TORONTO TERMINALS.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK COCHRANE (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 237, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners.
Mr. GRAHAM:: Explain.


Mr. COCHRANE:: The first order of the Railway Commission was for a four-track viaduct, but it was considered that this would not be sufficient to carry the traffic in Toronto. They reconsidered their order, and are to make an order for six tracks, but moving out to the water's edge. This Bill is authority to the different parties who are interested, including the city of Toronto, to expropriate between the track and the water. The* Harbour Commissioners in Toronto are in favour of this, in order to facilitate the development of the harbour.


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

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

*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Have any repairs been made lately by the Government at the Ba'ie St. Paul wharf? If so, what is the nature of said repairs?
2.	What amount has been expended thereon?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to build a new wharf at Baie St. Paul?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) Urgent repairs to slip, mooring posts and floor. Construction of temporary shed.
2.	Approximately $150.
3.	Not at present.


MONTCALM PUBLIC BUILDING.
*Mr. LAFORTUNE:: 1.	Is the Government aware that a site has been purchased and the plans prepared for a public building at St. Jacques de L'Aehigan, county of Montcalm?
2.	Does the Government intend to proceed with the construction of said building this year ?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes; a site was purchased in March, 1909.
2.	-Not this year.


CARLETON REVETMENT WALL.
[Stage Direction]
1.	Has any application been received by the Department of Public Works for a grant for the revetment or protection wall at Carleton, Quebec? If so, from whom, and what action has been taken, if any? If not, is it contemplated to take any action?
2.	If an application was received, what was the amount asked for?
Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	(a) Yes. (2) From the mayor of Carleton, who forwards a petition, (c) No action taken, (d) Not at present.
2.	Estimated cost is $2,500.


MIGUASHA WHARF.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1. Has the Government wharf at Miguasha, Quebec, been transferred from the Department
of Public Works to the Department of Marine and Fisheries? If so, when was this done, and at whose request?
2.	Has any protest been received? If so, from whom and was any action taken and what action ?
3.	Are tolls now being exacted from the public using this wharf ?
4.	Is it true that the ferry boat doing the service between Dalhousie and Miguasha has refused to pay the toll and is landing its passengers in small boats?
5.	If the wharf has been transferred, has a wharfinger been appointed, what is his name and residence and what is his emolument?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes. February 14, 1913.
2.	Yes. D. Champoux. He was advised that tolls should be collected in accordance with the Act.
3.	Yes.
4.	The Department has no knowledge of this; the wharfinger was advised that vessels calling at the wharf would only be obliged to pay once per day and not more than twice per week.
5.	Yes. Antoine Savoie of Shoolbred. Remuneration 50 per cent of the wharfage collections.


SHAG HARBOUR BUOYS.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	Who has the contract for the Shag Harbour, N.S., buoy service, and what remuneration does he receive for same?
2.	Were tenders asked for same? If so, how many tenders were received?
3.	Who were the tenderers and what is the amount of each tender?
4.	What amount was paid for said service in 1909, 1910, 1911 and 1912?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1. Mr. David E. Watkins, of Atwoods Brook, Shelburne county, $100 per annum.
2.	Yes; two tenders were received, the lower tender being accepted.
3. Mr. David E. Watkins, of Atwoods Brook, $100 per annum; Mr. James E. Smith, of Lower Shag harbour, $125 per annum.
4.	1909, $75; 1910, $75; 1911, $75; 1912, $75.


BONA VENTURE STORM SIGNAL STATION.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is the Department of Marine and Fisheries aware if as late as May 24 instant, the storm signal station at Bonaventure, Quebec, was ready for operation?
2.	If the station was not ready, has the department received or asked for an explanation ?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	The acting director of the Meteorological Service advised the department on the 19th instant that the station was opened on April 21 this season.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CABLETON WHARFINGER.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARCH.:
1. Have any charges been made against Bernard Leclair, as wharfinger and port warden at Carleton, Quebec ? If so, by whom and what is their nature?
2. Has an investigation been held? If so, by whom, and what action has been taken, if. any ?
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Charges of political partisanship have been made against Mr. Leclair who holds the positions of wharfinger and harbour master at Carleton, by Mr. J. A. Mousseau.
2.	The matter has been referred to Commissioner Flynn for investigation. His report has not yet been received.


CARLETON LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Have any charges been made against Francis Cullen, keeper of the light on Carleton wharf, Quebec? If so, by whom, and what is their nature?
2.	Has an investigation been made? If so, by whom, and what action has been taken, if any?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) Mr. N. Boudreau, Mr. J Cauchon, Mr. J. A. Mousseau. (c) Political partisanship.
2.	Mr. W. A. E. Flynn has been requested to hold an investigation, but his report has not been received.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTION.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of the specifications and tenders for materials to be used in connection with
the proposed dry-dock at Lauzon, Quebec.- Mr. Lemieux.

Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That this House shall meet on Saturday the 31st instant, and on all Saturdays thereafter until the end of the session; the hours of sitting and the order of precedence of business 6hall be the same as on Fridays.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I assume that the Government have no more business to bring down.


Robert Rogers: There is notice given today of some railway legislation. Outside of that I do not know of anything of special importance.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is it intended to go on with the whole programme on the Order Paper? There are two Bills to be introduced yet, one to amend the Public Archives Act and the other respecting Pelagic Sealing. Then there are several Bills of the Postmaster General. Is it intended to go on with these?
Mr. HAZEN.


Robert Rogers: I think there are one or two that we do not propose to go on with. We shall be glad to give my right hon. friend all the information to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. MARCIL:: Before the Orders of the
Day are called, I-wish to asl^ the Minister of Marine and Fisheries a question in regard to a return I asked for some time ago. I would like to bring up for his consideration a fact that may be interesting. This return is in regard to a French constituency. The correspondence is all in French; but the documents have all been translated into English, and a great deal of trouble has been taken to do so. If I send the documents down to the parties interested, I shall have to translate them back into French, and then cannot be sure whether the translation will agree with the original or not. I think it might be advisable in future when returns are asked for, that the documents should be brought down in the original language. My hon. friend can see the position we are in in this particular case.


Mr. HAZEN:: It is the first time my attention has been drawrn to a matter of this sort. My attention was not called to the preparation of this return. If it be any convenience to my hon. friend I shall be glad to give instructions at once to have the documents that are written in French brought down, so that my hon. friend will have them in the original language. In making translations, sometime the original meaning may be altered or changed.


FRENCH DEBATES-DAILY DISTRIBUTION.
Mr. H. BOULAY (Rimouski) :: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I wmuld like to bring up for your consideration the fact that the French edition of the ' Hansard ' of Thursday last, the 22nd instant, has not yet been distributed. I would like to know who is responsible for the delay. The same thing has happened before, during this session. According to the Rules, the French edition of the Debates should be distributed within 48 hours. I would like to know how ig it that we have received nothing since the 21st? I ask the question for my own information.


Mr. SPEAKER:: 
TREATMENT OF RUSSIAN IMMIGRANTS.
Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (acting Minister of the Interior):: Yesterday my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) asked a question concerning some complaints made respecting the treatment received by certain Russians passing through Moosejaw and other points on the Canadian Pacific railway. The Prime Minister partially answered the question yesterday, and promised that I would refer to it to-day. Early in April, we received direct from Moosejaw a complaint touching this matter. Later we received a complaint from the Russian Consul General at Montreal. We also received a complaint from the Trades and Labour Council of Moosejaw. We then had the matter investigated by the Commissioner of Immigration at Winnipeg, who reports on April 12, as follows:
Press reports regarding Russian labourers' incident at Boharom, Sask., entirely inaccurate and grossly misleading. For information of Russian Consul General at (Montreal beg to say that on April 2, special train containing four hundred Russian labourers left Moosejaw for western points on Canadian Pacific railway destined railroad construction. Fellow countrymen at Moosejaw had incited Russian labourers to break contract, desert employment and find work independently. In order to prevent this desertion, cars locked at Moosejaw, train passing Boharm at speed of twenty miles an hour when seventeen labourers succeeded opening doors, jumped from fast moving train and endeavoured to escape. Guard stopped train; ordered Russians to return; fired revolver into air to intimidate them. No person struck by bullets; three persons slightly injured by leaping from moving train. Statement regarding food and other improper action against Russians entirely unfounded. The men were not locked in cars except when passing through terminals and divisional points, and no attempt' was made to attack them and no injury sustained except already above indicated.
We communicated the contents of that report to the Imperial Russian Consul General at Montreal, and received the following letter from him:
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 16th of this month, in answer to my telegram of the 9th, addressed to the Honourable the Minister of the Interior, in connection with the shooting that occurred under peculiar circumstances, when a party of Russian subjects left Moosejaw for Boharm, Sask., on the 2nd of April of this year, by special train.
Please accept my sincere thanks for your kind reply, the details of which have been duly appreciated by me.
There being no doubt, however, that the shooting took place, I beg leave to ask whether such a course is allowed under the given circumstances and is authorized by law, as a coercive measure.
The matter of the conduct of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in connection with this incident is receiving further consideration. That is all I desire to say at present concerning the matter.


Mr. OLIVER:: While the statement of the minister that the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is receiving further consideration at the hands of the department may be satisfactory, I would like it to be considered that that assertion on the part of the minister does not close the matter. It is desirable that at a later date the minister shall make a further statement as to the result of his dealings with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in regard to this matter. The Russian consul has made a suggestion, which, I think, should appeal to the mind of everybody, that the action cannot be condoned.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it is not permissible to discuss the matter at this stage.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Public Works-Salaries, including K. G, Spangenberg, at $1,800, $493,487.50.
['1.\tIn 1909.\n2.\tFrom seventy-five to eighty persons at one time.\n3.\tThe department has never received a complaint to that effect, and is not aware that the .accommodation has ever been found insufficient.\n4.\t615 persons.', 'Thursday, May 29, 1913.']
George Perry Graham: I see that the deputy
minister's salary is ptit down here at $5,000. I have noticed in the estimates that the salaries of some of the deputy ministers have been considerably increased, some of them exceeding the amount provided for those officers in the Civil Service Act. I do not object to the payment of proper salaries to deputy ministers; but, when the salary of the deputy of one department is increased, it may be difficult to convince the deputy ministers of other departments that they are -not equally entitled to larger salaries. The deputy ministers of Railways and of Public Works have to perform very heavy tasks and assume great responsibilities. The Deputy Minister of Railways has for years been chairman of the Government Railways Managing Board, and has assumed many other worries and cares in connection with the Intercolonial railway, but his salary remains at $5,000. I thought it well to call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that he will get into trouble unless he divides the officials of the department into classes, assigning a specific salary to each class, and, perhaps, giving a greater salary to those officials whose duties are the most onerous. I think that is done by the British Government, and as long as the deputy ministers of the departments are on a common level so far as salaries are concerned, I think my hen. friend will experience some difficulty. I think the deputy ministers, particularly in the very busy departments, are not paid sufficient salaries, and I would prefer that my remarks should he accepted as having been made from that standpoint than from

the standpoint of criticism of any increases.


Mr. BELAND :: What about the members?


Robert Rogers: I appreciate very much what the hon. member has said in respect to the salaries of deputies; but, as my hon. friend well knows, it is a very difficult matter to deal with. I quite agree that there are certain deputy ministers to-day whose salaries are not nearly sufficient for the amount of work they have to do. There were special circumstances in the case of the Deputy Minister of Justice, whose services, owing to his long and high standing in the legal profession, it was impossible for us to retain unless his salary was increased, and the position would have been very difficult to fill. At the same time, the question of the salaries of certain other deputies has had consideration in the way of suggested increases; but, in view of the complicated nature of the Civil Service Act, if I may say so, it was difficult, during a busy session, to arrive at any conclusion. This is a matter that will be further considered; in fact, I think before long it will be necessary to reconsider the whole Civil Service Act. I am sorry that my hon. friend did not go a little further when he had in his mind, I know, to suggest that the salaries of other people in this House should be increased as well as the salaries of deputy ministers. However, I think that is a matter that will toe considered later on.


Mr. GERMAN:: So far as the deputy Minister of Justice is concerned, I am rather inclined to think that, from the standpoint of his ability and the work that he is doing in the department and for the country generally, his salary has not been sufficiently increased. His position does not at all resemble that of other deputy ministers. The deputy Minister of Justice acts as counsel for the Crown in, I think, all cases going before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He is capable of filling that position, as capable perhaps as any man you could get at the English Bar. He has relieved this country from the payment of enormous counsel fees to eminent counsel in England by reason of his capability to take the cases before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. I submit that the position of Deputy Minister of Justice is not at all similar to that of other deputy ministers, and that he should be in a class apart. If we are to have as Deputy Minister of Justice a man who is capable of filling the position and taking the briefs for the Government, as the present deputy does, then he should be paid absolutely in a class apart from the deputy ministers of other departments. I have nothing to say in regard to what a deputy minister Mr. GRAHAM.
should receive. I do not think that they should all be paid similar salaries, because the official duties of some are far more responsible than those of others. I think there should toe a vast distinction. However, I wish to record my suggestion that the Deputy Minister of Justice is getting not more than he should receive, tout less.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The only objection I
have to the inequality of salary of the deputy ministers is that the deputy Minister of the Naval Service is being paid $6,000 while the Deputy Minister of Public Works receives only $5,000. The Deputy Minister of Public Works has certainly more important duties than the deputy Minister of the Naval Service. What existed of the Naval Service before this date is rapidly sinking into oblivion, and if it keeps on, very soon the Deputy Minister of the-Naval Service will have nothing to do, whilst the Deputy Minister of Public Works is filling a very important position, perhaps the most important of all the positions as executive heads of departments. The minister will realize himself that his department is a most important one.


Robert Rogers: Of course.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The minister has soared up from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Public WoTks, and if it were not more important he would have remained in his old place. I cannot see why his deputy should be paid only $5,000 when the Deputy Minister of the Naval Service is paid $6,000 for doing practically nothing.


Robert Rogers: That is only another instance of the many inequalities and anomalies in the Civil Service Act which we found when we took it over, and which I think we must find some way of remedying in the near future.


Mr. MURPHY:: There is another inequality shown in the supplementary estimates. It is proposed to raise the salary of the assistant deputy minister of another department to the same figure as the Deputy Minister of Public Works. In the supplemen-taries there is an item to increase the salary of the assistant deputy minister and secretary of the Department of Justice to $5,000. That, I suppose, will be explained by the Minister of Justice when we come to it, tout I draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to this item. He has told the committee that there are inequalities which need to be adjusted, and that item is one of the most glaring of these inequalities. In connection with the remark that it would be difficult to retain the services of the Deputy Minister of Justice unless his salary were increased, as to which I express no opinion at the moment, I would point out that a few years ago,

when a similar state of things occurred with reference to the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, the 'Government allowed the gentleman then occupying that position to resign from the seervice rather than grant him an increase in salary.


Mr. PROULX:: I think that is not a
good argument to make, that the deputy minister will not stay in office unless his salary is increased; I think it is a kind of hold-up of the minister. If the present deputy minister does not want to stay in office I think the minister will he able to find many other men who could occupy the position. By increasing the salary of the Deputy Minister of Justice by $3,000 we are going to create discontent among the other deputy ministers. They will feel that they are underpaid, and there will be disorganization of the whole service. My hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) says that the deputy minister takes briefs before the Privy Council. I know he has done so in the past, but I understand that in the most important cases the department has engaged the services of eminent counsel. The reference to the Supreme Court in the marriage case was in the hands of eminent counsel from Toronto and Montreal, and when the case was argued before the Privy Council those counsel went there. The case was not in the hands of the Deputy Minister of Justice. The department pays every year large sums of money in legal fees for the employment of counsel to plead either in the Supreme Court or before the Privy Council, and I think there is no necessity of increasing the salary of the deputy minister by $3,000.


Charles Marcil: I may be allowed to say a word in this respect. I know that we cannot discuss the question of salaries generally at the present moment; but, starting from the head of this House-I occupied that honourable position for a short time- I want to point out the anomaly that the Speaker is paid $4,000 and is supposed to entertain people from the whole Dominion. The Clerk of the House is paid $5,000. The Clerk is not sufficiently paid; so far as the Speaker is concerned, I leave the House to judge. We have in the Minister of Justice one of the most gifted men in his profession, but he will receive $3,000 less than his deputy. What impression will this create in the public mind? What about the members of Parliament who spend five, six or seven months of the year in Ottawa attending to public business? I Came the other day from western Canada in company with one of the highest officials in the service of the Dominion, who had been attending to public business in Washington. He expressed the opinion that a member of the House of Commons of Canada, if he was fit for the position, was the equal of
a member of Congress in the United States. The members of the Administration know that members of Congress in the United States are paid much more than members of the House of Commons in Canada. He expressed the opinion that $5,000 would not be too much to pay a competent member of the House of Commons to remain here for six or seven months of the year and work for his constituency and for the country. I am speaking Tather freely, because I have been here for fourteen years, and I have seen the House change complexion two or three times. It has come to this, that only the rich man or the very poor man can afford to come here. It is impossible for the active business man, or the active professional man to come here and spend six or seven months of the year. The rich man can afford to come as a luxury, or as an honour; but the poor man, if he retains the confidence of the electors, is in fifteen or twenty years practically out on the street. There have been men occupying seats in the House of Commons, who to-day would be in the poor house but for the fact that they are paid, in one way or another, from the public treasury, i think the Administration should look seriously into this question and begin at the top. If a member of the Cabinet, with the responsibilities that rest upon him, is worth anything to the people he should receive a larger salary than that which is paid to him at the present time. The present salary is ridiculous. There is any number of third-class officials in some of the large firms in Montreal who receive a larger salary than that paid to ministers of the Crown in Canada. I should be glad to see the Minister of Public Works and his colleagues take up this question, face it, and solve it satisfactorily, beginning with the members of the Cabinet, senators, members of the House of Commons, going down through the Civil Service, and giving proper payment to those who give proper service.


Mr. VERVILLE:: I want to say a word on this question as to the increase of salary. The Minister of Public Works has said that it would not be possible to increase the salary of the Deputy Minister of Public. Works on account of the Civil Service Act. It seems to me that that should have (been looked into before, because I claim that the Public Works Department is the most important department of the Government, and if anyone should get an increase of salary it is the Deputy Minister of Public Works. I was never against an increase of salary. It has been my ambition, sffice I was able to work, to increase my salary. Of course there will be some members who believe they are not earning more than they are getting, in the way of an indemnity, at the present time. I claim I am earning more,



and it seems to me that the Government should take into consideration the question of increasing the indemnity to some extent, so as to make it reasonable, and so that our position would be looked upon as a reasonable one. There are many men who can well afford to come here, men with large businesses of their own, or men who are favoured with fortune but I am not in that position at all. Probably I am in a better position to discuss this question than some members, for this reason: the year before I came here the indemnity was increased from $1,500 to $2,500, and during the first session I was in the House a Bill was introduced for the repeal of that increase. I did not vote in favour of the increase at that time, not being in the House, but I spoke against the Bill. for the reduction. I stated then, as I state now, that I do not know of any man with common sense who would be against an increase of the indemnity, or salary. I call it a salary, because it is _ a salary, however small it may be. Having heard rumours around the corridors, I was expecting that an increase would be agreed upon this session. It might be said that an increase would not be popular throughout the country. I for one am willing to defend it in any part of the country where I have a chance to do so. We are worth more money than we are getting to-day, or we are worth nothing at all. We spend six or seven months of the year legislating in the interests of the people, and safeguarding the interests of the country, and I believe that the sessions cannot be any shorter than six months in the future. The country is growing all the time, and the development of the country forces on legislation from year to year in increasing volume. With the very best will on the part of the members to expedite business, I do not see how it is possible in the future, having regard to the growth of the country, to have shorter sessions than the one we have had this year. In these circumstances, I do not see how any members on either side of the House can say they are willing to come here, and spend six or seven months for the salary they are receiving to-day. It seems to me that the Minister of Public Works should do something this session, and I hope the rumours I have heard around the corridors will materialize before the session is finished.


Edmond Proulx: I regret to say that the tendency is to Increase the salaries of the better fiaid officials, of the higher officials, while the Government will employ a messenger in a department at $500 a year. How can you expect a man to support a family on a salary of $500 a year ? The officer who gets $5,000 a year is eon-Mr. VF.RVILLE.
sidered worthy of an increase of salary, and one who" gets $7,000 a year wants it increased to $10,000 a year.


Mr. EDWARDS:: A man should not have any family if he has only $500 a year. .


Edmond Proulx: I do noc agree with the hon. member for Frontenao. Every man should have the privilege of getting married. Why should you penalize a man because he has not the education to occupy a higher position ?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Do you mean to say that if a man is not married he is penalized ?


Edmond Proulx: I think the tendency is to increase the higher salaries and not to consider the officials who are not well paid. They may not be underpaid for the work they do, but still they have to live, and they have to support a family, and they should be paid enough to enable them to do so. There should be greater equalization in the salaries of the service. So far as the members' sessional indemnity is concerned, it has always been considered an indemnity, and not a salary. If it were a salary I would be of opinion that- it should be increased, but as it is an indemnity, so far as I am concerned I shall be against any increase.


Robert Rogers: 
Mr. R. LANCTOT (Laprairie-Napierville):: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to take part in this debate concerning the increase of salaries; but as some hon. members to the left have taken this, opportunity to ask for an increase of parliamentary indemnity, I must say, first, that as far as I am concerned I who, at the last election,, preached for economy and for a plebiscite on any new expenditure, I would like the members from the province of Quebec, especially, to say if they are in favour of an indemnity of $4,000 to $5,000 per session. Should such an increase be granted, it would mean an additional expenditure of $817,500 to pay the members of the Lower and of the Upper House, which sum represents a capital of $20,000,000 at 4 per cent interest.
I think that, with this sum of 20 millions, splendid results could be achieved for the welfare of the country, which would be much more expedient than to increase the salaries without consulting the people. 1 may say that, for my part, I shall be against those increases of salaries as long as the people have not been consulted.


Charles Murphy: Would the minister explain the increase in the number of employees in his department from 311 last year to 336 this year?


Robert Rogers: The principal increase is in the architect's department. Heretofore it has been the practice of the Public Works Department to let out the planning of public buildings in different parts of Canada. We are now endeavouring to have a sufficient number of architects and draughtsmen to carry on the work here. The architects have studied out the plans upon which public buildings best meet the public service, and we can draw the plans better, cheaper and more efficiently in the department than we can have them prepared by letting them out.


Herménégilde Boulay: Mr. Chairman, I have heard the remarks which the 350i
hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Lanctot) has just made. I must tell him that, for my part, I have already stated what I think about this, subject of parliamentary indemnity.
When we were discussing the question of granting an increase of salary to the Chairman of the Railway Commission a week or two ago, I declared that those salaries were not in proportion with those paid to the members of this House; that it was ridiculous to pay us $2,500 a year when we have to remain at Ottawa six or seven months in the year, looking after the business of the country, and then taking the balance of the year to attend to public business in our respective counties. Moreover, I spoke to several members from the province of Quebec about this, and I must say that those Whom I have spoken to are all in favour of increasing the indemnity.
I have heard the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), and I must say that they bear the stamp of common sense.
Really, this increase of salaries in behalf of the deputy ministers cannot be justified. The intention is to give them a higher salary than the ministers themselves are getting; this seems to me extraordinary. After all, it is the ministers who are responsible for the administration of the country's.business, they are called upon to meet the requirements of the position, and I say that the salary of a minister, at $7,000 a year, is not proportionate at all, if a deputy minister's own salary is raised to $10^000. It is proposed to raise the salary of the Deputy Minister of Justice to $10,000 a year because of his legal experience and of his being obliged to go to England and plead the Government's cases.


Edmond Proulx: Those expenses are paid outside of his salary.


Herménégilde Boulay: I would admit that increase if he paid, his travelling expenses and if he got no salary here while he was absent; but I think his salary runs just the same.


Charles Marcil: His travelling expenses are paid outside of his halary.


Herménégilde Boulay: If those travelling expenses are paid outside of his salary, I think that is a little too much; we should be more cautious.
I knpw an employee who works here for the country at the rate of $3 a day and who does the work of a man whose salary is $2,000 a year. That employee does the work just as well as the other and never theless he only get $3 a day.
I wonder if the increase of salaries can warrant a better service. It is always easier

to reduce the salary of a man than to raise *it. It seems to me, therefore, that we should stop and think before increasing the srI^tIbs
As I have said a couple of weeks ago, when the question of increasing the salary of the Chairman of the Railway Commission was under consideration, we, members of *this House, do not get more than $2,500, and we are here for six or seven months in the year, as the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Verville) has remarked. Moreover, when we are 'back at home we keep busy for the rest of the year, working in the interest of our counties as much as we do here during the session. Therefore, it is for all the year that this indemnity is given.
As to the public servants in general,
,-our every day's experience is there to back my statement-we seldom find them at their office more than four hours a day. Besides that, they get one month or two months' vacation every year, and their salaries run just the same. As for the members of this House, they get no holidays.
I am against this idea of increasing the salaries, especially those of high-graded employees. As for the employees of an inferior rank, many of them are not sufficiently paid as compared with the others, and, moreover, they are the ones who do the hardest work. Therefore I believe that we should not vote that increase of salary which it is the intention to grant to certain public employees.
Eastern departmental! block, Ottawa-addition, $220,000.


Robert Rogers: This includes a revote
of $io0,000 to make provision in accordance with the estimates of the chief architect for building the extension to the eastern block.


Charles Murphy: Is that for an addition to the present addition?


Robert Rogers: No, it is just completing the present addition.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: In the new Government buildings which are in contemplation, and which are much needed, I would suggest that the minister should make provision for a convocation hall for the Royal Society of Canada. The Royal Society was founded by the Marquis of Lome, now the Duke of Argyle, when Governor-General. It annually holds its meetings in the city of Ottawa, and the society includes the most distinguished litterateurs and scientists in the country. They meet sometimes at the Carnegie Library and sometimes in the Normal School, and I understand they have been given a little space in the Royal Victoria Museum their library. The-annual report of Mr. BOULAY.
society is published by order of Parliament, and the society gets a grant. I am not speaking for the society, but as a citizen, and I would ask the minister to consider in the plans for the new building the providing of accommodation for the meetings of the Royal Society, and a suitable place where they could have their library and keep their archives.


Mr. E. PAQUET (L'Islet):: Mr. Chairman, I approve of the words which have just fallen from the lips of my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux).
We receive, at the present time, the most distinguished men of science and of letters in Canada. These men are making sacrifices for the honour of Canada. I would feel most happy if the desire expressed by my friend from Rouville could be yielded to.


Robert Rogers: At present we are
cramped for space, so that it is impossible for us to be very generous to a request made by the Royal Society or any other body. I understand the Royal Society have not asked for any space of this kind. They did ask and were granted space for their library in the Museum building, and of course when requests of that kind are made we shall always be glad, even in our cramped condition, or when the new public buildings are completed, to facilitate as far as we can the meetings of the Royal Society in Ottawa.


Mr. NESBITT:: Is there provision for
modern ventilation in the new buildings which will be erected? In any of the Government buildings that I have been in, in Ottawa-I have not been in many-there is no system of ventilation except opening the windows. If these new buildings are properly ventilated we might go over and sit in them occasionally, so as to regain our lost health.


Robert Rogers: We are endeavouring to
provide in the new buildings the very best possible system of ventilation. We are taking care that the plans shall be the best that it is possible for us to obtain. We have asked the Canadian Society of Architects to name one of their number, and they have already suggested their president, Mr. Russell. We have asked the English Institute of Architects to be good enough to name for us a representative, and they have already done so. The Government will select a third, and these three gentlemen will have full charge of the plans, which are open to competition of architects in all parts of the British Empire.


Charles Murphy: Will these three gentlemen select the plans?


Robert Rogers: When we get the plans
from the competitors, these three gentlefor
the
.nen will select the best ones.


Mr. WILSON (Laval):: What is the estimated cost of that building?


Robert Rogers: There are several buildings.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You are speaking now of the new buildings, not of this building here?


Robert Rogers: Yes. We cannot give an estimate until the plans are selected. The cost will be five or six million dollars, perhaps more.


Charles Marcil: Is any provision made for enlarging the library?


Robert Rogers: No, there is nothing in
the estimates for that this year.


Charles Marcil: The librarians have been asking for more room for the last ten or fifteen years. Every year the Library Committee makes the report that books have to be stored in the cellar, and that those which cannot be stored have to be destroyed. They are cramped in every way, and some provision will have to be made very soon, either by the construction of a new library or an enlargement of the present one. I understand the objection to that is that the ground is rather small.


Robert Rogers: I find we have an item in the estimates for an enlargement or what we call a wing to the Senate, and it will provide accommodation for a good part of the library.


Alphonse Verville: In regard to these new buildings, I would like to ask under what conditions the labourers will have to work. Will the contract be let on an eight-hour day system?


Robert Rogers: We have not got to the point of considering that question yet-this is the first I have heard of it. It will be fully considered when we come to let the contract.	.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My hon. friend did not
say anything about the ventilation of the eastern departmental block.


Robert Rogers: I thought my hon. friend was referring to the proposed new buildings. In regard to the building which has just been erected, we have made a special effort to obtain good ventilation, and we believe the system is working fairly well.


Charles Avila Wilson: If it is satisfactory, I assume the hon. Minister of Public Works will apply it to this House.


Robert Rogers: Yes. We have made an effort this session to get good ventilation in this Chamber, and I would like to know from hon. members whether or not there has been any improvement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Robert Rogers: The system was not very expensive, but we thought we would try it and see if it would be of some assistance.
I would like to know, because we had this change made on condition that if it was not satisfactory we would not have to pay for it. We are now at the point whether it is worth settling for or not.


Charles Avila Wilson: I have no objection to
offer. The smell of the ozone was rather strong at first.


Robert Rogers: That was the first day or two, before the machine was put into proper working order. I think it has been found fairly satisfactory to hon. members.


Edmond Proulx: My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works does not often deserve congratulation, but I think he deserves some congratulation for this improvement in the ventilation of this chamber.


Alphonse Verville: I see that the hon. minister proposes to get architects and others conversant with the subject of ventilation to establish the best system of ventilation possible. I have met some of the very best architects who thought that they had discovered the very best system, but the practical man, who has done the work himself, sometimes can give very valuable information. I would suggest to the Minister of Public Works that he should consult some sound, practical men on this subject.


Robert Rogers: As far as this Chamber is concerned, if any hon. member can suggest any means by which we can improve the ventilation, I feel it would be our duty to carry out his suggestions. As Minister of Public Works, I am prepared to try almost anything by which we can improve the condition of the air in this Chamber. If my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) will suggest a practical man who will supply the remedy, that apparently the architects and those conversant with matters of ventilation have been unable to supply so far, we shall be glad to avail ourselves of his services.


Mr. JAMESON:: I would like to suggest that this carpet, while it is a pretty one, should be removed and be replaced by linoleum. I do not think it is sanitary or healthy in a Chamber where there is so much speaking going on and members are moving around constantly. Dust is rising all the time, and it is impossible to have a sanitary condition of affairs so long as we have a carpet on the floor. I would suggest to ,the hon. minister that he take the necessary steps during the summer to have this condition remedied.


Charles Avila Wilson: What about the noise?


Frank Oliver: I made a suggestion some years ago, which has never been accepted either by the late Minister of Public Works or by the present one, that is, that the windows be opened. I would like to make the suggestion now in this form, that the windows be opened whenever the House rises at night and remain open until the House sits again.


Robert Rogers: The windows are opened at night now. When I first had them opened a little earlier in the session, as they are on that side of the House, I was accused by certain lion, gentlemen of trying to injure their health, and I promptly had them closed.


George Perry Graham: Can my hon. friend
give us any information as to where the new departmental buildings proposed to be built in Ottawa are to be located?


Robert Rogers: The plans have been on exhibition in the Railway Committee room for some weeks.


Wilfrid Laurier: Have these plans been accepted?


Robert Rogers: Yes, and they have been published in the papers as well.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think the location is a good one, and, as far as I can see, the plans are quite satisfactory. What is the size of the building now being put up between Mackenzie avenue and Sussex street?


Robert Rogers: 80 feet wide and 320 feet long. It occupies the full width of the block.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is the space which is left vacant to be added-to Major's Hill park?


Robert Rogers: That is the idea. There was at first some objection to our building in that locality at all, but, after giving the matter careful consideration, we thought that the erection of such a nice building as we propose to build there, and the sodding and earing for the ground not occupied would tend to beautify the place.


Edmond Proulx: Are the Supreme and
Exchequer Courts to be located in the new building on Mackenzie avenue?


Robert Rogers: No, they will be in the new departmental buildings on Wellington street.


Wilfrid Laurier: May I make a suggestion to my hon. friend? These grounds on Sussex street were at first taken by the late government with the intention of putting up certain buildings, and it was then suggested to us that, instead of being put there they should be built upon the site selected by my hon. friend, and Mr. WILSON (Laval).	-
that we should add the grounds on Sussex street to Major's Hill park. I would not have been sorry if this plan had been carried out; but perhaps the erection of such a building as is contemplated may do very well on such a street. I would suggest that it would be well for my hon. friend at the earliest moment to remove the Printing Bureau from where it is now and add the ground thus left vacant to Major's Hill park, or to Nepean Point park. The Printing Bureau was built as a temporary structure; it is not at all beautiful, and I think it would be better located elsewhere. Some time ago I asked my hon. friend whether it was intended that Major's Hill park should be used only by pedestrians or whether vehicles would be allowed upon it. The hon. gentleman told me that he would look into the matter. I do not know whether or not he has had time to do so, but I see some objection to having this park open to vehicular traffic. I think Mackenzie avenue might be improved by joining it to the roadway running from Nepean Point towards Rideau Hall. At the present time the avenue is blocked up with materials being used by the contractors at work on the Sussex street buildings, and I think that these materials should be removed, and Mackenzie avenue made such as it should be.


Robert Rogers: In view of the fact that the construction of this new building is going on, it may be difficult during the present summer to put Mackenzie avenue in proper shape. It is, however, our intention to put Mackenzie avenue in good condition and make it, instead of Sussex street, the regular driveway to Rideau Hall. Had it not been for the necessity of providing an entrance for teams with heavy wagon loads of goods we would have erected the customs warehouse on the new ground that we have just purchased; but it has not been considered advisable to have such a building on this new land. I will take a note' of what my hon. friend has said with regard to the Printing Bureau. It is certainly an eyesore; but while we are busy at something else we cannot attend to that. I agree with my hon. friend, however, in his suggestion that it should be removed. In respect to the park, we do not propose to allow vehicles to enter the park at all.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: When the buildings
along Wellington street are completed, is it the intention of the Government to withdraw from the offices which are rented in various parts of the city?


Robert Rogers: That is the purpose for
which the buildings are to be Constructed.


Charles Murphy: In connection with the
suggestion which my hon. friend has just approved, namely, the removal of the Printing Bureau to a more desirable site,

might I remind my hon. friend that in the last estimates submitted to Parliament by the late government there was an item of $100,000 for the initial expenses in connection with the purchase of a new site. The site the then Government had in view was one I mentioned to my hon. friend the present Minister of the Interior, last session. It consists of two blocks bounded by Sussex and Dalhousie streets on the north and south, Botelier street on the east and Bingham Square on the west. It is known as the old St. Lawrence and Ottawa railway yard, and I do not think a more desirable site for the Printing Bureau could be obtained in or about Ottawa. 1 would suggest further that if the land purchased for the new buildings to be erected to the west of the present Parliament grounds terminates at its westerly boundary at what is known as the Perley property, my hon. friend should take into consideration the advisability of purchasing the narrow strip of land on the north side of Wellington street extending from .the boundary of the Perley property to what is known as Pooley's bridge. There are only a few houses on that strip of land; they are old and in a dilapidated condition, and the property will never be valuable for anything execpt as an addition to the land already purchased by the Government. If this land is not purchased, the present buildings or others of a temporary character that may be put there will be an eyesore and will detract very much from the appearance of the grounds and buildings when these are completed.


Robert Rogers: If the hon. gentleman
will notice the ground plans as they are in the Railway Department, he will see that there is a piece of ground at the corner known as the Perley home which does not appear to be in use so far as the present programme as laid out is concerned. Would not that, in addition to the strip mentioned by my hon. friend, be a good site for the Printing Bureau?


Charles Murphy: As a manufacturing
establishment the Printing Bureau would in many ways be objectionable if erected close to the new office buildings.
Ottawa Parliament	Buildings-addition,


Robert Rogers: This is for the new wing to be added to the Senate.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the minister a
plan which will show the proposed addition? We were fortunate enough, when adding the wing at the west of this building, not to impair the whole structure. This is such a beautiful structure, so original and so great, that before adding to it or making any alterations to it, I would think twice. I have full confidence in the architects of the Public Works Department; still, I think it would be a good thing if the plans for the new addition were exhibited somewhere. Remember there is only one great piece of architecture in this country, the parliament buildings at Ottawa, and we should do our best to prepreserve their beauty.


Mr. STANFIELD:: Would it not make
the building more uniform if an addition similar to the new west wing were added at the east of the Senate?


Robert Rogers: The proposed extension
is to be similar to the one at the west side of the building, and in that way the whole pile will be uniform.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think it is
a good plan to follow. The new addition will be simply a replica of the addition at this end, and will therefore make the building more symmetrical than it is at present.


Frank Oliver: Is it the intention to make the addition to the east wing three full stories high, as has been done in the case of the addition to the west wing?


Robert Rogers: Yes, it will be entirely
the same.


Frank Oliver: I will take a terrible risk by saying to the minister and to the House that the outside appearance of this building was detracted from rather than improved by making the west wing three stories instead of following the exact roof lines of the original building.


Robert Rogers: Probably my hon. friend
is right; but I fancy that we would further detract from the appearance of the building if we made the addition now proposed only two stories high.
Ottawa new departmental building, and site therefor, $2,000,000.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member for
North Oxford asked if the various branches and departments which are scattered throughout the city would all find their offices in this new building. The minister said they would. Would the minister say how much is being paid in rentals in Ottawa for these various offices?


Robert Rogers: In round figures, about $229,000.


Mr. CARVELL:: When the new buildings as proposed are completed, will the Government be able to house all their different departments, so as to pay no further rentals?


Robert Rogers: Yes, the space will be
sufficient to take care of all the departments that are now in rented offices.


Charles Murphy: Sometimes, when buildings are being erected for the Government, it is found that after the plan has been followed and the building completed, the departments which are to occupy the building desire to have changes made in it, and changes are made here and there, with the result that new work is torn down and no little expense incurred. That is not a reproach to the minister or to his department but it is a criticism of the method pursued. Certain architects make a specialty of interior designing in connection with large commercial buildings, that is, laying out the floor space so as to give the very greatest amount of accommodation. I would suggest that the services of such architects be invoked.


Robert Rogers: That matter was considered, and it is now in the hands of officers of the department with a view to working it out in such form as will be suitable to the different departments.


Charles Murphy: Is the customs building the only one that will occupy the new site on Sussex street?


Robert Rogers: We may be able to place one other department there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Some years ago, when it was decided to erect new public buildings, I suggested to the then Minister of Public Works and to the chief architect the name of a young Canadian who has studied in Paris, and achieved success there. I refer to Mr. Marchand, who is the leading architect in the city of Montreal, I dare say in Canada. He has been selected by one or two American universities to rive courses of lectures, and in Montreal he has left his signature on at least two monumental buildings in which my hon. friend the minister when he visits Montreal might find inspiration. The late Minister of Public Works and the architect of the department agreed to give Mr. Marchand the architectural supervision of these new buildings, and, in view of that, he abstained from taking part in the competition. I have no brief for Mr. Marchand. I do not know what happened to the arrangement which was then entered into by '.he department and the chief architect. I simply say that Mr. Marchand is a credit to our country. He has testimonials from the highest authorities in Europe, and he might well be in a position to give his views to the department in the matter which now occupies the attention of the committee. I am sure that everybody who is familiar with his work will admit that Mr. Marchand is certainly the leading authority on architecture in this country, and the fact that he has been selected by American universities to give lectures, once cr twice a year.
Mr. ROGERS.
is the best evidence that his services are worthy of the attention of the minister.


Robert Rogers: We all appreciate the
ability of.Mr. Marchand as an architect. We have him now employed looking after the main post office in the city of Montreal. He is also one of those whose names we are now considering with the view of asking them to be the judges of the plans. It is difficult to find prominent and outstanding individuals in the architectural profession to undertake the duties of judge, as it would deprive them, or their firms, of the opportunity of competing. That is the difficulty, and if we cannot find outstanding architects in Canada who will accept the position of judge, by reason of the fact that they want to compete, it may be necessary to make our selection from the prominent architects in the United States. However, before doing that, the position will be offered to a few of the more prominent architects in Canada, with the view of obtaining suitable men to act.


Charles Murphy: What has been paid for the site of the new buildings, between the parliamentary grounds and the Perley
Home?


Robert Rogers: The estimated cost is
something over $2,000,000:	We have paid
out $800,000.


Charles Murphy: Have the prices in all
cases been agreed upon?


Robert Rogers: There are a few cases in dispute, not very many.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: How far does the site extend to the west?


Robert Rogers: It goes as far as the Perley Home.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does it take that in?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


George Perry Graham: I? there any new development in connection with the suggestion that Ottawa should become a federal district like Washington? That would get rid of a lot of the difficulties in the way of opening streets that we have been dis cussing to-day.


Robert Rogers: There has been no development that I have heard of. I am afraid we have been too long in starting. It is a very big question, and, with all that we have had on hand, it has been impossible to give it the consideration which it v deserves. It would involve an enormous expenditure, and a great deal of difficulty. However, it is a suggestion to which a great many people are favourable, and one that is engaging the attention of the Government. It meets with a great deal of favour and I might say with some opposition as well. .


Rodolphe Lemieux: I can assure my hon. friend that the Government will have to come to this some day, and it is just as well to begin to think about it seriously now. Ottawa will be a federal district some day, mark my words. This is the centre of our national government. We shall erect more and more public buildings all over the city, and entanglements between the municipality and the Government as regards taxation will certainly arise. We are practically committed to the beautifying of the city of Ottawa. The appropriation which was voted some years ago extends only for a certain period of years; but my hon. friend knows that we may just as well regard the commission and its work as permanent. Ottawa should be as Washington is, under the control of the Dominion Government. It should be a federal district, and we might just as well face the difficulty, if there be any difficulty, now. Public opinion is prepared for it. Some years ago I heard some objections. It was said that other cities and other provinces would object to it. But the national spirit of this country has not slackened; on the contrary, there is a growing national spirit in Canada, and everybody realizes that Ottawa, being the centre of our national government, should he under the immediate control of the Government. The arrangement has worked admirably in Washington, and I do not see why it should not work well in Ottawa.


Robert Rogers: Ottawa should have been made a federal district at the time of Confederation. The number of difficulties increase year by year. I am not prepared to say what will happen in regard to this matter, hut it will receive consideration, and it requires a great deal of it.


George Perry Graham: The reason I put the
question was that a gentleman from Boston who called to see me the other day seemed to have been loaded up with a lot of information about this matter. In fact, he seemed to think it was in definite shape, and was about to he inaugurated practically. I just wanted an official statement.
Toronto - for new Dominion buildings, $750,000.


Robert Rogers: This item has in view
the erection of a suitable post office for the city of Toronto. We are expropriating property adjoining the present post office. We have not yet got down to the work of preparing the plans, hut we are expropriating the ground around the old post office.


George Perry Graham: By expropriation proceedings?


Robert Rogers: By expropriation proceedings, and the item is for the purchase of the site.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What will you do with the present building?


Robert Rogers: We will take .it down.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Are you going to build
in the same position?


Robert Rogers: Yes, on the same site.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: How far to the east?


Mr. KEMP:: It will be built to the west of the present building fronting on Adelaide, Lombard and Victoria streets.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Where is Lombard street -on the north?


Albert Edward Kemp: Lombard street is on the
north. The present post office runs through to Lombard street now. Whether the new building will go east of the present post office is not quite decided. There may be a little piece of land taken to the east of the post office, but we are not yet quite sure of that.


Charles Murphy: You will expropriate the land out to Victoria street?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes.


Edmond Proulx: What will the Government do with, the present building?


Robert Rogers: Take it down.


Edmond Proulx: Why, it is a good building?


Albert Edward Kemp: That building is over fifty
years old.


George Perry Graham: As I understand it, Adelaide street is on the south, Victoria on the west, and Lombard on the north?


Albert Edward Kemp: That is right,


George Perry Graham: And what you propose
to expropriate is between the present property and Victoria street?	.


Albert Edward Kemp: On the west, and possibly
something on the east. We are not quite sure of that yet.
At one o'clock, House resumed and then took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock, and again went into Committee of Supply. (Mr. Bennett, East Simcoe, in the Chair.)
National Transcontinental railway, $1-9,4
090,000.


George Perry Graham: It would be a good idea af the minister would put on ' Hansard ' the information with respect to the present position of the National Tranconstinental railway, so that the members may at a glance see what the position is. In discussing the subject it would be convenient [DOT]to know the location of each district, and where the spots are that are not completed, and where they are completed.


Francis Cochrane: District A, length, 256 miles, commences at Moncton and runs to the boundary between New Brunswick and Quebec. On this district the grade is totally completed, the tracklaying is completed, the telegraph lines are completed, 98 per cent, of the bridges are completed; the other two per cent of the bridges only require painting, so that the line is practically completed.
District B, length 562 miles. 15 miles of the western end of this district has recently been transferred to District C-D from the New Brunswick and Quebec boundary. Fifteen miles are cut off District C and put on B. The grading is completed for 509 miles, or about 90 per cent, and the tracklaying is completed for 500 miles of the main line and 74 miles of sidings in that district; the telegraph lines have been completed for 357 miles, and the bridges, as on District A, are completed except some painting.
District C-D, length 412 miles, from a point about 204 miles east of Cochrane. The grading is completed for 395 miles. It is between Districts C and B that the only piece of track is not laid from Winnipeg to Moncton, and that applies to about sixty miles. On District C-D the tracklaying is 391 miles of main line and 82 miles of siding; 240 miles of telegraph lines are completed, and the bridges on C are 42 per cent finished, and on D 98 per cent.
District E, length 195 miles, from 204 miles west of Cochrane to 399 miles west of Cochrane, or 125 miles east of Superior Junction. The grading on this division is completed for 158 miles; the track laid on 195 miles of main lines and 17 miles of sidings and yards; telegraph lines completed for 11 miles; bridges 25 per cent completed.
District F, length 376 miles, from 399 miles west of Cochrane, or 125 miles east of Superior Junction, to Water street in Winnipeg. On this section the grading is completed for 376 miles, or 100 per cent. The track is laid for 382 miles of main line, including double track Transcona to Winnipeg, and 132 miles of sidings and yards; telegraph lines 304 miles completed, and bridges 93 per cent completed.


George Perry Graham: Would the minister add t-o that a statement of the amount of money expended to date, and the estimated amount that will be required to finish the road?


Francis Cochrane: The amount expended up to the 31st December, 1912, was $127,219,863, and the amount I find here estimated for the completion, and which was made up very hurriedly, is $34,087,937.


George Perry Graham: When is it expected the line will be completed?
Mr. GRAHAM.


Francis Cochrane: We hope that by the end of 1913 the track will all be laid, and the line will be completed to Cochrane this year, anyway, and some time next year to Quebec. That will practically finish the road, and we hope to have the ferry at Quebec going by that time. The contract between Quebec and the New Brunswick boundary will be finished in September next.


George Perry Graham: What is the situation as to the entrance into Winnipeg from the east? There was an attempted arrangement with the Canadian Northern, by which the Grand Trunk Pacific operated east, Using the Canadian Northern entrance. There was some difficulty as to an entrance from the east into the city of Winnipeg. If I remember correctly, the first location was along the line of the Canadian Northern, but after that the present chief engineer recommended that it be changed to a separate entrance. That matter came up for discussion, and when it came before the Department of Railways, the contention of the chief engineer that there should be an independent entry over a high viaduct was upheld. One of the members of the commission rather favoured the first decision, but the majority, with the chief engineer, favoured the independent entrance.


Francis Cochrane: That has been carried out.	.


George Perry Graham: It was said to destroy some property of another railway company.


Francis Cochrane: Yes. A settlement has not yet been made in reference to what damage has been done to the Canadian Northern railway. The matter is in the Exchequer Court, but the trial has not taken place yet. The Grand Trunk Pacific railway runs in on the Canadian Northern railway for six miles and the National Transcontinental railway runs in on the east end. I hoped to have those agreements in the House for ratification by Parliament, but I have not got them together yet. I am afraid 1 shall not be able to get them in this session. I think the agreements in regard to the approaches to the terminals should be made for the same length of time, namely 99 years, as the agreement for the terminals made by my hon. friend. The agreements were drawn up at first for 99 years.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the hon. minister had an opportunity of considering the question of giving the city of Montreal direct access to the National Transcontinental railway ? Although no distinct promise was made by the late Government to the great commercial metropolis, it was understood by the people that some day", not

too distant, Montreal would be connected with the National Transcontinental. There was no parochial feeling in Montreal more than in Toronto when the project was evolved, and the country in and around Montreal stood for the construction of the Transcontinental. Of course, one cannot eliminate the city of Montreal from direct contact with the Transcontinental. I know that private concerns have obtained at different times charters from the federal Government with the object in view of reaching the Transcontinental from Montreal. The Joliette and Lake Manuan Railway Company was incorporated some years ago, and it appeared at that time that the syndicate which had fathered the scheme was working in conjunction with the -Canadian Northern railway. The Canadian Northern railway has now reached Rawdon, one of the parishes in the county represented by my good friend from Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune). Will the Canadian Northern railway proceed any further ? It has been stated from time to time that some day the road will be extended as far as the Transcontinental. On the other hand, I am informed that the James Bay railway project will, possibly this session or in the near future, obtain from the Government some aid in order to give Montreal direct communication with the Transcontinental. I do not know personally what the Government intends to do, but I am simply voicing the feelings of the people of the district of Montreal. In this I am sure I am supported by my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames): that the commercial metropolis of this Dominion should have, as soon as possible, now that the line is about to be completed, direct access to the whole northern region. This goes without saying. Has my hon. friend a policy on this subject ? Has he come to a decision one way or the other ? Many people in the district of Montreal would like to know if it can be expected tnat the Government will assist the enterprise.


Francis Cochrane: I thoroughly agree
with the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) that there must be a connection between Montreal and the National Transcontinental. That question has occupied 'the attention of the Government for the last two years. The House will remember that last year we voted a subsidy of $d,400 a mile for 500 miles from Montreal to James bay. The company have not been able to finance on that and have been asking the Government for further assistance. I expect to know by Friday what decision we shall come to. It would shorten the distance from- Montreal to Winnipeg by about one hundred and fifty miles by shipping over the Transcontinental line. If we take the Grand Trunk railway or the Canadian Pacific railway to North Bay and T.N.O. then go over to Cochrane, the distance would be about six hundred miles, whereas the distance direct from Montreal to Belle river would only be about three hundred miles. Of course you would have to add the distance from Belle river to Cochrane in order to get the saving.


Mr. AMES:: As this matter is under consideration by the Government at the present time, I want to put in the strongest plea I possibly can for having that road built by the Government as part of the National Transcontinental railway. That road should have access to the two principal ports of the St. Lawrence, Quebec and Montreal. There should be a line from Bell river to Montreal as to Quebec. When the line came down into New Brunswick, it was arranged that both Halifax and St. John should be regarded as the terminal ports for the freight of the National Transcontinental. I do not think the people of Montreal will be satisfied if the line that connects them with the Transcontinental is a privately owned line. Under any system of subsidies that may be given to a private company, it will mean that there will be built an inferior line to the line which the Government itself Is building from Lake Superior Junction to Quebec. We want to feel that Montreal is on a part of the main line of the National Transcontinental and not on a privately owned branch. If, at any time it should be necessary to make alterations in conditions for operating the railway, we should like to feel that the line- that connects Montreal with the Transcontinental is under exactly the same conditions as the line between Quebec and Lake Superior Junction, so that it will not be necessary for us to deal with some private company using what is really an essential part of the main system. 1 sincerely hope that the Government, while they have this matter under consideration, while they have their staff of engineers and the commission and while the plant is in large measure on the spot, will adopt the idea that the line which is to connect Montreal with the Transcontinental is as much a part of the Government built system as any other portion of it, and that it should be carried to completion at the same time as the rest of the road. As it is, the road is to be completed within one or two years and no connection whatever has been as yet provided with Montreal. It seems monstrously absurd that a national transcontinental road, into which $160,000,000 are going is to have no direct connection with the greatest port on the Atlantic coast, namely Montreal. We should have direct connection with the West by this line so that our Montreal freight can go West, and so that freight which is

sent from the West can be brought direct to the port of Montreal when it is profitable to route it that way. To have this great national enterprise completed _ without considering Montreal would, I think, be a fatal error, and I want to put in the strongest possible plea for the construction by the Government of that branch three hundred miles in length from Bell river to Montreal, on the same plans and specifications and operated under the same conditions as the main line.


Wilfrid Laurier: Did I understand my hon. friend the Minister of Railways to say that the section of the line from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast shall be eojtnt-pleted in 1914?


Francis Cochrane: I think they expect to have it finished next year.


Wilfrid Laurier: And the line from Winnipeg to Cochrane?


Francis Cochrane: That we expect to finish fully this fall.


Wilfrid Laurier: And the section from Cochrane to Quebec?


Francis Cochrane: We shall have it running, but not complete; there will be some ballasting and things of that kind to be done.


Wilfrid Laurier: It will be completed next year?


Francis Cochrane: It will be finished next year, with the exception of the bridge. We expect to have the ferry there next autumn.


George Perry Graham: very extensively at that time by friends of the hon. gentlemen opposite to criticise the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific or Transcontinental railway. It is said that the articles that appeared in this paper were prepared for distribution in pamphlet form but went wrong in delivery and consequently they were sent over to this American paper. I know from personal knowledge that this paper' was distributed throughout portions of Canada in very large quantities. I have seen bundles upon bundles of them lying upon platforms in certain places waiting for distribution. I shall not read the criticisms in this paper as they are familiar to hon. gentlemen, but they were of the severest kind. What was the answer of the then Government to these criticisms in the election of 1908? The answer entirely was this and only this: This road will cost money but it. will be worth it to the people of the Dominion of Canada. Why? Because it will be of a higher standard than any road ever attempted on the continent of America for that distance, it will have a grade of four-tenths of one per cent from Prince Rupert to Quebec except in one instance in the Rockies where there will be a pusher grade of twenty-one miles which, by the way has been increased one mile and it now a pusher grade of twenty-two miles, but with that exception this line against eastbound from Prince Rupert to Quebec was to have no greater grade than four-tenths of one per cent and against westbound no greater than six-tenths of one per cent. The consequence of the building of a road of this kind was described. It was pointed out that a line of this standard would be able to haul, some experts placed it at three times, some at four, some as high as seven times, what could be hauled on the ordinary lines, where the grade ran from one per cent to two and a half per cent, Tlje people of Canada with that as practically the sole issue, the whole issue before them, said to the Government: We instruct you to proceed with the completion of that line according to the standard laid down, which I have described to the committee before, because we expect to get benefit sufficient to more than over balance the extra cost. Let me give a little evidence as to the benefit of a line of this kind. I have in my hand an address delivered bv Elliott Cooper, president of the Institute of Civil Engineers, on the 5th of November, 1912, if I remember correctly in London. He dealt jvith the Transcontinental railway of Canada, and pointed out the benefits that would accrue from the construction of a line of this standard. He also made comparisons with other roads of ordinary construction. I trust the committee will bear with me while I read this, as it is the evidence of as high an authority, perhaps, as Mr GRAHAM.
could be found in the world. After reciting some details as to the inauguration of the world he proceeds:
The agreement with the Dominion Government stipulated, among many other provisions, that the State should construct the 1,805 miles from Moncton to Winnipeg, and. lease it to the company-now called the Grand Trunk Pacific-to work, while the remaining 1,753 miles were to be built by the latter, under substantial financial help from the Government. Part of the agreement comprised the construction of a branch 190 miles long to Port William, on lake Superior, so that the alternative of water carriage for the outlet of the products of the prairies might be afforded. The provincial state of Ontario subsidized this branch with land and money, and as it has been completed, as well as the main line from the junction to the Rocky mountains, a substantial instalment of the object for which the Transcontinental line was projected has been attained. The unfinished portions of the railway are well advanced, except the shorj, but important, gap delayed by, the failure of the Quebec bridge as originally designed. Besides this world-famous structure, there are several notable bridges complete or in progress, on this line, such as the Pembina river, the Macleod river, the Clover bar, the Battle river, the South Saskatchewan river and the Wolf creek bridges, _ most of them of steel, both as regards piers and superstructures. There arel also the great shops six miles east of Winnipeg, in which there are seventeen acres of floor space, with 300 acres for sidings. A railway town to accommodate a population of 5.000 is projected here, to be called Transcona. A subsidiary organization called the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines. Company was incorporated in 1906, to construct the branch lines, about forty in number.	<
I will now turn to what he says bearing more particularly on the point:
One of the prominent features of this great railway is its location in view of the gradients which have been obtained, suitable to' the nature of its expected traffic. In nearly all new countries this is a most important, matter, and the future financial success of its' railways depends largely on the skill of the locating engineers; this is becoming mores and more important as the neglect of it in. the earlier lines becomes manifest with the growth of traffic. The prevalence of high wages for skilled labour, and the comparative unimportance of frequent train service, points in this case to the enormous economic advantage of concentrating the loading into as few trains as possible. Hence the employment of powerful locomotives and easy ruling gradients. So jmuch has this consideration weighed with the engineers of this modern. Transcontinental railway that to gain an easy gradient an additional nineteen miles near Quebec and seventeen miles in New Brunswick have been added to the original location, which otherwise would have been the more obviously advantageous route. Heavy works, circuitous alignment, and spiral tunnels were undertaken also in the Rocky mountain section with the same object- But in these new countries, mere reduction in deal-

ing with the gradient is not the only care. The trend of heavy raw material loading is almost invariably towards the seaboard, while the back loading is comparatively light. The ratio betw-een the average paying and dead load in either direction has to be constantly in the mind of the engineer, and large outlay in surveying alternative routes in these cases may be abundantly justified. In this long line, however, the various interests to be served are somewhat different owing to the several main outlets and intermediate cities, and, with some insignificant exceptions,' the ruling gradients against the east and west-bound traffic have been fixed at 1 ini 250 and 1 in 170, respectively, for the eastern; section, and 1 in 250 and .1 in 203 for the western one, and these have been secured even through the mountains. The new lines can hardly be said, at all events at present,' to compete with the other transcontinental lines across North America, as the distances between them are so great; but its advantage over them in gradjng is enormous, for in crossing the 'Rockies/ one summit of only 8,7121 feet above sea-level has to be set against two summits of the Canadian Pacific of 5,300 and 4,308 feet, and three of the TJnipn Pacific of 8,247, 7,107, and 5,631 feet, while the maximum gradients of the Grand Trunk Pacific are about five times as easy as on these more* southerly railways. On the Grand Trunk Pacific the standard freight train of 2,000 tons can be hauled from Winnipeg to Prince Rupert by one locomotive without help, the hauling power of the engine thus being four times as much as the Great Northern, Northern Pacific or Union Pacific, five times more than Santa Fe and seven times more than the Canadian Pacific.
Then he goes on to discuss the aesthetic side of some of the surroundings. What I desired to point out was that the leading engineers in the world were attracted by the undertaking of Canada to build a road of the highest standard, and this gentleman, who is an authority, tells us exactly what it will mean. Lest the committee might misunderstand, the comparisons which this gentleman makes have reference to standards from Winnipeg to Prince Eupert, and are with other lines running through the Eocky mountains.


Mr. COCHEANE:: The Canadian Northern railway will be even a little better.


George Perry Graham: He makes comparisons to show the superiority of the standard oi the Grand Trunk Pacific. It has b.een said in the correspondence, written, I think, by Mr. Leonard, that there should be no criticism of the changes of grade such as are being made on the Transcontinental because already, east of Quebec, there are two grades approaching approximately one per cent, perhaps a little more.


Kenneth Judson Cochrane: A trifle over one per
cent.


George Perry Graham: In reply to that letter, I desire to point out that no person in
Canada ever represented that there was the standard grade from Quebec east. On account of the very great difficulties of construction, there are two pusher grades, one of them in the province of Quebec, and the other in New Brunswick, just as there is a pusher grade in the Eocky mountains for twenty? two miles. The announcement was made to the people of Canada that from Winnipeg to Quebec this high standard should be maintained, and that so far as all the traffic after the opening of the St. Lawrence navigation was concerned, it would have the benefit of the high standard, and that the traffic to St. John and Halifax would be carried by pusher grades at the points referred to. It was also intended to make provision for that. I desire also to call the attention of the committee to some remarks, to which I referred last year, concerning the standard of this road. I wish to read what the present Chairman of the Transcontinental Commission himself said about the benefits of this road, just after he was appointed to his present position. This is to be found in a speech which Major Leonard made at a dinner given to him at Brantford, on which occasion he spoke in a very eulogistic manner of the Traneontinental. As reported in the Courier, among other things he said:
What the cost will be to complete the road to Moncton .is hard to say, but it is now nearly all under construction, all but 400 or 500 miles between Cochrane and Winnipeg. The Quebec bridge which, when finished, will be the largest bridge in the world, will take 48,000 tons of steel and will take five or six years to build. Going east our line runs at about a 4-10 grade, and an engine will haul 1.600 tons, whereas on other roads, where a 1 per cent grade exists, 800 is all that can he hauled.
Major Leonard stated that, between one per cent and four-tenths of one per cent,-there would be a difference in haulage capacity of one- hundred per cent; or, in other words, the same locomotive could haul 1,600 tons up a four-tenths per cent grade or nearly double the haul of eight hundred tons if the grade were one per cent. A little later Major Leonard made this statement:
The National Transcontinental railway is a national asset, not a burden to the people of Canada.
Now, I am going to refer to another authority to substantiate the position that this high standard of road would have been a great benefit to the people of Canada and that it would have been worth all that it cost. I would refer the committee to an extract from a paper read by Mr. McPherson, who, I believe, is now assistant to the commissioner. He was then, I think, assistant chief engineer, was he not?
mil

Mr! COCHRANE: I am not sure, but he held some position anyway.


George Perry Graham: 
Francis Cochrane: There has been no change.


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend will find that statement in a letter in the correspondence.


Francis Cochrane: Who is the letter
from?


George Perry Graham: I cannot find it for the moment. As I remember the letter, it states that at a certain point a wooden structure had been allowed to remain where a concrete and steel structure had been intended.


Francis Cochrane: There is not any
change from what there was before the change of Government and the change in the commission. There were temporary structures put in to hurry on the work, but they are being taken out as fast as possible and the former policy is being continued. I say that to save my hon. friend trouble.


George Perry Graham: The minister says no
changes have been made in these structures and I am not prepared to state otherwise, but I know that the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific had such a report made to him by his own engineers who were on the work with the engineers of the Government. I read a letter dated July 18, 1912, and signed by Mr. Chamberlin:
July 18, 1912.
Major E. W. Leonard,
Chairman,
Transcontinental Railway Commission, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-I learn from our engineers that the standard of work on that portion of the Transcontinental railway between Lake Superior Junction and Cochrane, which was at the outset adopted and has so far been complied with, is being departed from, and that instead of four-tenths grades and permanent structures, you have authorized grades up to one per cent and the erection of temporary wooden structures. In regard to this I would call attention to clause 7 of the agreement of the 29th July, 1903, which provides that the work of construction of the eastern division shall be done according to the specifications approved by the company and shall be subject to the joint supervision, inspection and acceptance of onr chief engineer, and the chief engineer- of the commission. I beg to say if this work is done in accordance with what I understand to be your recent instructions, it will not be in compliance with the agreement nor satisfactory to this company, and cannot be accepted.
One would infer from that, that unless the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific, who had joint supervision, were all wrong, there had been some changes from permanent to temporary structures, as Mr. Chamberlin says. I shall now read the reply of Mr. Leonard to this letter:
Ottawa, July, 1912.
E. J. Chamberlin, Esq.,
President,
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 18th instant regarding changes of grade, &c., on- the National Transcontinental railway.
I find on going ever the profiles, that there are many places where a large expenditure may be saved and the line actually improved Mr. COCHRANE.
for operating purposes, and the time of completion considerably shortened, without in the least affecting the hauling capacity of locomotives, by making certain modifications, and I have given instruction to make such modifications accordingly. I am quite satisfied that the interests of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Government are identical in this matter, and I noted on my recent trip west that the modification referred to are in accord with the practice of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company on the portions of the National Transcontinental railway built by that company, namely, from Winnipeg west, and from Fort William to Lake Superior Junction.
In regard to wooden trestles, I may say that your engineers must be aware that it is absolutely necessary to put in wooden structures in some eases where the foundations are such that heavier structures or solid embankments cannot be constructed at present. There are points along that line where much money lias been uselessly expended in futile attempts to make solid embankments, only finally, to have to put in wooden structures, and I notice that the construction of such wooden trestles has. been t.he practice of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company on the portions of the National Transcontinental railway above mentioned.
1 have carefully perused clause 7 of the agreement of the 29th July, 1903, and I fail to notice in this, or in any other agreement or Act relating, to the construction of the eastern division of the National -Transcontinental railway, any provision relating to the gradients to which the line shall be built or the nature of the structures, but it may be of satisfaction to you to have your chief engineer or assistant chief engineer discuss with our chief engineer any proposed changes, and report to you in regard to the same.
It is not necessary for me to state that this commission, welcomes any criticism or assistance from your able staff of engineers on any or all matters affecting the economical construction and operation of the road. Tours very truly,
(Sgd.) R. W. Leonard,
Chairman, National Transcontinental Railway Commission.
Although he does not make it quite clear, he paints out that attempts have been made to put in steel structures on concrete, and that they have been abandoned for the time being for wooden structures. This is the reply of Mr. Chamberlin :
Montreal, July 23, 1912. Major R. W. Leonard,
Chairman, National Transcontinental Railway Commission,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-I have yours of the 19th instant regarding changes in grade on the National Transcontinental railway, and note the reasons you offer for the modifications contemplated. Aside altogether from this company's strict rights, to which I called attention in my letter of the 18th instant to you, I would ask you to furnish me with profiles showing the changes proposed so that I may consider

their effect. You will, I think, agree that it would be in the interests of both the commissioners and this company that no work in connection with any changes of grade should be proceeded with until our approval [DOT]has been given, and I would ask you to issue instructions to this effect. On receipt of the profiles, I will let you have my views with as little de_lay as possible.
Yours truly,
('Sgd.) E. J. Chamberlin,
President.
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
It possibly would not be fair to read only part of this correspondence. I think it would be better if I read it all. (Reading):
Ottawa, August 2, 1912.
E. J. Chamberlin,
President, Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company,
Montreal.
Dear Sir,-I beg to asknowledge receipt of your letter of the 23rd ultimo, expressing your apprehensions regarding' the modifications referred to in my letter of the 19th ultimo.
I note you refer to your company's ' strict rights,' to which you also referred in yours of the 18th, for which reference I can find no authority in the various Acts and agreements relating to the construction of the eastern division.
You have apparently been misinformed in regard to the reported changes in grade, as no change whatever in any of the ruling grades has been contemplated, but merely such trifles as slight local sags in the grades across soft swamps, which will not in any way effect the hauling capacity of locomotives, and which, if found desirable to lift out in the future for any unforeseen reason, can he effected more cheaply than at present contract prices, and will make a more solid roadbed than is being made under similar circumstances today by using the peat for embankments.
I suggested in . my letter of the 19th ultimo that your chief engineer or assistant chief engineer discuss with our chief engineer any proposed changes, and report to you In regard to same, because, you will see from the above, these are simply details too trifling to occupy either your attention or mine, and the suggestion in my letter of the 19th ultimo should be quite sufficient for your purposes, perhaps it would be still simpler and quite as efficient for you to get your information through your district engineers, after consultation with the district engineers of the commission, in the usual way.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) R. W. Leonard.
Chairman, National Transcontinental Railway Commission.
I hardly admit that Mr. Leonard was Tight in that letter. I am not arguing as to the rights or absence of such rights of the Grand Trunk Pacific, because I think they are clearly stated in the agreement, i think the chairman of the commission was somewhat in error in advising the
head of the Grand Trunk Pacific that he ought to go somewhere else for Ms information. He says that he might get his information from the district engineer. One of the main contentions that the head of the Grand Trunk Pacific was making was that the agreement was not being lived up to, in that the approval of the Grand Trunk Pacific officials and engineers (was not being obtained to the changes made. The larger question, which Mr. Chamberlin raised in this correspondence, and which may be troublesome in the future, was the fact that changes were being made in violation of the agreement of 1903, by which all these matters were to be submitted to joint approval. The question should have been taken up then by the heads, and not an attempt made to send it to the engineers, because the Government, or its commissioner, Major Leonard, and Mr. Chamberlin were the only parties who could settle that dispute at that time.
I find here a letter from the chief commissioner to the hon. minister. There is no letter to which it is a reply, and I presume it is the result of some discussion or interview between the commissioner and the hon minister. (Reading):
Ottawa, Nov. 21, 1912. Hon. F. Cochrane, P.C.,
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa,
Dear Mr. Coqhrane,-In reference to the charges made in the newspapers that the gradients on ithe Transcontinental have been injuriously altered. I beg to point out, that the only change in gradients made by the commission since September 30, 1911, was to allow a few sags to remain, where there have been subsidences and across soft muskegs, which would be inadvisable, from an engineering point of View, to fill at present, to he operated temporarily or permanently as velocity grades. The presence of such sags in the railway does not injuriously affect the economical operation of the road. The 6&me trains, carrying the same loads making the same time, with the same expense and the same degree of safety and comfort, can he handled over a road in which such sags or velocity grades exist as on a road of the same ruling gradient in which there are no such sags or velocity grades.
By introducing these sags, all of which are well within velocity grade limitation, the commissioners will:
1.	Save a large amount of money in the construction of the railway.
2.	Expedite the completion of the road.
The next clause is in all the correspondence, and it is very significant, as it is meant to protect, and does protect, the chairman of the commission, the chief engineer and his staff, from what is the inevitable fact, that, in the future, if this road is to be brought back to its former standard, these sags will have to be filled.

That point stands out clearly in Mr. Leonard's letters, and you will find it stated now on the responsibility of the engineer. They practically admit that a portion of these sags which they have left -to put it mildly-may have to be filled in the future. They rightly protect themselves from what I say is inevitable, that, ;f this road is to be brought to the standard which the people ordered it, these sags will have to be filled in such a way as to make a grade of four-tenths of one per cent against eastbound traffic and six-tenths of one per cent against westbound traffic. Let me now read further:
3.	Should it become advisable for any unforeseen reason in the future to eliminate! these sags, it can be done at one-half the cost that the present contract prices call for.
4.	In one case it has been found necessary to raise the grade in a cutting, the material in which is so soft and wet that it is impracticable to construct a line on the original grades, and in this instance the grade has been kept well within the limits of velocity grade practice; and the gradient can be reduced at any time, if it should ever be found desirable, by filling in the lower portion with suitable material.


Herbert Brown Ames: Mr. Leonard's intimation
is, as I understand it, that if hereafter it be found that the grade is more than a momentum grade, the line can be improved by filling up the sunken parts.


George Perry Graham: Even the mo-st astute
lawyer would not interpret it in that way. I will read it again:
Should it become advisable for any unforeseen reason in the future to eliminate these sags, it can be done at one-half the cost.
That means: If you ever want to get rid of these sags, you will be able to fill them up cheaper than you can now. Then he goes on:
5.	The consensus of opinion of the following engineers, who have been in the employ of the commission for years, in their sworn testimony before the commission investigating the construction of the Transcontinental railway, is that velocity grades are not only unobjectionable, but might have been introduced permanently into the railway, and would have greatly reduced the cost of the road: Gordon Grant, C. 0. Foss, A. E. Doucet, A. G. Mc-Farlane, G. L. Mattice, J. W. Porter, A. N. Moles worth, II. L. Bucke.
I find that the gradients on -which the original Quebec bridge was partially built were 1 per cent on either side, and the new bridge will necessarily he built to the same grades. I also find that the gradient apJ preaching the -Quebec bridge from the east side, including the Chaudiere bridge, was of 1 per. cent, which cannot he altered.
In New Brunswick I find in the middle of a division a grade thirteen miles long of 1-10 per cent against eastbound traffic, and _ in Quebec in the middle of another division eleven miles of 1-10 per cent grade against, Mr. GRAHAM.
westbound traffic, each of which will limit the hauling capacity of locomotives over these divisions to the same extent as if the whole division had been located on these grades.
I am sending herewith, for your information, five blue print profiles, showing all the changes in gradients which have been effected, since September, 1911.
Trusting this will he satisfactory, I remain, Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) R, W. Leonard, Chairman, National Transcontinental
Railway Commission.
Then foe adds, as a postscript:
Mr. Grant's evidence is not yet in type, hut from conversation I have had with him, which is confirmed by Mr. Staunton, I know his views to be as above stated.
So I think we have good grounds for coming to the conclusion that the commission had something to do with this.


Francis Cochrane: They were giving evidence on oath; I presume they would say what they thought was right.


George Perry Graham: What I say is that Mr. Leonard, himself, connects Mr. Staunton with the matter. Mr. Staunton is a member of the commission, and I am of the opinion that the suggestion as to the change of grades came first from the chairman of the commission, because evidence was being obtained to uphold the contention that these grades might be changed without disadvantage to the road. I have the proof in my hand from Mr. Leonard himself.


Francis Cochrane: Inference.


George Perry Graham: It is not inference; it
is plainly stated. I have read this correspondence, and it places two or three things very prominently before the country. First, these changes were made without the approval of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company; second, the Grand Trunk Pacific engineers reported to their president that changes were being made in structures and in grades without their approval. If that be the case, the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is on record as saying that the company will not accept the road. Let me read again the last paragraph of Mr. Chamberlin's letter:
I beg to say that if this work is done in. accordance with what I understand to be your recent instructions, it will not be in compliance with the agreement, nor satisfactory to this company, and cannot be accepted.
The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, therefore, place themselves on record as saying that, if the work were done in accordance with certain recent instructions, they would not be bound to take over this portion of the road, for the reason that the agreement of 190.3 had been violated by the commission in their pro-

ceeding to make changes without the concurrence of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and their engineering staff. I desire to give to the House a few of the changes that have been made. It might be suggested that my ignorance of these matters would remove me from the realm of reliability, but I have submitted everything to engineers whose ability as construction or operating men cannot be questioned.


Francis Cochrane: It would certainly be much more interesting, and enable us to receive the information with additional confidence, if we were made acquainted with the name of the engineer referred to by my hon. friend.


George Perry Graham: I am making the statement on my own responsibility, backed up by an authority which would be recognized by my hon. friend. I have submitted the profiles of the line given to me by the Government; the changes, everything, to men who are very prominent in this coentry and whose opinions could not be questioned by any man in this House, and my notes have been checked up by ithem, and are correct. I will take district C, contract 13, mile 83. Near mile 83, station 1,331, plus 50, to station 1.340, a distance of 850 feet, there is an 0.8 grade, against eastbound traffic, an increase of 100 per cent over the standard grade. Following this there is a level of 2,800 feet, then 600 feet of one per cent grade against westbound traffic, an increase over -standard grade of 66 per cent. Then, there is a stretch of 1,450 feet of 0.6 grade against westbound traffic, followed by 550 feet of
0.4 against eastbound traffic.


Francis Cochrane: This is the Grand
Trunk Pacific's own contract.


George Perry Graham: That does not make a
bit of difference to me. This Government is there to see that the contractors do their work properly. I would not protect the Grand Trunk Pacific and this Government surely would not. This is the people's road, it is not the Grand Trunk Pacific's road, and if they have not built this part of the line up to the standard they must have built it in this way, by the consent of the government engineers as they are responsible. The instruction of the chief engineer was that the maximum should be used only where it was absolutely necessary, and it should not be exceeded in any case.
Near mile 86, from station 1,466 to 1,490, there is a level of 2,400 feet. Then there is 2,600 feet of one per cent followed by
5,200	feet of 0.6 grade against westbound.
This alteration, I am informed, becomes the Tuling grade. In the correspondence I have read it has been pointed out that
in no place has a ruling grade been made over the standard grade. I do not want to pretend that any hon. gentleman does not understand what may appear technical but, lest they may not, I shall explain that a luling grade is a grade in any division higher than the other grades; having to be overcome by any loaded train, it becomes the ruling grade. In other words, a load that cannot be hauled over that grade might as well not be hauled over any other part of the division unless it be a pusher grade and the load that can be hauled over that is the load that is placed on the train at the beginning of the division. In railway practice it will be found that in order to maintain a rate of fifteen miles per hour at this grade of one per cent it will be necessary for the train to be running, when it strikes the foot of the grade, at a rate of about thirty-two miles per hour. In this particular case it must be borne in mind that even under these conditions, which must be normal, the train will have a speed of only fifteen miles per hour when it strikes the stretch of 5,600 feet of six-tenths -per cent grade. It starts climbing the six-tenths per cent grade at fifteen miles per hour and in order to maintain the fifteen miles it must have reached a speed of tbirty-two miles an hour. As to the remaining climb, it must have steam, water and power sufficient to maintain speed. Under such conditions the train might work its way up this grade, but one need not be an engineer to understand that all the conditions must be perfect. Hon. gentlemen living in this northern climate will agree that, for such grades to be ^successful as velocity grades, every condition must be normal; steam must be up; everything must be working properly; there must be no trouble with the fire; the brakes must be in condition should anything happen; the road must be clear and the weather must be such that all these conditions can prevail. Up along this line these conditions will never prevail except in the summer. I have discussed this with men who have been operating railway trains for a good many years and they are all of the opinion, so far as I can find out, that these grades as introduced, if they are to remain, will materially affect the value of the road as aj hauling project for the people's products. And why? In Canada, particularly in that portion of it, what do we find in those sags? They lend themselves to the accumulation of snow drifts after every storm, and storms are quite regular in northern Canada in winter. The thermometer drops almost beyond reach in some of these places and what will be found if an attempt is made to draw those heavy trains over these sags and increased grades? Some cold morning a draw-bar

will break on the climb on one of these grades and back will go a portion of the train into the hollow. If the locomotive is able, under the conditions, to haul the balance of the train, it will have to take it to the top of . the grade, one, two, three, four, five or six miles to a siding, place the front portion of the train on the siding and go back down and get the other piece, haul, it up the grade and make up the train again; that is if nothing serious happens. But when a section of a train runs wild down one of these grades so much damage may be done that the whole saving effected by this change in gradients may he wiped out in one accident on one winter morning.
At mile 86, what was originally designed as a four-tenths per cent has been raised to a six-tenths per cent grade. At mile 90, station 1,545 to 1,660, there is another rise in grade, 1,500 feet of .56 against eastbound traffic instead of four-tenths, as per original instructions, and at station 1,694 there is 600 feet of .53 grade against eastbound traffic instead of four-tenths.
At mile 93, there is 2,000 feet where a slight sag has been introduced without any apparent reason except for the purpose of introducing it.
At mile 9S, station 2,160 to 2,172, there is
1,200	foot level, then 2,000 feet of one per cent grade instead of six-tenths against westbound traffic, originally contemplated, followed by a slight grade against east-bound traffic.
"The same argument applied to 86, will, I believe, apply to this grade, and I leave it to the staff themselves, if they look over the profiles carefully, if they will not find in at least two places a grade where there is no attempt at a velocity or compensating grade, if it is not a straight run from the level at the grade. I am not prepared to say at what mile it is.
At mile 101, station 2,226 to 2,233, there is 700 feet of level, then 1,300 feet of .84 grade against westbound traffic instead of six-tenths, which merges into 3,300 feet of six-tenths. On the 700 foot level, a full train will be expected to get up sufficient speed, not only to climb 1,300 feet of .84 grade, but added to this without any easement of grade at all, a stretch of 3,300 feet of 6/10. Again, before the 6/10 grade begins there is a continuation of .84 grade for 1,300 feet, so that the original intention that the train would only have to climb the 6/10 grade is altogether obviated, and the reasoning that there will be a great reduction of speed will apply to this grade as well as to the other.
Then, on contract 14, at mile 65, there is
1,400	feet of 4/10 against westbound traffic and then a stretch of 2,200 feet rise of from 6/10 to .73, running into a long stretch of 6/10. The same argument as to the neces-Mr. GRAHAM.
sary speed of a train when striking the 7/10 grade in order to assist it up that 2,200 feet, and also the additional distance of the 6/i0, is applicable.
At mile 175, from station 1,784 to 1,817, there is 2,700 feet of .45 against the east-bound traffic instead of 4/10. Then follows 1,000 feet of level' and immediately
1.300	feet of .65 against westbound traffic, an increase here in the grades both ways.
At mile 177, station 1,875 to 1,889 there is
1.400	feet of 3/10 against eastbound traffic, followed by 1,000 feet of 8/10 against westbound traffic, another distinct increase in the grade.
At station 1,928 to 1,936, there is 800 feet where the 4/10 grade against eastbound traffic has been raised to .76, an increase of practically 100 per cent, followed by 1,600 feet of 6/10 grade against westbound. At mile 179 there is a siding. Some slight changes have been made at this point, but they are trifling.
At mile 180, station 2,024 to 2,039, there is a stretch of 1,500 feet where the grade has been raised from 4/10 to '48 against eastbound traffic. At mile 181, station 2,104 to 2,115, the 6/10 grade against westbound traffic has been raised a trifle to [DOT]63. At mile 182, station 2,154 to 2,169, after
1.400	feet of level track, it is immediately raised to -75, which runs for 1,800 feet against westbound traffic. Possibly that would not be a momentum grade. There is no momentum, as I gather from the profiles, to compensate for the rise in the grade from 6/10 to '75. At mile 183, there have been several slight changes from the original, introducing what the engineers call ' sags.' At mile 184, from station 2,261 to 2,265, after 400 feet of level there are 1,000 feet raised from 6/10 to 8/10 against westbound traffic. At mile 185, following
1.300	feet of -31 against westbound traffic, 800 feet were raised to 8/10. At mile 187, station 2,385 to 2,401, a grade of 4/10 against eastbound traffic was raised to -42 for 1,600 feet. At mile 188, station 2,471 to 2,475, there is something over 500 feet of level, followed by 1,475 feet, and the grade was raised from 6/10 to 8/10 against westbound traffic. At miles 190 and 191, station 2,594 to 2,616, there is 2,200 feet of 4/10 raised to A against eastbound traffic. At mile 193, station 2,720 to 2,741, there is 2,100 feet of 4/10 raised to -62 against eastbound traffic, and at station 2,751 there is 1,000 feet of 6/10 raised to 8/10 against westbound traffic. At mile 194, station 2,760 to 2,770, the grade has been raised against east-bound traffic to 6/10. At mile 196, station 2,884 to 2,900, after 1,600 feet of practically level track comes 1,500 feet where the grade has been raised from 6/10 to 8/10 against westbound traffic. At mile 197 and 199, sags again have been introduced, as stated before, apparently to save a few

loads of fill, without having any regard to the appearance of the road. At mile 200, station 3,090 to 3,110, after 2,000 feet of 4/10 grade against westbound traffic, the grade suddenly rises to 8/10 against westbound traffic for 2,000 feet. At mile 202, station 3,225 to 3,240, there is 1,500 feet where the grade of 4/10 against eastbound traffic has been raised to -51.
Now I come to district ' 0,' contract 14. At mile 115, station 2,996 to 3,000, there i? 400 feet of a level and 3,000 feet of 6/10 against westbound traffic, and 1,300 feet of .49 against westbound traffic. At mile 125 station 3,476 to 3,495, there is another change, making 6/10 grade, which, while being only the standard grade in the agreement, still is an increase over what was intended originally, and a violation of the chief engineer's instructions. At mile 141 station 4,360 to 4,370, there is 1,000 feet ol 7/10 grade against westbound traffic, an increase over the standard. Then from 4,370 to 4,390 there is 2,000 feet of 6/10 grade, followed by 1,150 feet where it drops to 4/10, which is increased again from station 4,405 to 4,417 for 1,200 feet to 6/10. This shows that the train will not only have to climb the increase of 1/10 of 1 per cent, over the standard, for the 1,000 ^eet, but it must keep up this momentum for 2,000 feet	on a	6/10 grade.	In fact, for 5,350feet	it is	here continually climbing.	Atmile	157,	station 5,194	to 5,206, there	is1,200	feet of practically level stretch, then 2,100 feet of 4/10 against eastbound traffic, and 1,600 feet of a grade of a little over 5/10 against eastbound traffic, this being another increase in grade. At mile 167, the 4/10	grade is changed	into 1,200 feet	of
5/10 and 1,200 feet of 3/10, both against eastbound traffic. At mile 181, there is another change from 6/10 to nearly 8/10 against weptbound traffic. At mile 189, there is 3,000 feet raised from 4/10 to 5/10 against eastbound traffic. At mile 191, station 1,121 to 1,137, there is 1,600 feet oi level, but at station 1,145 there is 800 feet of 1 per cent grade against eastbound traffic which must depend, for its safe an! successful operation in momentum or a reduced train load proportionately.
I do not say that I have gone over all the changes in grade in these districts, but I have gone over quite a number of them. Upon this question of momentum grades, I admit that there- is a considerable difference of opinion amongst engineers, but I want to make this assertion, that if my hon. friend will go among the operating men, not the construction engineers, but among the trainmen, the drivers, the'firemen, those men who operate the roads in our Canadian climate, and ask them whether the changes I have indicated will in any way increase their work, or whether,
on these grades, they will be able to haul as big a load as they would have been over the other grades and at the same expenditure, he will find that they will tell him that practically the changes made are all wrong. I have discussed this with some of the engineers and it has taken me back to the introduction of the theory of momentum grades. I have made a note in reference to the time at which these momentum grades were first introduced. They were introduced some thirty years ago, I think, by the late Mr. A. M. Wellington, who worked out the theory. His theory of momentum grades, much like the toboggan slide theory, is that when you go down one hill at the bottom of which is a level piece of road, you gain a sufficient acceleration of speed to help you up the grade beyond the level and it is believed that iby the introduction of momentum or velocity grades a train will be able to get up an incline very much more easily than if it approached it from the level. I have been told by a number of practical trainmen, the men who sit in the caboose, the men who put the coal in the fires, the men who handle the engines, that the introduction of even the slightest increase of grade does make a difference and when I have called their attention to the original instructions providing for a four-tenths per cent grade and a six-tenths per cent grade


Francis Cochrane: Is it six-tenths or five-tenths? You said it was five-tenths.


George Perry Graham: I said that five-tenths
had been first suggested, that in 1907 it was changed to six-tenths. When it was pointed out to them that the original instructions were for a four-tenths and a six-tenths per cent grade they told me that it would make a vast difference in the operation of the road in our Canadian climate. These momentum grades were introduced, as I have said, some thirty years ago, but they have not been approved by leading authorities in the construction of new lines. It must be borne in mind that no line of the standard of the Transcontinental railway was ever attempted in original construction on this continent before; consequently, to introduce anything that may be adopted on an inferior line is a retrograde step that will not meet the wishes of the people of Canada. They approved of the higher standard for the reasons given by the men whom my hon. friend now depends upon for advice and if the benefits to be derived from this high standard of road are to be lost by the introduction of momentum grades, or grades where there is no momentum, it is altogether wrong. My hon. friend will say that he did it with the idea of hastening construction in order to get grain through to Cochrane this season. I. think he will find that quite a number of

these changes are east of Cochrane altogether and therefore that would not at all be an answer to the question as to why these grades were changed.
Now, as to the amount of money saved, <1 asked my hon. friend some time ago how much had been saved by the change. He told me what the amount was and it was not very large., I have pointed out that one accident in trying to overcome one of these grades might involve the loss of a greater amount than he would save in the sag at that point. I refer only to the property loss. When we come to the other feature and mention the lives of the public who travel I will not undertake to say what the risk may be. Operating men will tell him, and I refer him to them, that the introduction of a foot of increased grade will not only increase the expense of operation but the wear and tear on the roadbed as well as on the rolling stock will be greater.
Now, I want to refer for a moment to the question of bridges. If it be true that wooden bridges are being allowed to take the places of concrete and steel bridges, it is not a mistake, it is a crime.


Francis Cochrane: I have already denied that.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will deny it again, I suppose, and I am accepting his denial, of course. But I am pointing out that he will have to convince the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific that his statement is icorreet and I cannot	find anything	in the correspondence which will convince them. Mr. Leonard says that he, as well as the former commission, did sanction the introduction of wooden structures in place of steel and concrete on account of the great difficulties and cost of finding a suitable foundation for concrete pillars. If there be one wooden structure on that line where a steel or concrete structure should be placed it is a crime to leave it there. In the construction of the eastern division of the Transcontinental railway the contractors have suffered the loss of many wooden bridges through fire and I need not explain what might be the result in case of fire some dark night along the Transcontinental railway with a fast international train going at full speed. These accidents will occur, they have occured before now and the Government should not permit any mistake but should build the road in the very best manner not only for speed but in order to ensure the safe conduct of people travelling over that line. If an accident happens on that line on account of faulty construction the Grand Trunk Pacific will not be held responsible, but it will come back and reflect upon the Government that allowed this faulty construction to take place. My hon. friend ought to see that this road is Mr. GRAHAM.	I
built in such a way as to conform to the understanding with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. If anything is being done to which they will not agree, or which their engineers will not approve, and if anything is required to be done in order to ensure the safety of the project, it is in the interests of the Government, the commissioners, the engineers and the people of Canada that the step be now taken to secure that approval and not allow the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to be in the position that they may come to us at some time when this road is ready to be taken over and say: We will not take it over, because you have violated the agreement which we made with you for the operation of the road. This is a question of paramount importance to the people of Canada.


Francis Cochrane: I do not think my
hon. friend (Mr. Graham) will get any expert engineer, or anyone else who has had any Tailway experience, to say that velocity grades are any more dangerous to life or property than grades of four-tenths or six-tenths of one per cent. His whole argument was based on the difference of opinion as to the practicability of velocity grades as compared with grades of four-tenths and six-tmths per cent. I propose to cite some au hor-ities to the committee and when I present an authority I will give the name of the person whose statement I quote, because I do not think it is fair, even to myself, to cite an authority without giving the name of the individual referred to. Like the hon. gentleman I have to form my opinions on questions of this character from the information, the experience and the advice of engineers, and if the opinions to which he has referred us are those of men of standing, as he says they are, and which statement I accept, I am going to direct his attention and that of the committee to the experience of engineers of quite as high standing, I am sure, and upon whose information and advice I have to a large extent based my own opinion. My hon. friend will admit that Mr. Bowden, chief engineer of the department, is a good authority, and I may state that in discussing this point with him on the approval of a route map, he said that modern and up-to-date engineers now recommended velocity grades. My hon. friend quoted Mr. Cooper, who is a man of high standing as an engineer; but he has made his reputation more on bridges than on railways.


George Perry Graham: Has not Mr. Bowden
done the same?


Francis Cochrane: grade, until after the settling, which takes place in all new structures. The commission and the engineer have not only carried out to the letter what is required, but they have saved a considerable sum of money to the people of Canada.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We have had a very
voluminous and explicit apology from the Minister of Railways for this wonderful change in the standard of the Transcontinental railway. I am not an engineer, I am speaking as a layman; I have not-gone to engineers, as has my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), and discussed the matter with them. I know the minister may say that, not having taken, this precaution, I should not deal with the question; but, speaking as a layman, I fail to understand how you can operate a road with hills in it as economically as you can a level road.


Francis Cochrane: I gave you my authorities.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am giving you my opinion as a layman now, and I will come to the authorities later. It is most remarkable that the Minister of Railways has not brought the evidence of the men who have to run the engines. I would like to hear the opinion of a locomotive engineer on a thing like this.


Francis Cochrane: I never heard of a
locomotive engineer undertaking to build a railroad.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The man who runs a
locomotive will know more about what the engine will do under certain circumstances than the man who designs it


Francis Cochrane: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He does. It is like a
man who runs an automobile. He knows what it means to climb hills better than the man who built the automobile. On a point like that, I would give ten times as much for the opinion of the man who runs an automobile as for the opinion of the man who builds it; and it is just the same with the men who are operating railroads. I have driven an automobile, and I know wbat it means to climb hills; and I presume that the same principle that applies to an automobile applies to a railway train. When a man tells me you can make a run for a hill and climb it just as easily as you can run on the level, I do not believe him.


Francis Cochrane: We are not discussing climbing hills; we are discussing velocity grades.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think I know what I am talking about. I suppose the minister means that you run down one hill and get Mr. COCHRANE.
up enough speed to run up the next hill. Probably that is what he calls a velocity grade. If you have a level two or three or four thousand feet, and a hill of one or two thousand feet beyond that, it practically means that you have a velocity grade. You have simply the momentum of your train. The authorities will tell you that a train Tunning a certain number of miles per hour, when it comes to the foot of a grade, will climb a certain number of feet. The same thing holds good of an automobile. It will not, however, always do it. It will do it if the automobile is in perfect running condition.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to quote the co-efficient of friction?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is beyond me. I will leave that to the hon. member for West Peterborough.
My hon. friend has quoted the chief engineer of the Transcontinental as one of the authorities on the subject, reading his letter to the committee. I can only say that if the chief engineer of the Transcontinental when he became chief engineer, entertained the views which he does now, it is most remarkable that he remained chief engineer for three years without putting these views in operation, because, according to the terms of the letter partially read, it would have meant some saving in the cost of the road. For the last three years that the late Government were in power, the only blame which was levelled at them was the excessive cost of this road. The fact that no attempt was made by the chief engineer to reduce the cost by putting in velocity [DOT] grades rather detracts from the value of that evidence. I am sorry that my hon. friend has not given us the exact amount of saving which he will effect by reason of this change in grade.


Francis Cochrane: The road is not completed yet.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Even in that event the engineers would be in a position to give a very close estimate. $27,000 was given as one item. Sorely there must be a great deal more saving than that.


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It would be ridiculous
to change this road from a practically level road to what is an experiment for the sake of having $27,000, or $270,000, or even $2,700,000; because there is no doubt this is an experiment to a very great extent.


Francis Cochrane: Oh, no.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is mr hon.
friend's opinion, but it is not mine. It is an experiment to change what is practically

a level road to a hilly road. My hon. friend is looking at the question from a theoretical and not a practical point of view. My hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) pointed out one thing which I venture to say . my hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) has not considered. He has not considered the great effect of one of these ruling-grades. He will admit that, :f he has created a condition of affairs under which an ordinary engine will not haul its full load, he has created a ruling grade which did not exist before.


Francis Cochrane: I quoted authorities,
who said that it would not affect the haul one per cent. Of course, I am perfectly willing to allow my hon. friend to hold his own opinion on the matter.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I presume so. I am
telling my hon. friend that, if he is creating a different set of conditions, he is creating a new ruling grade. He must know that, if he has an accident of any kind at one of these places, he is creating a new set of conditions.


Mr. AIKINS:: What greater risk of accident is there on a virtually level grade than on a four-tenths or five-tenths grade?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is liable to be an accident at any place and at any time in the operation of railways.


James Albert Manning Aikins: Exactly.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If your train is loaded
to the full capacity of the engine, on a level or four-tenths grade, you can pick up your train at any point and haul it up the four-tenths grade. The principle of a four-tenths grade is that an engine can haul up that grade a load which it can start on the level. If you have a four-tenths grade, no matter where or when your accident happens, when your engine is repaired or whatever has been damaged has foeen replaced, you can pick up your load and go on with the same engine. Therefore you have created no new Tuling grade. Supposing you put an eight-tenths or one per cent grade where it should have been four, and an accident happens. Accidents will happen on freight as well as passenger trains. The moment an accident happens, you aTe stalled, because your engine cannot pick up your train. The only thing you can do is to cut your train in two, take half of it up the hill to a siding, and come hack for the other half, thus losing probably half a day. My hon. friend the Minister must admit that the modern principle of operating railroads is to load trains up to tire capacity of the engines on the ruling grade of each division. If you have a grade in the centre of the division which reduces the hauling capacity of your engine by 500 tons, you should start
out with a load less that 500 tons. That is the practice on practically every railroad in Canada. I had a practical illustration of that within the last three weeks. I was riding on a freight train, and asked the conductor what his tonnage was. When he told me, I said: 'You can haul a great deal more than that with your engine?' He had a 135 per cent engine, vand had only a little less than 700 tons. He said: 'Yes, I can haul more than.700 tons, but I have the Oak Mountain grade to climb, this grade is practically in the middle of the division.' I said: "'Why do you not bring your full tonnage up to the grade?' He said: ' That does not pay; we have abandoned that practice, and to-day we only haul on this division what we can haul on the grade.'


James Albert Manning Aikins: Was that a virtual or a
momentum grade, or ' just an -ordinary climb of a hill?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is an ordinary
climb of a hill, which is not necessarily a momentum grade. The modern practice of operating railroads is to start out with loads that you can haul over your ruling grade. If you start out with more, you have created a new ruling grade, and will have trouble. You have not got, for all practical purposes, as good a road for traffic as if you had a four-tenths road. My hon. friends may argue that under ideal conditions they have got as good a road. Possibly you have, although if the statement made by the hon. -member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) is correct, that in some cases you have not got a momentum grade-
Mr) COCHRANE: He was not sure of that statement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am assuming that it
is true. If your momentum grades are such that theoretically your engine can pull the full load over them with all conditions perfect, the very moment you come to a set of conditions that are not perfect your whole hypothesis is gone.
You must have perfect conditions to work it out, and in a country like Canada you do not always have perfect conditions. The great amount of freight that is going over this road will go over it during the winter months. If you do not have perfect conditions, you will not have perfect results, and if you do not have perfect results you do not have as good a road as a four-tenths road, because a four-tenths road will give good results under any conditions, if the engine is working well. My hon. friend is looking at the matter from a theoretieal standpoint, and has not explained it satisfactorily, unless it be because of the small amount he may be able to save. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham)

has said that it would appear from the correspondence that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company might refuse to take over this road. So far as the people of eastern Canada axe concerned, we are vitally interested in this matter.


Francis Cochrane: I am not the least bit afraid that they will not take it over. Due allowance has been made in every case for imperfect conditions.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Theoretically, of course.


Francis Cochrane: Practically.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have my doubts in that regard; however, I give the minister credit for being sincere. I admit that he has fortified himself with engineering advice on the matter-theoretical advice; not the advice of men who operate the engine, and who can tell him exactly what the engine can do. It is a remarkable thing that my hon. friend should degrade the character of this road for the sake of the small amount of money he is saving. Why is he doing it? He did not do it on the advice of his chief engineer; the letter of his chief engineer proves that.


Francis Cochrane: Excuse me.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I make the statement
. that you did not do it on the advice of your chief engineer, because the letter of the chief engineer, written during the latter part of last year, admits it was on account of the conversation which the minister had with him that he wrote the letter.


Francis Cochrane: I asked him for the letter.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You asked him to change the grades.


Francis Cochrane: No, I did not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is evident that the
minister changed the character of the road practically on the advice of his inspecting engineers.


Francis Cochrane: The chief engineer
recommended the change. This letter I spoke of was not written until December, and the change in the grades was made before December.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The chief engineer has
not said he was the man who recommended the changes. I would ask the hon. minister to ask the chief engineer, who is sitting before him, who first recommended the change in the grades.


Francis Cochrane: On February 21, 1913, the hon. member for South Renfrew asked the following questions, and the following replies were given:
Q. By whom were the changes in grades, bridges or trestles on the eastern division Mr. CARVELL.
of the National Transcontinental railway suggested?
A. The chief engineer.
Q. Who recommended that these changes should be made?
A. The chief engineer.
Q. What is the estimated saving in cost by these changes?
A. $27,797 to date.
Q. Who prepared that estimate?
A. District engineer, H. M. Balkan.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman has not answered my question. I have said, and I repeat it, that his chief engineer was not the first man who suggested the degradation of this road.


Francis Cochrane: The chief engineer
said it was done jointly.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Who was the other part of the joint?


Francis Cochrane: Mr. Leonard.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thought so. I knew
Mr. Gordon Grant would not make this suggestion; he is too good an engineer. The man who built this road up to a proper standard was not the man to suggest voluntarily to the minister that he should degrade the character of this road. The minister says it was done by Mr. Leonard.


Francis Cochrane: No, I did not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, it was done jointly with Mr. Leonard. Now we have a confession as to the whole matter, and it is just exactly as we thought. When Mr. Leonard was placed in charge of this road, either through instructions received or actuated by his own motives, he decided that he must change everything which the former commissioners had been doing. He must change the classification; he must change the manner of building the road; he must change the engineers. I do not believe Mr. Leonard was the first man who suggested it, either. I believe the thing came from his investigating engineers or his investigating commission, although we have not any positive proof of that. When a new order of things came about, the commissioner went to the chief engineer and suggested that the road had better be changed and cheapened by introducing these velocity grades. Unfortunately, perhaps, the chief engineer agreed with him, and the changes were made. I feel that it is a very serious matter as affecting this great transcontinental railway of Canada. I feel it is unfortunate that the minister has allowed Ms officials, for perhaps political reasons-I can see no other reason-to change the character of this road which was handed over to him when he attained office. Before this item passes I think the minister should inform the committee what will be the saving to this country when all these changes will have been effected. He

does not need to tell me he does not know; his chief engineer is sitting before him.


Francis Cochrane: He does not know
either.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He ought to; my hon.
friend surely cannot be serious. The chief engineer has in his possession a profile of the original cost of the road. Every bit of that road was under contract, and the chief engineer knows exactly how many hundred cubic yards of solid or loose rock or earth would have to be removed from those cuts. He knows how many thousand yards it will take to fill the fills. He has the profile, he can tell within one-half of one per cent what the cost will be. The chief engineer also has the amended profile and he knows within one-half of one per cent how many cubic yards will have to be removed and filled and he can tell the difference in the number of yards. The work has progressed far enough for that. He knows the kind of classification, if it is train-fill he knows the kind of borrow he will get and what the train-fill will cost him because the contracts are signed. Therefore, I tell the minister, in the presence of the chief engineer, that he can tell us within one-half of one per cent the difference in cost owing to the changes. I could understand that if the project were a new one, if it were a new road through a country of which little was known, that could not be done; but this is an old road, it has been surveyed for three or four years, there have been cross sections for that time and practically all the work has been completed, even that in which the changes have been made. He knows what the cross section shows on the original profile and on the new profile and he knows the cost of train-fill, of removing material, because he has the contracts for all of this work. I would like to have the minister tell us approximately what will be the saving in cost in constructing the road under the new conditions?


Francis Cochrane: I answered the hon.
gentleman.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We will probably get
some more information before the item goes through.


Francis Cochrane: All right, I cannot
help it.


Herbert Brown Ames: Those of us who remember the debate of ten years ago in this House will recollect that the original proposition of building a road from Winnipeg to Moncton was to cost $56,000,000. We know that through succeeding sessions that estimate was enlarged. We know -that when the late Government went out of power it was estimated that the cost would be between $150,000,000 and $160,000,000 and the increased expense continued. The question has often been asked how it was that this enormous expenditure came about. Not altogether because they were undertaking to build a first class road such as was not to be found anywhere else on the continent of America, that is not the only reason; a good many dollars have been expended which I think could have been saved if the road had been built along the same economical lines that have been followed since it came under the one man commission. I had the opportunity last summer of going over the divisions under discussion, C. D and E, and also over division A, spending several weeks, going a few miles a day on a speeder so that I could see what was being done; and the question was constantly in mind as to why the road had cost so much. I was able to get some answers to that question. For example, I found, that the second contract west of Cochrane known as the O'Brien contract, had been originally let to Davis. Tenders were called for and the contract	signed	on	the 20th	ofOctober, 1908.	Then	that	section of	thecountry was absolutely inaccessible, you could not get in there from east or west because there was no connecting line, you could only get	in through	the rivers,	theihead waters of	which	are	crossed by	the
Canadian Pacific railway. But the Government signed a contract with Davis on the 20th of October, 1908, in which it was stipulated that that section must be completed by the 31st of December, 1910. Davis let eighteen months go by without making any attempt to do anything. Then he sublet the contract to O'Brien and it is currently reported that O'Brien gave to Davis ten per cent on the total contract. The total contract was for $6,000,000 or more so that the amount that Davis received was $600,000, for doing nothing except to hold the contract and get the time extended. That is one way in which money was lost on the construction. In the second place, a great deal was lost from sympathetic classification.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Where?


Herbert Brown Ames: Sympathetic classification
all the way from Moncton to lake Superior.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is not so.


Herbert Brown Ames: By sympathetic classification I mean loose rock called solid rock, and common excavation called loose rock.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: , It cannot be found.


Herbert Brown Ames: And as I have myself with a pick been over many of the cuttings and have seen it myself I think I know whereof I speak. I say that throughout the building of the Transcontinental railway instructions came from headquarters to make the i classification as sympathetic as possible I towards the contractors. That is my reason

for stating that there is such classification. Another reason for the great cost was that they would not use trestles, that they deliberately went to work and put in permanent fillings where they should have put in temporary fillings until after the road had settled. Take for example what is known as Coal creek, in New Brunswick. There was a small creek where the enbankment was built of solid rock at a cost of $1,101 a yard, the total cost being $429,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. member is all wrong in stating that amount per yard.


Herbert Brown Ames: There is a section in New Brunswick where thirty-one miles cost $4,000,000, or $134,000 a mile. I do not think that any other group of engineers in America would ever have contemplated building a road diagonally across the deeply cut country between the Tobique river and Grand Falls. That is another case where the expenditure was greatly enlarged in consequence of the course pursued.
When the new commission came into office, naturally enough, they started at two things, first of all to find out why the cost had been so great and secondly, how it was possible, in the construction of the balance of the road, to save the people s money. It is in an attempt to reduce the cost and hasten the completion that these momentum grades of which we have been talking have been introduced.
Two kinds of grades have been referred to by the hon. member for Renfrew. He has spoken of embankments over low-lying places. It is occasionally necessary, when a road is being built, that a sort of temporary track be constructed, because the country needs to dry out, so to speak. That belt of country for one hundred and fifty miles east of Cochrane, most of which is on a level of -only about ten feet above lake Abifibi, is all water soaked, covered with muskeg, a great deal of it covered with low black spruce; and in many places the frost gets into the ground and stays there almost all the year around. A great deal of the under stratum of clay is almost like a glacier, shifting and moving slowly all the time. There are places all along where you find that the embankment has slipped sideways, that the concrete masonry has gone off one hundred feet or so from the road. There is one place at Low Bush river where nine trestles have been built across in succession in the soft mud and they have all gone out and even now they are having the hardest possible work to work through that section. If would certainly seem to me that had a more temporary construction been first built through that section of the road so that there would have been an opportunity, after the trees had been removed and the sunshine could get in, for the land to dry out so that the soil would become more Mr. AMES.
friable, it would have been possible to build embankments that would not sink as they do in many of these muskegs. You will find one place just about the boundary line of Quebec and Ontario, where as fast as they can put in the soil, the earth bulges on both sides and cracks. The only way in which they can lay the tracks is to build three parallel embankments. As often as they keep filling in the middle embankment, and you can put in many hundreds of tons, it sinks and the sides go up. To insist upon keeping up a spirit level grade would be to throw away hundreds of thousands of dol-. lars, and there are a great many places like that in the north country where there must be subsidence grades. Until that country gets dried out and the muskeg is drained and the soil becomes hardened it will be practically useless to keep on increasing the weight of these embankments, because they simply press down in the middle and push out the sides. The time will come when these grades can be filled in, but they can be filled much better and cheaper when ordinary train hauled filling can be brought from a distance, and when the soil gets -dry enough to hold the weight upon it.
The other changes mentioned in that country are through the introduction of momentum grades. It may be necessary at first to have some grades that are even greater than ordinary momentum grades, but what we mean by a momentum grade is a grade between two points, say two miles apart at the same level above the sea, where it is possible for a train to gain enough momentum going down hill to carry it up the hill at the other end of the grade. I contend that the momenturo grade is an accepted prim eiple of engineering used all over the continent. I have here, Willard Beahan's Field Practice of Railway Location, and on page 224 Mr. Beahan writes:
We have seen that the grade to consider is the virtual profile grade. We have seen that without exceeding usual freight train speeds a train will pass down and up in a 25 feet sag with only the usual demand on the locomotives of 7 pounds per ton, i.e., such sags may be operated by the same motive power in the same time and at the same cost as so much straight level track.
That is an accepted' principle of good engineering. The hon. member for Carle-ton, N.B., said that if the engineer, the man who runs the locomotive, would say that, he would accept it more readily.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not make any
such statement as that.


Herbert Brown Ames: Your statement was that
the man who runs the locomotive is the better authority.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Herbert Brown Ames: There is a railway built
over the Chilian Andes in a .moist difficult country, and an Englishman crossing over that railway not long ago rode on the locomotive and got into conversation with the engineer. He said to the engineer: 'Don't you ever shut her off or use your air?' The engineer replied:	'no, we can just about
stay on the rails in the hollows.' 'Don't you need to take a run at, any of these hills?' the engineer was again asked. 'No,' he replied, 'when she pulls out of a station and strikes her gait, the train pulls just the same way all the way to the next stop.' That is what a train can do over a momentum grade. Let us see what an ordinary momentum grade with a drop of twenty-five feet say in a couple of miles, amounts to. Take a ten-foot billiard table, do you mean to tell me that if there was a drop of a quarter of an inch in the middle of that table a billiard ball would not run down from one end and up the other just as easily as if it were a level table? A drop of twenty-five feet in a couple of miles would be no more than a quarter of an inch drop on a ten-foot billiard table, and a train going at a rate of ten miles an hour would go down a sag of twenty-five feet and come up again without exceeding the usual demand on the locomotive. Let us see what that means in the matter of saving. You can build an embankment fifteen feet across the top, and ten feet in height and that embankment will contain 300 cubic feet to a running foot which at fifty-four cents per cubic yard would cost $6 per lineal foot of track. Calculate that for two miles and you will find what it would cost to make the entire distance a ten-foot high embankment. You can build a line, we will say two miles long with a ten-foot embankment, for $63,360. If it was thirty feet high in the middle it would cost $221,760. In other words there would be by the introduction of a momentum grade a saving of $79,200 per mile. That shows what it is worth to take out some of those absolutely dead levels. I admit that a railway proposition looks very nice indeed if you can see straight ahead for five or ten miles, where there is an absolute spirit level grade all the way. But that is not good railroading, and it is not economical construction. Good railroading is to build a road as cheaply as possible, without interfering with the pulling power of the locomotive. It is perfectly superfluous to make that road absolutely level when you can still maintain the full hauling power of the road by occasionally inserting momentum grades. One of the best authorities in Canada, Mr. Tye, who is president of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers,
made the following statement in January last in his annual address to that society:
Momentum grades are a great source of saving in cost without increasing the operating expenses. The use of momentum in overcoming short stretches steeper than the ordinary ruling grade is almost always justifiable. The exception is where the traffic is so congested that the possibility of a delay due to the failure of an occasional train to surmount the grade is more important than the undoubted saving in interest charges which they ensure. It will probably be many years before conditions prohibiting their use prevail on any portion of our Canadian railways.
The only exception he makes is that of a road where the traffic is so continuous that the contingency suggested by the hon. member for Carleton might arise, where a train could be stopped it causes delay to the traffic. The probabilities are that it will be many years before there will be so many trains on the Transcontinental that an occasional stoppage will block the traffic. One can see, therefore, what has actuated Commissioner Leonard. As a practical railroad builder, in taking over this road, he saw that money was being wasted for purely artistic purposes. In order that the road might look well money was being spent unnecessarily; and he undertook at once to make a road as it would have been built by any of the great operating companies on the continent of America, and it is to carry out that general principle and, as far as possible, to prevent excessive cost, that this policy has been adopted.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would like to say a word in answer to the hon. member for St. Antoine. If, in place of worrying himself about carrying a pick up on a jigger and reading these theoretical statements, he will come down to the southern part of Ontario and count the cars that the Michigan Central draw as against the cars that are drawn by any other roai in this country, he will get an object lesson that will be much better than carrying a pick up on that jigger in the north country.


Herbert Brown Ames: I may say that the ruling grade of the National Transcontinental will be quite as good as that of the Michigan Central.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The Michigan Central are hauling twenty or thirty more cars per engine than any other road because the road is practically level.


Mr. WILCOX:: I do not think the road
is level; it runs through my farm.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It is more level than any road in Canada.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was rather sorry that the hon. member for St. Antoine did not confine his very interesting remarks to the

engineering side of the question, but allowed himself to be dragged away to what he used to talk about a few years ago-the question of cost and classification. My hon. friend has made a very interesting statement regarding what he calls sympathetic classification. That requires some comment on my part, I want to make some comment, and, Mr. Chairman, if you will call it six o'clock I will reserve my remarks until after we resume. Perhaps the minister will be in a position, when we come back, to give us approximately what the change will be.
At six o'clock, House resumed, and then took recess.
After Kecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock, and again went into Committee of Supply. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
St. John, New Brunswick, harbour improvements, $1,100,000.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: What works are these?


Robert Rogers: These improvements are
under contract with Norton, Griffiths and Company.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is to be the total expenditure in Courtenay bay?


Robert Rogers: The contract is for seven and a half million dollars.


George Perry Graham: All the improvements
in connection with St. John harbour will cost more than that?


Robert Rogers: Yes; the Courtenay bay
contract calls for seven and a half million dollars.


George Perry Graham: What about the dry
dock at St. John?


Robert Rogers: The dry-dock has not
yet been begun; it is to be built under the Subsidy Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are the terms of the
contract the same as when the Liberals left office?


Robert Rogers: It is the same contract, but the contract price was very much reduced when we came in.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Reduced for the time
being.


Robert Rogers: For all time to come.


George Perry Graham: I think that would
stand a lot of explanation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let us be frank about
this; by how much was the contract reduced?


Robert Rogers: $250,000.
Mr. CARVELL.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There was
no contract made by the late Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There was a contract made but not executed.


John Douglas Hazen: No contract was entered into before the present Government came into power. When the present Government came to power they found tenders in and awarded the contract to Norton, Griffiths, who were the lowest, but the amount of their tender was reduced by $250,000 before the Government wofild accept it.


George Perry Graham: Were not the conditions changed ?


John Douglas Hazen: There was mo change in the terms.


George Perry Graham: Then the late Government was right in not accepting the tenders.


Robert Rogers: The late Government gave evidence of being ready to accept the tender, but we thought it was too high, and we hesitated about accepting it until finally they made an offer to do the work for $250,000 less, and it was accepted.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The fact is that the specifications were prepared by the department under Mr. Pugsley, and tenders were called for, and meanwhile the Government was defeated. Mr. Pugsley, then Minister of Public Works, thought it would not be wise to award such a large contract in view of the fact that there was to be a new Government. When the new Government came in it wisely gave tne contract to the lowest tenderer, as Mr. Pugsley intended to do. It is the same work, but the first blessing was given it by Mr. Pugsley. I have no objection to it.
Quebec harbour-deep water wharf at Levis, $14,000.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This work was started under the late Administration.


Robert Rogers: Yes, $14,000 is required this year to complete it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What are the dimensions of this wharf ?


Robert Rogers: Nine hundred and three feet long, forty feet wide, eighteen feet deep, and thirty-seven feet high.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is the amount of the original contract ?


Robert Rogers: 


Henri Sévérin Béland: Will this complete it ?


Robert Rogers: I understand there will be a further amount of $18,000 required.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Who was the contractor?

Mr, ROGERS: Horace Dussault, of Levis.
Quebec harbour improvements, $1,000,000.


Henri Sévérin Béland: These are the improvements referred to before in this House. Are these the works for which plans were laid on the table?


Robert Rogers: This is for the general
work in connection with the harbour improvements of Quebec. The harbour commissioners are now going on with certain contracts, and we have not decided yet how much will be done by the Public Works Department and how much by the harbour commissioners, ft is quite possible, if the harbour commissioners are to undertake all the work that is to be done there, this amount will not be required to be spent by the Department of Public Works.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The other day when my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries introduced his Bill in regard to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, a plan was submitted and examined by the members of the House. From what I gather now, this amount would or would not be applied on this work?


Robert Rogers: This amount would not
be applied in any way to the work of the harbour commissioners at Quebec at all.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend
explain how this is to be applied and on what work? Is it on dredging, on piers or on what?


Robert Rogers: This amount of one million dollars is required to provide for improvements in the harbour of Quebec as asked for by the Quebec Harbour Commissioners. The proposed work consists in the construction of piers Nos. 2 and 3, composed of thirty-eight solid, close-faced, stone filled, timber cribs, each forty-six feet six inches wide at the base, twenty feet ten inches at the top and forty-five feet' high, with concrete superstructure, and necessary dredging as shown on accompanying plan. The estimated cost is $4,778,230.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend may
stop there. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) can tell us if that money is to be applied on the works, the plans of which we examined the other day.


John Douglas Hazen: No. What we showed the other day was the plan of the work being done by the harbour commissioners entirely outside of the Department of Public Works.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then I fail to understand why the harbour commission comes under the Department of Public Works. The other day a plan was shown to us by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
I understood that some dredging was to be
done, the embankment was to be widened and some money was to be applied for the purchase of a service boat and so on. This is entirely apart from that amount.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes. The Public Works Department has nothing whatever to do with the work of the harbour commissioners. They are under the control and jurisdiction of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend will understand that we have already built a pier at Quebec, and it is necessary to build more.
Quebec harbour-River St. Charles-improvements to navigation, $500,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend -*ve us some explanation about this contracts


Robert Rogers: This amount of $500,000
is required to provide 'towards the construction of a concrete dam 1,600 feet long, of an average height of 20 feet,, and two locks respectively 450 and 350 feet long by 65 feet wide at the entrance wall, each lock having 15 feet of water on the sill at low water. The estimated cost of these woTks is $2,500,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand there is a contract signed.


Robert Rogers: There is a contract signed with Quinlan & Robertson for $1,873,704.80.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is it the intention of the hon. minister to dredge the St. Charles river above the lock?


Robert Rogers: It will be necessary to
do a certain amount of dredging, as we are going to place 20 feet instead of 15 feet above the lock.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have you a list of the land owners or riparians?


Robert Rogers: No; we are expropriating that land. Several parties have been endeavouring to sell their land, and some of them are trying to establish the value of their land through the Exchequer Court, asking as high as a dollar a foot for it. We have made an offer of 20 cents a foot, and have gone the length of getting some of the land at 22i cents a foot, which is a reasonable price for it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who is your valuator?


Robert Rogers: We have no valuator
there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The amount paid to the riparians will not exceed 22J cents a foot?


Robert Rogers: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And if the amount is exhausted you will go before the Exchequer Court?



1114.8


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that the
main sewers of Quebec are discharging into the St. Charles river, and if you are going to lock the river you will create a very disagreeable condition. Is there some arrangement between the city of Quebec and' the department for the changing of the sewers?


Robert Rogers: The city of Quebec have already provided for this. They have passed a Bill appropriating the sum of $600,000 for the purpose of building a main sewer to discharge their sewage below the locks.


George Perry Graham: Some years ago, the
Grand Trunk Pacific officials, the comnyp-sioners of the Transcontinental railway, the then Minister of Public Works and the then Minister of Railways met in the city of Quebec to come' to some arrangement as to harbour improvements and the entrance of the Transcontinental from the west along the waterfront as far as the Champlain market. The idea was that the Public Works Department and the commission would buy certain property, or one department would buy and resell to the other, and the Public Works Department undertook to build some wharfs on the property that was being purchased. I think the purchase was never completed, but the rails were laid nearly down to Champlain market, and I understand that the intention was to take this property and use it for harbour purposes.


Robert Rogers: The Public Works Department have not purchased any new property; any purchase made must have been made by the Railway Department.


Charles Murphy: In connection with the previous item, the hon. minister said thalt a contract had been entered into with Quinlan and Robertson. Would he be kind enough to say whether a contract had been let for the work covered by the previous item?


Robert Rogers: No, it cannot be done
until the officers of the department and the harbour board make an arrangement with regard to the division of work in the harbour.


George Perry Graham: As a matter of fact when these wharfs are all completed and everything is in shape, the board of harbour commissioners will take it over?


Robert Rogers: I would not be surprised.


George Perry Graham: I think that there should be no divided jurisdiction so far as the working out of the harbour improvement is concerned.
Mr. EEMIEUX.


Robert Rogers: It will be necessary for
the officers of the department and the harbour board to get together and come to an arrangement by which there will be no divided jurisdiction.
Toronto harbour-improvements, $500,000.


George Perry Graham: The harbour board of the city of Toronto has been given fairly extensive powers for the accumulation of property and the carrying out of their projects.
I think a Bill was introduced in this House recently to allow the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk railway and the harbour commissioners to unite in the expropriation of some land for the laying of additional tracks. Could the hon. minister tell me just what the harbour board is doing and has done?


Robert Rogers: The work of the harbour board in Toronto is based upon very ambitious plans; I understand that they expect to spend about $19,000,000. As far as this estimate is concerned, we have, preparatory to the general lay-out of the plan of the Toronto harbour commissioners, been doing certain works which consist of the following items:	Renewal of
concrete and superstructure 300 feet east of the pier, eastern channel, to connect with that done this year in the north end, $21,000 ; construction of wall extending 800 feet north from the bay end of the westerly channel and southward 1,000 feet to protect reclaimed land on either side. of the channel, $143 500. The protection of the island shore to prevent. erosion by the placing of large stones and the construction of groins if found necessary, $6,000. Total $184,000 including the dredging. The balance of the amount we assume as being necessary in view of the vast improvements that are to take place, of which the Government will have to bear a share, in connection with the work of the harbour commission.


George Perry Graham: Thexe was considerable
expenditure on behalf of the Public Works Department for the protection of the island shore. I visited it once when dredging operations were going on at the eastern gap and certain land was being made in connection with the island. There were groins for the protection of the island. Have these worked out practically and has the island been protected as the department expected?


Robert Rogers: The work carried on has been fairly successful with the exception that a very heavy storm that we had recently injured some of it and it will be necessary to do a little more work on account of that storm; but generally speaking the work has been very satisfactory.

French river waterway improvement, $500,-
000.


George Perry Graham: As I understand, this is the beginning of the western section of the Georgian bay canal. I do not know if my hon. friend from Laval finds any improvements provided for the Back river in connection with this work or if there are any on the Ottawa river. I suppose my hon. friend would' be prepared to tell us not only w.hat this is for but what his policy is in connection -with the Georgian bay canal as a scheme. This work is very necessary, beginning at the end of the French river' and as I understand the improvement takes place down to lake Nipis-sing and North Bay. That will be useful so far as it goes. There are, of course, many people who favour the Welland canal who do not favour the Georgian bay canal and there are not a few who favour the Georgian Bay canal and do not favour the Welland. My opinion is that, in the interest of the trade of Canada, both ought to be constructed.


Mr. CURRIE:: Not taking any chances
as it were.


George Perry Graham: That has always been
my attitude, I am always willing to take a chance when necessary but when I do not have to I do not. I think that is safe philosophy in any walk of life. The Welland canal, of course, can be constructed in less time than the Georgian bay canal, and in the interest of maintaining the trade we have, and also caring for the increased traffic of_ the not too far distant future, I believe it necessary that the Welland canal should be proceeded with as rapidly _ ,as possible. Then, although believing in the Welland canal, having really started the survey in my department for the beginning of that work, I am still in favour of the Georgian Bay project. I take this opportunity of urging on my hon. friend that the time is now ripe, with a surplus of $55,000,000, and dear knows how much more next year, for him to take .the country into his confidence and give us his poliay on the Georgian Bay canal. It is nearly as big a project as the navy, but he might at least, in this respect, give us his permanent policy. The French river is only an emergency. Might I ask whether the improvement he is making on the French river and Nipissing now will be adequate to form part of the Georgian Bay canal scheme when he proceeds with it? Will it be wide enough and deep enough to be links in the whole scheme of the Georgian Bay canal?


Mr. BENNETT (East Simcoe):: Before the Minister answers, I would like to make a few remarks on the question. Last year,
352i
by the unanimous consent of the House, the estimates went through with a rush, and consequently hon. gentlemen had no opportunity of making any remarks. There was then a vote of $200,000 for the Welland canal, and also a vote of $100,000 for the French river. It was quite evident that neither of those amounts would start the work at either point and, as a consequence, nothing was said, as far as I was concerned, in reference to them. Later, in the summer of 1912, it was announced in the press that it was the intention of the Government to place the Welland canal construction under contract. I happened to see the Prime Minister in Toronto, and in discussing the matter and giving him my opinion of it, he suggested that I should place my views in writing before the Department, because this question had always been a very vexed question on the shores of the Georgian Bay, and the feeling there was that neither work should be carried on until the whole matter had been thoroughly enquired into. I did submit a memorandum on paper in which I do not claim that I set forth any particularly original ideas, I simply placed before the Department the views of the Board of Trade of Montreal, protesting strongly against the deepening of the Welland canal, and I placed on view the opinion of other places as to the French river or Georgian Bay canal. Through the courtesy of the Prime Minister that memorandum was placed before his colleagues. Apparently the view that I took, and in this of course I did not express my own opinion but only opinions culled from very reputable sources throughout the country, apparently had no influence upon them, as is shown by the fact that $2,000,000 were placed in the estimates for the Welland, while only $500,000 is placed in the estimates for the French river enlargement, which will ultimately, I assume, become part of the Georgian Bay canal system. I do not .propose at this late time of the session to make any extended remarks on this question. I believe now, as I have always believed, and as is the opinion of the best business men in the country, that with so many projects before the Government they should have hesitated before engaging on either of these enterprises, and that the whole matter should have been placed before a board of the most eminent engineers that money couicj employ in this country, whether American, Canadian or foreign. However, the Government have taken the matter up and I assume that the Welland canal deepening will now go. on as well as the French river work. In the attitude which I took I was not prompted by any local view, the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk railway have both invested millions on the

shores of the Georgian bay in establishing huge accommodation for elevators, and have made their railway tracks second to none on the continent. I would stake the opinion of the Canadian Pacific management and the Grand Trunk railway directors against the opinion of any man in this country, and I believe that their plan was the proper plan and the right plan and that neither of these enterprises should have been embarked upon until they had been thoroughly inquired into, especially in view of the facs that Montreal, through its business men and board of trade, more particularly the com section of the board of trade, had protested against the Welland canal work. To-day the country has before it wonderful schemes, schemes that are going to involve millions of dollars. The Welland canal enlargement involves an expenditure of $50,000,000, and the Georgian Bay canal an expenditure of over $100,000,-
000.	The Panama canal is almost completed. Capitalists and the Government are taking steps to attract the trade of the West to Vancouver, believing that a great part of the trade of Alberta will go down m that direction and via the Panama canal to Great Britain. On the other hand, we have this huge expenditure on the Hudson Bay railway I am not going to comment upon that. The Government is committed to it, and it must go on. I simply say that so far as the Welland canal and the Georgian Bay canal are concerned, I enter my protest against either of these projects beinsr embarked upon until the whole transportation question has been placed before one or more of the most eminent engineers in the world.


Frank Oliver: It is not very often that my hon. friend from Simeoe (Mr. Bennett) and I see eye to eye, but I think his suggestion that there should be full consideration of these great transportation projects before the country is finally committed to them is fair and reasonable. My impression is that so far as the transportation of western grain is concerned, the system whereby the largest vessels on the lakes are used, or can be used, to the fullest advantage, by making a short haul from Fort William to' Midland, with railway transportation from there to Montreal, is the ideal way of getting the crop forward.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And with the Canadian Pacific railway at Port McNichol adjoining.


Frank Oliver: I mean the Georgian bay
ports which have direct railway communication with Montreal. My impression is that because of the necessity of making as many trips as possible in the short period intervening between the western harvest and the close of navigation, a short route has all the advantages over the long route.
Mr. BENNETT (East Simeoe).
Once the grain reaches the Georgian bay port, then it can be transported by two competing lines of railroad, and possibly three, to Montreal so quickly, that while the theoretical cost may be somewhat larger by this route, we shall say the Midland route, in actual practice, I believe it will be found more beneficial than either the Welland canal route or the Georgian Bay canal route. I am only putting that before the committee as my opinion, and I believe there are good grounds for it. I do not wish to set it up against a well considered opinion that has better evidence behind it. I want the best there is, and I suppose the country is willing to pay for it. It is fair and reasonable to do as my hon. friend suggests, that before the country is absor lutely committed to these two great projects, there should be an investigation of their -merits, a definite decision should be reached, as to what the results are likely to be. This country has a large revenue. We are doing very well, but no country, and no body of people, have money to throw away. We have money to spend on the building of the Georgian Bay canal if that is the best thing to be done, and money to build the Welland canal if that is the best thing to be done, but we have not money to spend on either of these projects unless it is shown that when completed, it is going to be beneficial to the country, and will produce results in proportion to the money expended on them.


Mr. WHITE (North Renfrew):: When
the late Government of which my hon. friend was a member was in power, they expended some $700,000 upon a report upon the Georgian Bay canal. From what my hon. friend now says, that money was evidently wasted.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend has not followed the argument which I tried to place before the House. I am not contending against the Georgian Bay canal proposal, or the Welland canal proposal. I am contending that the Government should have very full information as to the probable results of the expenditure. What the late Government did was-


William Thomas White: Was it not with the view of obtaining information ?


Frank Oliver: Precisely. What the late Government did was entirely in line with the suggestion I have made. I have certainly no apology to offer for that money being spent. It was a right and proper expenditure in order that the country would know approximately what it would cost to build the canal. But what I am guying now is that it is not enough to know^what the project will cost. What we want to know, before the country is comni53

mitled to the expenditure, is what beneficial results there will be.


Charles Avila Wilson: The best speeches I ever heard in this House, under the old regime, apart from ministers, on the advantages that would be derived from the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, were from my very good friend from North Renfrew (Mjr. White). I have seen a play written by Labiche, entitled, ' line Paire de Lunettes,' which means a pair of spectacles. Probably my hon. friend has changed his spectacles.


William Thomas White: Might I ask my hon. friend why he did not use his voice when the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) had a motion on the Order Paper a few months ago?


Charles Avila Wilson: I have my views on it, and I will come to the point in a few minutes. I agreed with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I was reproached with being too provincial or too parochial, because I asked that the money be spent in the first instance in surveying the Riviere des Prairies between L'Assomption and Jacques Cartier. I succeeded in getting a certain amount of money in the estimates, between $40,000 and $60,000.


William Thomas White: We have $500,000 now.


Charles Avila Wilson: My hon. friend from East Simeoe wants a commission of experts. He wants the House and the country to be better informed on this question. We have spent, I am told, $750,000 to get information. I have read a report by four engineers, which is in six volumes if I remember correctly, and which includes plans and figures. There is a volume or two of literature- the best literature that I ever read in my life and I went all through it. The report is signed by Mr. Lafleur, Chief Engineer of the Department of Public Works, Mr. St. Laurent, Mr. Coutlee and Mr. Chapleau. If the hon. member for East Simeoe (Mr. Bennett) is not well informed as to the facts I would be tempted to ask him whether he has read that report or not. I read it all through. It is impossible for me to remember all the figures, but the hon. member for North Renfrew knows better about this than I do myself. However, this is not the question, f think we have had too much of the tu quoque argument from the other side of the House. When I was thirty years of age I could do things that I do not know that I am so well able to,do since I have reached the age of forty. Age is supposed to be progressive, but if the late Government did not do anything that would be no reason why this new Government should not do the things that we
were supposed to do. I invite the hon. member for East Simeoe to read this report and if he does I think he will have his hands full, although he will get a good deal of information from it. For the moment we are not considering the question of whether or not the Georgian Bay canal shall be constructed or whether it would be more advantageous to construct that canal than to deepen the Welland canal. I am not an expert with regard to questions of this kind. All I know is that transportation by water is cheaper than transportation by rail. I heard the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) giving his views on freight rates the other night. I believe myself that railway freights are quite high. I am not an expert and I therefore would not presume to discuss this question in any authoritative way, but I suppose it is in the interest of the railway companies that the rates should be high and it may be that they are high because the railway companies are confronted with the problem of the high cost of living or the high cost of operating. I am not going to enter into that question. What are we considering now? It is not the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. As far as we are concerned on this side of the House we are not in charge of the Government and therefore we cannot do it.


William Thomas White: You did not do it when you could.


Charles Avila Wilson: What ts the use of my hon. friend reminding the House that we did not do it? It is a plain fact and whether we were right or wrong is not the question to be considered at this moment. But if my hon. friend will be sincere for a moment I will return the compliment by asking him: Why do you not do it now? We had $155,000,000 of revenue while you have pretty nearly $180,000,000. My hon. friend is anxious to send $35,000,000 over to John Bull, who is a money-lender himself; let him put up $35,000,000 to start the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. Were we wrong in not doing it then? Are you right in not doing it now?


William Thomas White: We are going to do it.


Charles Avila Wilson: If the minister will rise up and say that he will do it I will take my seat right away. Let us be sincere and let us do business in a business way. We had a lecture from a wealthy member from Toronto not very long ago on how to do business in this House. I have been told that the 'hon. Minister of Public Works is a master, not in winning affection, but in winning supporters in this House. I should like the hon. member for North Renfrew to be favoured with the same talent that his master possesses and let him try to convince his master that he should do what he desires. I will pledge him my word that he shall have my full support. We are

passing an item of 'half a million dollars to improve the French river. I do not know much about the French river and I do not like to talk about matters I know nothing about. What I do know about the French river I learned while campaigning once in Nipissing. I know it is in that district. This country is so large that it will take quite a large part of a man's life to study it from Halifax, to Vancouver. Half a million for the improvement of French river! If the Minister of Public Works knew the Riviere des Prairies, commonly known as the Back river, starting at the Lake of Two Mountains and flowing away down to Les Isles de Boucherville at Bout de File, a distance of about thirty miles, he would understand how necessary it is that the work of improving that river already begun should be vigorously carried forward. We have already spent between $40,000 or $50,000 in dredging the river. The channel already dredged is about 100 feet wide and seven or eight feet deep. Dredge No. 6, with a tug, is on its way down to continue the work between the Island of Montreal and lie Jesu. You must not forget that the population of the Island of Montreal and of the lie Jesu is equal to about one-tenth of the population of the whole of the Dominion if we put it at 7,000,000. There are
700,000	.souls in Montreal and the vicinity. What does that mean? That means that the traffic which we have in and around the city is equal practically to one-tenth of the traffic of the whole Dominion.
I am pleased that my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) referred to the transportation of the crop from the West. It is a question, as far as I understand, of speed and cost. Everybody knows that there are not many bushels of wheat, oats and corn shipped from Canada that do not go through the port of Montreal. I know' something about the transportation of grain and I had an opportunity of saying something to this House about it. We can ship grain through the port of Montreal only from May to the last days of November or the first days of December, depending on the condition of the weather. The rest of the shipment of grain goes by Boston, New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Newport News. There was a time when the shipment of our grain was about 'to be transferred to the United States on account of some defects in the inspection system at Montreal. This difficulty was remedied by the Hon. Mr. Bernier when Minister of Inland Revenue, with the result that there is now no complaint about the inspection of grain at that port. Why not spend that half million dollars on Riviere des Prairies and the improvement of navigation around the island of Montreal? We have already started to work. What is the population upon the shores of French river?
Mr. WILSON (Laval).
What port are you going to reach? You will not reach any port on the French river. If it is to please his friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane), who is representing that district, _ let the Minister of Public Works say so in order that the committee may be informed of the fact. If the late Government was wise enough, or thought it proper, to start the dredging of Riviere des Prairies in order to improve navigation, the present Government should continue the work because the Back river will be of great use if the Georgian Bay canal project is ever agreed upon and carried out by this Government, and I feel pretty safe in saying that it will be approved by the country at large. Not very long ago I had the honour of being invited by Mr. Poupore, the former member for Pontiac, to attend a delegation which waited on the Hon. Mr. Fielding to whom a petition was presented a mile and a half long containing 60,000 signatures, asking for the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. I approved of the project, as my hon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr. White) approved of it.


William Thomas White: That petition should have been sufficient evidence for Mr. Fielding, then Minister of Finance, to have undertaken the work.


Charles Avila Wilson: 
Robert Rogers: I have listened with a
great deal of attention to the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Wilson), and I can appreciate his interest in the development of the Riviere des Prairies in his own constituency. As evidence of my own interest in the development of that river, I may say that we have in the estimates a vote for that purpose. The hon. member suggests that the $500,000 for the improvement of the French river should be diverted to the improvement of the Riviere des Prairies.	.


Charles Avila Wilson: Let us cut it in two.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend knows that the only request in connection with the Riviere des Prairies is, that a channel nine feet deep should be provided, and he will agree with me that a channel nine feet deep would be of very little service to the transportation of the products of western Canada to the city of Montreal. If the day comes, and when it will come, when we will have the Georgian Bay *canal completed, then the canal will lead to the development of the Riviere des Prairies. I may say that my hon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr. White) has been a most persistent advocate of the construction of the Georgian Bay canal for many years. Personally, I have knowledge of his persistent efforts since I became Minister of Public Works, and I venture to say that no member of this House has taken more of my time than has the hon. gentleman in pressing on me the advantages of the Georgian Bay canal and the necessity for its early construction. The House can well understand that in view of the great difference of opinion which has arisen here, even during the few minutes we have discussed this question, and in view of the fact that I have only been in the Department of Public Works for a short while, I could not reasonably be expected to recommend to my colleagues and to Parliament a sufficient sum of money for the -construction of this great national undertaking as I regard it to be. It is a project that has engaged the attention of former Governments, and of many good citizens in various parts of the Dominion, and it is of special interest to the people of western Canada. We naturally look with care and consideration to any line that will open up a way of transportation for the products of the
prairie provinces; we are prepared to lend our sympathetic and hearty support to any work that will have for its purpose the opening up of additional routes for the transportation of our products. This project received consideration to the extent of an expenditure Of something like $700,000 by the late Government for surveys, upon which to base a recommendation for the carrying out of this great national work. The hon. members for Edmonton (Mr.. Oliver) and East Simooe (Mr. Bennett) seem to have the idea that the most direct and speedy means of transportation would be via Midland and by rail to ocean navigation. Their arguments may be sound, but if this Government and this country are going to rest with confidence upon the fact that one outlet will be sufficient to carry the products of western -Canada to the markets of the world, then I venture to think we will be showing a great deal too much confidence in the railway companies, that they will give such a low rate as would be expected by the growers of grain in the West. With the object of undertaking this great national work, this vast amount of money ha-s been expended by former governments. I am not going to say that it has been expended unwisely. I believe it was a proper expenditure in order that we might be able to ascertain exactly what that great national undertaking would mean to this Dominion. It is to the credit of the Government that preceded us that they appointed a commission to investigate' the possibilities and advantages of the transportation of the products of our people. I cannot do better perhaps than quote the language used in the appointment of that commission and providing the purposes for which the commission was appointed. This is the clause in the Order in Council appointing that commission on the 19th of May, 1903:
The minister apprehends that -in these circumstances it devolves upon -the Dominion Government to consider and -adopt the best possible means of promoting such measures as may enable Canada to control the trans-/ portation of its own products, and it is thought th-at the most efficient method of conducting such inquiry and obtaining the required information is by means of a commission of competent and experienced experts who may be -appointed and authorized under the provisions of chapter 114 of the Revised Statutes of Canada.
My hon. friends at that time suggested Sir William Van Horne, John Bertram and Harold Kennedy. These gentlemen, however, were apparently unable to act. The Government of the day were able t-o secure the services of two men, who, I think were quite competent ito fulfil the important trust that was offered in this connection,

namely: Mr. Ashdown, of the city of Winnipeg, and Mr. Reford, of the city of Montreal. These gentlemen made a very careful study of the question of transportation, and they undertook to deal with the question of the Georgian Bay canal. I think they dealt with it very clearly, plainly and wisely. I would like to read the finding of these gentlemen in respect of the Georgian Bay canal:
Your commission unhesitatingly affirm their belief in the desirability of a through waterway from the head of lake Superior to ocean navigation, to aid in the carriage of the grain and the regulation of rates of a standard not less than that above set forth, so that the largest vessels navigating the great lakes can continue their voyage to ocean navigation or as near thereto as possible. But in view of the fact' that the Government has undertaken the survey of a proposed route by way of the French river to lake Nipiesing, and thence by way of the Ottawa river to Montreal, and as the feasibility of this route from a commercial as well as an engineering point of view, and if feasible its co6t, has not yet been ascertained, and further in view of the fact that the Government has also undertaken the survey of the Welland canal and its vicinity, looking to its possible enlargement and diversion, your commission do not see their way clear to any recommendation as to route, but would recommend that, in case the Ottawa river scheme, because of want of feasibility from a commercial or engineering point of view, or on account of its cost or for other reason be not adopted, then the Welland canal he enlarged and deepened to the standard of the Sault Ste. Marie canal, with a view of enabling vessels of the largest size to continue their voyage to Kingston or Prescott, thus bringing their cargo to within, say 180 miles or less of Montreal before discharging same.


Charles Avila Wilson: Is it the intention of my hon. friend to spend $500,000 for the improvement of navigation on the French river, or is that done with the view that possibly the Georgian Bay canal can be constructed by that route?


Robert Rogers: If my hon. friend had
been following me closely in the words which I have just read from the report of
this commission, he would find that the following words have been used:
But in view of the .fact that the Government has undertaken the survey of a proposed route by way of the French river to lake iNipissing, and thence by way of the Ottawa river to Montreal, and as the feasibility of this route from a commercial as well as from an engineering point of view-
My hon. friend will understand from the wording of this report that they recommend the route via the French river, and it is one link in connection with the construction of the Georgian Bay canal?


Charles Avila Wilson: Is that the opinion of
the hon. minister?
Mr. ROGERS


Robert Rogers: That is my opinion, and that is why we are undertaking this expenditure of $500,000 in order to carry out the work in the French river portion or link of the Georgian Bay canal, because in that way we hope to develop navigation there that will undoubtedly be useful in many respects. In the first place, we shall be able to develop in connection with that work a water-power in that locality that will in itself be sufficient, in my judgment, to pay the interest upon the amount that will be expended in carrying on the opening up of the French river district.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Where does the hon.
minister propose to sell his power?


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend surely
understands that there is great development in North Bay, Sudbury and all those growing towns which will all want power. I am sure there will be a ready sale for any power that will be developed along the line of construction of the Georgian Bay canal.
Mr. NESBITT. I know something about the size of those towns and what power they would use. I do not see any possible prospect of paying interest on that investment by bringing power from the French river.


Robert Rogers: I do not think any power has been developed in any part of Canada that has not found a ready market. I am sure there is no part of the Dominion of Canada that has greater possibilities for rapid development than has that portion of territory to which we are referring. I entirely agree with the course followed by our predecessors in their expenditure in connection with providing a survey of the whole route, including the French river, to the city of Montreal. We have in the department and in the books to which my hon. friend has referred, as full and complete information as any engineers could supply to the people of this country. In so far as the engineering part of the great undertaking is concerned, I regard it as feasible.
The next question that the Government and those responsible must take into consideration is the very interesting suggestion which has been made in the recommendation of this commission which I have just read.
They pointed out to us that it is not only necessary for the Government to ascertain the cost of the work and the extent of its engineering difficulties, but to find out the commercial value of the undertaking. I think it proper that the Government of to-day should follow the recommendation of Mr. Ashdown and Mr. Reford, and. while ascertaining fro mour engineers what the work is likely to cost, and obtaining other information along that line, to make full

inquiry as to the commercial value of this undertaking to the people of the Dominion of Canada. If some hon. gentlemen are of the opinion that the construction of the Georgian bay canal would not be as speedy a means of transportation of the products of our country as would the midland route to Montreal and other ports, such a commission as I am suggesting would inquire into the matter. I find that there is a divided opinion even in eastern Canada in respect to the value of the Georgian Bay canal. I would not be expected, I am sure, by hon. members of this House, in the short period of time during which I have been in office, to recommend an expenditure for the undertaking of this great work in its entirety without the fullest and most complete investigation. As soon as it is possible to get a commission at work to investigate the commercial side of the question, the Government will be in a position to take its stand as to what is best in the interests of the people of Canada in so far as the construction of the Georgian Bay canal is concerned. In the meantime we propose to develop the French river section, and this will, I trust, if it is the recommendation of the commission selected to give the fullest consideration to the commercial aspect of this project, serve the purpose of forming an important part of that grant undertaking the Georgian Bay canal.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the minister
going to do with this $500,000 vote?


Robert Rogers: It is to be used for the
development of the French river section, in connection with the channel.


George Perry Graham: How wide is the channel to be?


Robert Rogers: 300 feet wide and 22 feet deep.


Edmond Proulx: What is to be the total cost of this work in the French river district?


Robert Rogers: The estimated cost of the work in the French river section is about $15,000,000.


Charles Murphy: Is that what is proposed under this vote?


Robert Rogers: By the expenditure of
this money we hope to make an opening which, with the development of waterpower, will be sufficient to bring in a return to meet the expenditures we are making.


Charles Avila Wilson: Is there any plan, profile or information of any kind on the table of the House which could be examined by hon. gentlemen and enable them to understand what kind of work will be done under this vote? Does the hon. minister not think that we have enough natural
water-power in this country without dredging a canal for the purpose of producing it?
It seems to me that the sum is quite extravagant. I will admit that proper navigation would be a great benefit to the people living along theshore of that river, but there are no large cities in that district. Is there anv navigation in the French river? What is the average tonnage of the boats plying there, if there are any?


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman is no doubt aware that the reports and books to which he has referred contain certain maps and drawings and complete, data relative to the work to be performed at Montreal and in the French river district, yet he finds fault with the minister because he has not placed any information before us. Complete reports were in the hands of hon. gentlemen of this House during the last Parliament, and full information as to the size of the canal and other paritculans were given in these six volumes. Some members from Montreal are very anxious that this Georgian Bay canal should be built. Whilst we are arguing in this House as to whether we shall have the Welland canal or the Georgian Bay canal, the Government of the State of New York are enlarging the Erie canal. It will be completed within two or three years; it will take all the business now going to Montreal through the Welland canal, and it will take years to build the Georgian Bay canal and bring that business back. To my mind that is a very short-sighted policy. I commend the minister's idea of a transportation commission which will take into consideration the commercial aspect of this whole matter.			.
I commend the minister in his idea of a transportation commission that will take into consideration the commercial aspect of all of these things. Everybody knows 'that the profit earned by the steamers in the lakes traffic is earned on up trip. There is not a dollar made in bringing grain down, practically only the expenses are made; there is no money in the hauling of grain, it is hauled at a loss in order that the ships may have the return package freight cargo. Where does that package freight cargo arise? A certain portion of it in Montreal, possibly ten per cent, but the balance is picked up at other ports on the great lakes going up. There is where the business of the country arises, there is where the large tonnage into the West comes from and every person who has a factory along the line of the great waterway is interested in maintaining and enlarging it so as to get cheaper rates to the West. If that is not done, the European manufacturer, with every advantage of cheap labour, can ship into the West at a

lower price than the people of Ontario. We are confronted with that problem now and it is a .serious one. The Government should consider the enlargement of all waterways, they should consider the advisability not of building the Georgian bay canal, but the building of a. canal that will take the largest ocean, steamers to the head of lake Superior. That is the only possible sensible policy for any government to take. For that reason not only must the Sault canal be deepened-and that is being considered by the United States-to thirty or thirty-five feet, but the new Welland canal must be deepened to the same extent. The Minister of Canals, at a meeting in Ottawa recently stated that it wo<uld have a depth of thirty or thirty-two feet. But the deepening and enlarging of the St. Lawrence canal must also be considered. Competent engineers say, that with a series of five or six dams in the St. Lawrence from Prescott east, a thirty-five-foot waterway may be obtained . clear through from the ocean to Niagara. That is a problem that this country must meet and we must grasp it in order to compete with the new canals in the United States. If we do not, all our work is for nothing.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What will be the depth of the new Erie canal when completed?


John Allister Currie: I think the new canal
will be about twelve feet, that is for thousand-ton barges. The present canal there is about six feet deep. Some gentleman said that water transportation is the cheapest. The water transportation on the old Erie canal was outdistanced by the railways ten years ago. We must look upon the problem as- broad minded Canadians, and by appointing a commission of big men we can make up our minds what we are going to do. There is no use building small canals that will be forgotten in a few years. Take the Newmarket canal; that was an engineering possibility, the same as the Georgian Bay canal is an engineering possibility. But next comes the question of water and then of tonnage. Before any great undertaking of that kind, of a national character, is started the Government and the people of the country should .be satisfied that it is going to be a commercial possibility and success. The late transportation commission preferred to dwell upon all these works, first as commercial possibilities, not as an engineering possibility. Almost anything is an engineering possibility in these days. The Panama canal is now an accomplished fact. Hon. gentlemen opposite when they were making a treaty a few years aso with the United States, permitted Ambassador Bryce to bring in upon this country one of those beautiful treaties from which Canada derives no benefit, and there was not a word said by Mr. CURRIE.
the late Government in protest. That treaty gave the Americans the free and equal use of the Georgian Bay canal or of any canal that we might build in perpetuity. At the same time why was not the question considered of our being granted in return the free use of the Erie and Panama canals? There is no return to us at all, we do not need any canals that they have On the great lakes, the only works that they could claim anything for was possibly the Livingstone channel and when the survey was made that was found to be one half in Canada. Those questions might have to be considered from the aspect of the benefit of the whole country. Every day we are losing tonnage to the United States. The country that has and controls the channels of transportation is the predominant country of the age. That has been the fact in history. First the Phoenicians, then the Greeks, then ithe Romans, then the Portuguese, then the Spanish and later the British have controlled the transportation of the world- and the greatest current of trade in the world to-day is the current that passes the Detroit river. The American and Canadian tonnase passing that point is about six or seven times the total tonnage of Great Britain or any other country. Our problem as Canadians ought to be to divert that current of trade through our own country so that we shall have the benefit of it and I can assure you that you will not divert that current with any tiwenty-two foot canals, you must have a canal that will meet the situation with ocean vessels and depths. The problem is too large a one for anybody to take a small, local view upon and I ask hon. gentlemen opposite, as well as hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, to forget politics and to assist and commend the department in their efforts to appoint a great big commission on wnich there shall be members of this House, business men and navigators as well as engineers to decide which scheme and which plan is the best for our commerce -and in the interest of the whole country, not for to-day or tomorrow but for the future, some twenty to fifty years hence. Then when we build we will build something that will establish a line of transport that will place the transportation, the trade of the northern half of this continent at the feet of this country. That is the policy I feel like supporting and I think every Canadian will support a policy of this kind. Let us drop all thi'3 endless discussion about building this canal or that canal. Let us do something quickly. If we do not build soon we will lose alii the trade and then we will never recover our lost position.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to draw the
attention of the minister and of the House to a phase of this subject which seems to have been entirely forgotten by hon. mem-

bers from Ontario and the West who are discussing this question, and that is the eastern portion -of Canada. In my opinion the eastern portion of Canada is as much interested in the development of one of the great waterways as the West, or more. It is true that the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) treats this question purely from the standpoint of the transportation of grain. From that standpoint, there is, no doubt, a great deal in what he says; and if you have the short water haul from Fort William to the Georgian bay or Midland, the boats can make a greater number of trips during the limited season from the time the crop is ready to move till the close of navigation. But he forgets that there is another side of it and it is the return cargo. In my opinion the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has really approached this question from the proper standpoint. That hon. member, however, might go very much farther than Montreal or Ontario in connection with the initiation of this package freight." The amount of traffic that would originate east of Montreal would be probably ten times or one hundred times greater than the package freight he has spoken about. At the present time the producers of coal in the maritime provinces are only able economically to land that coal in Montreal. Even with a duty of fifty per cent a ton in their favour they cannot put it up the St. Lawrence river, and the result is that practically all the coal consumed in Ontario is from the United States. If we had waiter transportation, if we could load a vessel at Sydney or any maritime port and bring it right up, I do not care whether it is through the Georgian bay or the Welland and St. Lawrence system, we could get our coal, into the province of Ontario, and instead of buying coal from the United States, the people of Ontario would buy all their coal from the maritime provinces.
At least we will be in a position to compete for the trade. Take the case of our great steel works at Sydney. It is true that with the duty that is now on steel rails, they are able to land their rails in western Canada in competition with the United States, but somebody is paying an enormous amount of freight to get them there. If either of these canals were established, the rails would be practically as cheap at the head of lake Superior as in Montreal, because the extra amount of transportation cost would not be very great. Take many other lines of manufacture. I know manufacturers in eastern Canada who are manufacturing stoves and different classes of hardware, and who are selling them in Vancouver. We cannot sell them to any great extent in the prairie provinces because transportation is against us, but
we can send them round Cape Horn to Vancouver, and do good business, and when the Panama canal is opened we will be able to do better business. But if we had our own water route open, the business of eastern Canada would be doubled, trebled, and I believe quadrupled.
As to the question of which route would be the better, I think the minister has made a very reasonable proposition. 1 understood him to say that he was going to appoint a commission, or at least to take some steps to see which would be the better route commercially. I agree with that. I do not think he is very serious in the expenditure of this half million dollars. If I could form. any opinion from the answers which he gave under the clever cross-examination of my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Wilson), I think it was intended as a sop to my hon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr. White), because that hon. gentleman has been very persistent in asking that something be done. But I do not think that he is devoting that money along the line of carrying out the Georgian Bay project. He wants to do something on the French river, and incidentally to develop some wateT powers. I do not think the Minister of Public Works has actually made up his mind that the work he is going to do on French river is really a commencement of the Georgian Bay canal. As to the question of' whether it should be the Georgian Bay canal or the St. Lawrence route, I agree with the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) that it ought to be one or the other. I do not think there is much justification for the two projects, but the one to he undertaken ought to be so big and broad that it will control the traffic of the northern half of the North American continent. My hon. friend from East Simcoe need not be afraid of any treaties which give the Americans access to our canals. The more American traffic we get into our canals and ports the better for the people of this country. I would like to see every bit of traffic which comes from Chicago diverted to Canadian channels. It would make business at our ports, in our shipping, and for our transportation companies. I am not in a position to offeT an. opinion as to which is ihe better route. There was a time when I was very much impressed with the possibilities of the Georgian Bay canal, but looking at the question from the point of view of the man in the street, I think the route which ought to be developed is the Welland canal and the St. Lawrence route. I admit that there is not much use in developing the Welland canal unless we deepen and develop the St. Lawrence as well. I believe there is enough water power to be

developed from Prescott to Montreal to pay the interest on the whole proposition.


William Thomas White: Will that power not be international?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not very much of it.
The power at the Long Sault would be international, but from that point down it is all Canadian. However, that does not make any difference to me. I am a free trader to some extent, though not altogether, and I would just as lief sell power as sell wheat. If we have water-power that we do not want to use ourselves and the American people want it, and are willing to pay for it, I do not see why we should not sell it, so long as we keep control.


John Allister Currie: Suppose you get $10,000,000 or $15,000,000 a year for it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Of course, I would have all proper precautions. Our own people must have the first chance at it. Outside of transportation there is nothing so valuable to any nation as cheap power, and if you can give the manufacturing industries powrer at $10 or $12 per horse-power, you will do more to build up manufacturing than all the tariffs you can throw about it. The St. Lawrence route has a great advantage over the other in that it develops an enormous amount of power right in territory where there are millions of people to-day, and where industries are established, and will be established one hundredfold in the years to come. You will get great water-powers on the Georgian Bay route, but it has not as yet any great centres of population. But that is a matter which it would be the duty of the commission to investigate and report upon. I hope the minister will go on with one or other of these routes, and that he will make it so big and broad and deep that it will not only carry our own business eastward, but the great bulk of American business as well, and that it will -give us a chance in the maritime provinces to send our products westward. It will help us and help the people of Ontario, and what helps the people of Ontario and of the maritime provinces must help the people of Canada as a whole.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I endeavoured to get an answer from the minister as to what he intended to do with this $500,000. He said he wanted to develop the French river. He said that the canal would be 300 feet wide, and 23 feet deep. How far could he go with $500,000 under these conditions? I do not believe he could go further than the length of one of these desks. He intends either to develop power, or to start the Georgian Bay canal, and I would like to know which. If he intends to develop power, and he has a market for power in that country, which I doubt, I have no Mr. CARVELL.
objection. He knows it will require some-development on French river to run a boat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does my hon. friend not know that the French river in many places is nearly half a mile wide and forty or fifty feet deep?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: But there are spots
where it is not very deep. They have even to build slides in places to run down the logs. I have no objection personally to my hon. friend developing power on the French river, but if he is spending this money with the object of making a canal out of French river, then I am absolutely opposed to it. They talk about it costing $100,000,000. It will cost $200,000,000 or $250,000,000 to build any canal by way of the French river to Montreal. If there is to be a -canal, I am very strongly in favour of the Welland canal route. I quite agree with my hon. friend from East Simcoe that the question-should be thoroughly investigated, but I understand that the late Government did thoroughly investigate the question of the Welland canal, that they spent a certain-amount of money in borings and in investigation. I also understood that the present Government did the same thing last year, so that we ought to be in a pretty good position to know what the cost is likely to be,, and whether it is a feasible proposition commercially.


William Thomas White: Does
my hon. friend think that the report which was submitted in connection with the Georgian Bay canal route, and which has been referred to by the hon. member for Laval is not correct? My hon. friend says that it will cost $200,000,000 or $250,000,000. The report of the commission is to the effect that it will cost $100,000,000 in round figures. Evidently my hon. friend does not think that the report is correct.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think that they have underestimated the cost by fifty per cent.


William Thomas White: Has my hon. friend ever
been over the route?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes, most of it.


William Thomas White: What part?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Nearly all.


William Thomas White: Was he ever at Pembroke?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes, I have been at Pembroke. You have to go there in daylight to find the town. I absolutely agree with the minister when he says that this question should be thoroughly investigated by the most capable men that he -can get and not men appointed from a political standpoint. I do not mean to say that he cannot get just as capable men who are Conservatives as any other kind, but political considerations ought not to have any weight in the appointment of such a commission of

investigation. They should be a commission of the most capable engineers and, as the hon. member for North Simcoe says, business men, because it is the business aspect of the question that is going to be looked into. I believe that the undertaking from the engineering aspect, is possible but not probable. But it should be inquired into from a commercial standpoint because it is from that point of view that we have to look at all these public questions. I was sorry I was not here the other night when the Hudson Bay item went through, because I would like to say that I am amongst those who do not believe in the Hudson Bay railway at all.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are too late.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I know it is too late, and I know that we on this side of the House are just as much committed to the project as hon. gentlemen on the other side. I think both parties are absolutely wrong in giving their approval to this undertaking. Referring again to the Georgian Bay canal, I hope that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works will appoint a commission which is capable of advising him with regard to this question before he goes into the undertaking. I think that to spend this money on the French river route with the object of favouring somebody politically is a great mistake, and a cruelty to the people of the country unless it can be carried out from a commercial standpoint, as I do not believe it can. As to the Welland canal, I think it can be successfully carried out from the commercial point of view, and I think it ought to be.


William Thomas White: I have an extract here from Washington which I think it would be well to place on ' Hansard.' It is as follows:
Washington, D.C., May 5.-Legislative action on the resolution to enter into negotiations with the Dominion of Canada or Greac Britain regarding a better waterway through the Great Lakes is promised to-night, following a conference between Senator Stone, of Mississipi, and Senator Townsend, of Michigan. This resolution will undoubtedly be favourably reported from the Foreign Relations Committee, of which Senator S'one is chairman.
Senator Townsend's idea is to open up the passageways between tlie Great Lakes, and to improve the harbours to such an extent that ocean going vessels will be able to dock at Duluth, Minnesota, and all other lake ports.
From Duluth to Liverpool would be the trans-Atlantic route under the Townsend idea. He believes that unless the United States takes the initiative in this matter the Canadian Government will dig a canal from the Georgian bay to the Ottawa river and provide practically the same accommodations for trans-Atlantic steamers with the advantage to the Dominion of controlling the artificial waterway entirely.	*
Evidently our friends to the south of us are afraid that we may do so.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Well, he has got a lot of thinks coming to him.


William Thomas White: Senator Townsend's scheme includes the widening and deepening of the Welland canal and the improvement of waterways from Montreal to Lawrenceburg. The wording of his resolution is short and simple, and reads:
' Resolved, that the President be requested to enter upon negotiations with Great Britain or the Dominion of Canada with a view to an international agreement for the concur-, rent or co-operative improvement of navigation in waterways used, or which can be used, as common for the commerce of Canada and the United States.
This was introduced at one time as a proposed amendment to the Reciprocity Act. It! was introduced again as it now stands, but the Committee on Foreign Relations took no action upon it. It is again before Congress; with the promise from 'Senator Stone that it will be acted upon and a favourable report from the committee is a little more than possible.	t
If our friends to the south are so anxious for the deepening of the Welland canal, they ought to provide half of the cost.


George Perry Graham: To come back to the
item, I suppose that probably when we come to the item of the Minister of Railways and Canals of $2,000,000 for the Welland canal we will have the discussion-*


Robert Rogers: Over again.


George Perry Graham: There will be an opportunity for discussion. As to the item for the French river, if we vote this we are committed to an expenditure of $15,000,000.


Robert Rogers: Not necessarily.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is what I understood.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend says
' Not necessarily.' What can we do with $500,000 if this is not the beginning of a work which will cost $15,000,000 in all to obtain a deeper navigation of the French river and through Lake Nipissing to North bay? If we spend that $500,000 what do we get?


Robert Rogers: W'e may use some of it in the construction of a dam where Lake Nipissing empties into the French river, and thereby save a great deal of dredging. We have already done some work there and we may require more if we do nothing else.


George Perry Graham: It is quite important that the committee should understand what we are doing with the vote of $500,000. If we are committed to $15,000,000, then the Georgian Bay canal is started.
1X171


Robert Rogers: You would not expect
us to undertake to commit ourselves to the whole project without having the report of a commercial commission, as suggested by the commission which recommended the work, and I think it is very sound judgment on their part, I entirely approve of it and I propose to appoint this commission at once and have a report on the commercial value of the undertaking.


George Perry Graham: We want a plain statement of what we are doing. The Government is not announcing a policy of constructing the Georgian Bay canal by this vote?


Robert Rogers: Not yet.


George Perry Graham: It is asking for $500,000 to Start work that will cost, when completed as far as North Bay, $15,000,000 and, if we are committed to an expenditure of $15,000,000, then the Georgian Bay canal is started and will be completed, because the Government would scarcely ask for $15,000,000, which would probably be $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 before that particular work would be completed to North Bay, without the larger project in view. Then I think we can take it for granted that this $500,000 is merely for a preliminary skirmish on the French river for the building of a dam and incidentally the developing of some water power. Do we understand that the country is not committed to an expenditure of $15,000,000 for the opening up of a channel to North Bay, and the construction of docks and so on- and that the Government is not announcing a policy of construction, or beginning the construction, of the Georgian Bay canal and will not do so until such time as it appoints a commission to investigate the question from the commercial standpoint and until it gets its report?


Robert Rogers: That is about right.


John Allister Currie: No matter what happens to the Georgian Bay canal or the "Welland canal, the French river portion of the canal would give an outlet for the products of the clay belt of New Ontario, in which in the future millions of bushels of all kinds of grain will be grown. In any event, the money expended here will not be lost.


Mr. PARDEE:: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say the wheat would be brought from the clay belt to North Bay and then shipped by water down the Welland canal?


John Allister Currie: The mining operations in that northern country will require large quantities of coal, and that coal will be brought to North Bay from Lake Erie. I am looking at this from a commercial and not a political standpoint. When the coal
' Mr. GRAHAM
vessels unload at North Bay, they must get return cargo, and what more natural than that return cargo should be wheat.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If I want to go to the Chateau Laurier, do you think it would be a good thing for me to go around by the Union station ?


John Allister Currie: It is not the same thing at all.


Charles Murphy: Last year when Mr. Monk was Minister of Public Works, we endeavoured to obtain some information as to the policy of the Government with reference to the Georgian Bay canal, and we failed. One evening last session Mr. Monk was not in the House and the estimates were taken charge of by the hon. Postmaster General, who, I am bound to say, contrary to his usual practice, gave somewhat evasive replies to the questions put him. The best I could get out of him was that there was an amount somewhere in the estimates which would be expended during the then coming year, in obtaining information about the Georgian Bay canal project. I will ask the Minister of Public Works to-night to enlighten us with regard ro that statement made by one of his colleagues last session. As I understand the declaration of policy made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rogers) to-night, on behalf of the Government, the Welland canal project is to be proceeded with and the Georgian Bay canal project is not, although the French river improvement is to be undertaken. We have a natural curiosity to know how this $500,000 is to be expended, and . I know the minister sufficiently well to believe that he would not ask. us to vote $500,000 without giving us details as to the manner in which it is to be expended. We cannot be expected to take a leap in the dark when a very much larger sum than $500,000 is apparently ultimately involved.
I understood the hon. gentleman to say ihat this project, if carried to completion, would involve the expenditure of about $15,000,000, and that by voting this item _we were committing ourselves to the carrying out of the scheme in its entirety. I now ask the minister to enlighten the committee as to that and also as to the expenditure of the money, which we were informed by one of his colleagues last year had been voted for the purpose of getting information regarding the construction of the Georgian Bay canal.


Robert Rogers: I have no doubt that had my predecessor remained in office he probably would have carried out what had been promised on his behalf by the Postmaster General, and he would be prepared to-night to give the information the hon. gentleman

(Mr. Murphy) has referred to. Since I took charge of the department, I am free to confess I have not had time to give this matter the consideration its importance deserves. We ask for this $500,000 in order that we may be in a position to get full and complete information, so far as the French river is concerned, during the coming year. I understand that with this vote a considerable amount of valuable work can be done, which would save a large amount of money in connection with the dredging of lake Nipissing, and that it would develop a certain amount of waterpower, which will be, in itself, very valuable. While there may be some indefiite-ness about that, I can assure my hon. friends that the money will be expended in the public interest and care taken that value is received for every dollar of it. I believe it will be expended in such a way as will prove satisfactory to the members of this House and to the people of the country.


Charles Murphy: While we may be willing to accept the statement of the Minister of Public Works that this money will be expended in the public interest, yet we are entitled to information as to how it is to be expended. Is it going to be expended on the construction of a dam, as the minister would seem to suggest ? The impression the minister leaves on me tonight- is that he has not decided on anything as yet, and that if the money is voted he will have it there to do with it whatever may -come handy later on. We should not be asked to vote money under such circumstances.


Robert Rogers: The chief engineer says this amount will be required in connection [DOT] with the carrying on of the project.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Was not all that information obtained under thb late Government ?


Robert Rogers: The chief engineer says the information was obtained, but only in a very general way, and not in a way that would be sufficient to warrant the undertaking of definite and -specific works.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: How much money has been expended altogether in obtaining information about this Georgian Bay canal ?


Robert Rogers: Something like $700,000
for the whole four hundred and forty miles.


Charles Avila Wilson: The Georgian Bay canal has been surveyed inch after inch and foot after foot, and the minister must know what are the conditions of that river. We are entitled to have detailed information.


Robert Rogers: This money is to be expended to get the detailed information
which the hon. gentleman wishes to have. We have the general information in the report of the engineer, to which my hon. friend has referred, but we have not the detailed information necessary when we come to make plans and specifications for a project which will require the expenditure of a great deal of money. Before any minister would recommend to this House the expenditure of such a large sum of money, he will have to be in possession of the detailed information which we can secure by this expenditure.


George Perry Graham: Would this be some explanation? The Minister of Railways represents that constituency and is committed to placing in the estimates $2,000,000 for the Welland canal. Therefore something must be done 'to appease the wrath of his own electors who are expecting the Georgian Bay canal to start right away.


Robert Rogers: I never heard anything
about that.


George Perry Graham: This $500,000 is to get information, plans and specifications and general improvements, but for what? If it were part of the Georgian bay canal scheme and the policy were so announced, I would understand why this money is required. The Minister of Public Works says:	No; if we ever build the Georgian
Bay canal, this will be for the work on it, but we are not going to commit ourselves to it until we make further investigations. Therefore this money cannot be for working plans and specifications for the development of that great scheme. The Minister of Public Works must be going to do some thing practical on the French River; otherwise this money must be to please the Minister of Railways. If the money is to do any work on the Georgian Bay canal, the minister ought to be able to tell us what he is going to do with it.


Robert Rogers: That will all depend on the report of the commission which will be appointed very shortly. If they report favourably on the undertaking, it would be a mistake to lose a year, and we should have sufficient money in the estimates to enable us to get complete plans and details, in order that we may present at the next session of Parliament a proper report as to the undertaking.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend says that he is not going to go on with the expenditure of this money until he gets the report of this commission, but he does not want to lose a year. He will get their report and act on it before he lays it before Parliament. Is that what the vote is for?


Robert Rogers: We will have the work
extended, because we believe that the work

on the French river section itsell will be of great value to the locality and to the country as a whole. We want plans and reports on that work.


Edmond Proulx: $100,000 was voted last
session. Was any of it expended?


Robert Rogers: Nothing was expended.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The hon. minister says
that all he proposes to do is to take this $500,000 in order to get the commission to work, and that when he receives their report, he will act on it. .1 do not think the minister, in all seriousness, will tell the House, after the reports that have been made for the past few years on the Georgian Bay canal scheme, and after an expenditure of three quarters of a million in order to get these reports, that the section of the French river up tc North Bay is not as well known by the reports already received as anything possibly could be. It does not require $500,000 more to get further reports in order that the work may be gone on with. I am not in favour of the Georgian Bay canal scheme, because I do not believe that at the present time, with boats of'a maximum length of about 700 feet, you will ever get the carrying trade to go through the Georgian Bay canal. If so, you are better off with the deepening of the Welland canal, and the people of Canada will be saved the amount of money which would be spent on the Georgian Bay canal. The prospective expenditure is'$100,000,000. If you consider what has been expended in this and other countries on works of similar enormous proportions, you will find that not a hundred million will be expended on the Georgian Bay canal, but about $300,000,000 before it is completed. One reason given why the Georgian Bay canal should be constructed is that between Duluth and Port Arthur it will save two days coming and two days going. I think the report brought down last year made that statement. I do not believe that is so, for this reason. Even if the Georgian Bay canal is constructed, with the number of locks that will have to be made on it, and with the maximum length of boats of 700 feet, you will find that boats of that capacity will take the route of the Welland canal rather than the Georgian Bay canal. If boats are to go through the Georgian Bay canal, they will have to be smaller, and consequently the expense for carrying grain will be greater. After the Georgian Bay canal is constructed, you will find that boats will still go through the Welland canal; and that the Georgian Bay canal, except that through its construction certain water powers will be developed in that country, will be of absolutely no use. I believe, with the reports we have to-day, that we have all the infor-Mr. ROGERS.	-
mation necessary, and that this expenditure of $500,000 is practically money thrown away. If it is to cost $500,000 to know whether or not the Georgian Bay canal is feasible from the mouth of the French river up to North Bay, heaven only knows what the Georgian Bay canal will cost from the French river to Montreal.


William Thomas White: There
seems to be a considerable difference of opinion on the other side of the House with regard to the Georgian Bay canal project. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) and the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) have contended that, notwithstanding the fact that the late Government expended some $700,000 on surveys, these surveys were practically usele-ss.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I do not propose to have that interpretation put upon my words. I said that the expenditure of $700,000, with the reports and papers that were brought down, had given us all the information necessary to enable us to make up our minds with regard to the construction of this canal.


William Thomas White: The report which these
engineers brought down was to the effect that this project would cost in the neighbourhood of $100,000,000.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Which I do not believe.


William Thomas White: Then the money was uselessly expended, so far as hon. gentlemen opposite are concerned. I am sorry the hon. member for South Renfrew is not in the House, because I wanted to ask him whether he is in favour of the Georgian Bay canal or the deepening of the Welland* 'canal, and which project he thinks the Government of this country should undertake at the present time.


Robert Rogers: I think the hon. member for West Lambton supplied a good Teason why this item should be passed to-night. 'He has pointed out that we have already spent $700,000 on surveys; that we have in the department, the reports regarding those surveys, and that he does not believe a word of what the engineers say in regard to 'the matter.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I did not say that.


Robert Rogers: When a commission ts
appointed to inquire into the commercial aspect of this matter, and when they read the assertion of my hon. friend to the effect that he does not believe the report of the engineers appointed by the Government which he supported, it will be a great question for the commission to decide as between my hon. friend and the engineefs. They might 'be able to reeom-

mend the construction of the canal as a commercial undertaking if it were to cost $100,000,000, and might refuse to recommend it if it were to cost $300,000,000. I think, therefore, that we are justified in having plans and specifications made with regard to any particular section to which we are giving consideration. The chief engineer informs me that, while we have had the survey to which my hon: friend refers, we have not, in the department, that specific information as to detail work that would enable us to be definite as to the actual cost.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The minister, then, will acknowledge that this $500,000 is for the appointment of a commission to report on the section between the mouth of French riveT and North Bay.


Robert Rogers: This whole amount does not necessarily go to them.


Charles Murphy: The use to which this
money is to be put seems to change each time my hon. friend deals with it. I would suggest the wording of the item should be changed so that it will specify that it is for the purpose of collecting information.
Quebec harbour-dry-dock at Lauzon,


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has a site been secured for this dry-dock, and at what cost? Have tenders been called for?


Robert Rogers: We have expropriated an inexpensive site.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who are the engineers?


Robert Rogers: Mr. Swan, Mr. Wilson
and Mr. Laflenr.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What was the price
paid for the site?


Robert Rogers: We are expropriating it, and have not yet arrived at a price. The property is thirty-two acres in extent.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How much per foot do you expect to pay for it?


Robert Rogers: About five cents; the total value would be over $200,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When my hon. friend comes back with his estimates to-morrow, I would like him to give me the names of the owpers of the site, and the amounts which are to be paid to each of them. What is the total estimated cost of the dry-dock?


Robert Rogers: We have plans prepared and are calling for tenders, and it would
not be possible to say now what the cost will be.


Charles Murphy: What will be the size
of the dock?


Robert Rogers: 1,150 feet long by 125 feet wide.


Charles Murphy: What is the location,
above or below Levis?


Robert Rogers: At Levis, right close to
the old dock.


Charles Marcil: What is to become of
the old dock?


Robert Rogers: The chief engineer
thinks that there will be work for both.


Charles Marcil: Is this to be as large as the dock at Montreal, and does it resemble the one there?


Robert Rogers: The Montreal dock 13 a floating dock; the dock at Quebec is a graving dock, and will accommodate the largest ship afloat.


Mr. TOBIN:: Thirty-two acres at five
cents a square foot would come to $70,000.


Robert Rogers: At five cents a foot it
would be $70,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that
$70,000 will be the price paid for the site?
_ Mr. ROGERS:	The engineer says that
is the estimated value. The land is being expropriated, and we expect to be able to secure it at that price.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I raise no objection
to the construction of the dock, but as to the price my hon. friend may rest assured that five cents a foot in Lauzon is a good rate, and if the parties will not accept that figure, if the minister resorts to expropriation I am inclined to think the Government will win.


Robert Rogers: We will go to the Exchequer Court, we are not going to decide it.


Frank Oliver: When is it expected the
dock will be finished?


Robert Rogers: About two years after
the letting of the contract. We will probably let the contract within the next two months.


Frank Oliver: How does that dock
compare with other docks?


Robert Rogers: It is one of the largest
in the world.
Red river, St. Andrews lock and dam, construction of approach, $70,000.


Frank Oliver: This has been a hardy
recurring annual for many years. What particular work is this estimate for?


Robert Rogers: The work on the St. Andrew's lock is certainly one that we are all proud of up there. This is necessary in connection with the construction of approaches to complete the work; this is for approaches to the bridge over the dam.


Frank Oliver: The construction of the
lock and dam at St. Andrews has created



dead waters for a number of miles up and down the river in front of the city of Winnipeg, which has had a certain injurious effect in regard to sanitation. Is there any proposal whereby that situation can be relieved in any way?


Robert Rogers: I understand there has
been some difficulty in that [DOT] connection, but I have not heard of it as being very serious up to date. I understand that matter will be looked into by a committee appointed by this House. The raising of the water has done a great deal of good in other respects.


Charles Murphy: Perhaps the hon. member for Selkirk could give some information?


Mr. BRADBURY:: This is, of course, a big question, but, as far as the dam is concerned, there is no means of relieving the situation; the remedy is for Winnipeg to stop putting raw sewage into the water. That is the only remedy, and I think the people of Winnipeg realize that fact. The "'building of the dock has created a large body of dead water, but it has also accomplished a great work, and has made possible navigation from the head of lake Winnipeg to the city of Winnipeg. The approaches to the bridge are necessary. It will be remembered that the bridge was placed across the dam in such a way that it was of no use without approaches. This is to implement the work of the late Government. The work is practically completed now. It is practically a revote.


Frank Oliver: The committee to which my hon. friend refers is not charged with any responsibility in regard to this situation of the city of Winnipeg particularly. It would be well for the Public Works Department to take cognizance of the conditions as they are, and to see what relief can be provided, because I am strongly impressed with the view that the conditions there are apt to be very serious. I would suggest that something might be done to relieve the situation by giving notice that at certain times the water would be allowed to run off.


George Henry Bradbury: Every fall the sluice gates are raised and the water is lowered some twenty feet, and a great deal of the sewage is run off.


Frank Oliver: Everybody who lives in
that part of the country knows that the condition of health is dangerous towards the fall. A serious condition of affairs has been created by that time, the damage has been done.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not think that
anything done, so far as the lock or dam is concerned, would relieve the situation Mr. OLIVEP
to any great extent. The real and only cure would be to stop the putting of sewage into the Red river.
Vancouver harbour improvements, $500,000


Robert Rogers: This is in connection
with the wharf started some time ago and just completed.


Frank Oliver: Will this expenditure be made by the harbour commission or by the Government?


Robert Rogers: It will be made by us.


Frank Oliver: Will this complete the
construction of the wharf?


Robert Rogers: We think it will.


Frank Oliver: What will be the total
cost?


Robert Rogers: About a million dollars.


Frank Oliver: Where is the whart
located?


Robert Rogers: Near the sugar refinery.
Victoria harbour improvements, $500,000.


Robert Rogers: This is for the breakwater.


Frank Oliver: Is this vote expected to
finish the work?


Robert Rogers: No.


Frank Oliver: Is the work beginning or ending?


Robert Rogers: Beginning.


Frank Oliver: What will the total expenditure be at Victoria?


Robert Rogers: About $2,000,000. T-he
harbours out there are just developing.
Nova Scotia public buildings-Amherst public building, $10,000.


Robert Rogers: This is part of the cost of a new building that we propose erecting as a post office at Amherst.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is
wrong with the present building?


Mr. RHODES:: Last year an item of
$5,000 I think was placed in the estimates for ithe purpose of building an addition to the present public building. It was found that that sum was inadequate, and in the earlier portion of this session the amount was changed to $10,000 in the main estimates. An architect of the department was sent to Amherst with the view of finding out the improvements that were required, and he made an estimate to build an addition to the post office which would accommodate the post office and customs business, and which would cost $30,000 or $40,000. With the rapid development of the town, that expenditure would be only sufficient to meet requirements for a very few years,

and it was felt that it would be wiser in the public interest to apply this money at once to the construction of a new post office building, and to retain the present public building for the purposes of the customs house. Some idea of the growth of the town may be gleaned from the fact that the customs revenue alone last year was upwards of $150,000, and at the present rate of growth this year i.t will be well past $200,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would it not have been better to build a new customs building?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Owing to the location
and nature of construction of the present building, it is felt that it can be remodelled for the purposes of the customs house at very little expense, but a new post office is required from the additional fact that a city delivery has been established which requires accommodation not to be found in the old building.


Mr. BRODER:: What is the population?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 11,000 and at the present rate of growth there will be 20,000 bv 1920.


Mr. LAW:: I would like to express my regret on behalf of the people of Yarmouth that there is nothing in the main or supplementary estimates for improvements on the Yarmouth public building. I called the attention of the minister some time ago to the matter. I have no doubt if he knew the circumstances he would have had something in the estimates this year. The post office facilities in Yarmouth are entirely inadequate. There are times when the post office will not hold the number of people who come there to get their mail. When it is stormy these people stand outside of the building and wait until others go in, get their mail and come out again. The late Government bought a property directly south of the present building and ' intended to enlarge the present building and give increased postal facilities and also to enlarge the, custom house in the upper stories. They paid $10,000 for that property, it was well bought, it is centrally located next to the present building. It is absolutely necessary that the post office facilities shall be increased at the earliest possible moment. I sincerely trust that the minister will see his way clear to do something to meet the situation at Yarmouth. Perhaps some part of this vote of $20,000, No. 139, for Dominion public buildings, renewals, improvements, &c., could be used to give this increased accommodation.


Robert Rogers: I will take note of what my hon. friend says. I think he will understand how difficult it is to find sufficient funds to cover the whole of the Dominion. There are many applications for post
offices in many places that it has been impossible to meet this year, but I can assure my hon. friend that I will take note of what he says and we shall be glad to do what we can in the matter.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Does this $10,000 include the site of the post office at Amherst?


Robert Rogers: It will include the purchase of a site. We have a further sum in the supplementary estimates to cover the cost of the building.	.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is the site already purchased?


Robert Rogers: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Has it been decided
where the building is going to be placed?


Robert Rogers: The location has not been decided.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Therefore, you do not know whether this $10,000 will be sufficient for the building or not?


Robert Rogers: It will not be.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It will not purchase the site.
Dartmouth-new public building, $25,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has the site been purchased yet?


Robert Rogers: Not yet. I suppose you need the building there?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Robert Rogers: I see that there are 5,000 or 6,000 people.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.
Halifax Citadel-new quarters for single men and recreation establishment, $15,000.


George Perry Graham: I see that these poor single men were neglected last year. This vote seems to have been in last year, but there was no money spent. What were the members for Halifax doing last year to allow these single men to be out of recreation and quarters when they had the money?


Robert Rogers: I am afraid that the hon. junior member for Halifax has been asleep at the switch.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is this going to be expended this year?


Robert Rogers: I think so.
Halifax-postal station at north end, $30,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has the site been purchased?


Robert Rogers: Not yet.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Any negotiations for it?


Robert Rogers: Not that I have heard of.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is it the intention of
the minister to purchase a site this year?


Robert Rogers: Yes, -we will send a purchasing agent down as soon as this vote is passed to get a site.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the cost of the building?


Mr. EOGEES:: We really have not the plans out, hut it will probably run $50,000 or $60,000.
Halifax quarantine station-new buildings and improvements, $30,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It has been frequently said by very competent persons that the location of the present quarantine station buildings at Halifax is not a proper one. They are difficult of access much to the disadvantage of the work of the quarantine officers. I would think that before the minister undertakes to expend this money he should have a further consultation with the department agent, who administers quarantine matters, and settle first whether the present quarantine [ground is a proper place at which to erect this new building.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Do you mean on Lawlor's Island?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Do you think a more desirable location could be obtained?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it is possible
and the officers administering quarantine matters in Halifax think so.


Norman McLeod Rogers: We will be entirely guided by their recommendation.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is this building to be used for?


Norman McLeod Rogers: For medical superintendent, lavatory, assistant, captain, engineer, and so on.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is it the intention to
have the medical officer live there?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That has been asked for by the department agent.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not believe that
the idea is a good one. However, the minister is not responsible for that.
Inverness post office-improvements, $3,000.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Inverness):: What is
this item for?


Norman McLeod Rogers: This vote of $3,000 is to be applied to the construction of a concrete retaining wall at the rear boundary of the Inverness post office grounds and also in laying concrete sidewalks and sewer to Eailway and Second street. The tender received for the sidewalks amounted to $1,000 and the estimated cost of the sewer Mr. ROGERS.
is $3,000. The total cost of the improvements is $4,190.


Alexander William Chisholm: Some of this work has been done?	,


Robert Rogers: Yes, about $1,000 worth
of it.


Alexander William Chisholm: The sidewalks have been constructed?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Alexander William Chisholm: Has the minister any knowledge as to whether the work is satisfactory?


Norman McLeod Rogers: We have had no complaint in the department.


Alexander William Chisholm: Is there any particular reason why the item of $3,000 in the estimates of 1912 for a public building at Port Hawkesbury was dropped?


Robert Rogers: I did not know it had
been dropped.


Alexander William Chisholm: There was an appropriation of $3,000 to purchase the site of a public building at Port Hawkesbury and the site was selected, but I understand the Government has given up the idea of building there.


Robert Rogers: This is the first I have
heard of it; I will have the information obtained from the department.


Alexander William Chisholm: I am surprised at
that statement, because I brought it to the attention of the Minister of Public Works last session, and I made inquiry in the department some time ago with regard to it and I fully expected the item would be revoted this year. I would like to be able to explain to the people of Port Hawkesbury and the surrounding distinct why this very important appropriation has been dropped from the estimates; I cannot understand it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will make inquiry.
ICentville public building-improvements, &c., for tower clock, $3,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This item for the clock reminds me very strikingly of three small appropriations that were in the estimates of 1911-12 for clocks for three towns in my own county, namely: North Sydney, Sydney Mines, and Baddeck, and which appropriations have been dropped from the estimates. I was told that these clocks were provided as part of the policy of the Department of Public Works. The minister can ascertain from his_ officials that there are few public buildings in Nova Scotia without clocks, and possibly the same rule prevails throughout the Dominion Will the minister tell me why these votes were dropped? These are three im-

portant and growing towns where tower clocks would be of service to the working people [DOT] and the citizens generally.


Robert Rogers: This is the first notice I have heard of this. I approve of the idea of placing clocks on new buildings in growing towns, and I think it is a very proper expenditure. I will get the information for my hon. friend. I do not know what reason there can he for these votes having been dropped.
Fredericton-new pubfie buildings. $60,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What will the Fredericton public building cost?


Robert Rogers: Something over $100,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I wish the member for
the constituency were here to explain the necessity for this new building. True, the present public building in Fredericton is twenty or twenty-five years old, 'but I think it is sufficiently large to satisfy the demands of the city, which has a population of between eight and nine thousand people and has not grown within a number of years. It is a fine little city, but I cannot understand why it is necessary to spend $100,000 to give a public building to a city of that size, especially when there is a fine public building there now. What reason can the minister advance?


Robert Rogers: As my hon. friend well
knows, Fredericton is the capital of the province.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, it has been for a
long time.


Robert Rogers: We bore in mind that it
being the capital of a province we might adopt a somewhat pretentious plan for a public building.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That may be a good sentimental reason, but it does not appeal to a man who looks at these things from a business standpoint. I live sixty miles from Fredericton, but as I have been attending to my business here I have not been able to visit the city for the last six months; might I ask what are you going to do with the old building?


Robert Rogers: It is used for customs at present.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes and inland revenue and post office too. I have never heard any complaint about there not being room enough in the building. I am not going to oppose the vote, but I want to tell this committee that they have all the accommodations they require in Fredericton now and what on earth do they want a building costing $100,000 besides, I cannot understand; unless of course it is a purely sentimental idea. The minister tells us that because Fredericton is the capital of a province it should have something better than the rest of the country, but I do not feel like subscribing to that proposition. The minister might as well go to Charlottetown and say that because it is the capital of a province it should have a fine public building costing $100,000, although it does not need it. Is the present building to be demolished or what are you going to do with it? There is plenty of space there; what does the Government intend to do?


Robert Rogers: The report that we have from the customs officials is that we have constant, almost hourly, complaints in regard to the present location of the customs house. It takes forty-two steps up a steep stairway to reach it, and such an arrangement is scarcely up-to-date in a' city like Fredericton. Mails are made up in this office for over two hundred and thirty offices outside. There is no room for sorting racks of sufficient size to handle all the bags, and the greatest inconvenience is caused in the sorting of mails for want of room.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the mails are made up, they are made up in large quantities and sorted on the train. There are not two hundred and thirty offices within reasonable distance of Fredericton. I should think there are nearer twenty-three than two hundred and thirty.
Hartland public building, $2,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the object of this expenditure ?


Robert Rogers: This expenditure is to make provision for certain estimates submitted by the contractor, furniture, sidewalk and fencing, and so on.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will that complete the building ?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I wish my hon. friend
the minister could see the way in which they have installed the clock. The building is a very nice little one costing about $20,000. We tried to be as economical as we could in the original plans, and the work was carried out strictly according to the specification. I think it is one of the few public buildings in Canada in which there were no extras. A clock tower was provided, and the building was hardly completed at the time of the change of Government. My hon. friend went on, as he should have done, and supplied the clock. The building is of brick, with a combination of metal and slate roof. They put a wooden button on the top which is used in some way, I think, to provide for the operation of the bell of the clock, but it is the most unsightly object I have ever seen placed on the top of a building.


Robert Rogers: I will come down and see it.
St. John drill hall, $100,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the estimated cost of this drill hall when completed?


Robert Rogers: It will be about $300,000.
St. John, new post office, $130,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is this for an entirely new binding or an addition to the 'present one? What is the cost?


Robert Rogers: An entirely new building. The estimated cost is about $400,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The present building is of considerable value and the site is very valuable. Does the minister intend to dispose of it or to use it in the public service?


Robert Rogers: We intend to use the
building for housing certain officials for whom we have rented space elsewhere in St. John.
Dominion public buildings-renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., $20,000.


Robert Rogers: This is for the maintenance of all public buildings in the maritime provinces.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: For the last five or six years we have been trying to get the public building at North Sydney properly heated. An antiquated furnace was put in over twenty years ago when the building was erected. We have a cold climate in Nova Scotia, and the people who work in the post office and the custom house suffer from cold, because the furnace is not sufficient to heat the building. The inspector was in our city last year; he went over the heating system of the building, and promised that he would give us a new furnace. We did not get it for last winter, and I wrote to the hon. minister this year, so that an effort *would be made to put in a proper heating apparatus for the coming winter. I am not trying to get patronage for a Tory firm who are building boilers in North Sydney, but I would like to see them get the chance to put one of their furnaces in this building. They build Srst class furnaces; they send them all over Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and I think they should be given an opportunity of putting a furnace in the public building in our town.


Robert Rogers: I have asked the deputy minister to take a note of what my hon. friend has said, with a view fto meeting his request, if possible, in regard to the matter.


Charles Marcil: Before the public buildings of Quebec are entered upon, I would like to direct the attention of the minister to the fact that some years ago the Minister of Public Works expressed in this House the opinion that it was desirable that there should be a public building in every con-Mr. CARVELL.
stitueney in the land. That policy has been very closely followed since, and in some constituencies there are more than one public building. In pursuance of that policy, in 1911, some $5,000 was put in tjie estimates and voted by the House for a public building in New Carlisle, the shire town of Bonaventure county, to cost $15,000. There was no public building in the constituency, and this was! a compliment to the shire town of the constituency as well. The people were astonished last year to find that the item had been dropped from the estimates, and the same thing has happened this year. Some amends were made for that by giving $5,000 towards a public building at Gaspe, the adjoining constituency, but the people of Bonaventure think they are entitled to a puWie building, and while noit objecting to tire county of Gaspe being furnished with a public building, would like to know why they have been deprived of theirs. New Carlisle is one of the prettiest places on the Baie des Chaleurs. There is a beautiful site in front of the court house. New Carlisle has a postal revenue of from $1,500 to $1,600 this year; it has a population of
1,000,	and there is every argument in favour of its having a public building. I pleaded the case in 1911, and was successful, but the item has been dropped from the estimates, and I think that a great injustice has been done to the people of that constituency.


Robert Rogers: I am much disappointed to learn what has been said by the hon. member for Bonaventure, hut I am afraid that he has been somewhat negligent himself. I am sure that, if he had presented his claims to me before the estimates were brought down, I would have been only too pleased (to have given them consideration. I shall take note of his claim, however, and hope to be able to meet his wishes next year.


Charles Marcil: That may be a good excuse, but in revising the estimates of 1911, these items were struck out deliberately- and the same thing has occurred with regard to a dozen other places-and new items substituted in their stead. I hope the hon. minister will see to it, when the next opportunity arises, that the constituency will be given at least one public building. We have a post office and inland revenue service there, and I think it would be but in the interests of the public that New Carlisle should have a public building.


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Dugas, now one of the judges of our courts, was a member for the county of Montcalm, he succeeded, after repeated efforts to obtain a post office for the parish of St. Jacques de l'Achigan. That parish is very important in all respects.

In 1909, when I was elected as representative of that county, I repeated what Mr. Dugas had said and a sum of $15,000 was put in the estimates for the construction of a post office in that parish. It was my misfortune to he elected as a Liberal, and I see now that the amount has vanished from the estimates. I have repeatedly asked the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) to put that sum back in the estimates, but he has always turned a deaf ear, saying: 'We shall see later on; we will consider the matter;' and he is still considering it. Meanwhile the post office is not being built.
St. Jacques is an old parish with a large agricultural population. A bank has been established there; a huge convent, a model school and various industries are to be seen in that place. There is a large tobacco factory; and it was for that reason that a post office had been granted to the parish.
Since the new administration came into power, the amount put in the estimates in favour of St. Jacques has been taken off, and the former Minister of Public Works gave it to his own county after taking it away from the county of Montcalm. And this is'called ' British 'fair play.' Woe begone fair play, I think. It seems to me that, the new administration was bound in honour to carry out the decisions taken by the former administration. I would like to know by virtue of what principle they have acted.
The land had been bought, and the work of building was about to begin when the Nationalist leader, Mr. Monk, decided to commit this injustice towards the ratepayers of St. Jacques, by cutting off this vote of $15,000.	^
I can understand the Government taking revenge by beheading employees who meddle in politics, but a post office is never guilty of such a crime. Why, then, should that amount be struck off the estimates? Now, when I ask that the amount be put back in the estimates, the answer is: ' We shall see to it,' but nothing is done. The buying of a site shows that it was the intention to build that post office, the construction of which has been put off till this day, and is still being put off.
I ask the hon. Minister of Public Works what the Government intend to do? When a former administration have decided upon a certain thing, I say that the new Government which succeeds them have no right to ignore their decision and to take the amount to give it somewhere else. The engagement should be carried out, whether the members are Conservatives or Liberals. The Government should keep the pledge taken by the former administration and do justice to the electors I have the honour to represent here.
The 35 millions you have voted for the navy you will not have the opportunity to spend. Give them for post offices as necessary as that of St. Jacques, and thus give justice to those electors who claim their share of protection and the share of sunlight to which they are entitled. Give a little of that public money to the fine county of Montcalm.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to give my hearty support to what has been expressed by the hon. member for Bonaventure, and the hon. member for Montcalm. The county of Bonaventure is one of the largest in the province of Quebec, it ranks second in area and it has not been very much endowed with the good things of this world. Its population is poor but it pays its share of taxation, and it seems to me that the Government should have at least implemented not only the promise, but the item which had been in the estimates under the preceding Administration. The county of Bonaventure, as my hon. friend knows, is settled by the old United Empire Loyalists and by the Acadians, and it has been worthily represented in this House by my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). It seems to me that it is rank injustice to deprive that county' of what it had expected from the Government. As regards Montcalm, it is probably the most prosperous farming county in the province of Quebec. One parish, St. Jacques, is certainly the richest parish in the province. In that parish the farmers have succeeded in establishing the tobacco industry on a large scale. Splendid farms can be seen throughout that parish and throughout the constituency. When this amount was put in the estimates I think I was a party to it; the site was selected and paid for, plans prepared and I think the old building demolished. Is it not strange that the amount has been removed from the estimates just as my hon. friend came into the Department of Public Works? I could understand perhaps the late Minister of Public Works, Mr. Monk, wiping out the item. He has been very prominent in the political battles of our province and probably has received some hard knocks from the hon. member from Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune), and my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), but my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works has not been so prominent in our province and surely he would not have taken it upon himself to deprive those two constituencies of their due on account of any personal attacks that might have been made by the two members. I would ask him to be fair and just towards these two constituencies. We all know that our friend is the power behind the throne, that he has all authority and that by a wave of his hand he could reinstate the two items in the estimates. I can assure him he will

win favour by it and the people will be very grateful. It is a rank injustice to deprive the two counties of their buildings.


Robert Rogers: I think it is hardly fair
to picture it in the language which my hon. friends have used, especially my hon. friend from Montcalm. The items to which reference has been made were taken out of the estimates before I had anything to do with the Public Works Department, and I am sure that if my hon. friends from Montcalm and Bonaventure were so interested as they appear to be, they might at least have drawn my attention to it during the last four or five months, and I can say to my hon. friend from Bonaventure that there is no man on the otner side bf the House who, if he asked for anything, would get it more readily at my hands than he, and I can only promise him and my hon. friend from Montcalm that they can depend upon it at all times that they will get fair consideration in every way in the matter of piiblic buildings or anything else so far as the administration of the pu'blic works is concerned.
Mt. MARC1L: I must do my hon. friend the minister the justice to say that the item about New Carlisle was struck out of the estimates last session before he became Minister of Public Works, but it is never too late to mend and I hope he will reinstate the item.


Edmund William Tobin: Has a contract for the public building at Weedon, in the county of Wolfe been let, and if so, who are the contractors?


Robert Rogers: No, the contract has not yet been given.


Edmund William Tobin: I see in the supplemen-taries $10,000 for a public building at D'Israeli. Is it the intention of the minister to erect a public building there?


Robert Rogers: My deputy informs me that no land has been purchased yet, but I find it impossible to keep all the items in my head. When we reach the item in the supplementaries I will be glad to supply the information.	[DOT]
Gaspti, public building, $6,000.


Charles Marcil: What is the estimated
cost of the building there?


Robert Rogers: About $18,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have you secured a
site there, and if so, from whom was it bought and at what cost?


Robert Rogers: A site has been purchased
from the Reverend Father Gauthier for $500.
Jeune Lorette-public building, $10,000


Rodolphe Lemieux: If two buildings have been erased from the estimates in the Mr. LEMIEUX
counties represented by my hon. friend, the Postmaster General has taken the amount for two buildings in his own riding. I do not begrudge him, but as he helps himself so liberally he should do the right thing by the Liberal ridings.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Can the minister give any idea of how much money he has in his estimates for armouries pertaining to the Militia Department generally, including the supplementary estimates?


Robert Rogers: We have not that totalled up, but I shall get it for the House and will bring it down when we take ud supplementary estimates.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has a site been purchased at Louiseville?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: From whom?


Robert Rogers: William Laurent.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At what price?


Robert Rogers: 


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I may say that I had in mind the supplementary estimates as well as the main estimates.


Robert Rogers: We will have the information when we reach the supplementaries, and can make one job of it.
Maisonneuve-postal station ' M,' Montreal, $30,000.
Mr. LLMiEUX:	I suppose plans are
ready for this and the tenders have been called for.


Robert Rogers: The plans are being prepared.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose a site has
been secured.


Robert Rogers: It is a matter of negotiation with the municipality. The Government got a portion of the site, and the municipality wants a certain change, and the matter is now being considered.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would urge upon the minister to meet the request of the municipality. Maisonneuve is a very progressive town. It has increased wonderfully during the last ten years, and is becoming one of the large industrial centres of Canada. The mayor and aldermen of the municipality have certain views regarding the site of the post office. The late Administration selected a site not too far from the city hall, but conditions are shifting so rapidly in that district that what was central yesterday is no longer so. I would ask the department to meet as far as possible the views of the municipal authorities.


Robert Rogers: They presented their
plans the other day.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You are negotiating
just now?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Matane, public building, $15,000.


Edmond Proulx: What is the population
of Matane?


Robert Rogers: Something over 2,000.


Charles Marcil: What is the cost of the
building?


Robert Rogers: 

Montreal-eastern postal station 'C,' $50,000.


Mr. MARTIN (St. Mary's):: Does the minister intend to put a clock on that building?


Robert Rogers: A clock is being provided.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The late Administration undertook to give the eastern section of Montreal a post office which is situated in the St. Mary's division. Five or six years ago an inspection was made by the postal authorities, in conjunction with the Public Works Department officers, and a selection was made in the constituency represented by my hon. friend. The building is a credit to the Government, to the city of Montreal, and also to my hon. friend, because he had a lot of trouble in obtaining it from the late Administration. I now wish to put in a word for the St. James' division. As the minister knows, the city of Montreal is increasing by leaps and bounds. It will soon have a population of
700,000.	There is a post office at Maison-neuve, one at Hochelaga, which is one of the wards of the city, and one at St. Mary's. These are all for the east, and cover a very large area. Then there is the thickly settled St. James division, which is the wealthiest section of Montreal east. The population has been increasing considerably there, and out of the old ward of St. James have been carved several municipal divisions of the city of Montreal. Influential people belonging to both political parties have been petitioning the Government to obtain a postal station. While the postal station was being erected in St. Mary's we decided to have a postal station on Amherst St. It was fully equipped, from a postal point of view, but when the pew office in. St. Mary's was opened, orders *came from Ottawa to close the Amherst St. postal station. There has been such a hue and cry about it that the Post Office Department has been compelled to reopen that .postal station, but it is not sufficient for the needs of the district- You will have to -build in St. James division a postal station
such as you have built in St. Mary's. The people of St. James will not go to St. Mary's because i't is too far away, and they have to go' as far as the central post office in Montreal, which is also quite a distance away, or past Bleury st. On St. Catherine st. west of Peel st. you have three or four postal stations, and you are contemplating the erection of new iones. I think it is only fair that the largest and wealthiest division in the eastern part of the city of Montreal should be provided with a postal station. To-day the idea is not so much to get large post offices in large cities. There is a central office, but in order to distribute the work more economically and more rapidly, the prevailing principle in post office matters is to erect stations in the suburbs. I would ask my hon. friend to attend to this, and to give the people of Montreal east what they deserve to have. The municipal council of Montreal, the citizens, irrespective of party politics, and the postal authorities of Montreal are all in favour of this. We made a great mistake some years ago in providing Only for the alteration of the general post office in Montreal. My hon. friend will remember that we had a building on St. James street, next to the Bank of Montreal, and we decided to purchase the Gazette building. We thought at that time that it would be adequate for the needs of the city for many years to come. The highest postal authority in Montreal is Mr. Gaboury, the new superintendent, and he states that already the central office, with these additions, is too small and that it is being congested through the invasion of other public departments in Montreal. I see that, for instance, the marine agency in Montreal has been removed from the Boyer block in Commissioners street to the central post office. The marine agency of Montreal is quite an institution, and as the trade of the port of Montreal increases, it will take more space each year- and it will congest more and more the post office. The policy in every large city, not only on this continent, but in Europe, is to distribute postal work among different sub-stations. I hope that my hon. friend will see that St. James division, which is the wealthiest and most important in the eastern section of Montre 1, is provided with a postal station.


Mr. LAPOINTE (St. James, Montreal):: I fully concur in the remarks which the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has just made. He has clearly put the situation before the House. St. Jarne-s Division is a more or less commercial division, St. Catherine street, which is the main commercial street, running through the entire length of the division. An available mail service is a necessity for the division. For some time we have had a temporary mail service on

Amherst street. The hon. Postmaster General has thought fit to close that temporary office. On a question I put to him in this House, he answered that he would immediately re-open that office, adding that he would only re-open it temporarily because he had under consideration the establishment of a general post office for the St. James Division.
I must say furthermore that there is quite a distance between the post office on Plessis tstreet, near St. Catherine street, and the post office on West St. Catherine street, near the University.
The Government will understand- especially the Postmaster General who knows Montreal perfectly well-and will see the necessity of building in the centre of the city, near St. Denis street-which is the division line 'between St. James and St. Lawrence Divisions-a post office to accommodate that division.	_
To corroborate what I have just said, allow me to quote what was said by Mr. L. G. Gaboury, post office inspector, in an interview reported in La Patrie, April 25, ,1913. He made statements which seem to be very reassuring:
We now have, said he, five offices where ithe complete service is carried on ithe same as it is in the main office on iSt. James street. These offices are: postal station B, west St. Catherine street; station C, Amherst street, which -will soon toe replaced toy the office on Plessis street, now toeing ibuilt; station D, Centre street, and station E at 'the .Mile End Of the service in the eastern pant, compared with the western part, he went on to say, I would rather not say anything, but I will let you know that I have transmitted to the department a report, the complaints which have appeared within the last few days in several of the Montreal newspapers.
As to the rumour according to which the Government intends to dose station B, when the new "building at tbe corner of Bishop street, shall be completed, Mr. Gaboury denies it altogether. On the contrary, the Government will enlarge that station to meet the desires of the traders in that part of the city, who have forwarded to the department numerous and pressing requests. In fact, said Mr. Gaboury, station B is rendering invaluable services and contributing highly to the general efficiency of the postal organization. Thus, in only one day no less than 3.000 persons coming to the different wickets have been counted. (Nothing could show the esefulness of that office better than the crowd which is constantly oocdng to it. lit would.be most unfair to expect these clients, the majority of whom are business men, should be compelled to go to the St. James street office, which besides, is hardly sufficient to accommodate the central part of the city.
I must say that for some time past a somewhat violent dispute has arisen in the press about this post office. But leaving aside that violent language, all are agreed on the necessity of having a new post office Mr. LAPOINTE (iSt. James, Montreal).
within the limits I have just indicated. So true is this t/hat Mr. Gadboury continues to tell us so while making a comparison of the post offices, which rumour had it, were intended to he closed. He says that for the eastern part, the need is greater at the present moment, and requires a post office larger than the one the closing of which had been spoken of.
From the opinion expressed by Mr. Gaboury while comparing the need of station B, it is easy to surmise what he thinks -without saying too much about it, except to his superior officers-about the mail service in the eastern part of Montreal. He is convinced that a new postal station is absolutely required in that district.
I have nothing more to add except to thank the Postmaster General for having immediately, at my request, re-opened the post office on Amherst street, and if I understand his words, such as reported in the ' Hansard,' the re-opening of that office has only been made temporarily until something permanent is done.
I believe the Government might immediately take into consideration the necessity of building a new post office in the district of which I have spoken.


Robert Rogers: I will say in reply to my hon. friend from Montreal, St. James, that the matters to which he refers will receive very careful consideration. But I am not aware that the hon. member for St. James has made any representations to the department in connection with the office he suggests. If he will look at the estimates he will see that we are providing for six or seven new postal stations in Montreal and if he wants another provided at the particular point in which he is interested, I fancy he will not have long to wait because I quite agree with what my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) stated that it is necessary in a city like this to provide as many postal stations as possible for the convenience of the people.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend
allow me to correct a wrong impression that he has given the committee by stating that my hon. friend from Montreal, St. James, (Mr. Lapointe) has not made any representations to the Department of Public Works. When a demand for a post office is made it has to be made to the Postmaster General and the Postmaster General must consult with the Minister of Public Works.


Robert Rogers: I would be glad to take
the matter up with the Post Office Department.
Montreal genei'al post office, $125,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will this soon be completed?	.


Robert Rogers: We expect it will be completed within the next sixty days.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am very glad the minister has appointed Mr. Marchand the architect to supervise that work, because as my hon. friend from Chambly-Vercheres knows, Mr. Marchand is certainly the leading architect in Montreal.


Mr. RAINVILLE:: He is a very good
man.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I believe that in the
very near future the minister will have to find another site for a central post office in Montreal. Already the business is congested there.
Montreal-new inland revenue building, $120,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I hope the minister will not demolish the old inland revenue building, because it is one of the historic landmarks of Montreal.


Robert Rogers: We have not considered
it yet.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is located on Place Royale where the first religious ceremony was celebrated by the French when they discovered Montreal. The building itself is historic, and it would be a great shame to demolish it.
Montreal-new barracks, $100,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Personally I would be
pleased to see military parades and drills on Lafontaine Park, but if you erect a barracks there you would restrict that beautiful park. I hope it is not the intention to do so.


William Melville Martin: I wish to know from the hon. minister, if the site on which these barracks will be built has been chosen?
St. Gabriel de Brandon-public building,


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has a site been purchased; from whom and at what cost?


Robert Rogers: We have paid for the site $2,000 from J. H. Michaud.
St. Laurent-public building, $25,000.


David Arthur Lafortune: From whom was this site purchased and at what price?


Robert Rogers: This is all a revote. I do not happen to have the information as to whom it is purchased from.


David Arthur Lafortune: Will the minister give that later on?


Robert Rogers: I shall be glad to do so.


David Arthur Lafortune: Were tenders asked for?


Robert Rogers: Yes, three.


David Arthur Lafortune: Was the lowest accepted or the highest?


Robert Rogers: The lowest, $24,950.


David Arthur Lafortune: What will be the cost of the building?


Robert Rogers: About $35,000.
Ste. Therese-public building, $20,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was the site purchased?


Mr. NANTEL:: The site was purchased by yourself.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it the same site?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was the old site put aside and a new one purchased?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: It is near the church.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What became of the first site?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: It has been sold.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At what price, and what are you paying for the new site near the church for the election?


Robert Rogers: We sold certain portions of the site for $3,000 and $3,600. The site purchased cost $5,000.
St. Sauveur de Quebec-post office, $40,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What are the receipts of this post office?


Robert Rogers: 

Three Rivers-new public building, $70,000.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Have contracts been let for this?


Robert Rogers: Not yet.
Mr. BELAND. Have tenders been called for?	[DOT]


Robert Rogers: They were called for but the contract was not awarded. There was some mistake in the plans which we are having rectified. Tenders will be called for again in a few days.


Henri Sévérin Béland: When was that mistake discovered?


Robert Rogers: When the department
lets plans out to a local architect who has no knowledge of the construction of public buildings, they find a great deal of difficulty. That is why, as I explained this morning, we are endeavouring to have as many of the plans made here, because we believe that officers of the department who have a knowledge of public buildings can make more suitable plans. This is one of the particular instances, the building at Three Rivers. The plans were made by a local architect, and were drawn out on a very expensive scale.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I was in Three Rivers about three weeks ago, and the impression

prevails there that the lowest tender was refused because it was offered by a political opponent of the hon. minister.


Robert Rogers: They are mistaken down there.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not believe they are.
Progress reported.



Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to direct the attention of the hon. gentleman who leads the House to the fact that there are two or three important Bills standing in the name of the Postmaster General. I have not seen the Postmaster General in his seat for several days; I was informed that he had resigned, but perhaps my hon. friend can inform me as to that, and whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Parcel Post Bill, the Wireless Telegraph Bill and the Letter Carriers' Salaries Bill.


Robert Rogers: The Postmaster General has been indisposed for a day or two, but I understand that he will be in his seat tomorrow. I was speaking to him about these very matters, as the right hon. leader of the Opposition had inquired as to what Bills would be taken up during the bal-lance of the session, and the Postmaster General will probably be able to give his answer to-morrow. I will supply my hon. friend with the required information as soon as the Postmaster General is in his seat.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Thursday.


EMPLOYMENT OP JACOB K. SMITH.
Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: 1.	Has Jacob K. Smith been in the employ of the Dominion Lands Office at Swift Current ?
2.	When was he first employed? .
3.	Is he still in the employment of the Government ?
4.	Is the Government aware that the said Jacob K. Smith was, shortly before being employed by the Government, said to have been convicted of forgery and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the Regina jail?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: si. Yes.
2.	September 26, 1912.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.


MOOSEJAW IMMIGRATION BUILDING.
Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	When was the present immigration building at Moosejaw erected?
2.	How many immigrants can be accommodated in the said building?
3.	Has the said building ever been insufficient to accommodate the number of immigrants desiring entrance?
4.	What is the number of immigrants accommodated during the calendar year 1911?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: 1.	In 1909.
2.	From seventy-five to eighty persons at one time.
3.	The department has never received a complaint to that effect, and is not aware that the .accommodation has ever been found insufficient.
4.	615 persons.

Thursday, May 29, 1913.