[Stage Direction]
Mr. CURRIE moved that the first report of the Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament be concurred in.
Mr. SPEAKER.: As this report relates to the Printing of Parliament, which involves an expenditure of money, I am afraid I shall have to ask that it be allowed to stand.


Mr. CURRIE.: The Printing Committee recommend in this report that in future all reports presented in either the Senate or the House of Commons, by the other committees which contain requests fior the printing of reports, .pamphlets, &c., he first submitted to the Committee on Printing. That recommendation should be really unnecessary because, under Rule 64 of the House, a motion for the printing of any paper must be first submitted to the Joint Committee on Printing for report before any action is taken on it. However, an abuse has arisen in the House, and other committees present to the House resolutions accompanying their reports with motions that a certain number of copies of testimony or papers placed before them should be printed and the House has granted such requests. For instance, the Committee on Agriculture recommended that 150,000 copies of Dr. James Robertson's address before them on the matter of conservation should be printed. That would involve an expenditure of something over $15,000. It is a violation of the rutles, there was a slight clash over the matter, and as a result this report is now presented to the House. Whether this motion is necessary 1 do not know, but it is well to pass it, and so remind the chairman and secretaries of committees that this abuse cannot be continued. In 1908 the amount of money required for sessional printing for the House was $85,000, but last session it was

over $250,000. We do mot -wish to be considered parsimonious, but we feel that orders for .any printing of .such magnitude as this should .at leasit be referred to the committee appointed by parliament to pass upon such things.


Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister).: I would suggest that this motion might .stand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION-MR BENNETT (SIMCOE).

Mr. W. H. BENNETT (Simcoe).: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to .refer to an item in the 'Free Press' personal to myself. It says:
One of the chief causes of Conservative attack upon Hon. Dr. Pugsley's administration of the Public Works Department was his use of the tug ' Whelan ' to break the ice in the harbours of Port Arthur and Port William. Indeed the investigation into this ' scandal ' is still in progress before the Public Accounts Committee. Yet the same tug ' Whelan ' is doing the self same work under the administration of Hon. F. D. Monk. What will W. H. Bennett say now?
In reference .to the item, all I have .to say is this: There is no investigation, to my knowledge, now' before the Public Accounts Committee in reference to ice breaking at Fort William or Port Arthur. Last year there was a contract there for $30,000 for that work, but under the withering influence of honest competition and tender, that has shrivelled down to $19,250; and at Midland, with reference to which there is an investigation pending as to the breaking of ice, that contract has been reduced from $5,500 to nothing. That is al!
I have to say.



MR. JUSTICE RITCHIE OF NOVA SCOTIA.

Mr. MACDONALD.: I saw an announcement in the ' Free Press ' on Saturday to the effect that, Mr. J. J. Ritchie, K.C., has been appointed a justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in succession to the late Mr. Justice Laurence. I trust the rumor is true. I wish ,to ask the Prime Minister whether it is true or not.


John Allister Currie: I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman is aware of the fact that it is desirable that the appointment should be made at an early date on account of the illness of one of the other judges.


Robert Laird Borden: The order in council was approved on Saturday.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: For Mr. Ritchie's appointment?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.



MARRIAGE LAWS-REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT.

Mr. LEMIEUX.: May I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice if the rumour published in the Montreal ' Gazette ' is true, that the reference on the marriage question will be submitted to the Supreme Court this week at the opening of the court.


Robert Laird Borden: It will be submitted at the earliest practicable opportunity; I hope this week.	*



FARMERS' BANK INVESTIGATION.

Edward Mortimer Macdonald: With reference to tile statement that Sir William Meredith has been appointed commissioner to investigate matters in connection with the Farmers Bank, will the Prime Minister bring down a copy of the order in council appointing him?


Robert Laird Borden: It was laid on the table the very day on which it was approved.



PATENTS OF THOMAS B. RAMBAUT.

[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for further consideration in the Committeie ,of the Whole, of Bill (No. 84) respecting certain patents of Thomas B. Rambaut.-Mr
Ames.
Mr. OLIVER.: When this Bill came up on Friday one of the members who was very much interested in it asked to have it stand over until to-day when he could be present, and that was agreed to. I would ask that the Bill be allowed to stand for the present.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that arrangement was made, and the Bill will stand accordingly.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
FARMERS' BANK-Hon. T. W. CROTHERS. *Mr. MURPHY:
1.	Is the government aware as to whether the Honourable T. W. Crothers, now Minister
.3333

of Labour, declared himself when a candidate for parliament, alt Kerwood, Ontario, on or about the first day of September last, as being in favour of indemnifying every man who lost a dollar by the operations of the management of the Farmers' Bank?
2.	Is the government aware as to whether or not such a statement was reported by the London ' Free Press' on September 2, 1911, as emanating from the honourable gentleman above named, at that time a candidate for election to the House of Commons?
3.	Is the government aware as to whether the same honourable gentleman declared himself to the same effect at Fingal, Ontario, on September 4, 1911?
4.	Is the government aware that the St. Thomas ' Times ' of September 5, 1911, alleged that the honourable gentleman so declared himself at Fingal, Ontario, on the 4th September, 1911?
5.	Is the government aware as to whether the Honourable Minister of Labour has at any time since the said dates repudiated the statements attributed to him by the said journals?
6.	Is it the intention of the government to indemnify or recoup every man who lost a dollar by the operations of the Farmers' Bank?
['We expect to take up government Bills, beginning with the Grain Bill, and after that Supply, proceeding with the estimates of the Minister of the Interior.']
Robert Laird Borden: Respecting the matters alluded to, Mr. Crothers, on the occasion referred to, expressed his personal views only, and did not undertake to speak for the Conservative party, or for its leader, or for the present administration which had not then been formed.
A Royal Commission has been issued to Sir William Ralph Meredith, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Division of the High Court of Ontario, empowering him to inquire into the circumstances connected with the organization and operation of the 'Farmers' Bank. A copy of this order in council has already been laid upon the table of the House.



Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: 1.	Has any nursery stock been purchased for the Experimental Farm at Kentville, N.S.?
2.	If so, from whom were the same purchased ?
3.	What is the quantity ordered and the price to 'be paid therefor?


Mr. BURRELL:: 
SOUTH RENFREW-APPOINTMENTS.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	How many persons from the riding of South Renfrew have been appointed to positions in the public service of this country by the various departments of this government since the 21st day of September last? .
2.	What are their names and the salaries or the emoluments they receive?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Post Office Department, 1 postmaster; Department of Railways and Canals, 1.
2.	Post Office Department, Mr. Alex. McLeod was appointed to the postmastership of Matawatchan at a salary of $49 per annum. Department of Railways and Canals, Mr. Thomas Lloyd, of Am-prior, county of South Renfrew, is appointed as messenger by the Department of Railways and Canals, at a salary of $50 per month.


FENIAN RAID VETERANS.
Mr. BOIVIN:: 1.	Has the government considered the advisability of making grants of land or money to the Fenian Raid veterans?
2.	If the matter has been decided, will the grants be of land or money?
3.	Will a Bill be introduced by the government before the end of the present session for the above-mentioned purpose?


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria):: 1,	2 and 3. Under consideration.


CENSUS COMMISSIONERS.
Mr. BOIVIN:: 1.	Have the census commissioners in Shefford, Brome and Missisquoi been paid for their services?	.
2.	If not, when may they expect to receive the balance due them by the government?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	The census commissioners of Shefford and Brome have been paid in full. A small balance of about $5 is still due to the commissioners for Missisquoi.
2.	Just as soon as the accounts are finally revised and audited, which will be very shortly.


CIVIL SERVICE ASSOCIATION.
Mr. CARROLL:: 1.	Has the government or any official thereof, or any person connected therewith, received any recent representations from the Civil Service Association?	,
2.	If so, to what did such representations refer?
3.	What reply was given by the government in connection with the different mat-

ters touched upon in the representations made?
4.	Is the question of superannuation to civil servants to be taken up this present session ?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to pass an order in council to amend the present regulations of the Civil Service Commission so as to permit persons who were in the inside civil service as third division clerks at the coming into effect of the Civil Service Amendment Act of September, 1908, to be promoted to the second division, on passing the promotion examination in vogne prior to the coming into force of the said amendment Act of September, 1908, without passing the present second division promotion examination?
6.	Is the government aware that the present representatives of the city of Ottawa during the late campaign promised on behalf of the present government, that if elected this alleged injustice would he remedied without any avoidable delay?
7.	Has the government or any member thereof received any representations from the present representatives of Ottawa in this parliament in regard to this matter? If so, of what did such consist?
8.	Does the government contemplate legislative action on any other matters respecting civil servants during the present session? If so. what?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 


STE. THERESE, QUEBEC.
[Stage Direction]
1907		 1,263,02
1908		 1,522.27
1909		 1,545.70
1910		 1,800.88
1911		   1,958.83

[Stage Direction]
1907		 1,029.83
1908		 1,169.57
1909		 1,148.64
1910		 1,113.56
1911		 1,274.65

Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Is the Minister of Agriculture in a position to tell if the figures of the population of Canada, and of the several Canadian cities and towns, given in reply to an inquiry on the 4th December last, are decisive-
2.	If not, can the minister inform the House of an absoluteness on this subject and give the exact figures?


Mr. BORDEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Various matters connected with the administration of the Civil Service.
3.	That the representations will receive consideration.
4.	5 and 8. These matters have not yet been considered by the government.
6. Now I purpose placing on the table of the House a copy of the representations made to the government on that occasion.


CENSUS EMPLOYEES.
Mr. DEMERS:: Have the census employees in the county of St. Jean and Iberville been paid in full for their work? If not, when will they be?	,


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	No. Small balances are still due, and will be paid as soon as the schedules are finally revised, which will be very shortly.


STE. THERESE POST OFFICE.
Mr. SEGUIN:: What were the respective revenues of the Post Offices at Ste. Therese and the town of Laurentides for the last five years?


Mr. CARROLL.: 


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	The figures of population of Canada and of certain cities and towns given in reply to an inquiry of the 4th December last, were not final.
2.	The figures of population, as finally revised, for Canada, Quebec province, and the cities and towns asked for in the former inquiry are as follows:
Canada	
Quebec Province
Montreal	
Quebec


Three Rivers ..: St. Hyacinthe..
Sorel	
Hull	
Fraserville.. .. , Montmagny.. ..
Rimouski	
Nicolet	
Joliette	
St. J6r6me	
Sherbrooke.. ..
L6vis	
Maisonneuve.. ..
Chicoutimi	
St. Jean	
Victoriaville.. ..
Outremont	
Roberval	
Valleyfield	
Terrebonne	
Marieville	
Ville Marie.. .. Drummondville.. Grand Mere.. ..
Verdun	
Laprairie	
7,203,837 2,002,712 470,480 78.190 13.691 9.797 8,420 18 222 6.774 2,617 3.097 2.593 6,316 3,473 16,405 7,452 18.6S1 5.880 5.903 3,028 4,820 1 737 9,449 1,990 1,587 850 1.725 4,783 11,629 2,388


TRAVELLING PASSENGER AGENT, INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. EMMERSON:
1.	Has the position of travelling passenger agent for the Intercolonial railway in Nova Scotia and other eastern provinces, heretofore held by D. Murray Condon, been abolished and Mr. Condon transferred to the general passenger agent's office in Moncton?
2.	If so, does this leave the Intercolonial railway without any travelling passenger agent in the maritime provinces?
3.	Is the Minister of Railways aware that the Canadian Pacific railway has one or more travelling passenger agents in the provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick?
4.	Is it the policy of the government to vacate the maritime provinces as a field for canvassing for the westbound passenger traffic for the government system of railways, to its competing line of railway for such tratfio, namely, the Canadian Pacific railway?
Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	No; Mr. Condon, transferred to General Passenger agent's office temporarily, in meantime, because of resignation of one of the staff.
2.	The work will be performed by assistant general passenger agent, Halifax, in the meantime.
3.	Yes.
4.	No. This work will be performed in the meantime by the assistant general passenger agent, assisted by the local agents of the railway.


DISMISSALS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOIVIN;
1.	When was .1. A. Beauchemin, of Granby, Quebec, appointed caretaker of the publio building at that place?
2.	When was he removed from office?
3.	What was the date of the_ letter sent to
him by the department ordering him to vacate the premises?	_
4.	What time was given to him to vacate the said premises?
5.	Who asked for his dismissal?
6.	What was the reason for his dismissal ?_
7.	Was any investigation held before his dismissal from office, and was the said Beauchemin present at said investigation?
8.	Was the said Beauchemin advised why he was being dismissed?
9.	Who recommended the appointment of
his successor?	.
10.	Is the government aware that the position was promised to the present incumbent by certain local politicians during the course of the last campaign?
Mr. MONK:: 1.	May 12, 1903.
2.	December 31, 1911.	[DOT]
3.	December 22, 1911.
4.	From December 22nd to December 31.
5.	Mr. J. Davidson.
6.	Extremely offensive political partisan.
7.	No.
8.	No.
9.	Mr. J. Davidson.
10.	No.


Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Has Mr. Henri Locas, excise officer in the town of Laurentides, been dismissed? If so, at whose request and for what reason?
2.	Has an inquiry been made?
3.	Who has been appointed to succeed him and who recommended his successor?


Mr. NANTEL:: 1.	Yes. At request of Mr. Morin and on account of political partisanship, during last election.
2.	No inquiry was made as charge was clearly established and Mr. Locas, when called upon, offered no explanation relative thereto.
3.	Ovide Brien. Recommended by Mr. Morin.


Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Has Robert Bull, of Woodstock, N.B., been dismissed from the position of preventive customs officer ? If so, for what cause, and what was his salary?
2.	Was a Mr. Purrington appointed in his place? If so, has he assumed the duties of the office, and at what salary?
3.	Was Herbert Lindsay also appoimed in his place, and has he assumed the duties of the office, and at what salary?
4.	Ie it the intention of the department to retain the services of both officers or only one? If so, which one?


Mr. REID (Grenville):: 1 1. Robert W. Bull, preventive officer of customs, Richmond road, has been dismissed for active political partisanship during the recent general elections. His salary was $550 a year.
2.	Daniel H. Purrington was employed temporarily in Mr. Bull's place, 'at the sarnie salary, $550 a year, but his employment was discontinued.
3.	Herbert Lindsay has been employed to perform the duties formerly attended to by Mr. Bull, at a salary of $550 a year.
4.	The services of Mr. Lindsay only have been retained.


Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Has James White, of Centreville, N.B.. been dismissed from the office of Indian agent?
2.	If so, for -what reasons, and on whose ad-
3.	Has N. J. Smith, of Fredericton, NiB.. been appointed in his place? If so, on whose recommendation ?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. White's place of residence, Centreville, is inconveniently situated, being some distance from the reserves.
3.	Yes.

334U


Mr. BELAND:: 1.	Has Leandre Jacques, postmaster of St. Didace, county of Maskinonge, been dismissed? If so, at whose request, and who recommended his successor?
2.	Has the Postmaster General received a petition from the ratepayers of the parish interested requesting that Mr. Jacques be retained in his office?
,Mr. PELLETIER:
1.	Yes, on recommendation of Mr. A. Bellemare, M.P., who also recommended his successor.
2.	No, but a petition was received from the residents, making serious complaint in regard to the management of the post office, and recommending a change in the poshmastership.
Mr. LEMIEUX [DOT]
1.	Is it within the knowledge of the Minister of Railways that Theophile Thibault, sectionman on the east of St. Simon station, county of Rimouski, has been dismissed?
2.	If so, has there been an inquiry and at whose request has Mr. Thibault been dismissed ?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No inquiry has been held. Mr. Theophile Thibault has asked for an investigation which will be accorded him. He was dismissed at the request of Mr. Boulav, M.P.


Mr. BROUILLARD:: L Has Mr. Calixte Lavoie, postmaster at St. Cyrille de Wendover, been dismissed?
2.	If so, for what reason, and who requested his dismissal?
3.	Who recommended his successor ?
4.	Has an inquiry been held?
5-. Has the Postmaster General received petitions from the parishioners of St. Cyrille. asking that an inquiry be granted to Mr. Lavoie? If so, how many signatures?
6. Does the minister intend to accede to this request?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) For political partisanship.
(b) Mr. Napoleon Garceau.
3.	Mr. Napoleon Garceau.
4.	The facts were well known. An inquiry was not necessary.
5.	(a) Yes.
(b) 314.
6.	See answer to No. 4.


FISHERIES JURISDICTION.
Mr. CLARK (Bruce):: Is it the intention of the government to open negotiations with the different provinces with the view to ending dual jurisdiction over fisheries?


Robert Laird Borden: The -matter has not engaged the attention of the government.


Mri ROGERS.: 


QUEBEC INLAND REVENUE INSPECTOR.
Mr. CLARKE (Essex):: 1.	Has Joseph Alphonse Dumontier, been appointed inspector of Inland Revenue for the district of Quebec? If so, when?
2. Did he at the time of his appointment possess the qualification prescribed by section of the regulations relating to the government of the excise branch of the Inland Revenue Department?
3.	If so, when did he acquire such qualifications ?
4.	If not, what were the reasons for departure from the regulations?


Mr. NANTEL:: 1.	Joseph Alphonse Dumontier has been appointed Inspector of Inland Revenue for the district of Quebec.
Mr. Dumontier was appointed by an order in council dated the 23rd December, 1911.
2,	3, and 4. He was appointed under the provisions of section 40 of the Civil Service Act, which provides that graduates of any university in Canada shall Ibe exempt from the Qualifying examination. As this was his first appointment he could not have qualified under section 41 of the Regulations for the governance of the Excise Branch of the Inland Revenue Department hut he_ was appointed under the provisions of section 44 of the same regulations on the grounds of his personal fitness for -said position.


KELLEY'S COVE BREAKWATER.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	Were tenders called for an addition to the breakwater at Kelley's Cove, Yarmouth county, NS.?
2.	If so, what were the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to award the contract to the lowest tenderer? If so, when will work be commenced?


Mr. MONK:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Thurston and Durkee, $7,450; D. W. B. Reid, $8,976.
3.	It is not the intention to take any action on the tenders received as no vote for_ this work has been provided in the estimates for 1912-13. If an amount is placed in the supp'lementaries, a new call will be made for tenders.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-PAY DAY.
Joseph Ovide Brouillard: Does the government intend to pay the employees of the Intercolonial railway every fortnight instead of every three months?


Mr. COCHRANE:: The government pays the Intercolonial railway employees monthly. No other plan has been decided on.

St. PAUL L'ER.MITE-REPENTIGNY MAIL SERVICE.


Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Has the Postmaster General at any time publicly declared that the public interest would be served by having cancelled the contracts for carrying the mail between the station of the Canadian Northern railway and the post office at St. Paul L'Ermite and also between the post office at St. Paul LJErmite and that of Repentigny? If so, in what respect would the public interest be served by such cancellation?
2.	Is Mr. Albert Juneau the present contractor for both such contracts?
3.	Were Messrs. Larose and Seguin the former contractors for these services?
4.	If so, in what respect is Mr. Albert Juneau, as a contractor, superior to Messrs. Larose and Seguin, and in what way are his services more to the public interest than those of Messrs. Larose and Seguin?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	The public declarations of the Postmaster General are on record. It is for the Postmaster General to judge if the cancellation of a contract is or is not in the public interest.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Answered by No. 1.


MOOSEJAW POST OFFICE.
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What are the proposed post offices and the sites of same authorized to be established in the Moosejaw electoral district, to which no postmasters have yet been appointed?
2.	Has Mr. R. K. Rathwell been asked to make recommendations to the Postmaster General of such postmasters, and at what date was he first so requested in each case?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Proposed name of Office.	Proposed site	Date on which Mr. Rathwell was first consulted.Section.	Township.	Range.	M.	Floyd	i	2	15	W. 3rd.	December 20,1911.17	23	15	December 20,1911. .Maeshowe	15	12	17	November 18, 1911.Mayne	2	3	6	February 1, 1912.Niederstadt	11	if	II M	December 20,1911,Sunshine	13	3	27	II II	December 20,1911.Valjean	25	17	5	II It	February 1, 1912.14	17	21	It II	December 20,1911.Connaught	3	16	29	II II	November 18, 1911.36	15	10	II II	January 15, 1912.21	23	10	II II	December 20,1911.20	19	16	II II	January 15, 1912.22	18	9	II II	December 20,1911.27	11	27	II >1	February 1, 1912.Pinto Valley 	16	7	10	II M	December 20, 1911.The Flats	6	15	6	II II	February 1, 1912.Ritchie	2	26	21	II II	December 20,1911.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all letters, petitions, memorials or other documents received by the Prime Minister or any other member of the government, relating to the passage of a federal marriage law or legislation in regard to the so-called effect of the Ne Temere decree.-Mr. Macdonald.
For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, complaints, charges, or other documents in the possession of the Department of ^ Marine and Fisheries, relating to the dismissal of Edward Kelly from the position of engineer at the Reduction Works at Canso, N.S.-Mr. Sinclair.
For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, complaints or other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department, relating to the dismissal of Captain Alex. Roberts, I
[DOT]postmaster at Canso, N.S., and the appointment of his successor.-Mr. Sinclair.
For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, complaints, charges or other documents in the possession of the Marine and Fisheries Department, relating to the dismissal of David S. Hendsbee from the position of weigher at the Reduction Works at Canso, N.S.-Mr. Sinclair.	.	, .
For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, requests, complaints, or other documents in the possession of the government, or any department thereof, relating to the dismissal of George Cavanagh from the customs service at New Glasgow, N.S.-Mr. Macdonald.
For a copy of all letters, petitions, recommendations, complaints, charges, orders _ in council, or other documents in the possession or under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, relating to the dismissal of Patrick J. Conway, lightkeeper at White Head island, N.S.-Mr. Sinclair.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all papers, letters, documents, &c., relating to the dismissal of Hector Hamel, assistant appraiser at the Montreal custom house, and also relating to his subsequent appointment as preventive officer.-Mr. Le-mieux.
For a copy of all documents, letters, telegrams, requests, reports, recommendations and correspondence, regarding the removal or dismissal of Alexander R. McAdam, fishery officer for Antigonish county, and the appointment of his successor.-Mr. Chisholm (Antigonish).
For a return showing the number and capacity of cold storage establishments in each of the principal cities of Canada; the kind and quantity, approximate value of food stufis and produce contained in each of these establishments, during the months of November and December, 1911, and January, 191,2.-Mr. Verville.

Robert Laird Borden: That when this House adjourns on Tuesday next, the 20th instant it stand adjourned till Thursday 22nd.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr MONK moved that the House do tomorrow go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to ratify and confirm an agreement between the Colling-wood Ship Building Company, Limited, and His Majesty, dated, the 27th July, 1910, respecting the construction of a dry dock at the town of Collingwood, and to authorize the Governor in Council to pay an annual subsidy of three per cent per annum for twenty years upon the sum of $306,965.18, being the cost of construction of the said dry dock.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Is this subsidy paid according to the Dry Dock Subsidies Act ?


Mr MONK.: It is paid according to the Dry Dock Subsidies Act of 1910, and it is necessary to have the concurrence of Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 60), an Act to amend the Civil Service Act.
On section 39.-Salaries of Private Secretaries,
Robert Laird Borden: When this clause was under consideration before, I moved that subsections 2, 3 and 4 be struck out for the reasons which I then stated. It was then suggested that I had better give the matter a little further consideration. I have given the subject further considera-Mr. PELLETIER.
tion, but have not changed my conclusion with regard to it. I therefore beg to move that subsections, 2,	3 and 4 be
struck out.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).: On what
ground ?


Robert Laird Borden: The ground is this: The granting of an allowance, or an increase of salary, up to $600 to a person who has been appointed private secretary while in one sense perhaps not undesirable, inasmuch as it would merely restore the secretary to the emolument which he might have at the time when he retires from the service of his minister as private secretary, nevertheless might entail some difficulty and some possible injustice by putting such an official over the heads of a great many persons who had been in the Civil Service a long time, and who would feel that they were not receiving quite the consideration to which they were entitled if that were done. It may be that some other arrangement may be devised for dealing with the matter in a -way that would do no possible injustice. I have not, within the limited time at my disposal for consideration of the matter, been able to arrive at any conclusion which I regard as quite satisfactory. For that reason I moye that these subsections be struck out.


Frank Oliver: I was not present when the Bill was first discussed, and if the Premier would not object I would be very glad if he would give in a few words the effect of that part of the section which remains.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps I had better explain what the present law is. Section 39 of the Civil Service Amendment Act of 1908 provided that any person chosen by a minister to be his private secretary might, without examination and irrespective of age be appointed a clerk for a period not exceeding one year in subdivision B of the second division, and that after one year's service as such secretary he should be permanently appointed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What was . the salary attached ?


Robert Laird Borden: He would have to be appointed under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, and the salary, not under the new provision that I have referred to, but the old one, would be $800 and he would have an additional allowance of $600 as secretary. It was not found possible in some cases to obtain the services of a competent man to fill the position of of private secretary at that figure.


Frank Oliver: At $1400 ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, and therefore we are ask in" for authority to appoint to subdivision B of the second division, or subdivision A of the same division, or to subdivision B of the fiTst division.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But the secretaries will still get the allowance.


Robert Laird Borden: They will.


Frank Oliver: They are to go into a division higher than the present Civil Service Act permits.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Frank Oliver: And they get the same extra consideration as secretaries ?


Robert Laird Borden: Quite so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the private secretaries who have served under the last administration be affected by this ? Section 2 provides for the Act coming into torce on the 10th of October, 1912. What* is the effect of that clause ?


Robert Laird Borden: The effect is that men who are selected as private secretaries to ministers may as of that date be appointed to the positions provided for in


Rodolphe Lemieux: Were the secretaries who served under the old government to oe affected by this? Is there not preced-S?*./0* giving those who remain in the oivil bervice compensation for the $600 a year that they lose?


Robert Laird Borden: No, there is no provision under this statute different in that respect from that which was originally provided.


Rodolphe Lemieux: tion of the right that?
Was it not the intention. gentleman to do


Robert Laird Borden: No, that had not occurred to me; for I had understood that the secretaries of ministers of the late administration had been provided for, except in one case which was brought to my attention, and as to -which I undertook to make some provision. I was not aware there was really any difficulty. Of course, the whole subject is, perhaps, not a very easy one to deal with, because of the effect of the legislation which was passed in 1908. I do not know that I have any suggestion to offer other than that embodied in this legislation, but it is ciear that it does bring about an inconvenient result. This legislation may have to be changed at_ another session. The inconvenience is' this: A gentleman is appointed as private secretary to a minister, in some cases at least he does not discharge any duties except those incident to his private secretaryship, and the administration of the department is provided for altogether out-106
side of his services. His minister goes out of office and the private secretary remains in the Civil Service. Under the provisions of the Act of 1908, and under the provisions of this amending Act, he is left for the time being without any special duties to perform. And so matters remain until the department can so organize as to make his services available to the country. That is the difficulty [DOT] which was pointed out to me, and it undoubtedly exists. But it exists no more under this amending Act than under the Act of 1908.


Frank Oliver: I think it is hardly fair to deal with the private secretary by ignoring the fact that he has a special, case. If a member of the civil service has acted -as private secretary to a minister, of course he has received extra consideration. If the minister goes out the private secretary reverts to the salary which he had before he became private secretary. I think that the man who has acted as private secretary to a minister and has been able to fulfil the duties-the somewhat onerous duties-of that position, has thereby acquired an experience and a knowledge that is valuable. Also he has proven himself a man of such capacity as to entitle him to at any raie more consideration than to merely put him back where he was at the beginning of his term of office as private secretary, perhaps four or five years before. While I am aware that that is the position under the law, I understood that the purpose oi this Bill was to recognize in some measure the idea I have taken the liberty of placing before the committee. As I said, I shall be very sorry if the Bill is not put in such a form as to give the private secretary some consideration. I do not ask that when he drops the very onerous duties of private secretary he should receive absolutely the same salary as he had while he was discharging those duties, but I think it is entirely unfair, and not in the reasonable interest of the public service, that the man who has occupied that position and who has acquired an experience which should be of value should, on a change of government, revert to the position he occupied before he was chosen for the position of private secretary. I would ask the Prime Minister to give some further consideration to that side of the case, unless he has already considered it and has absolutely made up-his mind.


Robert Laird Borden: I have considered that. Those gentlemen who leave their positions as private secretary, in some cases at least at the present time, are left almost entirely without any duties to perform. We have no disposition whatever to deal otherwise than fairly with them, but we have to take into consideration the circumstance that it is very difficult, if not impossible, in



some of the departments at least, to make any effective utilization of their services. My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) says that they revert to the position which they held at first. That, perhaps, is not an absolutely correct way of stating it, because they have received each year a certain increment in their annual salaries under the provisions of the Civil 'Service Act. True, they do lose at the moment, the sum of $600 a year, to which they were entitled, by virtue of being private secretaries. But we cannot very well deal with that without taking into our regard other considerations which I mentioned a moment ago, and which were brought to_ my attention by 'some members of the civil service. I am placing all private secretaries exactly on the same basis, so far as that is concerned. The provisions embodied in this Bill particularly under subsections 2, 3 and 4, had regard to the men who are being appointed now, and I am striking them out. But 1 am prepared at some later date- for I have not had sufficient time to consider the subject thoroughly-to take up the question of dealing not only with these but also with the men who went out- of office as private secretaries, when the government resigned, but who are still members of the oiv-il service. But I do not think it would be possible for me, purely for lack of time, to deal with that matter this session. So far as the secretaries of ministers of the late administration are concerned, the case of only one of them has been brought to my attention, and he is to be provided for in a way that I hope, will be entirely satisfactory.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the right hon. gentleman allude to the secretary of the right lion, the leader of the opposition?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes. I have taken the matter up with the leader of the opposition, and 1 think it can be settled in a way that will be satisfactory to him and to the gentleman who is concerned.
On the Preamble.


Robert Laird Borden: With respect to one department of the government, a point was brought to our attention within a day or two, and it may be provided for in an amendment to the Bill. For the present, I will let the Bill stand jn committee for that purpose, if you, Mr. Chairman, have no objection.
Progress reported.


THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BORDEN moved the second reading of Bill (No. 104) to amend the Civil Service Act. He said: The purpose of this Bill is expressed on its face. At the present time there are two Civil Service Commissioners.
Robert Laird Borden: Inconvenience has been found to arise in more than one instance by reason of the members of the commission being equally divided, in which case no action can be taken. For that reason it has been thought desirable to introduce this Bill to enable the government to appoint another commissioner. There is another reason which I mentioned on the introduction of the Bill. It is hoped that the provision of the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, will be extended in the early future to some portions, at least, of the outside service. The leader of the opposition, who was present when I introduced the Bill, alluded to some positions in the outside service, such as postmasters in cities, to which he thought the Act might be extended almost at once. Inasmuch, however, as we do not know how soon this can be accomplished, or how soon the services of another commissioner may be required for that purpose, it has been thought best to introduce a provision in section 2 of the Bill that it shall not come into force until proclamation by the Governor General in Council.


Mr. KYTE.: Is it the intention of the Bill to make appointments to the outside service subject to competitive examination?


Robert Laird Borden: I have said that it is the desire and intention of the government to extend as rapidly as possible, to some parts of the outside service at least, the provisions of the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908. How rapidly that can be done, what progress can be made in putting it into effect, I cannot say, for the reason that we have not been able, owing to the very numerous matters pressing upon our attention during this session, to give much consideration to it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It can be done by order in council.


Robert Laird Borden: It can be done by order in council; but we must have regard to some other considerations. I imagine that there would have to be some departmental inquiry necessary in every case to enable the government to form a just conclusion as to how far the provisions of the Civil Service Amendment Act could be brought into operation in any particular department.


Frank Oliver: What position will the new appointee take? Is he to be chairman?


Robert Laird Borden: We have not given any consideration to that at all. We merely provide that there shall be three commissioners instead of two, and that one of them shall be chairman.


Frank Oliver: What is the salary?


Robert Laird Borden: The same as before, no change.

335R
Mr. MACLEAN {Halifax). Does the chairman receive a larger salary than the other members?


Robert Laird Borden: It is not so provided in this Bill.


Frank Oliver: At present the salaries of the two commissioners are the same?


Robert Laird Borden: Exactly the same. They have the rank ianid salary of a deputy minister.


Mr. MURPHY.: Will the chairman be *designated by order in council?


Robert Laird Borden: The Governor in Council may appoint one of the members of the commission to be its chairman.
Motion -agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,


Mr.   MAOLEAN@Halifax: Is there not some general statute which provides that deputy ministers are only removable by joint address of the Senate and House of Commons?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not quite sure. If I remember correctly, that is provided either in the statute creating the department -or by some general provision, such as the hon. gentleman has mentioned.
On section 2,


Rodolphe Lemieux: Perhaps the right hon. gentleman will not object to reporting progress. I understood the other day that the leader of the apposition bad something to say. I suppose he may say it on the third reading?


Robert Laird Borden: Just as my hon. friend prefers.
Progress reported.


POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT.- RAILWAY MAIL CLERKS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PELLETIER moved the second reading of Bill (No. 105) to amend the Post Office Act. He said: This Bill is to provide for an improvement in the railway mail -clerk service, which is not at present in -a satisfactory position. The railway mail clerks now receive ia salary of $500 a year on appointment. We have to get them from the outside, and we have a good de-ai of difficulty in getting good men for the reason that they are not paid as they ought to be. This Bill provides for several oases, which I will -briefly explain to the House.
The first clause provides that any person may be employed temporarily as a railway mail clerk for a period of not more than one year at a salary of $500 a year 106§ 5
and mileage allowance. The present law provides for the temporary employment of clerks for a period of only six months. We extend that period to one year. Tfais-gives the clerks two chances instead of one of passing their examination. When we find some of these men to he good employees, understanding their work, we do not want them to go and take other places.. We are allowing them mileage allowance and I am sure that the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux), will agree with me that this is a wise provision. We cannot expect railway mail clerks to do good work at $500 a year at the present cost of: living. Permanent clerks receive a certain mileage, and these men who are in the-service of the department are doing the: same work, but they are not now given any: mileage allowance. It is hoped that the granting of the mileage allowance will help to retain these men in the service. The experience of the department is that if we do not take better care of out employees we are simply training boys who, when they know something about the service, leave the department to take other situations and we thereby lose some of our most promising employees. We intend! to try to keep these men in our employ by paying them decent salaries.
The second clause is one which will appeal to the House. A great number of temporary mail clerks have not passed the examination. The law says that they must pass the examination in order to be appointed permanently. I do not want to reflect on the Civil Service Commissioners, but I will frankly say that I could not pass their examinations nor could many gentlemen in this House. For this very inferior position, and this small salary, men are expected to answer questions which a young man fresh from college might be able to answer, but which a grown up man would be unable to answer. The exPostmaster General and myself have been obliged to take men who have not passed the examination, but who are just as good: as if they had; they know their business, they do it well, but under the present law we are obliged to send them away. I ask the authority of the House to appoint these men permanently if their services have been satisfactory, and if they are recommended by the superintendent and the controller of the Railway Mail Service. They will have to pass only the p^limin-ary examination, and I have no hesitation in saying that the passing of that examination is a sufficient qualification for the position of railway mail clerk. If they pass that examination they will go up-, step by step, to $1,000. They will stop there if they do not pass the full examination. I felt disposed to be even more lenient, but I suppose progress has to be
[Stage Direction]
made little by little, and I think this will appeal to the House as being a just and fair measure, both t-o these railway mail clerks, who have a great deal of heavy work to do, and to the public service.
Rodolphe Lemieux: I quite agree with the general lines of this Bill and I concur in the remarks just made. The cost of living is increasing immensely. I remember, although I am not very old myself, that some years ago, a man could bring up a family on a salary of $1,000 a year, but now-a-days it is practically impossible to 'do so, living in a modest way. The railway mail clerks are most excellent officers of His Majesty's service, and as I have told the House on many occasions, they have to incur risks in the discharge of their duties, which other civil servants do not incur. They are obliged to travel at all times of the year, during the heat of the summer and the cold of the winter. They have to take ont insurance policies fcr the protection of their families, and they have to contend with difficulties not experienced by other members of the civil service. Will the clause providing for the raising of the salaries of railway mail clerks up to $1,000 if they pass the preliminary examination apply to any railway mail clerk who is in the service at present regardless of the number of years of his service?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will treat them well.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Having said so much about what is being done in favour of the railway mail clerks, I wish to emphasize once more before this House, the urgent necessity of extending the provisions of the Civil Service Atct to the outside service. It would save my hon. friend or any minister of the Crown much time and worry, if rhere was one general law applied to civil servants, whether they are in the inside or in the outside service.
When I was in the government, I advocated it, speaking for myself only, but there were some who did not believe that this reform should be accomplished then. However, a bold step must be taken some time, and it is time to take it now. The life of a minister is not worth living if, whenever he moves from Ottawa to Montreal or Quebec, he is to be constantly surrounded by a crowd of office seekers, as I understand my hon. friend the Postmaster General is and as I was when I was Postmaster General. Would it not be better to have the same principle of competitive examination for the outside service as we have now for the inside service ? My hon. friend (Mr. Pelletier) was not here before the days of the new Civil Service Act, and I can assure him that he is living in Paradise now, because he will never have so many visi-Mr. PELLETIER.
tors looking for employment as we had before that Act was passed.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Did my hon. friend receive more visitors than we do now?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, yes, we were stormed with visitors and letters. That legislation introduced by Mr. Fisher with respect to the inside service afforded a cure for many evils and gave the ministers of the Crown some little time to devote their energies to the business of the country. Under the present Civil Service Law we get a good class of civil servants; the law is known to the people, the minister is bound by it, and his answer to applicants is that he must obey the law. Why not extend this principle of competitive examination to the outside service? What difference is there between an official of the Post Office Department and an official in the post office at Ottawa, or at Montreal, or in the other cities? They both deal with the same matters, they have to perform practically the same duties; in fact I would, say that the postmasters in Montreal and Ottawa must have perhaps more ability than some departmental officials. I can assure my hon. friend that when he proposes to put the outside officials under the Civil Service Act-and judging by the remarks of the Prime Minister to-day the government is contemplating that-it will meet with favour from this side of the House. Let there be one law for the inside and outside service alike, and thus the ministers wiil have more time to work for the country, and they will have to give less time to working for the office seeker.


William Humphrey Bennett: How >
many temporary clerks will come under this, and how much mileage per day would be represented ?	*


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The mileage will amount to $250 or $300 a year each. I will get. the information later as to the number of miles.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (North York).: I wish to say a word or two with regard to the railway mail service of this Dominion, and, by way of explanation, I may be frank enough to tell the House that I spent four or five years of my life in that service. I am pleased to know that the Postmaster General realizes the importance of that branch of the department under his charge; I am pleased to know that he realizes that he has good and efficient servants in that branch, and I am pleased to know that the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has been able to testify from past experience that the railway mail clerks were faithful and efficient officers during the time he was m charge of the department. I would like to refer now to a Bill affecting the railway mail clerks in-

troduced when the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) was Postmaster General, and I do so for the purpose of making a plea for the railway mail clerks and for that reason alone. In my humble judgment the railway mail service has been sadly neglected in the past and the following quotation from the Bill I refer to will, I think show that:
3. Paragraph (a) of section 32 of the said Act is repealed, and in lieu thereof it is enacted that a railway mail clerk shall be appointed on probation for a period of at least one year, at a salary at the rate of five hundred dollars a year, with an additional allowance or mileage, and on the confirmation of his appointment he may be paid at the rate of six hundred dollars a year, and mileage, with annual increases of one hundred dollars up to eight hundred dollars, and an increase of fifty dollars a year thereafter until the maximum of one thousand four hundred dollars is reached.
Now, I want to point out the injustice of that Bill. Whom does it affect? It affected primarily only the men who had been appointed by the late administration, because it will be noticed that the men who had just been a short time in the service received one hundred dollars a year increase instead of fifty dollars a year, and in the second place it affected that class of men who had been in the service practically for a lifetime and who had already reached the maximum salary of twelve hundred. Thus the great backbone of the service the men not included in those two classes received no immediate benefit whatever from that legislation. The men receiving over eight hundred dollars a year and under twelve hundred received, no benefit, because their increase went along at the rate of fifty dollars a year as formerly. I cannot conceive by what process of reasoning any man could decree that a clerk shall receive one hundred dollars a year increase the first year he is in the service when he knows nothing about it whatever, and that after he had been three years in the service and learned the business from start to finish, that that increase should be dropped to fifty dollars a year. That is one phase of the question I cannot understand. I would appeal to the Postmaster General to, if he possibly can see his way clear, right the wrong that was done by this legislation, and a great wrong it is. There is another phase of the question to which I would direct attention. There has been a tendency in past years to place the railway mail service in a lower grade than other post office officials in the outside service. I want to tell the House that the railway mail clerk takes second place to no class of post office employees. There is not a branch of the department in which the men have to work harder or in which more experience is required. Further, it was the first branch of
the post office service in which the employees were forced to go through a very strict examination on the duties of office in order to get their annual increase. Until a few years ago the railway mail service was the only service in which the employees had to undergo a yearly examination and take ninety per cent before they were pronounced entitled to their fifty dollars a year increase. I mention these facts in the hope that the Postmaster General will, when the ease is fairly and squarely presented, take steps to right the injustice that has been done the railway mail clerks who are, I would say, possibly the most faithful officials in his department. It has been claimed that a railway mail clerk received a salary of fourteen hundred dollars a year and mileage, but when you come to consider the question of salary the mileage should not be taken into account because the mileage is paid only by way of compensation for the extra, risk, and the unnatural conditions under which he has to discharge his duties.
I would like to remind the hon. the Postmaster General that only three or four days ago three of his men went down in a wreck in the Toronto division; and I could mention many such cases in that branch of the service. Men go out three or four times a week taking itheir lives in their bands. Surety these men are entitled to more consideration than, mem who work in offices. I hope the case of the railway mail - clerks of this iDoaninion will he looked into thoroughly, and that tliey will receive the justice they deserve; and I am satisfied that they will receive it at the hands of one of the most just and reasonable Postmaster Generals that I think this country ever had.


Mr. NESBITT.: I see that a clerk, no matter how long he has served, cannot get over $1,000 without passing a qualifying examination. Is that a special examination for railway mail clerks?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No. The railway mail clerk is practically a stamper and sorter. He has to pass what is called a case examination and the annual office examination required by the Civil Service Commission. The limit of $1,000 is for the men wffio have passed the preliminary examination, to distinguish them from those who have passed both examinations, and whose salary does not stop at $1,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is the qualifying examination an examination within the department?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, by the Civil Service Commission.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Especially for the railway mail clerks?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Of course.


'3355 COMMONS
Edward Walter Nesbitt: The reason I ask is that m man who has had experience might not he able to pass the civil service examination, and still be a very well qualified railway mail clerk. Ii it is an examination Into his special qualifications for his work, it is all right; otherwise, I do not think it is.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I may say to my hon. friend that I fully expect before long to go further than this Bill is going. While it is very satisfactory to find that this Bill *is so well received by both sides of the House, it does not go as far as I would have liked it to go. But we have to make (progress little by little. Railway mail clerks are very good men, and I am happy to see that one who started his career as a railway mail clerk, is now a member of the House of Commons, and one of the best. With regard to the qualifying [DOT]examination, if it is kept on the lines on which it exists now, and we extend the *Civil Service Act to the outside service, it will be very difficult for the Postmaster General to find employees. The preliminary examination is all right, but I think the qualifying examination is too severe. It *should be such as a certain number of people will be able to pass. Now we are obliged to go outside of the Civil Service Commission to get employees, because they have none to give us.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You mean for the outside service?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.


Mr LEMIEUX.: You are obliged to violate the law.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, we overstep the law all the time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1, salaries of clerks,
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: As I understand the law at present, the railway mail-clerks are required to pass the civil service examination, 'but the department has been in the habit of employing temporarily, persons who have not passed the examinations, upon the understanding that they might suffer dismissal if the examination "were not passed within a year, and now the -minister proposes to take statutory authority for appointing temporarily those who have not passed the examination.
Mr. PELLETIER, It is now done by overstepping the law, and I want the authority of the law to do it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The explanation of ihe minister clears up a point about which I had some doubt, as a matter of departmental practice. I had assumed that there -was some statutory authority under Mr. PELLETIER.
which mail clerks were employed temporarily. I understand the minister to say that is not so, and this Bill will, for the first time, create such an authority. It is therefore, only confirming a practice which has been in existence in the past.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are now employed as labourers.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I quite agree as to the desirability of the legislation in that regard. It has always seemed to me to be a hardship that where you have perfectly competent young men who have passed the preliminary Civil Service examination and who perform their duties-onerous and responsible as they are-very efficiently that they should be prevented' from becoming permanent officers (because of having to pass a qualifying examination. That examination, as the Minister says, has undoubtedly been too severe and in my view the Civil Service commissioners or those who prepare these examination papers, with all due deference to them, do not apprehend what ought to be the qualifications of those who offer themselves as candidates. That erudition, or knowledge of technical subjects, such as one acquires at school is not going to make a man who passejs, the preliminary examination for railway mail clerk any more qualified to perform his duties; and the fact that he is not in a position to pass this purely technical qualifying examination ought not to debar him from permanency of employment. In that connection I am aware of a great many cases of hardship which have occurred within the past few years, and I think that the Minister should have some discretionary power. The evil will not be removed if the position of these men, who were admitted to the service temporarily, is confirmed and the hindrances to them getting increases under the Act, which I have mentioned as being a difficulty in the way, is not also removed. I quite agree with the ex-Postmaster General in the proposition that there should be an extension of the civil service reform generally to the outside service. In a great many branches of the outside service, if there were proper examinations, greater efficiency would be secured, and the evils of patronage would be removed to a very great degree. We are all I assume-although there has been a lot of talk about the matter, and we are making but very slight progress towards attaining the desired end-in favour of causing" the civil service to so improve as in some degree to approach the high status the civil service occupies in the mother country. I suppose patronage is an alluring thing to hon. gentlemen opposite, who have been without that privilege for so long, but they will find it becomes a very ere at burden after a while; and I think we ought to reach the stage in this country

when both parties can unite in a reasonable and sensible proposition of civil service reform for the outside service. That is a general proposition which is not rightly before us perhaps at this time, but it is a deduction from what I was anxious to see done with regard to the aptness and the sensible character of the qualifying examination, because some of the papers submitted to men who occupied temporary positions in the railway mail service and who desired to be made permanent, on presenting themselves for examination, have been shown to me, and as a means calculated to test their fitness or capacity for their duties were in my opinion absolutely ridiculous. It would appear impossible that educated people responsible for the civil service of this country would set papers of the kind, and there certainly requires to be a remedy in that respect both as regards the inside and outside service, if civil service reform is going to apply. Men who have been temporarily employed and are reasonably efficient in the discharge of their duties should not be debarred from promotion by failure to pass a technical examination. Provided you get integrity and general capacity on the part of the candidate the examination should take regard of a knowledge of the details of the particular service and the responsibility of the party affected. The possession of the necessary degree of intelligence can be very readily ascertained without exceptional educational test. At the first blush the Bill would seem to propose that one should be a graduate of the Military College, or of some university of Canada, but that is of course only an alternative qualifying position and would really dispense with the necessity of a graduate of either of these institutions having to go up for examination again. I hope that the minister, acting in conjunction with his colleagues, will see that a qualifying examination of a practical character is established, and the present examinations done away with, so that we may have a practical and sensible test of the qualifications of those who seek to enter the service.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: As I stated a moment ago, I would not bav-e allowed the provision for a qualifying examination to remain at all, if I did not expect that this question will be dealt with before long, and that provision will be made for an examination calculated to demonstrate the fitness of candidates for positions they seek to fill and the work they are expected to perform. It seems to me that is the whole question in a nutshell.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is the idea.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Why put questions about irrelevant matters to a man who is. going to sort letters or to become a railway mail clerk? I am strongly of opinion that
the preliminary examination is all that is necessary to test the capacity of a man seeking to become a railway mail clerk. We must not advance too rapidly along the path of progress; this is the first instalment. I shall -come with other instalments if the present law affecting all the departments is not amended. I shall take care of my own railway mail clerks and my own employees in such a way that they will be able to perform their duties efficiently, and that ridiculous1 questions Shall not be put to them. As far as railway mail clerks are concerned if, having had the opportunity of taking two examinations in one year, they are not able to paisa one such examination, they are not qualified to be railway mail clerks, because that examination is not a difficult one, but _ it proves whether they have the requisite knowledge to fill the office.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I hope the minister does not contemplate the abolishing all tests of educational accomplishments. I do not think you could fairly restrict the examination to what are the routine and practical duties of the railway mail clerk. There must be some educational standard that a man must reach before he can be appointed.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There is no question about that.


Mr.   MAGLEAN@Halifax: I agree with the minister that, in the past the papers set for 'Candidates entering this particular branch of the service have been unduly severe. At the same time I trust he will maintain an educational standard of some kind.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Certainly. What I meant was that the examination to be undergone should bear some relation to the work which the candidate has to perform. Of course the educational attainments must bear some relation to the work. However, it is not necessary for a sorter or stamper in the post office to possess the same degree of education as a man whose duties would require him to engage in correspondence and write letters in proper language. There should be some sort of a sliding scale by which the 'examinations will be based on the importahee of the work the man is going to do. That will be one of the difficulties in extending the control of the Civil Service Commission to the outside service. A proper sense of proportion must be maintained in order to make the idea practicable, but I hope that we will be able to realize the object which the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Le-mieux), and I think everybody in this House, has in view.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no question but that some years ago people were quite


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What kind of examinations?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are called case examinations. Every year an inspector goes through the various offices and cars and subjects the railway mail clerks to examination in order to see that they are well trained, and that they maintain their efficiency. But I quite agree with the Postmaster General, and the hon. member for Pictou (Mr .Macdonald) that the educational test for the railway mail clerk is too high. Why, with all due respect to the railway mail clerks, who are good officials and good men-we have heard in this House tc-day the maiden speech of a gentleman who tells us that he began life as a railway mail clerk, an excellent speech, indicating that the hon. gentleman will be quite an addition to this House, but I am sure that he will also admit what I say-it is 'lowering the standard of university and Royal Military College examinations to say that one who has passed those examinations may be admitted to the service.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are the examinations which these men must pass the qualifying or the preliminary?
Mr. PELLETIER, Both. That is what I would call the absurdity of the present law. My hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) knows that we cannot keep up our staff of railway mail clerks strictly under the law. We have to take them on here and there under any name, 'labourers' for instance. Once we have engaged them, we take them into the service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In my time railway mail clerks west of Lake Superior were entitled to an additional fifteen per cent on their salaries as a special allowance, because of the greater cost of living in the west. I suppose that is being maintained under this legislation?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: All through this legislation, we have to take care of the extra cost of living in the west, which is admitted on all hands.


Mr. SHEPHERD.: Is a knowledge of French necessary to qualify a railway mail clerk in the west?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If we exacted that in all cases, we could not find employees. We have to strain a point; we have to be liberal. In principle it is all right, but in practice, we have to do the best we can. In the west we have great difficulty in finding people to enter the service. In the east, on the contrary, men are anxious to enter. We must constantly send people from the east to the west to maintain our staff there. The cost of living in the west, as is well known, is very high; also the people there seem to make more money than they do here-in spite of the many

complaints we hear in the House about losses suffered, everybody seems to be prosperous in the west. I hope that this Bill will enable us to find in the west men who are to work in the west.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is quite right when he says that the Postmaster General is not obliged to demand of a candidate that he shall be qualified in both languages. Of course, it is of great advantage to a man to have both languages. But the examinations, by law and the constitution of the country, -may be passed in either language. If a candidate goes before the Civil Service Commission for the inside service, ihe may pass the examination in either French or English. But in this country no man has the same chance of succeeding, unless he speaks, writes and understands both languages. I cannot repeat too often to my English-speaking friends^and I say it with all candour-that the young French Canadian who speaks, writes and understands English as well as French, has two or three chances to one a3 against his young English-speaking competitor who has command of only one language. Besides in travelling all over the world my hon. friend will find that it is very important to know French.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I was going to object to that clause making an exception of the Royal Military College and universities, only that the Postmaster General says he is going to look into the question. The people in Ontario think that anybody who has passed through the military college and the universities is good enough for any place in the gift of this government, and surely their certificates are quite good enough to qualify a student for almost any business position in this country.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think the minister should, at an early date, revise this whole system of examination. So much has been said as to what are the real duties of railway mail clerks, that one need not go over it again. At present the Civil Service Commission, under the head of ' History,' puts such questions as these to applicants:
Wliat do we owe to the following:-Magna Charts, Habeas Corpus, Wilberforoe, and Florence Nightingale-
Who was Jeanne Dare (Joan of Arc) ?
What was the Reign of Terror in France? What brought it about? Name the leading men who figured in it.
Sketch the career of William Lyon Mackenzie in the rebellion of 1837.
Fancy asking a young man going into the railway mail service such questions as these. If they were asked something about the career of William Lyon Mackenzie King, it might have been reasonable. Then here is another lot:
Give the plural of poet-laureate, crisis, madam, sheep and buffalo.
What I think should be required of a mail clerk is that he should be a fairly good writer, be able to do easy sums in arithmetic, and particularly be conversant with the geography of this country, of all the provinces in the Dominion; and to have more than a superficial knowledge of the geography of the United States. So far as European countries are concerned, the mail matter as a rule will go over direct to London, and there be sorted out. I hope the minister will cut out these examinations.
On subsection 6,


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the meaning of that word ' university ' ? Will that cover our classical colleges?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think in Quebec there are 17 or 18 classical colleges affiliated to Laval University, and students who have completed their full course receive degrees, some the degree of Master of Arts, and others the degree of Bachelor of Arts. I would like to know from the hon. gentle man if the word 'university' will include such colleges?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.


Mr. McKENZIE.: I would like to ask the minister what is the regulation by which the mileage apportioned to railway mail clerks is governed, that is, is there any uniformity in the mileage? There are perhaps five or six hundred clerks, and there must be great difference in the length of the routes. Is there any attempt at uniformity in the length of the routes, and the number of miles which each clerk has to travel? Otherwise, I can see that there might be some injustice in the payment of mileage. For instance, a man starting from Halifax and running to Montreal, would have a very long mileage; and I understand it is the same clerk or the same set of clerks who run up to Montreal, and turn to come back the next day. They would have a very long mileage, and consequently a very large pay; whereas a clerk running out of Halifax to Yarmouth, for instance, would have a short run, and 'short pay. Then again, the run from Halifax to Sydney is comparatively short, as compared with that from Halifax to Montreal. Is there some way by which the clerks are shifted about so that they may be treated with equality in the length of their runs and in the consequent amount of their payment? There are complaints in the service on this ground, possibly they have not reached the ears of the minister-eom-plaints against superintendents, because- I would not like to say it-they put their

favourites on good routes, and men who are not their favourites, on poor routes. I would like to see this work put on some basis, put under some independent supervision, so that all mail clerks should be treated on a par, so far as mileage and payment is concerned.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I think the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) is quite right. I may say that I have not, during the short time I have been at the head of the department, heard of any complaints in that respect. The hon. gentleman says there are complaints; if so, they have; not reached the head of the department. If any complaints come to my knowledge, they shall be dealt with in such a manner that all shall be treated fairly and justly. Of course the 'department ha3 to trust the railway mail superintendents, they are supposed to give each man a fair share of the mileage. I may say-so that it may go down on ' Hansard '-that it win be the aim of the department to treat all the railway mail clerks justly and fairly, so that each member of the staff shall receive a fair proportion of the mileage, and of the payment therefor. If any complaints are made to the head of the department they shall be heard. As a rule, I understand that the railway mail superintendents are doing this business in a fair manner. Of course there may be some difficulty in respect to long distances as compared with shorter runs. For instance, between Montreal and Ottawa, a railway mail clerk may travel as far as Vankleek Hill, and then double back to Montreal, and be with his family the same evening. Such arrangements exist in a certain number of cases. Others would prefer to go all the way from Montreal to Ottawa or vice versa. I understand that as far as is consistent with the interests of the service, the wishes of the clerks are taken into consideration bv the superintendent. if *complaints of the kind referred to reach me, I shall see that justice is done.
Mr, BENNETT (Simcoe). The inside' service at Ottawa stands on a different basis from the railway mail clerks. Railway mail clerks are, of necessity, all males, while in the inside service in Ottawa a lot of young women are employed. It is all very well to go wild on civil service examinations, but there must be limits. Whoever heard of a large steamship company with a line of ocean steamers asking for a competitive examination before appointing a captain? They select men according to their fitness. I know of no reason why a young man passing the ordinary preliminary examination, and in accord with the government of the day should not have preference in appointment. It is all very well for the hon. members for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), and Rouville (Mr. Mr. McKENZIE.
Lemieux), those twin darlings of buncombe on all occasions, who stand up and claim entrance to the service for Grit and Tory alike. They have been singularly quiet on that subject for the last 15 years. It may be that they are now fatigued by their efforts, and worn out by the work they have done for their friends, they! now want them to be admitted to office by competitive examination. I want to place myself on record as being opposed to the appointment by the commission of railway mail clerks.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We have not only advocated equality in the appointment of civil servants, but we introduced legislation to provide for it and in the inside service ali parties have an equal chance, irrespective of politics. I ask my hon. friend if he does not think that in this way you secure a better service than by making selections from one party only. Is he of opinion that, after all, the appointment of a man in the outside service, a customs officer, or an excise man, or a letter carrier is of great political assistance to a member? There is an old adage in our province that when you appoint a man he becomes ungrateful, and you make 99 other people dissatisfied. Let it be under one commission, and let applications come from all parts and all sections or the community. Let the civil service be a national institution, not an institution in the hands of one party; let it be for the whole country.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do I understand that this amendment gives a minister power to make permanent those temporary clerks now in the service no matter what their age may be?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Irrespective of age, the age limit is struck out, I think it is ridiculous.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the rumour true! which I heard in Montreal, that the old railway mail clerks who have attained the maximum of their salary, and are entitled to their superannuation, will get a superannuation equal to their salary?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have never considered this question at all, it has never been presented to me.
Bill reported, read a third time and
passed.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 76) to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act-Mr. Cochrane.
George William Kyte: When this Bill was under
consideration on Thursday there was some

criticism by hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to the cost of the railway, and they insinuated that it was owing to improper wastefulness and want of capacity on the part of the commissioners that it was costing so large an amount. The statement presented by the Minister of Railways shows that tihe total amount chargeable to capitall account is $187,781,128. That is the total amount which will be chargeable when the road is completed. Of that amount the total liability of the government is the interest on the actual expenditure of $187,781,128 for 7 years, which comes to $39,434,031. Then there is an estimate for betterments to the road during the 7 years it is operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific without interest of $7,884,840, and the interest on this is. estimated at $900,000, making a total of $48,218,871. I am not quite sure how the Minister of Railways and Canals comes to place the amount to be thus spent for betterments, but I presume that he has some reason for doing so. I should think that amount of betterments, $7,884,840, ought to be charged to capital account as is the case with other railways, or, if it is intended as the loss on the operation for seven years it should be charged to the government.


Francis Cochrane: Under the agreement the betterment must be made by the government for fifty years.


George William Kyte: With that explanation 1 repeat that the total amount of liability imposed upon the government in respect to the construction of the present Transcontinental railway will be $48,218,871. That is of course assuming that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will continue to operate the road after the period of seven years and pay the interest they are obliged to pay under the agreement. The statement made by the Minister of Railways included a charge for interest for the first three years after the road is taken over by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and assuming that there is not sufficient earned by the road during these three years to pay this interest, it would be chargeable to capital account, it, therefore, cannot fairly be stated that that would increase the liability of the government in respect to the expenses of building the railway. The hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) stated that figuring on the statement submitted to the committee by the Minister of Railways, $60,000,000 interest is going to be paid out by the country in connection with the road, instead of the $13,000,000 which we were told would be the cost by the then Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his Finance Minister, Mr. Fielding. The hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) then
estimates that the total liability for interest of the country in respect to the construction of this railway will be $60,000,000, and I venture to say that there is no hon. gentleman who will be disposed to believe that the hon. member (Mr. Ames) is in any way disposed to reduce the amount of liability which the .country will be under in this respect. Now, $60,000,000 is hot a very considerable amount of money when we take into consideration the immensity of the project, when nine years ago the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier undertook the construction of this railway. It is true that the cost of this road to the country will exceed the estimate.


Mr. WHITE (Leeds).: Is the hon. rentleman sure that the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) mentioned $60,000,000 as the cost of the construction of this road?


George William Kyte: No. He stated that that amount would have to be paid by the government for interest in respect of this undertaking. The government is not pay-;ng for the cost of the road as I understand. The Grand Trunk Pacific are ultimately to pay the cost of the road, either by actually purchasing it or by paying a rental which is estimated to amount to 'hree per cent, on the actual cost.


John Dowsley Reid: At what page of 1 Hansard 5 will I find the statement made by Mr. Ames?


George William Kyte: At pages 3197-98. It has been asserted time and again that when the Bill was first before parliament, Mr. Fielding, then Finance Minister, stated that in his judgment the total amount for interest chargeable to the government, would be $13,000,000. I have heard that alleged statement denied by Mr. Fielding on the floor of the House, and I know that on a subsequent occasion the statement was made that $51,000,000 would cover the liability for interest incurred by the government in respect of the construction of this railway. Therefore, the amount of interest estimated by the late Minister of Finance and the amount which the hon. member (Mr. Ames) says the government will be liable for, do not disagree very much, there being a difference of $9,000,000 in the estimates of the two hon. gentlemen. Now, in the construction of every great undertaking it is not an uncommon thing that the actual expenditure should exceed the estimates. During the last forty years nearly every public work constructed by the government of this country has cost more money than it was estimated it would cost. In the construction of these very parliament buildings which was undertaken by the provinces of Ontario and Quebec in 1869, it was estimated that they would cost $2,000,000, but

when the buildings were completed it was found that they had cost $9,000,000, a difference of $7,000,000 above the estimate. In the case of the construction of the Panama canal, which was undertaken by the United States government, the actual experience of the work has proven that the estimate of the cost will be exceeded by an immense sum. I think the first estimate of the cost of the Panama canal by the officials who were charged to prepare that estimate, was $100,000,000 but, as an actual fact, the canal will cost $325,000,000 before the work is completed. There are reasons why the expenditure on the Transcontinental railway has largely exceeded the estimate, quite apart from any suggestion that there was want of capacity on the part of the Transcontinental Railway Commission. Take, for instance, that section of the railway be-twen Moncton and .Chipman; I understand that in the original specifications drawn by the engineers in charge of the work it was stated that for the first fifty miles west of Moncton there was no rock, and that common earth excavation would be the material met with, but, when they came to build the road it was found that this first fifty miles west of Moncton was almost exclusively solid rock. That mistake would seem to reflect to some extent upon the capacity of the engineers who were entrusted with the preparation of the specification in respect to that section. I suppose they could have made a more correct estimate of the cost of construction if they had gone to the expense of sinking test pits, from Moncton to Winnipeg. They would then be in a position to state with greater accuracy what was the nature of the excavations which would have to he done. But, after having sunk these test pits, which would have cost millions of dollars, how much better off would the country he in respect of the knowledge thereby gained? If those who are disposed to criticise the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners are able to prove that they have been guilty of any incapacity or want of integrity in relation to the work which had been entrusted to them, then, of course, it would be a most serious reflection upon them.
But the reason why the cost of the eastern section exceeded the estimate, was because, instead of common excavation, there was solid rock. If test pits had been made in order to enable the engineers to make an absolutely correct report upon the conditions, tlie country would not have benefited to the extent of a dollar, but rather would have lost the cost of making these test pits. Whatever the nature of the excavation was, it had to be done once the construction of the Transcontinental railway was entered upon, by virtue of legislation, empowering the government to carry on that work. I am going to cite another Mr. KYTE.
case-the construction of the railway in the neighbourhood of La Tuque. I understand that when the specifications for that section were being prepared, the engineers thought that owing to the greatly increased cost of constructing the road with a grade of 4-10ths of one per cent., a grade of 1 per cent, might be reasonably satisfactory in that locality. The Grand Trunk Pacific company, however, insisted upon the 4-10ths giade being adhered to, and the consequence was, that a change from 1 per cent, to 4-10ths of 1 per cent, in the neighbour-hod of La Tuque, for the distance of a mile, added to the cost of the Transcontinental railway to the extent of $1,250,000.


Francis Cochrane: Does the hon. gentleman state that there is a 4-10ths grade between Moncton and Quebec?


George William Kyte: With the exception of a couple of pusher grades, I believe it is a 4-10ths grade. Now, the National Transcontinental railway is not the first great railway undertaken in this country. Some 30 years ago, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company undertook to build a railway across the continent. This is a company which was organized for the purpose of building the railway as a private undertaking; and, except for the grants of money end land and other concessions made to the company by the then Conservative government, the obligation to finance the scheme, was entirely in the hands of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company itself. That company received from the la^e Conservative government: in cash, $25,000,000; in railways completed and uncompleted, $65,000,000; and 25,000,000 acres of land, estimated to be worth $144,216,624; a total Of $234,216,624 to assist them in carrying out their undertaking. Now, that is an enormous sum of money for the government of this country 30 years ago to bestow upon a company which only undertook to do in respect of a transcontinental railway system that which -was undertaken by the government led by the right hon. the leader of the opposition, a few years ago. Of that sum, which the late Conservative government contributed to assist the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, not one dollar came back to the people of this country, and the government does not to-day receive one dollar of interest from that expenditure. Hon. gentlemen opposite, who criticise with such unmeasured language, the extravagance of the late Liberal government in carrying on the construction of the Transcontinental railway, have -strongly commended the wisdom and the statesmanship of the government led by tire late Sir John A. Macdonald in making that contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Therefore, if the sum of $234,216,624 was only a reasonable assistance to give to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at &

time when labour was cheap, when supplies were cheap, when the cost of living was very much less than it is to-day, I fail to see why these hon. gentlemen should criticise and condemn the late Liberal government for contributing $60,000,000 towards the construction of another transcontinental railway, which, in the judgment^ of all the people in Canada is absolutely necessary to keep up with the present development of this country. In the statement which the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals presented to the House the other night, he said that the Transcontinental railway had cost up to the present $113,853,300, and that it is estimated that to complete the road it will be necessary to spend $57,872,700 more. Now, according to the statements which have been submitted to the House from time to time, it is estimated that two-thirds of the whole undertaking is completed at tire present time. Therefore, only one-third of the work remains to be done; 'and, if the figures submitted by the minister are correct, it would appear that it is going to cost the country nearly $1,000,000 more proportionately to complete the one-third of the road than it cost to complete the two-thirds that is now finished.


Francis Cochrane: The hon. gentleman does not mean that 'to he a fair statement, because he knows that the most expensive part of any road is the terminals and the right of way, which in this case are not yet paid for.


George William Kyte: The cost of the land for terminals is largely included in the amount thus far expended, as stated by the Minister of Railways the other evening.


Francis Cochrane: The hon. gentleman cannot prove that statement. He made the statement, as I understood him, that the right of way has been paid for. Now let him prove that.


George William Kyte: I am stating that two-thirds of the road has been completed up to the present time, that one-third of it remains to be completed, and that this one-third according to the figures submitted by the hon. minister, wild cost proportionately $1,000,000 more than the two-thirds of the [DOT] road now completed. Therefore, notwithstanding the excuse given by hon. gentlemen opposite for terminating the services of the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners that owing to their incapacity and want of experience they 'allowed the road vo cost too much, the future work to be done under the management of Mr. Leonard, the present chairman of the board; notwithstanding the contention that this change is made on the ground of economy, the one-third of the road still to be done will cost $1,000,000 more in proportion than what has been thus la.' completed.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the argument that this change is to be made in the interest of economy and in order to keep down the cost of the Transcontinental railway, in so far as it is not completed at the present time is scarcely borne out by the facts. Another criticism directed against the board is that they are not railway builders. Hon. gentlemen , supporting the present government have questioned the wisdom of the late Premier because, in selecting the members of the Transcontinental Commission he failed to choose men with proper qualifications. It was suggested that instead of merchants, lawyers and business men generally, the right hon. gentleman should have chosen engineers to carry on this undertaking. I have before me the list of the first directors of the 'Canadian Pacific railway who were entrusted with carrying out the construction of that undertaking some thirty years ago, and in that list I fail to find the name of a single engineer whose judgment and experience seemed to be necessary in order to assist the directors in executing their task in the most business-like and most economical manner. The following are the gentlemen to whom I allude:
George Stephen, Montreal, merchant; Duncan McIntyre, Montreal, merohant; John S. Kennedy, New York, banker; R, B. Angus, St. Paul, Esquire; James J. Hill, St. Paul, Esquire; Henry Stafford Northcote, London, Esquire; Pascal Dr. P. Grenfell, London, merchant; Charles Day Rose, London, merchant; Baron J. de Reinach, Paris, hanker.
Now there is not a single engineer in the whole of that list of the original directors of the Canadian Pacific railway. They were business men, they were merchants and bankers, they were men who were accustomed to do business according to the methods in which business was understood in those days but they had had no experience in railway building. When they required technical knowledge or technical assistance, they went to engineers whose services they engaged for that particular purpose. Therefore, the wisdom of the late government is not to be questioned because they did not appoint engineers on the board of the Transcontinental Railway Commission. The Act which constituted that board gave them power to employ the services of engineers for the purposes of the undertaking and that is what was done. Now Mr. Leonard the present chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Board, attended a banquet in the city of Brantford on the 3rd of January last and in responding to a toast there took occasion to refer to the character of the work of the Transcontinental railway that was done by the present commission. Sir, when I

hear hon. gentlemen criticising the manner in which this railway has been built, the manner in which the work was carried on, I am inclined to think that Mr. Leonard's .speech at the banquet in question is a very excellent reply. Mr. Leonard says:
What the cost will be to complete the road to iMoncton is hard to say, but it is now nearly all under construction, all but 400 to 500 miles between Cochrane and Winnipeg. The Quebec 'bridge which, when finished, will be the largest bridge in the world, will take 48,000 tons of steel, and will take five or six years to build. Going east our line runs at about 4-10 grade, and an engine will haul 1,600 tons, whereas on other roads where a 1 per cent grade exists, 800 is all that can he hauled.	.
' The Transcontinental/ he declared, is being built in the best and most durable manner known. It is also of great military advantage, giving Canada an unlimited width, in' spite of the millions that will be spent in its construction.	,
The National Transcontinental is a national asset, not a burden to the people of Canada. Our enormous grain and mineral wealth goes to show what a truly wonderful Country we have, and we should all do our best to make it a strong link in the empire's drain.
Mr. Chairman, that is a certificate of which both the Transcontinental Railway Commission and the late government might very justly be proud. Mr. Leonard has referred to the character of the work that was carried on, and the excellent character of the railway in respect to its carrying capacity as compared with other railways. I need not remind you, Mr. Chairman, that an enormous proportion of the cost incurred in the construction of this railway was due to the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the government of Canada as well, came to the conclusion that they should have a better railway than any transcontinental line existing at the present time. They desire a railway whose carrying capacity will exceed that of any railway at present engaged in transporting the products of western Canada to the maritime provinces and vice versa. In order to do that it was necessary to build a very much more expensive road, but they were amply justified in expending the additional amount of money when we take into account the enormous saving in operating expenses pointed out by Mr. Leonard as compared with similar expenses on the other transcontinental railways. I think that in discussing the liability of the late government and the responsibility of the present commission for the large amount of money which this railway has cost, we must not fail to take into account the circumstance that the whole liability imposed upon the government in regard to the construction of this road, not including the Quebec bridge, is Mr. KTTE.
$60,000,000 if we take the statement of the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames). Compared with that there is the sum of $234,216,224 incurred by the government of Canada and the people of this country for the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway. When the transcontinental line is completed it will yield a revenue to the government of Canada equal to three per cent on every dollar that it cost in its construction, and in default of the payment of that rental by the Grand Trunk Pacific it will become the property of the people, whereas the Canadian Pacific railway upon which this large amount of public money was spent in the form of subsidies and subventions which I have referred to, yields not one dollar of interest to the people of Canada, but the whole advantage of this enormous expense has accrued to a private corporation. I have no reflection to make upon the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, but if it was wisdom on the part of the late Conservative government to assist the Canadian Pacific railway to the extent they did from the public funds, surely it does not indicate a lack of statesmanship for the late Liberal government to build another transcontinental railway at a cost of little more than one fourth of the amount whidh the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway entailed on the people of Canada.


Mr. EMMERSON.: It seems to me that this matter has not so far received the consideration which should be given to an important question of this kind.
This matter is not to be regarded from a sectional standpoint but from the standpoint of the whole Dominion. I believe that the people of this Dominion approve of the form of organization under which this great national work was undertaken and under which it has been so efficiently carried on, and that sufficient reasons have not been given for the change that is proposed.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The other day, when we were discussing the reduction of the number of these commissioners, my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) spoke of the cost of building the Transcontinental railway, and gave that as the reason why these commissioners should be removed from office. I was a little surprised to hear him take up the case in the way he did. It seemed to me a partisan discussion, and I am always surprised to hear a business man discuss a business question from a partisan standpoint.


Francis Cochrane: I was asked for a statement, and I gave it. That's all.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I was not speaking of the minister (Mr. Cochrane), but of the

hon. member for St. Antoine. I have no fault to find with the statement of the minister. We asked him for facts, and he gave them. At least, I assume that-


Francis Cochrane: They were on the authority of your own engineer.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Quite so. I have no fault to find with the statement of the hon. minister, but I was surprised, as I have said, at the hon. member for St. Antoine discussing this from a partisan standpoint. Now, I do not pretend to know much about the building of railways, but I have asked many people who do know about the building of railways, as to the quality of this railway which is now approaching completion, and I have been told by one and all who have seen the road that it is finished in a first class manner. We all know that it is quite the custom for railways in this country and in the United States to be built at first in a temporary manner-first get the rails down in any old way, and then go on and finish up the road. Those of us who have read the evidence before the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States on the question of freight rates, know that the capital expenditure on the transcon-tental railways in the United States has been enormous-I believe quite as much as stated by my hon. friend from St. Antoine when he said that this road would cost $130,000 a mile. I believe there is not a road through a similar country in the United States which has been built and put in reasonably permanent condition at a less cost than $130,000 a mile. I believe also that if the road is finished in the way capable men say that it is being finished at a cost of $130,000 a mile it is a reasonable figure, considering the portion of country through which it runs and the vast necessary expense, in getting in supplies. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was attacked the other day on the ground that this railway went through the section of country that it does. I believe that in a very short time it will be proven that this was cne of the wisest steps that could possibly have been taken in the interest of the country at large. This is one of the sections of the country of which we knew little. It will open up a new region and will practically extend the boundaries of this country very largely. I believe that when the road is running you will find that it will pay from the first day so far as traffic is concerned. Local traffic will probably develop in that country never dreamed of, possibly, by the people of Ontario, before this road went through. I repeat but with all due deference to my hon. friend that I believe the road will pay from the time it is built. Also I think most emphatically that considering, as I said, the
country through which it is built, it will be found on investigation, and a commission has been appointed to investigate- that the road has cost no more than it should have cost in view of the difficulties that had to be overcome in con; struction. And I, for one would not vote to-day to have it built in any other way so far as thoroughness is concerned,, nor would I vote to have it built through a different section of country. It has been argued here that it should have been built to North Bay, and then via the old Northern to Toronto and by a connection to Montreal. Nobody would think of carrying heavy freight that way.
However, it may be said that this has nothing to do with the question before us. As to the commissioners, I believe in the old adage ' two heads are better than one, even if one is a cabbage head/ 1 believe that the. probabilities are that for the remainder of this undertaking it would be better to leave the commission as it is. But the minister has seen fit to do otherwise. If he can save the expense of the extra commissioners and do the work as well, that will be all right. I do-not know the head of the commission. They say he is a capable man. He would need to be a capable man to be as good as four other men. For my part, 1 am a great believer in a number of counsellors where great undertakings are to be considered.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: When the committee rose at six o'clock I was saying that so far as I was personally concerned, I would rather trust the construction of this road to three commissioners than to one. But if the minister continues that work with one commissioner and does it as well, he will be entitled to credit for the amount saved. I would like to point out with reference to the expense that the Grand Trunk engineer had to be consulted on eaoh of these contracts before they were let. I recognize that there was a dispute between the government engineer and the Grand Trunk engineer' as to some of the classifications, but the amount was infinitesimal in proportion to the total amount expended. I would like to point cut also that I think it is unfair for any hen. member to attack the expenditure without taking into consideration the quality of the work done. We all know that a man could build a warehouse 60 feet x 100 feet by using galvanized sheets of iron and rough lumber for between $2,500 and $3,000; by improving the
a375


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is not the criticism as I understood it However, if my hon. friend so understood it, that is his privilege. I understood that the attack was made on the enormous expenditure that had taken place. I have no fault to find with the estimate made the other day by the Minister of Railways and Canals; but we must remember that the road is going to be one of the very highest quality. It is also to be remembered that the portion remaining to be constructed will not necessarily (be as costly as that part already constructed, because it will not cost	so much to get supplies into
the part of the road to be constructed. Wages also are not likely to increase in the same proportion as they have done since this Toad was commenced. So I say on the whole that it is absolutely unfair to judge of the expenditure on that work unless we take into account the quality of the work done.


Mr. KEMP.: Our present opposition, it appears to me, are in somewhat of an apologetic mood about something. What is that something if it is not the tremen-Mr. NESBITT.
dous cost in excess of the estimates that were placed before this House in 1903 in regard to this National Transcontinental railway. Those of us who were in the House in 1903 remember clearly what was said about it at that time. I have before me a document which hon. members opposite will likely recognize: it is a speech of the right hon. the" leader of the opposition who was then Prime Minister, and I wish to read one or two extracts from that speech to show what he said about it at that time, and he said it so well, in the opinion of his followers, that they thought it wise to make a campaign sheet of it, and it was spread broadcast throughout the country in the election campaign subsequent to the session of 1904. Let me read a few words which fell from the lips of the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition to-day, in respect to the cost of the National Transcontinental railway.
So that here again the whole of the liability which is incurred by the government for the building of that section from Moncton to Winnipeg is simply seven years of interest. The sum total of the money to he paid by the government for the construction of that line of railway from Moncton to the Pacific Ocean will be in the neighborhood of $12,000,000 or $13,000,000, and not a cent more.
I have never heard the right hon. gentleman explain clearly what he meant by those words, and I have never heard any one of his followers since explain to us what he meant when he made that statement.
We know that he could not have meant that the road would cost $12,000,000 or $13,000,000, that it was an interest charge to which he referred. But we have an estimate from the Minister of Finance of that day, Mr. Fielding, in respect to the cost of this National Transcontinental railway, and I shall take the figures which Mr. Fielding gave us at that time as being the figures which the late government authorized. The figures which Mr. Fielding gave us in the year 1903, in debate in this House were these:	The railway from
Moncton to Winnipeg would cost $54,609,000, made up in this way, from Winnipeg to Quebec at $28,000 a mile, $41,300,000; from Quebec to Moncton at $25,000 per mile, $10,000,000, a total of $51,300,000. He added to that a certain amount of interest which brought his estimate up to $54,609,-
000.	In the following year, 1904, when the government came before parliament with a revised contract Mr. Fielding brought his estimate up to an average of something over $31,000 per mile, for this section of the National Transcontinental railway, and raised his total estimate to somewhere in the vicinity of $58,000,000. The government of that day went to the people of this country on these figures, and on

the figures cited by Sir Wilfrid Laurier of $12,000,000 or $13,000,000, and they received the endorsation of the people.
Now we have placed before us the figures which this road has cost up to date, and which it is likely to cost and I have no doubt these figures are correct. According to tihe figures given us by the hon. the Minister of Railways this part of the road will cost not $25,000 or $28,000, or $31,250, as Mr. Fielding estimated in 1904, but $130,800 per mile; not a total of $54,609,000 as Mr. Fielding estimated in this House, but of $236,000,000. These things should be considered by non. gentlemen opposite when they are discussing this subject, and I am not surprised to find them in an apologetic mood in regard to this expenditure. I look upon the construction of the National Transcontinental railway as one of the worst bungles of the late government, and it seems to me that the present government were amply justified in adopting another system of management of that great undertaking and changing the commission under whose direction this tremendous expenditure has been made.
What was the object in building this road? In 1900, 1901 and 1902, there was an agitation in this country in respect to getting the crops transported from the west to the seaboard, and to the markets of the world, and there was a desire on the part of the government of that day, as there is on the part of the government of this day, to facilitate in every way the transportation of the crops of the'northwest to the markets of the world. In 1902 the Grand Trunk people made an application to the late government in writing, and that document was laid on the table of this House in due course. It was an application for permission to build a road connecting with the Grand Trunk system at North Bay, Ontario, into the wheatfields of the northwest. They asked certain concessions from the government of the day, concessions which would, in my estimation, be very unimportant as compared with the tremendous cost of this railroad as we have it before us to-day. The right hon. gentleman who led the government of that day made some statements with regard to the necessity of doing something in order to allleviate the conditions existing in the northwest, On July 30, 1903, he sa:d in this House:
We consider that it is the duty of all those who sit within these walls by the will of the people, to provide immediate means whereby the products of those new settlers may find an exit to the ocean at the least possible cost, and whereby, likewise, a market may be found in this new region for those who toil in the forests, in the fields, in the mines, in the shops of the older provinces. Such is our duty; it is immediate and imperative. . .
To those who urge upon us the policy of to-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow; to those who tell us, Wait, wait, wait; to those who advise us to pause, to consider, to reflect, to calculate and to inquire, our answer is: No, this is not a time for deliberation, this is a time for action. The flood tide is upon us that leads on to fortune; if we let it pass it may never recur again. If we let it pass, the voyage of our national life, bright as it is to-day, will be bound in shallows. We cannot wait, because time does not wait.
Here was the situation in 1903, and I must say that the situation is not im-improved to-day. What has happened ? The Laurier government, instead of pursuing a business-like policy in regard to the building of this railway, delayed its construction in every possible way so that in 1912, nine years later, the people of the west have no better facilities for getting out their crops than they had in 1903. But what is more serious to my mind is that instead of the late government proceeding to complete that railroad from Winnipeg to Cochrane Junction where it connects with the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway which connects with the Grand Trunk system at North Bay, in order that these crops might be transported from the west and the people of the west might have relief as was forecasted by the statement of the Prime Minister of that day, what has happened ? The government have completed the railway from Quebec to Moncton but it may be three years before they are able to make connection between Winnipeg and Cochrane Junction, to connect with the Grand Trunk system in order that the crops may be brought out.
Thus there are two main grounds of complaint against the late government in connection with the building of this railway, first, the great extravagance which has been permitted in its construction and, second, the unreasonable delay in the construction of that part of the road which would afford much needed relief to the people of the northwest.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is quite evident that the hon. member (Mr. Kemp), who is a sort of fo'castle member of the administration is somewhat behind the times owing to the fact that he was not here in the last parliament. The hon. gentleman does not seem, judging from his utterances, to realize the responsibility that rests upon him as a member of the government. He is worried over the fact that the government did not commence work at Lake Abitibi and branch off east and west, and he seems to have no idea about the conveniences required for getting in supplies and starting terminals and getting in the material necessary to carry on construction. He is such a great railway builder [DOT]



that he would not do anything that expert railway builders thought it wise to do. Then the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kemp), does not seem to be aware of the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific railway is in existence from Fort William to the city of Winnipeg, and that even to-day it brings the traffic of the west in touch with the other railway systems of the Dominion. The hon. member (Mr. Kemp), has followed the lead of the hon. member (Mr. Ames), in misrepresenting the right hon, Sir Wilfrid Laurier as saying, when he introduced the Bill, that $13,000,000 would be the amount of money the railway would cost this country. I am more surprised at the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Kemp), indulging in such misrepresentations than I am at the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), because we all remember that that latter gentleman a few years ago travelled all over the country with lantern slides and talking of the restitution that was to take place the moment the Conservative party came into power. Well, the lantern slide has been put in the garret and the hon. member (Mr. Ames), is not bothering himself about restitution. The chief occupation of the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) now seems to be to act as a bellwether to the Nationalist portion of the gentlemen with whom he is sitting on the government benches, endeavouring to lead them into camp, and to keep them there until they get through the Manitoba school question and other such things, and then of course he won't care much about the Nationalists. The hon. member from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), has given up the lantern slide show, and he comes here to start an extraneous discussion on this Bill and to resurrect old stories which were shown to be baseless time and again in former parliaments, as to the supposed cost of the Transcontinental railway. Now, Sir Wilfrid Laurier never meant to say that the Transcontinental railway was only going to cost the country thirteen millions, and as a matter of fact he never did say so, but these gentlemen want to put such a false interpretation upon the words of the late Prime Minister.


Mr. BURNHAM.: What interpretation did you put on these words?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), is another gentleman who is sitting at the feet of the wrong Gamaliel. I set against their interpretation of the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the opinion of the hon. member from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), who has studied the matter long and laboriously and who, with all respect, knows more about the matter than most gentlemen sitting on the government benches. Here Mr. MACDONALD.
is what the hon. member for South Simcoe said in the last parliament:
We, the members of the House understood that the Prime Minister did not mean that the total expenditure on the construction of the road would be $13,000,000; he intended to convey the proposition that the money that would be paid out and not received back was $13,000,000


Mr. BRADBURY.: That is not what your campaign literature said.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the hon. member from Manitoba (Mr. Bradbury) go back upon the statement of the man who was his leader in the past parliament in all matters connected with the Grand Trunk Pacific railway? The hon. member for South Simcoe has spent toilsome days and sleepless nights endeavouring to extract some campaign material for the benefit of his party out of the words of the former Prime Minister, and he was able to tell the House what the meaning of the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was and the hon. member from Manitoba (Mr. Bradbury) was not here in that parliament and he knows nothing about it. It is not common sense to suppose that the right hon. gentleman meant that the Transcontinental railway would be built for $13,000,000 because that would represent only $7,200 a mile, and everybody who knows anything, knows that it is impossible to build a single mile of railway anywhere in Canada for $7,200. Contemporaneously with the statement made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier was the estimate made not by Mr. Fielding, but by Mr. Schreiber, a gentleman of long experience, a gentleman who advised the Conservative government in connection with the_ construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, and he estimated that the railway would cost $62,000,000. But the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Kemp) was not deceived as to the cost of the railway, because he, with his great engineering knowledge, made an estimate all his own, and he said that the railway would cost the country $73,000,000.


Albert Edward Kemp: Where is that in 'Hansard?'


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Kemp) will find it in 'Hansard,' and it would be well for him to look over his old speeches and get some new ideas from them. The genial gentleman who represented Lennox and Addington in the past parliament estimated the cost at $114,000,000; the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) entered into the realm of speculation, and he was not worrying about the $13,000,000, for he calculated that it would cost $100,000,000.


Mr. BLAIN.: That was a nearer estimate than yours.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
An hon. MEMBER.: Including the right of way ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
John Allister Currie: Will the hon. gentleman answer a question?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, I do not propose to answer any questions of my hon_ friend from Sirnooe. This committee know me well enough to know that I do not mind answering questions, and I have no personal objection to my hon. friend from Simcoe; but this question habit of his is becoming too much of a habit. We -are told this railway is going to cost something like $130,000 per mile. Now, let us see-just where we are. Mark you, Mr. Chairman, the expenditure which the late government were responsible for was the expenditure which was made down to the day they gave up their office. They are not responsible for the expenditure that hon. gentlemen opposite make. If the plans were wrong, change them; if the grades are too good and cost too much, if the curvatures which the late government desired to obtain cost too much, bon. gentlement opposite can remedy that. It is in their power; it has been in their power ever since they came into office in October, and will be in their power until this railway is completed. Let ns see what has been done. Taking my hon. friend'-s statement, we find that up to date 1,656 miles of main line track have been laid, -and the cost has been, $66,000 a mile. Grading has been done on 309 miles more. The situation, then, is that grading has been -done and rails have-been laid on 1,965 miles at a cost of $56,008-a mile. That is what the -late government is responsible for, and -every dollar that has-been expended since that time and that will be expended in the future, my hon, friend the Minister of Railways will be responsible for. He knows that the contracts which have been let are not contracts which bind the government to h-ave-the road built on any gradient. The contractors are paid so much a yard for the earth removed, and my -hon. friend can send his engineers out to tell them to dispense with a grade of 4/10ths of 1 per cent,

to dispense with the features which we had been providing for, and instead of putting in concrete and stone foundations to their bridges, to put in wooden structures; and instead of having iron bridges upon these -structures, to dispense with them and put in wooden 'bridges and put the power in the 'hands of my hon. friend "the Minister of Railways to do it. And let me tell you that if from this hour the cost per mile of this railway exceeds the figures which I am giving to-night, the responsibility will rest upon the hon. gentleman whom he appointed. Let there be no mistake about that. My hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) laughs. He has a very curious idea about his position. I wonder what kind of a Minister of Railways he thinks he [DOT]ought to be? I want to tell him that in *what he undertakes he is responsible to the people of this country and to parliament who have to vote the expenditure every year. When the hon. minister comes here and asks us to vote money he is responsible for the expenditure, and I say again if from this moment in the construction of the balance of this railway the expenditure of the past of the late commission is exceeded in any way, the hon. gentleman will be responsible for it.


John Hampden Burnham: Do you mean that the late government had reached the limit?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. member from Peterborough is one of these singular *gentleman in regard to whom it is most difficult to tell where he is at or what he is driving at. What I say is this: That either my hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) is complaining about the late government spending too much in the Transcontinental railway construction or he is not. If he is complaining that the railway has cost too much, the remedy is in the hands of himself and his friends, he can cheapen the cost of construction. He 'can lessen it in the way I have indicated. Now,, I have pointed out that the cost of constructing the railway that has so far been built is $56,000 a mile. To complete the balance of 426 miles it is estimated by my bon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) and I have taken these figures from his statement in order to show the House and the country what a peculiar position of affairs it is- that although it cost the late government only $56,000 a mile to build what they had built, he proposes to estimate the cost of the remainder at $94,000 a mile. In other words, although these gentlemen who are sitting on the right of the Speaker have been talking day in and day out ever since this railway enterprise was initiated, about the tremendous cost to Canada of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and the National Transcontinental railway, and that the late government had completed two-thirds of the Mr. MACDONALD.
railway at a cost of $56,000 a mile, when they come to this House to 'tell us what they are going to do in future they estimate the cost at $94,000 a mile. Those figures are simply taken from the statement made by my hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) and if he wants to exclude the cost of terminals and shops-


Francis Cochrane: Which they had no authority to do.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who had no authority to do so?


Francis Cochrane: The government.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We will consider that in a moment. At present I am discussing with my hon. friend the question of costs, and .1 say if my hon. friend excludes from this statement the cost of the terminals and the cost of the shops-


Francis Cochrane: Did I say that there was any such number of miles built? If I remember aright there was given in his statement so many miles of grading, and so many miles of track laid. That does not finish a road, and the hon. gentleman knows it if he knows anything about building a railway. What about the ballasting?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend says that does not finish the road. It goes a iong way to finish the road. I am taking his own figures.


Francis Cochrane: Then take them in the right way.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend wants to deceive the House when he brings figures here and tells us-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friends opposite are getting very sensitive. The minister brings before this House a statement and here" it is: ' Length of the line from Moncton to Winnipeg 1,804-7 miles. Grading completed 1,587 miles, or 76-82 per cent of the whole. Then track laid 1,378-7.'


Francis Cochrane: The track cost something.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: ' Main line and in addition 278-7 miles in siding.' Track laid certainly advanced construction.


Mr. LENNOX.: The rails cost something.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: ' Telegraph line 9,982 miles, bridges 82-75 per cent '.


William Thomas White: How many miles?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Nine hundred and eighty-two. I beg my hon. friend's pardon, it could not, of course, be 9,000. Now, here is the point: I say if we take the figures contained in the statement prepared and submitted to the House by the Minister of

Railways, and if we exclude the cost of terminals and shops from the estimates of the future cost of the road it still means that the minister to-day contemplates spending $85,000 a mile to build the balance of the road when it only cost the late government $56,000 a mile for the railway built by them. Here is a splendid opportunity for these hon. gentlemen to put into practice all their theories about railway construction. They expressed the belief that the late government did not know how to build railroads and they were not going to get a lot of lawyers and put them on the Transcontinental Railway Commission.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When the government wanted somebody to investigate the late Transcontinental Railway Commission who do you suppose they appointed as chairman? They went to Hamilton and secured my very pleasant friend, Mr. Lynch Staunton, a good lawyer, who year in and year out, is the legal adviser of the Ontario government.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is why they get along so well.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon friends will find that the Ontario government is not getting on so well some of these days. Well they have appointed Mr. Lynch Staunton as chairman of this commission of investigation, a gentleman who never had anything to do with a railway in his life, whose specialty is water-powers, and whose occupation has been confined solely to matters of that kind. The late government appointed as the first chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, Mr. Wade, a distinguished lawyer, who had connection with railway corporations in the province of Nova Scotia, who had not only engaged in the operation of railways himself, but helped to build them. He was succeeded by Mr. Parent, who had executive and business ability of the highest character, who had been Prime Minister of the province, and whose judgment as a business man is recognized by men of all classes in the province of Quebec, English and French, wherever he is known.


Mr. BRODER.: Did lie not have something to do with the Quebec bridge affair? What executive ability did he show there?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We will discuss the Quebec bridge matter at the proper time.


Andrew Broder: I do not think he showed much ability in the Quebec bridge matter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Gutelius is not connected with the construction of railways..


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He is connected with the maintenance which is entirely different from construction.


Francis Cochrane: And construction too.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Where did he construct a railway in Canada?


Francis Cochrane: He helped in the construction of the Central Ontario railwayline.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He was in charge of maintenance and my hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) will find that his experience is not connected with railway construction. And if I am correctly informed the government could not find a man in Canada, who was engaged in railway construction and they had to take a man who was a citizen of the United States.


Francis Cochrane: The head of the Grand Trunk railway is a citizen of the United States and you took him up.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is reverting to the old tu quoque argument which is about all flattened out. My hon. friend and his party have boasted of the ability with which they were to come in to-do everything so splendidly and properly. None of the mistakes of their predecessors were to be repeated, none of the errors into which they had fallen were to again occur.


Albert Edward Kemp: My objection was not to the western part, but to the part running down to New Brunswick.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well, that is interesting. My hon. friend did not want this eastern section of the road, he wanted it to come down to North Bay. He did not want to open up the hinterland of Ontario and Quebec, that was not his .
COMMONS *
ambition for Canada at all. He wanted to have a branch line down into the city of Toronto, and Canada and all her aspirations could have gone a begging if he got that. Then of course he was reckless as to whether traffic would Dass J own through the United States. If I recollect right, the hon. member for East Toronto was not one of those who are in lavour of a preference being given to Canadian ports. So my hon. friend's ambition for Canada would have been satisfied by a line running down from North Bay to Toronto, and the rest of Canada could go hang. But the men who were in charge of public affairs at that time had a greater ambition for Canada. They looked to this northern land, and they believed, what we all know at the present time, that from year to year the population would increase, and that that great country would steadily grow in importance. Why, my optimistic friend the Minister of the Interior, I am sure, would not agree with the hon. member for East Toronto, because he told us the other night that he was in favour, after you got the Hudson Bay railway down to Port Nelson or Fort Churchill of building another railway further north than the Grand Trunk Pacific, going down to Labrador, and having connection form there to England. So I say that all the evidence points to the .fact that we did not start a moment too soon. I had some doubts at one time as to the attitude of the leader of the government on this question, but in the discussion which we had in the House I think two years ago, he said he was not one of those who agreed with the member for East Toronto. I was glad to know that my right hon. friend at that time took the position that he was in favour of the construction of the road from Winnipeg to Quebec. Now we all entered upon that project. Almost every one in Canada came to the conclusion that this railway was a necessity, and everybody agrees to-day that it was not started a minute too soon. Look at the clamour that comes from that western land with 400,000,000 bushels of grain waiting for transport. My hon. friend from East Toronto who did not want this railway built to Quebec in 1903, complains to-day because it is not built fast enough. So I say the policy of the government in 1903 has been amply justified. Everybody in Canada at that time, and ever since, has taken it for granted that the National Transcontinental railway was a necessity, and has not been started a moment too soon. Yet here to-day, when hon. gentlemen get into power, they proceed to change this commission and dismiss three of the commissioners, and they propose to run this whole thing with one commissioner. They start in a peculiar manner with regard to it. After they have decided Mr. MACDONALD. "
upon doing away with three commissioners, they proceed in an illegal way to appoint an assistant chairman.


Francis Cochrane: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Robert Laird Borden: When was he appointed vice-chairman?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am speaking of the statement made by the Minister of Railways. He said:
The lion. ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Em-merson) wanted a copy of the order in council. I have a copy of it here. I may say that I find that there was a mistake in that, in the statement that it was recommended by the commission instead of by the chairman of the commission. But I took the matter up with the chairman, and he informed me that his law clerk had advised him that he had a right to do what he had done, and that the matter was brought before the commission, and Mr. Mclsaac, one of the commissioners, thought that he was acting within his jurisdiction in appointing Mr. Macpherson. I also wish to say that I was misinformed, and misinformed the House, when I said that Mr. Macpherson's salary had not been increased. I am informed that it has been increased.


George William Kyte: What is Mr. Macpherson's salary at the present time?


Francis Cochrane: 


George William Kyte: What was it before?


Francis Cochrane: $5,000, I think.
The result is the expression ' vice-chairman ' was used by the minister.


Francis Cochrane: Oh no, I said assistant to the chairman.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If that gives any satisfaction to the minister he is welcome to it. There is no power to appoint an assistant to the chief commissioner. There are four commissioners, this Bill proposes to wipe them out and make just one commissioner. It does not say anything about an assistant chairman.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not say assistant chairman.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Assistant to the chairman. If there is to be an assistant to the chairman he should be appointed by the commission, clearly so under the law and the commission have not appointed him. But in some way or other the Minister of Railways, who is going to economize and build the railway more cheaply, at the very inception takes a subordinate from under the chief engineer, appoints him assistant to the chairman, and gives him $2,500 more than before, when under the law he has no right to do so. I warn the minister that he will not go very far until he finds some of the acute critics who are versed in all these matters in connection with National Transcontinental railway expenditures, and who sit not far from him, will find that he is inaugurating an expenditure which he has no justification for making. The result of the action of the minister is that instead of doing away with the four commissioners he will still have two commissioners, as he is giving the assistant to the chairman the salary of one of the old commissioners. The minister has acted entirely without warrant or authority.
A word or two in regard to my hon. friend's estimate. Hon. gentlemen will notice that the minister has made some curious estimates here. He says that 72-86 per cent of the whole road is completed. He says that there has already, been expended $7,681,700, in engineering expenses. That means that all the location surveys, the preliminary surveys from end to end of the country have been made, and that you have 76 per cent of the road constructed; and yet my hon. friend proposes to spend $3,850,000 more in surveys. How does he work that out in proportion? I have not made an estimate, but any gentleman can figure the proportion.
Engineering and expenses' up to date, are set down at $7,681,700, and the minister says that he contemplated this charge will amount lo $3,850,000 more, so that I should think some details of that ought to be given.


Francis Cochrane: Well, that is the statement signed by the engineer.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well, the minister is responsible and not the engineer and it is the minister who should give the information to this House, by which it may be guided. The minister comes to this House asking us to pass legislation on the basis of certain information he has given, and I say that it is for him to give us some explanation of that exorbitant estimate of $3,800,000 for engineering expenses yet to be incurred. Now, under ' headquarters, salaries and expenses,' the total expense to date since the initiation of the work, is given at $1,732,900, and notwithstanding that only twenty-four per

cent of the road remains to be completed, we are told that the expenses of the headquarters staff will amount to, for the future, $1,267,000. Surely we are entitled to some explanation as to how the minister and his engineers have arrived at that estimate. In the past, we have had four commissioners, and although the minister is dispensing with the services of three of them, and although, according to the rule of proportion, the expenses at headquarters should only be one-half million dollars for the balance of the road, the minister tells us that it will amount to $1,267,000. Surely parliament must have some explanation as to that. Then again, with seventy-six per cent, of the road completed, the minister gives us an estimate that it will cost $2,231,000 for right of way.


Francis Cochrane: Scarcely any of the right of way is paid for.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well, that is the information we want, that is what we want put on the table of the House.


Francis Cochrane: You have the figures here.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, but when the minister comes down with a general statement, showing that the road is supposed to cost $130,000 per mile, surely we must know what the basis of the calculation is. Now, finally, I wish to say that if the present government is not satisfied with the railway as constructed to-day at a cost of $56,000 per mile, the whole thing is in their own hands for the future. From this day on, the Minister of Railways and his commission have to check every dollar of the expenditure; no contractor can get one dollar for any earth he may turn or stone he may blast out, until those now in charge of construction, sign the figures. They can decide what the grades and the curvatures will be, and what the weights of the rails and what kind of bridges will be constructed, and if the balance of the road costs mere than $56,000 per mile, it is they, and they alone, who will be responsible for it. It is the duty of the minister to explain these anomalies which I have pointed out, and I submit that the history of this transaction will be that the men who have had charge of this matter for the late government were men who did the work honestly, with capacity, and with integrity, and their work will stand. We will be ready to compare the result of their efforts with those of the gentlemen who have succeeded them as appointees of this government.


William Thomas White: Hon. gentlemen opposite, and especially my genial and plausible friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), are disposed to treat this matter with a very light touch, but I can assure them that the people of Canada are not disposed to take that view of it. On the Mr. MACDONALD.
late government, and on hon. gentlemen must be the full responsibility for this miscalculation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What miscalculation?
Mr.	WHITE	(Leeds).	The	miscalculation in the estimated cost of the building of this railway-the miscalculation between $13,000,000 of interest computed by the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and the $60,000,000 of interest as shown by the estimate of the Minister of Railways, and the miscalculation	between	the	$54,000,000estimated as the actual cost of construc-toin by the former Minister of Finance, and the appalling figure of $236,000,000, which is found to be the probable actual cost.	The responsibility	for these miscalculations must be assumed by the late government before the people of Canada. There is no use blinking the facts; we must look them straight in the face.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Where is the estimate of $250,000,000?
Mr.	WHITE	(Leeds).	The	amount I
referred to was the $236,000,000 brought down by the Minister of Railways as the total cost of this railway, before the Grand Trunk Pacific Company enters upon the lease, and I think I will be able to satisfy my hon. friend that that estimate is correct. I have no desire to discuss this from a political point of view, but, as I have said before, there is no use blinking the facts. It is my opinion that we will discuss no question in this parliament, having regard either to the large amount of money involved or to the future consequences, which will compare in importance with the question of these figures which we have been discussing in connection with the National Transcontinental railway. I make no charges against the Transcontinental Commissioners, but I do say that there have been rumours of misapplication of moneys, and I do say that the people believe that a great deal of money has been misapplied.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Where?


William Thomas White: In connection with the construction of the National Transcontinental railway.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Who made the charges ?


William Thomas White: It has been charged by some of the engineers, and I say that the people of this country suspect that there has been misapplication of money.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Who suspects that?


William Thomas White: Does not my hon. friend keep in touch with public opinion. I make no charge against the commissioners, but I do say that the increase from $13,000,000 interest, as estimated by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to the $60,000,000 estimated by the Minister of Railways, and the difference between the $54,000,000 estimated by Mr. Fielding as the total cost of construction, and the $236,000,000 now shown to be the probable cost, these vast differences form ground for a prima facie case against the late government and against the Transcontinental Railway Commission, which they must explain away. Let us review the situation with deliberation. This agreement was entered into in 1903, and 1904, so that the National Transcontinental railway has been under construction for a period of eight or nine years. Now, I propose to consider for a moment the question of miscalculation in estimates.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: -Who made it? Mr. Schrieber.


William Thomas White: Do not interrupt.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You start on the wrong premises.


William Thomas White: Wait till I get through. The right hon. leader of the opposition, then the leader of the government, is reported in ' Hansard ' as follows:
When completed, the company will lease the road and will pay to us a rental at the rate of three per cent per annum upon the cost of construction, whatever that may be. The same abatement of rent is provided also as in the case of the western section. During seven years the company will be exempt from the payment of rent. For three years the company will be bound to pay the revenues and tolls of the road if they amount to three per cent; and if they fail to amount to three per cent, then the difference between the revenues gathered and the three per cent will be capitalized and added to the cost of construction, and the company will pay interest upon it. So that here again the whole of the liability which is incurred by the government for the building of that section from Moncton to Winnipeg is simply seven years of interest. The sum total of the money to be paid by the government for the construction of that line of railway from Moncton to the Pacific ocean will be in the neighbourhood of $12,000,000 or $13,000,000. and not a cent more. Now, Sir, what is $13,000,000 in the year 1903? It is about the surplus of our revenue over the expenditure. The surplus for this year will pay for the construction of this road.
' Now, I do not for a moment say, although these words might reasonably give that impression, especially to the public, that the entire cost of this road was estimated by the leader of the late government at $13,000,000. What he had in mind, I believe, was this, that the interest charge during the 7 years of operation by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, during which they were to pay no rental, together with some interest charges which he had in mind, would amount possibly to $13,000,000. What are the facts? The fact according to the estimates of the hon. gentleman from (St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), based on the figures given by the hon. Minister of Railways is that the cost to this country will be $60,000,000, or five times the cost estimated by the late government. Is that a matter to be treated lightly, as hon. gentlemen opposite have treated it-an estimate falling short of the actual interest $47,000,000? I say there has not been as great a blunder made in estimating in this country since Confederation as that made of the cost of this National Transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Moncton. Take the actual cost. It was shown by thg hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) that my predecessor estimated the cost from Winnipeg to Moncton at $54,000,000. It will not do to say that the government engineer estimated it at $51,000,000 or $52,000,000. In approaching an estimate of this kind it is not wise to go it blind. The government should have informed themselves more fully as to the character of the country through which this road would pass, both from the standpoint of the cost of construction and the standpoint of the traffic which the road would derive when, completed. But apparently no investigation of any kind was made; at all events, if it was, it must have been of the most superficial kind, having regard to the result. Now, what is the result? My predecessor estimated $54,000,000, as the cost, or $28,000 a mile from Winnipeg to Quebec and $25,000, per mile from Quebec to Monct-on. That is specific; there are his figures. It was upon that understanding that the government entered upon the construction of this line. That is the estimate for which the late government must take full responsibility; and what is the outcome? The outcome is that instead of a cost of $54,000,000 from Winnipeg to Moncton, and instead of $28,000 and $25,000 per mile respectively, we have a total cost of $236,000,000, including interest, equal to two-thirds of the net national debt of Canada, and no less than $130,000 per mile. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say, well, we must build the line, and apparently from their arguments this afternoon, it was not of the slightest consequence what the cost would be, because the Grand Trunk Pacific Company must enter on the lease, but it is of the greatest possible consequence, because in the first place no railway can afford to pay a rental beyond a certain amount, I do not care how strong it is; and the first question that arises in this

case is, can the company afford to pay three per cent on the coat of that line, amounting to over $200,000,000, after the first seven years of operation? Now, wha* does that amount to? It amounts to no less than $6,000,000 a year-no less than $20,000 a day of rental to meet the $6,000,000 of fixed charges; and that is over and above the operating expenses. Hon. gentlemen opposite, when in the government, had the idea that this road would reduce freight rates. What is there by way of traffic on that line? It runs through hundreds of miles of desolate wilderness, which will afford no local traffic. What about return freights? The grades are all right, they say; they will bring down trains laden with grain from the west. But what goes back? What hope is there of reducing freight rates in this country, with a fixed charge of $6,000,000 between Winnipeg and Moncton? These are considerations which have been overlooked by hon. gentlemen opposite. Their argument this afternoon proceeded coolly on the assumption that it did not make any difference if the road cost $500,000,000 or a $1,000,000,000, because the Grand Trunk Pacific Company would pay three per- cent of the cost. But I want to tell them that every dollar of the $113,-
853,000	that has been paid out and of the balance of $57,873,000 still to be paid, represents cash to be paid by the people of the Dominion of Canada. There is no blinking that fact. When the leader of the late government estimated $13,000,000 of interest as the entire cost of this line to the people of Canada, what had he in mind? He had this in mind, and no doubt it was logical, that the road when constructed would be operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company on a payment of three per cent on the cost, and that this would carry all the interest on the money which the government would borrow for the purpose of constructing the road, and he estimated that the only thing the country would have to bear would be the $13,000,000. But he had not the slightest conception at the time of the colossal cost of this road as it was ulti-matelv worked out.
Now let us take the western situation, and there you will find miscalculation all along the line, although I believe absolutely in the west and I think I have more confidence in it than some of its representatives here, but I will dwell on that a little later. Take the prairie section of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and it will cost $40,000 a mile. Take the mountain section of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and it will probably cost $70,000 a mile. Now take it from the standpoint of freight rates. If there was anything which justified the late government in going into the construction of a line such as the National Transcontinental railway it was for the


William Thomas White: purpose of regulating the freight rates of the country, of having a line which would regulate them, because there is a clause in the agreement under which the rates are to be arranged subject to revision by the government. Now under the circumstances mentioned what chance is there for a reduction of freight rates? Is there a man on either side of this House who will state that the freight rates can be reduced by reason of the construction of a National Transcontinental on the figures that have been produced here by my friend the Minister of Eailways? I doubt very much if there is any man who has the temerity to suggest any such thing. Even supposing, there is a clay belt to be settled north of the line and industries to be developed, what practical use so far as local traffic is conicexned can Ibe made of the line for years to come from Moncton to Winnipeg? These are some considerations worthy of attention. Supposing the line were completed from Moncton to Winnipeg, what would it be worth without the lease? A line isolated, hung in the air so to speak, without connections? The Grand Trunk Pacific at the time they entered into the agreement for the construction of that line on the estimate of the government contemplated the payment of 3 per cent of the cost of construction which the late Finance Minister estimated at $54,000,000 a year but which has now been shown to amount to no less a sum than $200,000,000, or as I have said $6,000,000 in interest a year. Now when we come to the question of the physical condition of the line all this argument is absolutely relevant to the matter of the commission. I say that the commission had the construction of this line under their charge and under their direction anl I say that if that construction has not gone forward intelligently, if that construction has not been carried on as it 'Should have been carried on according to the best opinion in this country, then I think the responsibility must rest upon the late government. The hon. gentleman from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) called attention to the fact that there were certain anomalies in the statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways. If you look at the statement of items ' National Transcontinental Railway, Eastern Division Road ' you will find the ' Grading, contract items, including peering, excavation, culverts, substructures of bridges, track laying, ballasting, etc., value of work done to December 31, 1911, $79,368,700, and value of work required to complete $13,510,300.' If you look down further you will find: ' Buildings, including stations, section and tool houses, and divisional point buildings, value of work required to complete $3,971,780.' That is where the heavy cost is coming in, not in connection with the grading and track

laying that has been completed according to the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) to the percentage mentioned. Then a little further down you will find a large item $9,051,500. What is that for? ' Terminals at Quebec and line from Quebec bridge to Quebec city. Value of work required to complete $9,051,500.J If you will look at the two columns you will see that a large expenditure has not yet been made upon a number of the items set forth there. You will notice that there is a very heavy expenditure still to be made, so that there is nothing anomalous in my hon. friend's statement. Referring again to the physical condition of that railway, I say that here the late government in my opinion, and the late commission also are responsible, notwithstanding what my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) has said about that. What is the condition of the line from Mountain to Levis? It is very nearly completed we are told, but of what use is it in that unfinished state? Interest is running upon the cost of it. How long will it be before the line is completed so as to be able to take out grain from the west? My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) smiles at that. He is very much interested' in the western situation as we all are. Why is it that grain is not coming down from the west to Cochrane now, and then over the Grand Trank railway to Toronto, why is it the line is not completed to Cochrane, when the line from Levis to Moncton is practically completed? Hon. gentlemen opposite have ibeen rising in their places and blaming the .government for the present situation in the west. I want to tell them that the late government, and the late commission appear to be more blameable than any one else for the present condition of affairs in Canada. There is only one railway line running out to-day from Port Arthur and that is the Canadian Pacific railway line.


Francis Cochrane: And the road from Port Arthur to Winnipeg is not completed yet.


William Thomas White: That section is not yet completed, but as I say there is only one line running out to-day from Port Arthur. You may have as many lines running down to Fort William as you like. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) mentioned the line running down from Superior to Fort William. I do not care if you had ten lines running down there instead of one. That does not help the western situation to-day a bit because there is only one line out from Port Arthur and that is the Canadian Pacific railway line.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What about the Canadian Northern?


William Thomas White: It is not yet constructed.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my hon. friend say there is not a line running from Port Arthur to Winnipeg?


William Thomas White: But east of Port Arthur there is only one line. Remember it is eight or nine years since this contract was entered into, nine years to complete the line to Cochrane, and it is not completed yet, and m.y hon. friend says it will not be completed for two years. Now who is to blame for the fact that the western grain cannot be moved to the east? Who is to blame for the lack of cars and for all the congestion that we hear of almost daily from hon. members from the west? When the late government were in power did my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) opposite ever rise in his place and tell the government that the line to Cochrane was not completed, and should be rushed no matter what the expenditure might be, in order that the grain might be moved from the east and double the railway facilities from the west? I never heard of it. And my eloquent friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff)-I am sorry he is not here to-night, because I think I can place the blame where it belongs-did he ever rise at any time and ask whether means were being taken to 'double the railway facilities of the west by constructing the line to Cochrane? Not at all. That cannot be gainsaid or denied. What about the line to Superior? The line to Superior even was a year late. The Grand Trunk Pacific railway has been operating its Prairie section for two years. The first year they were unable to take out grain from the west. Why? Because the line from Winnipeg to Superior was uncompleted.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman knows very well that he is unfair in making a comparison with the prairie section.


William Thomas White: I am not unfair. My hon. friend is not the fairest person in the world himself. My hon. friend says I am comparing the construction of a line between Winnipeg and Superior, with the prairie section. My hon. friend is overlooking this fact, which I have made the basis of my argument:	the late
government had eight years in which to construct this railway and what have we got to-day? Why it is like starting to build a house by constructing the chimney instead of excavating and building the basement. You were a year late in getting ta *Superior, and you are three years late- because it will take a year and a half or two years to complete it, between Superior and Cochrane-in getting to Cochrane. Now I ask when we hear about this grain blockade in the west, and about this congestion of cars in the west, upon whose

shoulders is the blame to rest? Let us be fair in this matter; all we want, is fair play. The government has been in power since October 6, and almost daily since the House began its sittings, remarks have been made about our preventing the grain getting out from the west. I do not intend to allow this matter to remain there, but every time I hear this complaint I shall place the blame where it belongs.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my hon. friend seriously pretend that the congestion in the northwest to-day is due to the fact that the road between Superior Junction and Cochrane is not completed? Is he serious in that?


William Thomas White: Yes. My hon. friend does not understand the situation.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: Are not the elevators full?


William Thomas White: Of course they are full. I thought I had made this matter plain, but apparently I did not. I say, if you had ten lines going to Fort William in winter after the close of navigation, and only one line out from Fort William east, how great is the capacity of your railway? Just as great as that of one line, and no greater. If you have two lines, you double the capacity. One of the greatest complaints of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and I think it is one they will not be slow to urge, is that the government has not finished the line between Winnipeg and Cochrane so that they could get the advantage of it. You have the prairie section in operation for two years and only getting down to Fort William last year. So much for the physical condition, except this: First, we have the line from Moncton to Levis almost completed. But what about the Quebec bridge? Where is it? It is in the river. I do not intend to place the responsibility for the fall of the Quebec bridge; unavoidable accidents sometimes happen. I do not propose to apportion the responsibility for that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Then why do you mention it?


William Thomas White: Because I want to show the situation.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the hon. gentleman pretend to argue the condition of the Quebec bridge as a justification for the reduction of the commission?


William Thomas White: I was answering arguments that are brought forward on the other side. And what I say is strictly relevant. I am not wandering one whit further afield than did the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). I am dealing with the situation of this road. We have heard of the great advantages of the road in the west. The hon. member for Assini-Mr. WHITE (Leedsl.	.
boia (Mr. Turriff) told us how it was taking out the grain, and others have told us how it was relieving the situation. I am merely meeting these arguments, and what .1 say is relevant and pertinent to the issue. I am fairly criticising the commission. I have not charged anything against them, but I am fairly criticising them by pointing out the physical condition of the line, and showing the nature of the construction east of Winnipeg. If the commissioners have constructed the line between wrong points or have gone on first with parts of the line which should not have been constructed first, they are fairly open to criticism. Now, the Quebec bridge-I was taking that up when I was interrupted by the hon. member for Halifax-from Moncton to Levis the road is almost completed. But, of what use is it to the country? And as to the Quebec bridge, I was only narrating when interrupted by my hon. friend


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am glad to hear that.


William Thomas White: I was merely setting forth the historical fact that the Quebec bridge is now in the St. Lawrence. How many years will it be before the Quebec bridge will be capable of forming the last link in the chain between Winnipeg and Moncton? The people have a rough way of adjudicating upon these matters. They judge largely upon results; and if this line has not been completed^ either through the fault of the Quebec bridge^ or for any other reason, they are apt to visit the blame upon the government during whose term this all occurred. I am not going into the question of what responsibility attaches through the falling of the bridge. I am merely stating the situation -and there is the situation. Then, we have the remainder of the road finished or nearly completed, as shown by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane). He estimates that the road should be finished by the 1st of January, 1914


Francis Cochrane: The Quebec bridge in 1917.


William Thomas White: Yes, 1917 for the Quebec bridge, and 1914, or two years hence, for the railway. Eight years since the beginning, plus two years more to the finish, makes ten years-ten years for the construction of this line before it is in a position to haul out grain from the west.
The conisiderations that I have mentioned, I think, are of the greatest possible importance, and I think that they are absolutely relevant to this discussion. Now, what is our position as a government ? Our position is that we have fallen heir to this National Transcontinental as a heritage. A damnosa hereditas, or, I would ratheT call it a hereditas damnosa; I think that is 'a little better Latin-but either will

do; and iat all events that is our heritage. On this side of the House we are patriots and Canadians before we axe pa-tisane; and there is not a man on this side who does not want to prosecute this enterprise with the greatest vigour and carry it through to completion. The cry was raised during the elections before the last, ' Let Laurier finish his work.' We will have to finish this work, and we will finish it well. I hope that the end of the National Trans* continental will be better than its beginning; -and I know that the Minister of Railways will carry this enterprise to completion -more economically than the work hitherto has been carried on.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The -minister himself do-es not seem -to think so judging by his estimates.


William Thomas White: Let my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean, Halifax) consider what the completion of a railway means. You may have a railway with a part of its right-of-way not paid for, and yet complete in a physical sense. You have telegraph lines, stations, round-houses and other such things to provide. The heavy expense comes in connection with these matters; and must be considered when looking at the road from a physical standpoint.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the bon. gentleman (Mr. White, Leeds) agree that it is good jjolicy to continue the construction o-f the road with 4-10 per cent grade? Let us -have an answer to that?


William Thomas White: We have inherited a situation. When gentlemen have gone ahead and spent $113,000,000 on construction, and have completed the line at different points, it would not be possible to change the grades even if we wanted to. But more than that: My hon. friend is a good lawyer, yet he has overlooked one thing, and that is that there is an agreement between this country and the Grand Trunk railway as to the standard of construction. The question arises, how far can we change that situation? But all that does not alter the fact that these hon. gentlemen opposite estimated this road at only one-fifth of what it has actually cost. That is the great outstanding fact and you cannot forget it nor gloss it over. But it is what they are trying to do-gloss it over. Thirteen millions as against sixty millions; fifty-four millions as against two hundred and thirty-six millions,-how are you going to get away from the logic of these facts?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman (Mr. White, Leeds) agrees that it is a good policy to build with grades of 4-10 per cent, and will continue that policy?


William Thomas White: There is not a man on this side, from the right hon. leader of
the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) down, on his side-and they are down so far as we are concerned-nor on this side of the House either, who would have voted for the National Transcontinental railway if he had known that these figures would be brought down eight years after that agreement was made. I say, where is there a man on either side of this House who would have voted for the National Transcontinental railway if they had known that these figures would be brought down here eight years afterwards? That is why I say that there is nothing we are going to deal with in this parliament that has anything like the importance of this question.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The country does not think so.


William Thomas White: The country does think so, and the country is shocked at these figures. Why, Sir, even our hon. friends apposite do not realize what these figures mean-$6,000,000 interest on the line from Winnipeg to Moncton in one year. Now what is our duty? There is not a man on this side of the House that does not want to see the Grand Trunk Pacific railway made a success, that does not want to see it completed through to Prince Rupert, that does not want to see it carried to completion from Moncton to Winnipeg. They know that the country can stand the cost. I want to say this, that the most gratifying feature in this whole matter is that the surplus revenues of this country in the past have been such as to liquidate so large a percentage of the capital cost of that railway. I say that is a most gratifying fact; because I am a patriotic Canadian, I am not a partisan, and I acknowledge the great prosperity of this country during the regime of the late government. Therefore I say there is not the slightest fear for the future. I say, without anticipating the Budget, that we will be able to write off almost the entire expenditure on the National Transcontinental railway for this year, I look forward with faith to the future, and I want honestly and in good faith to carry out this enterprise to completion.
Now the increase in our national debt. Our national debt is of comparative insignificance, having regard to our resources, $340,000,000, not a -large national debt. So I say, speaking as the minister responsible for the finances of Canada, that notwithstanding this expenditure, of which a great part has already been liquidated by our surplus revenue, I look forward without the slightest apprehension from the financial standpoint. It is only proper that I should say this, while we are justly criticising the miscalculation made by our predecessors, and when we are

meeting their arguments, or their cdn-i sures, against us in regard to the existing western situation. I think I may rightly traverse their arguments by presenting the other side. At the same time I am free to say that notwithstanding the enormous expense the position of this country its such that we will be able to carry the work through to completion. I have the greatest possible faith in the west. There is no man in this House who is more interested in the west than 1 am, 1 claim to be as well acquainted with it as any eastern man can be. I say that our western friends from Aflberta and Saskatchewan are continually misrepresenting that country in this House. You have the province of Saskatchewan, probably five per c.ent under cultivation, and ninety-five per cent still to be cultivated; you have the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba capable of immense development, and of sustaining populations in comfort many times the population they have at the present time. I look forward without the slightest apprehension to the western situation. The Grand Trunk Pacific, and the other lines will take care of themselves. What we want in the west, and what this government stands for, is to give additional spouts to that country, and as many as we can. The Grand Trunk Pacific is pushing through to Prince Rupert, the Canadian Northern railway is running another line to Vancouver, and this government stands pledged to the construction of the Hudson Bay railway, another spout to the north; and the Minister of Railways will urge the construction forward of a line between Superior and Cochrane as vigorously as he can, no matter what the expense may be, in order that that link may be completed at the earliest possible moment. Now, with these spouts, two more to the west, one north to Hudson bay, and one east to Cochrane down by the Grand Trunk Pacific to the Timis-kaming and Northern Ontario to Toronto, then with Mackenzie and Mann constructing the Canadian Northern railway and Ontario east from Port Arthur duplicating the line of the Canadian Pacific railway east to Port Arthur, we have all these additional spouts.


John Howard Sinclair: When does the hon. gentleman expect the spout to Hudson bay to be completed?
Mr, WHITE (Leeds). Just as quickly as we can complete it. Give us the eight, years time that you had from Winnipeg to Cochrane, and the Hudson Bay road will be completed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When will that road of the Minister of Railways be completed to Labrador?


William Thomas White: 


William Thomas White: We are all optimists here, it is only the hon. gentlemen in, opposition who are pessimists. When I was in the west I saw this sign in half-a-dozen hotels, ' If you can't boost don't knock '; and I have heard more knocking of the west from the western members in this House since I came here than I ever heard before. Why, it will take a hundred immigration agents to repair all the damage that has been done by the talk of western members since this session began. What is the situation this year? It is an extraordinary situation, as we all know, a wet year, and a late harvest. We know what the climatic conditions were, and the enormous strain placed upon the railways. The situation is _ extraordinary, it is not normal. Is it fair therefore to dwell upon such a situation and take so gloomy a view of it as our hon. friends opposite are doing? I say they do not fairly represent the west. The west is the land of invincible optimism, the people of the west are the most courageous in Canada, and they are confronting the situation bravely indeed. They know the climatic conditions are responsible for the situation, they know the congested situation west from Fort William, and still they believe thoroughly in their country. Notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) as to how many bushels of grain it costs to buy an agricultural implement on this side of the line as compared with the cost on the other side of the line, notwithstanding all that, what are the facts? There -must be some permanent attraction in that great country that draws the people from the republic to the south to come in and take up their homes in that land. What happened last year? Notwithstanding all these gloomy pictures that have been drawn by the hon. member for Edmonton and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) what happened last year? 130,000 immigrants came in from the United States to make their homes in the Canadian west, to settle upon the soil of the great west. They get the - advantage of cheaper land, and of better land, and they have continued to come, and will continue to come notwithstanding the pessimistic talk we hear from hon. gentlemen opposite who misrepresent the west. The western representatives will be looked upon as Jeremiahs if they keep on much longer. But the western people do not want Jeremiahs to represent them, they are optimistic, they are men of the greatest possible courage. Next year they will get a good crop, their harvest will come in earlier, and I hope that the conditions of last year will not be repeated for many a long year to come. The railways will be able to take care of the situation better, and hope will again smile

on that great land. I mention these facts to show that our railway systems in the west will be profitable enterprises. There will yet be mixed farming in the west, there will yet be great manufacturers, so I have no fear at all with regard to the railway situation in the west. Those are my views with regard to the west, and with regard to these items of expenditure which the Minister of Railways has brought down to the House.
The late government cannot escape responsibility for this situation, they cannot gloss it over. It cannot be minimized, it was a miscalculation, one of the grossest miscalculations that has ever occurred in this country since Confederation. What the consequences will be, whether, as the hon. member for St. Antoine division (Mr. Ames) has said, this government may yet have to assume a part of this responsibility, I shall not venture to prophesy. But you cannot escape two facts, that $13,000,000 estimated by the late Prime Minister as interest, and I must do him the justice to say that he never estimated it as anything else, has grown to $60,000,000 and the $54,000,000 estimated by my predecessor, I have no doubt in all good faith, $28,000 per mile from Winnipeg to Quebec, and $25,000 a mile from Levis to Moncton has now grown into $236,000,000, nearly five times as much and equal to $130,000 per mile. I say that whatever the significance of these figures may be, whatever may be the consequence of that calculation, the responsibility must rest not on the government that finished it, but on the' government that started it, that conceived the project and carried it through almost to completion before we came into power.


Mr. CARVELL.: Mr. Chairman, rarely have I listened to such a pessimistic speech from a gentleman who claims to be an optimist^ as we have heard this evening. My hon. friend has devoted pretty nearly one half of his very earnest apneal to the people of this country to an effort to convince them that this road will cost $130,000 a mile, and that the late government should be censured for that condition of affairs. My hon. friend knows that is not the case at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order !


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He knows that the road will only cost $90,000 a mile.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order !


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
William Thomas White: Does my hon. friend know what cost of construction includes under this agreement ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think so.


William Thomas White: Does it include interest?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Under the agreement seven years' interest will be added to the cost of construction for the purpose of paying interest, but these commissioners are not responsible for that.


William Thomas White: I did not say they were.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the inference from the statement of the hon. gentleman, that is the statement of the hon. member for St. Antoine, of the hon. member for East Toronto, to-night. These commissioners have nothing to do with the interest, they are simply the medium through which this road is being constructed.
I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on one point. He is the first hon. gentleman on the Conservative side of the House who has been fair enough to admit that when the late Finance Minister made the statement about the $13,000,000 he was talking about the interest the country would have to pay and not the cost-of the road.


Haughton Lennox: I would remind my hon. friend that on two occasions at least I distinctly called attention to the fact that I understood the Prime Minister to be re-



ferring to what it would actually cost the country in outlay which it would not get back.	.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I shall have to accept the statement of my hon. friend but 1 could not have been in the House at the time he made the statements. It has been reported from end to end of Canada that this road would cost $13,000,000 only.


Mr BLAIN.: Did my hon. friend hear the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) make exactly the same statement as is made by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) this evening?


Mr CARVELL.: I was talking about members on the Conservative side of the House, my friends from Peel and froni bim-coe and the others have stated in the House and it has been taken up by every Conservative almost in Canada, that Mr Fielding said this road would cost only $lo,000,000.


Haughton Lennox: I rise to a point of order. V.hen the hon. member says that the member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) on any occasion either in the House or out of it alleged that the late Prime Minister said that this road would only cost $13 000,000 be is making inadvertently a mistatement. I never said so inside or outside the House.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I had accepted my hon. friend's statement, he need not get nervous. I am glad the Minister of Finance has forced these gentlemen to come out in the open and make the statement that they did not mean that we said that this road would cost $13,000,000. What Mr. Fielding said was that as he figured it the interest charges would be $13,000,000. Mr. Fielding was in error, there is no question about that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr CARVELL.: My hon. friends say ' hear, hear I would like to know if Mr. Fielding was the first public man who was ever guilty of an error of judgment in discussing a great public work. Any hon. gentleman who has ever built himself a house knows that the cost exceeded the estimate of his architect. Have they ever heard of a public work that did not cost more than they figured? But my hon. friends say it costs too much more. Let us take the conditions at the time the statement was made. It was made in 1903. No surveys had been made, no expert information had been obtained. The government took the statement of Mr. Schreiber, then deputy Minister of Railways and Canals. Mr. Schreiber told them that in his opinion the road could be built for about $30000 a mile. It happens that Mr. Schreiber was wrong. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) complains of the delay


Haughton Lennox: 
Robert Laird Borden: That does not include interest.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, that is for the construction of the road proper. I admit we have to pay interest.


Francis Cochrane: And under the contract they are to add the interest for seven years.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I appreciate that.


Francis Cochrane: And that adds to the cost of the road.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, so far as interest is concerned, and, therefore, the road if it be a success must pay interest on the interest as well as on -the actual cost.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand it, not
only by custom, but also by the terms of the contract, interest must be calculated.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not begging the question at all; I am admitting that according to the contract you must add the interest to the cost of construction for the purposes of the interest earning capacity of the road. The Minister of Finance tells us that there will be about $3,500 per mile of interest annually and he does not believe that the road can pay that interest. Well, I am not a railway manager and, therefore, I cannot -give an absolute answer to that from experience, but I think I can give a pretty good answer from the experience of other roads. I find on looking over the annual report of the Canadian Pacific railway for 1909 that there was of capital stock, preference stock, consolidated debenture stock, and mortgage bonds, outstanding at that time, $372,000,000.


Robert Laird Borden: How many miles of road?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: About 9,000 miles of road at that time. I think I am safe in saying that on that the Canadian Pacific railway pays in dividends -and interest from six to seven per cent annually. They are paying a higher rate of interest now but for the purposes of calculation I will take the figures as they were then. Thus it will be found that the Canadian Pacific railway in the 9,000 miles, including branch lines, cheaply constructed lines of every kind, roads that do not pay, hundreds of miles of railway that never paid; all included they are paying about $2,500 per mile interest, and we know they have a surplus sufficient to pay if they wish to, another $2,500 per mile interest.


Haughton Lennox: Does that include their land sales?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It -does not. I, therefore, say that the earnings of the Canadian Pacific railway to-day are sufficient to pay $5,000 per mile interest. But says the Minister of Finance, the Grand Trunk Pacific is going through a district that is not settled, and that I admit, but I leave it to the Minister of Railways who knows the country traversed by the Grand Trunk Pacific, if it d-s not a f-ar better country than two-thirds of the country travelled by the Canadian Pacific railway from Winnipeg to Montreal. There are a few more people on the Canadian Pacific railway from Winnipeg to Montreal than there will be at first on the Grand Trunk Pacific line, but I am told by engineers who have been in that country that it includes a territory five hundred miles long by two hundred miles wide and that it contains a gread deal of the finest arable land on the continent, so that the country traversed by the Grand Trunk Pacific will assuredly be the home of thousands, yes, of millions of people, in the. near future. This railway traverses a wooded country from 150 miles east of Winnipeg to Quebec and on down through New Brunswick, and does any man tell me that a road traversing a country like that will not earn as much as the Canadian Pacific railway does between Winnipeg and Montreal?


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Do not the figures which my hon. friend has given include the hotel system, and the steamship lines?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think they include the steamship lines. They may include the hotels, but they are a mere bagatelle, and I presume they are run at a loss. But even if the figures do include the steamship lines, there is such a margin every year that the line will still pay $4,000 to $5,000 a mile and have a surplus. The Canadian Pacific railway has grown rich through transcontinental business. Take away the transcontinental business

which that company gets at Winnipeg and I do not suppose they -would feel like maintaining the tracks from Winnipeg to Montreal; and what is true of the Canadian Pacific railway will be true of the National Transcontinental railway. It will cover just as much territory west of Winnipeg; it will get just as much freight to haul; it will have just as much business to do; it will have just as much return traffic; it ought to be in a few years just as big an institution from a business standpoint; and if the Canadian Pacific railway can pay $4,000 or $5,000 a mile of interest, I do not see how any man can say that the National Transcontinental cannot pay $3,500 a mile. But there is something else that my hon. friends fail entirely to recognize in discussing this question. It has been stated by some hon. gentlemen, and strongly intimated by the hon. member for St- Antoine (Mr. Ames), that this road has cost too much. I deny that, and I say that it would be a misfortune for Canada if this road had cost one dollar less than it has cost, provided that cost has been honestly expended.	,


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman refer to the last $10,000,000?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, I will include that as well, although I was not referring to it at the time. I will say that the last $10,000,000 was well expended. When that road is completed, it will be the best asset the Dominion of Canada has ever had or will have in the lifetime of any living man. Perhaps there are not many gentlemen here who have taken the trouble to investigate the earning possibilities of a road with a grade of only four-tenths of one per cent, as compared with the ordinary grade of from 1 to 14 per cent, which is to be found on all the other roads in Canada.
I have taken the trouble to investigate certain sections of road. The Canadian Pacific railway, from Montreal to St. John, which is indicative of the ordinary roads through Canada, can transport, with the best engine it owns to-day, about 600 tons of freight per train. Take the same engine and put it on the International railway from Montreal to St. John, and it will handle hardly 1,200 tons. The same engine, put on the Grand Trunk Pacific from Quebec to St. John, with the assistance over two short pusher grades, will transport over 2,000 tons under exactly the same conditions. But take the same engine from the Rocky Mountains to Quebec, without a pusher grade of any kind, and it will transport over 2,000 tons. That is done with the same coal consumption, the same trackage cost, the same overhead expenses. You have three times the earning capacity in the one case that you have in the other. When you have millions of tons of freight trom the great west-because that is where | Mr. CARYELL.
the freight comes from for the Canadian Pacific railway and for the Canadian Northern, and will come from for the Grand Trunk Pacific-does any man tell me that when the Canadian Pacific railway can pay interest of from $4,000 to $5,000 a mile, this road will not be able to pay $3,500 a mile? One Iras only to state the proposition to demonstrate how unreasonable is the argument of the Finance Minister. Then, you have the undeveloped local traffic which will be developed. You have a thousand miles of primeval forest through which the road will pass; you have a thousand miles of territory which has hardly yet been invaded by man; you have all that lumber to transport and all the supplies to go in, and the men to develop that great industry. I come next to the question, has this road cost more than it should cost? Unless my hon. friends contend that it has, they must admit, if they would be logical, that it will be the greatest carrier ever built on the continent, and I believe in the world, for its length. I wonder if these hon. gentlemen know the kind of road that this road will be when completed. Some of them have seen the prairie sections of the road, but very few have seen that portion from Winnipeg to Moncton. I have not had the privilege of going over the whole, but I have gone over a considerable portion of it-on handcar, on flat car and on engine, therefore I think 1 know something of what I am talking about when I say that I believe there is not such a road in America, and 1 know there is not in Canada. It will he absolutely complete when handed over to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company two or three years hence. The' grading is absolutely perfect. There are probably two or three "times the number of culverts that are to be found on an ordinary road, and all of concrete or stone. Nothing has been saved in the way of drainage, or in the way of road-bed ballast; the station houses are to he complete; every mile will be fenced with the most secure and substantia] fence. Now, the Minister of Railways and Canals made the statement that in his judgment, or in the judgment of some-bod v else nearly $8,000,000 will be required in the next eight or nine years for betterments on this road; and just here the minister will perhaps tell me whether these figures are the estimates of Mr. Grant or not. I would like to know if that statement of betterments came with Mr. Grant's sanction?


Francis Cochrane: I am not sure whether it was by Mr. Grant or Mr. Leonard.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have'nothing derogatory to say concerning Mr. Leonard, but I want to tell my hon. friend that these figures would appeal to me with very much greater- force if it came from Mr. Grant

rather than, from Mr. Leonard. What I am trying to get into my bon. friend's head in that there never was1 a road built in Canada or the United States like the National Transcontinental. I do not believe that Mr. Grant ever made the statement that the road would require nearly nine million dollars of betterments in the next ten years. Therefore you can cut out that $8,000,000 with one stroke of the pen, and you will be perfectly safe in doing so. Now, I come down to the next branch of the case; that this road cost more than it should cost. That is a very important question, because it is all very well for the Minister of Finance to get up here in a pessimistic manner

An lion. MEMBER. Optimistic.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, pessimistic, and say the people are not disposed to treat this matter lightly, and that they believe there has been a great misappropriation of money in the classification of the road. Does the Finance Minister know that the original contract provided for a commission to settle this question of classification, and that a committee of three of the ablest engineers in Canada


Mr. AMES.: Blockers. [DOT]


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think the hon. gentleman should withdraw the statement that Mr. Schreiber, Mr. Grant and Mr. Keliiher are three of the ablest blockers- in Canada.


Herbert Brown Ames: I thought you referred to the commission.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will my hon. friend withdraw the statement?


Herbert Brown Ames: Certainly.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am glad of that, because if the hon. gentleman had been listening he would not have made the statement he did. It is in the same class with the statement he made last Wednesday night, when he said that the curtain lias rung down on the gentlemen responsible for building this road and that they should go into oblivion as soon as possible, and that if hey were allowed their liberty they should be grateful. I have not any brief to defend the gentlemen who formed that commission, but I think that so far as honesty is concerned and their dealings with the people of Canada, their records will bear comparison with many of their tradueers.
Mr. CURRIEi Was there not over classification discovered on the Transcontinental railway?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We have had an investigation of the classification by a committee of this House, also by a board of arbitration, consisting of Messrs. Keliiher,
Grant and Schreiber, and what is the result? That out of some fifty or sixty million dollars on classified work on this road, they cut out in district F, about $300,000 or $400,000, and I think in district B, something like $150,000.


Francis Cochrane: How much on the Winnipeg section?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is district F, about $300,000. Anyway, it is less than half a million. I want to tell my hon. friends opposite that not 5 per cent, of that was the result of over-classification, but was due to a change in overbreak The arbitration held that the engineers had allowed too much for overbreak, and therefore, it was not a matter of overclassification. In plain English the contractors had taken out too much excavation, they removed more material than was necessary, and were not entitled to be paid for it, and a reduction was made of from $300,000 to $500,000. In district B there was also a slight reduction due to overclassification, and with these three exceptions so far as I know, there has not been one dollar taken off the engineer's estimate for classification and overbreak.


Mr COCHRANE.: Why have they not paid -the contractor?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What contractor?


Francis Cochrane: The contractor west of Cochrane, there is a dispute in regard to that contract yet.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to tell my hon. friend that so far as the arbitrators have gone, that is the net result of their investigation. He and his friends here may rest assured that no investigating commission will ever take off anything appreciable trom the charges, by reason of classification or overbreak. More than that, when this investigation is finished, you will be surprised to find out how nearly the results will agree with the results- returned by the rnginecrs of the late Transcontinental Commission.


Francis Cochrane: I hope so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Furthermore, I tell the minister that he cannot probe the New Brunswick end of the Transcontinental too carefully to suit me, and every member from that province, and also to satisfy every contractor on that line, to say nothing of the commissioners. I know the excellent condition of things he will find in New Brunswick, and the same good results will be found all over the remainder of the road. Hon. gentlemen opposite tell u? that this railway has cost too much. Do they take into consideration the fact that [DOT]hree fourths of the cost consist of labour which has gone up from thirty-five to fifty per cent, in the last seven or eight years?
Do they also consider that supplies have advanced from 25 to 30 per cent, in that time? Do they also consider the fact teat a line with a four-tenths grade has been constructed?


Francis Cochrane: Does not the hon. gentleman think that labour is dearer than when the road was started?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know it is; I don't ' think ' it.


Haughton Lennox: But that would hardly account for it, would it?-in view of the fact that these contracts were let at schedule rates before the rise in the price Vif labour took place? These contracts were made as far back as 1905, I presume. In that case the rise in the price of labour would hardly account for what the hon. gentleman has mentioned.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: To some extent it would, because there was labour that was not anticipated at that time. It would be interesting if we were able to make a comparison between the cost of this road and other great roads on the continent. But I am afraid that only the railway companies themselves could give us the exact figures. But we can get somewhere near the matter, and I propose to give my hon. friend some of the information that 1 have Deen able to extract from the authorities whom I have consulted. I have here statistics on railways in the United States and Canada furnished by the Interstate Commerce Commission down to 1908. Let us consider the case of the Canadian Pacific railway. The commission gives the amount of outstanding stocks and bonds and other securities in 1908 as $327,675,000.^ Uns makes an average of $58,000 per mile. So far as the bonds and debenture stock and the preference stock are concerned, I am satisfied that they sold at par. So far as the stock of the Canadian Pacific railway is concerned, it is almost impossible to tel] what it realised for the road. We know that the first $25,000,000 was sold as low as 25 per cent, 35 per cent, or 50 per cent. But we know also that later issues have sold at par, and the latest was sold, I believe, at 160. Average it up and you will find that the stock of the Canadian Pacific railway has produced pretty near par, and, of course, the bonds have produced par. Now, admit that the stock and bonds of the Canadian Pacific railway produced par, and you have an average cost for the 9,154 miles of this system at that time-including branch lines, colonization roads and all the rest, of over $58,181 per mile.


Robert Laird Borden: Does that include rolling stock?


Mr CARVELL.: I cannot tell; it is not siiown here. We know that probably some Mr. CARVELL.
part of that issue was spent for rolling stock, and we know certainly that millions >f earnings have gone into rolling stock and into betterments. I have acknowledged 'hat it is hard to get accurate figures; I give the committee the best I have got. if they are not logical and reasonable, then they are worth nothing. If we admit that $58,000 a mile would be a reasonable amount for the main line on the basis of these figures, then consider something further. We gave the Canadian Pacific railway when it was incorporated about 835,000,000 or $40,000,000 of completed works; that is a matter of history. We also gave them $25,000,000 in cash. And a few years afterwards we loaned them for he purpose of completing their road, $30,000,000 in cash. We know that these three items went into the main line. You have a total there of $95,000,000 to be divided iver 3,000 miles in length of the main line, or about $32,000 a mile extra. Add that o the $58,000 already given, and you have 890,000 for the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway-as compared with $95,000 for the main line of the Grand Trunk ''acifie.


Mr. WILSON (Wentworth).: Was not 'he $30,000,000 returned?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Of course it was.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: Was it not paid out of the capital stock of the company?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.
Mr. WILSON	(Wentworth). Are you
sure?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. I have admitted that these figures are only the best I can and. There have been stock transactions and earnings that have gone into the road, and it is pretty hard to form an accurate estimate. But if 1 am anywhere near correct, you have $90,000 a mile as the cost of the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway. But no man would tell is for a moment that the mam line of the Canadian Pacific railway is anywhere up to thei standard of the mam line of the Transcontinental. We know that it lias not cost so much money, and it ought not to have cost so much money; it has not the transportation facilities of the Grand Trunk Pacific; it is not in it for a moment with the Grand Trunk Pacific Now, these inures bring us down to 1908. My non. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) could 'ell better than I can something of what the Canadian Pacific lias spent in bettering their lines since 1908. I can speak about the branch line on which I live, which rUns from Macadam Junction to iertn. They spent on that since 1908 over $1,000,000 or $10,000 a mile. And this on a branch line. We know that they have
3421 FEBRUARY 19, 1912 3422	
spent two or three millions in the west tunneling through the mountains. We know that they have spent immense sums in the -great Viaduct at Lethbridge. We know that they have practically rebuilt the main line since 1908. Mr. WILSON. (Wentworth). But all this is included in what the hon. gentleman has already doubled up three or four times. Mr. CARVELL. The hon. gentleman has not listened to me. I have told him that these figures are down to 1908; and now 1 am giving him facts to indicate that tens of millions have been spent since then. Yet the road has never got up to the standard of the Transcontinental and never will, it is impossible. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not like to listen to these figures. And no wonder. They say that the road has cost too much, while we contend that it has not. And we put forward the facts that we have the greatest road on the continent, a road that has been honestly built, every dollar of which has been honestly expended. We court the fullest investigation. And when you have an investigation, as I hope you will, the commissioners will report to the government and the government to the country that we have the finest road on the continent,^ a road that will pay interest from the day it is handed over to the Grand Trunk Pacific. And it will not be more than three or four years before hon. gentlemen opposite will be taking credit to themselves for this great proposition which will bring such benefit both to the east and to the west. The Minister of Finance (Mr. White) says that if the road had been completed, we should not have had the grain blockade of to-day. I am not prepared to assent to that statement, but, on_ the other hand, I will not quarrel with him. If we had the road completed we could handle grain that is not now handled. If the Canadian Northern railway were completed, the same would be true. But all this bears out the wisdom, the statemanship of the right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) of the government under which this work was inaugurated. It all bears testimony to the leadership and ability of the men who are building the road and the good judgment they have exercised not only in starting the building of the road when they did but in starting to build that kind of line that is being constructed. Nothing will go down in history which will redound more to the credit of Canadian stasesmen than this great Transcontinental will to the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who was leader of the House at that time. I want my friends opposite and their friends throughout the country to address themselves, ii they can, to this aspect of the case. If they nan prove that this road has cost more	than it should have cost, I shall be perfectly willing to admit the corn and say that we are wrong. But until we have evidence of that I stick to what I have said -that this road has not cost a dollar more than it should have cost or a dollar more than the people will get results for. There is another thing which these hon. gentlemen seem to forget. And that is that this money has not been given away, as the money was given away by the friends of the hon. gentlemen opposite for the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway. I am not going to find fault with the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway. I want to bear testimony to the fact that it was one of the great works of one of the great men of Canada. Without the Canadian Pacific railway the great west would not have been opened up. But when you compare what the Canadian Pacific railway has cost this country with what the Grand Trunk Pacific has cost, the latter pales into insignificance. We gave the Canadian Pacific railway $25,000,000 in money, $40,000,000 in constructed work, and 25,000,000 acres of land. Those 25,000,000 acres of land have been partly sold, I think they have about. 10,000,000 acres left. Mr. COCHRANE. What were they worth when we gave them? Mr. CARVELL. What are they worth now? Suppose they gave away the 15,000,000 acres that are gone, and they have only the 10,000,000 acres left, why, these 10,000,000 are worth $300,000,000 to-day. They have got probably $200,000,000 out of what they have sold, or $100,000,000 any way; so we have given them altogether $400,000,000 worth of land. They have given all that away to the Canadian Pacific railway in addition to the $05,000,000 or $70,000,000 given in actual cash or in constructed works. What have we done? The very worst case which even the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) can make out is that we are losing $60,000,000 in interest. But remember that we are getting a' splendid piece of property, a property which is ours, it is not the property of the Grand Trunk. We are building a road for ourselves, wc own every rail and every sleeper in it. We are leasing it to the Grand Trunk for forty- * three years, for which they pay interest on it, and at the end of fifty years they hand us back our property in the same condition in which they received it. Does any one mean to tell me that at the end of fifty years this road will not be worth the $200,000,000 we are putting into it? I would be ashamed to call myself a Canadian if I did not have sufficient faith in this country to believe that in fifty years that road will be worth $500,000,000. I consider it was the most magnificent trade the late government ever made. The greatest bargain they ever

made for the country, for the present and for posterity, was when they were able to induce this company to go into the construction of this road. It will not cost the country more than $60,000,000 interest at the end of fifty years, and the $60,000,000 interest will be paid back three or four times over by the appreciation in the value of the property. Now if I am right in my arguments and if I am right in my conclusion, then I say the Minister of Railways is not justified in dismissing from office those three commissioners who have so honestly and so earnestly attempted to carry out their important work in the interest of this country. Is it not a piece of political spite, which is almost'too small to be expected from men who have just-come into office? Would it not have been better to wait a little while and investigate? But no, it seems that the place hunters were so powerful that something had to be done and it was necessary to dismiss these commissioners from office.


Francis Cochrane: Where does the Bill speak about place hunters?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is like the rest of the commission. They take a man who has occupied a subordinate position for six or seven years, and for some reason was unable to get promotion, and they have promoted him and given him $2,500 a year more than he got before. I want to tell my hon. friend he will be the first man to regret the course this government is taking in removing from office the men who know the conditions, and who have had oversight of this work down -to the present time. I want to tell him something else that he doesn't know; he does not realize the fight these commissioners have had with the Grand Trunk and with the contractors.


Haughton Lennox: I never heard anything of that. We only heard of this commission fighting for the contractors, and against the country -all through.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend has not been so far behind the scenes as I thought he had -been. Let me tell him this, the commissioners did fight for the country and against the contractors, and there is hardly a contractor on the line that does not feel he has been improperly treated, because the commissioners have held them down, and have not allowed them to make the profits they hoped to make. The hon. gentleman will know this before very long. For these reasons, I feel that this is ill advised legislation, and the minister would do well to reconsider the rash step he has taken, and not proceed with this Bill.


Mr. STEVENS.: I have listened, as a new member, with a great deal of interest to this debate, and to what has been said by those responsible for what I think is one
' Mr. CARVELL.
of the most gigantic public crimes that has ever been perpetrated in the history of Canada. It is amusing almost to listen to the remarks that are made to justify the action of the late government with regard to the Transcontinental railway. As I listened to the last speaker (Mr. Car veil), I was impressed with the remarkable knowledge of detail and insight he seemed to have of this question from the contractors' standpoint, for a man who is not in any sense interested in the -work.


Air CARVELL.: Does the hon. gentleman mean to insinuate that I am interested?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was saying that I was very much surprised to note the intimate knowledge the hon. member had in discussing this question. I was going to say, when he interrupted me, that I must compliment him upon the means he has taken to secure that knowledge, riding up and down the line on a hand car, a locomotive, or a flat car, studying the situation. Possibly if we nad had the privilege of studying the question as intimately as he has clone, we might be able to speak with more authority on the details of the construction. But I would like to remind hon. gentlemen opposite of this statement of the Minister of Finance, that here is a road which we were told a few years ago, was to cost a certain figure and we find out that it has cost aproximately five times that figure. I also want to call attention to the contradictory arguments that have been presented by lion, members opposite on that question, compared with their statements made a few days ago, with regard to the condition of crops and grain in the Northwest. One set of hon. members tell us they don't care about a railway that connects the prairie provinces with the eastern and western waterways, they only care about an outlet to the south. On the other hand, it was the proud policy of the leader of the late government, in bringing forward his Bill for the construction of this railway, that it was to join the cast with the west of this continent^ I submit that these arguments are entirely inconsistent. We claim on this side of the House that our policy has been consistent throughout, our policy is to give the prairie provinces relief at the earliest possible moment. As the Minister of Finance has pointed out, that portion of the road from the prairies eastward to Cochrane has been practically neglected.
Further, the western portion, which would have given an all-the-year-around outlet for the grain to Vancouver and Prince Rupert is scarcely started. That was to be completed in 1911, and there is only constructed a few miles from Prince Rupert eastward, and a short distance

through the Yellowhead Pass. There is an outlet which could have been easily completed in 1911, and which would have given a very material relief to the congested conditions of the grain areas of the prairie provinces.
The hon. gentleman has. told us in criticising the action of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that all the facts in connection with this railway have been before this country for 4 or 5 years. If they were aware of these facts why is it they did not once raise their voices to have the road completed at an early date? They complain about adding interest to the cost of the road although there has been a delay of two or three years. Any business man will agree that in any constructive work until that work is completed and revenue producing, you must charge up to capital the interest on the money during construction and the longer you delay the time of construction the greater will be the amount of interest charged up. I protest that that interest must be added to the cost of construction which thus becomes $130,000 per mile. Some comparisons were made. The hon. member stated that the Canadian Pacific railway had issued $350,000,000 worth of stock, debentures and preferred stock.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I stated $170,000,000. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), asked me if steamships were included in this estimate. I find they were to the extent of $18,000,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Take a total stock debenture issue of $350,000,000 and it comes to $37,500 a mile. That also includes the rolling stock, a very material factor, and includes betterments down to 1908. Another very unjust statement was made by the hon. member. He included the $30,000,000 which had been repaid, and must necessarily have been repaid out of the capital stock of the company or the proceeds of its sale. So the Canadian Pacific railway cost $37,000 a mile, and the hon. member should keep in mind that when the Canadian Pacific railway was built it went through a practically uninhabited wilderness, it was an engineering feat that was thought to be an impossibility, and one of the great members of the Liberal party said that the Canadian Pacific railway would not pay for axle grease. As a matter of fact the Canadian Pacific railway has been a national and a financial . success, and has not cost anything like the figures suggested by the hon. member, whereas with all the facilities for transportation of supplies which the present line has to within a very short distance of the actual construction, this road is costing $130,000 a mile, and the hon. member does not think it is costing a cent too
much. The question is so simple and plain to the people of this country that it is viewed as one of the most gigantic public crimes in the history of the country.
Speaking of the land grants to the Canadian Pacific railway, if we were discussing the construction of that railway now I would strongly oppose the granting of a large land bonus but it is well-known that when that road was under discussion the land grant was not only a necessity but the land given was practically valueless, and was so until within the last few years, when, -yith the development of the country it has assumed considerable value. The hon. member believes that it has a value of $30 an acre and when he asks us to accept these statements it would be well for him to look at the figures of the Grand Trunk Pacific in their present light and not in the light of other days.
Hon. members should remember that two sections of the road that should have been completed two years ago, are scarcely commenced, and that is one of the reasons and the chief reason why we now have such congestion in the west, and I trust that the present Minister of Railways and the present administration will see to it that the Pacific division of the National Transcontinental railway and the division from Winnipeg to Port Arthur, are pushed to an early conclusion in order to give us this relief, which is so much needed in the west.


Frank Oliver: The minister might have given more light on the portion of the road remaining to be completed, as compared with the charge which he puts in his estimate.


Francis Cochrane: I think I have given a pretty clear detailed statement.


Frank Oliver: But he has not explained the reasons for that detailed statement. The details are there but the reasons for them are not. I am not a railway builder or the Minister of Railways, and I must say it seems peculiar to me that a road which has been ironed for over 1,400 miles and which has been graded for nearly 1,600 miles, still is only two-thirds completed so far as cost is concerned. That is rather a peculiar statement and calls for some explanation. It must be that my hon. friend has in some way secured an adjustment of the figures which is not apparent upon the face of the statement.
A road that is within less than twenty-five per cent of completion, should not cost thirty-three and one-third per cent to complete, and yet that is the statement the Minister of Railways puts before us.


Francis Cochrane: There is one item of nearly nine million dollars for the terminals in Quebec.


Frank Oliver: Precisely, and that is what I want to come to. The Bill before us is a question as to the propriety of decreasing the number of members of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, and our discussion has been on the merits of the policy of the government. It has seemed good' to our friends on the other side of the House to lay blame upon the members of the commission because of what they are pleased to call the shortcomings in the policy of the late government. Now, I want to know from the minister if this large charge which he puts in here as the prospective cost of the Quebec terminals is properly chargeable to the commissioners whom he proposes to discharge.


Francis Cochrane: The head engineer gave a signed statement there, and he was the head engineer under the late commissioners.


Frank Oliver: I am not questioning the figures. Will the minister listen to me, and follow what I am trying to get him to tell me. I am not questioning that the terminals will cost the amount stated here, but I am asking him if he is charging that the ministers are responsible for that proposed expenditure.


Francis Cochrane: I have not charged the commissioners with one single thing;
I have not even criticised the commissioners.


Frank Oliver: I do not use the word * charge ' in the sense of the minister alleging anything against the commissioners. What I am asking him is whether he says there is anything wrong in the action of the commissioners, or of the late government with respect to these terminals.


Francis Cochrane: That you will have to settle between yourselves.


Frank Oliver: I do not think there is anything to settle about it. There is no question whatever that it is a matter chargeable to the government and not to the commissioners. The whole argument of gentlemen onnosite has been that because the railroad has cost so much the commissioners must he to blame.


Francis Cochrane: I am not blaming the commissioners.


Frank Oliver: Not to push this argument too far, I think it would be more decent for the minister to make allegations against the commissioners he proposes to dismiss rather than to present a Bill to the House providing for their dismissal, and have his followers on the back benches make insinuations which they cannot support, and which the minister does not daTe to. I think that position is absolutely unfair. If these men are being dismissed for fault, let the minister get up and say so, Mr. COCHRANE.
and if they are not being dismissed for fault, I think it is absolutely improper that bis followers should get up and make insinuations against the commissioners. Of course, criticism of the policy of the late government is perfectly legitimate; the late government must stand or fall by its policy and take the consequences, but it is not right that the commissioners should be charged by the supporters of the government with that for which if blame there is, the late government was to blame and not the commissioners. There has been nothing brought before the House to warrant the purpose of this Bill. If the suggestion is that the commissioners have been incompetent, there has been nothing brought before the House to show them incompetent, and if the suggestion is that two men can handle the completion of this railroad better than four, I submit that that yet remains to be shown.


Francis Cochrane: It is a question of policy.


Frank Oliver: As to the suggestion that these commissioners were being dispensed with to save expense; my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) was very strong on the point that we had now a government of economy and the Minister of Railways was going to economize on the Transcontinental Railway Commission by dismissing three of these commissioners. But, as a matter of fact, we have two men on salaries to-day equal to the salaries paid to two of the late commissioners, so that all the Minister of Railways is saving is the salary of two ot the commissioners and not even of three.


Francis Cochrane: That is not a fair statement, because the other man got $5,000 a year, and he was in the employ of the commissioners before.


Frank Oliver: I suppose the gentleman in question is not double; he is still discharging the same duties as he was discharging before he received extra pay?


Francis Cochrane: The same duties.


Frank Oliver: Is he discharging the same duties as he discharged before, or is some one else discharging these duties?


Francis Cochrane: We have not taken on any one else.


Frank Oliver: I am not able to understand what the position of the Minister of Railways is in this respect, but we need, not quarrel about that. At the present time we have two men doing administration that was done by tour, and the two men are getting the same salaries as two of the four were getting. That is unquestionable.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not true in that sense.


Frank Oliver: Well I have made my statement which appears to be a statement of fact, and we need not delay all night on that question. There are two men to-day administering the business of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, and these two men are drawing the same salaries as the two other men who previously assisted in that administration. I suppose that is right.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, but one of these men is also doing the same work for which he was paid $5,000 a year before.


Frank Oliver: Then, either he was doing very little work before, or he is doing very little extra work now. If he was doing $5,000 worth of work in the position he previously occupied he is not able to discharge these duties and take the position of Assistant Chief Commissioner and earn $7,500 a year in that capacity. If the change has been made it is because it means that somebody else will have to toe hired to do the work that Mr. MacPherson formerly did, if the work is to be done efficiently. Now, Mr. Chairman, what 's the use of talking about administering the expenditure for the completion of this Transcontinental road by one or two men less or more; there is a stupendous work to be done; there is a stupendous amount of supervision to be exercised, and, unless, you have the men to exercise that supervision it is not going to be well done and there is going to be loss and not gain. If the men who have been commissioners have been dishonest or incompetent then certainly they should not remain in their positions, but, presuming them to be honest and competent there is nothing in the argument that they have been dismissed as a measure of economy. It is true that two-thirds of the total expenditure has toeen paid on the Transcontinental road and that one-third only remains to be paid. But is it not also a fact that it is in closing up the expenditure that the greatest necessity exists for experienced supervision? Is it not also true that as the work of construction is being closed up, there will arise the question of the operation of certain sections of this completed and partly-corji-pleted road, and is it not advisable and desirable, in the interest of the country, that there should be commissioners of experience and of reliability to take charge of the arrangements for traffic as well as for construction? Instead of there being less work to do, there is more work to do, of a kind that men of the standing of the commissioners are most capable of doing. It is not now merely a matter of construction; it is a matter of being sure that the work has been properly finished, and of making traffic arrangements that will be
both for the benefit of the country and for the benefit of the road itself.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. member is aware, is be not, that those traffic arrangements are all laid down in the statute and in the contract, and that if the Grand Trunk Pacific company sees fit to take over a portion of the road as it is completed, it can do so; and if it does so, the statute provides that it shall take it over on the same terms as the whole, that is, on the basis of 3 per cent. There is no difficulty about arranging anything, because it is all arranged.


Frank Oliver: any way of constructing railways without paying for them, they will certainly have found a good lino for the benefit of the country. The late government never made that discovery; they were able only to get what they paid for, and in doing that they considered they were doing their duty by the country and the country was doing well. Now, there was no other way of getting a first-class road from the prairies to the seaboard than by paying for it; and whether the present leader of the opposition was mistaken or not as to what it would cost, makes no difference whatever in the ultimate result. The country needed the construction of that railway; the late government entered upon that project; the railway is now being constructed; and no government could exist in Canada that would not carry that project to completion, according to the standards of construction which have prevailed up to the present time. When any horn, friend came to office, his first act was to call off work on that construction, but lie put it back again very quickly. If he ever had any intention of stopping construction, he got inside information on the subject very soon, and he decided wisely that the work- should go on.


Francis Cochrane: Where did they call off the work?


Frank Oliver: It \vas announced in the press.


Francis Cochrane: I am not answerable for that.


Frank Oliver: I am glad to know that my hon. friend did not call off the work, but an announcement to that effect was made in the newspaper press supporting the party with which he is associated.


Francis Cochrane: I am not responsible for that.


Frank Oliver: At any rate the announcement was made and it was not denied. It was announced that he had called off work on the Hudson Bay railway, but he took another think after that and gave orders for it to be restarted.


Francis Cochrane: If I had known what the port would be, the project would have been pressed much faster, but the hon. gentleman and his friends did not have any port to start with.


Frank Oliver: We did not, have any port to start with and my hon. friend has not got any port yet although he has ordered the. construction to go on.


Francis Cochrane: You are not sure of that.


Frank Oliver: Yes I am absolutely sure that the Minister of Railways has not decided	which port the
railway is going to. I am not so sure Mr. OLIVER.
that this work is to be recommenced. But the newspapers have announced the fact, and the minister has not stated that the newspapers were mistaken.


Francis Cochrane: I do not contradict everything in the newspapers any more than I contradict a lot of statements which are made in this House.


Frank Oliver: I am sure the House would be interested to- have a statement from the minister on the subject.


Haughton Lennox: Let us go on with this Bill.


Frank Oliver: The minister introduced the question of the Hudson Bay railway.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman
introduced it himself.


Frank Oliver: I beg the Prime Alinister's pardon. However, if the minister does not see fit to answer a question in regard to a matter he introduced himself that is his business. I must say he seems to have a great lack of information in regard to the business of his department.


Francis Cochrane: I gave too much, that is the trouble.


Frank Oliver: In regard to a necessity for the early completion of this railway I do not think there should be any question about it. We are all agreed that the railway must be completed at the earliest possible moment and according to the standard laid down in the contract.


Air. ARTHURS.: The hon. member for Pictou (Air. Alacdonald) did not say that a few minutes ago. In that respect you differ from him.


Frank Oliver: Not at all.


Haughton Lennox: Yes the member for Pictou most decidedly said that we could complete it according to any grade we liked.


James Arthurs: The hon. gentleman said a few moments ago that we were bound to complete it according to the standard established by his government, and that no government could stand that would do anything else. That is quite a different idea.


Frank Oliver: Not at all. I say that this government, although its supporters are tlo-day criticising the policy under which the road was constructed, up to the present time do not dare to change that standard of construction, although as the member for Pictou said they have the privilege of doing so if they dare. But they do not dare. The Alinister of Railways had no hesitation in calling off the contract on the Hudson Bay railway, and I suppose he could do the same on the

Transcontinental as well. I have made the statement that all the criticism that has been levelled against the bargain made by the government, and the carrying out of that bargain by hon. gentleman opposite, falls to the ground in the face of the fact that they themselves do not dare now to deviate from that standard, and are compelled by public opinion to build the road according to it, although the expense may run to the figures that they have placed before the House. Therefore there is no accusation against the members of the late Transcontinental Commission, nor against the late government in regard to this policy.


James Arthurs: Will the hon. gentleman say that the railway as so far completed is up to the standard of the Grand Trunk Pacific as set forth in the agreement with that company?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


James Arthurs: I do not think so when a large amount of sipruee ties have been used by the Grand Trunk Pacific for hundreds of miles along their line.


Frank Oliver: I do not know what my hon. friend is talking about, and I do not think he knows himself. I heard a reference to spruce ties. May I ask to what part of the line that applies?


Mr. SHARPE (North Ontario).: To the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Frank Oliver: If the hon. gentleman had said that I would have understood him. Now in regard to the standard of this road and in regard to its serviceable character, one would have thought from what has been said that no one had any control over the construction except the Transcontinental Commission or the government. According to the bargain "made, this road is to be built to be leased to the Grand Trunk Pacific, and if it is a fact, as the Finance Minister assured the House, that the Grand Trunk Pacific cannot earn the interest upon that cost of construction the company will have to go bankrupt, although I presume the Grand Trunk Pacific Company know their business as well as the Minister of Finance knows it, or the member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames). The Grand Trunk Pacific must know their business as well as these gentlemen know it for them, and if they saw, from the cost of construction, that they were not going to be able to operate their railway and pay interest, surely they would have had something to say about the matter before now. But as a matter of fact the Grand Trunk Pacific Company are absolutely parties to that standard of construction, because the company wanted that standard and know that they have to pay the
interest on the cost. They are aware what the cost is from time to time, because their engineer has to pass upon the cost of every foot of the line. Now these hon. gentlemen have entertained the House at great length upon this question. I do not want to characterize their style of argument, because I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you would call me to order if I did. But when they say that the management of the Grand Trunk Pacific have so little knowledge of their business and so little regard for it that they would assist in carrying on that construction according to that standard with the results that they have suggested to this House, if they could impress the directors of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company or the Grand Trunk Company with that idea there would surely be a change of management very quickly. The reputation of the management of both companies is that of men who thoroughly understand the railway business, and are able to make dividends out of railway traffic.
And I think that, so long as that matter is in the hands of the Grand Trunk Pacific to the extent that it is, with the responsibilities resting upon the Grand Trunk Pacific as they do, these hon. gentlemen may make their minds easy and not worry about the ultimate result to the western producer or the eastern consumer, or producer either.
The prairie section of the Grand Trunk Pacific, it is said cost $40,000 a mile. Did the government pay that $40,000 a mile? The government guaranteed the bonds on $13,000 a mile, and the railway has to find the balance of $27,000 a mile in OTder to have a railway of the standard of this road across the prairies. Why .do they make a road of that high standard when they could have a road across the prairie for $13,000 to $15,000 a mile? Because they believed it would pay them to do it and just so they believe it will pay them to have the road from' Winnipeg east to Quebec and Moncton of such a standard as it is. For that standard is absolutely with the consent of the Grand Trunk Pacific. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has joined forces with the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) as the champion of the interests of the northwest. And he has added his word of advice to those of a good many other members of this House as to what the man in the northwest ought to do. Some people advise the man in the northwest to go into mixed farming; some people advise him to build granaries; some people advise him to raise chickens. But the Minister of Finance advises him to be an optimist.


William Thomas White: I said he is an optimist.


Frank Oliver: If the hon. gentleman thinks that the man of the west lives on optimism, he is very much mistaken. If he thinks the western farmer is such an optimist that he likes to pay high railway rates, likes to have his grain tied up so that he cannot get it out, likes to be m such a position that he cannot pay his bills, likes to be compelled to pay an extra price for everything he buys-then my hon. friend is mistaken; the western farmer is not that kind of an optimist.


Mr. STAPLES.: Why did you not remedy the difficulty during the fifteen years you were in power?


Frank Oliver: The Liberal government went out of power on a policy that meant remedying that condition; that is the very thing that put it out of power. And the late government has no apology to oner and no regrets to express that it went out of power on that issue. But never mind about the late government; it is to the present government that the people look for that relief which, according to their policy, this government denies it. My hon. friend told us that the late government was responsible for the grain blockades m the west because this Grand Trunk Pacific was not completed to Cochrane.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Because you did not build the Hudson Bay railway.


William D. Staples: Did not do anything. Mr. OLIVER. If the road was completed to Cochrane, does not the hon. gentleman know that the grades on the Ontario railway from Cochrane to North Bay are such that the Grand Trunk Pacific to Cochrane would be only half the value that it would be otherwise ?


Francis Cochrane: That is only what was built by the Ross government.


Mr OLIVER.: No, what was built by my hon. friend's (Mr. Cochrane) government.


Francis Cochrane: No, the Ross government; that is the only grade there is.


Frank Oliver: At any rate the facts are as I have stated, that that road has to be completed to the city of Quebec according to the grades laid down before the whole line will be of the fullest benefit to the people of the west. It is true the road is not yet completed. It is also true that lion, members opposite, led by the present Prime Minister, held that arrangement up in parliament for one solid summer, held it back for a whole year; and that if that obstruction had not taken place in 1903, and if the same rate of construction had gone on that rules to-day, the road would have been linked up between Superior Junction and Cochrane. This connection would have been made and would have Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
proven valuable to the people of the west had it not been for the obstruction on that occasion.	,
There is no question that the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific will be of stupendous benefit to the west. There is no question that the Canadian Pacific railway which offers to-day the only connection, is a road of such grades and curves that no amount of money will ever make it so that it can haul grain to relieve the conditions that exist there to-day. The Canadian Pacific railway is not able to move two hundred cars a day over its line from Fort William eastward; and because of its inability to do this, it is not able even measurably to relieve the grain congestion that exists at thi's time.
' I was struck with the argument of the hon. Minister of Finance. At one period of his discourse he was explaining to us the fact that this Transcontinental railway running through the undeveloped country would have no local traffic, and in the next breath he complained because of the lack of optimism in regard to railway construction. Now, let me say to my hon. friend, who lives in Ontario, and represents Ontario more especially, that the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific through this very region that he talks about is the only thing that will add serious value to the greater part of that province of Ontario. If northern Ontario has any future at all that future will be absolutely created by the construction through it of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Furthermore, my hon. friend told us of the outlets that we should have, to the west, by Hudson bay, and to the east. A magnificent prospect, he said; a magnificent prospect truly; and every part or element of it a part of the policy of the late government, the very policy that he and his friends have been criticising and speaking of as a crime against Canada on this occasion and on previous occasions in this House.


Mr COCHRANE.: The Ontario government subsidized the Canadian Northern before you did.


Frank Oliver: I am not speaking of the Canadian Northern railway, but of the Transcontinental. The Canadian Northern railway is another issue altogether. I say that the Grand Trunk Pacific is opening up what is called the clay belt of northern Ontario and giving value to that part of the country, at the expense of the Dominion government, and as a part of the policy of the late Liberal government.


Francis Cochrane: You could not get there without going through Ontario, coulc you?


Frank Oliver: I presume it is just as desirable to open up Ontario as it is t<

open up any other part of the country, and if Ontario has 16,000,000 acres of valuable clay land in the northern part of the province, it is just as much a national enterprise to open that up to settlement as it is to open up any other part of the country.


Francis Cochrane: Ontario can open that up herself.


Frank Oliver: Ontario did not, and under the present government, never would. There is no doubt that, the people of that northern part of Ontario to-day are so ill satisfied with the measure of development they received at the hands of the Minister of Railways and his colleagues, that they are to-day asking to be erected into a separate province in order to get their share of the Dominion subsidies to enable them to carry on their local business.


Mr. NICKLE.: Is the hon. gentleman aware that in the last local election recently held, the present government carried thirteen seats out of 14 in new Ontario?


Frank Oliver: Yes, I am; I am not aware, however, of the methods by which they carried them.


Robert Laird Borden: A word or two with regard to some matters the hon. gentleman has mentioned. He told us that the late government had no apology to offer for their defeat at the last election. Well, I am sure the country has no apology to offer for defeating them. He has stated that this contract was held up by a policy of obstruction in 1903. Is he aware at what date that contract was introduced?


Frank Oliver: I could not recollect the date at the moment.


Robert Laird Borden: He had better examine the dates before he makes a statement of that kind.


Frank Oliver: What was the date?


Robert Laird Borden: The date was the 30th of July, and the session opened on the 12th of March.


Frank Oliver: When did it close?


Robert Laird Borden: It closed on the 24th of October, within two and a half months after the- greatest measure of the session was introduced, within two and a half months after effective discussion began on it. My hon. friend refers to that as obstruction. I say there was no obstruction, and the hon. gentleman has no warrant to say otherwise. The hon. gentleman has misquoted gentlemen on this side of the House very often in the course of his remarks. He said that hon. gentlemen on this side referred to the building o'f this road as a crime. They did not refer to it as a crime, they did refer to the inexcusable delay and the
methods of construction as a crime, and I entirely[DOT] agree with them in that estimate.


Frank Oliver: Would the Prime Minister then specify the criminal in the case.


Robert Laird Borden: I say it is absolutely inexcusable that they did not begin the construction of that road eastward from Superior Junction. Why was it any more difficult to do that than to undertake the construction of the road westward from Quebec ? Can any hon. gentleman explain that ? Why was it any more difficult to begin the construction of the road from Winnipeg eastward, than to begin the construction from Levis towards Moncton, or from Moncton towards Halifax? There is no distinction. Yet the hon. gentleman stands here, when he sees the result of that, and upholds the course of the late government, which undoubtedly now is having very serious consequences.


Frank Oliver: There must be some misunderstanding. I am under the impression that the construction was commenced eastward from Winnipeg.


Francis Cochrane: It was the Lake Superior division.


Robert Laird Borden: I iaan referring to the particular portion of the road where there is now no prospect of completion within about two years, from Lake Superior to Cochrane.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The right hon. gentleman must be. in error. I know they commenced the construction from Winnipeg towards Superior Junction.


Robert Laird Borden: I am referring to the whole line from Winnipeg to Cochrane, There cannot be that outlet from Port Arthur to the east, which is absolutely necessary under present conditions.


Frank Oliver: But that is from Superior Junction eastwards, not from Winnipeg eastward.


Robert Laird Borden: I see no reason why thal road from Superior Junction to Cochrane could not have been proceeded with in just the same way as the road between Moncton and Levis.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman said frem Winnipeg.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I did inadvertently use thal expression. I was referring to that particular portion of the line that will not b( completed for a year or two.


Frank Oliver: I asked the Prime Minis ter, if there was a criminal, Who was tin criminal ?


Robert Laird Borden: Why, my hon. friend and his colleagues.


Frank Oliver: Then it was not the commissioners' ?


Robert Laird Borden: No, I will come to that at once. I stated here before that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals did not come here either to censure or to commend these commissioners, ancl the leader of the opposition nodded his approval, when I made that statement. He took the responsibility of introducing this measure as one which he thought to be in the public interest, having regard to the condition of the road, and having regard to the capacity of the man whom he placed there as chairman of the commission. This controversy about the work of the commissioners (has entirely arisen, as pointed out before, 'because hon. members on the other side of the House raised the question as to a certain allowance which should be made to these commissioners upon their retiring, and in the course of urging that this should be done, undertook to express very great commendation of the work which these gentlemen have performed. We had not criticised or said anything about them up to that time, but naturally, when that commendation was expressed, in possibly somewhat extravagant language, hon. gentlemen on this side of the House took exception to it, and in that way, the criticism has arisen, and it was solely due to the course taken by hon. gentlemen opposite. I have not come here, nor has the Minister of Railways come here, to commend or censure these commissioners; but we take the responsibility of saying that, having regard to the state of construction of this road, we think it eminently in the public interest that it should be completed under the man who has been appointed as chairman of that commission, and we take full responsibility. My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) was net, it seems to me, quite as fair as he usually is, when he made the statement with regard to the assistant to the chairman. He undertook to say that we proposed to pay the salary of two commissioners instead of four.
When any hon. gentleman undertakes to refer to place-hunters in respect to this commission, I want him to understand that the chairman of that commission very reluctantly undertook that work at my urgent and earnest request, and at the earnest request of the Minister of Railways. He did not seek it at 'all, he was not desirous of it, and the salary is a matter of absolute indifference to him. Every one who knows that gentleman knows that no such expression as that should have been used in regard to him.


Frank Oliver: I hope my hon. friend does not think I used it.


Frank Oliver: 


Robert Laird Borden: Some hon. gentleman used it.


Francis Cochrane: You used it.


Frank Oliver: No.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Not with reference to the chairman.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know if it was with regard to him, but it was used. As a matter of fact, if we had followed the example of hon. gentlemen opposite we would have filled up the number of the commission even although we thought that it should not, be done. We reduced the number of commissioners from four to one, and appointed a man to whom the salary is a matter of utter indifference and who took the position simply with a desire to [perform a public service against his own interest and inclination. As to Mr. Mac-pherson, he was being paid before $5,000, and is being paid now $7,500, an increase of $2,500. In addition to the duties he was discharging before he is now discharging certain other responsible duties. From what I have heard of him, I believe he will give good value to the people for every dollar of salary which the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) proposes to pay him.
The hon. member for Piotou made some rather remarkable statements 'about the report placed on the table by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) and used language with regard to it which means one of two tilings, either that the man who prepared it is incapable, or that he is dishonest. The man who prepared that statement is a man appointed by the late government byorder in council and the observations of my hon. friend in that regard are deserving of consideration.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: To what does the hon. member refer?


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot quote his language but my hon. friend will see it in ' Hansard.' He criticised the statement in such terms as would indicate that the man who would make a statement of that kind to be submitted to parliament is not a man to be kept in the position ibe occupies.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I never said anything of the kind.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will see his language in ' Hansard.'


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I said the House was entitled to information as to how the three items were made up. I made no remarks of any kind on the subject beyond requesting that information. One hon. gentleman said he was our appointee. I said that that had nothing to do with the information I wanted.


Robert Laird Borden: I am bound to accept the hon. gentleman's statement, but that

is not how the matter impressed me, and if his statements are justified they are surely deserving of the attention of this government, and that necessary attention will be given to them.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What about the information and the details as to the three items, headquarters' salaries and expenses, engineering expenses, and right-of-way?


Robert Laird Borden: We asked the man appointed to this responsible position by the late government for accurate and definite information in respect to these matters. If these items are not correct then that man appointed by the late government is responsible for their inaccuracy.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That answer was never good enough for the hon. gentleman when the tables were turned.


Robert Laird Borden: In what case?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In any case.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend will give a case I will be very glad to deal with it. All I have to say is that we have been relying on the statement of the responsible officer of these commissioners who was appointed by the late government. We are entitled to rely on that until it has been demonstrated to us that he is inaccurate, and we have presented the statement to the committee exactly in the manner in which he has presented it to us. My hon. friend repeated several times in the course of his speech that this road had been completed to the extent of 76 per cent. There is absolutely no warrant in this statement for any such assertion.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is the mean; ing of the statement at the top of the page?


Robert Laird Borden: Exactly what it says, that the grading has been completed to that extent, but the hon. member knows that _ other matters are involved besides grading. When he says that the road has been completed to the extent of 76-86 per cent, he says what has absolutely no warrant in the statement produced, and he used that statement to make an argument which was absolutely unfair and improper from the statement as a whole. As a matter of fact, the road lias not been completed to the extent of 76 per cent. The giading has been completed to the extent of 76 per _ cent, the track has not been laid in anything like that proportion and any one who examined the items in this report will see that in several unimportant respects three-quarters ox nine-tenths of the work still remains to be done. Take the terminals at Quebec, $*>^8 500 have already been expended, there remains to be expended more than $9,000,000. Take car shops with their equipment, 109
'7! .000 have been expended, and there are $1,120,800 still to be expended. When any hon. gentleman finds fault with the report of this engineer, who is the engineer appointed by their own leader by order in council, and criticise his statement that the betterments during nine years from January 1, 1912 to December 3i;


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I asked the Minister of Railways positively if Mr. Grant made that statement, and he would not say he did it. and I am satisfied it was Mr. Leonard who did it.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend criticised it and wanted it struck out altogether.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did.


Robert Laird Borden: I would give to my hon. friend some " information. The Grand Trunk Pacific has been completed and in running order from Winnipeg to Edmonton for I think about two years and has been carrying grain; and it is estimated *and I speak of what I know, that within the next two 5'ears the cost of betterments upon that road in order to complete it up to standai'd, will be just about the amount mentioned here as being required to be expended on this road within the next nine years.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was not completed when it was taken over.


Robert Laird Borden: It has been in operation for two years carrying grain.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They commenced operating it before they had it completed.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister give an idea of the nature of the betterments?


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend will apply to the Grand Trunk Pacific and they will take him into their confidence they can give him full particulars as to what the -proposed betterments aTe because in my statement I am relying on their representations -and that is precisely the statement that was made to us with regard to betterments that ought t-j be made upon this road during the next two or two and a half years. That road from Winnipeg to Edmonton is, I suppose, not much more than half the length of the line from Moncton to Winnipeg and the betterments proposed on that road in the next two or two and a half years are about equivalent to the sum which has been estimated by some one, Mr. Leonard or Mr. Grant, as being necessary to effect upon this road during the period of nine years after its completion.
Any hon. gentleman in this House who is familiar with the ordinary subsidence ox embankments, knows that no matter how perfectly you may build an embankment in the first instances, it will require



repair and betterment in order to bring it up to a standard when it will subside no more. You cannot build a road in the first instance so that it will absolutely require no betterment for a number of years.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps there is a distinction between betterments and repairs.


Robert Laird Borden: I aim not familiar with the technical distinction but I do say that no matter how well you may build a railroad in the first instance, it is absolutely necessary for solme years afterwards to spend money upon it for the purposes I have mentioned. That statement will commend itself to the common sense and judgment of every hon. member present.
I would like to allude to one other matter; a great deal has been said about tha original contract with the Canadian Pacific railway, and the member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) has informed us that the country gave away $800,000,000 according to his estimate, in land value. But, a great many hon. gentlemen who speak of that contract forget that their own leaders between 1874 and 1878 proposed a contract by which not 25,000,000 of acres but 50,000,000 of acres would be given away to any company that would construct the Canadian Pacific railway. If we apply the principle of valuation which my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) adopted, then the government of Mr. Alexander Mackenzie of which the present leader of the opposition was a member, was prepared to give away lands in western Canada worth $1,500,000,000. I would not be prepared to make any such absurd argument as that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Neither would I.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend estimated these lands as being worth $30 per acre.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I said that the ten million acres remaining to be sold were worth $30 an acre and I say so now.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend made an estimate of $800,000,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not say so. I said that the ten million acres still remaining were worth three hundred million dollars and ' Hansard5 will bear me out in that.


Robert Laird Borden: I accept the statement of the hon. gentleman; I understood him to value these lands at $30 per acre.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, the 10,000,000 acres remaining to be sold.


Robert Laird Borden: And 1 am simply remarking that if you applied the $30 per acre valuation 'to the 50,000,000 acres of land that were offered by the Mackenzie government-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But I did not apply it.


Robert Laird Borden: 


William D. Staples: The hon. gentleman denied a statement the other night and ' Hansard ' showed he was wrong.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps I had better put it this way so as not to wound the feelings of my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell). If you apply a valuation of $30 an acre to the
50.000.	000 acres that were offered by the Mackenzie government you would have a sum of $1,500,000,000. I trust the statement in that form will not offend my hon. friend.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I don't object to that.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to point out that section 8, subsection 3, of the Act which the Mackenzie government passed through this parliament, provided that a subsidy of $10,000 a mile for the 2,544 miles from North Bay to Vancouver, making altogether $25,440,000. In addition to that the Mackenzie government also offered a guarantee of interest at the rate of four per cent, for twenty-five years from tne completion of the work, on a sum to be agreed upon. As a matter of fact, the arrangement that was made by the government of Sir John A. Macdonald for the building of the Canadian Pacific railway was an infinitely better arrangement in the interest of the people of this country than the arrangement proposed by the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie. Of course to-day, hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House can talk glibly about lands that are worth $30 an acre, but those who know what the actual conditions were at the time the Canadian Pacific railway was commented in 1882 know that the Canadian Pacific railway would have been glad to hand these lands over at that time for fifty cents an acre; it would have been glad to get twelve and a half (million dollars instead of the>
25.000. 000 acres of land. Every ond in this country realizes1 that the conditions were then absolutely different from what they are to-day. It "is true that the lands did become very valuable afterwards, but in considering the fairness and reasonableness of the contract, we must estimate the conditions which confronted the country and the Canadian Pacific railway in 1882 and not the conditions as they are at the present time.
Well, we have wandered a good deal from the line of argument applicable to this Bill and perhaps some of my own observations are not pertinent to the actual question before the House, but I can only say that it is the belief of the government that the course which they are adopting in respect of this commission is in the public interest, and that the road can be effectively completed under the chairmanship and superintendence of Mr. Leonard. No effort will be spared^ to hurry that road on to completion.

and especially that part of it which is necessary in order that there may he a lime from Winnipeg to the east to afford an. opportunity to the people of the western country to get their grain out more effectively in the future than they have been able to do in the winter months in the past.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would like this information .from the Minister of Railways. I do not want to be offensive, but I do hope he will not tell me again that the figures are Mr. Grant's. I know they are Mr. Grant's figures, but the hon. gentleman is here as the responsible head of the department, and we, as members of this House, have a right to ask for further information before the third reading of the Bill. For instance, in the statement submitted to the House, we are told that the rails .and fastenings, including frogs, switches and diamond crossings already completed amounted to $10,214,000, and that there remains to be done of this, work to the extent of $2,995,000, or in other words there is about thirty per cent of that work uncompleted. If you take the total mileage completed of 1,587 as against the total mileage of 1,803, you have only twenty-two per cent of that work to be done and perhaps the .minister will tell u.s wherein tire discrepancy comes. There is only twenity-two per cent of the track to be laid and it will cost thirty per cent of the total cost to do that.


Francis Cochrane: I do not admit your statement. There .are the terminals and the sidings. We gave you the actual mileage where there is no track laid.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not including the 287 miles of sidings. There is also another point on which my hon. friend will probably bring ms further information, and that is in regard to the item of * engineering and expenses.' I find that under that 'head they have .spent already $7,681,000, and that the estimate is given that it will cost $3,850,000, or just exactly half as much is to be expended as has been expended.


Francis Cochrane: We won't spend one dollar more than is necessary.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. . friend will surely allow me to ask him a question. He states that they assume that they will be able to hand the road over by the 31st of December, 1913, in other words, in two years. The engineering end of this road has been in operation since 1905, that is, between six and seven years. Now, will the hon. gentleman tell us how his department figures that in two years we are going to require just half as much as we did in the last six years. The same thing applies to the headquarters expenditure, which in the last six years has amounted 109i
to $1,732,000, and they expect to spend in two years $1,260,000.


Mr COCHRANE.: The hon. gentleman had better put in the right of way.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The light of way has not been settled in the same proportion in which the road has been built; yet I am satisfied that a good deal more than half of it has been settled. I am not finding any fault in regard to that. I think the Minister of Railways should not assume the attitude he does, because we have surely a right to ask for information. I admit that he is not in a position to give it to-night, but probably he will be able to do so when the Bill comes up for the third reading.


Robert Laird Borden: I would remind my hon. friend that the information he asks for can be easily obtained and will be readily given [DOT]upon the estimates. It is not concerned with the passage of this Bill. We were asked to bring down a statement to corroborate the assertion of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, that the road was two-thirds or thereabouts completed. He has asked the engineer in charge of the work to make that statement, and it has been given, not only in general form, but in detail. So far as the expenditure of the money is concerned, that is a matter that can be dealt with on the estimates. when my hon. friend the Minister of Railways will be prepared to give the fullest information. We are entitled to rely on the statement of the engineer, appointed not by this government, but by the late government. Therefore I trust that my hon. friend from Carleton will be-content to have the information when the estimates of the Department of Railways and Canals are before the House.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That may be all very well from the viewpoint of the Prime Minister, but it is not satisfactory to the opposition. The Minister of Railways persists in sitting in his seat like a bump on a log, absolutely refusing any information.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order !


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not intend to say that offensively, and if anybody on the other side thinks I did, I shall gladly withdraw it. But at least I wish to intimate to the Minister of Railways that he is not very courteous -or free in giving information that is asked of him by the opposition. He is following the example of the autocratic gentleman who lives in Queen's Park, Toronto, and if he does not look out he will be the exact type of that gentleman.


Francis Cochrane: Thank you for that compliment.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Prime Minister says that the information contained in this statement is irrelevant to the Bill before the House. That is true, but I want to call his attention to the fact that pretty nearly every hon. gentleman on the other side who has spoken on this Bill has urged, as the ground for the dismissal of scone of the commissioners, that the road has cost too much. In fact, after the statement of the minister the other night, the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) took the floor, and, with great indignation and in tones of contempt, declared most vehemently against the commissioners, who he thought were very lucky to secure a mere dismissal and in not having some proceedings, civil or criminal, taken against them. Now, in addition to what is asked for by the hon. member for Car-leton, I would like the Minister of Railways when the Bill is next before the House, to state whether it was intended by this statement to lead the House to believe that the first seven years of interest after the construction of the eastern section which is being handed over to the Transcontinental Railway Commission, was to constitute a part , of the capital on which the government was to charge interest against the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.


Haughton Lennox: The contract says that it does not.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 1 think it is quite clear that it is not part of the capital on which the interest is to be calculated; but I understood, from some hon. gentlemen who spoke this evening, that [DOT]that seven years' interest was to be added to the capital. If the Minister of Railways is satisfied that it is not, I am content with that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I called the attention of the Prime Minister to the question of the legality of the appointment of Mr. Macpherson. I am very much impressed with the view that his appointment could not legally be made in the way it was. and I had hoped that when he spoke he would have dealt with that. Unless he is in a position to discuss that now, I would like to hear about it on the third reading of the Bill.


Francis Cochrane: With reference to the appointment of Mr. Macpherson, the law clerk of the Commission advised Mr. Leonard that he had the power to make the appointment. Mr. Mclsaac, one of the commissioners, advised the same tiling, and the Commission as a whole, in . Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
passing the estimates for the payment of Mr Macpherson, in that way confirmed it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not think that was good enough.
Bill reported.


NATIONAL MEANS OF COMMUNICATION.
Robert Laird Borden: Order No. 28, Public Bills and Orders, is a resolution standing in the name of the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Armstrong). Since the resolution was last discussed there has been no opportunity of calling it except on one occasion when the Postmaster General had to be absent. The hon. gentleman is desirous of not being hampered by having the resolution on the order paper where it cannot be discussed without the consent of the House. I, therefore, move that order No. 28 be called for the purpose of having the resolution withdrawn. The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) desires to discuss some of the matters that are embraced within this resolution. A day or two ago when he proposed to do that, the point of order was raised, and it was considered that with the unanimous consent of the House he might go on. However, I think it will be better to proceed in. the regular way. It is for that reason I move the resolution.


Frank Oliver: Under what circumstances will the discussion come on?


Robert Laird Borden: The discussion will come on at any time the member for Rouville is desirous of raising it, when we go into Supply as I understand.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I do not understand that the member for Rouville would have the bringing up of the subject. I was debating the subject and was going to bring it up myself.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr ARMSTRONG moved, seconded by Mr. Lennox, that order No. 28 be discharged.
Motion agreed to.

Frank Oliver: There is a resolution under the heading of government notices of motion in regard to the Manitoba Boundaries. Would it be possible to lay on the table the correspondence in connection with this matter, beginning with the conference that was held between the Premiers of Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and the Prime Minister of Canada, and covering the period from that time forward to the present?


Robert Laird Borden: I have already given instructions that the order of the House

which has already been made in that regard, be complied with before the resolution is brought on.
Mr. BORDEN moved the adjournment of the Blouse.


Frank Oliver: What is the order of business for to-morrow?


Robert Laird Borden: We expect to take up government Bills, beginning with the Grain Bill, and after that Supply, proceeding with the estimates of the Minister of the Interior.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.50 a.m., Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 20, 1912.