there has been a change in the relations between the department and the railway company in the last sfk or eight months.
There is another point in which my friend is to blame that this railway has not been completed, and this is a very serious one. While my friend perhaps did not want me to speak about the sins of his friends in New Brunswick, I know he will be glad to hear me discuss the other point, because it is strictly germane to the issue. I have tried to point out to my hon. friend the practical impossibility of ever making that road a financial success or of ever carrying out what it was intended it shouldbe by the promoters unless it connects with the Transcontinental somewhere at or near Grand Falls; but in order to connect with the Transcontinental at that point or at

any other place in the vicinity, that road must cross the river St. John. Unless my hon. friend wishes the road to parallel the Canadian Pacific railway running along the St. John river from Andover to Grand Falls, he must build a bridge across the river. Just where his friends intend to tap the Transcontinental, I do not know; it has been a political football for a number of years in our province about getting to Grand Falls with the Valley railway. Some of us were doubting Thomases to such an extent that we never believed that my friend intended the railway to go there at all; but of course my hon. friend's political friends always protested in the loudest and most pious manner possible that they had no other intention on earth except to go to Grand Falls. When I had the chief engineer of the railway company under cross-examination last summer, I found that they had never even surveyed a road from Andover to Grand Falls, and that they never intended to go to Grand Falls at all. They thought they might strike the Transcontinental som,e five or six miles south of Grand Falls. From the transportation standpoint, it does not make much difference where they strike the Transcontinental, so long as they get there; but from the standpoint of accomihodation and business of the people, the railway should go to the town of Grand Falls, as was promised. In order to reach Grand Falls, my hon. friend must build a bridge across the St. John river. It will be a fairly important bridge, and will cost probably two or three hundred thousand dollars; including approaches, perhaps a little more.
This Act of 1912 provided, and the minister solemnly covenanted to carry it out, for the guarantee of the bonds to the extent of $1,000,000 with which to assist the building not only of that bridge but of two others, one across the St. John at Mistake, and the other across the Kennehecasis. But the railway company came back to him and said: We can not build these bridges with an assistance of $1,000,000, and must have more money. I know not whether that be true, but they convinced the minister that they could not-


Francis Cochrane: I was not here.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know the hon. minister does not. wish me to say who was the real culprit, if I may use that word, in this transaction. But let us speak of the department; they convinced the department that they could not build the bridges with
that assistance, and I think they said that they ought to have $3,000,000. I confess I objected to that; I did object to having $3,000,000 handed over to these people for the purpose of building bridges or anything else. We had had experience with them. I say to the credit of the department, they conceded the point, and they agreed to build these bridges outright. The legislation providing for this was passed ten or eleven months ago. The minister and his department agreed to build the bridges no matter what they cost-a bridge across the St. John at Andover, a bridge across the St. John at or near Mistake, and a bridge across the Kennehecasis river. And the hon. gentleman agreed, in effect, to build these bridges at once. Oh, yes; don't deny that. There was a clause in this legislation as presented to the House providing that before the department could act they must have the consent of the Legislature of the province of New Brunswick. I pointed out to the minister at that time that the Legislature of the province of New Brunswick had then prorogued and that it would not be possible to get cohsent from them for a year, and so if they passed the legislation as it stood the effect would be to put the work off for a year. On account of my pointing this out the Bill was changed, that clause was cut out and the matter left open. So, while there was no distinct pledge either by the Government direct or through this legislation that they would build these bridges at once, still that was the real contract. For if they had put the legislation through as provided it would necessarily have caused delay of about a year and, as the result of my protest, they cut out that clause and so provided that they could go on as quickly as they liked. So, I must hold the Minister guilty of not carrying out another cpntract, solemnly made, with the people of New Brunswick.
The minister may say that this is a tremendous task. So it may be. But, no matter what may be said about the bridges on the lower part of the river, and whether the minister has an alternate scheme or not- and let him fight that out with his friends in New Brunswick-there is no reason why he should delay the building of the bridge at Andover. He ought not to have lost a day in the construction of that bridge. There are no engineering difficulties. If he will send down an engineer, that engineer ought to be able in two weeks to obtain the data necessary to draw the plans and specifications necessary for the building of that bridge. And nott only is it easy of con-

struction, it is absolutely vital to the whole undertaking. For, without that bridge as I have said, he cannot get connection with the Transcontinental, without which the whole scheme is a failure and will never carry out the objects intended and will never pay the interest on the investment.
When he answers me, I 'hope the minister will take into consideration both branches of the case that I have presented. I hope he will not try to find excuses-that is no remedy for our trouble-but will forcefully take this matter in hand, as he above all other members of the Government has power to do. We know the minister to be a forceful man. When he takes a thing into his head he usually puts it through. And we know that if he went after this matter in that way he has the power and the ability to go on with it. He will not only be able to find out where the blame lies for the condition of affairs there, but will be able to satisfy himself-and I believe will come to the conclusion-that he cannot move a moment too soon. He will find his first duty, I believe, to be to build the bridge at Andover, and the second to find out without a moment's delay where is the money obtained for the sale of these bonds nearly three years ago,-whether that money is available, and if not, why not; and if it is available then why the Government of the province of New Brunswick does not build that road to Grand Falls, make the connection with the Transcontinental and put the scheme into a position where it will not be, as the minister will tell you it is, a money-losing venture, but where it may be a boon and benefit to thousands and tens of thousands of people living in the most fertile portions of New Brunswick, and I believe one of the most fertile portions of Canada.


Francis Cochrane: As to the statement of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Car-vell), I must take strong exception to his statement of facts, and indeed must give him a flat contradiction. In the first place, the difference between the two Acts is an engineering point. I make the statement on my responsibility as a minister, and after discussing this matter with people who understand the operation of railways fully as well as my hon. friend does, that the road that is being built now can be operated just as cheaply as the one proposed by the late government in the statute of 1911. That is the statement made to me by men who are ready to back up their opinion, men whose business is the operation of railways, while

the hon. gentleman himself will admit that he is not an operating man. Now, as to the operation of the road, the statute is very clear on it. The railway company, the	contractors	who	are building
this road, notified us that the road would be ready for operation between certain points on the 15th October last. On the 3rd of November, the engineers of the Intercolonial railway went over that portion of the road accompanied by representatives of the railway and representatives of the New Brunswick Government, and they had to admit that the road was not completed. We gave them a list of the parts that were not completed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Has the minister got that list handy?


Francis Cochrane: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would like to see it.


Francis Cochrane: They have got it. My hon. friend knows that the road was not completed, the terminals were not completed at Woodstock, his own home town. Nor were the terminals completed at Fredericton. The province of New Brunswick and the railway company wanted to enter into some kind of agreement with us under which we should complete the work, and we have undertaken to do it, giving them a service that the traffic there demands, and with the direct understanding that if there is a loss the Government of New Brunswick pays half and we pay half. He is a good man who in these stringent times carries out an agreement as I have endeavoured to carry out the provisions of this legislation. I make no bones about it; I say the road was not completed; they had to admit that it was not completed. If we carry out the letter of the law, what right has my hon. friend or the province or any one else to ask us to spend money which we are not authorized to spend? There is not a railway in the Dominion of Canada today that operates on a 60 per cent basis and furnishes rolling stock as well; yet we have entered into an agreement with the province and with this railway company to do that, and when the road is completed we will carry out our contract to the letter. As to the part of the line running to Gage-town, this we have had examined by our traffic men with a view to seeing what business there would be for the road in that section. Last Friday we came to the conclusion that we would give the people of that district a service on that portion of the line.

It may not be as good as the other, but it will give them an outlet. We have tried to meet their desires in every possible way. No money was voted for this purpose, and we had to get a Governor General's warrant in order to enable us to operate this section. As to the construction of the road, the Act does no more than give us authority to see that the road is constructed according to the specifications agreed upon by the railway company and the department. We have endeavoured to carry that out to the letter, and have made no changes which the Act does not authorize us to make.
I am sorry that I am not quite as familiar with the matter of the bridges as I should be, owing to the fact that I was not here when the Act was passed last session. I think, however, that it would he a great mistake for the province, the railway company or the people of Canada to spend millions to run the line to St. John unless the traffic proves to be much heavier than we estimate it will be. It is the intention of the Government to try to make some connection between the Transcontinental and this road. I do not know whether it is best and cheapest to make it at Grand Falls, or whether it would .be better to make it at some other point. We cannot possibly make a connection which will not get through traffic, and if we make connection with the Transcontinental at the cheapest possible point, we can get through traffic from Montreal and other points to St. John. This would not only be a shorter route of transportation than on the Intercolonial, but the resulting traffic would help to pay the cost of operation and keep the road up to a better standard.
I think there is one thing in the statutes of 1912-and which was not in the legislation of 1911-for which we can take credit. We have the right to issue bonds on betterments, which in the case of private roads would ordinarily be charged to capital, and if the road is ever worth it we will get our money back in that way. I have consulted practical railway men, men who have been in the business for years; men who have been financing betterments and that sort of thing on such railways as the Canadian Pacific Railway- and they tell me Chat his clause in the statute, which was new to them, is worth a good deal to any road which has to be run on such a basis as we are running this one.
In the matter of the construction of the road, what the provincial Government has
not done is not a matter for me or for this Government or for this House. I have endeavoured to keep up to the limit our part of the agreement. I have endeavoured to see that we did not pay them a cent out of Dominion subsidies more than they were entitled to, and I propose to continue to do that, so far as I am able, and to see that we get a road that is constructed according to the specifications-of which, by the way, the hon. gentleman can get a copy if he wants to. The hon. gentleman started out by trying to lead the House to believe that there were no specifications, and he afterwards said that the engineer had tried to see that the specifications were lived up to. There were specifications, and there are specifications still.
I do not think that technically or in any other respect I have done anything but what is right and what is my duty. I have no right to overstep my powers and spend the people's money when I have no authority to do so, and I am not going to do it. The Act is quite plain; it says that when forty miles are completed we shall operate the line under the terms of the statute. This I intend to do and will do. The distance to Gagetown is not forty miles, yet we are going to put the line in operation. I am satisfied, from the report made by the traffic men, that operation will be at a loss, but I want to help as much as possible, and I am trying to do it by giving the people of that section one train a week. If the traffic warrants it, we will give them two trains a week. I am satisfied that we have carried out our part of the agreement to the letter of the law. We have nothing to do with the province; if they made a bad investment, the province is worth it, and we will not be put in the hole on that account. They have their share to bear, and must bear it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thank the hon. gentleman for the very frank statement which he has made, but I should have been pleased if he had been a little more explicit as to how be expects to connect with the Transcontinental.


Francis Cochrane: That is a matter of engineering which cannot be determined at the present time.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I should have been glad if he had been more explicit m the matter of whether he intends to build the bridge at Andover, because that is the essence of the whole thing.


Francis Cochrane: The railroad is not there yet.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It ought to he there. My hon. friend does not have to say more than lie wants to; I have given him the opportunity of telling us all about it, and I am pointing out the matters in respect of which he lias been hardly as explicit as he might have been. My hon. friend says that he has been advised by competent operating men that this road can be operated just as cheaply as the road we proposed. I can only say that we proposed a road which maintained a four-tenths grade, except in two places where it was necessary to exceed that to some extent. My hon. friend may have a fetish for velocity grades; I think he has. If he confined himself to velocity grades, I would not cpiarrel with him so very much, but I want to tell him that there are two places along the river St. John between Fredericton and Woodstock, a distance of 62 miles, where the railway leaves the river and climbs hills 175 feet high, and then comes back to the river again.


Francis Cochrane: And you had two
pusher grades.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not in that place. We had pusher grades, but they were necessary. I am telling my hon. friend now that pusher grades have been built in places where there was absolutely no necessity for them; they have made a one per cent grade four or five miles in length, both ways, north and south. They are not velocity grades; they are pusher grades of one per cent. Yet my hon. friend says he is advised by his traffic managers that he can operate that line just as cheaply as he could operate a road having a four-tenths grade. Well, that may be my friend's opinion and that may be the advice he is getting from his officials, but, if it is, it is something entirely new in the railway world.
My hon. friend also says it is a good man, who carries out his agreement in these hard times. Heavens, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Railways says that the Government ought to have credit because they carry out their agreement in these hard times! That is a most remarkable statement coming from the Minister of Railways, a minister with all the resources of this Dominion at his back, a member of a Government that can go out and borrow fifty or a hundred million dollars and add to the cost of the poor man's living by adding $30,000,000 more ir>
taxes, simply

by turning his hand over, and then he says the Government are entitled to a great deal of credit because they carry out that which the law makes them carry out and they will not operate this road simply because, as a matter of law, you cannot make them do it. If the minister wants to take that position he is welcome to it. I do not think his friends and followers and supporters would entirely like to sanction a position like that in many measures affecting the government of this country. He says it is a bad bargain for the Dominion and they are going to lose money. Because they are going to lose money he will not touch it until he is compelled to, and he does not believe there is a road in Canada which is operated on sixty per cent of gross earnings with the road furnishing rolling stock and equipment. Why right in New Brunswick there is the road we were discussing this afternoon, from Perth in Victoria county to Plaster Rock, which is being operated by the Canadian Pacific railway on a sixty per cent basis, the Canadian Pacific railway getting sixty per cent only of the gross earnings, furnishing rolling stock and, more than that, betterments. They are adding betterments to the amount of thousands of dollars every year, and during the ten or twelve years they have had the road have spent vast amounts of money on it. We know it is doing good business, and I have no doubt it is paying. The very best evidence that the Canadian Pacific railway is making it pay is the fact which I gave this afternoon, that when the minister first tore up the railway connection with the j?oad the Canadian Pacific railway came along and said:	Leave the track down
there and give us the business; we want the business and wish to carry it on as before. The Canadian Pacific railway does not ask for business if it does not pay. My hon. friend has a good many things to learn about railway operation. He may know something about railway finance and political railways but he has many things to learn about railway operation.
I am glad indeed to have had the perfectly frank statement we have had. P am glad the people of New Brunswick will know that the minister does not intend to operate this road excepting as the law demands and as he could almost be compelled to do by application to the court for a mandatory injunction. I only wish we had the power to go to the court and get a mandatory injunction; if so, it would be easy to find some one who would not hesitate to move, but unfortunately we

cannot get such an injunction against the Government of Canada. Only that protects him and I am glad that he takes the frank and full position he does to-night and says that he will not do it because we cannot, as a matter of law, compel him to do it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Frank Broadstreet Carvell: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, leases, and other documents relating to the cutting of lumber by Mr. B. F. Smith, and others from the so-called Tobique Indian reserve in the province of New Brunswick since the twelfth day of March, AD. 1914, and also of all agreements, offers and premises made either by the' said B. F. Smith or the Department of Indian Affairs, with reference to the sale or disposal of any of the said Tobique Indian reserve since the said date, or any logs or lumber cut thereon.
2. Also a statement of all lumber cut by the said B. F. Smith from the said reserve, the rates of stumpage charged, and the amounts actually paid thereon from the first day of January, 1912, down to the date hereof.
He said:	During the last general session of the House I asked a number of questions about some very curious transactions that were taking place in New Brunswick over timber being cut on Indian land. I got some information of it and finally moved for a return of all the papers and documents in connection with it. Some time in March I got a return down to the 12th day of March. The notice of motion which I have given and to which I am speaking now asks for a continuation of that return from the I2th day of March, 1914, down to the present time. I have not very much to say upon this particular question now except that I would like to get the remainder of the file in order that we may have the whole story. It is without any doubt something which should have been probed up at an earlier date and something which I am glad to say has been probed to some extent and will prob-bably be probed further. The minister has acted w'ith reasonable discretion since the matter was brought to his attention by myself in asking a question and asking for the return. The Tobique Indian Reserve is a pretty important piece of property situate near the town of Andover in Victoria county. It is divided into two parts by the Tobique river. It fronts on .the river St. John, one portion north of the Tobique river and the other south. On that portion north of the Tobique the band resides They are a very thrifty people, they have
quite a large village, a church and school; and they have made pretty fair progress towards civilization. On that part south of the Tobique, by some arrangement, the department have the right to sell the land and give title; and some time in 1913 a gentleman by the name of B. F. Smith of Carleton east longing eyes on the lumber on the reserve. He came to Ottawa and made a contract with the department by which he had the right to cut the dead and burnt timber on that portion of the reserve lying south of the Tobique river; but it was distinctly, stated in the contract that no green or partly green trees were to be cut by him. My friend will find that on page 79 of the return. It is very explicit, so explicit indeed that I hardly understand how there could be any question about it. It is as follows:
Department of Indian Affairs,
Ottawa, May 8, 1913.
Sir,-Referring to your recent interview at the department concerning the offers for the burnt timber on the Tobique reserve, south side of the river, I have to inform you that your offer of $1.25 per thousand feet, B.M., free of dues, has been accepted on the conditions that no green or partly green trees shall be cut and that sworn returns of measurement shall be furnished each season during three years allowed for its removal, by an authorized scaler, culler or surveyor, and that payments shall be made before removal of the timber from the reserve.
That was in May 1913. As soon as the logging season opened up in 1913, I think in the latter part of November or the first of December, the department received a communication by wire, signed " Tobique Indian," a telegram dated November 25, 1913, a letter dated November 29, 1913, and another letter, dated 1st of December. In all of these the department was apprised of the fact that white men were cutting green timber on the north side of the reserve. It is no secret now, because the report shows that the gentleman who signed the name of the Tobique Indian was none other than the Rev. Father Ryan, missionary, who is in charge of the Indians, the parish priest, and a gentleman who gives every attention and vigilance to the discharge of his duties that he posibly can. In addition to that, he occupies the position of a sort of inspector for these Indians and receives a small gratuity from the Government for so doing. Acting in what he considered to be his right and his duty, he notified the department of what was going on. The department sent down an inspector, an officer by the name of Mr. Bury. This gentleman acted with the very greatest energy and zeal, and certainly the depart-

ment ought to be congratulated on having in its employ a gentleman who acted as fearlessly and honourably as this gentleman did in investigating this matter. He sent in two reports; I am not going to weary the House by reading them. He sent one under date of December 12, and another under date of December 23, and in these reports he told the story' as it was, stating that he had found man after man, operator after operator, cutting green lumber open and above board in every manner, and that they had said they had been instructed by the Indian chief and that the Indian chief had said that there was a contract with Mr. Smith. This gentleman had got the right to cut dead and burnt timber on the south side of the reserve, and he started in to clean out every green tree on the north side of the reserve, which timber represented an enormous amount of money in proportion t'o the size of the reserve. The timber on the north side would be worth $16,000 or $20,000, and this gentleman started in to clean it up. On account of the action and reports of Mr. Bury this was partially stopped and then, in order to have a sacrifice of some kind, they started after the poor old Indian chief and the department gave instructions to prosecute him. The chief was prosecuted and fined- $2,000, and because he could not pay the fine he was sent to jail and remained in jail for a month. Then the demand came that something should be done with the white man who had put the chief in this position and who was really responsible for the attempt to clean up the reserve. While the return simply states what the facts are, evidently this gentleman himself had to come to Ottawa and in one of his letters he states that Mr. Hazen was looking after the matter for him. We find that a proposition comes from the^department suggesting that Mr. Smith be allowed to buy four lots on the south side of the reserve and pay a certain amount of stumpage for the lumber which has been cut on the north side. Quite a large amount of correspondence took place about the buying of these four lots. The lots, I think, were numbers 19, 21, 23 and 25. At any rate, they were four lots on the south side of the reserve. A very nice scheme was worked out and Mr. Smith was allowed to take these lots on settlement conditions, paying down the sum of $353 and agreeing to pay, in four	or
five	equal annual instalments,	a
sum amounting to somewhere between $1,100 and $1,200. He had been cutting 
the lumber and up to this time he had possibly cut. over half a million feet of green lumber on this reserve. It would never do to prosecute Mr. Smith and put him in jail, because Mr. Smith was an important gentleman. He could not be treated as the Indian was, so this scheme was worked out for him. My hon. friend knows that the settlement conditions require that a certain amount of land be cleared; that a house be built and that certain homestead duties be performed. Of course my hon. friend is thoroughly familiar with the conditions. He will find them in "Regulations for the disposal of Indian Lands," section 3, and also the penalty provided in section 4 for cutting lumber contrary to the regulations of the department. Section 3 provides that:
Settlement on the lot or lots included in any sale, is one of the conditions thereof, and shall consist of actual occupation and improvement of the land, which must commence within six months from the date of sale and be continuous for a period of three years; within which time there shall be cleared and fenced at least five acres in every one hundred acres, or in that proportion, also a dwelling-house of not less than 18 x 24 feet must be erected on the land included in any sale.


An Hon. MEMBER:: How many lots had he P


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: this lumber was delivered to Mr. Smith by contract on the bants of the River St. John for somewhere about $7.68 a thousand, and it would cost him from thirty to thirty-five cents to get it to Mr. Smith's mill, making the timber stand him about $8 at his mill, while that lumber last summer on the river St. John was worth $13 just as much as one dollar is worth another. Mr. Smith has made a profit of several thousand dollars on the logs, and he had the land left.
I suppose the Minister will say that this land was of no value, but he may be surprised when I tell him that Mr. Smith sold the land, after he had taken off this enormous amount of lumber, for almost as much as he paid the Department. He offered to sell it to a client of mine who came to me to know whether the title was all right and I told him it ought to be because from the information I got in Parliament this land had been sold to Mr. Smith. I wired to the Department some time in the month of January, and I got the answer back that he could not give a title for the land as it had been sold to him under settlement conditions, which conditions had not been performed. As the Minister is dealing with the property of the wards of the Government and is trustee for them, the House is entitled to know from the Minister everything that happened in connection with this transaction. In the answer given me on the 23rd of March 1 was told that this gentleman had paid $1,765 and the other amounts mentioned, in that and other answers, but eight months later I was told that he could not give a title'because he had obtained this land on settlement conditions. I cannot understand that. There may be some good explanation for this and I hope the Minister will give it to us. When the remainder of the file is brought down perhaps the matter will be made clearer than it is now. In my experience there never has been a bolder attempt made to take from the wards of the Government their right and their patrimony than was made in this case. I give the Minister of the Interior credit for acting with a good deal of alacrity when the matter was brought to his notice both by the reverend gentleman to whom I have referred and myself. After this thing was done the Minister did all he reasonably could to protect the interests of his wards with justice to all parties. I can, if the Minister wishes, give him the name of the gentleman who purchased the property from Mr. Smith and the amount he paid for it, and it is almost as much as Mr. Smith paid for it before

he took off the valuable lumber. Mr. Smith has made a large profit on it after paying the amount of money which the Minister has demanded of him for the lumber, and still he is selling the land for nearly as much as he paid for the whole thing.
While I give the Minister of the Interior credit for attempting to stop the transaction after it was brought to his attention, I cannot give the Department the same credit for allowing the matter to proceed in its initial stages. I want to say also that the Minister was not present at the time this transaction was worked off in the beginning. I do not hold the Minister responsible but l do hold his Department responsible. I hope that my hon. friend will bring down these papers; that they will make clear what now seems to be very badly muddled; that it will be a warning, and that the remainder of that reserve, whatever it may be, will be kept for the purpose for which it was intended to be kept and that the wards of the Government will not have taken from them that which at least the law intends for their protection and support.


Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of Interior):: This matter was dealt with in the usual way departmentally, and I do not remember that it was ever brought to my attention until after the hon. gentleman had asked his respective questions which he had placed upon the order paper during the last session of Parliament. The hon. gentleman, while speaking on the previous motion, I understand spoke on behalf of his client. On this occasion, however, I understand that he is speaking in opposition to the gentleman whom he had the honour of opposing at the last general election, namely, Mr. Smith, and I do not know whether his animadversions are at all influenced by that fact. I am not saying that they are. Of course the hon. gentlemaji is quite within his rights in bringing this matter to the attention of the House.
The fact is that there was some dry timber, burned timber, ocn the reserve, on the north side and also more particularly on the south side, for the cutting of which timber tenders were asked by the department. Tenders were received from two parties, one amounting to fifty cents per thousand and the other, Mr. Smith's, amounting to $1.25.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not his first tender.


William James Roche: No. The first tender was seventy-five cents, and Mr. Smith subsequently enlarged it to a dollar and a quarter.

Shortly after that-I think it was the latter part of the month of November, or the early part of December-it was drawn to the attention of the departmental officers that trespasses were being committed on the north side of the reserve and that Chief Lockwood, the Indian in charge, had been issuing permits, not only to Indians but to white men, to cut timber on the reserve. The chief exceeded his authority in that respect, as he had no right to issue any permits. In fact, he had cut on the reserve some three hundred logs. When this complaint was brought to the attention of departmental officers by Father Ryan, Mr. Bury was sent down by the department to investigate. He sent one report in on the 12th of December and another one on the 23rd of December to the effect that wholesale cutting-to use 'his own words-had been going on by white men as well as by Indians on the reserve. While the hon. gentleman states that a vast amount of timber has been cut on the north side of the reserve-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not say that a vast amount had been cut on the north side; I said on the south side.


William James Roche: Well, on the south side, outside of the four lots which Mr. Smith was permitted to purchase. I happen to know exactly what Mr. Bury has reported as the total cut on the south side, and it amounts to 83,700 feet outside of the four lots, and 179,850 feet inside the four lots, which is far below the amount which the hon. gentleman has stated.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is in error in the figures he ha.s given.


William James Roche: I am quoting from the report which Mr. Bury sent in. He gives the names of all the parties who did the cutting. The hon. gentleman is comparing the treatment accorded the chief
10 p.m. with the treatment accorded Mr. Smith, and states that the same treatment should be accorded the latter. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that the Indian comes under the Indian Act, and that the white man does not. The chief issued permits, although unauthorised to do so; he cut some 300 logs, and, when the investigation was made by Mr. Bury, he went around and defaced the logs by cutting off the seizure marks, which was a very wrong thing for him to do, and he hindered Mr. Bury very much in connection with the investigation and report. As a matter of fact, the Indian could have
been prosecuted under the criminal code, and the penalty, not only for the trespass but for his defacement of the logs, would have been three years' imprisonment without the option of a fine. The department did not wish to take such harsh measures against the chief, and therefore they laid an information against him for having cut a hundred logs illegally. Under the Indian Act the penalty is twenty dollars for each log, or a total fine of $2,000, or, failing that, imprisonment for from one to three months. Inasmuch as the amount exceeded $20, the penalty of three months' imprisonment could have been imposed, but the minimum penalty was imposed by way of imprisonment. The chief could not pay the fine, so he was put in jail for thirty days. That penalty was imposed under section 128 of the Indian Act, which was applied to the chief because lie was the chief and was setting a bad example to the other Indians. The section reads as follows:
Every Indian of the hand, who, without the license in writing of the Superintendent General, or of some officer or person deputed by him for that purpose,
(a)	cuts, carries away or removes from land in a reserve held by another Indian under a location title or by an Indian otherwise recognized by the department as the occupant thereof any of the trees, cordwood, or part of a tree, saplings, shrubs, underwood, timber or hay thereon, or removes from such land any of the stone, soil, minerals, metals, or other valuables ; or,
(b)	cuts, carries away removes from any portion of the reserve of his band, for sale and not for the immediate use of himself and his family any trees, timber, cordwood or part of a tree, saplings, shrubs, underwood or hay thereon, or removes any of the stone, soil, minerals,' metals, or other valuables therefrom for sale, as aforesaid; or,
(c)	unless with the consent of the hand and the approval of the Superintendent General, cuts or uses any pine or large timber for any purpose other than for building on his own location or farm; shall incur the penalties provided in the last preceding section in respect to Indians of other bands and other persons.
The penalty referred to in the next preceding section is:
For every tree he cuts, carries away or removes, a penalty of twenty dollars.
That was the penalty imposed on the chief. It was impossible to impose the Indian Act on the white man. If we were to utilize the Indian Act to every trespasser every person who has a license and who trespasses, whether wittingly or unwittingly, I think we would .have the treasury replenished by many millions of dollars. It is a very common thing for a licensee to go beyond the land for which he holds a


Pius Michaud: Had Mr. Smith the
right to cut the lumber?	-


William James Roche: No, he was fined for cutting the timber outside his lease from the Crown to the amount of treble dues, and in

lieu of these treble dues, he was allowed to purchase these four lots at an average price * of about $4 an acre, as against $1 an acre which had been charged for many years before.


Pius Michaud: But has he the right to cut the lumber on these lots?


William James Roche: I have not before me the return the hon. gentleman has quoted. I will bring down the remainder of the papers he has moved for. There is no objection to bringing them down; there is nothing whatever to hide, and certainly nothing that I am conversant with that we need be ashamed of. As the hon. gentleman says, when the matter was brought to my attention, I made inquiries, and Mr. Smith was instructed that he must live up to his contract. I do not know whether he has applied for the patents or not, but most assuredly he has not received them, and settlement conditions must -be complied with, and compliance with them proven, before patent will issue. I do not know that there is anything I can add. The hon. gentleman will see that we cannot treat the white man exactly as the Indian is treated under'the Indian Act. As I have said, it is not uncommon for a lumberman to cut in trespass and, in some cases, where it has been done by inadvertence, only single dues are charged. It is common to charge double dues; but in the case of Mr. Smith he was charged treble dues. For what he had cut on the north side he paid in cash, and outside the lots he bought on the south side he paid treble fees, while the lots he was allowed to purchase at four times the price at which the former Government sold similar lands on the same reserve.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thought I threw
enough bouquets at the minister to cause him to answer in a little different spirit. I tried to tell him that in my judgment he at least had tried to act fairly in the matter, and I thought that the department also had tried to protect the interests of the Indians. He is in error, however, in some of the statements he has made-innocently in error, of course. When he says that the former Government sold these lands at $1 an acre, that, I presume, is true. I never had anything to do with purchasing such lands nor do I know of a case of a hundred acres being sold; but if he says that the price charged was $1 an acre, no doubt that is true. But there are lots of land and other lots of land; some are worth $100 and some are worth $500 or $1,000. I can 13	-
tell him that any lands sold by the late Government on the old Tobique Indian Reserve were burned over and practically useless. But I know a man who tried to get these very lots, which were timbered and desirable.
My hon. friend will find that a company known as the Perth Lumber Company made a contract with the Government to cut this burnt lumber-a fire took place some four or five years ago-which Mr. Smith had contracted to cut. They assigned their contracts to a gentleman by the name of Wentworth, of Boston, who was losing a large amount of money through his contracts with the Perth Lumber Company. I went to the department to see if it was possible to make some arrangement by which first the Perth company and latterly Mr. Wentworth could cut enough green timber to finish the operation. That was absolutely refused, it being contended that these four or. five lots of land were the only lots south of the Tobique river upon which there was any lumber. My hon. friend will find that in the days of the old Government and under the present regime the Department of the Interior never offered to sell these lots of land at $1 an acre. Had it been known that these special lots of land were available at $1 an acre, not one but a dozen or two dozen men would have been delighted to buy them. I do not know the conditions of that notice of sale, because, unfortunately, it is not in the return which I have received, but I have no doubt at all that there was some reservation; there was something which prevented the" ordinary man from knowing that these four or five lots of land were on sale.
The minister is also in error in saying that 179,850 feet of spruce and 95,330 feet of hemlock was practically all the lumber cut inside the four lots.


William James Roche: By Mr. Smith.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: By Mr. Smith. In that respect my hon. friend is in error, and I can prove it by referring to this file. My hon. friend will find, according to the sate-ment made by Mr. Bury in his report of December 23, 1913, that at that time Mr. Smith was only in the initial stages of the process of cutting. Up to that time it is true that he had cut only 265,000 feet of lumber, but he went on and on; my hon. friend will find that telegram after telegram was sent in regard to the matter. The amount of lumber cut by Smith on this land and on the adjoining lot was nearer 750,000 feet than 265,000 feet. It is



true that down to December 23, 265,000 feet is an approximate estimate of the amount of lumber cut, but Smith did not stop; he went on and, I presume, finished the job. I say this not for the purpose of finding fault, hut in order to point out the real facts of the matter. According to this Mr. Craig, the land was worth only the amount of money paid. I tell the minister that at the end of the year 1914 the amount of lumber cut was nearly three-quarters of a million feet, and that these four lots have been and could be sold to-day-part of the purchase money has already been paid, although I suppose it will now have to be repaid-for almost as much as Mr. Smith paid for them. My hon. friend will find in the report of Mr. Bury, dated December 23, 1913, this paragraph:
Practically the whole of the growing merchantable timber on the Indian lands on the south side of the Tobique river has been cut, there being left about 1,000 trees, or approximately 60,000 feet board measure left standing on lot 25.
According to the report sent to the department by Mr. Craig, the lumber was all cut on De .ember 23, excepting 6,000 feet. Half a million feet has been cut since then, and' Mr. Smith can still turn round and sell the property for nearly as much as he paid for it. That will give you some idea of the value of the reports my hon. friend is getting. That will give you some idea of the credence with which my hon. friend can receive the evidence given him by this Mr. Craig. At the time when Craig said there were net more than 60,000 feet of lumber there, worth, according to his estimate, not more than $200, there was on the land lumber upon which a profit was made of more than $2,000, and the lot was subsequently sold for $1,500. That will give you some idea of the absolute worthlessness of the evidence upon which my hon. friend has been basing his arguments to-night. I am finding no fault with my hon. friend; I am finding no fault with Mr. Bury. Mr. Bury, in the first report which he made to the department, criticised the whole transaction in the severest possible terms. He went so far as to recommend that the contract with Mr. Smith be cancelled. Here is the report which Mr. Bury made on December 12, 1913:
I beg to confirm my wire to you as follows:
* Wholesale cutting of green timber by white men and Indians has been going on, sanctioned by Chief Lockwood. Am making thorough seizure. Chief difles seizure by removing marks from logs. Suggest suspending him from office pending completion of investigation. Letter following.'

Mr. P. B. Smith, licensee for most of the timber on south side, has several men cutting green logs on the north side, ail of whom claim that Lockwood himself gave them verbal permission to cut over 170 logs for Mr. Smith, and I have already seized a total of over 500 logs (green) cut on north side, in addition to several cords of green maple and birch cut by white men also.
I expect to seize the same number of green logs cut on the south side.
Mr. Smith has violated' the terms of his license, and I would suggest you instruct me to order all cutting to cease pending presentation of report.
This refers to Mr. Smith's operations under his three-year lease.
Chief Lockwood has received moneys from time to time from various parties in return for allowing them to operate. None of said moneys have been surrendered to agent Waite.
The chief moreover has chopped off my seizure mark on his logs, and practically defies me in the execution of my duties.
I intend making a thorough clean-up of all the illegal lumber operations both on the north and south sides of the reserve, and am of opinion that this will have a very desirable effect in preventing a recurrence of trespass.
I am also scaling all logs and wood I seize so that action for collection of dues can be commenced immediately upon my return.
'In this connection I beg leave to suggest that all these green logs be confiscated outright and sold by public auction, thus providing more valuable returns, and also establishing beyond cavil that trespassing will no longer be tolerated.
And the minister says, after receiving a report like that from a responsible officer: Oh, well, we know that these lumbermen committed trespass; we know that they cut from other people's lands. As a rule, my hon. friend says, we charge them double stumpage and sometimes single stumpage, but in this case we were unusually severe, imposing upon them the full penalty of the law. We made Smith pay treble stumpage. Could Smith have paid treble on one-tenth of what he actually cut, in the face of Mr. Bury's report.


William James Roche: Does that official say that the amount quoted was only one-tenth of the amount cut?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I say so. My hon. friend made Smith pay stumpage only on the logs that were cut when Bury was there. That was back in December, and they did not commence until the 3rd or 4th of December. Smith went on cutting logs practically all winter and really paid no stumpage on the lumber cut in December. There is where the whole trouble comes in. I did not want to go into this part of the matter, but my hon. friend attempts to excuse the transaction, and I have thought it necessary to give him a few of the

facts. I think if he will go over the files carefully he will come to the conclusion that it is a pretty shady transaction.


William James Roche: How will the hon. gentleman explain this extract from the report of the gentleman whom he has examined, Mr. Bury:
It is also significant to note that when the seizure was made and the cutting of green timber ^topped, the various operators shut down their camps, thereby tacitly agreeing that it would not pay them to cut the burnt timber.
They shut down their camps as soon as the seizure was made.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend should take this file and look it over carefully. I am afraid he has not read the return.


William James Roche: The extract I quoted is
from the same report.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know, but they did not stop cutting; that is the trouble-they went right on.


William James Roche: Mr. Bury says they
stopped.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If my hon. friend will
examine the file he will find that there is a very gratifying letter from the Rev. Father Ryan to the minister, dated December 2, in which he thanks him for what he has done and expresses the hope that on account of the energetic action of Mr. Bury there will be no more pilfering and no more trespassing upon the rights of the Indians.
Andover, N.B. January 7, 1914. Duncan Scott,
Indian Department,
Ottawa.
Smith parties lumbering for past week cutting green logs.
(Sgd) Tobique Indian.
Then Mr. Smith started in again. Then you come next to a letter from Mr. McLean to the Indian agent at Andover:
Ottawa, January 7, 1914.
S. P. Waite,
Indian Agent,
Andover, N.B.
Department has received report that Smith parties have been cutting green trees on the reserve during last week. Make immediate personal inspection and report facts. Instructions as to action to be taken will then be sent you.
(Sgd) J. D. McLean.
Following is a letter from Rev. Father Ryan, dated January 7th, in which he says: Dear Mr. Scott,
I have learned to-day that Mr. Smith has opened his camp stronger than ever and is cutting down green lumber, there being no burnt lumber here to cut. I fear if the Govern-13i
ment does not order him and his contractors from the reservation that serious trouble will; follow in the next few days. I would strongly advise the Department to act at once have all seized lumber sold at public auction. Such would greatly please the Indians and bring about a better feeling.
Yours,
(Sgd) F. C. Ryan, Pt.
P.S.-Dear Mr. Scott, as I intend that certain matters re the seizure of lumber be brought before the House in its next session I will number letters so if ever reference is made such can easily be found.
Here is where Mr. Waite comes in. Here is where Mr. Waite's fine Italian hand commences to show itself. This is directed to the Assistant Deputy and Secretary of the Indian Department, Ottawa:
Andover, N.B., January 8, 1914.
Sir,-Telegram regard to Smith's parties cutting to hand. In reply may say since receiving same I have met one of Smith's men and he said he had been cutting under instruction from Mr. Curtis, Mr. Smith's agent. I also have information that De Merchant and F. Hanson are also working under same instruction. With this information I do not think it necessary to make further inspection to establish the fact that Smith parties are now cutting green as well as dead timber.	-	.
As it will not pay Smith's parties to make road and haul only dead timber-and it means a serious loss to Mr. Smith to have parties stopped work in mid winter-why not allow them to cut green timber and collect trespass stumpage? It will be with the Superintendent General to say what that will be as I understand it, the Indians have no voice in reserve south of Tobique but it is for Department to give right to cut timber as well as to sell the lands.
Your Obedient Servant,
(Sgd) S. P. Waite.
The return reveals one eternal conspiracy on the part of Smith and the minister's agent to rob this reserve of every green tree on it, in so far as it was possible to do so, and the minister's Department knows it, and from that day down knew it. That is where I blame the department. Up to that time they acted honourably and with a good deal of credit to themselves, and it is true that the Smith parties stopped cutting logs when Mr. Bury made his report. But what further evidence does he require than this to show that the moment this gentleman got back to Ottawa the stealing went on worse than ever, not only with the knowledge, but with the connivance and consent of .the agent and it was ratified by the Department? This was allowed to go on, and they continued their trespass until the snow went away and they could not cut any more logs. Yet, in the face of evidence like that, my hon. friend would try to tell me that they cut only 265,000 feet of logs out of this re-

serve when that only referred to the transaction down to the 23rd of December, 1913.


William James Roche: My hon. friend knows that the valuation sworn to was long before any of this timber was cut.
Mr. CARVEL!,: It was sworn to by Craig, the tool of Smith, through whose instrumentality he was seeking improperly to obtain the timber of the Indians and finally did succeed in obtaining valuable property which should have been reserved by the Government for their wards.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. LEMIEUX (Rouville) (Translation) moved the following resolution:
That, In the opinion of this House, stricter measures should be taken for the carrying out of the Berne convention relative to copyright.
He said: Mr. Speaker, considering that this question concerns specially the province of Quebec, since publications in the French language are those now dealt with, I wish to address the House in French, as briefly as possible, as regards what is going on in this connection in some of our large cities in the province of Quebec.
I much regret the absence just now of the Hon. Minister of Agriculture; but I may inform the Right Hon. Prime Minister that on meeting the Hon. Mr. Burrell before recess, it was arranged between us that I should move the resolution this evening, he promising to read the report of my speech in "Hansard" and. to do his best to remedy the state of things complained of.
The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Car-veil) informed the House a moment ago of the thefts and plunder of which the New Brunswick Indians are the victims. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the thefts and plunder which other whites are guilty of at the expense of writers in the French language, whose works are sold and republished, more particularly in the province of Quebec.
As you are aware, Sir, protection for copyrights is Secured under the Berne convention. For some time there were doubts entertained as to the possibility of enforcement I think in Canada of the rules laid down by the aforesaid convention; but through the exertions of Sir John Thompson, at one time Prime Minister of the Dominion, all uncertainty in this respect has disappeared.

Following on a prolonged campaign carried on by the writers concerned, through the press in France and Canada, Mr. Jules Mary, under instructions from the "Soeiete des Gens de Lettres," of Paris, entered action in the latter part of 1905, in the Superior Court of Montreal, in the form of a test case, against a counterfeiter of that city (B. Hubert). On March 23, 1906, the Hon. Mr. Justice Fortin, before whon^the case had been heard, condemned the Montreal counterfeiter, holding that the Imperial statutes (49-50 Viet., cap. 33, sect. 9) did extend to Canada the effects of the rulings of the Berne convention which secure to writers in countries forming part of the Union protection for their rights within the territories covered by the international union, to which Great Britain has assented for herself and her colonies. On April 28 of the same year, the court of Appeal, sitting in Montreal, unanimously confirmed the aforesaid ruling of the Hon. Mr. Justice Fortin and set down the law In that respect. The pleadings will be found in the "Revue Canadienne," 1906, vol. 1, pp 252 and 535; the rulings of the courts, in the "Quebec Official Law Reports," Superior Court, vol. xxix 1906, p 334 and following; and, the same, Court of King's Bench, vol. xv., 1903, page 381 and following.
The judgment rendered in that test case of Jules Mary vs. B. Hubert had the effect of securing for some time in Canada the production of copyrights held by foreign writers. But counterfeiters were not to be deterred for any length of time, and French authors were once more constrained to apply to the courts to vindicate their rights protected in Canada under the Berne convention.
In matters of copyright claims having to do with theatricals, our civil courts lay down the following requirements which are to be observed by the French and Belgian plaintiff:
(1)	He shall find out the name of the author of this or that production advertised and given under a false description or under a false signature, or under no signature whatever;
(2)	He shall authenticate that production thus falsely represented and show that it is his property;
(3)	He shall retain the services of a Canadian lawyer;
(4)	He shall file with the Canadian courts the original text of his work and the certificate of its formal registration in its country of origin ;
(5)	He shall also file a solemn declaration duly certified in France or in Belgium, according to the case;
(6)	He shall furnish a security bound 'judi-catum solvi ';

(7)	(In the case of an editor, heir, assign or assignee) He shall, moreover, file all deeds of transfer, duly authenticated, showing that he is the rightful owner of the work.
Then the author's case is put on the list to be hoard when its turn comes at some indefinite lime.
Now it is a matter of experience that most counterfeiters form partnerships which are practically insolvent, which are likely to shift or dissolve at any moment; they are up to all the tricks which may be resorted to without technically breaking the law. So that, once posted, the French and Belgian author, whose works have been con-terfeited in Canada, hesitates, and rightly so, to comply with all such requirements of our procedure, and to run the risks of a lawsuit with possibly no other satisfaction as regards himself than the paying of a heavy bill of costs. The practical result is that Canadian counterfeiters are allowed to go scot-free.
The Berlin conference of November 13, 1908, which revised the rules laid down by the Berne convention of September 9, 1886, provided more efficient means of protection available to authors in countries belonging to the Union. But Canada, not having as yet given its assent to the rulings of the Berlin conference; authors in unionist countries whose works are counterfeited in Canada are not entitled to claim more than the protection afforded by the Berne convention, which in the absence of proper means of enforcement, is not of much more avail than a mere " scrap of paper."
' The British organic law of December 16, 1911 (applied along the lines of the Berlin Act of 1908), is already in force in most of the colonies and' possessions, save Canada and the South African Union.' ("Le Droit d'Auteur ", monthly organ of international Bureau of the Union for the protection of literary and artistic works. Berne, January 15, 1914, page 2, column 3).
I may state in passing that, on April 26, 1911, the Hon. 8. Fisher, then Minister of Agriculture, introduced in the House of Commons a Bill (No. 184) amending and revising former legislation of the Dominion Parliament relating to copyright, and framing further Canadian legislation after the Imperial modernized statute (1 and 2 Geo. V., cap. 46, 1911), which, in April, 1911, had not yet been put through the British Parliament. That Bill, introduced by the Hon. Mr. Fisher, did not imply our assent to the Berlin Act, but prepared the way for such assent, with certain reservations deemed necessary for the holding in check of competition on the part of the United States.
(See speeches of the Hon. S. Fisher, "Hansard," April 26 and May 12, 1911).
The Fisher Bill was not then passed. A general election was forthcoming in September, 1911, and the result was a change of Government in the Dominion. The Borden Administration has not in the meantime dealt with the question. Matters have remained in their former state, and foreign writers using the French language are still bound to apply to the courts for the enforcement of the imperial statute and the Berne convention.
" Unfortunately, difficulties and the cost of litigation are such as to render that protection more or less delusive. Copyrights are constantly infringed upon in Canada, in spite of the efforts of many prominent men who consider rights and equity as of greater account than prejudices or the egotistic interests of a few men."
That view, which reflects to some extent on Canada, is expressed by Mr. Leon Poin-sard, deputy head of the international offices for the protection of trade marks and copyrights at Berne (" La propriety arfisti-que et litteraire," par Leon Poinsard, p. 53; Paris, librairie generate de droit et jurisprudence, 1910).
In fact, any copyright claims in connection with theatrical productions due to other foreign writers, are enforced in Canada, under the provisions of the imperial statute 3 and 4, Wm. IV., cap. 15, sec. 2. That Act merely provides for a pecuniary fine recoverable from any one who, without the owner's authorization, produces a theatrical work. It enables the author at whose prejudice this is done, to claim either the profits secured through the illegal performance of his work, either an estimate of the loss incurred, or a statutory fine of not less than forty shillings for each unauthorized performance. It is almost impossible to get at the exact amount of profits secured; it is difficult as well to show what losses have been sustained. The simplest thing to do is to claim the statutory fine. That fine is recoverable after, going through the regular process of law. The summary procedure, by brief of injunction, to forestall the representation of a work, is not as a rule of any use in practice, and for several reasons. In the first place, programmes of theatres are changed from week to week, and in some instances several times a week, and the various attractions are usually advertised only a few days ahead. Now, according as the ease may be, the author, or his heir, or assign, or the editor who has
[Stage Direction]
purchased his rights, will be expected to apply in his own name to the Canadian courts and establish his claim to the property of such or such a work. 'The " Societe des auteurs et compositeurs dramatiques " of Paris, alone has more than 50,000 works on its list. French and Belgian authors are numbered by the thousand. Several of them live in the country while others are travelling. It is utterly impossible to reach them in time to secure from them the requisite information in regard to a specific case and to transmit that information to their representatives in Canada. Besides, in a great many cases of assignment, proof of that transfer will also be required. Then, those who are acting for the " Societe des auteurs " must be posted as to the actual rights held by the owner of the work the performance of which it is the object to prevent, and must secure authority from the holder of such rights before advising the author or his assignee to fulfil the requirements laid down by Canadian courts and to furnish the required security (viz., as a rule $500 for costs and $500 for possible damages) and indeed, to run the risk of being called upon to pay heavy costs, should the counterfeiter disappear-for only insolvent impresarios or theatre managers dare infringe the law with whose provisions they are quite familiar.
The Canadian counterfeiter is therefore perfectly aware to-day that the foreign author must prove his case to the satisfaction of the Canadian law courts, and such an undertaking is not of a tempting nature. So that the first comer, however insolvent he may be, is free to lay hands on the work of a French or Belgian author, make changes to suit himself, and utilize it for performances entirely for his benefit. Our theatre season generally covers ten months or forty weeks. A company which has resolved not to pay any fees for copyright advertises every week a new French or Belgian production, makes the alterations it sees fit and gives no heed to threats of the law. To adequately protect themselves, the authors concerned would have to institute against that faithless company forty law-suits for as many plays illegally produced during those forty weeks in a single theatre, and to furnish security for as many times $500 or $1,000. The company which is thus making money out of foreign works is aware that previous to judgment being rendered, the season will be over, it will

have had time to dissolve and to re-organize itself under a new business name, owing to the delays inherent to our civil court proceedings.
I may point out here a few instances of >
such delays the effect of which has been to cause the recourse granted by our laws to actually inflict losses on the authors concerned.
(1)	The "Parisiana" theatre, of Montreal, after being formally prohibited from doing so, produced during the week beginning May 19, 1910, under the assumed title " Sherlock Holmes," and without any indication of authorship, a one-act comedy really entitled " En lisant Sherlock Holmes," and whose author, Mr. R. Berton, by the way, is at present with the French army in front of Rheims. The representatives at the "Societe des auteurs " made inquiries, and they brought to light both the name of the author and the original title of the play, which was being reproduced under false colours. They applied to Paris for the necessary documents to enable them to enter action, and these, duly authenticated and certified, were duly transmitted to them through the British consulate at Paris. The requisite security was furnished and an action entered on June 27, 1910, in the Montreal Superior Court. Judgment in favour of the author was rendered on December 17, 1912. Now, at that date, the " Parisiana " had ceased to exist and its owners were out of
sight	Apart f: om the expense
incurred on account of researches and the forwarding of documents, the author had to meet costs to the amount of about $100.
(2)	The Aborn Opera Company, of New York, produced at the " Princess " theatre in Montreal, during the week beginning on November .18, 1912, then at Toronto, during the week beginning on November 25, 1912, the play entitled " Cloches ue Crrneviue " (Chimes of Normandy). The Aborn Company having refused to settle with the author's assignees found it impossible to secure a brief of injunction for „ue following reasons which recur in a great many cases:
Editor Choudens, of Paris, had acquired full property rights in connection with the Chimes of Normandy, and had in turn transferred to the firm of James Williams & Co., of London, the right to produce that musical work throughout Great Britain and the Colonies. To secure a brief of injunction, papers proving the successive transfers were required. These papers reached here after a rather lengthy exchange of correspondence between

London and Paris, and made possible the entering of an action against the Aborn company. Judgment by default was rendered against the Aborn company on October 11, 1913. But the latter had a long time previously crossed the boundary, and they have not in the meantime revisited Canada. All the costs connected with this lawsuit had to be met by the representatives, of the author.
(3)	The " Liberty " theatre, of Montreal, though notified several months ahead, produced without authority, under assumed titles and without indication of authorship, from December 16, 1912, to February 13, 1913 (that is during a period of eight weeKs), fourteen one-act comedies of which editor Joubert, of Paris, had secured the ownership. That editor, owning a number of short plays especially well adapted to moving picture shows, is shamefully robbed in the province of v^uebec. He resolved to put a stop to such plundering by suing one of the counterfeiters, the " Liberty " theatre.
As that small theatre did not go to the expense of printing a programme, the representatives in Canada of editor Joubert had to get photographs taken of the posters outside the entrance, and to send a stenographer to report extracts of the dialogue, so as to enable a comparison of it with the author's text, and thus show proof of the counterfeiting. They had also to secure in Paris authenticated copies of all transfers and other documents relative to these fourteen plays, etc. Suit against the Liberty theatre was entered on June 15, 1913, in the Superior Court in Montreal. Sixteen months later, on November 21, 1914, judgment was rendered against editor Joubert, though at the same time acknowledging that the Berne convention affords -protection in Canada to French authors and editors. But the judge presiding ruled that it was the " Societe des auteurs, compositeurs et editeurs de mus-ique," known as the " Petite societe," which should have initiated the proceedings against the " Liberty " theatre, and not editor Joubert.
The above ruling upsets the whole procedure previously established as regards French authors who have rights to vindicate in the Canadian courts, and is in direct contradiction to the jurisprudence of the last eight years, that is, ever since the Berne convention has been assented to by the Canadian law-courts.
The case was at once taken to appeal. But the French editor concerned, besides
having to settle the cost incurred for the making of the voluminous records required in the court below, may still have to disburse $1,500 of further costs and fees, even should the Court of Appeal decide in his favour, as he will not be in a position to recoup himself on an insolvent defendant.
On another occasion we find a troop of amateurs giving performances for the benefit of some one or other. Amateurs and beneficiary are at one in refusing to indemnify the author, and the representatives of the latter are sent from the one to the other. An action was entered in one instance against amateurs giving performances without previously making arrangements with the author. Judgment was rendered for $15 and costs in favour of the author and he had to wait a whole year for his money.
Apart from itinerant or occasional companies which shamefully delve into the works of French and Belgian authors, there exists to-day, in Montreal, as well as in other localities of the province of Quebec, over ten theatres which have recourse to counterfeiting and dispense paying any royalties to authors, with full knowledge of the law. And in spite of it all, nothing can be done.
Itinerant or occasional troops give no security; they disband or cross the frontier before any process of law can be taken against them. The author wronged in that way has no possible'recourse against the owner of the hall or theatre where these itinerant companies have given their illegal performances, though the owner of the theatre often shares in the profits secured by means of these unlawful performances. The English jurisprudence exonerates the theatre owner. (Lyon vs. Knowles. See " Copinger's Law of Copyright," 4th Edition, by Easton, 1904, page 292).
As regards stock companies, which occupy permanently a theatre, the " Theatre des Nouveautes " affords us an instance of that. The " Nouveautes " theatre has been producing for the last ten months, in the heart of Montreal, French and Belgian plays. Its managers have never heeded the numerous summonses which have been served on them on behalf of injured authors; while the latter are unable to institute proceedings for this very Teason that the managers of the said theatre have not registered in the Tutelles' office, that " they are doing business under the name of ' Theatre des Nouveautes,' " in other words they have not conformed to the law which requires owners
[Stage Direction]
or managers of places of entertainment to register their legal designation. The managers of this popular resort remain, from the legal point of view unknown entities.
The merchant is free to deliver or refuse to deliver goods to an insolvent patrdn acting under his own name or under that of a company. But the writer, though technically allowed, under the law, to permit or interdict the production of his work, has no means of protecting himself. He can claim compensation only when all security [DOT]for the payment of such compensation has been put out of his reach. And should he make up his mind to protest against the thefts of which he is the victim in Canada, he is -met by the exacting requirements of our civil procedure and is bound to secure numerous legal documents in France and in Belgium, which, unless they are absolutely without a flaw, are liable to be rejected. Then he must furnish security, put up one hundred dollars in the hope of getting one dollar back. For, those who prey on the author's means of living are in every case insolvents or people who cannot be reached under the law. And that seems to warrant the harsh expressions [DOT] which Mr. Leon Poinsard made use of referring to Canada's attitude on this question, in a work which deals authoritatively with the matter.
Writers in the French language who are of French, Belgian or Swiss nationality, are mainly the victims of that state of things which, moreover, stifles the growth of a French-Canadian literature. In fact, the future of French-Canadian writers is so well linked to that of their fellow-workers across the Atlantic, that within the last two years the Societe des Auteurs, of Paris, admits Canadian authors to its membership and looks after their interests. During the theatre season of 1913-14, a total amount of about $2,000, as may be vouched for and certified to by the Bank of Hoche-laga, was paid over to French-Canadian authors, through the intervention of representatives of the society.
By the way, I may inform the House that the aforesaid society has effected a kind of merger, whereby all Frenchspeaking writers have assigned their rights to it, the latter in return undertaking to safeguard such rights.
Authors in France protested in various ways against the abnormal situation in which they were left in Canada. Their representatives on several occasions approached the Dominion authorities in order to secure some redress. The Royal

Society of Canada, at its meeting of May, 1913, passed a resolution urging the Dominion Government to model Canadian legislation after more effective and up-to-date enactments adopted elsewhere. The society reiterated that resolution at its meeting of May, 1914. But matters are left in the same state, opposition to any improvement in our copyright legislation centering apparently in the great body of Ontario editors and publishers, who are not in the least anxious that copyrights held by foreigners be protected here to the same extent as they are elsewhere.
The hon. Minister of Justice, whom I am glad to see at his seat, will no doubt inquire what remedy or what means I would suggest to bring about an improvement. I am prepared to offer some suggestions.
In the first place, if possible, measures should be taken requiring that organizers of entertainments should register at once with the authorities and secure a license, which, if need be, should guarantee any loss resulting from any action of theirs. Of even greater importance would be the providing of foreign writers with a summary process of law m the form of a penalty or of imprisonment for infringement of author's rights. A sanction of that kind is to be found in the legislation of most civilized countries, especially England (1 and 2 Geo. V, chapter 46, section 11); of most self-governing colonies, especially New Zealand (Act of November 22, 1913, section 15); in that of France (Penal Code, section 428429), without in any way depriving authors of their recourse under section 1362 of the Civil Code; even in that of the United States, though they stand aloof from international unions (United States statutes at large, chapter 320, " An Act to amend and consolidate the Acts respecting copyright," March 4, 1914, sections 28 and 39); etc., etc.
At the session of 1909, Sir Allan Ayles-worth, then Minister of Justice, introduced in the House of Commons a Bill (No. 148) amending the Criminal Code. That Bill comprised among others a clause providing a penalty for counterfeiting of musical and dramatic productions. After discussion that clause was modified as follows:
Whosoever, after a dramatic work has been registered, performs or produces in public, or in some way causes to be performed, or assists in the performance or production in public, in whole or in part, of such dramatic work, without the consent of the owner, is (unless he shows that he has done so innocently) guilty of a misdemeanour and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine of one hundred to five hun-

dred dollars, or to imprisonment for a period of thirty days, or to both cumulatively, at the discretion of the court, and on the second or any further conviction to imprisonment for a period of six months with or without hard labour.
The Aylesworth Bill, with that clause inserted, was passed by the House of Commons on May 15, 1909 (see "Hansard" for
1909, vol. Ill, page

; vol, IV, page
[Stage Direction]
The Senate, on May 18, 1909, also passed the Aylesworth Bill, but after striking out a few clauses, especially the proposed section 508b providing protection for dramatic
works (see Senate Debates, 1909, page

).
I trust the hon. Minister of Justice will read once more the discussion which took place in this House in 1909, in regard to copyrights and to the penalty suggested by Sir Allan Aylesworth, for infringement of such rights. And I shall leave to him to say whether the time is not ripe for the passing of such a clause by this Parliament.
The facts alleged by me show that the Berne convention as it is, and with the slow procedure provided for its enforcement in Canada, or at any rate in the province of Quebec, is practically of no use in helping authors who have been wronged to secure redress from the courts of law. The hon. gentleman has been on the bench long enough to know to what extent people in Quebec are fond of litigation, and should one of the litigants be in bad faith, he may drag the matter on indefinitely, in spite of the earne'stness of the other party and of the presiding judge.
I have pointed out instances in which French writers who had been wronged found it impossible to secure compensation for the enforcement of the penalty provided by the Berne convention. Would it not be possible, then, to amend our criminal code in the sense suggested by Sir Allan Aylesworth, and to have that amendment passed by the Senate?
Mr. DOHERTY (text):: I believe we would need your help for that purpose.


Mr. LEMIEUX (translation):: I may be of some help to my hon. friend.
In closing my remarks, I wish to express my regret for having addressed the House at such length. But this is a question with which the honour of the nation and its reputation for honesty in literary matters are deeply concerned. That is what induces me to appeal to the Minister of Justice, and to request that he find a remedy for the evils which afflict specially French authors in this country.
I do not intend saying anything in reference to writers in the English tongue;
others who are better qualified than myself, no doubt, will take an interest in them. I repeat it, I am anxious to secure protection for the rights of those who in old France have produced masterpieces, which we are fond of reading and re-reading, or seeing performed on the stage. However, it is only fair that such a result should not be secured through an enfripgement of the most elementary principles of equity and honour.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The question of copyright is one that comes primarily to be dealt with rather by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) as forming part of the matters that are allotted to that particular department of the Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Doherty) was present when I opened my remarks, but I stated that before six o'clock I had met the Minister of Agriculture and that he had begged me to go on, because, although he had to leave, he said " I will read your remarks in "Hansard" and deal with this matter as soon as I come back." But I am pleased to see my hon. friend (Mr Doherty) in his seat, because he can deal with this matter in the way I mentioned.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In making the observation I did I had no intention of addressing any reproach to the hon. gentleman.
I only made that observation to point out that I did not come here this evening myself anticipating that I would have the pleasure of listening to my hon. friend upon this subject and still less prepared to undertake any full discussion of the very important matter that he has dealt with. I did not have the advantage either of hearing all that the hon. gentleman has said, but if I correctly followed him, the gist of the complaint seems to be that the civil recourse of parties complaining of a violation of their rights as authors of "dramatic productions is inadequate; and furthermore, that the inadequacies would seem to result from the fact that as a rule the persons guilty of such unlawful reproduction are persons financially irresponsible as against whom it would be impossible to execute any judgment. That seemed to be one of the causes which gave rise to the inefficiency, or ineffectiveness, of the law; and the other resulted from the undue delays which occurred in the enforcement of the civil right. If I followed the hon. gentleman correctly, he does not

complain of the insufficiency of our law as it stands as recognizing the existence' of the right, but he complains simply that we have no effective sanction.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Doherty: So long as one keeps to the civil recourse, the recourse that seeks an indemnification for loss caused, there is not any method by which we can make insolvent violators of the law solvent. In so far as he points to the very regrettable consequences of the delays that occur in the procedure in connection with such civil actions, it seems to me that is something for which provincial legislation rather than any legislation of this Parliament should be responsible. I do not mean to say that perhaps it is not conceivable that we may have authority to eract some special disposition in regard to procedure in relation to the violation of copyright, but as I understand it, the procedure in cases of that kind, as in all civil cases, is at the present time governed by provincial laws, and delays in that procedure, if they be attributable to a defect in any law, would be attributable to the defects in the laws of the provinces concerned. It is undoubtedly a very regrettable thing that it should be found that, for the violation of a right which our law recognizes, that law does not at the same time provide an adequate remedy. The hon. gentleman referred to cases, where Canadian authors had succeeded under the French law in obtaining compensation for such violation of their rights.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, I said that we ought to at least reciprocate with the French,' that the French-Canadian authors had the benefit in France of a fund which existed for the protection of their works. It operates automatically. If a man writes an article in a review he belongs to the bociete des Auteurs. If the article is reproduced in another country, the society is represented by somebody, and the party reproducing that article will have to pay a certain amount. French-Canadian authors enjoy that protection in France, but what I said was that while they had benefited from the organization for the payment of authors in Europe, in our own country French authors are being pillaged. When the victims seek redress before the courts, by the articles of the Berne Convention, they are discouraged by delays.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know that I quite follow the hon. gentleman. I did understand that the hon. gentleman re-
ferred to some successful proceeding which had resulted in indemnity being obtained by our authors for violations occurring in France, and to urge that we should provide some similar method. If I understand correctly now, it is not the benefit which he receives as the result of any law which confers any legal right, but the result of the operation of some association which provides a fund.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A benefit fund.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is something that I do not suppose we could provide for. It is no doubt, however, a most regrettable condition of affairs if, in this country, by violations of the law of this country, persons living outside of the country suffer and if for such violations they are without adequate remedy. My hon. friend has pointed out certain grievances which are grievances shared by all persons who have recourse to the courts to enforce their rights. He points out that a foreign author would have to give security for the costs that should be incurred. If he is bound to do so, he is so bound in the province of Quebec under a provision of the law of Quebec, which I think is usually looked upon as a wise provision, that where a stranger comes into the province seeking to invoke the law against a resident, the latter should be protected to the extent of some provision being made to secure him in the event of his successfully defending himself in the action instituted against him. I do not quite grasp that that is in any particular way a grievance on the part of those who seek to enforce the particular right that may belong to a dramatic author. As regards delays, of course, in that respect dramatic authors suffer in common with the public in general, and suffer in common with our own citizens. What means may be found to expedite the civil procedure is perhaps more properly for the consideration of those who are charged with legislation as regards the procedure and administration of justice in the different provinces. I do not desire to express any absolute opinion on this subject, but it seems to me that there is a remedy to which the hon. gentleman did not refer, but which, under the law of the provinces, would be available to the authors concerned, and that would be an effective remedy in so far as it might operate as a prevention rather than a cure of the wrong that may be done. I have some difficulty in seeing why the recourse by injunction is not open to the author who is in a position to establish that any person is about to produce a work which he claims is his own,

and in which he claims to be protected by the copyright law. It seems to me that that right ought to be available and ought to operate to obviate some of the things of which the hon. gentleman spoke in discussing the position of these foreign authors, and I think it is a remedy of which they might avail themselves.
I am not disposed to quarrel with the proposition that it might be desirable that a means should be taken which womd reach persons who might be, from the point of view of civil responsibility, not in a position to comply with any judgment that may be rendered against them. From that point of view there is a great deal to be said in support of the suggestion of the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux), that this might be a proper matter to be dealt with by the criminal law. The Bill to which the hon. gentleman refers, I think passed this House without being opposed, but was rejected by the Senate. Of course, the Senate must be assumed to have good reasons to refuse to pass measures that this House adopts. At all events since the time to which the hon. member refers the Senate seems to have persisted with a good deal of consistency in the assertion of its right to annul what the wisdom of this House has decreed. We on this side of the House perhaps do not feel the same absolute confidence in being able to control the operations of that august body as do gentlemen on the other side of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: That shows
the independence of the Senate; it was in 1909 that they refused to pass the Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I quite understand that, but I am only pointing out that they are obdurate in the determination to place themselves above what may be decreed by the wisdom of this House and that some people have thought that possibly the influence that existed at that time from this side of the House over the Senate was greater than it might be at present. If that be true, we would now have less hope of being able to convert them from their error, than had those who sat on these benches at that time. I quite recognize that the position of these authors is one which calls for careful consideration on our part, and the question as to whether or not an amendment to the criminal law such as is suggested might prove of aid to the protection of their rights is certainly one which deserves to be considered. I shall have pleasure in complying with the suggestion of the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) to read the debates of 1909, and I shall have pleasure also in endeavouring to ascertain what reason, if any, the hon. gentlemen in the upper House set forth as justifying their action.


Robert Laird Borden: I regret that the Minister of Agriculture is prevented through indisposition from attending the House this afternoon. In addition to what the Minister of Justice has said, I may say that I know that the Minister of Agriculture has had the whole question of copyright under consideration during the past two years, and that representations, not so much with regard to procedure as to the substance of the law itself, and in connection with the Berlin convention, have been made to him. If I am not mistaken, negotiations have gone on from time to time, with a view to adhering, if possible, to the Berlin convention, but under such conditions as to safeguard Canadian interests, which might otherwise suffer materially, but which we would not desire to sacrifice if the convention were absolutely adhered to. I have not a clear recollection of what the Minister of Agriculture, upon the advice of his officers, thought necessary, but I do know the matter has engaged his attention. The proposal of my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) would require a great deal of consideration, because questions may arise with regard to patents as well as copyright- though the infringement would probably be more distinct in the case of literary works than with regard to patents-as to whether there had been wilful infringement.	As far as the remedy is
concerned, I do know that the one to which the Minister of Justice has alluded has been brought to bear in other provinces, because when I was practising at the Bar I had occasion to invoke with very good results that remedy which I understand to be available under the law of Quebec, and which if made use of by those authors might be found to afford a better remedy than that which they have succeeded in obtaining in the past. As my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) has brought this matter fully to the attention of the House. I shall now move to adjourn the debate, with the assurance to my hon. friend that his observations will receive the careful attention of the Minister of Agriculture.	-


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 16, 1915.