QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	How many persons worked for tbe Department of Public Works on the work at the wharf or the breakwater at Trois Pistole* during tbe summer of .1912?
2.	Who were they, and what amount did each of them receive?
3.	How' many days did each work?
4.	Who were the suppliers of timber and iron, and for what amount by each?


BRIDGE OVER OTTAWA RIVER.
*Mr. BOYER:: Has the Government received official communication from tbe Government authorities of Quebec through one or more of its ministers that the Government would be disposed to construct a bridge over the Ottawa river between the shores of Vaudreuil and He Per-rot in the event of tbe federal Government) undertaking to construct another bridge between the shores of lie Perrot and Ste. Anne de Bellevue?	t


Mr. ROGERS:: No official communication has been received from the Government authorities at Quebec.
Mr. BELAND.


Robert Rogers: 1, 2 and 3:
Foreman, $2.50 per day:
Ju'lien Rioux	
Carpenter, $2 per day:
John Dumas	
Carpenters, $1.75 per ds Francis Pelletier. .. Alphonse Beaubien .. Magloire Rioux	
Joseph Rousel	
June.	July.	Aug.
11 to 30.		
' $42.50	$67.50	$52.50
10.50		
y : 27.13	43.31	5.2521.00	44.19	4.8217.50	43.31	4.1331.50	22.75
Labourers, $1.50 per day: Joseph Dionne. ..
Edmond Levesque J. B. Larocque ..
Louis Rioux .. ..
Solomon Dion.. ..
Noel Rioux	
Ls. Paul Raymond Joseph Rioux.. ..
Albert Dumas.. ..
Jules Charest .. .
A. Proulx	
C. Eugene Jean..
Pierre Paradis ..
Ferdinand Paul..
Thomas Rioux ..
Charles Levesque . Joseph Lepage ..
Carters, $2 per day:
Alphonse Charest Joseph Berube ..
Joseph Rioux.. ..
Thomas B'Amour Julien Rioux.. ..
Jean Leblanc.. ..
Joseph Belanger..
Ls. Joseph Belzil..
Rent of canoe, 17 d. at 25c: Julien Rioux	 4.25
23.25	38.62	28.5024.75	37.50	29.6223.25	36.75	22.8824.75	38.25	30.0021.00	30.75	19.50	36.75	28.8812.00	38.62	6.009.00	38.25	26.6323.25	39.00	31.137.50	1.50	16.50	16.50	24.75	36.37	30.3834.50	4.5020.63	25.135.6316-5030.00	51.50	7.0031.00	50.00	37.0030.00	50.50	37.0042.00	49.00	5-507.00	9.5038.50	7.0028.0024.50

4:
J. B. Deschenes	$ 888.71
, Willie Declare	 1,189.97
1,	2 and 3:
.	Landing Pier.
Caretaker, at $2 per day:
Jos. iMasse	 $267 50
Chief carpenter, $2.25 per day:
August Lavoie	 236	25
Carpenters, at $2 per day:
Louis Beaubien	
189	50Achille Belanger	
193	50Majorique Levesque	
157	50Jean Damour	
155	50Gomzague Renouf	
95	00Jos. Rioux (fils de J.B.)	
153	50Angee Proulx	
151	50John Dumas	
181	50Wilfrid Renouf	
5	00Lazare Roy	
92	00Michel Parent	
22	00
Carpenters, at $175 per day:
Louis Belzil	
128	62Alfred Belanger	
42	00Pierre Desjardins	
49	87
Labourers, at $1.50 per day:
Ernest Boucher	 140	62
Labourer, at $125 per day:
Charles Boucher	 107	17
Labourers, at $1,50 per day:
Alfred Rioux	
132	37Alphonse iRioux	
100	87Jonas Rioux	
109	87Theophile Paradis	
118	87Michael Dumas	
142	87Joseph Dumas	
130	12Charles Leveque	
49	50Jos. Rioux (fils Ludger)	
16	50Adam St. Laurent	
109	87Magloire Carrier	
63	75Frs. Dumais	
1	50Derilla Rousseau	
94	87Anselme Rioux	
139	12Joseph Pelletier	
46	50Joseph Lepage	
39	00
Chas. Rioux (night watch) at $1.75.. 180 25 Carters, at $3 per day:
Joseph Leveque	 296 25
Ls. Jos. Belzil	 77	25
Carters, at $2.00 per day:	_
Xavier Leveeque	
172	50Ernest Cote	
109	50Theophile Cote	
77	50Frs. Damour	
50	00Ernest Boucher	
120	50Joseph Belanger	
98	00Frs. Dumais	
44	00Jean Leblanc	
18	00George Belisle	
9550Theodore Damour	
44	00Ferdinand Rioux	
58	50Thomas Damour	5 00Joseph Berube	
34	00Joseph Rioux	
14	00Total	
$5,158	86J. B. Deschesnes, hardware	$ 50 59Aug. C. Lavoie, hardware	
22	30
Willie Leclare, hardware and lumber, 242 82
L. P. Renouf, hardware	
5	54Joseph Rioux, hardware	
38	36L. P. Rioux, lumber	
1	58Mrs. Johnny Rousseau, hardware.. ..	13	54


$374 71 VICTORIA POST OFFICE.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Does the Government still own the old post oflice building in Victoria, B.C.?
2.	If the building is rented, what are the names of the lessees, the rental payable by each, and the dates of expiration of each tenancy ?
3.	Who is the local officer in charge of said px-operty ?
4.	Are any of the tenements now vacant?
5.	As leases expire and vacancies occur, will they will be thi'own open to public tender?
6.	Is it the intention of the Government to dispose of the said property.


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Rented to:
Per month.
Richard Hall	$ 3
W. H. Price	  100
McKillop & O'Brien	150
P. R. Pomfret	 8
G. H. Larrigan	 40
Fullbrooks-Sayer Co	120
C. H. Bowes	135
Unitarian church	 30
P. J. Pearson	 10
Monthly tenants.
3.	William Henderson.
4,	5 and 6. No.


LA BXNQUE INTERNATIONALE.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1. Has a certificate been issued by tho Treasury Board authorizing the transfer of the assets and liabilities of La Banque Internationale du Canada to the Home Bank?

2.	What are the terms of the said transfer?
3.	Will the Minister of Finance lay on the
table of the House all documents hearing on this question before the end of the session?


Mr. WHITE:: The information called for by this question should, I think, be the subject of a motion for a return, but I desire to assist my hon. friend in the matter. I have given instructions to the department to have copies made of the documents called for, so that they may be laid on the table, as suggested by the question, at the end of the session.
Question stands as a notice of motion for a return.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to investigate the causes of the closing up of La Banque Internationale du Canada?
2.	Have any representations been made to the Government by the French shareholders of said bank?


Mr. WHITE:: 1. No.
_ 2. No. I assume that my hon. friend refers to representations by the French shareholders with respect to the closing up of La Banque Internationale du Canada. We have had no communication from the French shareholders with respect to that. Some time ago, I had a private communication from a representative of the French shareholders with respect to the making of the second call.
The company intends to immediately start operations and to instal these pillar boxes throughout the entire country.
2.	What are the exact terms of the above contract ?


Robert Rogers: Stand.	.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: If I may be permitted, I desire to explain the object I have in putting this question. My object is to call the attention of the Government to the impropriety there would be in erecting postage stamp vending boxes bearing any advertisement. The name and arms of His Majesty the King appear on these boxes. And I believe it would show lack of consideration to allow any private firm to advertise on these boxes. I do not object to stamp vending -boxes; I think they are of some benefit to the public; but no private concern should be allowed to advertise on these boxes, on which the name and crest of the King appear.
-Mr. SPEAKER:	The hon. member is
ou-t of order in discussing or commenting upon the question.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-PASSENGER AND FREIGHT REVENUES.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	What was the revenue of the Intercolonial railway from passengers for the year ending March 31, 1913?
2.	What was the revenue of the Intercolonial railway from freight for the same fiscal year ?


STAMP VENDING LETTER BOX.
Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	From passengers, $3,438,447.32.
2.	From freight, $8,028,760.13.


BONAVENTURE RIVER BUOYS.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the Department of Marine and Fisheries ordered the placing of buoys in the channel of the Bonaventure river, Quebec?
2.	If so, how many have been placed, by whom, and under what conditions?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes, there are contracts to this effect,
2.	But few of the buoys have yet been
placed in position, the contractors having to await the arrival of new mooring chains before placing the remainder. The contractors are:	Poiycarpe Babin, who maintains eight spar buoys in Bonaventure river and at entrance to harbour; Bonaventure Babin, who maintains two steel -conical buoys in Bonaventure river; and Edouard Poirier who maintains a steel conical buoy stationed off Bonaventure church. The amounts of the -contracts per annum are: $50, $30, and $35 respectively.


DISMISSAL.
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1. For what cause was Ephiphane Nadeau,

immigration agent at St. Leonard, N.B., dismissed?	.
2.	Who demanded his dismissal?
3.	Who recommended the appointment of Fred A. Roy, as immigration agent, to fill the position left vacant by the said Epiphane Nadeau?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 
Mr. SPEAKER:: Separate notice will have to be given with regard to the consent of the Governor General.


Mr. DOHERTY:: So far as the consent of His Excellency the Administrator is concerned, I have mentioned the matter to him, and he has given his consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Rodolphe Lemieux: The rumour is still persistent that the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) has resigned from the Government. But, whether he has resigned or not. I desire to ask the leader of the House when he expects to announce the official date of the funeral of the Parcel Post Bill ?


Robert Rogers: The statement in regard to the resignation of the Postmaster General, is perfect nonsense. The hon. gentleman has been ill for a couple of days, but he will be in his place at three o'clock, ready to go on with his estimates, and he will then supply all the information my hon. friend wants with respect to the Parcel Post Bill.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
National Transcontinental Railway-construction, $19,000,000.
['I am not specially referring to them; but it often happens that we have to import men from abroad to fill the highest positions in connection with the road, when we ought to promote our own employees. This road has been running ever since Confederation, and we have produced on it a very high class of men. Many of them have gone to the United States, and I am told that a large number of roads in the United States are managed by men who were produced on the Intercolonial. There must be some defect in the management or in the promotion, or we would be able to find men at home to put in these responsible positions. I think the minister is in sympathy with my view, but I do not think it has been impressed upon the Government in the past as it ought to have been. If the minister will look into the matter, he will find many bright men in his own employ; and, if he gives them a chance of promotion, he will be able to fill the most important places with Canadians produced right on the line.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers, House adjourned at 12.17 a.m. Friday.', 'Friday, May 30, 1913.']
Mr. CARVELL:: When this item was under discussion yesterday, the engineering aspect of the matter was discussed by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), the minister and myself, and possibly the item would have been passed without very much further discussion had not the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) seen fit to interject into the discussion his old speeches of three or four years ago when he was finding fault with the classification. Every member of this House who was here from 1906 to 1911 will remember all the old stock arguments about improper and dishonest classifications taking place on the Transcontinental. The hon. member for St. Antoine yesterday said that there had been sympathetic

classifications, which I understood him to define as being classifications made over and above what they should be in.order to help out the contractor. I would prefer that the hon. gentleman should use a term which everybody can understand, and not one which conveys the meaning in covered language. If an engineer classifies a cut differently from what it ought to be, it is not a sympathetic, but a dishonest classification; therefore, my hon. friend makes the charge that dishonest classification is the cause of the cost of this road exceeding the amount which he said was estimated in the beginning. It is true that at one time the late Minister of Finance did say in his judgment, or in the judgment of the engineers, this work was going to cost about $56,000,000, and it will now cost, according to the statements given by the minister yesterday, $162,000,000. But no one knows better than the hon. member for St. Antoine that that .statement was rrsade before the work was commenced, before a sod had been turned or a cubic yard of material was removed. It was clearly an estimate, based not upon an investigation of the country, but purely on the general principle contained in the assertion; You can build a road through Canada for so many thousand dollars a mile, therefore this road is going to cost so many millions. When the engineers were put on the work, they found greater difficulties than had been expected, it but was not the difficulties encountered that resulted in the increased cost of the road; it was the fact that the Government determined to build such a road as had never been built in Canada before, such a road as had never been built in America before and probably was not to be equalled by a road of so great a length in any place in the world.
My hon. friend said he had gone with his pick and shovel down to New Brunswick,^ just as he had gone to the West with his little kodak, taking pictures and then 'going around with his magic lantern endeavouring to make the people of Canada believe that there was something crooked in connection with the	Department of the Interior in the management of	public	lands. Even
*that did not land1 him in the Government, and now he goes around with his nick and shovel to see if he can do something with the Transcontinental. It is just the interposition of such persons as my hon. friend the member for St. Antoine with his little pick that is causing all the trouble in the Transcontinental to-day. He says he dug into the side of a cut, and was satisfied Mr. CAE YELL.
that it was not classified properly. It is just because the minister's inspecting engineers are doing the very same thing the hon. member for St. Antoine did that he is not getting from them the reports he ought to get. My hon. friend himself is engineer enough, without consulting anybody else, to know that if he goes to a cut after it has been exposed to the action of the weather for three or four years, he cannot tell by the use of a little pick what the nature of the cut actually was when it was first made. It is not difficult .for any man to classify a solid ledge cut, rock from top to bottom, but I do not think my hon. friend the member for St. Antoine can tell by going into an ordinary cut with a pick whether in its natural state it could have been ploughed with a team of six horses. There may be a few inches on the surface which, having been exposed to the elements during a period of four years, can be turned with a pick and ploughed with a taem of six horses, but that is not saying that that was the case when the cut was made, and it is not saying that the cut should have been classified as 50 per cent loose rock or 30 per cent loose rock. The best engineer my hon. friend can send does not possess the knowledge of the man who was there when the work was done.
The hon. minister started out to find a great big steal in connection with this matter. 1 have no doubt that many- of his friends believe that there has been a steal, as we do not disguise the fact that the cost of this road has been a great deal more than first estimated. My hon. friend sent out one engineer 'after another. I have not an accurate knowledge of anything west of Quebec, but I can tell my hon. friend that at least half a dozen different *sets of engineers have gone over that road from Moncton west for two or three hundred miles. When one set of engineers could not find anything to report that was against the management of the road, they sent another set, and they sent engineer after engineer to see if they could not disclose a steal, but they were unable to do so. When they could not find anything wrong, in order to justify their existence they had to commence cheese-paring. They would go into a out and sav: Well, if this was classified as 50 per cent loose rock, we will cut it down to 45 per cent. This they did without any reason and without any investigation, simply to justify their existence. The hon. member for St. Antoine yesterday tried to make us believe that the Government was saving millions of dollars by means of their inspecting engineers-engineers who have not even the good taste to work under the proper officials; engineers who were simply acting as pimps; men who are going around

without the knowledge of their superiors and reporting direct to the commissioner or to the minister; men who are simply hunting for mares' nests, and cannot find them. Let me tell you the result of what they have done in district A. According to the statement given to the House by the minister, the grading of district A has cost $8,319,000, clearing, $158,000, grubbing, $98,000, ballast and ballasting, $508,000! After investigating the matter for a year and ,a half, after sending set after set of engineers over this work to find something, my hon. friend was able to cut off about $17,000 from contract No. 1. I have not the exact figures, but I am approximately correct. On contract No. 2 they could not take off anything. On contracts 3 and 4, which were under the same management, they have taken off about $25,000. There is more than that in dispute, there is some question about extras, but, so far as the inspecting engineers are concerned, they have been able to cut off somewhere about $25,000. Contract No. 5 is the one referred to particularly by the hon. member for St. Antoine Division (Mr. Ames) as costing so much money, thirty-two miles costing $120,000 a mile. On that contract 5, they have not taken off more than $15,000 to $18,000 out of a three or four million dollar contract. They tried to and could not do it.
To show the minister that this is not a question of engineering, I will state what they have done on contract No. 5; that is the one that has been settled, and in that way I have been able to find out something about it. They started to cut off $30,000 or $35,000 and the company simply told them that they would not stand for it, because they were wrong, as no engineering judgment could say that they were entitled to make that reduction. They brought the manager of the company up here, and took him before the Star Chamber tribunal and examined him, put him on his oath, and brought all the engineers they could get from the province of New Brunswick, and put them under oath under this Star Chamber process. They could not justify anything that they had done, and the manager of the company simply told them he would fight them. Then they said: Let us settle this; we have taken off $25,000 from your classification, we will give back to you one-fourth of that if you will settle. There was a difference of about $8,000 or $10,000 over a concrete part of the work, and they gave back all that was claimed on the concrete except a mere bagatelle. There was a fight over another portion of the work which they had no Tight to take away, and they said: We will give that back to you; and they have given back to him everything except $15,000 or
$16,000. If my hon. friend's inspecting engineers were right, they should have stayed right, if they were justified in reporting that $35,000 should be taken from the contract they should have kept that amount back. Either they were right or they were wrong and now they are neither one nor the other, because they said they should take off $35,000 and they have it down to $16,000.


Mr. COCHRANE:: According to your own statement there is a saving of $18,000. I do not know anything about the case.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: $18,000 saved? $18,000
stolen from the pockets of the contractors. If my hon. friend would take off everything coming to a contractor, he would say it was saved. Does my hon. friend want to save money in that way? Is that his ambition? I hope my hon. friend will not make use of a word like that again.


Francis Cochrane: I think this is quite uncalled for, because the report is not in, and, as the hon. member for South Renfrew said yesterday, we cannot discuss it without the report.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am taking the responsibility of telling my hon. friend what will be in that report, and if I am wrong my hon. friend can tell the public that the hon. member for Carleton does not know what he is talking about; but the hon member for Carleton will take the responsibility of standing by any fact he has given the minister to-day. I have given my hon. friend the result of this great steal they have found by investigating this work in New Brunswick.
On contract 6 they have taken off nothing so far. But my hon. friend does not tell the House that under the original contract there was provision that all this work must be investigated and must be inspected by Grand Trunk Pacific engineers, and during all the progress of this work the Grand Trunk Pacific inspecting engineers were on the work. No estimate could be paid or was paid until it was first agreed to and ratified by the Grand Trunk Pacific engineer, and when a dispute arose, as my hon. friend knows, the law provides for an arbitration board consisting of the chief engineer of the Transcontinental, the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and a third man to be appointed by the Chief Justice of Canada, in this case, Mr. Collingwood Schreiber. That arbitration 'board went over contract A, they went over every foot of the ground, they travelled from the Quebec boundary to Moncton and inspected cut after cut, and they took into consideration all the objections, some hundreds of them, that were made by the Grand Trunk Pacific engineer. The result of it all was that about $17,000



were taken off a certain cut in contract No.
6 near Edmunston, and that is the only change that was made in the classification of that work by the arbitration board authorized by statute to investigate it, and that was all decided before my hon. friend came into office. As a result of the decision of the hoard of arbitration appointed under the law, the contractors paid many of the su'b-contractors and the result has been that much of the money so taken off the contractors had been paid to the sub-contractors because the payment was authorized by the board of arbitrators created by statute. In that case the sub-contractor does not lose but the contractor does. I appeal to the minister, who, I think, would like to do what is right, if he feels that this is a business proposition-if he feels that spending $45,000, as he admits, in inspecting engineers in order to take off the trifling amounts I have mentioned, and take thern. off in the manner I have described, is a big manly position for the Department of Railways and Canals to take.


Francis Cochrane: Neither the contractors, nor the sub-contractors, nor anyone else has appealed to me. I have had nothing to do with it; it has been settled with the commission.	-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend need not try to get away from responsibilities in that way.


Francis Cochrane: It is all right; if they think they are not being treated right, and do not think it worth while to bring it to my notice, I do not see what I have to do with it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is the
official head of the department. My answer is, why do you have men in your employ so unfair that the contractors have to come to you?


Francis Cochrane: I do not think we
have.	,


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The ordinary public
thinks that the minister appoints officials over those important matters who are reasonable officials. They do not suppose that the contractors are driven to the minister. Of course, if the minister lays down the principle that in every case a contractor is dissatisfied he has a right to appeal to the minister, the minister's time will be well filled up.


Francis Cochrane: Under the Act the
chief engineer finally approves of the esti-. mates, and we have not made any changes at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The one-man commission will not take the advice of the chief engineer on matters just like that.


Francis Cochrane: I would like to know when it was refused.
Mr. CARVELL.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will give a case It
was on contract No. 5 in District A. I have not the particulars before me, but in the schedule there was a price given for a timber-lined tunnel and a concrete-lined tunnel. There was a tunnel on Contract 5, six or seven hundred feet long at a certain price, and a auestion arose whether it was a timber-lined tunnel or a concrete-lined tunnel. It made a difference to the contractor. The sub-contractor claimed that it was one, and the engineer claimed that it was the other. It made a difference of $4,000 or $5,000 to the sub-contractor. There is a clause in the specification and contract which provides that all questions of engineering shall be decided by the chief engineer, whose decision is final, with no apneal. There is also a clause which provides that any dispute on matters of law. instead of going to the ordinary courts, shall go to the Exchequer Court of Canada. This became a question of law as to the proper interpretation of that schedule in that contract. It is not a question for the chief engineer to decide, or ratheT his decision is not final. The sub-contractor will not settle. The chief engineer wanted to leave the matter open so that if the subcontractor brought an action against the contractor and "succeeded, the contractor could bring an action against the Government in the Exchequer Court. But the one man commission would not allow that to be done, and the result was that the contractor who had contract 5 was compelled to settle with the department and take his chance of an action for $5,000 or $6,000 being brought against him by the sub-contractor. If the sub-contractor succeeds, 'as a matter of law, he has no recourse against the commission. That is an illustration of how the commissioner will not take the advice of his chief engineer. If my hon. friend wants moTe illustrations I can give them to him. He does not know what is going on in this one man commission, and I would advise him to investigate. I am pointing out some of the iniquities in the way in which this commission is being run. My hon. friend says we are saving $18,000 by reason of turning out the late commissioners and putting in a new set of officials. I think I am interesting my hon. friend.


Francis Cochrane: I do not think so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Francis Cochrane: Who is he.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Francis Cochrane: My hon. friend is talking about what he does not know, he is absolutely wrong. The commissioner acted on the advice and recommendation of the chief engineer.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend will have an opportunity to explain. I am glad I am giving him something to explain.
354i


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: some of the things which my hon. fnend has been doing, and some of the grounds on which my hon. friend from St. Antoine charges that there was a sympathetic classification all along this work and that it was responsible for the increased price.
Now I come to district ' F.' Any hon. member who was here in 1907-1908 will remember the great outcry over the Hodgins enquiry, and will know something about the charges which were made against the late commission in regard to district ' F.' We were told that graft was rampant, that
the engineers were classifying common excavation as solid rock, and that there was the greatest steal going on that had ever been known in Canada by reason of this classification. Major Hodgins was here for three or four weeks, and undertook to show that there was illegal classification going on in Quebec. We all remember the collapse of the thing. When matters had been brought to the attention of Major Hodgins that he had not known before, he had to admit that: I am all wrong, the Quebec classification is all Tight; I have been misinformed, and therefore I withdraw my statements. Hon. gentlemen who were here at that time know all about this. 'Then we had that arbitration board going through district ' F,' but the difficulty that the arbitration board had to decide was not one of classification. The admitted that the classification was all right, but that the difficulty was as to the overbreak. I am not positive as to the figures, but I can give them practically correctly. The arbitrators recommended the taking away of about half a million dollars from a contractor on district ' F ' on account, very largely, of overbreak. I am told-I may be wrong, and if so I would like the minister to correct me-that this overbreak has since been changed to about $100,000.	.
All this talk that we have had in Canada for the last five or six years about graft being rampant on the Transcontinental railway has been boiled down to the fact that out contractors used too great a quantity of explosives in their work, and that they took out a little more rock than could honestly be considered as overbreak; that is the taking out of rock and the making of the cut wider than it should have been made, or the taking out of more material than should have been taken out, and the result was that the contractors were not allowed their pay for all the material actually taken out. A reasonable amount is usually allowed for overbreak, 10, 15 or 20 per cent, and the only thing that the commission could find in district ' F ' was that the engineers had allowed about $100,000 for overbreak that they ought not to have allowed in a work involving some millions of dollars for
grading alone. These are the things for which the minister has been appointing engineer after engineer to go all over this country, these are the things for which a staff of engineers has been going all over the country, and they have failed to find anything wrong, but in order to justify their existence they have taken a little off one contract here and a little off another contract there, or practically enough to pay the cost of the engineers and the commissions.
If my hon. friend the minister is gratified that he has accomplished something that will redound to the credit of the Conservative party, he is welcome to it. But in my opinion my hon. friend is not gratified at his performance. I give my hon. friend this much credit, that I do not believe that he ever intended that such a performance should have been carried out by those engineers who have been carrying it out. I think he has too much horse sense, too much honesty, for that, and I believe there is no man in Canada who is as sick or as disheartened over the whole thing as the minister is, and I further believe that if he had his way he would fire the whole bunch and put back in their positions the men who ran the business for five years honestly and efficiently. I do not believe the Minister of Railways really wanted these things to happen, but party exigencies demanded that a ' big time ' must be made over the Transcontinental railway. Every man who sat behind his leader, when they were in opposition, cried ' wolf, wolf ' every time the Transcontinental railway was mentioned for five years. They said that it meant that there was a big steal going on and every man believed that there was an election fund being taken out of it, every man believed that there was a crqoked transaction going on in Canada and I will admit that, these views having been expressed, they were compelled to do something. I wonder if the minister is satisfied with the results, I wonder if he would not like to have back the old men in whom he must have confidence because it has been proved that the work was honestly and efficiently managed by men who knew what they were doing, who could not be bribed, and who would not swerve from the straight and narrow path.
In so far as the degrading of this road in districts ' C ' and ' D ' are concerned, I think my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals feels exactly the same about it as he must feel about the success of his investigating engineers in New Brunswick and in district ' F '. He must feel that they are doing something which is not redounding to the benefit of the road, that they are doing that largely only to save a few thousand dollars which means
Mr. CARVELL.

that they are taking away from that road the distinction of feeing the one great road on the continent of America which has been built up to the very top of modem standards. I hope even at this late date that my hon. friend will see his way clear to abandon these unnecessary tactics and go back to the real, genuine plan, of building the road upon the lines which he found laid down when he came into office. Before this discussion was closed yesterday afternoon I asked my hon. friend if he would give us a statement of the saving that will be effected by means of the change in these grades. He was good enough to tell me privately, after the House rose, that he could not give it offhand, and I accepted his statement. But his engineers have had a night to think it over and I would like to have approximately what the saving in cost would be by reason of these changes- I do not mean to a word or a dollar, but I do think that the minister or his engineers might be able to give me a very close approximate estimate of what the cost will be.


Francis Cochrane: I do not propose to go into the question which has been discussed by my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Car-veil). The report, unfortunately, has not been sent in yet, and I take the same ground as that taken by my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) yesterday, that it is not proper to discuss that report before it is brought in.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not discussing the report; I am giving the facts to the committee.


Francis Cochrane: I know that, but when the report comes in will be the proper time to go into all these questions. The report will either justify or condemn what my hon. friend has been saying. With reference to the information he asked for yesterday as to the saving effected by the adoption of the balanced grade, the engineer says that he has men working on it, and I shall be very glad to hand it to the hon. gentleman when it is furnished to me.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will I have the assurance of the minister that I can have that before parliament prorogues?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: The answer
which has been given by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals to the legitimate inquiry of my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell), that he will get this information as to what will be the effect of the change of grades in decreasing the cost of the road, is certainly the most astounding that Parliament could, receive. When we heard last summer that the new Administration intended _ to change the character of that road as originally designed,
there was in the country a good deal of surprise and anxiety. This road was intended to be unique in that throughout its entire length from ocean to ocean it was to have grades of four-tenths of one per cent. It was a new venture, and I think it was -a wise venture. But, whether wise or unwise-I still maintain wise-the construction of the road had been carried on with that high standard in view. These grades had been applied from Moncton to Quebec, from lake Superior Junction to-Winnipeg, and from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean. That was to be the uniform character of the road. But we learned last summer all of a sudden that on the section between lake Superior Junction and Quebec there "was to be a change in the character of the road, and that the grades which had been specified, approved by both parties to the agreement, the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and maintained up to that time, were to be changed to what are now called momentum grades. The reason for the change given at that time was that it was for the sake of economy. It was said that the road was very expensive; and it is an expensive road; The matter was brought to the attention of my hon. friend when Parliament opened in November last, six months ago, and he has had since then to prepare his answer. Therefore we had reason to expect, when he came to ask for money to carry on these works, that we would be told what was to be the character of the changes and the reason for them. We have not yet had a word of information as to the nature of the changes, where they are to be, and what their cost is to be. The only information we have on the matter is what the ex-M'in-ister of Railways (Mr. Graham) has been able to give us. Are we to understand, as has been stated, that, although these changes have been made for the sake of economy, the Government have gone into them without getting an estimate of foe cost? What is the result? To-day we have no figures at all. The changes were decided on more than twelve months ago. The work went on all through last summer, and the Government tell us to-day, without any hesitation, that they have no information to give; that they are making the changes blindly without information, and without looking to the consequences of their action. This is the result of want of information on the part o'f the hon. minister in charge. He tells us to-day that he does not know what ecofiomy he intends to practice. The only information we received from him yesterday was that there was a divided opinion as to the result of these changes, some engineers contending that momentum grades are better, in so far as the operation of the railway is concerned, than level .roads. I am not an engineer nor a railway man; but

anybody with common sense will understand that this statement will not hold water. Men can have different opinions on the subject, but nobody can persuade a man of common sense that momentum grades are better than level grades. The same thing is true as regards highways. By substituting momentum grades for level grades you degrade the road; it is less efficient. A still worse feature of the matter is that you have gone blindly into the change, and the correspondence which has been laid before the House makes the matter ten times worse. The contract provides that all specifications are to be made jointly by the Government engineer and the engineer of the Grand Trunk Eailway Company. When Mr. Chamberlin was informed of the changes which had taken place, he immediately and very properly applied for information to the commissioner, Major Leonard. My friend the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) read the correspon-' dence to the House yesterday. It is well that we should go over it again, in order to see the plain points which are involved in it, and which make the position of Major Leonard and of the Government almost intolerable. This is the first letter of Mr. Chamberlin:
I learn from our engineers that the standard of work on that portion of the Transcontinental railway between Lake Superior Junction and Cochrane, which was at the outset adopted and has so far been complied with, is being departed from, and that instead of four-tenths .grade and permanent structures, you have authorized grades up to One per cent and the erection of temporary wooden structures. In regard to this I would call attention to clause 7 of this agreement of the 29th July, 1903, which provides that the work of construction of the eastern division shall be done according to the specifications approved by the company and shall be subject to the joint supervision, inspection and acceptance of our chief engineer and the chief engineer of the commission. I beg to say if this work is done in accordance with what I understand to be your recent instructions, it will not be in compliance with the agreement nor satisfactory to this company and cannot be accepted.
This is something very forcible. What is Mr. Leonard's reason for making these changes ? (Reading):
I find on going over the profiles that there are many places where a large expenditure may be saved and the line actually improved 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 instructions to make such modifications accordingly.
Here is the admission of Major Leonard that he has given instructions to have these profiles changed from what had been accepted by the Government and by the Grand Trunk engineers. Therefore, Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
there comes this reply from Mr. Chamberlin, the president of the company:
I have yours of the 19th instant regarding changes in grade on the National Transcontinental railway, and note the Teasons 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 has been given, and I would ask you to issue instructions to this effect.
This is a most reasonable request. Mr. Chamberlin says to Major Leonard: I would like to have the profiles submitted to me. So far as I can understand the correspondence, this very legitimate request of Mr. Chamberlin was not complied with, because this is the reply of Major Leonard under date of August 2, 1912:
I beg to acknowledge 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 whicih yon 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.
I must say that my astonishment could not be expressed when I heard that statement of Major Leonard, in which he coolly tells Mr. Chamberlin that, when he speaks of his ' strict rights ' under the contract, he does not understand what Mr. Chamberlin means. Is that the way that Major Leonard understands his duties ? Will my hon. friend assume the responsibility of telling this House that the Grand Trunk railway have mo rights under that contract ? Mr. Chamberlin referred Major Leonard to the very clause of the agreement, clause 7, which is in these terms:
In order to insure, foT the protection of the company as lessees of the eastern division of the said railway, the economical construction thereof in such a manner that it can be operated to the best advantage, it is hereby agreed that the specifications for the construction of the eastern division shall he submitted to and approved by the company before the commencement of the work, and that the said work shall he done according to the said specifications and shall be subject to the joint supervision, inspection and acceptance of the chief engineer appointed by the Government and the chief engineer of the company, and in the event of differences as to the specifications, or in case the said engineers shall differ as to the work, the questions in dispute shall be determined by the said engineers and a third arbitrator, to be chosen in the manner provided in paragraph four of this agreement.

That is the letter of the law. When Mr. Chamberlin refers Major Leonard to clause 7 of the contract, and insists upon that as defining his strict rights, he is told by Major Leonard that the latter does not understand what Mr. Chamberlin means. This manner of doing business is certainly very strange, and cannot pass muster in this Parliament. The letter of the law must be respected, quite apart from the merits of the case. When Major Leonard tells Mr. Chamberlin that he has no right, he is trifling with his position and is taking upon himself responsibilities which are not warranted and for which he has no mandate.
That is upon the formal, legal part of the question; now, come to the engineering part. You have seen that Major Leonard says in his first letter that the information given to Mr. Chamberlin is right, that he has given definite instructions to have changes made which he says will be for the bettering of the road. Let me Tead his letter again:	v
I find on going over the profiles, that there are many places where a large expenditure may be saved and the line actually improved 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 instructions to make such modifications accordingly.
Upon this, Mr. Chamberlin asked that he should be given the profiles of the proposed improvements. Does Major Leonard comply wit-h the request? That would be the reasonable, the fair, the businesslike thing to do. But, extraordinary as it appears, Major Leonard says that he has changed the plans, yet, when he is asked for new profiles, he will not comply with the request. This seems incredible, yet it is true. Then he goes on:
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 affect the hauling capacity of locomotives and which, if found desirable to lift out in the future for any unforseen reason, can be effected more cheaply than at present contract prices, and will make a more solid roadbed than is being made under similar circumstances to-day by using the peat for embankments.
What dods this change mean? At first, it was a matter of great consequence; Mr. Leonard says it is for the sake of economy and the improvement of the road. But when Mr. Chamberlin asks for the new profiles, he tells him, in effect: You need not worry, it is a matter of little consequence. Well, is it important or is it not important? Why have we not the
facts? Why all this mystery? There is something here very mysterious indeed, iand not in the best sense of the word. There is no possible justification for the attitude of the Government upon this question. My hon. friend is asking for a very large estimate, and we are prepared to vote it; but we want to know what these changes are, and whether the first letter of Mr. Leonard is right or is not right; whether the changes are of consequence or not of consequence. Why have we not this information? Does my hon. friend believe that he is right in asking us to vote this sum of money without giving us full information?
But that is not all. There are important legal questions involved which may develop serious consequences to the Government. Mr. Chamberlin said-and in saying it he was within his rights:
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.
I say Mr. Chamberlin is within his rights when he says he will not accept this work; in case of dispute, the only way by which a decision can be reached is by arbitration. I note that in the answer given by the Minister of Railways to my hon. friend from Carleton yesterday, the statement is made that the Grand Trunk Railway Company will accept the road. What reason has the minister for saying so? The hon. gentleman says again that the Grand Trunk Railway Company is the contractor for a part of the road, and he implies that they would have to accept the work done by themselves. That is not an answer. The Grand Trunk railway have lodged a protest in this matter; that is the only thing they could do-do the work as directed by the engineer in charge, and then lodge their protest. It would be no answer to the Grand Trunk railway, if they were to refuse to take over the road, to say that they were the contractors of the road, and that they themselves put in the momentum grades. Their answer would be: We protested^ but the work was gone on with. There is the position in which we are at the present time, and, I repeat, the position is not satisfactory, and we require more information on this question.
Then, as to the wooden structures. I do not quite understand the position. Yesterday, as I understand, it was stated that there were wooden structures. Mr. Chamberlin says so. But I understood my hon. friend the minister to say to-day that there are no wooden structures.


Francis Cochrane: Temporary ones, but
all replaced by the others; and under the old commission it was done in the same way.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is
assuming what is in issue. There is the statement of my hon. friend, and, on the other side, the statement of Mr. Chamberlin. Why is the matter not cleared up?


Francis Cochrane: It is cleared up.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not sufficient merely to have the complaints on the one side and the answer on the other.


Francis Cochrane: There was a contract given last week for eight or ten steel bridges to replace these temporary structures, and they are going in right along.


Wilfrid Laurier: Possibly.
But we have to extract that information from my hon. friend; we have to extract it from him -almost bodily. Why does he not give us the information?


Francis Cochrane: I said there was no change in the policy of construction.


Wilfrid Laurier: But the
correspondence would show that there is.
I submit, with all due respect, that my hon. friend has not treated the committee properly. He should have given information as to these changes to show exactly what they are, what they are to cost -and how they will affect the character of the road.


Mr. AIKINS:: I might point out to my right hon. friend the latter part of the letter sent by Mr. Leonard to Mr. Chamberlin :
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 the 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.
There is no reason to assume that Mr. Chamberlin did not get such information in the way he suggested. There is no reason to assume that he was not satisfied with it, because there is no reply from Mr. Chamberlin finding fault with the suggestion made by Mr. Leonard. It seems to me that it is a question between the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company as to the propriety of the Government's action in respect to the change of the grades, and scarcely a matter that ought to be discussed at this time between the parties in this House. The right is a right as between the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, unless hon. | Mr. COCHRANE.
gentlemen opposite are holding a brief for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, which I do not suppose.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: So Tar as I am concerned, I hold no brief for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company or for anybody else on earth. I am only stating my honest opinions, and I do not appreciate the intimation the hon. gentleman has made.


James Albert Manning Aikins: Did the hon. gentleman have his ear open to what I said? I said unless hon. gentlemen opposite were holding a brief for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, which I do not suppose.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a very unpleasant way of putting it.


James Albert Manning Aikins: I quite understand the assumed sensitiveness of the hon. member for Carleton. He started out last night, in reply to the hon. Minister of Railways, by stating that the statement of the hon. Minister of Railways in reply to the hon. member for South Renfrew, was an apology. If an apology is a statement of the truth, if an apology is the giving of good reasons for the action of the Government in changing the grades; if an apology means a plain statement of honest facts honestly made, then the statement of the hon. minister was an apology. The hon. member for Carleton does not appear to accept such an apology, because he is not willing-and I can understand it-to accept a plain statement of the truth in plain language, honestly made, and giving good reasons for the change.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Who gave them?


James Albert Manning Aikins: The hon. Minister of Railways gave them in his speech. Again the hon. member for Carleton sneers at the Government because they made savings. I am not at all surprised that the hon. member should do that; he apparently despises savings. The cause of that contempt for saving appears to be this. Durr ing the time the late Government had charge of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, it was quite evident to the country that they were reckless in expenditure, and did not care about economy in the construction of that railway; therefore the hon. gentleman despises saving. The hon. member for Carleton says that certain contractors should have received $18,000, and it was cheese-paring to prevent them from receiving it. If the contractors were entitled to that amount they had a course open to recover it, and that is the usual course.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If my hon. . friend
would read the contract, he would realize that what he has said just now has no

foundation in fact. Under the contract the contractor is bound to take the amount given him by the chief engineer, and he has no appeal or no rights in court.
Mr. AIKINS! The hon. gentleman knows that notwithstanding the fact that clauses are inserted in contracts, the courts still have a jurisdiction to decide what is right and what is proper.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know any such thing.


James Albert Manning Aikins: I would advise the hon. gentleman to commence the study of law.


Mr. MURPHY:: How could the contractor get into the Exchequer Court under such circumstances?


James Albert Manning Aikins: By commencing a suit, and if it be against the Crown and required they can do it by getting a fiat. The minister has told hon. gentlemen opposite that none of these contractors have appealed to him in respect of that. Why? Because their consciences told them that what had been done was right. Let me say a word in regard to the other point to which the right hon. gentleman referred, viz.: that the Government had no right to change the grades without knowing the benefit that would be derived therefrom, and the saving that would be effected. It must be obvious to any person who has any knowledge of railroading that a reduction of the amount that is placed in embankment or taken out of excavation must necessarily cause a saving, and when there is a four-tenths or six-tenths grade, which would be the top or surface of the grade, and a profile showing the natural condition of the earth, one can see at once that where a momentum grade is constructed between the two and where it is not brought up to the four-tenths or six-tenths grade, there must be a saving, which is the difference of cost between the virtual or momentum grade and the four-tenths or six-tenths grade. The point of the hon. gentleman is that the country should know exactly the amount of the saving. The amount was given in respect of two cases, about $27,000 I think, but when it comes to an approximate estimate of the saving over two hundred miles, that is a matter of calculation, not of the work done, but of the work omitted; a subtraction between what the four-tenths work would cost if it were done and what the grade actually did cost, in each particular instance. That would not be in the engineer's return. The Minister of Railways is perfectly right in saying that the Government is asking a man to make these calculations and that they will be immediately submitted to the House. It seems to n*e that the course of the Government in. the changing of the grade is perfectly reasonable because there is not a railway constructed in Canada-and the Canadian Pacific railway is a well constructed railway, as are other lines in Canada- that has not virtual or momentum grades, and the reason of that has been that it is in the interests of economy and good railway construction that there should be such grades. It is almost axcomatic that where the railway is thus constructed and it becomes necessary to raise the grade in order to make it a four-tenths or six-tenths grade, it is quite easy to do it after the rails are laid. Therefore, I submit that the action of the Government was right.


Mr. GRAHAM:: It is well-known that
momentum1 grades were introduced by the Canadian Pacific railway to get rid of grades that had no momentum. As this-road was intended to be level, I presume the principle to which my hon. friend adheres is that momentum grades are introduced to make it easier to carry a load than it would be to carry it on a level, track. The hon. member asserts that Parliament should have nothing to do with these grades; that that is a question between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Government. I think my hon. friend will readily see the fallacy of that argument. This road belongs to the people of Canada, and not to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. It is being leased to them, but it is our property.	We made a	contract
with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and an agreement was entered into that the road should conform to a certain standard. We told the people of Canada that we would build to that standard. It is a violation of the agreement between this Parliament and the people of Canada, and it is our business to look after the construction of our own roads.


James Albert Manning Aikins: The hon. gentleman hasreferred to an agreement made. Who were the parties to the agreement?


George Perry Graham: The agreement made
between the Government of Canada and the Grand Trunk Pacific in the statute, and an agreement made, a promise absolutely made to the people of Canada, in 1908, that the road would be built to a standard described as four-tenths of one per cent against eastbound and six-tenths of one per cent against westbound traffic.


Francis Cochrane: Will you tell me
who authorized the change from five-tenths-to six-tenths going west?


George Perry Graham: The change was made
on the recommendation of the chief engineer, accepted by the commission and approved by the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Mr. COCHKANE:: There is no record of it.


George Perry Graham: It is the case. It has
been proved all the way through, and their road west of Winnipeg is built on the same standard, which is good proof.


Mr. MOEPHY:: Were the people consulted about that?


George Perry Graham: That was in 1904, and
the change was made in 1907; these standards were submitted to the people in the election of 1908 on every platform of Canada, and the election of 1908 was fought on the Grand Trunk Pacific. Hon. gentlemen opposite or their friends had all their literature aimed at the great cost that this railway was to be to the people of Canada. We admitted the cost but said that the people would have the benefit. Why? The road would be of a higher standard than any competing road on the continent, and the people of Canada would have the benefit. The Government was returned overwhelmingly on that standard, and I say that constituted a promise by the Government of Canada to the people of Canada that has been violated by this Government. It is our business in Parliament, because it is our road, our undertaking, under the agreement. The hon. member says that this is an agreement between the Government and the Grand Trunk and that it is none of our business. I say it is wrong, because this road, constructed by this Parliament, is our road and is to remain the road of the people of Canada.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Kenneth Judson Cochrane: The engineer says
there was 300,000 yards of earth at thirty cents and 150,000 yards of rock at $1,101.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That only shows the
value that you can place on the statement of the hon. member for St. Antoine. He goes down there with his little pick and shovel and comes back and tells Parliament things that are not true, and unless there was someone here who knew something about it the statements would go out as the truth. He told-you that there were
400,000	yards of material put in there at $1,101 when it should have been bridged Mr. COCHRANE. *
with steel and concrete. He did not say what the difference would be, but the inference was that it would cost less to have a steel viaduct than a solid fill. I am not engineer enough to argue the difference, but it does not require an engineer to know that you would have a better road with solid filling than with a steel viaduct, because sometime the steel viaduct will wear out or break or require repairing. When you have a solid fill it is there forever, and as the hon. member for South Eenfrew (Mr. Graham) pointed out, this is not the Grand Trunk's railway, we are not giving away millions of dollars, as my hon. friend proposes to do this week to Mackenzie and Mann, but we are building a road for ourselves; it is our property, and every dollar that we put in it is our property, and it comes back to us in forty years, so that the more we put into it now, the more valuable we make it, the better our property will be then, and the better it will be for the country and for the company operating it. Therefore, I say that the Government was justified in filling the holes with such material if they could get it done cheaply, and it is a much better road than any steel viaduct would be. If my hon. friend could see this particular place to which reference is made, he would understand it. You approach the place by a curve, you have a very long deep fill, something that would require a .great deal of care if a steel viaduct were placed there, and with a solid fill it is there for all time. I have heard the matter discussed a good many times, and my recollection is that it figured somewhere about sixty cents a yard, less than sixty cents as the cost of filling that enormous fill. That would compare favourably with the cost of a viaduct, the cost is about the same, or in other words you have got your hole filled with solid material for about the same money as the steel would have cost, and you have a much better road.
The hon. member spoke of the work to be found on contract No. 5, in which he said a large amount of material had been used as fill, costing $1,101 per yard. That is true; I will give him credit for telling the truth there; but if the hon. member for St. Antoine had wanted to be fair to the committee and to give the facts to the House, he would have gone back three or four years to a return brought down in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for York, N.B. (Mr. Crocket) which told the whole story. It showed what it would cost to build it with steel and concrete. That , is the cost of a viaduct would be so many hunderd thousand dollars. _ The only material which could be obtained, within four or five miles of that particular location, was rock, and they figured out what the cost of a viaduct would be and estimated the price per yard for rock filling that would

bring the same total. The chief engineer found that the contractor would have to put in the material at $1.10i in order to bring the total -down to the cost of steel. The contractor was getting $1.49 for rock, he figured that out and it was almost a year before they came to an agreement, but finally the contractor accepted the offer that was made to him and undertook to fill the hole. The hon. member for St. Antoine might have known this, and he might have known that having these holes filled with other material, at no greater cost than the steel would have amounted to, gives a much better road.
The more you discuss this question, the more you see the business principles upon which the old commissioners weTe building this road. The more you discuss it, the more you see- that we were getting what was really the very best road in America and you have only to listen to a man like the hon. member for St. Antoine . to see how little certain hon. gentlemen know about it, who have been talking against it for the last four or five years. I hope it will do good to my hon. friend! from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames). I am sorry! he is not here, but I hope he will read what I have said, and that the next time he goes over this road, if he wants to be fair to the people of Canada, he will go to the commistsioners, and find out the facts. This is no secret information that I am giving to the public. Every hon. member of this House could get it just as well as I could if he applied for it. I am not giving away any secrets, and my hon. friend from St. Antoine can get the information just as well as I can, and so can my hon. friend enough about railway matters to understand enough about railway matters to understand these things when he reads them. I, particularly direct my remarks to my hon. friend from Brandon. I give him credit for knowing a little more about the practical end of building a railway than he does about suing the Government iwhen the chief engineer decided against him. I do not advise my hon. friend to study law, he is too old for that; but when he undertakes to tell me and other members of this House that because the chief engineer has cut $18,000 out of a $3,000,000 contract, all the contractor has to do is to go to the Minister of Justice and get a fiat and sue the Crown against the advice of the chief engineer, after it is provided for in the statute, my hon. friend does not know what he is talking about. When he tells me to study law, I think he is impertinent, rather than complimentary. My hob. friend may be theoretically correct, but he knows that his advice is of no practical value, and that it would be impossible to work it out. I know the practice of the courts, perhaps, as well as my hon. friend, and I think I can read a contract and form an idea of what it
moans just as well as he can, and I tell him that the contractors have practically no rights that would be of any good to them over and above the decision of the chief engineer on a question of fact as to classification. I gave him an illustration. When it comes to a question of law, the Exchequer Court has jurisdiction, but it has not jurisdiction over_questions of classification. Therefore every time one of his inspecting engineers takes a thousand dollars off a sub-contract, he gives the subcontractor no Tight of appeal. Theoretically there may be such a right, but practically there is not. I am very glad this matter has come up. I am glad to have had an opportunity of pointing out to my hon. friend from St. Antoine some things which he does not know. According to his own opinion, that would not be very much. He might know about taking pictures of standing timber in the West, but he does not know about the practical end of building railways, and before he attempts to lecture this House about the sins of the late Government, I would advise him to learn the facts. We have discussed the engineering end of this thing, and the cost of it, to some extent. I feel that this discussion will do good, but what I want to impress upon the minister again is the fact that he has been deceived by his friends, and that he had better get rid of those men who have been deceiving him. I do not refer to the chief engineer. The chief engineer is all right. It is the man my hon. friend has been sending round over the head of the chief engineer to whom I refer. Does my hon. friend want the name?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He is a man named
Goodwin. He is the chap my hon. friend ought to get rid of. They got this man Goodwin on the job, because they could not get anyone else who would go back on the chief engineer. It took my hon. friend about a year to find a man. to do this, but he found him in the end. 1 am told he was originally located about Cochrane.


Francis Cochrane: He was employed by the late commission.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He has been employed by this commission all right. He is the man who has been doing all this cheeseparing. If my hon. friend will just get rid of that man, put another good man on the commission, get rid of his star chamber court, and go on and finish the road on business principles, he will get credit from the people of this country, and not blame. I am afraid he is getting nothing but blame now, and if he continues his present course, theTe is not much in store for him but blame.

At one o'clock, House resumed and then took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock, and again went into Committee of Supply. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)


Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm):: example. But I say to our ministers:	I
am willing that you should continue the railway policy of the former administration, but on one_ condition:	Let there be no
scandal. Let us have the business of the *country managed honestly and honourably. Follow our example, let there be no shuffling, that is Nationalists one day and Conservatives another day, but rather only sincere men. The people's money should be spent only in the interest of the people.
Some hon. members opposite were asserting this morning, in answer to our observations that we had lowered the cost of the railway, that such a diminution had taken place only because the quality of the work had been lowered. That is an easy thing to do, as, for instance, building wooden bridges instead of iron ones. The cost would certainly then be much lower. Also making heavy cuts, without filling up the hollows and trenches.
The hon. member for Montreal-St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) has tried to lay as a theory and to make us believe that if you go up grade you will travel faster than when going down. That is certainly a queer theory.
It is pure idle talk to Say that it does not make any difference for a railway whether there is a grade or not. You might just as well say that a man rowing a boat up a stream will go faster than when going down stream. After a spell of bad weather, there will surely be fine weather. That is saying nothing extraordinary, and everybody knows that. But the hon. member for St. Antoine sees in that something extraordinary. If the hollows are not filled up, and if the grades are not lowered I understand that the cost of the road will be much less, but you will have then a very poor railway. Naturally, it is in the interests of the contractors to do the least work possible, while being paid the same amount of money. If you lay down a 2-inch plank instead of a 3-inch one, it will cost you less; also, if you build wooden bridges instead of iron ones, it will cost less, but the country will be in the end the sufferer.
Why not have followed the plans and specifications of the contracts? The Minister of Railways has been asked for an answer, but so far he has not answered that question. He has entrusted with the care of his defence the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Aikens), who is a man of great merit, an able jurist and a future judge. It is true that he has shown himself to be a little fresh, he has made some light cavalry raids, but he corrected himself afterwards. All the same, his answers have not been satisfactory.
We have been told that the building of that railway was a difficult task. It is very true that such must be the case in many Mr. LAFORTUNE.
localities, but do you expect to be able to build a railway extending from ocean to ocean without meeting with obstacles? Therein lays precisely the magnitude of the enterprise, and that is also precisely why that enterprise given so much honour to the ex-Prime Minister. But don't you try to meddle with it, you must do the work as laid down at first. Your duty is to have everything done in good faith. The more will the enterprise cost, the more durable and advantageous for the country will be that great work.
But we are told:	We must practice
economy. What a ludicrous thing, on the part of the Conservative party to talk economy? At the time of the former Prime Minister the expense amounted to 160 millions, and they amount to-day to 210 millions. With the addition of the 35 millions that were intended for the navy, that would come very near 250 millions. Talking economy is a crime on the part of the Conservative party. In former times when they were in power, not a single national enterprise had been undertaken' without there being a scandal, and we are now told to practice economy!
By cutting on the value of the work done they say we can save at least a million. And those who are now talking economy are the very ones who, in a single year, have increased the public expense by 50 millions more than before!
I admit that the country is growing and keeps on prospering, and that we must increase the expenses, but not at the lightning rate that we are doing. I admit that *our duty is to spend what is necessary for the administration of the country, but we must not be making gifts as we have been asked to, and for my part I am happy that such a gift has not been consummated; I am happy to have passed many nights in this House, because we have thus been able to prevent the squandering of that money.
What is the object of the new administration in depreciating the value of that railway. Obviously, it must be to render it inacceptable, and to so make its operation less advantageous than the other railways that the trade will be d+verted to other provinces, to the detriment of our own province. It is easy to see that there can be no other object and no other intention. By making the operation of that railway more onerous, the other companies will lose interest in the part of the country through which passes that railway, and the trick will have been played to the detriment of the province of Quebec.


Mr. PELLETIER:: I must beg the hon.
member to be allowed to interrupt him. I must tell him that it would be unfair if his affirmation was not contradicted and if we should allow it to get abroad in the papers. The grades on the Transcontinental

have not been changed, only in the province of Quebec, but from Lake Superior as far as the city of Quebec, which shows that such a change has not been effected with the object just shown by the hon. member.


David Arthur Lafortune: That is still worse.
I have the greatest respect for the hon. minister's word, but he gives no proof of what he says. I may certainly be allowed to ask him for those proofs.
The first section of the road has been built according to contracts, and the above changes have been made only since the old commission, at the head of which was Mr. Parent, a competent man, has been dismissed.
I say we have there the best proof of the grievances of which we are complaining, and the charges laid against the administration are well grounded, because we have no answer to them.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition has stated this morning that, since six months, demands upon demands and requests upon requests for the necessary details have been made to the Department of Railways, but so far without any success.
Where was the necessity for putting aside the old commission, and for appointing Messrs. Leonard and Stanton for the purpose of making inquiries, so as to know if there had been something suspicious, something which was not honourable in the conduct of the old commisssioners? Those gentlemen are costing a heap of money. They are earning a good deal more than the members of this House. They are not obliged to ask for an increase of their salary; that comes to them natural, and they are begrudged the money.
On the 20th of April last, a senator was asking the Government the following questions with regard to Messrs. Gutelius and Stanton:
Hon Mr. Casgrain inquired.:
1.	Is Mr. Lynch Stanton, solicitor, now in' the employ of the Government?
2.	Has he been in the ecmploy of the Government ?
3.	If so, for how long a time?
4.	Wihat is the nature of his duties?
5.	How much has been paid him to date?
6.	Is he employed by the day, the month, or the year ?
7.	Has he made any report?
8.	If so, when will his report be produced?
9.	Is Mr. Fred. Gutalius, civil engineer, now in the employ of the Government?
10.	Has he been in the employ of the Government ?
11.	If so, for how long a time?
12.	What is the nature of his duties?
13.	How much has been paid to him to date?
14.	Is he employed by the day, the month, or the year?
15.	Has he made any report?
16.	If so, when will his report be produced?
The answers given by the Government,
through the medium of Mr. Lougheed, are
certainly edifying. Here are those answers :
Hon. Mr. Lougheed-The answers are ad follows :-
1 and 2. Yes.
3.	Since June 3, 1912.
4.	A full and comprehensive investigation covering all matters bearing on the actual construction of a National Transcontinental railway between iMoneton and Winnipeg and the expenditures thereon, &c.
5.	$17,109.71.
6.	Employed by the day.	*
7.	No.
8.	Unable to say.
9 and 10. Yes.	i
11.	Since February 1, 1912.
12.	A full and comprehensive investigationi covering all matters bearing on the actual construction of a National Transcontinental railway between Moncton and Winnipeg and the expenditures thereon, &c.
13.	$25,552.48.	1
14.	Employed by the day.
15.	No.
16.	Unable to say.	i
And they are talking economy! The hon. member for Brandon was saying a moment ago: With us, economy is the rule. Well, now, I will answer him this way: On our side, we call that extravagance and squandering. Those two men have been appointed for the purpose of making investigations; they have received for that $43,000, and they have made no report. And we are told that is economy. With us, that is 'being penny wise and pound foolish. We are asking of those gentlemen: Have you discovered anything suspicious? And they cannot give us an answer. However, at election time, they will come with some big scandals, they will tell the people on the hustings how scandalous has been the building of that Transcontinental, but we will be there to answer them.
Do you call that a sane administration? Will the country see its advantage in paying $43,000 to those two men to hold an inquiry which amounts to nothing?
And since then, Mr. Gutelius has just been appointed the only manager of that railway at a salary of $20,000 a year. He is there alone, at the head of that railway, as a Russian Czar in diminutive, the better to be able to spend what he likes.
It is very regrettable, Mr. Chairman, that such things should occur in a country like this. What is to become of us, if the present administration continues to operate that road? I am always asking myself if such a state of things is going to last very long.	[DOT]


Mr. WILSON (Laval):: Until the next
elections.


David Arthur Lafortune: They don't want any elections. When we ask them to dissolve Parliament, they run away from us.
The ministers at the head of affairs may

seek to destroy what the former administration has been able to do. They may seek to lessen the value of that railway which rtheir predecessors began to build. They may cry out, there have been scandals. When we were in power, and when those hon. gentlemen pretended that a scandal was existing, we had the courage to take up the glove and to tell them: Just ask for an inquiry, and we will have the whole thing cleared up and we will lay your pretensions to naught. But with the new administration, no inquiry is possible, and I would be ready to ask for an inquiry on the construction of that railway by the former administration, if I thought I could get it.
In short, Mr. Chairman, what I wanted was to show the importance of extending the Montreal-Rawdon branch line to St. Donat, and from St. Donat to the Transcontinental. I hope that the new administration that has assumed the duty of continuing the railway policy inaugurated by the former administration will see that there could not be a more proper line than that [DOT]one.
I have only one word to say. I am not surprised too much at those hon. gentlemen opposite seeking 'by all means possible to change the character, and to lessen the value of that road begun by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. But if they should ever succed in lessening the importance of that enterprise, there is certainly one thing they will never be able to lessen, and far less to destroy, and that is the sixteen years of excellent administration of the Liberal party, presided over by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, and, with regard to our railways, by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), who has managed his department with ability, distinction and advantage for the country. Neither will they -ever take away the great affection which the *Canadians have for the ex-Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laerier).


Mr. MICHAUD:: I notice in the report of the Transcontinental Railway Commission for the nine months ended December .[DOT]31, 1912, that the commission has bought from E. Leonard & Son five 50-K.W. West

inghouse Company generating sets, complete, with Leonard engines, to be installed in engine houses at Moncton, Napadogan and Edmundston, N.B., Parent, P.Q., and Grant, Ont., for a total consideration of $23,359. A few years ago the town of Edmundston, Victoria county, N.B., a divisional point on the Transcontinental railway, established water and electric power *and light systems. We are actually providing the Transcontinental railway with water and also with light. My hon. friend -the Minister of Railways and Canals has told us that they are very saving in his department, and I would therefore suggest to him that it would pay the department to Mr. LAFQRTTJNE,
take electrical power for the railway from the town of Edmundston instead of buying these engines and incurring the necessary expense therefor at this divisional point. The town of Edmundston has borrowed a certain sum of money to install the water and electrical systems and they have been encouraged to a certain extent by the railway because the railway has been paying the town $2,000 a year for water and a certain amount for lights. I am sure that if the railway were to take its electrical power from the town, and the town has lots to sell at the present time, it would be an economy because if you put an engine into the roundhouse you have to buy coal, you have to provide a fireman and you have to pay all the other expenses in connection therewith; therefore, it would be a great advantage to the department and to the commission to buy electric power from the town of Edmundston.
I desire to express my sincere regret for the action which the Transcontinental Railway Commission has taken with respect to a great many people who have until recently been employed in the town of Edmundston. There were a number of good citizens, people with large families, who had been employed on the road and who were located at that divisional point, but about two or three months ago all these men were dismissed and replaced by men from the city of Moncton. I do not want to make a comparison between the ability and capacity of the people in my county and in the city of Moncton, because there is always a little rivalry between railway towns and cities, but the minister seems to be very fair and I would like him to look into the matter and ascertain the reasons for the change that has been made. I would also like the minister to inquire into the matter that I first mentioned and advise the commission to take power from the town of Edmundston.


Francis Cochrane: I shall be very glad
to go into the matter with the commissioner and bring the facts to his attention. If power can be obtained more cheaply, or as cheaply, from the town of Edmundston, we will take it.


George Perry Graham: May I ask my hon.
friend the Minister of Railways and Canals for some information about the Quebec terminals? If I remember correctly, during a visit to the city of Quebec some years ago, there were the then chairman of the commission, the president and vice-president of the Grand Trunk railway, the then Minister of Public Works, the then Minister of Railways and Canals and the then Postmaster General. Our object in visiting the city at that time was to see if some arrangement could be made, not only for the erection of a station and terminals, but that the two Departments of Public Works and Railways might come to some

agreement with the commission and with the railway company as to improvements along the line from the Quebec bridge east into the city and the division of whatever property was necessary between the commission and the Public Works Department. The Public Works Department had in view the erection of some wharfs along the deepwater front and some land would be necessary for their purpose. Then the commission required land for their purpose for terminals and tracks connected with them and it was thought that the purchase might he made by one department of the entire property required for both and then a division or transfer from whichever was the purchasing department to the other department of whatever property was required might take place. It is some time ago and I am speaking absolutely from memory. We met, I think, representatives of the city and discussed the situation of the property required at considerable length. Later the *commission bought the Champlain market ior the purpose of a station. At that time There was strong pressure brought to bear on the Government to purchase a public building, the name of which I cannot remember-either that or to take down one public building the Government had and use the property for terminals. I do not know what has been done in reference to that since. I am inclined to think that some change of arrangement has been made and that property along the St. Charles river is being bought for at least a portion of these terminals. I would like to get some explanation as to what the changes have been, if we still retain the Champlain property; if a line is still to run down to that property and what use the Government intend to make of it.


Francis Cochrane: We still retain the
Champlain market and propose putting two tracks down there. We thought, however, and the city thought, that there was not room enough there to accommodate the business expected to be done in Quebec. We propose putting up a small station there for the convenience of boats. The harbour commission have agreed to run a Line to connect that with the St. Charles river. In regard to the terminals proper, we have not got an agreement completed yet, but the main points of an agreement have been agreed upon between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific. Eventually a tunnel will be put from near Wolfe's Cove under the city; but, until there is sufficient business in Quebec, we purpose running an over the Canadian Northern railway and having a union station with the Canadian Pacific railway. Under the agreement, any railway can come in and be accommodated
there. We wish to have one station for the whole city. That should be done in all towns and cities. We thought of locating the shops at St. Foye, near the bridge. That plan has been changed, and an arrangement has been made with the city to move the shops to St. Malo. We bought the land there a year ago at a pretty good bargain.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How much did you pay?


Francis Cochrane: A little over $1,000 an acre. The reason for changing was that it was so hard to get water. We thought it was not good business to depend upon artesian wells. The property at St.. Malo is much nearer the city, which has agreed to furnish water free and to remit certain taxes. The agreement itself has not been signed, but this is the undertaking with Mr. OhambeTlin and the Canadian Pacific railway.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am very glad that the hon. minister has given this explanation to the committee concerning the Quebec workshops of the Transcontinental and also the central station. It seems to me that the question has now been before the public for so many years that we ought to arrive at some decision. As my hon. friend knows, it was after long pour-parlers with the corporation of Quebec that the Champlain market was sold to the Government for the paltry sum of $100,000. It is admitted to-day, and I think the bon. Postmaster General will corroborate my statement, that the Champlain market would have brought .to the city a much larger amount if it had been expropriated for some other purpose. At the time when the bargain was entered into with the Government, the mayor and corporation of the city of Quebec took into consideration the fact that right at that point you would give the city the terminals of the Transcontinental, and that you would erect somewhat of a monumental station. I am informed by the hon. gentleman that, although eventually we may have in Quebec, in conjunction with the other transcontinental lines, a central station, the (Goverhment will use the Champlain market site for a station. The hon. gentleman does not say, however, what will be the character of that station. He says there will be a station and double tracks from Sillery to said station. He says that later on, a tunnel may be built which will bring the trains to the other end of the city. This is all very problematical, and does not seem to be sufficient to carry conviction that much will be done in the near future.


Francis Cochrane: It was at a request of the Grand Trunk Pacific that we did not



go on with the terminals. They would cost about $1,000,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Francis Cochrane: You read the wrong press.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I read both the Liberal and Conservative press. From what I read in the press of Quebec, I find you are going to establish these shops in a swampy locality which may be very costly for the Government. A year ago you bought farm land at St. Malo at $1,000 an acre, which, I venture to say, was .not worth half that money.


Francis Cochrane: We could get double the amount to-day.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Probably you could,
with the announcement that the shops will be there and that there will be a large and thriving population resident in the vicinity of those shops. But at the time you bought the farm, land at St. Malo, which is not annexed to the city of Quebec, but which will have partly to be annexed to the city.
Mr. COCHRANE.


Mr. WILCOX:: How far is it from the
city of Quebec?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Postmaster General can tell you.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Most of it is in the
city.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The workshops will
be outside.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You will have to annex the territory to make it part of the city.


Charles Avila Wilson: What territory is it?


Rodolphe Lemieux: St. Malo. It is outside the city limits. The city will have to provide it with water and drainage. The cost of incorporation with the city of Quebec will also be considerable. I am speaking without any party bias in this matter; I know that some friends of mine have interests in that part of the city. So have the friends of the Postmaster General. The same may be said of Cap Rouge lands. But if the hon. gentleman will listen to what I am about to read he will get a synopsis of the objections to the St. Malo site. I read from the Quebec Telegraph of the 21st of May:
A Delusion and a Snare.
It would be foolish to mince matters. The scheme to change the site of the Transcontinental workshops from Cap Rouge to St. Malo is another deadly blow aimed at the best interests of Quebec. It is simply part and parcel of the infernal plot organized by the bitter enemies in the west of this old city and province to ruin the Quebec section of the line and to minimize as far as possible such benefits as we have a right to expect from the great national undertaking. Worse than all. it is aggravating to see Quebec knifed by its own sons, toy the very men who should be the vigilant and faithful guardians of its interests, but who are using their positions either to gratify thffir vengeful feelings against their political opponents and to promote political objects or to reap large personal profits from real estate investments, made for them under other names, regardless of the lasting injury that will he done to Quebec.
Eor the unreflecting masses, who are completely in the dark as to the true inwardness of the whole scheme, there is always the excuse that they do not see through the game that is being played at their expense and that they have not yet identified the cunning hands that are pulling the wires behind the scenes. It is perhaps natural enough that they should he carried away by the false idea, so diligently promoted m order to mislead them, that the workshops located at their doors will benefit them and the city more than if they were situated six or seven miles away. Such would unquestionably be the case-

I would like the minister to listen to this:
-if the St. Malo site presented even a quarter of the natural advantages of the Cap Eouge location, but, far from doing this, it offers on the contrary, a multitude of the very gravest objections and there is not a competent engineer or railway man in the country, who is not under the thumb of the Government or of the plotters and their backers who would dream for a. moment of giving it the preference for any such purpose and who is not actually laughing at the proposition.
What are the workshops wanted for at St. Malo anyway? Because it is popularly supposed and proclaimed that they will furnish an abundance of steady work to our people and that this will naturally increase our population, that they will spend their earnings in the city and that the latter's trade and revenue will be largely benefited. This at least is the alluring picture W'hich the advocates of the change are holding up to the admiration and gullibility of the thoughtless and unsophisticated. But what guarantee has the public that this brilliant effort of the speculators' imagination will ever bear any such fruit?


Francis Cochrane: He is one of them
down at the other place.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know, I am
simply stating the objections as I find them here, and without taking any side.
Basing ours-elves on the opinions and statements of civil engineers holding the highest rank in their profession, and of the most practical railway men, men who are completely disinterested and independent in the matter, we have no hesitation in predicting that the locating of the shops at St. Malo will not only be the hugest of blunders but that it will be the source of the bitterest disappointment to Quebec iu every way. In the first place the change will entail an indefinite delay before the shops can ever be got ready to do the wmrk at all, which will be simply playing again into the hands of Quebec's worst enemies. It will mean the loss of several, if not more years, before the locality oe put in the condition for the erection of the necessary buildings, the making of the necessary connections, roads, &c. And then what will happen? There will be so much expense a ml loss of time, as well as so many other undesirable obstacles attending the unnecessary sending of cars and locomotives to St. Malo that the Grand Trunk Pacific and the other railway companies will not hesitate for a moment to send them them on to the shops at Moncton, in Montreal or elsewhere.
Personally, we have far more interest in seeing this delusion succeed by the putting of the shops at St. Malo than we have at Cap Rouge, but we cannot stand idly by and see Quebec duped and injured so barefacedly solely to make a few dollars more or less out of our investment. Moreover, in the very nature of things, even if the shops be taken from Cap Rouge, that locality is bound to go ahead. The very necessities of the situation at the head of the bridge assures the rapid springing up of quite a town and the locating of quite a large working population there,
355}
who, in course of no very prolonged time, will come to be embraced within the city as Pointe St Charles at Montreal.
In another article, commenting on the letter which was sent by Major Leonard to the Mayor of Quebec, I read the following:
Our morning contemporary-
That is, the Quebec Morning Chronicle-
-is trying to gild the bitter pill which Major Leonard has summoned this community to swallow as the price it must pay for the great benefits which in his and the organ's estimation will be conferred upon us by the transfer of the site of the railway workships to St. Malo.
It knows well that the tone of local opinion on the subject has changed almost completely, that the taxpayers have begun to see more clearly through the whole scheme, and that no reliance can be placed by it any longer upon the argument that the only opposition to the St. Malo white elephant comes from those who have money invested at Cap Rouge, and that those who want the shops located at St. Malo are all pure-minded, disinterested, public spirited souls who are seeking nothing but Quebec's greater good.
Accordingly, *it now tells us that Major Leonard's proposals are not half so bad as they look, that his letter requires to be studied to be properly understood and appreciated, and the transaction is not so onesided as its opponents would have us to believe, that we are practically asked to make no concessions, and that, in a general way, Quebec will get by far the best of the bargain. We will have no streets to make; the Government will do all that for us at its own expense. All we are asked to do is to furnish water to the shops, just as to a private residence. Then, when there is a question of closing streets or exchanging them, we will also get the best of it. Among other things we will gain will be the opening of a fine street 75 feet wide from the embankment to Bridge Street, and the widening of St. Paul Street from Henderson to St. Roch street.
What a delightful arrangement this will be for us! But it will be noticed that not a word is said about the dutv imposed upon us to annex the portion of the new district which lies beyond the city limits and which is by far the largest, and the danger we will run of a repetition of the costly Limoilou experiment when that comes to pass; nor about the expense of extending the city's police, fire alarm and fire protection systems for the new district. There is also nothing said about the hundreds of thousands of dollars that will have to be spent by the city to provide sufficient and lasting outlets for the drainage of the swampiest part of the great St. Malo swamp to render it fit for human habitation. . .
As for the water supply, it is stated that all the city will do will be to furnish water to the shops just as it does to a private house. If this be all, we ask again why should the far more convenient and suitable Cap Rouge site be set aside for St. Malo, in view of the latter's notorious unfitness and the uncertainties regarding the use that will be made of it, not to speak at all of all the public

money already spent at Cap Rouge and the immensely larger amount that will have to be laid out at St. Malo to erect a monument of folly there and prepare a generous disappointment for ourselves hereafter. For one-hundreth part of this great expenditure, an abundant and constant water supply, can be easily secured at Cap Rouge.
The most serious feature of this matter is the fact that St. Malo, according to what I read, is a swamp, and that it will cost twice as much to erect workshops at that point as to erect them at Cap Rouge. Personally I have no interest whatever in the matteT, except what I owe to the public. There is much concern among the citizens of Quebec with regard to this change, and before my hon. friend takes a final decision I would like him to seriously consider the objections that are being raised. It may be that the Quebec papers have a little leaning in each case, some for Cap Rouge, and others for St. Malo, according to their respective investments; but the commission under Mr. Parent had selected Cap Rouge, after having, I suppose, thoroughly examined the property and obtained a report from the engineers. I do not understand why the trains arriving should have to go around Cape Diamond to St. Malo in order to reach the workshops. I repeat again that I have no bias in this matter, but I desire to put before the minister the objections that appear in the public press of the city of Quebec. With regard to the price paid for the farm land a year ago, I sgain declare to my hon. friend that some experts have informed me that a thousand dollars an acre at St. Malo is certainly an exaggerated price. To-day it may be worth that on account of the workshops being located there, but a year ago the price was an extraordinary one. Was this price fixed by the Exchequer Court, or was it a sale made by the parties direct to the Government? By whom was the valuation made?


Francis Cochrane: By Mr. Fraser. This is the first time I have heard the price *questioned, because everybody with whom I came in contact with regard to the matter said we made a remarkably good bargain. After we bought the property we could have made considerable money on it by selling it. As to the matter of the change of the site of the workshops, this has been done with the consent of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and of the mayor and city coudc'' of Quebec. I may say that I cannot speak too highly of the way the mayor and city council met the commission in regard to this matter, and the straight, business-like way in which they dealt with it. I wish to express my gratification at the way in which the mayor has treated us in Mr. LEMIEUX.
this matter. We hope that in a very few. days we will be able to start building the shops, and that the union station will also be started in a very short time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Champlain station or the other?


Francis Cochrane: The other, and we will lay the tracks down to the Champlain station.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend has
hinted at the possibility of a tunnel.


Francis Cochrane: The Grand Trunk said: Wait until we see what business we get there. The final scheme will be a tunnel there which would put them in direct communication and would be very little farther than the Champlain market station. It brings all the railways together, which is a great advantage to every one. It is something that ought to be taken up in every city. The railways should be compelled to have union stations, so that passengers may be transferred from one road to another. The tunnel will be built as soon as the company think the trade demands it. They have to pay interest on all these expenditures, and do not want any expense incurred until it is necessary to incur it. The arrangement is that the Government will build the tunnel when it is demanded.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am glad the hon.
gentleman speaks so frankly to the House, because a year ago this month a statement was made in Quebec by the Postmaster General that the tunnel would be built.


Francis Cochrane: If they asked us to do it, we would do it Tight away.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When the business will justify the building of the tunnel; that may be some years.


Francis Cochrane: I hope not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What I am to understand is that the tunnel is a possible_ thing in the future if trade and business justify it, that the Grand Trunk Pacific wili have its say in the matter, and the Government also. Second, that the Champlain market will be utilized for a station, with a double track.


Francis Cochrane: And the city ha3
agreed that the tracks shall lead from the Champlain market, so that there will be a track right around the harbour.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Third, the workshops,
instead of being at Cap Rouge, will be transferreed to St. Malo, and at Ste. Foye there will be a roundhouse.
nm


Francis Cochrane: Oh, yes, there will
have to be one. As a matter of fact, it is built now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At St. Malo you are
going to start, as soon as possible, the construction of the workshops; and the city of Quebec, I understand, will ratify the choice which jhas been made by Major Leonard. The city of Quebec has decided to give an exemption from taxes to the Transcontinental for twenty years, and also the services of the aqueduct and the drainage. When does my hon. friend expect the work to actually begin at St. Malo?


Francis Cochrane: Very shortly. I could not say to a day.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This season?


Francis Cochrane: Oh, yes. It was only last Friday that the conclusion was come to with the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific railways.


George Perry Graham: Would my hon. friend
tell me how much that union station will cost, and how much the work shops will cost at St. Malo?


Francis Cochrane: I think the station will cost about $1,000,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the estimated
cost of the work shops?


Francis Cochrane: I have not that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How much will be spent on Champlain station?


Francis Cochrane: We have not that information.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The newspaper which the hon. member for Rouville has quoted is not representing in this matter-I am not discussing the other matter-the views of the people of Quebec. The city council, as everyone knows, has a majority of Liberal aldermen. They have been practically unanimous in agreeing with the Government in this matter. There has been a very important meeting of the board of trade about this matter which has occupied the attention of Quebec for some time and some gentlemen there very eloquently tried to pass some resolutions advising the city council not to agree to this proposal; but the upshot of the whole thing was a practically unanimous resolution leaving it in the hands of the city council, and the commission. The city council has ratified that agreement. It has been a long time coming. The mayor of Quebec, as my hon. friend the Minister of Railways has put it, has devoted a good deal of time and of his well known energy to it, and I know that he is perfectly satisfied with what is going on. I might say that he is enchanted with what is going on and the way he has been treated
by the Minister of Railways. Nine-tenths of the people of Quebec are satisfied with the conclusion reached, particularly with reference to the union station. My hon. friend has alluded to the fact that I spoke of a tunnel. The tunnel would have been indispensable in. order to go to the Palai3 and if the arrangement for the union station had been entered into the tunnel would have been an immediate necessity. We will have the Transcontinental at Quebec in a most beautiful manner. The Transcontinental will come over the viaduct as I understand it at Cap Rouge, and then will come into Quebec by the valley of the river St. Charles, coming down iby the Canadian Northern railway connection. Then we will have the union station at the Palais and at the same time the Transcontinental commission and the Minister of Railways are extending the lines of the river front from Sillery to the Champlain market. From the Champlain market there is a gap over which a railway is going to be built. So that the Transcontinental now will go encircling the whole city of Quebec. These are the arrangements and it is no wonder that the people are so well satisfied with them.


Wilfrid Laurier: Who is to
build the railway over the gap?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The harbour commission.


Wilfrid Laurier: The harbour
commission is to build a railway from the Champlain market to the Canadian Pacific railway track?


Francis Cochrane: To.the union station.


Wilfrid Laurier: At present
the Grand Trunk Pacific is brought from Sillery to the Champlain market. Then there is to be a track built from the Champlain market to the tracks now owned by the Canadian Pacific railway. All this presupposes that there has been first, some agreement between the commission and the harbour commissioners, to build that track of railway, and also an agreement with the Canadian Pacific railway to use their tracks. Then, on the other side, on St. Charles river, I understood my hon. friend to say that the Grand Trunk Pacific were to use the tracks of the Canadian Northern railway. Is that so? .


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then, that presupposes another agreement with the Canadian Northern railway. Have all these agreements been consummated, or are they merely contemplated?


Francis Cochrane: The heads of the agreements have been arrived at.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not very satisfactory.


Francis Cochrane: The priniples are
agreed upon, and there will not be much detail to work out.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not
our experience. However, if the city council of Quebec are satisfied, I have nothing more to say.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: They are unanimous.


Wilfrid Laurier: There has
been a great deal of delay in regard to this matter. When we left office in The month of September, 1911, the contracts were ready to toe awarded for the building of the station at Champlain market. At the end of last session my hon. friend, in answer to a question, told me that he was going to Quebec with the Minister of Justice with the intention of settling matters. Twelve months or more have elapsed, and, according to my hon. friend, we have just reached the headings of the agreement. If these agreements are to be consummated, I have nothing more to say, especially if the city council of Quebec are satisfied. If it were left to my own judgment, I would not be satisfied; but if they are pleased, I am pleased. All I would like to know is that Lhe thing will be done right away.


Francis Cochrane: If we had any trouble with the Canadian Northern, I would ask the Dominion Railway Board to let us in on their track.


Wilfrid Laurier: If we cannot agree, of course we can go to the board, and that will have to be done if they do not agree. But do I understand my hon. friend to -say that the harbour commissioners have9agreed to 'build that piece of railway from Champlain market to the Canadian Pacific railway tracks?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is there any resolution to that effect?


Francis Cochrane: The engineer says it is only six hundred feet.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is a very
small 'bit of railway, but I know they are not overburdened with money. They have not the funds to do that with, unless they do it out of the borrowings which have been authorized. I would like to know if they have so agreed.


Francis Cochrane: I am so informed. I have not the resolution.


Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps my
hon, friend will give us this further information when the resolution comes up again.


Mr. H. BOULAY (Rimouski):: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to take part in this Mr. COCHRANE.
debate, but the remarks just made toy the hon. member for Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) are such that they cannot properly be al lowed to pass without an answer.
The hon. member has told so many falsehoods, not to say lies, that it is impossible to let such assertions pass unchallenged.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know whether the hon. member for Rimouski has ia right to say that the member for Montcalm has told falsehoods, not to say lies.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Blondin):: I did not hear the'hon. member pronouncing these words, but if he did so he is certainly out of order.	.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: He has just repeated them.


Herménégilde Boulay: * I retract the word * lie ' and I shall say ' falsehood.' The hon. member had a purpose in view when he spoke in that manner; he was preparing campaign literature and not seeking the welfare of the country. That motive is obvious in all the speeches that he makes and the Soleil and other Liberal organs pick up his utterances and scatter them broadcast all through the country.
I do not deny the legal knowledge of the hon. member from Montcalm; he is a King's counsel, but as an engineer, or as builder, I may question his qualifications.
He said the contracts had been changed. I do not deny that, but he also said that the Government was paying the same price for less work. That is untrue. The Government has agreed to pay so much per yard for that construction work. So much for rock, so much for sand, &c., so that the Government only pays for the work done and nothing more.
He also stated that the gradients had been changed so as to give less work. In so doing the work has been lessened a great deal and by that means so much money is being saved for the public treasury. I do not deny that this is a drawback as far as the train circulation is concerned, because an engine cannot draw as many cars up a gradient as it would on a level road or where the gradient are small, but it is false to say that in the work of construction the country is losing hundreds of thousands of dollars which go to swell the contractor's profit.
It is well that the facts should be stated as they are so as to prevent the hon member for Montcalm from going round in his county saying, I have stated such and such facts on the floor of the House and not one of the Conservative members has denied them. Not only in the province of Quebec have changes been made on the Transcontinental railway. The hon. Postmaster

General has promptly corrected the hon. member for Montcalm, stating the real facts and telling him that such changes have been made on the whole length of the line which remains to be 'built. That is the real truth and what was said by the hon. member for Montcalm is untrue. These changes affect the portions of that railway running through New Brunswick and -Ontario as well as in Quebec wherever the road is still unfinished. Therefore, the changes are not attributable to a feeling of antipathy towards the province of Quebec, but are for the benefit of the public. That is another of the falsehoods which it was important to deny, for the Government have not acted through [DOT]antipathy towards the province of Quebec, as stated by the hon. member for Montcalm.
It is very easy to make charges right and left without giving any proof. Has not Voltaire said: 'Tell lies repeatedly and something thereof will always remain.' I do not know whether the hon. member has read Voltaire or not, but judging from what he said this afternoon, he seems to have studied that author.
He also spoke about the increase of expenses. He said that the public expenses have largely increased since the Conservatives are in power and he claims it is a thing unheard of. The hon. member for Montcalm has had the honour of having for a number of years held a seat in the former Parliament. Now he ought to know that it is not only under Conservative rule that the expenses have increased. In 1876, when the Conservatives were in power the expenses were only 40 ox 42 millions, and when the ex-Premier, now leader of the Opposition, left power in 1911, the public expenses had reached 136 millions. And the hon. member is really shocked to-day at the fact that the expenses have increased by a few millions, and still it must be said that this increase is, to a large extent, due to the work being done on the Transcontinental and for which several millions appear in the estimates. If the expenses are somewhat larger, it is due to the increase of the business in the country.


Charles Avila Wilson: The hon. member should bear in mind the remarks he made himself the other day when he criticised the increase of expenses in the Militia Department. He found that these expenses had increased by about four millions, and he thought it was too much. Had the Government carried out the suggestion of the hon. member and struck off that increase, it would have been so much of a reduction of the public expenses.


Herménégilde Boulay: I have criticised those
*expenses; I have denounced them, but none of our opponents have given me their support on that question. Therefore they have no right to blame me.
The hon. member for Montcalm is afraid of scandals. He might at least wait till .there is one before shouting. Beware of scandals. While the Liberals were in power there have been real scandals, and it was not without reason that Messrs. Blair, Hyman, Emmerson and Tarte went out of the Liberal Government. It was not because they were wholly unsuspected and above reproach. Such recollections should prevent the hon. member for Montcalm from shouting: ' Beware of scandals ' and induce him to wait till scandals are discovered before accusing us without proof.


Francis Cochrane: I made a mistake in giving the cost of the station at Quebec.
I find that the union station, freight house, engine house and tracks, will cost $1,000,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: Where will that station be ?


Francis Cochrane: At the Palais.


Rodolphe Lemieux: .If the agreement goes through ?


Francis Cochrane: I have no doubt about the agreement at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: With regard to the station at Champlain market, my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals could not tell us what it would cost. At the next sitting of the committee I will ask him to give us the cost of that building.


Francis Cochrane: I have not the design and the commissioner is away, but I shall be very glad to oblige my right hon. friend. I said once before in answer to him that it would not be a large station, but that it would be very neat.


Wilfrid Laurier: I had been informed that it would be a bigger building. I am sorry that it is mot to be, and I see no reason for it. My hon. friend told us yesterday that he expected the road to be completed next year. Nothing has been done to build a station at the Champlain market, and you cannot have the road in operation unless you have a station at that place to put the railway into communication with the ocean steamships.


Francis Cochrane: The trains can go right down on the Canadian Northern to the docks.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not understand what my hon. friend means. They cannot do that.


Francis Cochrane: They can go in on the Canadian Northern down to where they strike the Canadian Pacific railway, and the Canadian Pacific railway gets down on the docks.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Canadian Pacific railway gets down on the docks ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is for the Canadian Pacific railway.	,


Wilfrid Laurier: That is for the Canadian Pacific railway, but we must have a station and terminals at Quebec for the Transcontinental. These terminals are intended to be on the Champlain market, and whether you have a large or a small station is not the question at the present time. You must have some place at which the National Transcontinental and the ocean boats can be brought into communication. The Champlain market plans are not yet prepared, and unless you do something to expedite the matter you will have no station ready when the line is ready.


Francis Cochrane: We certainly will have a station ready when the line is ready.


Wilfrid Laurier: We will take that promise for the present, and we will have to wait for the execution of it.
Quebec bridge, $3,000,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: How is the work progressing, on that bridge ?


Francis Cochrane: In 1912 the south main caisson was sunk and filled with concrete, the work being completed on the 25th October. During the same season the foundation for the south anchor pier was made and twenty feet of concrete put in place. The total amount of masonry to be laid is 105,000 cubic yards, and the amount laid to the close of last season was 63,792 cubic yards. There remains to be laid 41,208 cubic yards, so that about two-thirds have been completed. The north abutment is finished. The north outer pier is finished; south main pier, about fifty per cent done; north main pier, seventy-five per cent done; north anchor pier, fifty per cent done; south anchor pier, ten per cent done. I expect that the contract will be fully completed this year. About one hundred men are employed now.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do I understand that it is expected that the masonry work will be completed this year ?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, the contract was to be finished last year, but we extended it.


Wilfrid Laurier: When will the superstructure be completed ?


Francis Cochrane: I will give the data which was given to me by the chairman of the board of engineers that has the work in charge. The contractors have during the past year completed a new plant at Roekfield, Quebec, and they have turned out a large quantity of material. This new plant has been in operation since the first of this year and about one Mr. COCHRANE.
thousand five hundred tons of the members of the bridge have been fabricated, and part of the material has been sent to the bridge site. Steel for the false work, crane, &o., is being shipped to the site. Ten thousand tons of steel has been ordered from the mills at Pittsburg, and of this, six thousand two hundred tons have been delivered at the shops at Roekfield and two thousand tons of the same have been manufactured. The contractors are putting in the concrete foundations for the false work, for the approach span and for the crane runways on the north side, and are erecting false work on the south -side. The steel for the anchorage has been completed. The crane runway in the unloading yards are about ready for operation. Regular shipments of steel to the site will be commenced shortly. The amount paid so far to the contractors for the - superstructure is $471,495.26.
The contract for the substructure has promised to keep ahead and not to delay the contractors for the superstructure.


George Perry Graham: Has the contractor got
over all the difficulties in regard to caissons?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will remember that, in the plan we finally got for that bridge, we experienced a good deal of difficulty, and some change was made in the piers. If I remember correctly, the engineers informed me that the change would make it a little easier of construction so far as the sinking of the caissons were concerned. The one that was damaged was used on the south side instead of the north side. Mr. Noble, who was associated with the board in reference to the superstructure, is the same Noble who was connected -with the Welland canal. He - is a first-class man in every way. What is the personnel of the board at the present time? Is Mr. Snyder on it?


Francis Cochrane: No change has been made. I cannot give the names, except that of Mr. Montserrat.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Montserrat and
Mr. Snyder. Mr. Modjeska has been on the board since its inception. The sum of $400,000, which has been paid so far for the superstructure, is not so unreasonable as it looks on the surface. The work is of-such magnitude that it cannot be^ compared with ordinary bridge construction in this or any other country. The delay that has occurred is really not a delay ^ at all when the magnitude of the work is considered. It has been due to two causes. One is the difficulty of construction of the substructure.


Francis Cochrane: In 1910 there was a
lot of trouble.


George Perry Graham: There was trouble in
sinking the caissons and in the construction of the piers, and so some change was made in the design.
When the contract for the superstructure was let, it was subjected to some criticism. I have not, and I presume my hon. friend has not heard any criticism recently as to the award of that contract to a Canadian company on the advice and recommendation of a practically unanimous board. When the contract was awarded, the work on the superstructure was not ready to be commenced. Hon. gentlemen criticised the late Government, and I suppose they would criticise this Government if they were not under good party discipline, for what might be apparently a delay. They must remember that there is not. a shop on the continent of America large enough to construct these very heavy .members. Special shops had to be designed and erected, and special machinery had to be secured. Now that this has been done, I understand that the work will go ahead and that there will be regular shipments of steel to the bridge. About what time does my hon. friend anticipate that the bridge will be completed?


Francis Cochrane: In 1916. The contract was for 1915.


George Perry Graham: Some of the contractors said 1914, some 1915, and some 1916, but I do not think the engineers in charge believed that the bridge would be completed before 1916. I think the work is going on as rapidly as the country can expect.
I am glad that my hon. friend is having no difficulty in keeping the board intact. Mr. Modjeska is an able man. Mr. Snyder is the nestor of bridge men on this continent. He is looked upon as one of the sanest of bridge engineers.


Francis Cochrane: The chairman is also a pretty good man.


George Perry Graham: The chairman ' was a
young man, a Canadian. When I recommended him to my colleagues, there was a certain amount of wonderment at the selection of a young man for the greatest task in bridge-building that has ever been undertaken. I had received the highest recommendations .from Sir Thomas Shaugh-nessy and other men of experience in regard to Mr. Montserrat. I came to the conclusion that this was the man we wanted, believing, after the experience, that the bridge company had, that it required a man who had the energy and the enthusiasm to oversee the work personally. I also thought that eventually _ the man who was able to construct that bridge and, as the chief engineer, stand on it
completed, would be entitled to some honour in this country if he made a success of it. I was very ambitious that such an honour should come to a Canadian. I am glad Mr. Montserrat is making good in fulfilling our expectations.
Canals-chargeable to capital-Chambdy - bridge between Iberville and St. John, $52,000.


George Perry Graham: When is this to be
finished?


Francis Cochrane: I do not know. I do not think anything has been done yet. I have kept it in the estimates but there has been a good deal of wrangling, though I heard recently that they had come to a conclusion.


George Perry Graham: This is the bridge that is being constructed by the province, the municipalities and this Government?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


George Perry Graham: This Government was
giving a certain amount and the other parties were constructing the bridge?


Francis Cochrane: ' I think the two towns Iberville and St. John with the province of Quebec, are constructing it with a grant from this Government. We have not much to say in it except to give the grant. The reason there is a federal grant is that the bridge is over a canal.


George Perry Graham: I recall the circumstances. They were constructing the whole bridge and we were supposed to pay for the portion necessary to bridge our own property.


Mr. BOIVIN:: When is the work to be
started?


Francis Cochrane: We -are not building, but only giving a grant.


Georges Henri Boivin: When was the grant first made?


Francis Cochrane: In 1910, and it has
been renewed since.


George Perry Graham: To whom is it given?


Francis Cochrane: To the town of St.
John.


Georges Henri Boivin: I understood, when this
matter was first 'brought up, that the Government was to build that portion of the bridge which covers the Chambly canal and the town was to do the rest.


Francis Cochrane: The deputy minister
says that when the bridge is completed to the satisfaction of the head engineer of the Railways and Canals Department, we pay the grant of $52,000.


Georges Henri Boivin: That is our vote?


Francis Cochrane: Yes. They asked us last year to increase it, but I could not

see my way clear to do so. We thought $52,000 was our share.


George Perry Graham: I thought it was.
Canals-Lachine-bridge at Rockfield, $10,000.


George Perry Graham: This was the new form of bridge, the bascule bridge. When will it be completed?


Francis Cochrane: It is finished now.


George Perry Graham: Can the minister give
us any idea how it works?


Francis Cochrane: This is not the first
one put up; there is one on the Trent. I have not heard any complaint against them. My officers tell me that this one works splendidly. '


George Perry Graham: The criticism at the time it was decided on was that it would do well enough over a narrow canal, but not over the Lachine.


Francis Cochrane: Was not the criticism against the location?


George Perry Graham: Partly, but also against the form. The minister has given the information I wanted-that it works satisfactorily.
Concrete vertical walls, $265,000.


George Perry Graham: Who has that contract?


Francis Cochrane: Quinlan and Robertson, they had the work before and for this continuation of the work of the vertical wall they tendered again this spring and were successful.


George Perry Graham: How long before that
work will be completed?


Francis Cochrane: I had hoped that it
would be completed this year, but I am not sure.


Charles Murphy: As I understand it, tenders were invited for two sections and Quinlan and Robertson were successful in both cases?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.
Improvements, lock 4, $140,000.


George Perry Graham: What is this?


Mr COCHRANE:: The upper bridge of
look 4. Owing to the curve there is a sharp turn which offered an obstruction for largesized steamers, and -which we are straightening out. We bought the property and the work is going on.


George Perry Graham: Good idea.


Francis Cochrane: The horn, gentleman
knows the place, down near the mouth.


George Perry Graham: I know. A very proper work to do. I feel like helping a man out when he is right.
Mr. COCHRANE.	I


Francis Cochrane: I know; appreciate
it too.


George Perry Graham: This work, I might say to the committee is absolutely necessary. And such works on our canals and harbours and channels, Parliament might as well understand, have no end. The size of vessels is constantly increasing, and the vessels of to-day will not go through bends that offered no obstruction a few years ago. It does seem a great expense on a canal constructed a few years ago, that these improvements must be made. But they must be made; and when the minister gets done with these he will probably have to dig a new canal altogether. This kind of work will have to continue as long as we endeavour to accommodate navigation. I approve of this expenditure.
To pay claim of Brewder and McNaughton for extra work in connection with deepening the riviere St. Pierre, $2,205.


George Perry Graham: What is this?


Francis Cochrane: These people had a
claim of $15,224 which has been considered by several engineers. Mr. Maroeau and the chief engineer considered it and came down to this conclusion. This is an old claim going back to 1898-1901.


George Perry Graham: The criticism would be
against its age, I suppose.


Francis Cochrane: I think the hon. gentleman himself had it under consideration when he was Minister of Railways and Canals.


George Perry Graham: Yes. As to that, has
my hon. friend made any.headway in getting rid of some of the old claims in which there may be some merit?


Francis Cochrane: I was away so much last year that I did not make so much progress as I would like to have made. There are a number of claims .that I think have some merit; for instance, that old claim at Peterborough. I feel that there is merit in it, but I have not yet reached a conclusion about it. It will be remembered that a commission was appointed to look into the matter, and I do not know how we can get over its finding, either in law or in equity.


George Perry Graham: 1 think that those claims in which my hon. friend's chief engineer, after full investigation, sees some merits, should go to the Exchequer Court. The late member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart), in one of his criticisms of my administration, pointed out very clearly that the Exchequer Court was established, at least in a measure, for the settlement of just such cases. Is it honest for any government to decline to let a man have the full benefit of his claim when presented to any

court through evidence? My opinion is that all technicalities should be set aside by the Government and that these men who have claims should be allowed to go before the Exchequer Court and have them disposed of. The public could not criticise the minister in any way for any decision that was given.
Sault Ste. Marie canal-widening channel, lower entrance, $10,000.


George Perry Graham: What is the draught
capacity of the canal on the United States side?


Francis Cochrane: Twenty-four and one-half feet. Ours is hardly twenty.


George Perry Graham: Before the United States Government constructed their canal, the Canadian canal was obliged to take care of their vessels of deeper draught.


Francis Cochrane: It is yet. The work on the United States side is not quite completed.


George Perry Graham: Has my hon. friend made up his mind as to the construction of a new canal at the Sault, or the enlargement of the old one?


Francis Cochrane: No.


Charles Avila Wilson: Why are these items chargeable to capital account?


Francis Cochrane: The canals have all
been -charged in that way. There is no revenue from this; it is new work altogether.


George Perry Graham: The point raised by my hon. friend, I think, is this. Here are two bridges which we will not own when they are finished, and why should we build them out of capital? We have nothing for our money.


Francis Cochrane: Because it is going
over our property. We have increased the cost to the municipality.


George Perry Graham: It struck me that the reason that would be behind the question . of my hon. friend (Mr. Wilson) was that if this bridge were ours when it was completed then it would come properly out of capital account because we would have something for our money. But we gave a grant to the city of Ottawa to help them build a bridge, and it is theirs. Why do we do this out of capital and not out of income or revenue, as in the case of St. John?
_ Mr. COCHRANE:	It is absolutely new
work, and we still retain our equity in it to that extent. In the bridge at St. John we have about a four-tenths interest, and 1 it goes over our property, and in that way we will have something to say in its control.	:	-
Trent Valley canal, construction, $1,000,000.


George Perry Graham: I suppose my hon. friend will have a good deal to say about this Trent canal?


Francis Cochrane: I will not unless you do.


George Perry Graham: I could. Is this amount for the extension of the canal westward to the bay or lake?


Francis Cochrane: No, this is the other way. There is a vote in the supplementaries to go to the Georgian bay, but this is for the old contract.


George Perry Graham: Would the minister give a statement of the condition of the different sections so that the members may have it for reference?


Francis Cochrane: On the first section, the Rice lake division, it will take one year to complete. The total cost will be $1,041,500.
On No. 2 section the total cost is $724,000. The vote of $100,000 will not complete it. The contracts were let in 1908.
On the third -section the amount asked for is $60,000, the total cost $290,000. It will take two years to complete.
On the fourth section the amount asked is $300,000. The total contract is $1,330,000, and it will take two years to complete.
On the fifth section the amount asked is $125,000. This will complete it in one year. The total cost will be $675,000. This contract was let in 1907.
On the sixth section, $150,000 is the amount asked. This will not complete it, it will take two years, and will cost $525,000.
On the seventh section, the amount asked is $125,000, and it will take two years to complete. The total cost -here will be $430,000.
The Severn river will come up on the supplementaries.
Ten new bridges, $60,000, total cost. They will be completed next season. Eleven valves, $22,600. Operating machines for locks, $1,300. Lock gates, Otonobee river division, $150,000. One lock gate lifter, $20,000. Motor boat for superintending engineer, $8,000. Lock at Trenton, $48,000. Engineering, $125,000.


George Perry Graham: A motor boat $8,000?


Francis Cochrane: It seems a large
amount. The boat has not -been purchased yet.	[DOT]


Mr. NESBITT:: What is the total cost of this creek, anyhow?


Francis Cochrane: The total cost up to date is $11,000,000.
1126'


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What will the total cost be when it is finished ?


Francis Cochrane: There was spent out of capital account on the Trent canal from 1880, to March, 1912, $11,302,045.89. Of this amount, $174,609.09 is for damages caused by flooding, and the claims are not paid yet.


George Perry Graham: Nor will they be for some time.


Francis Cochrane: The amount spent on construction up to October 31, 1912, is $500,000, and on flood claims $2,592. I have not got an estimate of what it will take to finish the canal.


Mr. BURNHAM:: With reference to the gibe of the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), I may point out that a waterway which discharges 140,000 cubic feet a minute is no creek.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That may be true of Peterborough, but with us it is only a creek.


Mr. BENNETT (East Simeoe):: Is the hon. member aware that lake Simeoe is part of it, and that that lake is twenty miles wide ? His remarks will be appreciated by his Liberal friends in East Simeoe.
Mr, NESBITT: Since I have been in the House, a certain amount of money has been voted for this creek, or canal, every year. I have been around the canal and the only thing I saw was boats carrying some pic-nio parties in the afternoons. This seems to be a large expenditure. There is a certain amount here for flooding. Is there no way of avoiding this constant expenditure on flooding ?


Francis Cochrane: I hope to try to reach a conclusion this summer.


Georges Henri Boivin: I understand that the canal is not yet opened up.


John Hampden Burnham: It has not yet been opened up, but I fancy that under the prompt and businesslike management of the present Government, with due respect to what was done by the late Government, it will be opened up, and will be found to be of great benefit to Canada.


Georges Henri Boivin: When will it be opened up, and what will the canal be used for principally when opened up ?


Kenneth Judson Cochrane: So far as opening it up to lake Ontario is concerned, that will be completed this year. How long it will take to open it up to Georgian bay, I cannot say just yet.	[DOT]
Mr. BUfcNHAM: Since the hon. member for North Oxford has appealed to me, I might give a concrete instance of the value of the canal. At Peterborough there is a Mr. COOHRANE.
very large flour mill, which now grinds 4,500 barrels of flour a day. There is also a very large oatmeal mill, which supplies England and Scotland. They cannot get their western grain through in large enough quantities, because they cannot get cars, and they have promised that, in the event of this canal being opened up, so that they can get their western grain in, they will double their capacity. That indicates at once the value of the canal, and a great many things of that description will be done when the whole waterway is opened up.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The canal was not started for the purpose of assisting those two mills.
Mr. B.URNHAM:	I am speaking of
general traffic.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Where will they get their grain into the canal?


Francis Cochrane: Through the Georgian Bay and the Midland elevators.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There is no connection
between this canal and Midland?


Francis Cochrane: There will be eventually.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I see now why my hon. friend from East Simeoe (Mr. Bennett) is so keenly in favour of this.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would advise hon. gentlemen on the other side to take a trip over this Trent Valley water system. When it is opened into Georgian bay, as it will be under the present Administration, there will be a capacity in the large elevators at Port McNichol and Midland of nearly
10,000,000 bushels. It is contended that as the old Erie canal succeeded in carrying grain in barges with a capacity of only
7.000	bushels, with barges on this canal carrying over 15,000 bushels, a large trade can be done from Port McNichol to Montreal. If the grain is not carried by such barges to Montreal, the canal will at least have the effect of keeping down the rates on the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk railway from these two points. I understand that the minister's policy is to make the canal eight feet over the locks on all the new work. The old work is six feet, but that can be deepened at a comparatively low cost. If you had a waterway through lake Simeoe and through the large lakes and rivers in that district, you could have barges carrying
20.000	bushels of grain. You would be in a position that the grain trade of lake Ontario was in twenty years ago. I can recall when the American grain which came from Chicago and Fort William for transit to the Old Country, and for distribution

in Canada and the United States, was carried in schooners containing only about
20,000	bushels. We will have there a waterway with an eight-foot depth and barges that will carry 20,000 bushels of grain. It is to be regretted that the general public take no cognizance of the extent and capacity of these waterways. Take lake Simcoe, which is from fifteen to twenty miles wide, and the lakes below Peterborough, a number of which are quite large lakes. It is true there are points where there are canal connections, but there you have a series of large lakes. Historically speaking, I may point out that Governor Simcoe had a survey made of this area comprising these waterways over one hundred years ago. With prophetic vision he saw what is happening to-day and what is likely to happen in the near futnre when this series of waterways will be connected with lake Ontario and Georgian bay.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I may point out that
long before Simcoe, Champlain went up the Trent valley and predicted that one day the great lakes would be connected. That is why the Government are erecting a statue to Champlain at Orillia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not believe that large quantities of grain will be carried over that system, because transportation will be slower than by rail, but I think it will have the effect of bringing the railway companies to time, and that it will force them to give better rates than exist at the present time. I have no apology to offer for the Trent canal system as a tourist route. If, when it is finished, it becomes the greatest tourist system on the continent, it will be well worth the money spent upon it. We all know the Muskoka lakes. The Grand Trunk will tell you that every' year there pass over the docks at Gravenhurst over 50,000 tourists. Think of what that means for this country! Once completed through to the Georgian bay the canal will provide a waterway for gasoline yachts and, the locks being 130 feet in length, a person will be able to leave New York city in a yacht 130 feet long, drawing not more than six feet of water, because a great many of these yachts are gasoline craft, come up to lake Champlain, go into the St. Lawrence at Sorel, pass by the Trent, clear through to the Georgian bay and on to the Sault, returning by way of the St. Clair and Detroit rivers and the Welland canal. I think that in fairness to the Trent Valley canal every member of this House should take a trip to Peterborough and on up from there. He will not only be impressed by the beauty of the route, but he will realize the wonderful opportunities there are for
building up an enormous tourist trade. Americans have gone to these lakes back of Peterborough and have built residences costing $7,000 or $8,000. It is going to be a great tourist country, and if we can, by completing this work, attract from New York and all over the world, hundreds and thousands of tourists, the country will be well repaid for the effort and the outlay.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: I think the minister ought to give us a little more information about the total cost of this canal. We have embarked upon very large expenditures in connection with these canals, and the people would like to know what this canal is going to cost when completed. The minister appears to adopt a different principle in canals to that which he lays down with reference to railways. When a branch railway is asked for in the province of Nova Scotia he lays down the doctrine that you must not only show that there is traffic enough to give us interest on our money, but-


Francis Cochrane: Do not give me credit for this work. I did not start it; it was started in 1880.


John Howard Sinclair: I am not objecting to
the canal being started, but I want to know what the total cost is to be when completed. I am not opposing the construction of the canal. I do not know very much about it. I know that lake Simcoe is a very beautiful sheet of water and I quite agree with what the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) says that a tourist traffic might be developed there. I am not saying that the canal will not be useful for tourist traffic and other purposes, but I wish to draw attention to the fact that the minister regards expenditure on canals in a different way from that in which he seems to regard expenditure on the Intercolonial railway. I do not know why he should. I hope it is not because the canal happens to be situated in the province of Ontario. As a matter of fact we do not expect any revenue at all from the canals. We are building them at a very large expense to the country. The traffic, I understand, pays nothing. That may be all right, but I think that the minister ought to take a different view in regard to the question of railways just as he does with regard to the question of canals. I agree with him that he ought to assist traffic through our country and I am not opposing this policy. What I rose for was to press the minister to give us some idea of what the cost of this canal will be when completed.


Francis Cochrane: I am told about $16,000,000.


Charles Avila Wilson: We have heard
so much about the canal, historically and geographically, that I feel justified in try-

mg to learn a little more about it. It is quite an ancient work because we find there was a survey made by the late Governor Simcoe, and my hon friend from Eouville (Mr. Lemieux) has told us that Champlain indicated in a prophetical way that some day we would cross that part of Canada through a canal. From the hon. member for York we ascertained that it was a creek and that finally it turned out to be quite an ocean, 21 miles wide at certain places. Now it turns out to be a series of lakes. It seems to me that this canal has become an -eternal question. We have just learned from the Minister of Railways and Canals that it is a series of canals connecting a series of lakes and that it will cost the people $11,000,000. The hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. White) is taking just as great an interest in the Georgian Bay canal as I am myself and we see that this Trent Valley canal has swallowed up about $11,000,000 of our money with no practical results. We want to know if there is any part of this work, begun in 1880, which is being utilized in some way, either to produce power or electricity or for the purpose of small navigation or the navigation of large tonnage. I cannot understand how it is that after we have spent $11,000,000 and after this work has been under construction for the last thirty-three years we have not achieved any practical result exceipt that we are able to say that a nice yacht 130 feet long with a draught of 6 feet and propelled by gasolene or electricity may pass through it. Has the late Conservative Administration before 1896 been idle, has the late Liberal Government been idle?


John Hampden Burnham: Yes, both idle, and we
are trying to get them going.


Charles Avila Wilson: The hon. member for
Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) says that the construction of this canal is so difficult, that there are so many geographical and natural obstacles, that from 1880 to 1897 his friends who were then in power, were not able to overcome them?


John Hampden Burnham: The difficulties are not physical but political.


Charles Avila Wilson: And these difficulties have existed for the last thirty-three years?


John Hampden Burnham: Yes, all over Canada.


Charles Avila Wilson: Well, that is something strange.


John Hampden Burnham: It is very odd.


Charles Avila Wilson: I would like to know from the minister what he proposes to do with the million dollars which he mentioned a few minutes ago. Is that included in the $11,000,000 which have already been spent?
Mr. WILSON (Laval).


Kenneth Judson Cochrane: No, the $11,000,000
was the expenditure up to March 31, 1912. I may -say that we need this million dollars to complete work that has -been under contract for a number of years.


Charles Avila Wilson: So that to complete the work we are going to spend $5,000,000 more and make the total $16,000,000?


Francis Cochrane: $16,000,000 altogether.


Charles Avila Wilson: And it is expected that the work will be completed by 1915 or 1916?


Francis Cochrane: In two years, I hope.


Charles Avila Wilson: If you are still in power, I suppose this House and the country will have to give you credit if you succeed in completing the work. In order that each administration should take the responsibility for what has or has not been done, or has been done in a wrong way, I would like to know how much has been spent from 1880 to 1897, what amount of work has been done, what has been done by the Liberal Administration, what the hon. minister proposes to do, and what is the balance of the work to be done.


Francis Cochrane: This amount will
complete the work to lake Ontario. Unfortunately, whatever administration started the work, they started it in the middle, instead of starting it either at -one outlet or the other.


Charles Avila Wilson: The reverse of the
Georgian Bay canal-started at both ends?


Francis Cochrane: I -shall be glad to get the information required.


Charles Avila Wilson: I think the reports should be distributed not only amongst the members, but to the public at large.


Francis Cochrane: It is in the Public Accounts.
At six o'clock, House resumed, and then took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock, and again went into Committee of Supply. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Civil Government-Post Office Department- salaries, 689,340; contingencies, $80,000.


Charles Avila Wilson: Will the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) please say if the schedule of details given in these estimates covers the salaries of extra clerks employed in such post offices as Montreal during the seasons of especially heavy business ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This is for the inside service ?


Charles Avila Wilson: And is there an amount to provide for the services, I speak of ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, later on.


Charles Avila Wilson: What is the salary of these employees ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Some $1.75, some $2, some $2.25, according to the time they have been employed.


Charles Avila Wilson: In the case of a post office like Montreal, how many of these temporary clerks would be employed ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I could not say offhand. My officials will be here in a minute and I will get the information.


Mr. MARCIL:: There is an increase
there of $20,125 in salaries. What is the reason for the increase ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: An increase in the work.


Charles Marcil: Have any new branches been established ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The rural mail delivery branch has been established since last session.


Mr. OLIVER:: A brief statement of the reasons for the increase of $20,000 in salaries and $10,000 in contingencies would be acceptable.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There are twenty-five increases of $100, and 298 of $50. These are statutory. There are twenty-five additional clerkships.


Frank Oliver: At the minimum salary ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Of course.


Frank Oliver: Five hundred dollars ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There are fifteen additional messengers and porters and packers. All this represents a total of over $48,000. There must be deducted the difference between the salaries of those who have left the service through death or other cause, and those who have been promoted but who draw lower salaries than the others received. These deductions make a total of $48,350. The difference is $20,125, which is the net increase in the salaries.


Frank Oliver: What is the reason for the increase of twenty-five clerks and fifteen messengers ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The great increase in the work. The hon. member knows that this department is increasing very rapidly, especially on account of the heavy inorease in the West. I am prepared to give my hon. friend details if he likes.


Frank Oliver: No, I do not ask for details. But if the hon. minister has at hand any general figures showing the proportion between increase in the business and increase in the staff, I should like to hear them.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There is one figure which I have in mind which will be an indication of the inorease in the business, and that is that whereas for the year ending 31st March, 1912, the sale of stamps was about $11,000,000, for the year ending March 31, 1913, it was about $13,000,000, an increase of $2,000,000. That is a great increase.


Frank Oliver: As to the statutory increases, have these been made in every case, or are there exceptions ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not remember now any exceptions, but if there were any they were on account of reports of heads of branches showing that the officers reported upon had not fulfilled their duties or something of that kind. The assistant deputy minister says that he does not remember any such cases.


Frank Oliver: The deduction from the gross increase is due to the fact^ of reduction in salaries for the positions from winch there were dismissals, or resignations-


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This is the inside service. There were no dismissals.


Frank Oliver: Unless the service is very fatal they could not all have been on account of death.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not speak only of death. A good many of our employees leave the department because they are not paid enough-they find better pay elsewhere.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to delay the estimates, and it is not a matter of any political importance, but if the minister had under his hand a statement showing how many had died, how many were promoted, and how many had left the service, I should be glad of it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I could not give those figures.


Frank Oliver: There is a large increase in the contingencies vote. What is the particular occasion of that ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The first item is for
clerical and other assistance, $8,000. Owing to the fact that the Civil Service Commissioners have been unable to furnish clerks who are qualified to be appointed as permanent officers, it has been necessary to accept persons as temporary clerks until they have an opportunity for passing the required examination for permanent appointment. In addition to that, a large number of temporary clerks are employed each year to replace members of the permanent staff while off on annual

leave. The salaries -of these temporary clerks are paid out of contigencies. The other item is sundries, made up of various items of expenditure. Travelling expenses, telegraph and telephone messages and newspaper subscriptions are paid out of this appropriation. $2,000 are required under this head, making a total of $10,000.


Georges Henri Boivin: What is the provisional allowance for?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is for western
Canada. In most of the departments there is a eertain allowance made on account of the high cost of living in the West.


Georges Henri Boivin: This allowance for private secretary is surely not the full salary received by that official?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: He receives more
than that, but the sum of $600 is voted for each of the private secretaries of the ministers. This is in addition to the amount which they get under the law passed last session.


Georges Henri Boivin: Who is the hon. minister's private secretary?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have none at the
present time. I have divided the $600 among three or four clerks in the department who have helped me.


George Perry Graham: While the private secretaries should be protected -so that they will remain in the service in case of a change of Government, for instance, I think the proper way of doing this would be to vote them a stated salary.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the Postmaster
General any plans in view with regard to increasing the salaries of country postmasters?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: In my opinion, the
salaries of some of the smaller postmasters should be increased. A man who gets a salary of only $35 a year should not be expected to do much work. Of course it is all a matter of arranging the expenditures in the department in accordance with the, revenue. I expect that under the parcel post system the postmasters will get better returns for their work, and this, coupled with some increases I have in mind, and for which no special legislation is needed, will probably put the postmasters in a better position than they are at the present time. Nothing has been definitely decided, however.


John Howard Sinclair: The Postmaster Gem eral is not taking provision for an increase to the small country postmasters.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I can increase the
salaries of the postmasters without putting anything in the estimates. They are paid out of the revenue of the office/
Mr. PELLETIER.


Mr. PROULX:: I understand that the
postmasters of offices where the revenue is less than $100 are classified as non-accounting officers, and that they get only $600 a year under the statute.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.


Mr. BRODER:: I am very glad the Postmaster General has taken this matter up, because there is one particular feature of the matter that is not thought of by everyone. It is well known that the large departmental stores do an enormous business throughout the country districts, and many of the postmasters in small villages and at crossi-roads work half a day every day for the Eaton Company and other large firms, and do not get a cent for it. The revenue goes to Toronto, and the postmasters get no credit for it, although they do the work. It is evident that something should be done to relieve them in that regard.


Mr. NEELY:: The constituency which I represent is a rural constituency, and I know that a great injustice is being done to the rural postmasters by reason of the very small remuneration they receive for their services. Take the country post office where the mail comes in twice or three times a week throughout the year. The postmasters get the munificent sum of $35 for the services rendered to the community, and, if the husband is away the good housewife, probably one hundred or one hundred and fifty days a year, has to go through the mail and deliver newspapers and letters for those who come to the office. Her home is continually taken up with outsiders, and the munificent remuneration received for that is $35 a year.	.


Charles Marcil: They used to get $10 a year before the Liberal Government came into power.


David Bradley Neely: I do not think the Liberals went as far as they should have gone in increasing the salaries of rural postmasters, but, as the new Government have a much more abounding revenue at their disposal than their predecessors had many years ago, I think it is their duty to increase the salaries of rural postmasters. We are raising salaries in the inside service of highly paid officials, and I think that these rural postmasters ought to be considered in* these salary increases. The rural postmaster is more deserving of an increase than many highly paid officials who will receive increases if we pass the estimates as they now stand.	[DOT]


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: I presume the minister is prepared to consider the matter to which I referred?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Certainly.


Levi Thomson: I wish to refer to an article which appeared in the Regina Leader on the 3rd of May last, headed as follows:
Sintaluta iPost Office Scene of Serious Scandal.
Scores of letters, the majority of them registered, delivered months after they were due and only then following investigation hy post office inspector-Citizens seriously incon-convenienced hy scandalous methods of local post office-Joseph Glenn, M.L.A., blocks public desire to have conditions investigated.
I do not know whether the minister has seen the article to which I refer. It deals with troubles in the Sintaluta post office in connection with the delayed mail matter. Reference is made to a lumber dealer in Sintaluta, named Moxon, who is supplying material to the Indian Department. When I was in the West at Christmas, Mr. Moxon spoke about the matter, and I asked him to write me to Ottawa about the time the House would meet and I would take the matter up with the Department. I did not receive the statements for which I asked until February 25. I found, however, that his letter was dated January 14th, and I notice from the account in the Leader that Mr. Moxon received on the 19th of February several checks sent by the Indian Department here, one of them fourteen months after the time it was sent. Others were delayed for shorter times, down to two months. It appeared that Post Office Inspector Motherwell made an inspection because of some complaints which had been received, and found thes'e letters lying all around the office, some wrapped in papers and stuck in pigeon holes and every place. I presume from what the minister says that he has a report from the inspector. I am advised also that a petition was signed by numerous people around Sintaluta asking to have the postmaster removed from office. I do not know whether or not this petition has been sent in; if it has T would like to have the information from the minister. Mr. Hill, the present postmaster, was appointed By the present Government, and I would draw attention to the fact that on December 9 an order was passed by this House:
By Mr. Thomson* Order of the House foT a return showing in detail the number of dismissals from public office by the present Government to this date, in the constituency of Qu'Appelle, with the names of the dismissed officers, and the reason for their dismissal, the complaints against such officials and a copy of all correspondence, petitions,' papers and documents with respect to the same, and of all notes of evidence and reports of investigation in cases where they have taken place.
In pursuance of that order I received a list of the dismissals in Qu'Appelle constituency. For the Post Office Department the dismissals were given as from the following offices:	Fleming, Golden, Plain,
Grenfell, Kipling Station, Montmartre and Qu'Appelle. It will be observed that Sintaluta post office was not included in that list. Therefore I put another [DOT]question on the Order Paper with reference to that dismissal and on May 21, I was informed that the previous postmaster, Mr. Hastings, had been dismissed for political partisanship; on the 2nd of December, 1911. That was well within the time specified in my first question, and I would like to know why that dismissal was not included in the return. The return orders reports and notes of evidence. I find that in the case of the Grenfell post office, where Mr. Coy was dismissed, an investigation was made by Mr. A. D. Dixon of Qu'Appelle, but that report of Mr. Dixon is not included in the return. I would like to know what has become of that report. In the Montmartre post office, where Mr. Gouin was dismissed, I notice that Mr. Dixon also made an inspection and report in part as follows:
I found that the postmaster was engaged prior to the election in carrying Joseph Mutrie, an agent of the Liberal candidate, about the country on election business, and also that he conveyed one Liberal elector; Joseph St. Jean, from Montmartre to Alpha polling subdivision for the purpose of enabling St. Jean to vote.
That apparently is the only ground on which the dismissal was made. This man, however, besides being postmaster at a very small salary has. a livery business. He had an automobile which he drove for hire .and his carrying of Mu'trie around was in the course of his ordinary employment and I presume the carrying of the voter was the same. During that campaign Mr. Lake, the Conservative candidate, at one time made provisional arrangements with the same Gouin to take him for a trip on his motor for hire, just as he took Mutrie. Was the taking of Mr. Mutrie for hire an act of offensive partisanship, and if so would not the taking of Mr. Lake the Conservative candidate for hire be the same thing? Did he dismiss Mr. Gouin from office because he had taken Mr. Lake to some meeting? This is the only reason the commissioner gave for dismissing Mr. Gouin. It is true there is the statutory declaration of William A. McGowan, but it is of such a general character that not very much attention need be paid to it. Apparently Mr. Dickson did not pay very much attention to it, because he did not give that as a reason for the dismissal. The reason given for the dismissal was that he had taken a Liberal agent around in his motor car, and also that he had taken a voter to



vote. I am satisfied-as a matter of fact he told me himself-that he had received his pay from Mr. Mutrie, and I have no doubt he did. I also want to get information with regard to the Montmartre post office. I am advised by a Conservative at Montmartre that a petition asking to have Mr. Gouin retained in office was signed by every Conservative in Montmartre. I find that a good many requests have been sent to different ministers and members that he be retained. So fax as I can gather, every Conservative using that post office, excepting the man who received the appointment, and his family, weTe determinedly opposed to the change. The minister will notice that the man who signs the general declaration, to which I have referred, is not a Montmartre man at all. He is from the village of Kendall, some distance away. There is, I am advised, not one Conservative but is determinedly opposed to Mr. Gouin being dismissed, and to the appointment which was made.
I would like to know what the policy of the minister is as to the appointments he makes. Apparently he is very much opposed to having partisans in office, if they are of one particular stripe. His displeasure not only falls on the heads of the living, but we are told that even the grave does not close them against his vengeance. One would presume that if the minister is so much opposed to politicians of one stripe, he would be careful not to appoint politicians of another stripe, because the evil is ah evil, no matter what the political colour of the postmaster may be. I find, however, that in the various dismissals which he has made in my constituency, and in the appointments which he has made to fill the vacancies, every single appointee with whom I am personally acquainted, is an active Conservative partisan. I am personally acquainted with only three, and I am going to give the minister the names. The places are Grenville, Montmartre and Sintaluta. In Sintaluta, there is Mr. Hill, of whom there are complaints of active partisanship. He has a perfect right to be a partisan, I am not complaining of that at all. He is practically the local leader of his party in that town. Then, there is Mr. McLeod, of Grenfell. I forget the name of the gentleman appointed at Montmartre, Both of these gentlemen spoke in opposition to me during the last campaign. Mr. McLeod was stumping the country all the time, I think. Was that the reason they were appointed? Was it because they were active partisans? If it is a sin to be a Liberal partisan, is it a virtue to be a Conservative partisan, or is it a qualification for office? From the statements of the minister one would hardly think it would be. These are facts which the minister can depend upon, and I think they are worthy of his consideration. I know Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle).
that the appointees in Grenfell and Montmartre were active workers. They were the men put up to speak against me-one spoke at Montmartre and the other at Summer-berry, a neighbouring town, and, on various occasions, at Grenfell and surrounding points.
With regard to the country postmaster,
I heartily concur in what my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) has said. I think the minister would be well advised to increase the salaries of these country postmasters. Might I just refer to some of the points I have raised, and on which I would like to have a little information? Why was	the Sintaluta dismissal
not included in the list given? Has	the	minister a	report of
the Sintaluta post office trouble? Has he received a petition for the dismissal of the postmaster of Sintaluta? What action does he propose to take regarding the report and petition, provided he has them? Did Mr. Dickson make a report regarding the Grenfell post office dismissal? There is no copy of the report among the papers. If such a report was made, why was it not included among the other documents? Then, again, did the minister receive a petition asking for the retention of Mr. Gouin in the Montmartre post office? Is the driving of workers or voters by_ Liberals, in the ordinary course of business, deemed a sufficient ground for dismissal? Lastly, what is the policy of the department as to the appointment of postmasters in respect to their partisanship?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: As to the last question, the fact that a man has 'been a partisan before his appointment to office is no bar to his appointment. If it were, no political men could be appointed to any situation, even to judgeships.


Levi Thomson: Does that mean that he will be retained if he still continues to be an active partisan?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is not what I
said. My hon. friend says that these postmasters were partisans before their appointment. They may have been, but that would be no bar to their appointment. As to the fact that the Sintaluta dismissal was not included in the list, the deputy minister tells me that we may be able to let my hon. friend know to-morrow.^ If I understood aright there was a special answer given about this postmastership in which I stated that the dismissal had taken place.


Levi Thomson: The reason I put the second question was that the order had not been carried in the first place.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: And the second effort was more successful than the first. If it is not plain there must have been an omission by the clerk in charge. Another question put to my hon. friend was as to the facts about the change in the post office at Sintaluta. Would that come under Mr. Motherwell or Mr. McNaughton ? The postmaster was dismissed and the evidence in the case was most complete. We have the sworn declarations of five or six people showing that he had taken part in the election. If the return has been brought down I suppose my hon. friend has seen these affidavits.


Levi Thomson: Yes, but what I was asking the Postmaster General was whether there was a report from the inspector. I understand that Mr. Dickson made an investigation even after that.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I understood that
there was no report. My hon. friend, in the letter which he was kind enough to write to tell me beforehand that he was going to touch upon this question tonight, referred to certain papers, and I have not brought any other papers than those which were asked for in this letter.


Levi Thomson: If the Postmaster General finds there is a report will he be good enough to let me have it?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes. About the
Montmartre post office, I think there was a report in that case. It showed that the postmaster had taken voters to the poll.


Levi Thomson: He drove one voter to
the poll, but he was a liveryman, and he had also offered to drive Mr. Lake.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is forbidden by the election law to take a man to the polls if you are paid for it. Perhaps my hon. friend did not remember that.


Levi Thomson: Was it not quite possible that this man may have been driving?
I think it was a fact that he was driving that way and this man went with him. He had also been driving Mr. Mutrie. As a matter of fact he was paid for driving Mr. Mutrie around, and he offered to drive Mr. Lake in the same way.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If the man was paid
he acted in defiance of the electoral law.


Levi Thomson: Do I understand that to drive Mr. Lake to a meeting, or to take an agent to a meeting would be in defiance of the law? Would it be illegal for him to drive Mr. Lake or an agent to the meeting?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, but it would be illegal to drive electors to the poll on election day.
- W'Slili jjil


Levi Thomson: This was long before the election. Mr. Mutrie was not there on election day.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: As to the Montmartre case, my hon. friend's letter says there are allusions to a petition having been received.


Levi Thomson: Yes.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am told that there is nothing on the file in the department which would indicate that any petition had ever been received. If the inspector received one he should have sent it to the department at Ottawa. With regard to the Sintaluta matter, a mistake was made by the new postmaster, fie took an assist-ant-Miss-I need not give her name except my hon. friend insists upon it-it was the postmaster's niece, as a .matter of fact -and he made the mistake of leaving everything practically in her hands with the result described by my hon. friend. The facts are as my hon. friend put them. But it was quite plain that there was no dishonesty about it because there were letters for the postmaster himself amongst the bunch which was found not to have been delivered. The file shows that when I was informed of this state of things and that this postmaster was $682 short in his cash, I at once put a note on the file that we should not keep that postmaster and to see to it right away. Under these circumstances the inspector went over, and the postmaster's niece, who had been in charge of the post office, was dismissed. Since then the inspector and the department have come to the conclusion that there was no trace or intention whatever of dishonesty. The amount which, from the first report, appeared to have been taken was reimbursed right away as soon as the postmaster's attention was called to the state of things created by the lady who was there. On the 16th of May the post office inspector returned there and found everything pretty much in good order and that the gentleman had taken charge of the office himself. We are informed that if he sticks to his business and does not appoint anybody who does not know the business we will have a pretty good postmaster. At all events, I may tell him that if he does not do so he certainly will not be kept in the office.


Levi Thomson: I have
been in communication with people in Sintaluta, and I find that there are a great many in that place who feel very strongly that the lady has been made a scapegoat of.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No.


Levi Thomson: Well, that is the feeling the people have.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: They are wrong.


Levi Thomson: The minister might
possibly be wrong. I would ask the minister to have a thorough investigation of the case, because there is that feeling m Sintaluta. The niece of Mr. Hill was pretty .much in charge of the post office when Mr. Hastings was postmaster before him, and there never was any complaint in so far as I can hear. The feeling in Sintaluta is that the blame is not with Miss Gibson, I think the name is, but with Mr. Hill. I merely make the statement to' the minister that there is that feeling, and I think it would be worth while to have a little more investigation and see whether this young lady has not been made a scapegoat of.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have no personal
knowledge, but if I can trust our post office inspector there, the people are wrong in supposing that this young lady has been made a scapegoat of. According to the files, the facts are absolutely as I have stated them to my hon. friend.


Frank Oliver: It strikes me that the
position of my hon. friend the Postmaster General is absolutely untenable. He removed a postmaster who gave every satisfaction, absolutely without cause except the charge of being a partisan. He appointed another gentleman as postmaster, who was admittedly a partisan, who was appointed because he was a partisan, and who not only was a partisan but was a leader of my hon. friend's partisans in that particular locality. After he was appointed, instead of there being efficiency of administration, there was such inefficiency that it came to the attention of the department. There was the appearance of dishonesty. The facts of serious shortage were established. My hon. friend speaks of the dismissal of the assistant. There was in that office no assistant postmaster within the jurisdiction of my hon. friend, if I understand the matter correctly. It is <a very small nost office, and the partisan whom iny hon. friend appointed because he was a partisan was the only person to whom my hon. friend had a right to look for the administration of the office. It is most remarkable that an efficient man is removed; that the office is administered inefficiently, to the scandal of the neighbourhood, and that my hon. friend not only does not remove the postmaster, but does not censure him. He tells us that he has removed the postmaster's niece. He brings before the attention of the House and of the country the suggestion that this young woman, this assistant of the postmaster, is the person who is responsible, although he has not a tittle of evidence to bring before the House to that effect. It is outrageous that the Postmaster General should defend his partisan appointment in Mr. PELLETIER.
such a way. Does my hon. friend think the post office service of this_ country is only for the purpose of providing recognition for political partisans? Is the post office service of the country not rather for the public, and it is not a matter for the consideration of the Post Office Department under my hon. friend's able administration, whether certain post offices are properly administered or not? I think my hon. friend has a misapprehension of the responsibilities of his position when he undertakes to justify or to defend a condition such as he has defended here to-night in such a manner.


Georges Henri Boivin: In connection with dismissals in the outside service, two returns were tabled here last year concerning the dismissal of the postmaster at GTanby. I am not in any way 'blaming the Postmaster General, because the people of Granby are well! satisfied with the present condition of affairs. I received a return in which it was shown that Mr. George P. Payne of Granby had been complained of by the hon. member for Yamaska (Mr. Mondou) and that there were two applications, one by Mr. Dozois and one by Mr. Bergeron, for his position. A few days previous to that, a return had been handed to my hon. friend the member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), in which the name of Mr. Ceorge F. Payne was mentioned as dismissed. Evidently there was a mistake somewhere. Dame rumour had it that one of the applicants, Dozois, was appointed to the position, and that he had his appointment in his pocket. I am often asked by my electors to throw some light on this matter, and I am at a loss to know what to say.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member says that he is well satisfied with the present state of affairs. Surely that settles the whole question.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am perfectly satisfied;
and I think, as long as the present postmaster remains in office, the people of Gran'by will be satisfied. Very influential Conservative men in Granby petitioned the department to keep the present postmaster in office. He is a very efficient official. I am, however, often asked if the information is correct that another man has been appointed postmaster.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Mr. Payne is still
postmaster.


Mr. CARROLL:: In the month of November, 1912, certain petitions were sent to the department of the Postmaster General, and also to the right hon. the Premier from the letter carriers' union at Sydney, and from the federated association of letter carriers which represents ninety-eight per cent of the letter carriers in the Dominion. They have submitted for the consideration of the

department certain changes which would be oi great benefit to them. They submitted that they were entitled to an eight-hour day; to sick pay, which I understand they are not getting at present; and also that they should have .a half holiday each week during the months of June, July and August, that is in the heat of the summer. They also submitted a very strong case for an increase in salary. With reference to the weight of mail, those resolutions set forth that at that time and I understand there has been no change since-the letter carriers are obliged to carry .between ninety and one hundred and fifteen pounds of mail. I do not think that men can do justice to themselves or to the delivery 6f mail if they are obliged to carry that weight. I understood some time ago tnat, under the regulations of the department, the weight of mail which they are obliged to carry is somewhat less than that. Therefore it must be the case that we have not got sufficient letter carriers in order to make the postmasters in the various cities see to it that they carry the regulation weight. These resolutions were submitted to me some time ago, also the question of superannuation and uniforms, as well as other questions. I think all these resolutions should commend themselves to the serious consideration of the Post Office Department. Officers who are obliged to be about in all kinds of weather as letter carriers are should not be obliged to work more than eight hours a day in view of the fact that they are working for a Government and a department that can well afford to see to it that they do not work longer. If an employee -in the inside service is sick for a day or two he is given his pay while off duty, but it seems that the letter carriers are only paid by the day and that if one of them is off a day through sickness, he is docked a day's pay. This seems discriminatory and unfair. Then there is the question of the half holiday. I do not know what attention the Postmaster General has given to these resolutions, but if he has not dealt with them, I think it only fair that he should do what is possible to remedy the grievances of the letter carriers. I do not think they are asking too much. They are a low-paid class of men; they have to work long hours, and they carry heavy loads. I understand that the letter carriers in the city of Sydney, who are all good men so far as I know, were represented in the delegation which came to the minister, and I have no doubt they made their complaints more strongly than I could, for it is only recently' that these resolutions were placed in my hands. I look to the minister to say whether these things have been taken into consideration and whether they have been remedied or will be remedied.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The representations of the letter carriers were laid before me last
fall or winter by the delegation of which the hon. gentleman speaks. The rule about the eight hour day is being enforced. Of course, as every hon. member will understand, it inevitably happens that trains are sometimes late, and in such cases the letter carriers must work more than eight hours. But the instructions from the department are that these cases shall be recognized by making an allowance, or giving the men more rest on the following day, or something of that kind. But the rule is for eight hours work a day and the officers of the department are carrying out that rule. As to the weight the letter carriers must take, the department thinks it well to leave that to the judgment of the postmaster. Every postmaster knows that the desire of the department is that these men should not 'be overburdened, and that if they are not numerous enough to take care of the whole delivery in one trip, some of the stuff should remain in the office for further delivery. Oi course, the letters will be taken care of in/ any _ case by the first delivery, but parcels and newspapers may have to wait when they are in too great quantity. Now, as to sick nay, these men already receive sick pay where the department has been notified that the sickness is a bona fide one. I remember telling our friends, the letter carriers, when their representatives came here, that they were entitled to sick pay. They said that this rule was ignored; I told them that if the rule was not carried out they might make their representations in the regular way and their complaint would be attended to. This covers three points raised by my hon. friend. The fourth is the question of the half-holiday. I have, as he will see, gone into these matters pretty carefully. The half-holiday question is the one not settled so far. I have referred it to the officers of the department for a report, and I understand that that report will be placed before me as soon as the arduous, work of the session is over. I agree that the work of the letter carriers is important and that they should be well treated. We have a good staff of letter carriers and I have much sympathy with them. And I think they will find that I have something more than mere cold sympathy.


Edmond Proulx: And I hope the Postmaster General will have something more than cold sympathy for the rural postmasters. My hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) has spoken on their behalf, and I endorse everything he has said. I think that their salary should be increased, and that the minimum should be $50 year.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Postmaster General
has said we have to be dissatisfied in order to get information. I am going to ask him

a question about something with which I am not satisfied. I desire to know the reason for the dismissal of Mr. J. Masse, postmaster at Roxton Falls.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: He was dismissed for political partisanship.


Georges Henri Boivin: Would the minister please *look over the file and, the next time the committee meets and takes up the Post Office estimates, give me some details concerning the nature of that political partisanship?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will.


Charles Marcil: I hope the Postmaster
General will not have too strong a grudge against me if I refer to the changes in the officers of his department in my riding. I allowed the whole of last session to pass without making any reference to the matter. I have here the latest edition of the Postal Guide in which I see that there are about eighty-three post offices in Bonaventure. I have not had any return since the 5th of March last as to the number disnyssed, but I think that roughly speaking there must have been thirty or thirty-five changes through dismissal. The dismissals were for alleged political partisanship.
During the last campaign I had the good fortune of having as my opponent Mr. Mousseau, a son of the late Prime Minister of Quebec, who afterwards undertook to communicate with the department with a view to giving to Caesar the things that are Caesar's or in other words, of urging that some of the spoils be given to Conservative supporters in his constituency. A dead set was made upon practically every office held in the constituency, and the principle upon which action was taken in this regard is laid down by Mr. Mousseau in a letter addressed to the Postmaster General dated November 9, 1911. It is in French, but I have translated it as follows:
Hon. L. P. Pelletier,
Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
Sir,-I have received several communications from your department on the subject of the appointment of Mr. Franpois Dion as postmaster at Caplan River. I will draw your attention to this subject by my letter of October 21 last addressed to the deputy minister. It is needless for me to say that applications are numerous since the elections. Seeing that nearly all the employees of the Government meddled actively in politics against us, there will have to be many changes. Since the elections we have been very busy and I have not been able to deal with all requests that have been made. I will add that I intend proceeding with the greatest caution and will only recommend to you appointments which will be of a nature to help the party, Mr. BOIVIN.
and it is better to take our time and act so as to please our friends.
Yours, &c.,
(Signed) J. A. Mousseau.
This indicates exactly the line of action under which proceedings were taken at that time. In Shigawake, one of the Englishspeaking centres of the county, Mr. James Poirier, postmaster, who had been dismissed in 1896, was reinstated on the request of Mr. Mousseau, and against the protests of practically the entire population. Mr. J. A. LeGallais, the postmaster and storekeeper of the place, a man who gave eminent satisfaction, not only to the department but to the public as well, was dismissed and replaced by Mr. James Poirier, who held office up to 1896. It was alleged that Mr. Poirier had been dismissed for political reasons, but he was really dismissed for other reasons. Here is a letter written by Mr. Mousseau to the Postmaster General on March 2, 1912:
I have tlie honour to ask that (Mr. James Poirier, of Shigawake, he appointed postmaster at that place in the place of John LeGallais, the present postmaster. In support of this request I submit that Mr. LeGallais is a political partisan, and has been, even Since the elections, and that Mr. James Poirier is one of our most faithful friends in the county. Mr. Poirier should he reinstated without inquiry, as he was dismissed from his functions for political reasons in 1896.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant, < J. A. Mousseau.
i In order to see whether or not this is a fact, I will read a letter addressed to the [DOT]then Postmaster General, Sir William Mulock, by W. L. B. Fauvel, then member of Parliament for the county:
_	Ottawa, 28th (Sept., 1896.
Dear Sir,-I beg to call your attention to the inconvenient location of the post office at Shigawake, which is half a mile too far west, as reported to the department by your inspector on the 28th November, 1893, and I recommend it being replaced to where it was at the time of its original establishment until it was removed some three years ago to its present position.
The mill is kept by a man named MrJ Joseph Hayes, and his mill premises are the centre of trade for a large district, people coming and going there continuously; in fact the chief and only business centre for a considerable area around, and the location of the post office at the mill premises will be a public convenience, while the present location is an inconvenience.
It will he necessary to have the post office maintained at Mr. Hayes', which is on the mill premises, and this will involve his being appointed postmaster, and I strongly urge this being done at once as essential in the public interest.
It would be impossible for Mr. Poirier, the present postmaster, to continue to discharge

the duties if the office is transferred to the mill premises, so that the transfer involves a change of postmaster, and there is no other way by which public convenience can be accomplished than by transferring the office as above mentioned to the locality referred to and the appointment of Mr. Joseph Hayes as postmaster.
*	Yours very truly,
W. L. B. iFauvel.
On the present Administration attaining power in 1911, the Rev. J. Prout, who is still in charge of the congregation in Shiga-wake, wrote a letter to the Postmaster General, which reads as follows:
Shigawake, Nov. 15, 1911.
!My dear Sir.-It is reported that the post office at .Shigawake is likely to be removed to some other point. Of course it .may only be a report. I should be sorry if such were the case. The office is now central, well-kept and the postmaster is obliging. I shall consider it a favour to let me hear from you. I shall treat this matter strictly confidential.
Yours truly,
(Rev.) J. Prout.
The Postmaster General on 18th of November, wrote the following letter in reply.
I am in receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, stating that you understand there is a question of a change in the site and postmastership of Shigawake, Que., and expressing satisfaction with the present site and management of that office, and, in reply, beg to state that your representations in the matter will receive careful consideration.
Several letters seem to have been addressed to the Postmaster General by Mr. Mousseau and other Conservatives in the district asking that Mr. LeGallais be dismissed, and that Mr. Poirier be reinstated. This seems to have been done, notwithstanding the protest of the reverend gentleman whom I have mentioned. I will read the protest addressed by him to the Prime Minister:
Saint Paul's Episcopal Parsonage,
Shigawake, Bonaventure county, P.Q., March 3, 1913.
To the Right Hon. R. L. Borden,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Out.
Dear Sir,-I have for some time now been *writing my Conservative friends to try and get the present post office in Shigawake moved to a more central place so that the demands of the public here might be satisfied, but as yet -the only satisfaction that I can get is a letter from the Post Office Department that the office has gone back to the holder of it in 1896, who lives remote from the centre, and who lost it in that year on this very account. I then went to Mr. Jos. Hayes and later to Mr. J. A. LeGallais, who kept the best post office that ever was in -Shigawake, and where the public got -the best of satisfaction, but, as, unfortunately, the post office seems to go with the spoils of war, Mr. LeGallais lost it.
and that not because be canvassed, but -because he was a Liberal. The result has been that ever since the public have suffered from, want of -proper shelter on account of the waiting-room having no -handle or lock, and, from cold for want of a stove, from fatigue from travelling too far for their mail, and from carelessness oh account of the postmaster frequently making all sorts of -mistakes. Recently I mailed a letter to Mrs. Jane Vi-bert and had same properly stamped and addressed to 816 Ames street, Saginaw, Mich., and the same night got- the same letter returned in my mail, without it having left the office. Again I am frequently given mail addressed to a Mr. Vautier here, and the other day Mr. Vautier mailed a letter to a Mr. Vautier in Boston, Mass., properly stamped and addressed, and the same *was given to me in -my mail without it having left the office. Again, till I corrected the post office people, they would not give me a money order for any sum less than $1, but wanted to issue postal notes, and the other day gave a postal note to our maid and made it payable in Jersey, Eng. On Sunday, 2nd, I supposed that I had obtained all my mail, but this a.m. got some that bad not been given me. This is of frequent occurrence. I know of several others who have complained about this same thing and earnestly hope that our present Government will comply with the manifest wishes of the people and place the office in the centre of -Shigawake.	-
Mr. J. A. LeGallais -was and is still a most respected merchant of the place. Mr. Jas. Poirier is a sewing machine agent and has to keep the office in the manner above stated as he has no store. I have a congregation of 409 souls here, the only clergyman living in the place, and the only one with a church in the -place, -the Roman Catholic -being at Stt Godfroy, and I think it only right, under these circumstances, that the voice of the people as expressed through my letters to the department, be given some attention, and the office returned to the centre and preferably to Mr. J. A. LeGallais, but if not to him,1 then I am -prepared to -recommend some other.
The Government will have all to gain and nought to lose by complying with this re-* quest.
Trusting I may be favoured with a favourable answer.
I have the honour to be,
Yours sincerely,
(Rev.) A. J. Vi-bert,
Church of England clergyman in charge of Shigawake and Hopetown.
These appeals were made in May. Mr. Le Gallais has given satisfaction, even Mr. Thos. Crockett, a former opponent of mine, appealed to the Postmaster General in favour of this recommendation, but to no effect. The Postmaster General followed the recommendation of Mr. Mousseau, who is acting with a view to helping the Conservative party, and the appointment of Mr. Poirier was made. His office is outside the village, and it has given great dissatisfaction. The result there is an evidence of the evil effects of making changes in post offices for political purposes. I have

not the patience nor would I be warranted in troubling the House with the numerous instances I have before me of dismissals of all kinds, but I would like to give one other dismissal, at St. Charles de Caplin, in spite of the protest of the parish priest and the great bulk of the people using the post office. In all of these dismissals the Postmaster General seems to have taken no account of the representations made by the clergy of the county.
These gentlemen are not partisans, and are speaking in the interest of the public I am sorry that the .Postmaster General followed the advice of Mr. Mousseau and gave the spoils to the friends of the party instead of following the advice of these gentlemen. Mr. Theophile Poirier, the postmaster, was dismissed in 1897. There was no evidence given. I have a personal recollection of having taken part in the election at that time. This man was dismissed for alleged political partisanship. When the Conservative Government came into power in September, 1911, an application was made by Mr. Robertson, of New Richmond, a strong Conservative, to reinstate Mr. Poirier. A letter was sent to Mr. Mousseau, and Mr. Mousseau agreed with the recommendation. The Postmaster General, ox one of his officials acting under him, gave instructions to [DOT] dismiss Mr. Arsenault and to appoint Mr. Poirier. The house of Poirier was no longer in the centre of the parish, it was quite a long distance from the church and at once there was a strong protest against that appointment, because it would put the whole parish to great inconvenience. A petition was sent to the Postmaster General, signed by the Reverend Mr. de Champlain and by practically all those using the office, protesting against the change. I shall not read the correspondence. The gist of it was that Arseneau had given good satisfaction, he had lately erected a post office building on the highway, and the office was situated close to the church. The removal of the office to Poirier's residence would not be at all satisfactory. The department, after a great deal of correspondence, decided to bring back the post office to the church and they appointed a new postmaster, Mr. L. Z. Leclaire. Leclaire's office was to be named St. Charles de Caplan, and Poirier's office should be given another name. The result was that Leclaire finally secured the name of St. Charles de- Caplan *and the other office was given the name of Mousseau. But there was already a post office of that name in Soulanges county and, therefore, this comedy of errors had to be re-enacted with the result that there is a second post office within a mile of that with the name of Mousseauville, and I do not suppose that Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).
there is one person in the province of Quebec who would address any person living in St. Charles de Caplan as living at Mousseauville. The result is that the whole post office business has gone back to the church and the post office of Leclaire. Arsenault . who gave satisfaction has been dismissed and Mr. Mousseau has had his say. That is another instance of the unsatisfactory result of changes made for political purposes. In the parish of Avignon the postmaster was dismissed for the reinstatement of the former postmaster. The former postmaster was Octave Martin. Mr. Octave Martin was reinstated in October or November, 1912, but I understand that Octave Martin never attended to the post office at all, but that the post office was kept in the store of Blanquiere & Arsenault. The result is that lately I put a question >or two on the Order Paper and this probably attracted attention to the state of affairs, that Octave Martin, although postmaster, gave no attention to the post office which was in the store of another firm. The result was that Poirier, who had given great satisfaction to the whole parish, whose house is alongside the church, has been dismissed and a new postmaster has been appointed. In this instance I do not think that Mousseau's recommendation was taken into account 'because I understand that lately the patronage has passed into the hands of Mr. D. Champoux, of Campbellton, wbo was chosen at a meeting and who has come here on many occasions in connection with a local railway and with public works. I think this change was made on his recommendation.
In the parish of Bonaventure, the largest in the constituency, Charles Forest was dismissed and replaced by Firmin Poirier. Forest had been brought up in the post office. His father was postmaster at Bonaventure river for forty years and, this old man having retired, I had Charles Forest appointed at the request of Father Gravel parish priest, and with the practically unanimous support of the whole parish. I have here a petition -stating that Forest was the ideal postmaster of the locality. He has been brought up in the post office, as I said, he knew all the people, had given- eminent satisfaction to everybody.
He was dismissed simply because one night he met a fellow parishioner, and, talking about the elections, expressed the opinion that Mr. Marcil would he elected, or something to that effect. I am sorry to say that the dismissal has caused very general dissatisfaction even among Conservatives. At Caplin River there was an extraordinary state of affairs. Mr. Xavier Babin was dismissed and Mr. Denis Babin was appointed in his place. The ground of dismissal was alleged partisanship. Three recommendations were made by three former

opponents of my own, and a battle royal took place. Finally Mr. Mousseau gained the day. Mr. Babin was appointed because he had given more faithful service to the Conservative party than the two others. A protest has been sent by the Conservative electors, members of Le Comite de St. Charles de Caplan to the hon. Postmaster General against the appointment of Mr. Babin, and the result is that the change has caused general dissatisfaction in that locality, whereas the man who held the position before, gave complete satisfaction. I might mention one or two more cases. I understand that some of the appointments that were proposed have not been made. I would like to refer to St. Omer, one of the new parishes in the county. The postmaster in St. Omer, was Mr. Isidore Landry. After the hon. Postmaster General came into office, a communication was sent to him by the parish priest, the Rev. L. P. Chenard. It was signed by a number of people, and I would like to read it. I think their recommendation should have been followed. The letter was as follows:
To the Honourable L. P. Pelletier, Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
Honourable Sir,-The undersigned humbly set forth:
1.	That it is asked that the St. Omer post office be removed from the residence of Hr. Isidore Landry.
2.	That the said Isidore Landry has kept that post office for ten years.
3.	That no complaint has been laid, but on the contrary the public is well satisfied with the manner the office is kept and with the services of the postmaster.
4.	That the office is situated near the railway station and consequently centrally located.
5.	That your petitioners ask that the office shall not be removed.
6.	And that the said Isidore Landry be kept as postmaster as long as he gives satisfaction to everybody.
And your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Isidore Landry was dismissed to make room for Mr. Arseneau. The latter had been postmaster for a number of years up to the time he was appointed Crown lands agent for the province of Quebec. The department contended that it-was not in the public interest that a postmaster should hold a federal and a provincial position at the same time, and Mr. Arseneau was asked to resign, and he was removed from office on that ground. Subsequently, having been removed frcm the provincial office, he naturally applied to get back his post office, and the post office has been given to him not because of any particular complaint against Mr. Landry, "but because Mr. Arseneau had been the Conservative candidate in the county, had been a former postmaster, and was recommended by his political friends. I have not a word to say against Mr. Arseneau. He is a respectable
man, a man of high standing in the community, but he is pretty well up in years, and I know that if the Postmaster General's inspectors inquired as to how this post office was being conducted now, and as to how it was conducted by Mr. Landry, they would find it was more satisfactory under the old system than at present. There are any number of other cases. Apparently no one escaped. Wherever it was possible to make a dismissal, it was made, and whenever the appointment of a Conservative could be made it was made, and entirely for political services. There is the case of Robitaille in the same constituency. The post office there was formerly occupied by Mr. Edouard Quinn, a very respectable old gentleman, who gave satisfaction to the department and to the locality. A letter enclosing a blank form was sent to him, stating that certain charges had been made against him, and asking him to fill up the form and to make an affidavit that he had taken no part in the election. He made a statement before a justice of the peace, but Mr. Dagneau, a most active partizan, was appointed postmaster in his place. Since his appointment Mr. Dagneau has continued to look after the distribution of the patronage throughout the constituency. It was stated to me in a letter that the postmaster was really Mr. Joseph Dagneau, a brother of the man said to have been appointed. Mr. Quinn was a very deserving postmaster who gave complete satisfaction to the department and to the locality. He asked for an investigation, but it was refused. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the other cases. I will merely name some of the places where charges have been, made. At Gravel Mr. F. J. Bujold was dismissed for alleged partisanship and Mr. Vincent Bujold was appointed. At Little Cascape-dia John B. Cyr was dismissed for alleged political partisanship, and Felix Arsenault was appointed. At Petit Bonaventure Joseph Belanger was dismissed for alleged political partisanship, and John Gallagher was appointed; at St. Godfrey, Laurent Huard was dismissed; and at New Richmond Centre a change was also made and the department gave the appointment to the old postmaster. I shall not say any more than merely express the regret that I feel that the Postmaster General, in making these various changes, seems to have followed the old political methods. I am sorry that the Postmaster General did not consider the interests of the service rather than the political interests of his party. I think the Postmaster General -will do well in future, whenever it is possible, to consider the public interest-the interest of the majority of the people who are served by the post office-Tather than the political interests of his party, and that he should also give consideration to

the question whether the postmaster ;has performed his duties satisfactorily or not. A warning might be appropriate to any person who has been found to have participated in politics, but who has given good service, such as Mr. Forest, of Bonaventure, because you have the evidence of the parish priest and the great hulk of the people interested declaring that he was the most competent man who had ever kept this office. Yet, upon the mere ipsi dixit of a political worker, this man is dismissed, and you appoint a new postmaster without knowing anything as to what his qualifications are. In pursuing this course you are making a great deal of trouble for yourself, as is evidenced in the case of St. Charles de Caplan. The result is that everyone who has been dismissed becomes aggravated in his feelings against the Government of the day, and numerous applicants for the vacant office have to be dealt with. One man is appointed, and a dozen are dissatisfied. The party in power loses more than it gains by the change, whereas we get more partisans in the next election. Both political parties would do well, unless it is a flagrant case, to consider first the public interest, guided by a reasonable opinion of the people of the locality.


David Bradley Neely: There are one or two
matters that I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier). I do not think I have any fault to find with the Postmaster General for dismissing public servants, who, after thorough and fair investigation, have been convicted of active political partisanship. There may be faults in the system, but I am not going to offer any criticism of the Postmaster General, or the head of any other department, who takes the ground that a man who has been an active partisan while holding a public office, should, after full investigation, be dismissed. But there are instances where the partisan doctrine is carried to a very great extreme, and I have one or two of these instances in connection with the administration of the Post Office Department by the present head of the department that I want to bring to his notice at the present moment. I think I can prove that in these instances the Postmaster General went very far afield to show that his appointments, and the administration of his department, were far' more in the interest of the party to which he belongs than in the interest of the public whom the Post Office Department is supposed to serve.
A little over a year ago, in the little village named Wakaw, in my constituency, which is on a new railway being built M. MAIfCIL (Bonarenture).
from Young, on the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific to Prince Albert, a change of postmasters was considered desirable. It was brought to the attention of the Postmaster General that an appointment should be made, a.s the situation of the old postoffice was some distance out of the village, and it was necessary in the interest of the public that the post office should be moved into the village and another person appointed as postmaster. On the 21st February, 1912, a widow woman, who was a restaurant or boarding-house keeper, an estimable person, who was supporting a small family by her own efforts, and an lived in this village, made application to the Postmaster General to be appointed as postmistress. Accompanying her Tequest was a petition of fifty-one residents, which number, in that place, practically included all the residents, comprising the reeve, or mayor, or overseer, the president of the board of trade, the banker and the business men of the place. This application was made in February, 1912. According to the custom of the department, the gentleman who was the Conservative candidate in the last election in that constituency was appealed to for a recommendation. I refer to Mr. Harvey Hearn, a lawyer of the village of Wadena, in the constituency of Humboldt. Mr. Hearn was informed of Mrs. Gould's request, and of the petition which had been sent in her favour. The minister will have no trouble in looking up the facts in connection with this matter, because, pursuant to an Order of the Senate, dated February 12, 1913, a return was brought down of all papers, telegrams, petitions, letters and other documents in the case, and it is from that return that I take the information which I have at the present time, along with complaints that I received last year from the residents of the place in reference to the appointment. It seems however, that Mr. Hearn changed his mind very shortly after he had recommended Mrs. Gould by his letter of April 11, 1912. He had received some new light on the situation in this village, and on the 29th April he wrote recommending the appointment of a man by the name of McCloskey, who was a school teacher some few miles out of Wakaw, but who, it was understood, was going to live in that village. Within two or three weeks, this Mr. Hearn changed his mind about his recommendation of Mrs. Gould, and decided to recommend this man by the name of McCloskey. In a very short time the citizens of the village became aware of this prospective change. On May 21, 1912, the board of trade sent in a very strong protest against the appointment of Mr. McCloskey as not being a fit person for the position of postmaster. Immediately after that, the de-

partment wired the inspector to suspend the appointment of Mr. MeCloskey until an investigation could be made as to his fitness for office. On the 29th of May the department wrote Mr. Hearn, the Conservative candidate in the last election in that constituency, notifying him of the protest of the board of trade. On the 21st of May, a petition signed by practically all the citizens of the village, was sent to the department, protesting against Mr. Mc-Closkey's appointment. Following the instructions of the Postmaster General, the inspector at Saskatoon investigated the matter. On the file is the reply from the assistant to the inspector at Saskatoon, in which he declared that very serious charges of a personal nature, affecting Mr. Me-Cioskey's conduct when teaching in a school in the neighbourhood and as to his personal conduct in and around the village during his term of residence there, had been made to the inspector by letter and otherwise by the people of the village. The department notified Mr. Hearn of the inspector's report and of the protests of the_ citizens. On the 15th of June another petition was sent in for the appointment of Mrs. Gould.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understand that the Postmaster General is not anxious to go on with these estimates at the present moment. If that is the case, I can defer any remarks I have to make.	-


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am informed that the Postmaster General is not feeling too well. We might perhaps adjourn the consideration of his estimates; take up the Department of Railways, and I presume by tomorrow my hon. friend will be able to go on with his estimates.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Perhaps to-morrow
afternoon or evening. I have been somewhat under the weather for a few days.


George Perry Graham: We are glad to allow the Postmaster General to go home. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) will not be here to-morrow. If the estimates go on to-morrow, we can keep an item so that he can make his remarks.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Certainly.


George Perry Graham: With the consent of the committee we might say that civil government estimates are passed, with the understanding that we earn discuss them again.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am quite willing that the discussion should go on later. I must thank my hon. friends opposite for their consideration.
The hon. member for Rouville has asked several times about the Parcel Post Bill. If, as I understand it, the matter is not controversial, I am prepared to put this Bill through at any time. To-night, newspapers on both sides of politics in Ottawa,
say that the Bill has disappeared from the Order Paper. If they will look at Order Vo. 21, they will see that the Bill has not disappeared. Any controversial Bill, which would be likely to keep us here much longer, although we enjoy the company of our hon. friends, would have to be discarded, but anything not controversial-


Rodolphe Lemieux: We would have to read the Bill first.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am sure my hon. friends will have plenty of time to read the Bill.


Georges Henri Boivin: Can the hon. Postmaster General let us see the Bill ? At present we cannot say whether it is controversial or not.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Bill has been
printed for fifteen days or three weeks and I think my hon. friends will find it on their files. It is Bill No. 210.
Railways and Canals-capital-Trent canal construction, $1,000,000.


George Perry Graham: When the House rose at six o'clock, several hon. members had expressed their views on this waterway. My hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) rather thought the work had not been progressing with sufficient rapidity. It is perhaps the oldest work in Canada that has been kept almost continuously under construction. I think he will admit that during the last two or three years a great deal of work has been done in developing this waterway. He will find that, in the Department of Railways and Canals, resolutions of the board of trade and the city-council of Peterborough, as well as other councils on the line of the canal, speaking very favourably of the progress of the work. Now, I think a wrong impression was left on the minds of some hon. gentlemen as to the canal not being 'opened up '-that being the term used. It is true, the canal is not yet completed to either lake Ontario or Georgian bay, but it has been open for navigation for many years. One can take a steamer at Peterborough and go to any point on lake Simcoe. I agree with my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) that this is a very beautiful route, in fact I think I am safe in saying that on this continent there is no more picturesque route than this Trent canal. I have made the trip, and know whereof I speak. It is really an eyeopener to one who makes it for the first time. Lake after lake is crossed and the most beautiful scenery brought into view, scenery that has lost none of its natural charm. I advise the members of this House and the people of Canada and elsewhere, if they want a really beautiful and rest-giving trip to

take this tour from Peterborough through to lake Simcoe.
A good many questions were asked today about the land damages. These come about in this way: Dams have to be constructed for the conservation of the water, and naturally, where the waters are raised, lands are overflowed . It takes a long time to get all these claims settled, especially when, as the work proceeds and other dams are built, new claims arise. It is not an easy matter to deal with them, all- it is a task that is perhaps not so difficult as tedious. I believe about $274,000 has been spent in land damages, and it will be some time before these cases are all concluded. Originally the dams on this system belonged to and were maintained by the Ontario Government to facilitate the operations of lumbermen. The provincial government collected timber dues, and in return, maintained dams that the lumbermen might have water to float their logs. Under an arrangement, made I think, in 1908, these dams were transferred to the Dominion authority, and the Dominion since that time has proceeded with the work, and has constructed good dams and bridges as well as building the canal. A question of jurisdiction arose between the provincial authorities and the Dominion. When my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, who is now with us, was against us on this matter- when he was in the Ontario Government- he with his colleagues rather maintained that these water-powers and the waters on this route belonged to the provincial government, and that the Dominion should hand over to the province the leases made for water-power. That is largely a legal question. I maintained on behalf of the Dominion Government that the ownership of these water-powers was vested in the federal authority and proceeded on that line. Certain arrangements were made with a company to develop power along the Trent system. There were a great many smaller leaseholders, some of the original patents having been granted a century or so ago, and arrangements had to be made with these holders, which arrangements were amicably made in most cases. The ownership was thus vested in the company, which proceeded to develop the power. I think the result of that was good, as along that line and within striking distance of it, very cheap power was obtained and is being obtained. Hon. members who were in the House then will recall that it was in connection with this power that the first Act was introduced to give the Railway Commissioners the power to regulate rates. I believe we should not have had the HydroElectric so early in eastern Ontario if we had not developed that power. However that might be controversial, and I am not seeking to raise any controversy now.
Mr. GRAHAM.
Could the minister tell us what horse-poweiv has been developed along the Trent canal? Could he tell us also how many towns are being served by the Seymour Power Company? Thirdly, have arrangements been made with the manufacturers in the town of Campbellford, which arrangements were under way, I think, at the time of the change of government? Fourthly, what is the case that was stated to the Exchequer Court? I might explain that in order to settle the difference between the provincial and the federal authority as to the proprietorship of the water-powers along the canal a case has been submitted to the Exchequer Court.


Francis Cochrane: I think the province
of Ontario has filed a case, but no answer has been put in yet.


George Perry Graham: They have asked for a
fiat?


Francis Cochrane: Yes. It would not be for the Trent alone. The position taken by the Ontario Government, as I understand it, is that the water belongs to the province, the federal authority having the right to control it for navigation purposes; -that before it goes into the canal and after it flows out, whether through the mouth or otherwise, it belongs to the province.


George Perry Graham: The case would be a
general cne?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, to settle the question forever.


George Perry Graham: I think that when the
hon. minister's legal branch, or the Justice Department, take up the preparation of their reply, they will find that there are special circumstances connected with the Trent and special Acts that do not apply perhaps to any other stream in Ontario. I assume that my hon. friend will put in the strongest case he can on behalf [DOT] of the federal authority


Francis Cochrane: I think yoii can depend on the Justice Department in such a matter.


George Perry Graham: Because my own view- of course this is a legal matter on which I do not speak with authority-is that the province has no good ground so far as the Trent is concerned, whatever may be the truth about other waters. Can the minister give me the other information I asked for?


Francis Cochrane: I have no memorandum before me of the. number of towns served by the Seymour Power Company or how much power is developed. The Campbellford situation has not yet been cleaned up. I went there last year and tried to make a settlement but I thought * they wanted too much.


George Perry Graham: I thought that myself.


Francis Cochrane: What will be done, I do not know, but I will try to make a settlement. In reference to the Trent, whatever may be the decision of the court, the Seymour Power Company, which has vested interests there, must be protected, and I think the Government should see that it is protected.


George Perry Graham: I think that one large
insurance company has invested quite a large sum of money in that locality. I do not think anything should be done to deprive them of their vested rights, but I have strong views on the rights of the Dominion, particularly on that route. I shall be quite satisfied if my hon. friend will get me that information.


Francis Cochrane: I will, with pleasure.


John Hampden Burnham: As one of the humble
members from the Trent district, I have been reproached for not giving the Opposition full credit for the efforts they have made on behalf of the Trent canal. Let me say that I thoroughly appreciate, and we all thoroughly appreciate, the energetic efforts made by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) and those who assisted him in the matter, and that we are very grateful indeed for the thorough appreciation he has shown of all aspects of the Trent Valley canal.


Mr. HUGHES (Minister of (Militia):: I also desire to add a word along that line. For ten or eleven long years after the Liberal party came into office, not very much was done on the canal, but I want to compliment the hon. member for South Renfrew for what he did, after he took hold of matters, to pass the work on as rapidly as he could.


Mr. GERMAN:: In reference to the
Welland canal, has there been a final decision reached as to the crossing of the Welland river by the canal at the town of Welland? Are the canal and the river to be brought to the same level, or is the canal to be carried over the river, or the river under the canal?


Francis Cochrane: The engineers recommend turning the river into the canal. If that be done, while I do not think we are legally bound to help the different towns along the route, I think we would do so. I think we would save money, and help the towns out too, by bringing the water supply from the lake. It would be a long route, but I think we can do it and save money.


William Manley German: You will without doubt have a better canal by doing it that way. I am quite willing to accept, as I am sure the minister will accept, the opinion of the
engineers. Has there been a final decision arrived at?


Francis Cochrane: We want to hear from the towns before we make a final decision, although it is not a matter that must be settled before we call for tenders.


William Manley German: Do I understand that
tenders will be advertised for the carrying on of the work?


Francis Cochrane: The advertisements
will be out by Monday.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I wish to remind the minister of the St. Peter's canal. This is . the only canal we have in the maritime provinces, and although it is not very large, to us^ in the island of Cape Breton it is a very important one. The minister is aware that a certain amount of money was set apart two years ago for the enlargement of the St. Peter's canal. The improvement and enlargement of the canal is particularly important for shipping from east to west, that is from the Bras d'Or lakes and from the coal mines in the eastern part of the island. I understand that the work is proceeding very slowly, and I would like to find out from the minister how much time the contractor still has. for its completion, and what are the prospects of finishing the work within the time mentioned in the contract. If itis not to be finished within the time mentioned in the contract, when may we hope that it will be completed?
I wish to urge again upon the minister the necessity of having that work completed at the earliest possible time. We have two large quarries on the Bras d'Or lake, and the product of those quarries would go through the canal if it were sufficiently large to accommodate the vessels. I understand that when the canal is completed it will be large enough to allow these vessels to go through, but in its present condition, they cannot do so. My hon. friend will therefore understand that the prompt completion of this work is highlv important.


Francis Cochrane: The contractor was to have finished the work by next year, but the engineer says he does not think it will be completed until the spring of 1915. I will, however, take note of what the hon. member says, and endeavour to bring the work to completion at as early a date as possible.


George Perry Graham: Can my hon. friend give me any idea as to the route which has been decided on for the Welland canal?


Francis Cochrane: The route will follow the valley of Ten Mile creek from lake Ontario, crossing the present canal below lock No. 11 at the level which now exists there, the rise having been effected* by three isolated locks with suitable pondage

areas intervening. This level is carried through to the foot of the escapement below Thorold, which is overcome by three locks in flight and a single lock on the upper level, in the town of Xnorold. Beyondj Thorold the level of low water in lake Erie will be held to Port Colborne, the present canal route being generally followed except between Port Robinson and Welland where it is proposed to utilize the Welland river and at a noint near Humberstone wheTe the present sharp bend will be done away with by a cut-off. The guard lock will 'be built in this cut-off and will he utilized to protect the canal from high water of lake Erie.


George Perry Graham: Will there be any further question as to the lowering of the level of the water of lake Erie?


Francis Cochrane: No.


George Perry Graham: How much of the old canal is being used?


Francis Cochrane: Nineteen miles out of the twenty-seven.


George Perry Graham: How many locks will there be in the whole system? We have now twenty-seven.


Francis Cochrane: We w'ill have seven.


George Perry Graham: That will be a vast improvement. By this route we have none of those immense looks that were spoken of?


Francis Cochrane: Each one will be
forty-six and a half feet.


George Perry Graham: How long, how wide, and how deep will they be?


Francis Cochrane: Eight hundred feet clear of openings, eighty feet wide and with thirty feet depth on the sills.


George Perry Graham: The locks will be built for thirty feet, but the canal will not be built for thirty feet at present?


Francis Cochrane: No, it would be no use doing that until the Sault is built to a depth of thirty feet.


George Perry Graham: The scheme will be to build the locks eight hundred feet by eighty feet with capacity for thirty feet draft, but the canal at present will not be built with a draft of thirty feet. Later on, if it is thought desirable to increase the depth to thirty feet, the canal can be built to that depth without any new locks. Thirty feet on the sills will take a steamer that will draw a little more than that. You can see that at the Sault any day. Could my hon. friend tell me what his estimate is for the completion of the canal?


Francis Cochrane: 

Mr. COCHRANE.


George Perry Graham: Have the engineers given a fairly approximate estimate of the time it will take to complete it?


Francis Cochrane: Five years.


George Perry Graham: It will have to go fairly rapidly. $2,000,000 would only be $10,000,000 expended in five years.


Francis Cochrane: I thought that would be all we would get out this year.


George Perry Graham: Where are the contracts to be given out this year, and what are they for?


Francis Cochrane: They will start in
at lake Ontario, and we will advertise section after section so as to have them come in a little later on.


William Manley German: Why could not all tire sections be advertised together?


Francis Cochrane: Not at once, we will have section 1 advertised now and then section 2, and so on, so that contractors if they do not get one contract will have a chance at the others.


William Manley German: The intention is to advertise section 1 at present?	.


Kenneth Judson Cochrane: The others will come in a few days after.


William Manley German: The minister suggested
that there would probably be a conference with the various municipalities who are using water at present from the canal. That would mean Welland, Thorold, Merri-ton, and St. Catherines. I presume there will be a conference as to the proportionate part of the cost which each of these municipalities should pay to procure fresh water from lake Erie in the construction of the large pipe line contemplated.


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


William Manley German: And if that conference
does result in a satisfactory arrangement between the department and these municipalities you will put the canal and the river on the same level from Welland to Port. Robinson, but assuming that those conferences do not come to a satisfactory conclusion?


Francis Cochrane: I do not think we are legally bound to do it. I think it would be better for the towns, they would get far better water than they are getting out of the canals.


William Manley German: The towns will not want to pay very much.


Francis Cochrane: Oh yes.
Mr. 'GERMAN:	There will be an election on before the canal is built and there is a lot of difficulty ahead. I do not want to say anything to criticize the problem a

bit and anything I can do to help the minister I shall do [DOT]with great pleasure


Francis Cochrane: Thank you.


William Manley German: -and take my share of the responsibility of getting it settled up because I know the difficulty in the situation. I want to see it settled to the best advantage of the locality and of the department and, as far as I can aid in getting it settled without difficulty, I will certainly use my best endeavours to do so.


George Perry Graham: I suppose that damming the river will create quite a lot of land damages.


Francis Cochrane: Quite a bit I suppose.


George Perry Graham: Has the minister
thought about how much water power there is there now and how much there will be when the new canal is constructed?


Francis Cochrane: I do not know that
we should do much in water-power in the new canal. We are building that canal for navigation and while we could probably make some money out of it, I think we would certainly interfere with the effectiveness of the canal and navigation if we did. I cannot give the amount of water-power there because I never had it figured out, and there are so many old leases that you cannot do much with unless you expropriate them.


George Perry Graham: They are hoary with age and have antiquated histories. They were got for nothing in the first place. It is hard work to get the money out of them. The powers on the old Weliand canal will-not be particularly affected but, as the minister has very rightly said, the water-power must be kept secondary to the navigation. We hear a great deal of discussion in the House about how much water-power will be developed on this or that Government undertaking. It is very easy to practically spoil the value of a large public expenditure in endeavouring to get a comparatively small income, because once the current in a canal exceeds a certain speed you very rnuoh interfere with navigation. I would take the view that the minister does; I would make no promise at all about waterpower and then I would see that the water-powers were used sparingly so as not to interfere with navigation.


John Howard Sinclair: Everyone is pleased that the minister is building for the future and that the locks will be of sufficient length to allow large ships to pass up. I understand that the new locks on the canal will be 800 feet.


Francis Cochrane: That is, there will be room for a boat 800 feet long.


John Howard Sinclair: Must we wait until the whole -work is completed before we can get a boat of that length through the locks? I understand that at present no ship longer than 270 odd feet can pass.


Francis Cochrane: We will have to wait until the canal is finished.
Enlarging Port Colborne elevator, $150,000.


William Manley German: Will $150,000 build the
addition to the elevator and make it the size it was originally intended to be?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, it will bring the capacity up to 2,000,000 bushels. The foundation was in before.


William Manley German: Will it be completed this summer, and be ready for the fall?


Francis Cochrane: It will be ready for the fall grain.


George Perry Graham: Has it been a success? How much grain has gone through?


Francis Cochrane: It is a success all
right. Last year it was $18,000 ahead, I think, and this year it is $22,000 ahead.


George Perry Graham: How many bushels of
grain went through?


Francis Cochrane: Up to the 31st of October, 1912, the elevator handled 9,653,343 bushels, and for the year 1911, from January 1 to December 31, it handled
7,000,000 bushels. I think we should have more elevator room at Montreal. I do not think we have enough to keep boats loading and trains unloading quickly.


George Perry Graham: That is evident.


William Manley German: Should the harbour faciE ities in Montreal not be increased too?


Francis Cochrane: They have done good work in the past and they are doing good work now, but I feel we ought to have the elevator room increased very much.


William Manley German: And more harbour space?


Francis Cochrane: They will have room for 6,000,000 bushels in Montreal this year, which is a great deal more than they have had hitherto.


Frank Oliver: Of what use in the transportation of grain was this elevator at Port Colborne?


Francis Cochrane: The larger boats that could not go through the canal unloaded there.


Frank Oliver: Was that done with the whole of the grain?


Francis Cochrane: Not all, some of the boats went through all the way.


Frank Oliver: Was it a case of the elevator being used to discharge the big vessels so that smaller vessels could take the

grain from that elevator to Montreal, or was there some lightering of some of the big vessels going through the canal?


Francis Cochrane: Both.


William Manley German: I think a few minutes
would not be 'badly spent discussing the question that the hon. member for Edmonton has suggested. Originally it was supposed that the Welland canal would not be enlarged and that the large boats would discharge their cargo at Bort Colbome, and that from Port Coiborne to Montreal there would be a line of barges or boats of full canal size, carrying the grain from PoTt Colbome to Montreal. At one tim&I thought that that was a feasible proposition, and I am not so certain now that it is not. However, it was thought advisable to enlarge the Welland canal, thereby allowing the large upper lake freighters, carrying 300,000 bushels of wheat, to go through the Welland canal, to pass as faT down as Prescott and to discharge their cargo there, the wheat being carried in barges from that point to Montreal. The Welland canal project having been embarked upon, I have been of opinion, and am still, that the Government should proceed to enlarge the St. Lawrence route from Prescott to Montreal, and make the depth thirty feet from Port Arthur^ to Montreal, so as to allow a ship carrying
300,000	bushels of wheat to load her cargo at Port Arthur and discharge it in Liverpool as she could do ii the whole canal system along the St. Lawrence route were completed. I believe it would be a scheme worthy of the capability of the Minister of Railways, and one that would redound to the credit of Canada. I for one would like to see that proposition adopted and carried out. During the recess the minister with his engineers, should consider whether or not they should not begin at once to enlarge the St. Lawrence route and make it equal in depth to the Welland canal so that you would have thirty feet all the way.


Mr BENNETT:: Does my hon. friend
anticipate that it will ever pay any vessel to carry 300,000 bushels of gram to Liverpool in competition with an ocean liner which would have its mail subvention, its passenger list, a large amount of high priced freight and which would practically carry grain as ballast?


William Manley German: I really cannot answer my hon. friend from East Simcoe because I 'am not sufficiently conversant with the matter. I would put the route from the great lakes to the Atlantic ocean in a position to alloiv them to do so if they wanted to. If it would not be profitable they would not do it but they could go to Montreal, discharge their cargo and return and probably that would be as much as they
would do. I doubt very much if oceangoing vessels would come into fresh water or if fresh water vessels would go into salt water. But you should provide a thirty-foot channel from the great lakes to Montreal .


Francis Cochrane: The department has
given a good deal of attention to this question already. It is a question affecting international waters and therefore before any thing is done we will have to take it up with the Government of the United States.


Frank Oliver: In this matter of transportation, as in other matters, the less a man knows about it the more fluently he is able to talk about it. I do not know very much about it but I am going to put a question to the minister in connection with this large expenditure and I want to be understood as not objecting to it because it is large. All I want to know is that it will be effective. As you make your vessels larger, does it not follow that any delay of the ship, or any possible danger that may occux to her, militates against the use of the large vessel more than it does against a smaller vessel? Do you not lose, in the time you take to go through the twenty-seven locks of the Welland canal, so much in the holding of that expensive vessel that you do not make a gain in the carriage of the cargo in proportion to what you would make if it were open water?


Francis Cochrane: There are only seven locks in the new canal.


Frank Oliver: I will admit that is an advantage. When you get a 300,000 bushel vessel as against a 100,000 bushel vessel; with the larger amount of capital locked up in that vessel, the larger amount of running expenses and the risk of damage in going through the canal, is it not possible that you lose as much as you gain and that the results of the enlargment of this canal will not be in proportion to its cost? I do not wish to be understood as making a statement to that affect, but from having given a little istudy to these matters it strikes me that there is such a possibility and that it is a matter that should be considered. The benefit of a canal is where the canal is merely a short link between two long stretchts of navigation, such as the Suez, Panama and Sault canals; but where the canal is made up of a series of locks there is involved in its use a serious loss [DOT]of time and a risk of damage to the vessel that will very seriously decrease the value of water 'transportation'' by the large vessels.


Francis Cochrane: I do not profess to be an expert in transportation, hut the engineer tells me that the average travelling
Mr. OLIVER

speed of boats carrying 300,000 bushels of grain is about ten miles an hour. They will go through the seven locks in the canal in-ten hours, making about six miles an hour in doing so. I think, taking the overhead charges and everything, the
300,000	bushel vessel would beat any hundred thousand bushel vessel from Port Arthur down. A great deal of the expense that* these big boats sustain is entailed by lying at the dock by reason of their not being able to unload quickly enough.


George Perry Graham: There is a considerable difference of opinion as to the wisdom of making provision for heavy draught steamers. I had a man who was engaged in the carrying trade, and a very large grain dealer, on two occasions, perhaps three, demonstrate to me that it was cheaper, or fully as cheap, to bring grain to Prescott, or Kingston, in large lake vessels and reship it in smaller barges to Montreal than it would be for the larger vessels to go all the way through to Montreal. His statement was that you can take a series of barges and load them with grain at very small expense, that they hold a large amount of grain, that they can be operated cheaply, and that the larger vessel can return immediately and pick up its cargo in the cities along the lakes. A great deal of the cargo is taken from the larger cities to the West, and a large boat can get back very much more quickly by transferring its cargo to barges than if it went all the way through to Montreal and came back again. Sir AVilliam Van Horne gave the opinion at one time when he was discussing the Georgian Bay canal scheme, in which he took a very great interest, that a fourteen-foot channel for the Georgian Bay canal wrould be sufficient.


Frank Oliver: A barge canal?
Mr. GRAHAM A barge canal, and he contended that grain products could be transported _ as cheaply in these smaller barges as in larger vessels. There are many of the foremost experts on transportation who do not agree with these theories. It will take quite a bit of investigation, in so far as the deepening of the St. Lawrence canals is concerned, before the scheme is entered upon because there is such a variety of opinions as to the wisdom of enlarging the St. Lawrence canals. But there seems to be a general consensus of opinion that it is a wise thing to enlarge the Welland canal so as to bring lake navigation as close to Montreal as possible, because when you have enlarged the Welland canal you have nothing to interfere with the larger vessels going down to the head of the rapids.
Carillon and Grenville canal-lengthening . apron, Carillon dam, $12,000.


George Perry Graham: I think that it was here that a water power lease was given to a company a few years ago under the conditions that they should spend so much money within a given time. I think the rates were placed under the jurisdiction of the board of railway commissioners. Have they complied with the terms of their lease?


Francis Cochrane: They have developed a very small amount of power. They are transferring their lease to another company who want to take it up and develop a larger amount of power.


George Perry Graham: It will be a success shortly?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.
Cornwall canal, $56,400.


George Perry Graham: There was some question at one time as to the leasing of a certain increase of power to the Toronto Paper Mills at Cornwall. They proceeded to do some work themselves and the department did not approve of that work. Was that lease given ?


Francis Cochrane: There was no extension given. The development of water power there has affected the current.


George Perry Graham: They are using practically all the water power that can be used?


Francis Cochrane: That is right. It will not be increased.
Parran's Point canal-improving lower entrance, $22,000.


Francis Cochrane: This is for building an entrance at the lower end.


George Perry Graham: How much will it take to finish it ?


Francis Cochrane: This finishes it.


George Perry Graham: What is being built ?


Francis Cochrane: We are extending the pier.
Lachine canal-filling gaps in canal walls near Brewster's bridge, $17,000.


Francis Cochrane: Gap No. 1 is an entrance to the original Lachine canal which was closed in 1845. Gap No. 2 is the old abandoned slip. They are making the walls continuous.
Murray canal-removing high spots in canal and approaches, $1,000.


George Perry Graham: The Murray canal has had several wants. It needed better lighting. Has it got that ?


Francis Cochrane: Not yet.


George Perry Graham: Several	deputations
waited on the department at different



times, more particularly since the cement works and the quarries were there, asking that the canal be lighted, as they claimed they could not go through the canal at night with any load.


Francis Cochrane: I have not received any deputations.


George Perry Graham: Representations were
made to the Government that there were certain shoals or impediments at the east entrance that should be removed, and the Public Works Department was asked to do some dredging.


Francis Cochrane: I think some work has been done there.


George Perry Graham: If it has not been done,
I think it should be done. It is more necessary than the lighting.


Francis Cochrane: I will make a note of it.


Charles Murphy: Who is doing the work, and is it by contract ?


Francis Cochrane: Randolph McDonald Company, by contract.
Quebec canals, $12,100.


Francis Cochrane: This is the concrete facing in the dam at Valieyfield. There is a great leakage there at present. The dam is used by the power companies there and it holds up the levels of lake St. Francis.	.


Mr. ROBB:: The leakage is not only of considerable danger to property, as it may become greater, but a danger to the water system of Valieyfield. The main water-pipes of the city cross the dam, and the leakage has several times caused a break in the pipes. Where is this dredging to be done ?


Francis Cochrane: We are not doing any' dredging there. The dredging is at Lachine, Carillon and Grenville, St. Anne, and dredging the upper entrance to the Chambly canal.
Rapide Plat canal, $38,800.	.


George Perry Graham: What is this ?


Francis Cochrane: This is a contract you let.


George Perry Graham: Who are the contractors?


Francis Cochrane: Rogers, Miller & Sons, in 1911.


George Perry Graham: How is that work going on?


Francis Cochrane: This completes it.


George Perry Graham: What are they doing?


Francis Cochrane: Cutting a bend off and extending the lower pier.
Mr. GRAHAM.
Rideau canal-renewing swing bridge, Smiths Falls, $12,000.


Francis Cochrane: This is an exceedingly narrow bridge; we are widening it.


George Perry Graham: Smiths Falls has a grievance about a bridge. Not only do they want this bridge enlarged, but I think representatives of the town _ have been urging the department to build a bridge at a place higher up. The town is rather circumscribed by the railways coming around the north side, and the people are trying to get a bridge across the Rideau, hoping that the town will build up on the other side-in fact- it is said that it is building up there already, and residents on that side of the Rideau complain they cannot get to the town except by going around by this bridge which is being enlarged. Has the minister taken any steps in that matter?


Francis Cochrane: No conclusion has been reached. The bridge for which this estimate is intended is a dangerous one; it is a wonder that people have not been killed there before now.
Soulanges canal-electric motors for swing bridges, Cascade Point and Coteau Landing, $2,000.


George Perry Graham: Where do we get electric motors for swing bridges?


Francis Cochrane: Advertise for them
and get tenders.


William Manley German: As the engineer is present, I desire to -call attention to the bridge at Humberstone on the Welland canal, an exceedingly heavy bridge, which needs an electric motor. There is a motor at Welland and it works admirably, and the only other bridge on the Welland canal that I know of requiring a motor is this one at Humberstone. There is actual danger of serious accident on this bridge when there is a heavy wind. The men there have called my attention to it and I really think a motor should be provided.
St. Peter's canal-improvements, $200,000.


George Perry Graham: This is a comparatively small canal, and if I remember well, the old structures are pretty well worn out.


Francis Cochrane: That is true. The
old gates were almost unworkable. This work is going to take a little longer than the contract called for, but I think the contractor is making as good progress as is possible under the circumstances.


George Perry Graham: Who is the contractor?


Francis Cochrane: Weller, son of the
canal man at St. Catharines.


George Perry Graham: When will this work be completed?


Francis Cochrane: It was to have been
completed in 1914, but the engineer says the contractor can hardly do better than the spring of 1915.


George Perry Graham: Is the canal being used in the meantime?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, for smaller vessels, but a lot of larger vessels could use it to advantage if the work were completed. I will clear it up as fast as I can.
Welland canal-heavy repairs, $30,000.


George Perry Graham: What are these repairs?


Francis Cochrane: Renewing spillway
from hydraulic raceway No. 2 to raceway No. 3, St. Catherines; renewing six old canal weir foot-bridges in concrete; renewing wooden cover of drain near Marlatt's bridge in concrete; repairing lock gates, old canal; renewing six new canal weir footbridges in concrete; rebuilding lock destroyed by fire on east side of harbour at Port Dalhousie.


William Manley German: How many safety devices have been installed?


Francis Cochrane: A device was installed on lock 24, and during the spring of 1912 it was the means of preventing two serious accidents. In one case a steamer entering the locks collided with the right head gate. The device prevented it from being carried away, and although the gate was badly twisted and had to be replaced, navigation was continued until the spare gate arrived. This device is to be installed on five additional locks.


William Manley German: Has the minister considered the advisability of purchasing the design of this device and using it generally?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, that is under
consideration now.


Air. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: There is an item here for surveys, $100,000. I wish to ask the minister if he has received a petition from the people of the villages of Dundas and Bridgetown, Prince Edward Island, asking for the construction of a piece of railway connecting these settlements and villages with the main line at either Cardigan or Souris?


Francis Cochrane: I think we did get one.


Samuel Hughes: Would the minister tell me what he has done or intends to do in regard to the matter?


Francis Cochrane: I have not given it any consideration as yet; I have not had time to do so .since I got the petition. I will try to get a report on it.
357i


Samuel Hughes: Will the minister have the report made during the present summer?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.	.


Samuel Hughes: I desire to call the attention of the minister to a matter which I mentioned a day or two ago, namely that the steamer calling at the port, of Souris does not call at the railway wharf. The goods and merchandise for the Magdalen Islands coming over the railway have to be carted at considerable expense from the old wharf around to the private wharf at which the steamer calls. The steamer is subsidized by the department, and should surely call at the government wharf. The people living at the Alagdalen Islands have to pay the extra cost.


Francis Cochrane: I told my hon. friend that we would look into it right away.


Samuel Hughes: I think the hon. member for Gaspe and the Magdalen Islands (Mr. Gauthier) ought to take this matter up and see that it is adjusted, because the people of his constituency are directly interested.
Board of Railway Commissio'ners for Canada-maintenance and operation of, including $800 for Clyde Leavitt as chief fire inspector, $166,600.
Mr. A1URPHY: Would the minister explain this item?


Francis Cochrane: The Conservation
Commission last year got an expert to go out _along the different railways, and the Board of Railway Commissioners agreed to pay half his salary. We have not got his report before us, but I understand that last year he did good work, especially in British Columbia. He has submitted a report with regard to the Intercolonial, which I intend to hand over to the new general manager to see what can be done to do away with forest fires along the line.
Mr. GRAHAA1: In putting in this item next year, I would suggest that it would be advisable to state that the $800 is but half the salary. It looks as if you were giving an expert $800 for his services.


Francis Cochrane: I think that would be quite proper.
To pay expenses in connection witn cases before the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, $15,000.
. Mr. GRAHAAI: I have always contended that the Board of Railway Commissioners was not intended to be a court where the ordinary man had to be represented by counsel. Where there are separate investigations, such as I have mentioned, it is all right because the Government side of the case has to be put forward very strongly.


Francis Cochrane: Would it not be well for the Government to have a counsel to

take charge of the cases before the Railway Board as they come along and make it his whole business? Of course we have not decided on anything of that kind.


George Perry Graham: I am afraid not, it might result in a good deal of red tape. Under ordinary corcumstances the poor man can write to the secretary of the commission and get speedy justice without any frills, as it were. I discussed this matter several times with the late Justice Mabee, who pointed out that in his opinion counsel would be a nuisance, and that he would rather hear complaints from the people themselves than listen to arguments of counsel. I have no objection to this item for these larger investigations, but I would object to the appointment of counsel on general principles to look after those smaller cases, because I think the people are better served now.


Francis Cochrane: I would be sorry to
-see the chairman of the commission refuse to permit anyone to plead his case, no matter how small it might be. But there are many big cases on which the Government should be represented and it struck me that it would be a good thing if we had a man studying these things all the time.


George Perry Graham: That would be representing the Government all the time. My objection was to having a man there to represent the people, to take up the cases of different people.


William Manley German: If you had a permanent counsel -representing the Government he would be there iu all cases continually. The result would be that an individual who had a case before the board woitld feel that his interests were not properly safeguarded, and he would not dare to go before the Railway Board unless he had a lawyer to act for him; whereas now a man with a complaint as to a crossing or anything goes to the board or communicates with the board, then if the department here feels that the public interest should he more particularly safeguarded than it can be by those looking after it all they have to do is to postpone the case and notify the_ minister and counsel can easily be appointed. I do not think it would be a wise thing to have a general counsel standing there all the time.


Herménégilde Boulay: Mr. Chairman, on the 14th of May last, when I raised objection in this House to the increase of salary of the 'Chairman of the Railway Commissioners, I said that perhaps those commissioners were not working an hour a day. In making that assertion, I evidently fell into some exaggeration, and, in justice to those gentlemen, I must admit that they are working a little longer every Mr. COCHRANE.
day. But, while admitting that, I am not ready to accept willingly that enormous salary which we are paying to the chairman of that commission.
The Postmaster General has allowed himself, in that circumstance, to make towards me certain observations which, to say the least, were somewhat bold, and in a language which I would certainly not have used towards him. I regret that he is not now at his seat so that he might hear what I have to say in answer. He has said, amongst other things, in justification of that enormous increase of salary of the Chairman of the Railway Commissioners, that those men were giving up lucrative positions and salaries as high as $25,0(W a year to become the servants of the public. Well, now, I will say that the fact that the hon. minister says such a thing does not absolutely prove that it must be true. Moreover, and even admitting that it is true, the barristers who are getting such a salary are not lowering themselves when they accept positions in the Government service; because, from being the servants of the public, with all the worries of the suitors, and trials of all kinds, and often working 8 or 10 hours a day, they become the servants of the Government, with fixed hours for their work of four or five hours a day at the utmost, and with a nice private car at their disposition to carry them across the country, without charge whatever. And they then become independent with a fixed and assured salary, which is well worth a slight reduction of salary taken from one or the other, and that often amidst the curses of individuals who are being skinned alive. If it should be true that some advocates are able to raise such a high salary in our country, it only shows in my sense that the judicial tariffs are exorbitant and should be adjusted as soon as possible so that our courts of justice would not take undue advantage of the poor fellows who are forced to have recourse to them; because there is not a man in this country who is able to earn in the strict sense of the word $66.66 per day, while the poor labourer painfully earns $1.50 to $2 a day. I even say it is a real shame to confess such a thing, and that is with the supposition that the advocate works 300 days during the year.
If we are now supposing, as it is in reality, that he only works 200 days during the year, after deduction of vacation, legal holidays, &c., we come to a salary of $80 per day, or $13.33 per hour, if we reckon that he is in his office six hours per day, or $16 per hour if he is only there five hours.
If we now compare in the same way the salary of the Chairman of the Railway Commissioners, we come to the following figures: $12,500 per year, supposing a work of 300 days, gives $41.66 per day, or $10.46

for every hour, admitting that he works but four hours a day, and at that rate he should -work on every working day of the year.
Now, if we deduct the legal holidays, about ten each year, the Saturdays of every week, which have a half holiday, the vacations which every one of those big salaried officers always gets as a matter of course, and which are at least of thirty days every year, we find that all those superior officers are only working from 230 to 250 days per year; and calculating their salary of $12,500 a year at an average rate of 240 days of work, we find that they are getting $52.08 per day, or $13 for each one of the four hours of work they are giving, or $10.41 for each hour if they work five hours a day.
That being the case, I say it is a real shame to ask a labourer, a farmer, or any workingman to bleed themselves to death so that they may be able to pay all those exorbitant and extravagant salaries; and the people of our country will not approve that, notwithstanding the opinion of the hon. Postmaster General, of the hon. members for Rouville and Three Rivers, or some other lawyers. The Prime Minister of the country is the only one who receives such a high salary. The other ministers, who are obliged to be in their office all the year round, and to make enormous expenses so as to make in society a figure corresponding to their position; who are obliged to defray the cost of expensive elections and to condescend to meet their electors every day -and those meetings are not always pleasant-those ministers, I say, are only receiving $7,000 per year.
What kind of consideration are we bestowing, then, upon our ministers, if they are not at least worth as much as their simple employees. I say that such a state of things may be the cause of discrediting the Administration of this country, and should not be tolerated any longer.
The hon. Postmaster General has said, with a kind of extenuation of his expressions, that I did not know anything about the work of the Railway Commissioners. I very willingly forgive him that language, which must have been caused by the somewhat harsh observations I had made on the legal profession; but, after all, he admits himself that there are lawyers who are voracious enough to extort from the poor suitors from $20,000 to $25,000 a year.
In order to show to the hon. Postmaster General that he has somewhat exceeded the limits of truth, when he said that I did not know anything about the work of the Railway Commissioners, I will in the first place say to him that I have specially studied the case before speaking of it, and I have discovered the following conditions in the report for the year 1911, which has
489 pages. I have also looked for the number of complaints which those gentlemen had received in 1911. They number in all 573, and those that have been heard are 565. On that total of 565, eight have been adjourned and several have been withdrawn even before the hearing. And moreover, there were a good number of cases for which the examination is always about the same, as grade crossings and so on. Every one knows what those complaints are about; it is the same thing, with scarcely any difference, and when one of those questions has been settled the same proceedings will apply to 20 or 25 others.
For the setting up of stations on sidings, there are about 20 cases. Those cases are still easy enough to settle. The same remark applies to the determination of the locality where a station has to be built, when such questions are in dispute, and there have been a good number of complaints in that respect.
I may say that we are not lacking of jurists who have as many cases to plead every year, and they do not claim a salary of $12,000. They are satisfied with much less, four or five thousand dollars at the utmost, and they put in a good deal more work.
I may also add that the Railway Commission is not composed of only six judges; the staff comprises 77 members who are all paid by the country, and those are the ones who do the work, because we often see that the Commissioners base their decisions on the report of their engineers, without taking the trouble to visit the localities. It natur-' ally follows that those 77 members are really the ones who have been the means of deciding the greatest number of those 565 cases.
It seems to me that there is not enough work to justify such salaries, especially the one being paid to the chairman, who is receiving to-day $8,000.


Edmond Proulx: He gets $10,000.


Herménégilde Boulay: Very well, let us say

I have looked over the expenses of that commission in the report of the Auditor General for the year 1912, pages W-4, 00 and 61.	%
Expenses, salaries paid according to statute	$54,643 14
Salaries of staff and contingencies	 133,997 17
Total	$188,640 31
The above expenses include the salary of five judges, and we have now another judge added to that number.
The total of the staff of that commission is 77. A private car is also put at the disposition of that commission.

There are 18 employees who are receiving a salary of more than $2,000, which makes a total of $45,901.96.
Of those 18 employees, there are 14 who only speak English and 4 who speak French.
The 14 English employees receive on an average a salary of $2,300, which makes a difierence of $334.37 to the detriment of each employee of French language.
The English-speaking secretary receives $4,000 a year.
The other day, the hon. member for Rouville had declared that we had in that commission a French-speaking secretary. I want to set the facts right. There is no French-speaking .secretary, hut only /an assistant secretary. He is not then on the same footing as the secretary, and he only receives $2^600 per year, or a difference of $1,400, and he has only the title of an assistant secretary.	_
The hon. member for Rouville has said again:


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am
willing to give the hon. member all. the latitude possible, but I must remind him that he is now referring to a past debate, and that he is not in order. We have voted the credit for the Railway Commissioners, and the one now being considered is for $10,000 to defray the expenses relating to cases submitted to the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada.
I very much regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I believe it is my duty to do so.


Herménégilde Boulay: We are discussing item
133.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Yes, but I have just
read the item which is now being discussed. I understand that the hon. member has the right to discuss that item, but I could not very well allow him to enter into long considerations on salaries for the commissioners which have been already voted.


Herménégilde Boulay: No, the first item has not been voted.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
no right to contest my decision. He must comply with it.
Mr. BOULj'JY :	But the first item has
not been voted.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order, Order! The hon. member must comply with the decision of the Deputy Speaker, or I shall be obliged to proceed as if he was not speaking.
Grand Trunk Pacific railway-remuneration to Government director, $2,000.


George Perry Graham: Does this director make a report; if so, how often, and what is the information in it?
Mr. BOULAY.


Francis Cochrane: The report is made
once a year, and, as before, it does not contain very much.


George Perry Graham: On one or. two occasions I laid the report before the House. It might be useful for reference.


Kenneth Judson Cochrane: I will do so.
Surveys and inspections-railways, $100,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Are any surveys projected in the maritime provinces?


Francis Cochrane: I told my hon. friend one afternoon that I proposed to send a traffic man over the lines that have been proposed to get some information and to see what justification there may be for building roads, and I intend to carry out that intention.


George Perry Graham: That would come under this vote?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister adhere to the policy he laid down last session that in the case of a new branch line of the Intercolonial he would require to be satisfied that the traffic would be sufficient to pay the interest and running expenses?


Francis Cochrane: I did not Jay that
down. I referred to any branch line that would not pay running expenses without interest, a very different proposition.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister expect a railway to pay running expenses at the very commencement?


Francis Cochrane: Branch lines have
been running there for some time, and they have not been able to pay running expenses up till now, and there is not very much prospect of them doing so.


John Howard Sinclair: To what branch lines
does the minister refer? .


Francis Cochrane: I do not iefer to any particular branch line, but to what has been done in some cases.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister must have an eye to the traffic when he is laying out a" branch line, but I' do not altogether agree with him that he has a right to expect enough traffic at the start to pay running expenses. If that rule were applied to the other railways in Canada, there would be very few built. I do not think that that rule could have been carried out in the case of the Canadian Pacific Tailway. The traffic on that road at the commencement was not sufficient, I understand, to pay running expenses, and certainly it was not sufficient in the case of the Intercolonial. The same is true of the Grand Trunk railway. I think the minister ex-

pects a little too much. If the traffic is there, it is possible to develop it.


Francis Cochrane: That is the information I want to get.


John Howard Sinclair: It might take some
time to develop traffic. In Eastern Nova Scotia he will find a certain amount of traffic right at his hand, such as the carrying of wood to the market, but there are other kinds of traffic that might be developed in time. He cannot expect that they would be developed just as quickly as the road was built. I hope he will not look at this matter from too narrow a point of view. We are assisting transportation to a very large extent in other parts of Canada, and why not in eastern Canada? I think we ought to deal with it in the same way as we do in western and central Canada. We ought to loiok to the future, and, if a traffic is likely to be developed, give railway facilities.
Mr. McKENZIE- The minister says he proposes to send a traffic man over those roads. Does he include in that statement the different roads in Nova Scotia, that we had under consideration?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I hope he will send a good man.


Francis Cochrane: We will talk it over together.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps the better way would be to send an engineer and a traffic manager to have them strike an average.
Railways and canals-collection of revenue -Intercolonial railway, $13,000,000.


George Perry Graham: That is the working expenses of the. Intercolonial railway ?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


George Perry Graham: We discussed a good many of the matters connected with the working expenses. There is an increase on the Windsor branch. I suppose the reason for that is really the same as the reason for the increase on the Intercolonial, that is increase in traffic ?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


George Perry Graham: What is the deficit on the Prince Edward Island railway ?


Francis Cochrane: I know that for April [DOT] it was $14,000.


George Perry Graham: I have always taken the ground that the Prince Edward Island railway will never show a balance on the right side as long as it is run as a separate entity.


Francis Cochrane: No, but I think that when we get the ferry across and put a
live man in there, it will make a difference.


George Perry Graham: It will make a difference with your freight traffic and with your passenger traffic as well. A great many people who are selling tickets in Prince Edward Island now might be able to sell them for the Intercolonial railway.


Francis Cochrane: That is right. I have not the statement of the deficit on the Prince Edward Island railway, but I can get it for the hon. gentleman.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister keep the books on the Intercolonial railway in such a way that he can tell the profit on each division of the road ?


Francis Cochrane: There are four divisions of the Intercolonial railway; we are going to apply that system this year and we hope to be able to tell that when we meet the House again.


James Joseph Hughes: I think that possibly in establishing freight rates on the Prince Edward Island railway, the local conditions are not taken fully into consideration. The hauls there are comparatively shorter than on the mainland and the rates are so high that the railway is losing a good deal of the package business and light freight. Where hauls are short it really pays to carry the freight by teams rather than to send it by the railway. The cars are running anyway, the men are employed, and they might as well have more business to do. I speak of this from personal experience. The rates were raised lately with the object, no doubt, of reducing the deficit, but I think that possibly it will have the opposite effect, because the farmers and others doing business there will team more of their traffic and that business will be lost to the railway. I have a branch store seven or eight miles from the town of Souris and we found that even under the old rates it was cheaper to team small package freight than to send it by the railway. Of course we found it cheaper to send heavy goods, such as molasses, iron, salt, and things 'of that kind, by the railway. But, under the old rates, the difference was so small that we generally sent everything by the railway. Now that the rates have been raised, we will send all the small stuff by team, and it is a question whether the raise in the rates will have the effect of increasing the earning power of the road. It is possible that when these rates are considered by men living on the mainland, where the average haulage is much longer, the difference in the conditions is not fully taken into account. If the minister has an opportunity of discussing this matter with his officers at any time, it would be well to take that feature of the question into consideration.

Canals-staff and repairs, $1,327,630.


George Perry Graham: There is an increase of $25,615. "What is the explanation of that?


Francis Cochrane: There is a dredge on the Rideau and the men connected with it, there are two tugs on the Lachine canal, one on the Rideau canal and two tugs on the Welland canal. That makes the difference.


George Perry Graham: I am afraid the minister is not very clear about that extra $25,000.


Francis Cochrane: The two tugs that yon ordered in Montreal only came in this spring, then there is the new dredge, and the extra amount on the Welland canal is $7,000.
Canale-statistical officers, $42,500.


George Perry Graham: Can my hon. friend tell us who the statistical officer is at Cardinal, when he was appointed and whom he succeeded?


Kenneth Judson Cochrane: Mr. Reid is the statistical officer and he succeeded Dr. Williams.


George Perry Graham: What relation would he be to the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid)?


Francis Cochrane: I think he is a brother.


George Perry Graham: Whom did he succeed?


Francis Cochrane: Dr. Williams.


George Perry Graham: This is one of the things that is hardly defensible. Of course, the recommendation would be made by the Minister of Customs, as it is in his constituency. If it were in some other constituency it might be different, but it comes right home because here is a man dismissed from office and the office given to the brother of a member of the Government on the recommendation of his brother.


Francis Cochrane: Mr. Reid was dismissed in 1896.


George Perry Graham: I am not going to discuss the situation, but I can if my hon. friend desires it at some other time. I just leave it to the minister himself to say whether, if he were in that position, he would think it a proper thing to do. It is rather an unusual thing to recommend your own brother in your own constituency.


Francis Cochrane: I know, but there is this fact to be considered, that he was justly or unjustly dismissed in 1896, and lie thought it was only his right to be reinstated.


John Howard Sinclair: What are the salaries of these officers?
Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.).


Francis Cochrane: 


James Alexander Robb: Does the minister lay that
down as a principle that, if a man is dismissed by one government, he should be reinstated as soon as the other government comes in?


Francis Cochrane: He had no investigation. We do not know whether he was dismissed with or without cause.
Salaries and contingencies, $180,312.50.


Francis Cochrane: The changes are just the regular increases and one or two provisions for new men whom we must take in.


George Perry Graham: In what branch?


Francis Cochrane: The engineering
branch, surveys.


John Howard Sinclair: I hope the minister will be able to find young men in Canada for these new positions. There is a general feeling that our young men do not get a fair chance in connection with the Intercolonial railway, especially in regard to promotion.


Francis Cochrane: Do you mean that the engineers do not get fair play?


John Howard Sinclair: I am not specially referring to them; but it often happens that we have to import men from abroad to fill the highest positions in connection with the road, when we ought to promote our own employees. This road has been running ever since Confederation, and we have produced on it a very high class of men. Many of them have gone to the United States, and I am told that a large number of roads in the United States are managed by men who were produced on the Intercolonial. There must be some defect in the management or in the promotion, or we would be able to find men at home to put in these responsible positions. I think the minister is in sympathy with my view, but I do not think it has been impressed upon the Government in the past as it ought to have been. If the minister will look into the matter, he will find many bright men in his own employ; and, if he gives them a chance of promotion, he will be able to fill the most important places with Canadians produced right on the line.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, House adjourned at 12.17 a.m. Friday.

Friday, May 30, 1913.