WINDING-UP ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), Bill No. 122, to amend the Winding-Up Act, was introduced and read the first time.

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

Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is Mr. E. A. Bouilton, of Paspebiac, Que, employed in any capacity by the Department of Marine and Fisheries or of the Naval Service, or in any other department of the Government?
2.	If so, what are his duties, what is his salary, and since when has he been so employed?


Mr. CODERRE:: Mr. Bouilton is not in the employ of the Government.


MR. P. A. MOUSSEAU.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Did Mr. P. A. Mousseau, who had been employed as overseer of works for the building of the Louisville post office, formerly occupy any position in any of the departments, or under the Government?
2 If so, what was the position?
3.	What is the total amount that he has received as overseer in the building of the said Louisville post office?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	$2,136.


QUEBEC COUNTY TELEPHONE SERVICE.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Has the Government built a telephone line in the county of Quebec?
2.	If so, (a) what did it cost, and (b) what is the revenue from it?
3.	Does that line extend beyond the county of Quebec?
4.	Does it compete with other lines already existing and for a long time back giving local and interurban service?
5.	What is the quality of the materials used in the construction of that line?
6.	Have all the workmen been paid?
7.	Who constructed the line for the Government?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Cost $22,000, of which $13,798.91 has been paid; (b) approximately $1,000 a year.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	No. 6 wire, 25 foot poles, etc., according to Government standard.
6.	No representations have been made to the department that workmen have not been paid.
7.	A. Martineau & Co. constructed 128 miles of line and have been paid for 884 miles.


GRAHAM PEAT PROCESS.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is the report made by Dr. Porter, of McGill University, on the Graham peat process, final, or is it subject to revision?
2.	Does the Government intend applying any funds voted for peat investigation to a demonstration test of the Graham process?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Dr. Porter has revised his report and in the revision states categorically: " The process as outlined and submitted to me by Mr. Graham cannot under any conditions which I foresee in this country for a number of years produce carbonized briquettes in competition with coal at present Montreal prices."

2.	In view of the very unfavourable report made by the officers of the department some time ago on the Graham process and of the present adverse report by Dr. Porter, the department cannot recommend an application for funds to make a demonstration test.


DEPORTATION OP FOREIGNERS.
Mr. LACHANCE:: 1.	Does the Government intend authorizing the deportation of the foreigners who are out of work in the cities of Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Victoria and Vancouver?
2.	If so, what department will control such deportation, and on what conditions are foreigners exempt therefrom ?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: This subject has not been under consideration.


CANADIAN WAR CONTINGENT ASSOCIATION.
*Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Has the Canadian War Contingent Association, of which Sir George Perley, M.P., is president, any connection with the Canadian Field Comforts Commission?
2.	Has the attention of the Government been drawn to an appeal for $50,000 addressed to various organized societies of women in Canada by two persons representing themselves to be members of the executive of the association of which Sir George Perley is president, and contained in a circular letter dated 69 Grosvenor street, London, England, October 27, 1914?
3.	Do the persons issuing the appeal occupy official positions recognized by the Government? If so, has the Government authorized or approved the appeal?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	The Government has no information on the subject.
2.	The attention of the Government has not been drawn to the appeal in question.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


MR. LOUIS AUDETTE.
Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Is Mr. Louis Audette, day labourer of St. Anselme, county of Dorchester, in the employ of the Government?
2.	If so, what is his position, and what salary does he receive?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Caretaker and pumpman at St. Anselme on the National Transcontinental railway. His salary is one dollar per day.



VALCARTIER CAMP LUMBER SUPPLY.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: 1.	To whom was the contract for the lighting of the Valcartier camp given?
2.	What amount was paid by the Government for that lighting?


Major General HUGHES:: 1.	The Quebec Railway Light, Heat and Power Co., Quebec.
2.	$2,535.50.


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION.
Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Have contracts been awarded for the supply of electrical power for the grain elevators of the Quebec Harbour Commission?
2.	If so, to whom were such contracts awarded, and what were the amounts of them?


Mr. HAZEN:: The following information is furnished by the Quebec Harbour Commission :
" Commissioners generate own electric power for elevator, but have also connection with Q.R.L.H. and P. Company for lights and passenger elevator used when elevator steam plant is not operating.
" Prices are the contract prices for which company supply lights and power to commission as required namely for light 10 cents per K.W.H. less 30 per cent discount. Power for 200 to 400 K.W. horses per months 200 at 3 cents 200 excess at 2.75 400 to 600 K.W. horses per month 400 K.W. at 2.75 excess 200 at 2.3 cents and in addition $1 per H.P. per month on H.P. of motor."


MEDICINE HAT HOMESTEAD INSPECTOR.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: Did Willian Switzer, homestead inspector in the Medicine Hat land district, receive his full salary for the months of March, April and May, 1913?
Mr. CROTHER8: No.


GRANTS TO FISHERMEN.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	What amounts, if any, were paid fishermen of Bonaventure and GaspO counties, respectively, for damages sustained toy them in the storm of June 5, 1914?
2.	How many fishermen belonged to GaspO, and how many to Bonaventure county?
3.	What are their names, residences, and the amount received by each?
4.	How many Claims were not entertained?
134i


John Douglas Hazen: No amount was paid to
fishermen of any county in the Dominion for material damages sustained by them in the storm of June 5, 1914.


PICTOU COUNTY RURAL MAIL.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has any petition been received asking for a rural mail delivery service from Meadowville to Sundridge via Dufferin Road, county of Pic-tou?
2.	If so, what action has been taken in regard to said petition?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The matter is still under inquiry. The inspector states that he has received a petition from the residents between Pictou and Cariboo River which covers a portion of the district included in the petition from Meadowville Station to Sundridge, as they believe they will get a better service from Pictou than from Meadowville, and that, therefore, he considers it advisable to withhold all action on these petitions until a satisfactory arrangement cqn be arrived at so^ as to give all the districts the best service possible.


MR. T. C. WOODWORTH.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Did any one recommend the employment of T. C. Woodworth in the business of purchasing horses for war purposes in Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, who recommended him, and what was the address and occupation stated to be?


Major General HUGHES:: There is no
record in the department of any such matter.


W. V. PETTET.
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	When, and for what reason was W. V. Pettet dismissed from the office of postmaster at Pictou, Ontario?
2.	When was his successor, Samuel G. Smith, appointed?
3.	Has the Government been informed that, as alleged, he took an active and aggressive part in the last Ontario provincial election held in 1914?
4.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to dismiss him from office for having done so?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	On the 12th March, 1913, for political partisanship.
2.	On the 13th March, 1913.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Lachance: For a return showing how many Royal Commissions were appointed by the Government since October, 1911, the sub-
[Stage Direction]
jects of investigation and report for each of such commissions; on what dates such commissions were appointed, and on what dates they respectively closed; what persons composed the said commissions, what amount was paid to each of such persons, either as salary or indemnity, and what sums were paid for expenses to each of them; the total amount of the cost for each of such commissions.
Mr. E. Lapointe: For a return showing who are the mail carriers for the rural mail in the counties of Chicoutimi and Saguenay; the salary of each such mail carrier, and the trip that each has to make; who are the mail carriers for the rural mails in the parishes of St. Prime and St. Louis de Metabetchouan, and their respective salaries.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: The morning newspapers announce that there has been another case at Cornwall of shooting by a sentry of some innocent people. Has any news reached the department about it?


Major General HUGHES:: I suppose that it is on the strength of the newspaper despatch that the right hon. gentleman speaks of these people as innnocent. It is always well to wait before reaching a conclusion. I have seen the item, just as the right hon. gentleman has seen it, but I have no further information on the subject. The people in the locality have been instructed when challenged to halt; also to obey the orders of the soldiers; otherwise, the soldiers cannot carry on their work. It must be remembered that the sentry has no easy job.


Wilfrid Laurier: And it is
stated that the sentries are instructed to shoot to kill.


Major General HUGHES:: They were instructed, and are instructed, when any one attacks a soldier, or attempts to disarm him, or to destroy property, to shoot, and when they shoot, to see to it that there is no missing.


Wilfrid Laurier: In this case, a woman and three children tried to pass the sentries.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Frank Cochrane (Minister of Railways and Canals), the House went into committee on Bill No. 119, to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
On the preamble:
Mr. GRAHAM:: This matter was pretty
thoroughly discussed on the resolution, hut, for the sake of clearness, I wish to state my position again. In the first place, some-arrangement should be made for the operation of the Transcontinental until such time as it is completed. The duty of the Government, in my humble judgment, is not to pass this measure to expropriate the property of the Grand Trunk Pacific or of any other company that it desires to expropriate; but immediately, with all possible speed, to complete the eastern division of the Transcontinental, which is not at present completed according to the agreement with the company.


Robert Laird Borden: When is it
completed according to the agreement?


George Perry Graham: When the agreement is fulfilled; it certainly is not completed when the terminals at Quebec are not constructed-leaving other matters out of consideration for the time. The award of Sir William Whyte was that all the shops are necessary for the operation of the road.
I was pointing out the duty of the Government to complete the National Transcontinental, so far as the Quebec terminals at least are concerned, and so to be in a position to tell the company: we have fulfilled our part of the agreement, now take over the line or certain proceedings will be taken. Until such time as the project is completed, the step proposed under this legislation is premature.
I do not know that I can add much more. I discussed the matter at some length when the House was in committee on the resolution. It does seem to me that the Government is altogether in advance of the situation which has been created by itself in not completing the work. In the city of Quebec, a line has been purchased from the Canadian Northern Railway for the standardizing of which a grant is now asked in the Estimates. The station in Quebec is not begun; the shops are just started; the small station at Champlain market is only nicely begun. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in Quebec to take care of the Quebec traffic under this agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. It has been stated that the fact that the Quebec bridge is not completed may be suggested bv the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company as a reason for their not taking over the road.

That contention will not stand for a moment before any tribunal when the documents are produced.


Robert Laird Borden: To what documents does the hon. gentleman refer?


George Perry Graham: I refer to a letter sent
to the Railway Department by Mr. Hays himself, in which he admitted that the company would consider the operation of a ferry at Quebec as fulfilment of the contract providing for a continuous line. That letter was received by the Railway Department and was left by me in that department.


Mr. COCHRANE:: It is not there now.


George Perry Graham: That is not my fault; it ought to be there.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the date of that letter?


George Perry Graham: I cannot say at this time. I remember distinctly receiving the letter, taking it to Council, showing it to the Prime Minister and having it filed in the department.


Robert Laird Borden: About what date?


George Perry Graham: It was some time before Mr. Hays' death. It was written by Mr. Hays in connection with some other correspondence, and I think a careful search will result in its being found in the department. I am prepared to say that such a letter was received. As I have pointed out, I think the Government should complete the project so that the company will have no reasonable grounds for objection on that score, and then, if the company do not proceed to fulfil their contract, that will be the proper time to take such steps as may be deemed necessary. At the present time, however, I think it is inopportune for the Government to pass legislation giving them powers which, to my mind, they are not in a position to act upon without violating the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, because the Government, in my humble judgment, has not completed the project according to the agreement.


Robert Laird Borden: The Government already has a substantial portion of the powers set forth in this amendment, inasmuch as last year it was provided by an Act then passed that, until the Grand Trunk Pacific railway should accept a lease and undertake operation, the Minister of Railways and Canals might himself operate the
road. The present legislation carries that further, in this respect; that it gives to the Minister of Railways, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, authority to lease a branch line which would be an essential portion of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway. It supplies that which was left unprovided for in the Act of last year, and it tnoroughly subserves the purpose which was intended to be accomplished by that Act. That Act, if I remember correctly, received the unanimous assent of the House.


George Perry Graham: That is all right, but this proposed legislation goes farther than that.


Robert Laird Borden: In what way?


George Perry Graham: It takes power otherwise to acquire-that means, to expropriate- that line from the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company; to expropriate its terminals or terminals belonging to any other company. One of the points I endeavoured to raise was that if the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company then proposed to take over the line, the Government would find itself the owner of all these terminals, and the line as well.


Robert Laird Borden: As a matter of fact, it was contended-and I thought it was a well-founded contention-that so important a branch as the Lake Superior branch might very well belong to the Government, assuming that the Government were to have ownership, as it has ownership, of the whole of the eastern division from Moncton to Winnipeg. The objection that my hon. friend makes is based, I understand, on the suggestion that the Government may expropriate. I am not at all sure that the word " acquire " would have that meaning.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the construction that was put upon it by the Solicitor General.


Robert Laird Borden: It is possible that it might bear that construction, but I should rather think that if power ito expropriate were to be conferred, some words of a more definite character would be used. I was not here during the discussion, and was not aware that my hon. friend the Solicitor General had expressed that opinion. The authority to take away, against his will, the common law property or rights of any citizen in this or any other country, even at the instance of the Crown, must be couched in' very express terms. Further

than that, it is a very familiar principle that even if compensation is not provided for in the act of expropriation, the courts *will always construe any such statute as contemplating compensation to the extent of the value of the property and ten per cent additional. My toon, friend says that this legislation is inopportune. There is something that would ibe very much more inopportune and unfortunate, namely, that this road being in effect complete for all practical purposes, although it may not toe technically completed within the meaning of the Act, should remain unoperated. That is the reason why the Government introduced last year, and has introduced again this year, legislation to prevent that particular condition being brought about. Any horn, gentleman would find it exceedingly difficult to look at the legislation and the contracts of 1903-4 and come to a conclusion as to what the completion of that road meant, within the meaning of that legislation and those contracts. As a matter of fact, a railway, in one sense, is never complete. There has not been a year since the Canadian Pacific railway has been completed that work of an important character has not been done upon it; particularly is this true of the last twenty years. The Grand Trunk Pacific railway has 'been operated in the West for three or four years; it has been handling large passenger and freight traffic, although as yet it is not technically completed-a long way from it. Would my hon. friend suggest that under those circumstances a railway, although not absolutely technically completed, ought to remain unoperated? Does he suggest that it is in the interests of the people of the country that it should remain unoperated? We have taken the responsibility of deciding that any such condition would be most unfortunate, and detrimental to the public interest. We are not looking forward to any controversy with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company in regard to this matter, but it is necessary to make provision for that which might possibly occur. Suppose it were suggested to the company: this road is as complete as the road which has been operated in the West *for three or four years; while it may not be technically complete, nevertheless it is for all practical purposes complete within the meaning of this Act, and it is your duty to proceed to take a lease and to operate. If the company raised the contention that they are not bound to operate that road until such and such absolute conditions have been complied with, we find that the contract" and the

statutes of 1903-4, unfortunately, contain no provisions definitely determining the matter. I am not iquite sure that if such a question arose it might be determined toy arbitration; otherwise iit would have to toe determined toy the courts. In either case there would be very considerable delay. In the case of a determination by the courts, two or three yeaTS might be involved. We want to avoid all that. We have no desire or intention of having any controversy ot difficulty with the company, and we do not propose to look forward to anything of the kind. My own attitude-and this has been the attitude of the Government as well since we came into power-has been to deal with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company in respect of this enterprise precisely in the same way and to extend to them precisely the same consideration in every respect as if the enterprise had been initiated by the party which is now charged with the responsibilities of office, and I venture to state that no instance can toe found in which that policy has been departed from.
With respect to what my hon. friend *suggests about the Quebec bridge, I do not desire to apprehend that any unfair or unreasonable difficulty will he caused by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. I am not going to apprehend anything of the kind until it actually occurs. But we must not be blind to the consideration that a contract formally executed under the authority of the board of directors and sanctioned by a vote of the shareholders cannot legally be set aside or modified by a letter from Mr. Hays as president of that road; at least that is my present impression. The contract of 1903-4 was executed under the .authority of the board of directors of the company. The board of directors of the company, if I remember correctly, were required to place the contract before the shareholders. That contract, made in that way, with these legal formalities, might not be changed, .so far .as its legal effect is concerned, by the mere letter of the president of the road, however important his position or however extensive his authority. We have to take into account considerations of that kind. We discussed the matter in a very friendly way with the officials of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway company, and, unless I am mistaken, the legislation was submitted to them either in the exact form in which it is now presented to the House or in .a form substantially the same; and, as far as my

knowledge of the attitude of the company goes, they have not any desire to oppose it, nor, as far as I understand, do they oppose it in any way. It is a reasonable precaution which we are taking for the purpose of preventing the road from remaining without operation during a period in which some question might reasonably be raised by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway company as to its duty to take over the road for operation and as to the right of the Government to enforce that operation.


Wilfrid Laurier: The only correspondence which has been submitted to the House is simply to show that there is a disagreement between the company and the Government, now representing the commission of construction, as to whether or not the road is completed according to the terms of the contract. That is all the information that we have before us. My right hon. friend stated a moment ago that the company does not offer any objection to this legislation. That may be. In his absence the other day the Minister of Railways stated that the company were anxious to hand over this road to the Government-that they did not desire to operate it. That also may ibe true. But of this we have no information, and my hon. friend knows that is not the way to deal with Parliament-to give word of mouth. We should have correspondence and written documents and evidence upon that point. I do not question the word of the Minister of Railways at all; I am not prepared to say that Mx. Chambenldn, the president of the company, did not say what was attributed to him; tout I would like to know the circumstances under which Mr. Chamberlin made that suggestion. As to this we have no evidence. The only thing we have before us is that there is a disagreement between the engineers of the company and the engineers of the Government as to the completion of the road.
I shall not go over the discussion we had the other day; but in our judgment, which I think is fully sustained by the statute in that behalf, whenever a question of this kind arises the method of settlement provided by the statute is arbitration. My hon. friend stated a moment ago that the road, while completed in a sense, may never be completed. I know the Canadian Pacific railway may be truly said not to be completed,' because it is a matter of notoriety that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has been building and rebuilding its line again and again. But
my hon. friend knows that the intention of the engineers charged with the work was to build this railway once for all. And now my hon. friend asks, how are we going to determine that? There is an easy way of determining it. The plans and specifications were prepared by the company and the Government together, they were joint specifications, and everything was done under the signatures of both engineers. The question now is whether or not the work contemplated by those specifications is completed. If the work is .completed, then the company can be compelled to take over the road. If there is a disagreement between the engineers, I repeat, we can go to arbitration. I can understand that the company is not anxious to take over the road. I gave reasons the other day. The company has been treated most contemptuously in this matter. My hon. friend says the company has been treated with every consideration possible. That may be. I know, of course, that the Government has advanced aid to the company by way of loans on more than one occasion; but as to the construction of the road, and the terminals at Quebec especially, while I do not know what issue they take with the Government, the company cannot but feel that they have been treated with great contempt and in defiance of their legitimate rights and aspirations. My hon. friend knows the details, but I do not suppose that it is disputed that shops and terminals are essential to a railway, and the company cannot be asked to take over the railway and operate it unless it has been provided with terminals. Terminals are just as essential for the operating of the road as the road bed itself. The Quebec terminals, which were provided for by the company and the commission of that day on a joint agreement satisfactory to both, have been simply discarded by the present Administration and another agreement substituted.
The Minister of Railways stated the other day that they have provided foT joint terminals at Quebec, with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I take issue with him and say that -such a union station, placed in the valley of the St. Charles river and not in the valley of the St. Lawrence, cannot be as useful to the company as the station which we had provided for. Let that stand for the time being. I refreshed my memory by reading the contract with the Canadian Pacific railway, as brought down by the Government itself, and what do I fin'd? I find that the agreement

between the Government and the Canadian Pacific railway for the union station contemplates and provides only for a terminal for the Grand Trunk Pacific railroad, and that the Grand Trunk Railway Company itself, the parent company of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, is excluded from that agreement. Can anybody imagine that the Grand Trunk Pacific will accept as satisfactory an agreement for joint terminals for the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific, and not for the Grand Trunk railway itself? It cannot agree to that. Up to the present time, so far as I know, it has refused to accept that agreement, because not a tittle of evidence has been produced to show that the company ever acceded to the demand made by the Minister of Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for these joint terminals. It is not surprising, therefore, that under the circumstances the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company -should say: the contract has not been lived up to, and we are not in a position to take over the road. I would think that the best way to settle the matter would be by arbitration; but that may take some time. Whether the position of the company is well founded or not, there is a disagreement between the company and the Government. So far so good -or so bad. My hon. friend says that the road must be operated. Certainly; we agree that the road must be operated. Last year when the Government asked for legislation to operate the road, pending the settlement of these difficulties, we offered not a word of objection, but agreed that the road must be operated; and to-day we say that the road must be operated.
But I should like to call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that this legislation which he is submitting is not of a temporary but of a permanent character. Let me read the legislation which we axe now asked to sanction, and then ask whether it has not altogether the appearance of permanent legislation so designed that ihe Government can take possession of the road and operate it itself. If such be the intent of the Government, we should like to know it. I did not draw that conclusion from the remarks made by my right hon. friend a moment ago. No other interpretation can be placed upon this legislation than that it is intended to enable the Government to take over the ownership of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Let me read the section:

The Minister of Railways and Canals may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, lease or otherwise acquire-
We discussed these words " or otherwise acquire " with the Solicitor General the other day, and in his opinion they were broad enough to cover the case of expropriation, if that were necessary. Of course, an agreement may be entered into which would render expropriation proceedings unnecessary.
The Minister of Railways and Canals may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, lease or otherwise acquire that portion of the railway of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company known as the Lake Superior branch, extending from Lake Superior Junction to the city of Port William in Ontario, including terminal facilities and accommodation works of the said company or of any other company, and for all the purposes of this section may provide, by purchase, lease or otherwise, rolling stock and equipment; and the- Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and such other company is each hereby authorized on its part to deal accordingly with the said line of railway or terminal facilities and accommodation works as the case may be.
I say that no interpretation can be placed on these words other than that the Government intends to acquire the Grand Trunk Pacific, either by expropriation, purchase or otherwise, and to operate the enterprise itself.


Francis Cochrane: In the debate the other day I think we discussed pretty fully the question of the non-completion of the road. I must take exception to the statement of the ex-Mdnister of Railways (Mr. Graham), that there is ample provision in Quebec for all the traffic. As I stated the other day, we have entered -into an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway by which we cannot only use the Canadian Pacific railway terminals, station, yards and so on, but also run right down to the docks built by the Government.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Government has built no docks there.


Francis Cochrane: The docks were built by the Harbour Commissioners, who are practically the Government. Whoever operates the road has to get down to the docks, and if we had not made this arrangement we should have had to expropriate a tremendous amount of valuable property in order to get down to the docks. I take issue with the statement of the leader of the Opposition that the Act provides that the question of the completion of the road

shall be settled by arbitration. The only -thing it says about arbitration is that the engineers can be called in to arbitrate on the construction of any portion, of the line. Nothing at all is said about arbitrating on the completion of the road. Take the Grand Trunk Pacific at Edmonton. They have no route through Edmonton now, and no facilities, yet they are operating there, and most successfully, I think. They are running one of the best trains between Edmonton and Winnipeg that tihere is in Canada to-day.


Mr. OLIVER:: The Grand Trunk Pacific have made arrangements at Edmonton. They have freight arrangements of their own.


Francis Cochrane: They have no through arrangements in Edmonton, and have never pretended that they have.


Frank Oliver: I beg to correct the minister. They have freight arrangements of their own.


Francis Cochrane: Where is their passenger station in Edmonton for their terminals? Where do they get through Edmonton?


Frank Oliver: They get through by an arrangement with the Canadian Northern railway.


Francis Cochrane: We do not know anything about that arrangement. It has never been brought before Parliament or before the Department of Railways or before the Railway Commission.


Wilfrid Laurier: Has the agre-ment with the Canadian Pacific railway at Quebec been brought before Parliament?


Francis Cochrane: No. But they do
not want to get out of it, or intend to get out of it. As far as the Lake Superior branch is concerned, I claim that as a matter of policy it should never belong to the Grand Trunk Pacific. It should belong to the owners of the Transcontinental. It is the key to the West. As I stated in a previous debate we are not desirous of operating the Transcontinental. We want the company to take it over. Year by year we shall have to work on capital account to improve the road. On the portion of the road between lake Superior and Winnipeg, which was completed by the late Government, there are wooden trestles that will have to be strengthened in some way or filled. That will be a capital charge. The ex-Minister of Railways has made a point
in regard to Mr. Hay's letter in reference to the Quebec bridge. But the leader of the Government says that a letter is no good because it is not a document.


George Perry Graham: A letter is a document.


Francis Cochrane: It is not a legal document. As has been stated by the leader of the Government, it would not commit the company if we were to take a legal opinion on it. The right hon. leader of the Opposition has also referred to the specifications. Now there are hundreds of classes in those specifications, as to which half a dozen different opinions could be held. The engineers themselves cannot agree as to the meaning of some parts of the specifications. If we were to say that the contract had been completed according to specifications, I think we should have a hard time to substantiate that before a court. The terminals at Fort William are not owned by the Grand Trunk Pacific; they are owned by a separate company. I am not so sure whether the elevator is owned by another company or not, but the terminals are. That is the reason they are mentioned in this way in the Bill. I am sure that my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, or the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, will admit that we would be very foolish to attempt to operate this road without having the right to the use of the branch down to Fort William. I made the statement the other day, and I know it will not be denied, that Mr. Chamberlin, now the president of the road, told me- I will take his word for it and I will get a document from him for it-that he would agree to any terms that we might arrange with the Canadian Pacific Railway and others. He said that he would accept those terms, and he will not go back on that. I should say in fairness to him though, that, while he does not approve of the arrangement, still he will not go back on the agreement. I claim the road is fully completed for operation. We have provided in Quebec for every part of the operation there. As for the suggestion that the shops have not been completed, let me tell the committee that they have not a shop on the whole 1,800 miles from Winnipeg to Prince Rupert except small shops which they have at the divisional points. I made the statement the other day, and I repeat it now, that at every divisional point from Winnipeg to Moncton we have shops far superior to any that they have on their part of the road; yet they have operated more than half of that road now for four years.

On the mountain section they have only four divisional points with very few stations or yards equipped, and
12 noon, yet they are operating to probably as great an extent as we will operate in the East unless business improves during the next year. My hon. friend takes the ground that the terminals at Quebec will not be equal to the terminals formerly proposed. I am satisfied that, both in the interest of the railway and of the business community at Quebec, the change in the terminals will prove to be a desirable one. We are building down into the city of Quebec for the purpose of taking care of the business there. We believe that the harbour of Quebec will be much more important than it has ever been in the past. In order to be able to participate in the business at Quebec, and to compete with the Canadian Pacific railway and other roads, it was necessary for us to get down to the Louise Basin.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals is very inconsistent in so far as his dealing with the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific is concerned, because in connection with the Quebec bridge he says that the country is not safe in taking the letter of the president.


Francis Cochrane: I only referred to that in connection with the statement of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals and my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. They said that the president was doubtless morally bound to stand by that letter of the former president.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not at all.


William Pugsley: As far as the bridge is concerned, I understand that the question came up when the late Government was in office and that the president of the company, acting for the company and speaking in the name of the company, expressly waived the matter of the completion of the Quebec bridge as essential to the completion of the contract. The minister seems doubtful as to whether that would be binding. The way to ascertain whether it would be binding or not is to request the president of the company to have the board of directors, or shareholders, ratify it and put it in the form of a contract. I cannot see why that has not been done by this Government. One would think that during the nearly four years that they have been in office, in a matter of such vast importance as this, if they had any doubt as to the company being bound by th? letter of the
[Mr. Cochrane.!
president, they would have taken steps to have that matter confirmed and the letter put in proper legal form. But while the minister says there is doubt as to the binding character of that letter, when ft comes to another question, the question of the changes in the terminals, the changes in the location of the workshops at Quebec and the changes in. the grades of the road, the minister says that the president has told him so and so and that he will take his word for it, showing that when the minister wants to rely upon the word of the president he is quite willing to take his word, but when he does not want to rely on an assurance of the president he does not want to taka his letter.


Francis Cochrane: The hon. gentleman is unfair to me in that respect.


William Pugsley: In what respect?


Francis Cochrane: In what the hon. gentleman has just said. I was only making a comparison.


William Pugsley: I accept the minister's statement, but after all is it not all nonsense for the Government to keep the country and Parliament in doubt as to these verbal statements and as to these statements by letter? Why have they not put the matter in writing? The minister knows perfectly well that the road must be built according to the specifications which were agreed upon. It is of enormous importance in connection with a road that is going to cost this country, according to the hon. gentleman, something like $50,000,000-


An hon. MEMBER:: How many?


William Pugsley: Something like $50,000,000.


Francis Cochrane: What?


William Pugsley: Something like $50,000,-
000.


Francis Cochrane: Fifty million?


William Pugsley: Yes, making allowance for interest for seven years, and assuming, of course, that the road will be self-sustaining after that. It is of very great importance and one would hav.e thought that the Government would have taken steps to have had the waiver condition as to the Quebec bridge put in proper form.


Francis Cochrane: That only came up quite recently.


William Pugsley: That only came up
quite recently? How could it help coming up? It must have been in the mind of the minister from the time he took office. Here is the gap of the Quebec bridge not completed, and it will not be completed for a number of years, across which the traffic will be carried by ferry. It never came up, says the minister, and yet he asked this Parliament for an appropriation to establish a car ferry at Quebec. One would have thought that it would have come to the minister's mind at once. When he was asking Parliament for authority to engage in an expenditure of $1,000,000 or more, one would have thought that the question of making an agreement in writing in order to carry out the assurance of the president that the establishment of a ferry would be regarded as a completion of the line would have been uppermost in his mind.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has stated that so far as he knows the company has no objection to this legislation. Surely there is another question involved besides what may be the wishes of the company. This committee knows very well that when it was proposed to construct the Transcontinental railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific wanted to stop at North Bay and did not want to have anything to do with a line east of North Bay. They recognized that it was the prairie section, the section between the foothills of the Rocky mountains and the head of the Great Lakes, which would be the profitable portion of the line, and they felt that if, in the summer season, they could bring their freight and a great many of their passengers to Fort William and carry them down over the lakes to their connection with the Grand Trunk railway at Sarnia, it would be much more profitable to them, and that if they could get a connection at North Bay so as to bring their all-rail traffic down to the junction with the Grand Trunk there, and in this way carry the produce of the West over the Grand Trunk to the Grand Trunk ports, it would be more advantageous to the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific. But the Government, led by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), insisted from the very commencement that the road must be carried right through to Moncton, where it would join the Intercolonial and over which the traffic could be distributed to the ports of the Maritime Provinces. That was regarded as onerous by the Grand Trunk Pacific, but the Government insisted, and rightly insisted, upon it.
One could very well understand that, if the Grand Trunk Pacific could be let out of this bargain as far as the line east of Winnipeg is concerned, if they could get many millions of dollars under expropriation for their terminals at Fort William and still be allowed to use the line as far east as Fort William and to abandon all idea of operating the main line between Winnipeg and Moncton, that proposition might commend itself to the Grand Trunk Pacific and enable them to carry out the ideas which they entertained at the commencement, but which the late Government prevented them from carrying into effect. Therefore, apart from the Grand Trunk Pacific, there is involved the important question of having a" transcontinental line operated by one company carrying the traffic between the East and the West, between the Atlantic and the Pacific, that company operating all parts of that line and developing, as a great transcontinental railway company can develop, the country through which it passes. Speaking for the Maritime Provinces, I desire to enter my most earnest protest against any proposition that will lead the Grand Trunk Pacific to believe that it may be released from the operation of the eastern section of the Transcontinental. That is what this proposition is looking to, that is, for the Government to' expropriate the line between Lake Superior Junction and Fort William, to become the owner of it, and then with what justice, with what reason-


Francis Cochrane: Should we not be the owner of it when we own the other line?


William Pugsley: Not at all.


Francis Cochrane: I am glad the country knows that.


William Pugsley: There is not the slightest reason why we should be the owner of it. The Government does not own a single branch of the Transcontinental railway anywhere; it owns no branch betweeen Ottawa and the Transcontinental, between Montreal and the Transcontinental, nor between St. John and the Transcontinental. The idea which the late Government had in view was to construct one main line that was to be leased to the Grand Trunk Pacific for a period of fifty years. That company were to become the operators of the line, and an Act passed at the time

gave them power to construct branch lines and also provided what should be done with the branch lines in case at the end of the fifty years the Government should take over the operation of the main line. That was all clearly provided for; but let the Government under the power granted by this legislation take over the line between Superior Junction and Fort William, and, I ask, with what justice or reason could the Grand Trunk Pacific be compelled to enter upon the operation of the main line?
My hon. friend says that there is no power conveyed in the Act to determine when the line is completed. I must confess that I have heard many extraordinary statements made in this House, although not by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, who says so few things that he is not apt to say anything extraordinary. He is careful and uses good judgment; but- he is led astray to-day, and he makes a most extraordinary statement when he says that the provision in section 7 of the Act of 1903, which says that any question as to the work-


Francis Cochrane: As to the work?


William Pugsley: Yes-that any question as to the work in regard to which the engineers differ shall be left to arbitration, applies to all matters during construction, but has no application to the question of the completion of the line. In other words, up to fifteen minutes before the last bit of ballast is put in, the engineers have everything to do with the question whether the line is built right up to the specifications or not; but at the last minute, when the last shovelful or the last carload of ballast is put in, the jurisdiction of the engineers and the third arbitrator, whom they are to appoint, absolutely ceases, and they have no power to say whether the road has been built according to the specifications or not. I would not have thought it possible, but for the respect that I have for the good judgment of my hon. friend the minister, for me to believe that any gentleman of good judgment would make a statement like that in this House. As I said the other day, take the case of a man building a house, which is a matter of large importance, the owner has his architect, and the contractor has his architect to look after the work. It is provided that the house must be built according to the specifications agreed upon; that the work must be done under the joint supervision of the two architects and upon their joint
fMr. Pugsley. ]
inspection and joint acceptance, and that if there shall arise between the two architects any question as to the work upon which they cannot agree, they shall choose a third arbitrator, and if they fail to choose one, he shall be Chosen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Surely, if the question arose between the two architects whether the house were entirely completed according to the specification's or not, that would be a case for calling in a third arbitrator to determine that question.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: Is there not a very well-decided case on record in Hudson on building contracts, that the power given to arbitrators to determine whether ot not work done is done in accordance with the specifications does not cover the power to determine whether or not it is completed? There is a very clear distinction between the work and the completion.


William Pugsley: I do not think so, and I doubt very much if my hon. friend can produce authority to that effect.


Robert Laird Borden: There are some legal men in this country who probably would be almost if not quite as capable of forming an opinion upon this as even my hon. friend, and who do not entertain the same view as he does.	.


William Pugsley: During my professional career, I have always had great respect for the opinion of others, and I have often found that their opinions have prevailed; but still all that I can do is to state my own view-that is what I have always endeavoured to do in discussing legal propositions-and then leave it to the court to determine whether my view is correct or not. I would be surprised to find that any court o,r any lawyer of high standing would determine that, where a question of having the work done according to the specifications arises, and all authority is given to the engineers as to supervision, inspection and acceptance and the provision as to what shall be done in case of a difference shall have to do with everything in connection with the work up to the completion of it, and yet have nothing to do with the completion. That which has led the Minister of Railways astray, I think, is that he thinks of a railway as different from an ordinary work. For instance, a house, he would say, is completed when it is built according to the specifications, and nothing further need be done; but a railway is con-

stantly expanding and new work will be required, and therefore, according to his view, a railway can never be said to be " completed " in the sense in which a house is " completed." But you must read the word in connection with the specifications. When the work is done according to the specifications, that work is " completed " under tlhe terms of the contract. Suppose that the specifications did not provide for water-tanks. If the Government builds the road according to the specifications and without water-tanks, that road is " completed-" under the contract, and if the company wants water-tanks they must put them in themselves. The word " completed " in section 20 of the Act means completed in accordance with the specifications.
Now, the Act provides that when the road is completed the company shall be called upon to enter into the lease. That means, it seems to me, as clearly as words can make it, when the contract is completed according to specifications.


Francis Cochrane: Where is the clause authorizing the building of tihe shops at all?


William Pugsley: I understand that the specifications provide for the building of the shops.


Francis Cochrane: No.


William Pugsley: Then, if that is the case, I think the hon. gentleman should slhow that everything required by the. specifications has been done-that the grades, the curves, the workshops, the terminals, are made according to the specifications-and his engineer would be able to say that the road is " completed."


Robert Laird Borden: If the specifications left out a bridge, would the same result follow?


William Pugsley: That is putting a very
extreme case.


Robert Laird Borden: You have to test the argument by these extreme cases.


William Pugsley: It would not be a railway if the bridge were left out. In a case like that, I think the course would be to dismiss both engineers and try to get out of the difficulty as best you could. But the point I have sought to make, and it may be that I am entirely wrong through being very stupid-is that it seems absolutely clear to me that under the statute "completion" of the line, means
completion according to the specifications. Let me use again the illustration I gave the other day: Suppose the Minister of Railways had given the company a subsidy to be paid on the completion of its line of railway, specifications being provided. Surely, if the road is not perfect, yet, when the specifications are complied with the minister could not refuse to pay that subsidy. He pays the subsidy when his engineer reports that the specifications have been complied with. That is what is meant by the "completion" of the railway.
Let me add just a word before I resume my seat, to emphasize in the strongest way possible, the mistake that this Government, in my opinion, is making, in not asking the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to enter upon the temporary operation of this line pending the completion of the entire road in accordance with the specifications. I charge the Minister of Railways with not treating this House fairly, with not treating the country fairly. Two years ago I brought this matter up and called his attention, and the attention of the Prime Minister, to the fact that the late president of the road, Mr. Hays, had made an offer to the Government to take over the road as the different portions were completed and to operate the line, providing the necessary rolling stock, upon a basis of which no one could complain. Let me repeat it again, in view of this extraordinary legislation, so that no one can forget it. The offer was that they would put on their own rolling stock; they would operate the line under Government supervision; the whole business should be subject to the audit of the Government, and if there was any profit from the operation that profit should be handed over to the treasury of the country, and if there was a deficit, the amount should be added to the capital account on which the company would pay interest as it was to pay interest on the whole cost of the line. I called the attention of the minister to this offer, and he stated in this House that he would take the matter up with the Grand Trunk Pacific and see if they were still willing to enter into an agreement of that kind, and inform the House at a later date. Up to this moment he has not made any statement to this House that the Grand Trunk Pacific had been approached with a view to entering upon the operation of the -completed portions of the line lupon these terms. And, though this committee has no information

that there has been any effort to get the Grand Trunk Pacific to enter upon the temporary operation of the line, pending its entire completion, when they will be obliged to enter into the formal lease, the minister comes here to-day and asks authority to involve this country in an expenditure of many millions for rolling stock to enable the Government to operate the line, and to incur an expenditure of many millions further to acquire the road between Superior Junction and Fort William, with all the vast works connected with it, including the great elevators which the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company have constructed at Fort William. The proposition is entirely indefensible, and I think the country will not approve of it when an opportunity is given them to express their opinion.


George Perry Graham: I am not going to enter into the legal phases of this case; I should get lost if I tried it; for when the lawyers themselves disagree, a layman would get hopelessly muddled in the argument. But I do say that any business man reading this [DOT] section will say that there was provision for the settlement of difficulties as to construction, not only during the progress of the work, but as to completion as well. The question whether the road is " completed " or not, is simply a question whether it is completed under the agreement. On that we have a difference of opinion. I contend the road is not completed under the agreement. The Prime Minister takes a different view from that which, in his absence, was presented to the House the other day; If it were simply a lease for temporary operation by the Government of this branch line in connection with the through line, I do not know that I should object. But we were told the other day, or the House was led to believe, that the expropriation was to be used as a weapon against the Grand Trunk Pacific to compel them to do certain things. That is the wrong attitude in which to approach the company on this great question; for this is not a small question, but one affecting the whole nation. The Minister of Railways to-day rather gives intimation that it is the intention of the Government to buy this road.


Francis Cochrane: No, I said it was not in the interest of the country. I want to treat my hon. friend fairly, and I hope he will accept what I say.


George Perry Graham: I am going to put my own construction on what the hon. minister said. I am not changing his statement, but only giving what I infer from his statement. The Minister of Railways says that it would be in the interests of the country if the Government owned this branch line as well as the through line; I infer, therefore, that he is in favour of purchasing it. According to my understanding of what the Solicitor General has said, this proposed legislation gives the Government the power to do what the Minister of Railways says it would be a good thing to do. This would seem to embrace a much larger pow*r than that referred to by my right hon. friend, which includes merely the operation by the Government for a time of the whole line, including that branch line. The investment of perhaps $30,000,000 in the purchase of this line, and of an enormous sum in the taking over of terminals, certainly should not be made until the approval of Parliament is obtained, and some provision to this effect should be inserted in this proposed legislation.


Francis Cochrane: Supposing the Grand
Trunk Pacific Railway Company would not accept a lease, and the wheat crop were ready to be carried, would it be in the interests of the country that there should be no way of overcoming that difficulty? I do not think that there will be any trouble, but if there should be when Parliament is not in session, we would have no power to take action.


George Perry Graham: The Prime Minister
rather takes the view that power to expropriate is not conferred under this Act, and if that view should prevail I would not have any objection to make. But there seems to be a possibility that the Government may exercise that power by buying out the entire line and all terminals, and investing a large amount of additional capital in this great enterprise; then they will be compelled to operate or to make some arrangement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. If it is made clear that under this statute power to expropriate is not given, I shall have no objection to the proposed legislation, but I do seriously object if the Government is to be given power to invest another $30,000,000 or $50,000,000 in property which includes terminal elevators belonging to another company.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it would be reasonable to suppose that, having in view the present condition of the money

markets of the world, the Government would not be very much disposed to incur an expenditure of $30,000,000 or $50,000,000 for the purpose of acquiring this line. It is not necessary to go into the question of what would have been wise in the first instance, although there is a great deal to be said in favour of the view that the line should have been owned by the Government, inasmuch as the Government owned the line from Winnipeg to Moncton. There has been a good deal of discussion in regard to the operation of the branch lines of the Intercolonial by the same company, and possibly some of those considerations might have forcible application to what has been urged here. It is not worth while to enter into a discussion of a legal question which this committee cannot settle. My hon. friend the member for St. John city (Mr. Pugsley), whose opinion on any legal subject is entitled to a great deal of respect, has expressed an opinion, but we are not advised that the view which he has expressed is correct. I would point out to him that one cannot afford to be too sure of these things. I have no doubt that my hon. friend was equally cocksure with regard to the effect of the implementing clause; but the Privy Council told him that he was wrong.


William Pugsley: I venture to say that my hon. friend will not find anywhere an expression of opinion on my part contrary to the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend was a member of the Government of that day.


William Pugsley: Not when the contract was entered into.


Robert Laird Borden: No, but when the contract was being acted on, and when the Government put the case before the Privy Council for decision. It is with some surprise that I learn that the hon. gentleman differed from his colleagues in his view of what that contract meant. If that is what he intends to convey, I was never aware of it before. The late Administration were very sure of their ground, but they found that they were mistaken, and their mistake has cost the country a great many millions of dollars. We want to avoid mistakes of that kind, so far as possible; therefore we do not profess to be so cocksure on these questions of legal construction as my hon. friend the member for St. John City professes to be. What the Government desires is that the Grand Trunk Pacific
Railway Company shall fulfil the conditions of the contract and statutes made and passed in 1903-4. We have urged and will urge that upon them, and I have no reason to believe at the present time that any serious controversy will arise. If any controversy does arise, we will endeavour to come to Parliament with any proposals that the public interest demand. After all, there is very little of this legislation that was not contained in the legislation of last year, which provided for the operation of this road by the Governmeent until the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company 'should accept a lease and undertake its operation. That Act was passed without dissent, and we are now asking that in case it should become necessary to operate the road during any such period as has been suggested, we should also have power to make suitable arrangements for the operation by the Government of the branch line from Lake Superior Junction to Fort William.


Wilfrid Laurier: You are asking much more than that.


Robert Laird Borden: What else?


Wilfrid Laurier: To acquire.


Robert Laird Borden: To lease, or
otherwise acquire. I have not yet had impressed upon me the detriment to the public interest which would result from that.
The hon. member for St. John City has alluded to the interests of the Maritime Provinces. I suppose those interests would appeal to me as much as they would to him, and I fail to see why the interests of the maritime provinces would not be thoroughly safeguarded if the Government should also acquire the line from Lake Superior Junction to Fort William. In what way would 'the public interest of any part of this country be detrimentally affected by the carrying out of even that proposal? We have not that proposal in mind; we desire simply to make provision for temporary operation of the whole eastern division, including this branch line, until the Grand Trunk Pacific, under the terms of its contract and agreement shall accept the lease and take over the operation of the road. We think this legislation is necessary because it would be manifestly to the utter detriment of the public interest thait a road upon which nearly $200,000,000 has been expended should remain idle for any considerable period of time after it is clearly capable of operation in the interest of the public. That is all that we desire; to

guard against that is all that this legislation is intended for.


Wilfrid Laurier: But we want to know exactly what is meant. We were told a moment ago by the Minister of Railways - and it is repeated by the Prime Minister -that the object of this legislation is simply to enable the Government to operate the road pending the negotiation with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company or the Government's taking over the operation. If that be the object, we know where we are. But what I point out to my hon. friend is tihat he is asking much more than this power to operate; he is asking the power to acquire. If the object of the legislation is simply to permit an agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company providing for the operation of the road pending the settlement of their difficulty, this Bill may be sufficient. But if the ultimate object -I will not use the word " concealed," but I might-is to permit tlhe Government to acquire the road permanently under the plea that it would be better for the country to do so, then this Bill would be insufficient. In the first place, we might say that the object is to have a temporary arrangement for the leasing of the road for a limited period. There would be no question of coming back to Parliament for ratification in that case. But if the object be to acquire the road and acquire it permanently, then I contend that this ought to be supplemented by the necessity of the Government coming to Parliament for ratification of such an agreement. That is a question not of policy but of how this statute is to be drafted.


Frank Oliver: As I read this Bill and as I have listened to the remarks upon it and the various explanations that have been given regarding it, I can only conclude that it is a Bill to ask Parliament to give the Government authority to do as it pleases in regard to a matter of the highest and greatest importance to the welfare of this country. I do not think that the circumstances are such that it would be to the benefit of the country that that authority should be given. I do not think it is in the best interests of the country that the authority has been asked. If the explanation given by the Prime Minister a few moments ago is correct, tlhe Bill is then most unfortunately worded. If the intention was that this Bill should give the Government power to operate the road to lake Superior until a permanent arrangement

is made with the Grand Trunk Pacific to operate it, the Bill should have said so. But it says the direct opposite, it provides absolutely for the leasing of the branch or that it be otherwise acquired. And, as has been fully and very definitely explained to us by the Solicitor General, that meant the right to expropriate. He went on to speak of expropriating the lease as well as expropriating the road, so there can be no question whatever as to the explanation given to us by the Solicitor General.


Francis Cochrane: Expropriate what
lease?


Frank Oliver: He said we are taking
power so that if there is a lease we can expropriate that lease as well as expropriate the road.


George Perry Graham: I imagine that applies
to terminals.


Frank Oliver: What ever it applies to I remember he used those words. Therefore the explanation given us by the Solicitor General is that the intention of the Government is to take power to own this road if it so pleases, whereas the explanation given by the Prime Minister is that that is not the intention of the Government, but merely that the Government shall have authority to operate the road during a certain intervening period.


Francis Cochrane: You will admit that
if we are to run the balance of the road from Moncton to Winnipeg we should not be in a position that we could not run to Fort William, especially when the wheat is being moved.


Robert Laird Borden: We are perfectly willing to meet the wishes of my right hon. friend. We have no such ulterior motive as he seems to have in his mind, and we are willing to make it clear that if we should acquire the road by purchase or expropriation we must come back to Parliament.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose my
right hon. friend's idea is that the word " expenditure " might include the purchase price of the road.


Wilfrid Laurier: The word
" acquire " certainly means purchase.


Robert Laird Borden: It would depend not on that, but on the word "expenditure" in subsection 7. I suppose my hon. friend's argument is that under subsection 4 we

might acquire and under subsection 7 we might pay. We did not intend that, and I am willing to make that plain.


William Pugsley: Why not leave out the expression " or by other means acquire " ?


Robert Laird Borden: I would be
willing to make the change suggested by my hon. friend, and to say plainly that if we do anything 'else we must come back to Parliament.


Frank Oliver: I had in mind the query of the Prime Minister as to what public interest is going to be affected by the action the Government proposes to take. In the present condition of finances throughout the world, where immense amounts of money have been invested in various enterprises, any legislation that has in it an element of uncertainty as to its ultimate effect, which interferes in any direct or indirect manner with any such enterprise, must have a serious and detrimental effect on the financial situation generally, but more particularly on that particular enterprise. If it is the intention of the Government of Canada to take over this road, even in the manner proposed by the Prime Minister, it still remains the intention of the Government of Canada to take over the operation of the line of railway between Winnipeg and lake Superior, to take that portion out of the hands of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. No such declaration can be made, no such statement can go forward, without having a most seriously detrimental effect upon the securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific, because it is thoroughly known that the successful operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific system depends in large measure upon the control by that company of its outlet to lake Superior by reason of its ownership of the terminals and of the line, and of its arrangement for traffic over the part of the lime that belongs do the Government. So I say that when we put on our statute-book legislation which, even as amended by the Prime Minister, declares the exclusion of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company from the operation of that section of their system, ox of their system and ours, we thereby discredit their enterprise; and by interfering with the successful operation of that enterprise we discredit it not only with those who have invested their money in it but with investors in Canadian securities generally. Because if this Government of Canada and this Parliament of Canada are able and minded to so interfere with tire operations of one 135
great enterprise in Canada so they may be minded at some other time or on some other occasion to interfere with some other great enterprise in Canada. I submit that this is a feature of the case that should be given greater consideration than it has been given up to the present time.
I repeat for the purpose of emphasizing it, that the whole Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system, from the Red river to the Pacific ocean, depends fo~ '* G successful operation upon the control by that system of the outlet to lake Superior.


Francis Cochrane: How could they get through without running over the Transcontinental?


Frank Oliver: And this Government proposes to put legislation through this House to give the Government authority to exclude the Grand Trunk Pacific from the operation of that section of the road. In answer to my hon. friend's question, " how can the Grand Trunk Pacific get to lake Superior without running over the Transcontinental?" I agree that they cannot get to lake Superior unless they run over that road. But let me call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that an essential part of the arrangement in regard to the construction of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton is that any railroad company is entitled to claim running rights over that road, or any part of it, on terms the limitations of which are laid down in the agreement. [DOT]


Francis Cochrane: That was only in case the Grand Trunk Pacific took a lease, under the Act, to run the road.


Frank Oliver: I quite appreciate that.


Francis Cochrane: Then there would be
no dispute. If they take that, we are quite willing.


William Pugsley: They have the right to take that under the Act of 1903-4. The Act gives them the power to take temporarily the completed portions.


Francis Cochrane: They must take the bitter with the sweet.


Frank Oliver: I am not learned in the
law and am not prepared to give an opinion as to this or that section, but I know and everybody knows that it was an essential consideration put forward at the time of the passing of the Grand Trunk Pacific Act that the railway to be constructed under that Act should be for the use of any railroad company that saw fit to use it. And I say that for this Government to ignore that



fundamental principle and say: Because we have the authority to ignore it we will ignore it, would he just the same as the proposal to expropriate the property from lake Superior Junction to the lake front, and would be so considered by those who have invested their money in the enterprise and by other investors as well; and would be properly so considered. It would be an absolute breach of faith on the part of the Government in dealing with a great enterprise with which the welfare and prosperity of this country is so essentially bound up. There is no necessity at all for the terms of this Bill as it stands or as it is proposed to be amended by the Prime Minister. If the object to be achieved is merely that the Government shall have a fair opportunity to operate the Transcontinental between Winnipeg and Moncton, and needs this piece of road in order to facilitate that operation, the very foundation of the agreement between the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific as to the operation of the Transcontinental contemplated the joint use of those tracks, in case of necessity, by more than one railway company. All that the Government requires to do is to take power to lease running rights from the Grand Trunk Pacific or, if you like, to take power to expropriate running rights over that road so that they would have the same opportunity as the Grand Trunk Pacific itself of using those tracks to get to the lake front for such business as they have to handle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Suppose the
Grand Trunk Pacific w%s not operating the Superior Junction branch at all and that it became necessary for the Crown to operate the road from Winnipeg to the head of the lakes. Does not this give them that power?
Mr. OLIVER. Certainly. But the suggestion I have made also gives them the same opportunity, and does not interfere with the Grand Trunk's continuing the operation that it is now carrying on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This does not interfere
with their present operation.


Frank Oliver: Yes, it does. If I read
the English language correctly this gives the Government the right to acquire, and if it gives them the right to acquire it also gives them the right to exclude the company from whom it acquires that right. It gives the Government the right to ex-
[ilr. Oliver. ]
elude the Grand 'Trunk Pacific from the profitable and useful operation of this branch line, which is their property, and from the profitable and useful operation of the road between Lake Superior Junction and Winnipeg. It is against this evident intention to exclude the Grand Trunk Pacific from that operation that I protest most. I have no fault to find with the Government for undertaking to operate the Transcontinental between Winnipeg and Quebec during the intermediate period. I have no fault to find with the Government for taking authority to expropriate, if they like, those rights and to operate this branch jointly with the Grand Trunk Pacific. But I take every objection to this Government's taking such action as will exclude the Grand Trunk Pacific	from	the
profitable operation of the line	between lake Superior and Fort William, which is the Grand Trunk Pacific's own property. I can only repeat that it is an interference with the operation of a great railway system upon whose successful operation depends in a largo measure tin. welfare and prosperity of our whffle western country. I cannot think that the Government is well informed in undertaking to put such legislation on the statute book.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my h >n. friend is unnecessarily alarmed. The Government is just as anxious to preserve the stability of Grand Trunk Pacific securities and the credit of the country generally as the hon. gentleman or anybody else could possibly be. We shall havp all those considerations thoroughly in mind in connection with any arrangements that we make with the company. Further than that, we have given very careful consideration to the interests of the western provinces of Canada with which this railway system is so closely concerned, arid the House may be assured that in any arrangements we may make we shall have the most careful regard for the interests of those provinces.


Wilfrid Laurier: No one supposes that the Government has any sinister intention against the company; far from it. But the fact pointed out by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), that this legislation may have the effect of injuriously affecting the credit of the Grand Trunk Pacific securities, and the arguments that he has brought forward in support of his contention, are certainly entitled to some consideration. It seems to

me that there is great force in the views he has presented and in the manner in which he has presented them. If this Bill were simply to say that the Government, pending negotiations with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, shall have power to operate the road, there would be no objection at all. But unfortunately the language which was used the other day led one to believe that there was something beyond that. We have the word of the Solicitor General that the Government wanted a weapon-and he used the word two or three times-when they came to deal with the company. Now, if the Government want a weapon, it is because they want to compel the company to do something it does not want to 'do. Again, the Government is seeking not only power to operate the road, but power to lease the road permanently or temporarily.
My right hon. friend has submitted an amendment which does not altogether satisfy me. I have one which I shall submit to him and which, if it does not prove acceptable, he can take into consideration. I would suggest that a further clause be added to the Bill to the following effect:
Any contract for a permanent lease of the said line, or the acquisition of the same, shall be subject to the ratification of Parliament.
If there is a contract providing only for a temporary arrangement, there is no necessity for coming to Parliament; but if it is in the nature of a permanent acquisition, I think it should be submitted to Parliament for ratification.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no objection to the idea of ratification by Parliament. But the expression " a permanent lease " is not a legal expression, nor do I know precisely what construction would be placed upon it.


Wilfrid Laurier: If you had a
lease for fifty years it would be a permanent lease.


Robert Laird Borden: Suppose it were for ten years? I would like to know just what that means. If my right Ihon. friend will send it to me I will consider it.


William Pugsley: Say a lease pending the completion of the line.


Robert Laird Borden: If my right hon. friend will send his amendment to me I will endeavour to work it out.
At one o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock. 135i


Francis Cochrane: In reference to the Bill that we were discussing when the House rose, I beg to move:
That the Bill be amended by adding thereto subsection 8, as follows:
8. Any contract for the lease of the said Lake Superior branch for a term of four or five years or for the acquisition of the same shall be subject to the ratification of Parliament.


George Perry Graham: That meets my views.


Frank Oliver: The amendment as worded still leaves the idea that the Grand Trunk Pacific is to be excluded from the operation of this branch. I think that the purpose of the Government would be served quite as well if such words were used as would not seem to exclude or would not be intended to exclude the Grand Trunk Pacific from the operation of the branch. I would urge that the operation be one of joint operation instead of one of exclusive operation as against the present proprietor of the road.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be covered by the conditions of the lease. I have been comparing this section with other similar sections, and I think it is in terms such as are used in' cases of that kind. I think the expression "lease or acquire" will meet the idea that the hon. member has in mind.


Frank Oliver: That will be entirely satisfactory to me, but I would like to have a word from the Minister of Railways or from the Prime Minister that that was what the Government had in mind.


Francis Cochrane: If we wanted to block the Grand Trunk Pacific from going down to lake Superior, we could do so, because we could make unreasonable terms and block the company in many ways; but that is not the desire of the Government. We want to work in harmony with the Grand Trunk Pacific in order to get business.


George Perry Graham: You want their business in the West?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: This amendment suits me.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported as amended and amendments concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 110, to amend the Dominion Elections Act-Mr. Doherty; Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
[Stage Direction]
On section 4-hours of polling extended -8 a.m. to 6 p.m.:
Mr. PROULX:: I beg to move:
That this Bill be amended by adding as section 1 the following, and by changing the numbering of section 1 and the following sections accordingly:
1. Section 70 of the Dominion Elections Act, chapter 6 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, is amended by adding thereto the following subsection :
"(h) Any person during the time he is a director of or holds, either directly or indireotly, a controlling interest in any incorporated company having a contract or agreement, expressed or implied, or any unsatisfied claim arising therefrom, with or for or against the Government of Canada on behalf of the Crown, or with or for or against any of the officers of the Government of Canada for which any public money of Canada is to be paid."
Clause (d) of section 70 of the Dominion Elections Act says:
Every person directly or indirectly, alone or with any other person, by himself or by interposition of any trustee or third party, holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing any contract or agreement expressed or implied with or for the Government of Canada on behalf of the Crown, or with or for any of the officers of the Government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada is to be paid, during the time he is so holding, or enjoying, undertaking^ or executing.
When this Act was passed, business was not carried on as extensively by means of joint stock companies as it is now. This Act was passed for the purpose of securing as much as possible the independence of candidates from the Administration of the day. There is an Act on the statute-book to secure the independence of members of the Senate and of this House; but a person, by putting his business in the form of an corporated company and getting a few nominal directors appointed, although he still owns the majority of the stock, can contract with and sell extensively to the Government, as has been done since the beginning of this war. If a private person cannot have a contract expressed or implied with the Government for the smallest amount, why should a person who holds the majority of the stock of a company and who gets big contracts from the Government, be eligible as a candidate for membership in this House? If we want to secure the independence of the candidate, _ we must amend the Act in the way which I have indicated by my amendment. I presented a Bill to this House some time ago to amend the Act respecting the Senate and the House of Commons, and I hope it will become law later on;

but the first requisite will be to secure the independence of the candidate.
I have taken advantage of the Bill presented by the minister to move as an amendment my Bill to amend the Dominion Elections Act. I hope the Government will accept my amendment. It is only fair, I think-especially at this time when the Government is purchasing, sometimes without tender, such great supplies of goods-that the independence of candidates, as well as the public interest, should be protected T do not wish to dilate on this matter; the amendment speaks for itself.


William Pugsley: I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment. Unless we are to wipe out the Independence of Parliament Act altogether, I think this amendment is desirable. A leading shareholder in an incorporated company, that has a contract with the Government, may be in exactly the same position to all intents and purposes, iso far as his interest is concerned, as if that 'contract were with him individually.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The amendment
as proposed operates against any director.


William Pugsley: I understand it is
against any shareholder holding a controlling interest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And any director also.
There are in this House, and have been ever since 1867, many men who are directors of companies having contracts with the Government. The hon. gentleman surely does not intend it to apply against all these men?


William Pugsley: If he is a director of the company, I think he should be regarded as the same as one having a controlling interest. The fact of his being a director implies that he has something to do with the management of the company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Take the case of the Senate and the banks.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: But this applies to one who is a candidate only.


William Pugsley: It is a singular provision that under the Independence of Parliament Act the disqualification applies if the company has a contract for the construction of a public work. I do not know that this is generally known for it is a well-known fact that there are members of this Parliament who are large shareholders in, officers of, and, in at least one case, I believe, president of companies which have contracts '

with the Government for the construction of public works. It is a singular thing that when Parliament passed the Independence of Parliament Act it provided that shareholders in companies having ordinary contracts with the Government should not be disqualified, but that this should not apply to shareholders of companies having contracts for the construction of public works. To-day a member of this House who is a shareholder in an incorporated company having a contract for the construction of a public work is disqualified, while a senator who is in that position is liable to a penalty of $200 a day. Yet we know there are gentlemen in this House and in the Senate- at least such is my information-who are in that position.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the
position?


William Pugsley: Senator Curry is one.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not asking for the names, but what is the position?


William Pugsley: If a man is a shareholder in a company having a contract for the construction of a public work he is disqualified from holding a seat in this House, or if he sits in the Senate he is liable to a penalty of $200 a day. In my own constituency, the firm of Rhodes, Curry & Company, of which, I believe, Senator Curry, a most worthy man, an honour to the whole country, is president, has a contract in my own constituency for the erection of a post office involving a sum of perhaps $300,000 or $400,000. I do not suppose he is aware of the fact that there is such a provision in the statute. It is certainly anomalous.


Robert Laird Borden: What statute?


William Pugsley: The Independence of
Parliament Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The effect of the proposed amendment would be very far-reaching. My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), for instance, is director of a newspaper. I do not know that it is very profitable. If that newspaper gets a little advertising from the Government, that would disqualify him for being a candidate.


William Pugsley: That would not be a
contract for the construction of a public work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but I speak of the effect of the proposed amendment.


William Pugsley: But suppose the hon. gentleman owned the newspaper in his own right, his position probably would not be very different from what it is-I am assuming that he owns the company; but of course, he can speak for himself as to that. I call attention to section 19 of the Act:
This Act shall not extend to disqualify any person as a member of the House of Commons by reason of his being,-
(a) a shareholder in any incorporated company having a contract or agreement with the Government of Canada, except any company which undertakes a contract for the building of any public work.
Now, with regard to the Senate, section 20 provides:
If any person, who is a member of the Senate, knowingly and wilfully becomes a party to or concerned in any such contract, he shall forfeit the sum of two hundred dollars for each and every day during which he continues to be such party or so concerned.
Then, subsection 4:
This section shall not render any senator liable for such penalties, by reason of this being a shareholder in any incorporated company, having a contract or agreement with the Government of Canada, except any company which undertakes a contract for the building of any public work.
I do not suppose that ten per cent of the people-I venture to say, not ten par cent of the members of this House or of the (Senate-are aware of that exception. I am sure that the gentlemen whom I suppose we all have in mind, and who occupy high positions, would not knowingly do anything contrary to the law. But I am confident that unwittingly they are violating the law.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that was inserted in the statute when the Canadian Pacific railway was first in contemplation, with a view to preventing any person interested in that company being a member of Parliament.


William Pugsley: But it is made general in its application.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, but I think that was the occasion of it.


William Pugsley: I think the amendment of my hon. friend from Prescott ought to carry, or else we ought to amend the Act in another particular and make it uniform. It seems absurd, for instance, that a man like my hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Stanfield) whose company might have a contract for hundreds of thousands of dollars for supplies-


Mr. STANFIELD:: All through now.


William Pugsley: Then, the hon. gentleman can take a more disinterested view. I say it is absurd that the company of which a member of Parliament is a member should be disqualified because his company has a contract for $10,000, $20,000 or $100,000 to build a public work, yet he would not be disqualified if the contract were for supplying the Government with lumber or any kind of material, even though the amount might be very much greater.
I think we should make the statute uniform ; either adopt the amendment of my hon. friend, or strike out the whole section. I think it would be wise to adopt the amendment; certainly such a provision is desirable in the case of a shareholder who has a large, substantial or controlling interest in the company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would you make it apply to every director?


William Pugsley: I do not see why not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Many of us are directors representing absent shareholders in an old company; it is merely a nominal position.


Mr. PROTJLX:: A director usually has large interests in the company; even if he has not a controlling interest, he may be induced to come, to Parliament to act in the interests of his company. I do not want to reach the ordinary shareholder by this legislation, but I think that a company in which a member of Parliament has a controlling interest should be debarred from contracting with the Government, and that if such company does contract with the Government, no director or person having a controlling interest in it should be enabled to become a member of this House. In the Bill which I presented to amend the Senate, and House of Commons Act, I added to the exception respecting the building of a public work, the following:
And except any company of which he is a director or in which he holds, directly or indirectly, a controlling interest.
I hope that the Government will adopt this Bill after they have accepted the amendment which I have proposed to the Dominion Elections Act. I agree with the hon. member for St. John city that if the Government do not want to accept my amendment, they should wipe out the section at present on the statute book with respect to the standing of a person who is interested in a company which undertakes a contract

for the building of a public work. There is not as great danger of abuse in permitting a company in which a member of the Senate or of the House of Commons is a shareholder to contract with the Government for a public work, because most of these contracts are obtained by calling for tenders, whilst many ordinary contracts are obtained without calling for tenders, as was the case during the first months of the war. I think the hon. member for Colchester can corroborate what I have said in this respect; he was concerned in a large contract with the Government.


John Stanfield: And gave good value, too.


Edmond Proulx: I do not doubt it, but I think that all persons should be on an equal footing. If the Government would like to have a certain man as candidate in a certain county, they might offer a large con-, tract to the company of which he is a shareholder, and the candidate might make enough out of that contract to pay his election expenses. If elected, he would not he independent; he would be tied to the Government. The law which is on the statute book to-day was passed to prevent this, but it does not go far enough, and,the object of the proposed amendment is to secure the independence of members of the House of Commons and of the Senate.


John Stanfield: The company of which I am president, and which bears my own name-a company of which I am proud- during last year sold goods to the Militia Department. The first order was given while I was in England, and I knew nothing about it until I arrived home. If this Bill becomes law, I as president of that company cannot be a candidate for election to the House of Commons, and I have several good friends on the other side of the House who would be very sorry not to see me here. Any amendment of this kind would apply to the hon. member for Northumberland, N.B. (Mr. Loggie); his company sold goods to the late Government, and if his party returns to power he will expect to do a little more business with the Government.
I appeal to the good judgment of the committee, therefore, not to pass this proposed amendment; perhaps the law could be amended in some other way that would be just as good. .


Wilfrid Laurier: If the Government had received as good velue from all the contractors as they received from the

hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Stanfield), we would be' in a better condition than we are at the present time. I am sure that my hon. friend gave good value, but unfore tunately the same cannot be said of all contractors. But these arguments are not to the point. I am one of those who would be very sorry not to see my hon. friend in the House; if the Tories are successful in electing a candidate in Colchester, I do not want to see any other Tdry than my hon. friend; but I hope that a Grit will be in his place next time. The law of the independence of Parliament is a very strict one: men have been disqualified here, because unknowingly and unwittingly, they had a contract with the Government which was a mere bagatelle. I remember the case of Mr. Harry Corby, who in 1891 found that he was disqualified to sit in the House because, unknown to himself, he had been a contractor with the Government. In this country, as in England, the law of the independence of Parliament has been very strictly carried out. The hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) very properly says that if a man can be disqualified for having with the Government a contract which is a mere bagatelle, surely a man who has a controlling interest in a large company ought to be disqualified also.


Robert Laird Borden: The proposal of the hon member for Prescott has certain merits which the committee ought to consider very carefully. The extreme oase which be very properly puts before the committee is where a man who is interested in a certain business which: he has been carrying on in his own name sees fit to incorporate himself, as it were, and to change his status in that way. The hon. member very properly argues that contracts between such a company and the Government are very much the same as contracts between the Government and the person who thus puts himself in the form of an incorporated company. But there is something to be said for the other side of the case. Eveiy one realizes that during the past twenty-five or thirty years there has been a tendency more and more to carry on the business of the country by means of incorporated companies. The best business ability and the best enterprise of the country are frequently represented by persons who have considerable interest in such companies and who, on account of their ability, may be selected to be members of the board of directors.
The question would be whether or not it is desirable in the public interest that all persons of that type and possessing that interest, which might not be a very great one, in an incorporated company, should be excluded from representing the people in this House, ot from becoming members of the Senate. I think that side of the case would demand the consideration of Parliament; and therefore I would suggest that the amendment be .allowed to stand until it has received a little more attention on the part of the Minister of Justice and his colleagues in the Government, and that we should proceed in the meantime to consider the other sections of the Bill.


Mr. MAROIL:: I think it is my duty to call attention to a case that happened in my own experience. One of my opponents was nominated against me while he had a contract with the Intercolonial. I produced the contract to the returning officer and filed a protest. But I was put to the whole trouble of an election campaign while the man had a running contract with the Intercolonial Railway for the supply of ties. I think there should be something in the law that when a man is actually a contractor and the contract can be produced, some means should be taken to prevent that man from being nominated. In my case there seemed to be a loophole of some kind, and we had all the trouble of a campaign, although the man was not competent to be elected.


Mr. DOHERTY:: No doubt it would be desirable if that matter .could be determined then .and there. But the difficulty that would arise is that in order to obtain that end the returning officer would have to be empowered to determine the question whether a man nominated was a qualified candidate. There might be such absolutely simple cases as the hon. gentleman suggests, but in many cases the determination of the eligibility of a candidate would involve very considerable investigating.


William Pugsley: Might not an oath be required of the candidate that he was qualified to be a candidate? Fot instance, if he were .a postmaster he would not be able to take the oath.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That suggestion, no
doubt, .has merit; but I would point out that an affidavit by .any person that he was a qualified candidate would involve his swearing not only to questions of fact but to questions of law. If he simply

swore to his interpretation of the law he could mot be convicted of perjury. Of counse, if, all of the causes for disqualification were iset out dm the affidavit and he had to swear only to questions of fact, then if he made a misstatement -in his affidavit he could be subsequently proceeded against for perjury.


William Pugsley: I think in the New Brunswick statute -they have such -a provision.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon. member for Prescott looked up legislation in other countries to isee if there is any of the character which he proposes?


Edmond Proulx: No, I have not searched the legislation of -any other country; but it struck -me that if the purpose of the Act was to secure the independence of members of this House and of the Senate, and of all candidates, as business is carried on nowadays very largely by means of companies, we should make some effort to reach those who control -an interest in any -company having a contract with the Government.


George Perry Graham: I suppose the object of the Independence of Parliament Act. is to make it secure that any dealing a member may have with -the Government will not influence him -as a member of the House. Under -modern conditions it is possible that the -entire Act should be revised. As has been pointed out, the business of the country is largely carried on by companies. Men -group themselves together instead of -acting singly as in year-s gone by. If this suggestion were carried out to its ultimate conclusion it would exclude ' every man who is a director o-r owns a large number of shares in a company. This would exclude some of the very best men in Canada from taking -any part in public life. Ten men would be excluded under present business conditions to one who was excluded under former -conditions when business was carried on individually. Let us take an example. My hon. friend fom Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) was -mentioned. There -are others who -are in the same position. The reading room would not be complete without certain newspapers; that is admitted by every person; yet not a single copy of a newspaper could be subscribed for if the proprietor of that paper or a man holding stock in the company happened to sit in the House. Now, that is not the intention of this legislation. That would be absurd.


Robert Laird Borden: These things are so complex that it is difficult to get legislation that will accomplish the object.


George Perry Graham: Yes, without going to
absurd lengths. The question is of such magnitude that it cannot be decided in an hour or two. It should be considered very maturely, not for an hour, but perhaps for a year, in order to find out how present conditions may be met by legislation that will be up to date; for certainly the old legislation does not apply to present conditions.


Edmond Proulx: If my hon. friend objects very much to the directors being reached, I can forego that portion of the Bill and include the words " one who has a controlling interest" so as to prevent a man from evading the law by putting his business in the form of a company.


George Perry Graham: I think that could be
very easily got around. I am not taking strong ground one way or the other. I am simply pointing out that the matter is far more complex than might appear on the surface. As to directors, it is a well known fact that many men are willing to put a large amount of money in a certain business, provided John Smith will become a director. There are many men who will take stock in a company if a certain man in whom they have confidence is made a director. This director might only hold one share, or just what was sufficient to qualify him as a director. This legislation would exclude that director from being a member of this House, although the only interest he had in the business was his salary and this one share.


Mr. LOGGIE:: A man might hold 49 per cent of the stock of a company and sell goods to the Government, while the man who held 51 per cent could not sell the Government a box of matches.


Robert Laird Borden: It occurred to
me while the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) was speaking that there might be a good many cases that this would not cover. For instance, the general manager of an important company might be paid partly by salary, and partly by a percentage of the profits. That man would he just as directly interested in the company as any one of the directors, perhaps much more so, and yet the legislation of my hon. friend would permit him to be a member of Parliament, while a director having an insignificant interest in the company could not become a member of Parliament.


Edmond Proulx: I suppose that the general manager is nearly always a director too.


Robert Laird Borden: Not always.


Edmond Proulx: We can add the words
" general manager, secretary, or any officer or employee of the company."


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Would my hon. friend define what he means by controlling interest? Is that defined in his amendment? I know of companies in Montreal where the controlling power is held by one man who apparently does not own more than one or two shares; but nothing can be done in that company without his consent and participation. What they do is to nominate their employees to be shareholders or directors of the company. These employees hold the shares, but their employers of course have the controlling power. How are you going to get over that difficulty? I agree with the hon. member for South Renfrew that it is a very complex question and one that eannot properly be discussed across the floor of the House. I think it should be debated in a small committee. Before deciding what should be done I think we should examine the legislation of other countries. This question must have come .up in England for instance, but I am not aware that in England anybody who -is a member of a company or a shareholder or even a director cannot be a member of the House of Commons. I am aware that when such a man becomes a minister, the Prime Minister, generally speaking, asks him to resign his directorate or whatever position he holds in the company. That would lead me to believe that in England, where they have a very good system as every one will admit, even the director of a company is not prevented from becoming a member of Parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that in the United States in connection with the larger corporations, such as railway companies, they have had in recent years a system that is called a voting trust, whereby certain persons accept the beneficial ownership in the shares upon condition that the voting power shall reside elsewhere. It would not be a very difficult thing to apply a system of that kind to companies in this or any other country. Then you would have the result that persons having not the beneficial interest, but the voting power, could be members of Parliament, while persons having the beneficial
interest but no voting power would be excluded from Parliament; and that would defeat the object which the hon. member for Prescott has in view and which I agree is a very laudable object. All these considerations seem to indicate, as the hon. member for South Renfrew has said, that this is not a matter to be disposed of hastily. It should receive very careful consideration, and, as my colleague the Postmaster General (Mr. Casgrain) has said, we should also examine any legislation on the same subject in other countries enjoying similar institutions.


George Perry Graham: The Ontario Legislature amended their Act a few years ago to exclude certain classes of business, and they limited the amendment. I forget the details, but an amendment of that kind was passed some years ago.


Frank Oliver: I should like to ask if, after all, it is really a crime to be a member of Parliament or to be engaged in business? From the trend of the discussion that has taken place, it would almost seem that there was a crime more or less concealed in one or the other of these vocations. Unfortunately in this country almost everybody is engaged in business. We have no class of people who are altogether dissociated from business, and can give their time and attention solely to political affairs. We are a country of men engaged in active business life, and a very large majority of our people are struggling with difficulties. But we have to take the country as we find it, and it is from these people that we have to pick the men whc will manage our political affairs. Are we going to pass legislation that will render that practically impossible? I take it that the first essential is that, for service in a legislative capacity, we should get the most capable men that the country affords. While I quite agree that there must be restrictions, I submit that it is not in the interests of the country in any degree to prevent the best brain we have and the highest character and the greatest experience, from entering the field of public service in a legislative capacity.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As this Bill is the product of the committee, I may say that we had before us a very large number of suggested amendments to the Dominion Elections Act. I think that, without at all minimizing the importance of this suggestion many of those were more important and more pressing than this present suggested amendment can be. After giving these dif-

ferent matters our consideration, I think I will speak correctly on behalf of the committee when I say that in view of the many things that might properly be dealt with in the Dominion Elections Act, and in view of the fact that what seemed to us more urgent and more pressing was that we should get better machinery to enforce the law than we have, we rather reached the conclusion only to suggest the few simple things in regard to the Dominion Elections Act which we have submitted and to look to Parliament tliis session, at all events, for an improvement in the law mainly in the direction of improving the machinery for enforcing the law we have. I quite agree in what has been said about the necessity of careful consideration being given to the present suggested amendment. Its effects might be very far-reaching and you might reach one class of people and allow to escape another class of people against whom the very same argument might be made. I notice that this proposed amendment is limited to people who have a controlling interest. If I understand it correctly this amendment was introduced for the purpose of making the law consistent, the argument being that, inasmuch as we deal with the individual and exclude him if he has a contract, we ought to exclude people who are interested in companies which have contracts and who are directors or who have the controlling interest. In many companies you may have shareholders who have by no means a controlling interest, but who might have their entire fortune invested in the stocks of these companies. A man in that position has his all at stake in that company and it seems to me that he has just as direct an interest-perhaps more direct an interest-than the man who may have the controlling interest, but who also may have other interests and other sources of income. At first glance it would appear to me that if it is desirable to do this we ought to draw the line somewhere else than between the man who has fifty-one per cent of the shares and the man who has only forty-nine per cent of the shares. If it is desirable it ought to go further. As to its desirability, I must confess that there is room for a little reflection and I think there is no pressing necessity at the present time for dealing with this question in the manner in which it would have to be dealt with under the circum stances.


Edmond Proulx: I thought we might have an election before another session, and I

thought this was an opportune time to present this amendment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Great foresight.


Edmond Proulx: If I withdraw this amendment will the Government promise that there will be no election?


William Pugsley: I understand this matter will be allowed to stand for the present. Speaking with regard to the question of requiring an affidavit of qualification, and with regard to the objection raised by my hon. friend from Bonaventure
4 p.m. (Mr. Marcil) who cites a case wherein he says it is quite a grievance, I find that I was right as to the province of New Brunswick. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) will probably remember that we have in New Brunswick a provision of the law which is in accordance with what was suggested to the Minister of Justice. The law is in these words:
If the qualification of any candidate is questioned, it must he done on or before two o'clock of the day of opening the election, and the sheriff shall give the candidate or his agent, or some one of the persons signing his nomination paper, immediate notice thereof, and unless the necessary declaration of qualification, as in the form (H) in the schedule, is made by the candidate or an elector for him before the sheriff, and filed with the sheriff by two o'clock of that day, he shall not enter his name in the general poll-book.
That would in all probability meet the difficulty which my hon. friend from Bonaventure referred to.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think the question was ever raised in New Brunswick.


William Pugsley: Yes, I have known a declaration to be required. I know that in the case of one of the postmasters who was disqualified the objection was raised.


Edmond Proulx: I see a provision in the Ontario Election Act that no person shall be ineligible as member of the Assembly-
By reason of his being a surety or contractor or liable for the payment of money for or on account of the maintenance or tuition of an inmate or pupil of any Government institution ;
By reason of his being a postmaster elsewhere than in a city, town or incorporated village, or interested in a contract for carrying the mail between two or more post offices neither of which is in a city, town or incorporated village or of his being the surety of any such postmaster or contractor;
By reason of his being a surety for a public officer or Ontario land surveyor or other person required by the law to furnish security to the Crown.	[DOT]

But there is also this provision:
A person elected a member of the Assembly, who is at the time of his election a surety as aforesaid, shall, before he sits or votes therein take and complete such action as may be requisite to relieve him from any thereafter accruing liability in respect of his suretyship, and no person who is liable as such surety in respect of any accruing matter shall sit or vote in the Assembly.
If a person were elected tto this House, and there was a disability or disqualification existing, he would have to remove this disqualification before taking his seat.
On the question being put: Shall the amendment be agreed to?


Wilfrid Laurier: I understood it was to stand.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is nothing else in the Bill to stand. I do not want to unduly press the matter, but if the committee were ready to deal with it now there would be some advantage in doing so.


Robert Laird Borden: I did suggest that it should stand for consideration, and I am perfectly willing that it should stand if my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) thinks it desirable. Since the discussion has taken place, and particularly in view of some of the considerations which my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has put forward as to the complexity of the question and the difficulty of determining it in so short a time, I would be perfectly willing to have it dealt with now, but on the other hand I do not object to have it stand. -


Wilfrid Laurier: If the Government is not going to accept the amendment there is no use of pressing it, and we might as well dispose of it now. My hon. friend (Mr. Proulx) knows that if the Government does not accept it, there is no use of pressing it.


Edmond Proulx: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the Government will not accept it let us dispose of it.


Robert Laird Borden: I have a great deal of sympathy with the purpose which the hon. gentleman has in view, but I see a good deal of difficulty in framing legislation to accomplish that object without going so far as to bring about inconveniences and difficulties which might outweigh any advantage which might be derived from any such amendment.
Mr A. K. MACLEAN,: If in the meantime the Government see that the legislation proposed is justifiable or wise, they might attach it to the Bill when it goes to the Senate. .


Robert Laird Borden: I would be very glad to bring it to the attention of the leader of the Government in the Senate, and also to confer with the Minister of Justice in the meantime to see whether he could prepare a draft which would satisfy to some extent at least the purpose which the hon. member for Prescott has in view, and at the same time not raise the difficulties which have been pointed out in this debate.
Amendment negatived on division.


Charles Marcil: Has the minister considered the suggestion I made in regard to the county of Gaspe? The reason no longer exists for deferred elections in that county.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When the hon. member spoke to me before, I had hoped to be able to gather some further information. I placed reliance upon the information furnished me by the hon. member, but I hoped to be able to communicate with other gentlemen in the county. I regret that I have not succeeded in doing - so since the hon. member raised the question, and at present I am not much more prepared to go on with the subject than I was at that time. I am quite prepared to say that the more we can reduce the number of deferred elections the better it will be. If this matter of Gaspe had come to the attention of the committee we would have looked into it; but, as I explained before, the way this clause with regard to deferred elections came before us was upon a representation that there had been changes made in certain of the counties in which deferred elections were provided for, and that those changes would necessitate the changing of the designations of those particular counties. When we came to make those changes, we reached the conclusion that it would be quite possible as regarded portions of those counties which became new constituencies not to re-enact the provision for deferred elections ; but the question of deferred elections in other constituencies was not brought before the committee at all.


Charles Marcil: The late member for
Jacques Cartier spoke of the case of Gaspe and strongly urged that it should be brought into line with other counties. Formerly Gaspe was a very remote part of
:i48

the province of Quebec, but now Gaspe Basin is reached, by train daily and I think the general consensus of opinion of the whole county would be to have the voting on the same day. In the provincial elections, sometimes the nomination is fixed for an earlier date, but the voting is all done on the same day. It is too late, however, to do anything this year.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, amendments concurred in, and Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 109, to amend the Dominion Controverted Elections Act-Mr. Doherty;. Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
Charles Joseph Doherty: This Bill stood for further consideration of sections 4, 5 and 10. The questions that arose with regard to sections 4 and 5 are practically the same. Section 4 prescribes the form of the petition and wlhat shall be required to be contained in the petition protesting the election, and section 5 makes similar provision for the form and what shall be required to be contained in the counter petition. The matter, with regard to which there was some difference of opinion in connection with these two clauses and which gave rise to a desire that they should stand, was that the petition contained in them required that the petitioner should give such particulars as might be necessary to prevent surprise or unnecessary expense to the respondent and insure a fair and effectual trial. Objections were made to the sections as they were proposed; and although we have not been able to have a complete meeting of the committee which submitted the Bill, those of us who could gather together have considered the objections and endeavoured to find a course to meet them. I am afraid I cannot say that we are quite agreed as to the proper method of meeting the objections. I would like to suggest this as being an improvement and, it would seem to me, going far enough to obviate the inconveniences that it was suggested might result from this requirement. If I understood it rightly, the objection most insisted upon to the requirement was the difficulty of defining just what would be covered by such particulars as are necessary to prevent surprise and insure a fair and effectual trial, and more particularly the difficult posi-

tion that might be created, if the parties, in the absence of special provision for obtaining further particulars or otherwise modifying. the petition, found themselves in a situation where the question of the sufficiency of the particulars would arise only at the trial. To obviate that, I think these two provisions should be amended so as to provide in substance, that within a limited delay-I would suggest five days after the service of the petition-either of the parties might make application to the judge to summarily determine the sufficiency or insufficiency of the particulars set forth in the petition. And in the event of finding the particulars insufficient, the judge should have power to order such further particulars as he might prescribe and if the judge arrives at the conclusion that the particulars in the petition are not sufficient, the furtner particulars that he prescribes shall be furnished within a further delay of five days from the making of his order. In that way you have a delay, at the outside, of ten days from the service of the petition.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Sections 4 and 5
of this Bill present many difficulties. If it were possible to frame an amendment to attain the end which the committee had in mind, "and which the Minister of Justice also has in mind, I am sure it would meet with the approval of the House. But I must confess that upon reflection, I see objections to section 4, and difficulties in its language, which did not strike me as forcibly when we were considering the Bill in , committee as they do now in view of the criticisms that have been made. Perhaps it would be well that the committee should understand clearly just what the purpose and effect of section 4 of the Bill is. Let me call attention to section 11 of the Controverted Elections Act as it is now on the statute book:
The petition presented under this Act may he in any prescribed form; but, if or in so far as no form is prescribed, it need not be in any particular form, but it must complain of the undue election or return of a member, or that no return has been made, or that a double return has been made, or of matter contained in any special return made, or of some such unlawful act as aforesaid by a candidate not returned, and it must be signed by the petitioner, or all the petitioners if there are more than one.
Under the practice that has grown up in the trial of petitions under the Controverted Elections Act, the petitioners make general charges against the respondent, and as was stated by the Minister of Justice, the petition recites the

language of the several prohibitory sections of the Dominion Election Act-those sections which make certain acts corrupt acts. This is open to objection. It is unfair, in a certain sense, that the petitioner may file a petition charging the respondent with the violation of every section of the Elections Act, though, .perhaps, he has at the time no evidence of the actual violation of these provisions. Further, it is obviously irritating to the respondent and to his friends to be charged with the violation of practically every feature of the Elections Act when possibly the petitioner had in. mind only the violation of one or two sections. These are the objections to section 11 of the Act which the committee had in mind when it attempted to modify the same, and it was to overcome these that section 4 of the Rill was drafted. Let me read section 4:
4. Section 11 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
" 11. The petition presented under this Act may be in form " A " in the schedule to this Act. It must complain of the undue election or return of a member, or that no return has been made, or that a double return has been made or of matter contained in any special return made, or of some unlawful or corrupt act or acts, and shall contain such particulars of the complaint set out in the petition as may he necessary to prevent surprise or unnecessary expense to the respondent and to insure a fair and effectual trial; and it must he signed by the petitioner, or all the petitioners if there are more than one.
Thus, the amendment requires that the petition shall contain particulars of the complaint, whereas under the present section of the Act the complaint is set forth in general terms only. Now the word " particulars " in the law respecting election trials has a meaning that has been fixed by the rules of the election courts in Canada and in England. It is well to know what " particular " means, 'and how comprehensive the term is according to the decisions of the courts. The draftsman of section 4 used in the latter part of it the phraseology of the definition of particulars under the Controverted Elections Act as contained in the English petition rules. Rule 6 is as follows :
Evidence need not be stated in the petition, but the court or a judge may order such particulars as may be necessary to prevent surprise and unnecessary expense and to insure a fair and effectual trial in the same way as in ordinary proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas, and upon such terms as to costs and otherwise as may be ordered.
Therefore we have incorporated in section 4 the English definition of particulars,
according to the rules followed in controverted election cases in England. Hon. gentlemen know that particulars in election cases aTe exceedingly minute and definite. I have in my hand a textbook on the English Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts, by Jelf, and, in a form to be used in the giving of particulars, I find that the following particulars are required where the plaintiff alleges payment of expenses by the respondent: number of particulars, charge, date, name of voter, registered number of voter, district, particulars, by whom alleged to have been paid, and so on. It will he seen, therefore, that in Canadian election courts, as in England, "particulars" has a certain significance as a well-settled term, and if we pass clause four as it is, its effect will be that the petitioner will be required to put in his petition the smallest details in connection with the several complaints which are made. I do not think that the committee had this in mind, and in that view I think I shall in this be supported by the Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Calgary and the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick. We had in mind the formulating of some enactment which would compel the granting of more particulars than are required by section II of the Act, but I do not think it was the intention of members of the committee that we should go so far as to say that the petition	should	contain	particulars	which,as	understood	in	practice	wouldbe practically pleading evidence. I think the members of the committee will all agree that it was never intended that we should in our election petitions plead particulars, as is done in controverted election cases. A person might decide at the last	moment	to	file	a	petition,	and itwould hardly	be	fair	to	require that evidence should be pleaded, or that the complaint should set forth all particulars. I am afraid that if that were the case, the Act would become almost a greater nullity than it is to-day. The trial of an election petition is not like the trial of an ordinary issue in court. The jurisdiction to try election cases, as was pointed out the other night, originally rested with Parliament, and that jurisdiction was handed over to the courts. The trial of an election petition, therefore, is more in the nature of an inquiry or investigation, and I think that it would be hardly proper to insist upon particulars in the petition. I am of the opinion that it would be better to drop this section, and either restore the old section or make
it perfectly clear that it is not intended that tlhe petitioner must set forth what is really evidence. If there is any amendment which we could frame which would make that sure, I- should be content. The hon. member for Calgary suggested to me privately to-day that his sense of that section is that the petitioner may allege that in a certain district the respondent or his agent committed certain offences at certain times. While it is possible to give it that interpretation, it is extremely doubtful whether that is the whole scope of the section. I am sorry that I do not see my way clear just at the moment to accept this section as it is; I am afraid that it does not express what was really the intention of the committee.


Wilfrid Laurier: What was the intention of the committee?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The intention of the committee was, in some .way or other, to compel the giving of further particulars than are now required, but it was not the intention to require the pleading of evidence.


William Pugsley: Wlbat objection is there to leaving the present provision as it is, which gives the judge power to order particulars?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am rather of opinion that it would be bettter to restore the old section. It would create less difficulty than might arise from an attempt to amend it, for the time being at least.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The objection to the
provision as it stands now is that whereas you require a man to file his petition within forty days, you allow him to do that by a document that conveys no idea to the respondent of what the grounds are upon which he is attacked. What he does know is simply that an election petition has been filed against him. Then, as it works out in practice, the petitioner is enabled, under the present proceedings for the furnishing of particulars, to make his real case six months or perhaps a year later, after he has endeavoured to find out whether he had any reason at all for filing a petition. To me that seems radically unfair. I quite agree with the hon. member for Halifax that the committee did not have in mind that we should require particulars in the sense that we should require the name of every man who may have done an act, and so on, but I am disposed to insist, so far as I reasonably may, upon this section, or upon such modification of it as may meet the serious objection which has

been suggested by the hon. gentleman; because I think that this is the one section of this Bill that seeks to remedy a present condition in the law which is very unfair to the respondent. The other provisions of this Bill all tend to deprive the respondent of means of defence available to him under the present law, means of defence which we think he ought to be deprived of, because they lead to great delay, which delay ultimately operates to defeat the practical operation of the law. But we felt that we were the more justified in depriving the respondent of these means of thwarting the petition that the present law now gives to him, if we did at the same time remedy that law where it seemed to us to be unfair to him. The result of that view of this Bill would be that if these clauses be dropped, then our Bill would be one that would operate entirely to further facilitate the petitioner, to place the respondent in a more difficult position. That seems to be unfair to the respondent. Speaking for myself individually, I would almost feel that if we cannot pass these clauses, or something analogous to or approaching them, something more closely attaining the idea of the committee, as the hon. member for Halifax expressed it to have been, then perhaps the whole Bill ought to be dropped. I realize the force of what the hon. member for Halifax has said with regard to the possible interpretation that may be put upon the word "particular," as used in this section, by reason of the established practice regarding the requirement of particulars; and the section will overshoot the mark, I am prepared to admit, if it should be interpreted as requiring in a petition all these things which in practice appear to be required in a bill of particulars. If I correctly apprehend the present condition of jurisprudence, the courts in effect require every detail of each particular act committed, including the individuals who were parties to it, either as bribers or as bribees, or in any other capacity. It occurred to me, while the hon. member for Halifax was speaking, that possibly we might obviate that better if we adopted some form of expression that would not involve the use of the word "particulars," and at the same time would require something more specific in the setting forth of the grounds alleged in the petition. I tried to put this into words, and it seems to me that possibly the objection raised by the hon. member for Halifax might be met if, instead of demanding, as the section now does, such particulars of the complaints set out in the petition as may be necessary to prevent

surprise and unnecessary expense on the respondent, and insure a fair and effectual trial, we should say:
And shall specify the grounds of such complaint sufficiently in detail to prevent surprise or unnecessary expense to the respondent and to insure a fair and effectual trial.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will it be possible to specify grounds of complaint in such a way as to afford no assistance whatever to the respondent? Is there any way of specifying the grounds of complaint, other than in the usual way of furnishing particulars, which will he of any use to him? That is the gist of the whole question?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am disposed to think that one might have considered that the furnishing of particulars did not require as minute details as appear to be required, in practice at all events, in the giving of a bill of particulars. What struck me in the argument of the hon. member for Halifax was that as we are using the word " particulars " and requiring particulars there may be serious ground to apprehend, as he suggested, that the courts may take that up and say: Well, that now means precisely what we have been holding to be required in a bill of particulars; it is the very same word. It seems to me that we would obviate that argument anyway, our requirements would be something else than that. I do not pretend now to be able to define just what extent of specification would attain the desired end. We have to put upon the courts the burden of determining what degree of particularity would be necessary. I think we sufficiently indicate that we do not mean to require a bill of particulars in the petition, and we would have to leave the courts to determine what degree of specification would be sufficient to prevent surprise.


Mr. CARVELL:: I have not had the privilege of listening to the discussion so far this afternoon, but it does seem to me that the Minister of Justice has described things exactly as they occurred in the committee. The committee certainly did not intend to recommend words to the House which would entirely obviate the necessity of going to a judge and demanding particulars, as is done under the present practice of the courts; we specifically did nothing to repeal the section. The practice regarding particulars is established by the rules of the courts, and I presume is pretty well known all over Canada. The rules
are- provided for under sections 85 and 86. I remember that I suggested in the committee that we should put in the word "general " between the words " such " and " particulars " in the tenth line. If I remember correctly, it was the understandjng of the committee that we should take somewhat the same position as is taken in regard to a statement of claim in an ordinary suit in court. That is, you must acquaint the respondent generally with the case you are bringing against him, so that he may be in a position to file a general answer. If further particulars are required the present rules allow a respondent to apply for them and get them. Personally, I think the suggestion made by the minister is a good one. There would then be no necessity for using the word "particulars" which has a legal meaning at the present time. Like the minister, I cannot say how the court would interpret the word " particulars ". I certainly think that a respondent should have a pretty general knowledge of the complaint that is being made against him. I am anxious to see the Bill go through, knd personally I have not very much fault to find with what the minister has suggested.


William Pugsley: I also want to see the
Bill go through, but if we enact the provision which requires the particulars to form a part of the petition, then if the judge should be of the opinion that the particulars are not sufficient the whole petition would go by the board, and the whole proceeding would be void. Why not leave the present section as it is, and provide for a further time, say five or ten days after the service, in which the particulars can be furnished? Then you do not make the particulars an essential part of the petition. What I am afraid of is that if the judge decided the particulars were not sufficient he would simply dismiss the petition. The minister says that it is unfair to allow a petitioner to get information after he has decided to file a petition, but I am not quite sure whether that is reasonable. The man who buys votes does not do it openly; he goes quietly and in secret to the men whom he wants to influence, and makes an arrangement with them. As a rule, it is not until two or three weeks or a month after the election is over that the information begins to leak out which will enable the petitioner and his agents to support the petition. We should not be too strict in reference to the petition. If the respondent is guilty of a corrupt act, you are doing no

injustice if you allow the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of establishing these corrupt acts. I think we had better leave the section as to petitions just as it is.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps the suggestion of the hon. member might meet what is required, but we should have to make it imperative that the particulars should be given within the time. If we go back to the old provision and require a petitioner to give particulars within five or six days, we shall not be very much improving what the Bill does. It would mean that he would have five or six days longer to give particulars in, than he would have under the Bill as now drafted. If the suggestion of the hon. member would bring about the same results as the provision in its present form, I should be disposed to accept it. I do not know what the views of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr, A. K. Maclean) are on the subject.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am satisfied with the Bill as it is.


Robert Laird Borden: So am I.~


Wilfrid Laurier: The object of this Bill is to expedite the trial of petitions. The defendant must.be informed as to what he has to answer to. If you do not put that in the petition, you have to give it at a subsequent time. If the particulars are not in the petition, the defendant is entitled to move for them and that means delay. Therefore, I say that the petition should contain everything that the defendant has to answer to. If the petition contains only general terms, so that the defendant cannot prepare a proper defence, that means more delay. I am satisfied with the Bill as it is drafted.


Mr. GERMAN:: I notice that the Bill is satisfactory to the leaders of both parties. It is also satisfactory to me, with this exception:	If you confine the petitioner to
forty days within which he must give particulars of the offences which he intends to prove, you will have mighty few petitions. My observation has led me to believe that particulars cannot be obtained in forty days, especially as regards the large outlying districts, such as the constituency of Nipissing or any constituency in Ontario or Quebec that is spread over a large area. As the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) has said, you have to delve to get the particulars on which a petitioner bases his right to an action. I firmly believe that if particulars have to be given, the filing of

petitions will be greatly curtailed; and, so far as my reading of criticisms of the Elections Act goes, that is not what the public desire.
They desire that when the petition is filed it shall be tried out, and not traded off against some other petition. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice put in the Bill a clause which says that the judge shall go on. I objected to that because, unless you provide some proper means for the judge going on after the petitioner or respondent has abandoned the case, the word "shall" is inoperative. Unless you provide some means through a public prosecutor, or some other means of procuring the evidence in order that the trial may go on, the provision will be found inoperative. By limiting the time to forty days for the giving of all particulars upon which the petitioner relies you will do away with the filing of petitions altogether.


Edmond Proulx: If the time were lengthened from forty days to sixty days the petitioner would then have more opportunity of looking for particulars.
On section 4-form of petition:


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Before this passes, I want to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice to the fact that in the committee there was some discussion about form A. If the minister will read over form A he will come to the conclusion that it does not cover the real intention of the committee. I think he will find that the form goes very much farther than the section does. The form mentioned would compel the petitioner to give all the particulars and it would render practically nugatory any provision which might exist for the furnishing of further particulars. Form A contains the following:
Here state the grounds on which the petitioner relies, and, in case illegal or corrupt acts are alleged, the particulars of each of such acts are prescribed by section 11.	[DOT]
I would like the minister to consider that for a moment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Would the hon. gentleman's objection be met by striking out the word "each?"	-	.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That would go a long way towards it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: "The particulars of each of such acts."


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I very much prefer the suggestion which came from the minister a few moments ago to change the section and change the form to correspond with it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Personally I like the
Bill as it was originally drafted. I have been trying to meet the suggestions that have been made, but if we could have agreed upon the Bill as originally drafted I would have preferred it to stand in that way. But I do think that if the section is to be passed as it is drafted, we should add to it something in the nature of what I mentioned at the opening of this discussion this afternoon. I think that we should make provision which would entail a very brief delay but which will afford an opportunity for the determination of the question of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the particulars and one further very brief delay for the petitioner to complete these particulars if they are found insufficient.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That might cover it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would move to amend section 11 by adding as subsection 2 the following:
The judge may, on the application of eithet of the parties made within five days of the service of the petition, summarily determine the sufficiency of the particulars given in the petition, and may, if the same he found insufficient, order the production by the petitioner, within a further delay of five days, of such additional particulars as the judge may in such order prescribe and define; the delays prescribed in sections 19 and 19a shall run only from the date of the decision upon such application, or the date upon which the further particulars ordered are produced, or the delay for their production has expired.


Mr. PARDEE:: I suggest that, instead of a further delay of five days, you leavi it in the discretion of the judgs.
5 p.m. If we put these delay- in ihe discretion of the judge he can grant another delay if the parties consent to it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: As a matter of fact, in the practice of any person, have election petitions been delayed for want of particulars? I have never heard of the delivery or non-delivery of particulars being a cause of delay in the trial of an election petition. It is always due to preliminary objections and other delays.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If preliminary objections and delays are all wiped out and there are no longer the means of getting delays, then people will reach out to find what other means there are and we will have this question of particulars if we leave it open. We will come back to the preliminary objections and people will be 136
fighting about particulars for months unless we tie it down to a definite time.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The petitioner might find on the thirty-ninth day that there were certain particulars which were necessary to validate his petition and it might be physically impossible to get these within the succeeding five days. Why should not the judge be given a discretion in the matter just as you do in any other court of procedure where you ask for an enlargement and where the question is left in the discretion of the judge? Why not do the same thing in this case? I think that, as in all other civil cases, it might be left to the discretion of the judge to determine whether or not a longer term than five days should be given. In bringing on an action for trial, if you do not serve your notice within the specified time, you have the right to make a summary application to the judge to go on. If there is no surprise, no prejudice to the other party, it is allowed. Why should you not do just the same in the case of a petitioner who is furnishing particulars in support of his petition?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In an ordinary proceeding you are dealing with a fight between two individuals about their own affairs and if they choose to delay indefinitely nobody is hurt. Here we are legislating to correct an evil which is an evil from the public point of view and that is the undue dragging out of election proceedings. If we are going to leave it in the hands of the parties we will get no correction. It is in the hands of the parties now and the result is that these proceedings 'do not go forward at all.


William Pugsley: Would the minister be willing to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may" after the words "given in the petition and"? What I would like made clear is that the judge shall not dismiss the petition because he thinks the particulars are insufficient. The amendment would then read as follows:
The judge may, upon application of either of the parties made within five days of the service of the petition, summarily determine the sufficiency of the particulars given in the petition, and shall, if the same be found insufficient, order the production by the petitioner-
That would mean that the judge cannot dismiss the petition, but must make an order for particulars. That would meet any objection I have.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no objection to making that change.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: As regards the observations of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) in respect to section 4, would his view be met if the words "of each" were struck out, or does his view go further than that with regard to the form?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That would meet my view.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move:
That section 3 of Schedule A be amended by striking out in the seventh line thereof the words " of each " after the word " particulars."
*Amendment agreed to.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would not the minister require a similar amendment in section 5?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.
On section 5-cross-petition:


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move:
That the following words be added to section 5:
"The judge may on application of either of the parties made within five days of the service of the cross-petition, summarily determine the sufficiency of the particulars given in the crosspetition, and shall, if the same be found insufficient,- order the production by the crosspetitioner within a further delay of five days of such additional particulars as the judge may in such order prescribe and define."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move:
That section 3 of Schedule B be amended by striking out in the eight line the words "of each" after the word "particulars."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 10-examination of witnesses.
Charles Joseph Doherty: This section gave rise to considerable discussion. It was suggested, among other things, that to some extent it overlapped section 45. I beg to move:
That section 10 be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
Subsection 1 of section 45 is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:
" If at any time after the presentation of an election petition it is made to appear to the court or the trial judges that any witness intends to leave Canada and cannot attend the trial of an election petition, or that for any other reason it is desirable in the interests of justice that the examination of a witness be proceeded with forthwith, then an application to the court on notice to the parties to the petition, the court may grant an order for the examination of such witness at a time and place and before a person to be named in such order, and the witness may thereupon be examined touching the matter
[Mr. Pugsley.j
complained of in the petition, due notice of such time and place being given to the parties to the petition, who may, by their respective counsel, attend such examination, and examine and crossexamine such witness; and such examination shall be reduced to writing and signed by such witness, and when duly returned by the examiner, and purporting to be certified by the examiner, may be used by either party to the petition on the trial thereof."
The only changes in the Act made by this amendment are the following: first, it is made clear that the application for the examination of a witness may be made at any time after the presentation of the petition, instead of, as at present, only after issue is joined or at the trial; second, that the application may be granted not only when the witness is absent from Canada, or may be absent from Canada, but when from any other cause it is made to appear to the judge that in the interest of justice the witness should be examined forthwith; third, that whereas under section 10 as proposed the application for examination might be made ex parte, under the amendment, the application will be on notice to the other party.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On the preamble:
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I desire to call the attention of the committee to a possible further amendment, though I do not propose to submit it as a motion. If the Minister of Justice thinks well, it might be handed to the leader of the Senate. Under the British Corrupt Practices Act there is a provision by which if, by any act or omission by a candidate or his agent, such act or omission not arising from want of good faith, the election law is violated, the party concerned may go to the court and get absolution from the effects of his act or omission. I was engaged in an election in Nova Scotia a few years ago in which the committee-and I myself was a party to it-were responsible for the issuance of a button, a very simple violation of the Act, but a violation nevertheless. Now, under the British Act, in such circumstances, the party responsible for the violation of the Act might go to the court and be relieved of the effect of his action. I think that is a good provision, but I do not propose to move to-day.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.

Public Works, chargeable to income-harbours and rivers-Quebec-Grosse Isle quarantine station-extension to wharf, $90,000.
['I might explain this\nitem. It was found that in view of the increased cost of provisions, supplies, etc., our main Estimate was not sufficient to carry us through the year 1914-15, so these Supplementary Estimates were made last fall. It may be consoling to hon. gentlemen to know that we think we may possibly have made an over-estimate now.\nProgress reported.']
George Perry Graham: That is under contract, is it not?


Mr. ROGERS:: Yes.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $75,000.


Mr. BUREAU:: The other day I asked the minister a question which was misunderstood. Some work is being done on the old docks in the harbour of Three Rivers, and I asked if the cost of this work was being borne by the Department of Public Works or by the Harbour Commissioners. The Minister of Public Works answered that the docks at Three Rivers were under contract and that the work was being done by Collins and Giroux. That is a coal dock. I wish to know whether any part of this appropriation goes towards paying for such repairs as are now being made in the harbour of Three Rivers, or whether the amount expended by the Commissioners is taken from the revenue of the harbour itself?


Robert Rogers: The explanation which I have of this item is that the money is required to make provision for general repairs and improvements to harbour, river and bridge works in the province of Quebec which are under the control of the Public Works Department. A long list of items follows; the item for Three Rivers is 552.


Jacques Bureau: What is that $52 for?


Robert Rogers: That information is not given.


Jacques Bureau: If the Harbour Commissioners want to carry out any improvements or do any work in the harbour, I understand that tlhey have to get the assent of the Minister of Public Works.


Robert Rogers: That may be so, for the reason that every board of harbour commissioners is incorporated under a different act. So far as I know, I have never done any business with the Three Rivers Harbour Commission.


Jacques Bureau: This new coal dock is being built by the Department of Public Works. The Government lease the dock to the Harbour Commissioners for a nominal sum, and the Harbour Commissioners have the management and control of it, but when they want to make any repairs or spend any money on the dock, they have to submit specifications to and obtain the 136J
approval of the Minister of Public Works or the Governor in Council, I am not quite sure which. The object of my question the other day was to find out whether such approval had been obtained by the Commissioners of the harbour of Three Rivers for the work that was done last December and January, and what was the nature of the request that was made.


Robert Rogers: I will get the information for my hon. friend.
lie Perrot South-wharf, $5,000.


Jacques Bureau: Has this work been commenced?


Robert Rogers: No, apparently not.


Jacques Bureau: Is it the intention of the department to start pretty soon?


Robert Rogers: We have good intentions with regard to all these works.


Jacques Bureau: Will the good intentions materialize in anything definite in the shape of work?


Robert Rogers: I hope that they will.


Jacques Bureau: Is the hope based on fact, or on mere surmise?


Robert Rogers: On fact
Kamouraska-addition to wharf ,$7,000.


Jacques Bureau: This is a revote; is it the intention to begin the work soon?


Robert Rogers: The plans are ready, and we are in a position to call for tenders.


Jacques Bureau: Will tenders be called for soon?


Robert Rogers: I hope so.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. minister's
" hopes " are rather vague information for the people who live in that vicinity. The plans are ready and the money voted, and the 'minister ought to know whether he intends to go on with the work, or whether any future progress depends upon whether or not we have an election.


Robert Rogers: The matter of an election, will not bear upon it at all.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Why was the work not, started last year?


Robert Rogers: A great many items were1 passed last June in respect of which the-work has not yet been started. We propose to start this year as soon, as conditions permit.

Laprairie-protection works, $20,000.


Mr. LANCTOT (Laprairie and Napier-vdlle) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, before the vote is taken on this item, L wish to make a few remarks concerning the expenditure since 19X2 on those protection works at Laprairie. During the session of
1911-	12, $15,750 were voted, this amount being seven-twelfths of the full $27,000 which had been placed in the Estimates by the late Government. Thait vote was frittered away on work by the day during the summer of 1912. During the session of
1912-	13, $45,000 were appropriated to the same purpose, namely, the carrying on those improvements during the recess of 1913. In the month of August, 1913, tenders were called for in 38 newspapers of the province of Quebec. That goes to show that the Department of Public Works was not remiss in advertising for (tenders towards carrying on those works. Three tenders were put in, one by Mr. E. J. Rainboth, for $70,051.60; another iby H. Duranceau and N. Poupart for $72,676.73, and still another by F. C. Jackson for $110,326.23. The minister did not award the contract to the lowest tenderer. Why was that? His reply to my question during the session of 1914 was that Mr. Rainboth was not in a position to meet the wishes of the Department of Public Works, who wanted 1,400 feet of that road to be completed immediately-I should explain that these 1,400 feet had to be completed during the fall of 1913, so as to connect that piece of road with the King Edward boulevard. The minister stated that as Mr, Rainboth was unable to comply with the request of the department and build those 1,400 feet of road immediately, while the next lowest tenderer was ready to go on, he, Mr. Rainboth, on that account, asked leave to withdraw his tender. That was a scheme for the purpose of putting aside Rainboth, and entering later into a private agreement with Duranceau and Poupart. Now, what are the actual facts as they come out to-day? Have Messrs. Duranceau and Pouparlt signed their contract? No, Mr. Chairman. Have they constructed that piece of road, as requested of Mr. Rainboth, by the minister? No, Mr. Chairman, I know that every one in Laprairie and Napierville would have been glad if that piece of road had been completed in the fall of 1913. Unfortunately, we have been deceived; the second lowest tenderers could not carry on the works any more than Mr. Rainboth could have done himself. N'ow, the Minister of

Public Works will allaw me to inquire whether he has a letter dated the 23rd of October, 1913, from Hon. Mr. Caron, Minister of Public Roads for the province of Quebec, in which it is pointed out that the Dominion Government has still a good deal of work (to do on that piece of road which is in the extension of the King Edward boulevard; that nothing has been done during the summer and that the writer could not see how that piece of road could be opened in the spring of 1914. Was it not further stated in that letter of Hon. Mr. Caron that the Provincial Government would complete its part of the work in a couple of weeks if the temperature proved favourable. The Provincial Government spent a good deal of money on that road, and is anxious that (the whole road should be ready by next spring, so that it may be an attraction for American tourists, and a convenience for the farmers of the South shore, whom it will enable to proceed to Montreal at all times of the year. In that same letter, the Hon. Mr. Caron made the proposal to the Minister of Public Works that he, Mr. Caron should have the whole road built himself, according to the Estimates of his own engineer for the district of Montreal. The Provincial Minister further stated that he was in a position to construct the dam, the raising of the road with earth and the rip-rap revetment on each side, and complete the whole by the end of June, 1914. And lastly, he put himself at the minister's disposal to make arrangements to determine the cosit of this piece of road. How was this offer received by the Minister of Public Works? The reply was in effect that the letter of the 21st of the same month (1913) had been duly received, which dealt with the construction of the King Edward boulevard in the parish of Laprairie; that the department had only lately invited tenders for the work and that there was at the time before Council, a recommendation to award the contract; that the contractor agreed to do the work by the ensuing fall; that, were it not that so much had already been done with a view to let out the' contract, the minister would hhve been pleased to discuss the matter with Mr. Caron.
Now, Mr. Chairman, what is the actual situation to-day? Messrs. Duranceau and Poupart have not signed any contract pursuant to their tender of $72,678.73; they have not gone on with the work in the fall of 1913; but a new contract was prepared which was more advantageous to the con-

tractors, in that it was a private contract calling for the work to he done by the yard, and not, as was stipulated in the first con-trad;, at a certain fixed price for the whole work. My proof of that fact is to be found in the answer made to a question which I asked in this House on the 20th April, 1914, whether Messrs. Poupart and Duranceau had signed their contract for $72,678.73, the
minister, among other things, replied by this statement;
A cubic yard.
Barth filling	$	40
Reinforced concrete	 10 00
A square yard.
Stone rip-rap		1 50
Bed road, stone foundation ..	1 00
Roadway, broken stone ....	25
Roadway, gravel	 25
It was therefore obvious that the contract was awarded to Messrs. Duranceau and Poupart at so much a yard and not for a lump sum, as set out in the tender. Will you believe it, Mr. Chairman, after a year and a haAf, that work has not made any progress. And what is the cause? Patronage, pure and simple. Why was the contract not awarded to the lowest tenderer? Mr. Rainboth is a distinguished civil engineer, well acquainted with that kind of work, while Messrs. Duranceau and Poupart, two good fellows doubtless, are one a tinsmith, and the other an independent gentleman; but neither has any practical knowledge of work of that sort. Now, Mr. Chairman, the Government will have to pay double the amount which it would have had to spend had Mr. Rainboth's tender of $70,057.60 been accepted. An amount at least equal to that sum, if not greater, has already been expended, and everything will have to be done over again this spring. The protection wall which was to be twelve inches thick and bound together with cement, was built of dry stone, field or cobble stone, without any binding; after it was completed, a thin coat of cement was spread over it. Then came the autumn rains of 1914; from night to night some part of the wall crumbled to the ground, sometimes over a length of five hundred, six hundred and even fifteen hundred feet; the farmer and passers-by used to say that the Germans had crept up during the night and effectively bombarded the wall. I am quite aware that the minister and his friends, in order to shield themselves, will put the blame on the district engineer. I am quite aware that some Conservative politicians demanded the dismissal of Mr. Michaud, the district engineer, and put
their foot to his throat to prevent him from doing his duty. Those Tories were in no way backward in crying out: Our turn has come to rule; the Liberals have no more anything to do; and as for you, Mr. Michaud, you toe the mark or you will lose your position. Mr. Michaud, as I stated before, should have performed his duty, and even take his dismissal if the Government had gone that far. Very likely we would not see that which now is going on at iLa-prairie. At the present time, one cannot proceed to Montreal with an ordinary load, and in few days this elevated road will be absolutely impracticable.
I now wish to take up the subject of the temporary road. How much has the Department of Public Works paid for this temporary road at Laprairie?


Robert Rogers: (Translation): $4,000.


Roch Lanctôt: I may say to the minister that that work could be done for $300. If he paid $4,000 for it he paid just $3,700 too much.
(Translation): I will ask the minister if he intends to make a temporary road this spring and whether if would not be better instead of making a temporary road to make a good macadamized road with a small wooden bridge. That temporary road which has cost the Government $4,000, has not cost the contractors $300; I assert that fact in all sincerity, and the engineer who has recommended the expenditure deserves to be superannuated and given a pension.
I wonder how long such a course will he pursued in respect of public works in our constituencies and how long the people will be deprived of the improvements which ought to be made with the moneys wasted for party ends. I am familiar with what has taken place in my county and the same things holds good for other parts. The politicians it is who see to the distribution of Government patronage and who hold back the works so as to obtain more money for election purposes. Work is undertaken, not for the benefit of the people, but in contemplation of election results. If the minister has to pay as high for public works elsewhere as for the famous temporary road at Laprairie, we may expect to hear of interesting doings from now to election time.
I will ask the minister how much will be required to complete the works? I am informed that the department intends to widen the road and make the wall 36 feet instead of 24. Does the minister intend to comply with that request? I would like to know also whether Mr. Arthur- Duford is still an employee of the Government, and

whether he has been employed during the winter as foreman to supervise the work? Has he made any report to the Government, and has he seen to it that the work was carried on according to the plans and specifications?


Robert Rogers: I have not a great deal
of fault to find with what my hon. friend has said respecting this very important work, because it is undoubtedly a work of great importance, in view of the fact that it is the connecting link of such an important highway to the city of Montreal, and therefore deserves very careful and sound consideration. In respect to the conditions of the contract to which my hon. friend has referred, when we first called for tenders we made it a condition that 1,400 feet of the walls should be finished during that present session. Mr. Rainboth tendered at $70,000, but he refused to accept those conditions, and the next lowest tenderers, who were $2,000 higher, accepted the contract at $70,000, the amount of Mr. Rainboth's tender. It is true that they have not carried out their contract as well as we would have liked and that some delay has taken place and some difficulties have arisen. Mr. Paradis, the engineer in charge, has given the matter a great deal of consideration and he has had difficulties in respect to the engineering problems, just as the contractors have had in respect to their contracts. My hon. friend mentioned the fact that we spent $4,000 for a temporary road last year to make conditions passable there, and he complains that this amount has been altogether too extravagant. That is the statement of my hon. friend; but "as against that, with all due respect to him, I may say that in the opinion of the engineers of my department this amount of $4,000 was very well spent and was cheap for the work that we secured for the purpose of making the temporary road. I am giving my hon. friend the report of the engineers of the department, who have had an opportunity of examining the work. In respect to the width of the road which my hon. friend has referred to, I may say that the road as at present laid out is only 24 feet wide, and I do not think it would be possible to change it at present. We are anxious to get the road completed as quickly as we can, and I quite agree that we must have a temporary road that will be satisfactory to the travelling public for the coming year. This will be taken up at once by the department,

and I am satisfied we will be able to pro vide a temporary road immediately that will meet with the requirements of the public that travel from Montreal. I do not know that it will be possible to build a macadamized road as the hon. gentleman suggests, but we will make a road of a temporary character that will be entirely satisfactory and will proceed with the contract as fast as we can. I am going to have a very thorough investigation made of this particular work, because I recognize its importance; and if it turns out that the present contractors are not carrying on the contract in the workmanlike manner they should, I will be prepared to recommend that it be taken out of their hands and to see that the work is built under the direction of the officers of the department, with a view of having it completed at the earliest possible moment. But in the meantime I will make provision for a temporary road that will meet all requirements for the travel in that district.


Roch Lanctôt: I understand from the minister's answer Ithat the contract was not awarded at the Bulk sum of $72 ,000, but at so much a yard. The contractors receive $1.50 per yard for the revetment wall. That easily explains the indifference of the contractors as to whether the wall crumbles to the ground or no.t. If it does crumble, they only have to put it up again at the same price, and that means a further profit for them. Mr. Duranceau went about saying to all comers: that revetment wall will not stand, buit we will rebuild it and be paid for the work. Will the minister stand for this sort of thing very long and allow those gentlemen to plunder the public treasury in that manner ? Of course, the public treasury is pretty well drained as it is.


Robert Rogers: The conditions my hon. friend has referred to will not occur again.


Jacques Bureau: The minister stated just now that the contract was let for $70,000. The hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Lanctot) states that last April he put a question on tlhe Order Paper asking how this work was being paid for. The answer was that so much was being paid for concrete, so much for reinforced concrete, so much for rip-rap, so much for gravel, and so on. He wants to know whether the contract price was based on the quantity of these different materials, or whether the contract was let for the fixed sum of $70,000.

11 ill


Robert Rogers: The contract price was 170,000. We arrived at that figure by calculating the quantity of the materia] and the price per cubic yard.


Jacques Bureau: The contract was not
actually let for $72,000? I suppose the engineers figured out the amount of material that would go into the road at ilhe prices mentioned in the answer given to my hon. friend from Laprairie-Napierville.


Robert Rogers: The contract price was $70,000, not $72,000.


Roch Lanctôt: What
strikes me as most remarkable in this connection, is that $60,000 have been spent and nothing has been done as yet. That is as clear as crystal. The minister told me, a few days ago, that $49,600 had been spent to date; the farmers, however, have not yet been paid for the stone they have drawn all winter, and that item alone amounts to $15,000. As everything will have to be done over again, I say that the work will cost beyond $70,000.
The minister has not told me whether Mr. Arthur Duford was still in the Government's employ, what was his salary, and how much he has received to date?


Robert Rogers: I understand that the inspector is still in the employ of the department, and that he has been on the work during the winter receiving material.


Roch Lanctôt: How much is Arthur Poupart, the carter, paid a day?


Robert Rogers: I have not the-information here, but it would not be more than $3.


Roch Lanctôt: Does the minister know that this man Poupart has been working for himself all the year round, and been getting $3 a day from the Government as well?


Robert Rogers: I will take that up with our engineers.


Mr. VERVILLE:: This road is not in my constituency, but I have had a little experience of it. If the Government are going to spend $4,000 on this road, as the minister has stated, they ought to get a great deal of work done for that money. I am sorry the Government has been fooled so badly over this road. My hon. friend has said that it could not have cost more than $300. I do not know how much it cost myself, but I could have made quite as good a job of it for $300, and made money. I should like the minister to
take a drive over that road on a wet day. I saw as many as eighteen automobiles stuck there one Sunday last summer. If the minister goes, though, he should have a team of horses or a truck in front of him, for he is sure to get stuck. I have heard several American tourists, who have come to Montreal over that road complain about it. Some tourists, after getting within a few miles of Montreal, have turned back altogether, thinking that if that was a sample of the roads in the province of Quebec they did' not want any more of them. This summer, on account of the disturbance abroad, we expect to get a lot of tourists in Montreal, and we should not like anything to interfere with their coming to our city. I think it would be in the interests not only of the city of Montreal, but of the department and of the whole country, if the minister would take a look at that road on a wet day. He certainly should not let the road be rebuilt by the same contractor.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Public Works-chargeable to income-Ra-prairie protection works, $20,000.


Roch Lanctôt: What is the amount
required to finish the work.


Robert Rogers: I am not in a position to give my hon. friend definite information. It will be something more than the estimate provides.


Roch Lanctôt: It will cost three times as much.


Robert Rogers: No, not as much as that, I hope.


Roch Lanctôt: Unless you change the contractor.


Robert Rogers: We will give you a good road, anyway.


Roch Lanctôt: I hope so.


Jacques Bureau: I would like to ask the
minister if any definite plan has been agreed upon to make this temporary road complete next season and when the work is going to be done.	[DOT]


Robert Rogers: We will start work as soon as possible on the temporary road. We must get that in order immediately. There is no special plan as yet, but the engineer has instructions to get the work done promptly. Representations came from the automobile club in Montreal the other day.

Malbaie-to complete pier, $17,000.


Jacques Bureau: How far apart are these two wharves mentioned in the items: Malbaie, to complete pier, $17,000; and " Murray Bay-wharf improvement and repairs, $4,400"?	'


Mr. E. LAPOINTE :: Malbaie is the
French translation of Murray Bay.


Robert Rogers: This is Malbaie in Gaspd county; it is not the same.


Jacques Bureau: Is this to complete the work at Malbaie?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
New Carlisle-repairs to wharf, $1,500.


Charles Marcil: Will the minister explain this item?


Robert Rogers: This amount is required to rebuild the slip and repair the mooring posts and planking of the wharf at New Carlisle. The work is necessary in order to put the wharf in a serviceable condition, as it is now in a very dilapidated condition and dangerous to travel. It was asked for by the district engineer, Mr. Tache.


Charles Marcil: Will the work be done this year?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Nominingue-wharf, $1,700.


Jacques Bureau: I see no item in these
Estimates for Nicolet. May I ask the minister if the wharf that was being constructed at Nicolet is finished?


Robert Rogers: Yes, the work is finished, and the final Estimate paid.


Jacques Bureau: Has the land been paid
for? I see in the Auditor General's Report that there is the following item:
Purchase price of right of way, Corporation Episcopal Catholique Romaine, $450.
I understand that there is a lawsuit pending before the Exchequer Court, that proceedings have been taken to expropriate this land and that the amount offered has been refused.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend will be pleased to know that his Lordship the Bishop has accepted our price of $450 without the excommunication of anybody.


Jacques Bureau: I am glad that my mind has been relieved. I see by a copy of the defence, wherein excommunication was threatened, that there is also another condition placed upon the acceptance of the

$450 and that is the construction of a retaining wall.


Robert Rogers: We had to do that anyway. That is going on.
Mr. 1BUREAU: What depth of water will you have at this particular wharf?


Robert Rogers: The engineer thinks about nine or ten feet.
North Temiskaming-wharf, $10,000.


William Pugsley: Is this to complete the wharf?


Robert Rogers: No, the contract and plans are not ready yet.
Paspebiac-wharf repairs, $2,000.


Charles Marcil: Will the minister explain this item?


Robert Rogers: This amount of $2,000 is required to renew the planking and place some of the stringers and fenders of the Robin, Jones & Co. wharf. The work is necessary in the interest of trade and navigation as the wharf under existing circumstances does not provide the necessary accommodation. It will be gone on with this year.


Charles Marcil: Has the department
acquired the Robin Jones wharf?


Robert Rogers: No, we are not the owners of the wharf; we are just repairing it for the public benefit.


Charles Marcil: There is a public wharf already. Why is that not used?


Robert Rogers: I do not know. The district engineer, Mr. Tache, in his report of Dec. 27, 1912, states that:
There are two wharves, one belonging to Robin, Jones, Whitman and Company and the other to the Government. This wharf is the most useful on account of its situation and facility of access and the Government wharf, more used as a breakwater, is a great protection against the accumulation of sand and makes the harbour at this point a perfect shelter.
The work is entirely departmental and is done under the recommendation of Mr. Tachd.


Charles Marcil: Why does the Government spend money on a private wharf or a wharf that belongs to Robin, Jones & Company? That is something new?


Robert Rogers: That has been a very common practice of the department for, many long years in a very limited way. Where the expenditure of a small amount will be of advantage to the travelling public, re-

pairs are made but not with the view of building a new wharf.


Charles Marcil: Has the department been asked to acquire this wharf or has it been offered at any price?


Robert Rogers: The wharf has been offered to us but we have not purchased it.


Charles Marcil: Would the minister have any objection to stating the price that was asked?


Robert Rogers: I have not that information here; I can get it for my hon. friend.


Charles Marcil: Will wharfage fees be charged on this wharf?


Robert Rogers: No, it has not been transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Charles Marcil: Then it remains a private wharf?


Robert Rogers: It would until we bought it, but still there will be no charges to the public for using it.


Charles Marcil: This wharf has been
built right in front of the property of Robin, Jones & Co., a large fishing firm, and has been used by them as a private wharf for a long time. The people of Paspebiac wanted ia public wharf, a public wharf was built and now the department seems to have abandoned that wharf and is spending money on private property. That is rather an ususual departure. Will the work be done this year?


Robert Rogers: That is the present intention.


Charles Marcil: Is the whole amount to be expended on the wharf?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Charles Marcil: I might as well call the minister's attention to the breakwater at Paspebiac which was started some years ago and which was not extended far enough for the use of the fishermen. Paspebiac is the most important shipping point on the Bale des Chaleurs and it is the headquarters of this large fishing firm of Robin, Jones & Co., or, as it used to be called, Robin, Colas & Co. The fishermen look to this breakwater for the protection of their boats. We made a start there and spent, I think, $15,000 under the old Administration. The extension of this breakwater is very badly needed. I do not know whether a request has been made for an extension or not


Robert Rogers: We have had no request
for an extension.
Petite Riviere Est breakwater, $21,400.


William Pugsley: Will the minister explain this item?


Robert Rogers: This is required for the
construction of an open-face crib-breakwater 100 feet long, which is required for the protection of the fishermen from western gales. Several requests were received by letter from private individuals on May last.
It is all a revote; nothing has been expended.


Charles Marcil: Is it intended to go on
with the work this year?


Robert Rogers: This is like most of the
other public works.
Rimouski harbour improvements, $50,000.


Jacques Bureau: What improvements are
to be made5


Robert Rogers: The work is under contract.


William Pugsley: Will this complete th* work ?


Robert Rogers: No.


William Pugsley: What is the total
cost?


Robert Rogers: $355,000. There is a stipulation in the contract that we are to spend so much a year until the work is completed.


William Pugsley: The improvements include dredging?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Charles Marcil: Is it intended to have a deep-water wharf for steamers?


Robert Rogers: Yes, for all ocean ships.


Charles Marcil: I understand the main
wharf is at Father point and that this wharf at Rimouski is of very little use.


Robert Rogers: The Rimouski wharf is
the only one used for ocean ships.


Charles Marcil: What about Father Point? Is it not there where the pilots and mails are landed?


Robert Rogers: The wharf at Father Point is used only for the pilots' ships.


William Pugsley: Is this to make improvements up the Rimouski river toward* Price's mill?


Robert Rogers: No.

Rimouski wharf renewals and repairs, $3,000.


Charles Marcil: What is the total amount spent on the Rimouski harbour?	.


Robert Rogers: $332,000 has already been expended.


Charles Marcil: Is that in addition to the $355,000?


Robert Rogers: No, part of that is in this amount.


Charles Marcil: Does the minister expect there will be big business at Rimouski?


Robert Rogers: There is a good deal of lumbering and trade of that kind.


Charles Marcil: I hope the expenditure is justified.
RiviSre du Loup (Fraserville) harbour imp ovtment, $50,000.


Charles Marcil: What is this work?


Robert Rogers: This is a very important work, and one that requires a great deal of consideration. When we first considered the idea of making the improvements in this harbour, we did not estimate that its cost would be anything like what it appeared on the report that it was likely to be, and we are having another examination made to see if we cannot get the cost down to a reasonable figure. The present report seems to be altogether too high.
Mr. jMARCIL: Is 'it {contemplated to dredge the harbour as well as to increase the wharf accommodation?


Robert Rogers: Yes. If we go on with the work, it will be absolutely necessary to do some dredging.


Ernest Lapointe: The department does not intend to proceed with the work during the present year?


Robert Rogers: We are making a further examination, and I do not expect we shall proceed this year.
Riviere du Loup (en haut) lock and dam, $10,000.


Jacques Bureau: Is this in the county of Maskinongd?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Where is this dam to be located, and what is the object of building the lock?


Robert Rogers: The work is with a view of preventing the continual dredging that has been going on there year after year. 
By this vote we hope to be able to have a finality and avoid the necessity of continual dredging.


Jacques Bureau: Where will the dam be
located?


Robert Rogers: At the mouth of the
river.


Jacques Bureau: Below Tourville's mill?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
RivlSre Laguerre Improvements, $15,000.


Charles Marcil: Is this situated in Chateauguay county?


Robert Rogers: It is in Huntingdon
county.


Charles Marcil: What is the work for?


Robert Rogers: For a canal ten miles
long, from Riviere Laguerre to River St. Louis. The improvements are necessary to prevent the flooding of 20,000 acres of land. The public works erected at the foot of Lake St. Francis near Valleyfield caused the lake to maintain a higher level and overflow into Riviere Laguerre, causing the river to flood about 20,000 acres of land. The work consists of excavating a canal over 10 miles long and 20 feet wide at the bottom, with slopes of one in one on both sides, from Riviere Laguerre through the marshy lands southeast of St. Anicet, south of Port Lewis and west of Ste. Barbe and St. Stanislas to River St. Louis north of St. Stanislas. It is applied for on behalf of the people, of that district.


Charles Marcil: Will this amount cover
all the work in the district?


Robert Rogers: I am afraid it will not.


Mr. PUGS LEY:: When I was Minister of Public Works this work was very strongly urged by the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb). It seemed by reason of the vast area which would be reclaimed that if would be a desirable vote. Why was this work not undertaken before? There was a vote last year of $15,000 for it, no part of which was spent.


Robert Rogers: We did not seem to have the same amount of freshet last year that we usually have, and as the work was not pressed for so energetically, it was overlooked, but it is very possible it will have tc be done this year.
Stratford, Quebec-repairs to wharf, $2,500.


Mr. TOBIN:: What are these repairs?


Robert Rogers: The amount is required to reinforce the approach to the wharf by filling three spans with solid stone cribs. The work is necessary to avoid the total destruction of the bridge by the moving of the ice in the spring. The approach which was originally constructed is too weak to stand the heavy ice pressure. The repairs have been recommended by the district engineer.


Edmund William Tobin: Will this work be done by day labour or by contract?


Robert Rogers: By day labour, I fancy.


Edmund William Tobin: Has anybody been recommended to take charge of the work?


Robert Rogers: No.


Edmund William Tobin: Does the hon. minister expect to go on with the work this coming season?


Robert Rogers: I think we will have to,
because of the damage which the ice has been doing to the wharf.
Ste. Anne des Monts-landing pier, $95,000.


Charles Marcil: Will the minister explain this item?


Robert Rogers: This amount is required to build a landing pier, which is necessary to provide additional landing accommodation for traffic in the neighbourhood. During the present fiscal year, $20,000 was expended in constructing 150 feet of the shore portion of the pier. Contract price, $112,000.


Charles Marcil: What depth of water is
there at that place?


Robert Rogers: About 25 feet.
Ste. Anne de la Pocatifire-wharf extension, $6,700.


Ernest Lapointe: This item has been in the Estimates for the last four years. Will the minister tell me whether anything has been done?	.


Robert Rogers: This item has been in the Estimates for five years. Tenders were called for in 1912; apparently nothing has been done up to date. The lowest tender was $4,185. The wharf at that place was built in 1884. I shall be glad to look into this matter; it has not been brought to my attention. It looks as if this work should go on, after waiting five years.


Ernest Lapointe: Is it the intention of the minister to call for tenders this year?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Ste. Anne du Saguenay-repairs to wharf, $10,500.


Charles Marcil: There are two items for improvements to the wharf at Ste. Anne du Saguenay. Are there two wharves at this place?


Robert Rogers: I have not the information here, but I will have it to-morrow. We will not duplicate the work.


William Pugsley: That will be all right if the hon. minister sees that only one vote is spent.
St. Germain de Kamouraska-wharf, $10,000.


Ernest Lapointe: This item has been in the Estimates for the last four years. Has anything been done to carry on the work?


Robert Rogers: The contract plans are ready; that is all.


Ernest Lapointe: During the provincial elections in Quebec in 1912 a certain gentleman in the vicinity of St. Germain de Kamouraska sold a quantity of timber for that wharf to the Department of Public Works. At the following session I asked the minister whether the wharf would be built by the Government, and the minister told me that he would call for tenders and arrange for a contract. He told me also that the contractor would have to buy that timber from the Government. That is four years ago; I should like to know what has been done with that timber.


Robert Rogers: I have no information with regard to the timber purchased in 1912.


Ernest Lapointe: I have the papers; the return was laid on the table last session.


Robert Rogers: I have no information that I can give my hon. friend.


Ernest Lapointe: I would like to know
what became of that timber.


Robert Rogers: If we purchased any, we would like to know too.
St. Irenfie-addition to wharf, $10,000.


Charles Marcil: Will the minister explain this item?


Robert Rogers: The amount is necessary to provide proper shelter for vessels, particularly during the winter season. The addition when completed will offer a winter berth for the ferry steamer Champlain and for the icebreakers that go below Quebec. St. IrAnee is one of the few safe winter ports on the north shore of the St. Lawrence below Quebec. When this addi-

tion is constructed it will be used by a great number of schooners which find it difficult to get winter quarters elsewhere.
Mt. MARCH. Before we leave the Quebec Estimates, I desire to call attention to two pretty large items, both revotes and Doth for the Island of Orleans-two new wharves authorized. Nothing seems to have been done there. Would the minister please explain?


Robert Rogers: The plans are not ready yet, and nothing has been done in either case.
Ontario-Brockville harbour improvements, $40,000.'


William Pugsley: Will this finish the work? I see that $50,000 was spent last year.


Robert Rogers: Yes, I was at Bellevi'le the other day and was looking at this wharf. It is very satisfactory. This amount will finish it and will build a shed as well.	r
Burlington-to repay Hutcheson and Latimer the security deposited in connection with their contract for revetment wall, $2,180.


Charles Marcil: Is this Tevetment wall to prevent damage by the wash of the waters of the lake?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Mr. PUGSLEY. Why is this vote required if the contractors finished their work?


Robert Rogers: The security deposited by the contractors was forfeited. But they come forward and make a very strong case that we should not have forfeited their deposit cheque. It is a matter of long standing.


William Pugsley: It is a very unusual thing to return a cheque that has been forfeited. The minister ought to give the committee more information than merely to say that the contractors made out a strong case. In such a case as this, I think, it is usual to give the" committee particulars.


Robert Rogers: I do not know that I have any particulars that I can give. I remember that when I visited Hamilton about a year ago, the matter was taken up by the city council and the people of Hamilton generally. It was an open question that injustice had been done in some form to the contractors, and it was claimed that they were entitled to the return of their deposit.
 ,


William Pugsley: They failed to carry out their work, I suppose?
Fighting' island, Detroit river-improving the channel, $57,000.


William Pugsley: Will the minister kindly explain this?


Robert Rogers: District Engineer Lamb states that the object is to double-track the existing ship canal in the Detroit river by widening and deepening certain parts on the Canadian side of Fighting island, to relieve the congestion of traffic in the American channel. The result will be a channel of a minimum width of 300 feet and a minimum depth of 21 feet. It will be of great benefit and assistance to the traffic passing at this point.


William Pugsley: What is the estimated cost?


Robert Rogers: Some $300,000.
Goderich harbour, $200,000.


William Pugsley: Will this finish the work?


Robert Rogers: Yes, this is expected to finish the work there.
Kingston harbour-improvements, $150,000. Mr. PUGSLEY: This is quite a large item. Would the minister please explain?


Robert Rogers: These improvements were originally asked for by the city council, by the Dominion Marine Association and by the Kingston Board of Trade. The improvements consist of a combined roadway and wharf to replace the existing Cataraqui bridge. Such parts of the bridge as siha.ll be directed are to be removed, retaining walls built, three timber cribs, two at the open for the proposed lift-bridge, and one in the western approach, piers and abutments for two highway bridges and one lift-bridge, etc. When these improvements are finished, the department intends to construct a steel bridge. Kingston is a transhipping point for grain brought down from the Great Lakes and owing to the enlargement of the Welland canal the facilities there now are inadequate and this work is necessary in view of the change in conditions.


William Pugsley: Does part of this work include the building of a highway bridge at Yarmouth?


Robert Rogers: I believe it does.


William Pugsley: Does that take the place of the toll bridge that has existed there for a long time?	[DOT]


Robert Rogers: Yes. This has been under way for two or three years.


William Pugsley: The question came up
when I was minister and I was under the impression that some other arrangements were to be made by the city for the building of the bridge. What was the justification for the building of a highway bridge by the department?


Robert Rogers: I have not the exact details of the reasons at hand. This contract has been under way for some years, it has already passed the House several times and I shall be glad to look it up and bring to the House the statements made when it was originally introduced.


William Pugsley: I think the minister
should inform the committee about this matter as if this principle were adopted the demands on the Federal treasury would be very great. Some few cases of this kind have occurred in the past where highway bridges have been built by the Federal Government when the circumstances have been peculiar. For instance in Manitoba a bridge was built on the ground that was on the boundary line between two provinces, but there was a good deal of criticism even of that. It is a very important subject having reference to the fact that the provinces heretofore have constructed all highway bridges.


Robert Rogers: I quite appreciate what
my hon. friend has said. I remember when my predecessor brought in this vote there wa3 an explanation that appeared to be satisfactory to members on both sides.


William Pugsley: The item, might pass
and the information be laid on the table.
Peterborough dry dock, $25,000.


William Pugsley: Do the Government propose to build this as a Government work?


Robert Rogers: The work is not yet commenced It is for use in connection with vessels on the Trent Valley canal, a very small dock.
Port Dover harbour improvements, $50,000. Mr. NESBITT: Has any work been done there?


Robert Rogers: The plans are not yet
ready and nothing has been done.


William Pugsley: Port Dover, I think, has been a private harbour. Has it been taken over by the Government?


Robert Rogers: I believe we have taken over the harbour. This is to make improvements.


William Pugsley: How much was paid-for that harbour?


Robert Rogers: I have not the information here.


William Pugsley: I make no objection to the Government taking it over. I am glad they are doing so. Years ago, probably before Confederation, many of the harbours on the Great Lakes were vested in private corporations. I think that was a mistake. It has proved a detriment to the ports and navigation and the interests of the people and I am very glad that the Government is taking these harbours over. The late Government took over several of them and it is a policy that might be carried out to great advantage with respect to all harbours on the Great Lakes.


Mr. NESBITT:: Have the Government as a matter of fact taken it over? The Grand Trunk have control there yet, have they not?


Robert Rogers: We have not the information here.
Rainy River-survey and maintenance of gauges, $17,000.


William Pugsley: What is that?


Robert Rogers: This is an international
river and it is a necessary expenditure under our arrangement for the operations at that point.


William Pugsley: Does the minister not
think it would be advisable to have all expenditures which come under the jurisdiction of the International Waterways Commission put under head? We have some items, I think, in connection with the Lake of the Woods which seems to be for a similar purpose as that river enters the lake of the Woods and they are really one water so far as international questions are concerned. My criticism is not so much of the amount as of the placing of these items under the Public Works Department.


Robert Rogers: This item is due to the
necessity of surveys and arrangements in connection with the booming privileges at the mouth of the river. These items do not really come under the heading to which my hon. friend has referred.
Richard's Landing-wharf reconstruction and warehouse, $9,000.


Robert Rogers: I beg to move that this item be reduced to $6,000, which is all that is required to finish the work.


William Pugsley: This is on Manitoulin island, is it not?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Sault Ste. Marie-wharf repairs, $5,000.
['Yes.']
William Pugsley: Will that finish the work?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Edmond Proulx: Could the minister tell me on this item what is intended to be done this year on the Nation river?


Robert Rogers: We are asking for $10,000 to complete the improvements on Nation river. It appears that the most satisfactory manner of proceeding with this work will be with teams and scrapers. We cannot use a large plant there of any description.


Edmond Proulx: At what place are they doing any work?


Robert Rogers: At Forks, in Dundas county.
Manitoba-L,e Pas-wharf, $15,000.


Frank Oliver: How much is the wharf to cost? i see there was a vote for $30,000 Ja^t year* This year the Vote is for $15,000.


Robert Rogers: We have revised the plans, and we shall now be able to build the wharf for $15,000.
Red river-improvements, $30,000.


Frank Oliver: Are these improvements
below the locks or above?


Robert Rogers: This work is for the purpose of strengthening the protection work at the new entrance of the mouth of the Red river. This will be accomplished ,by driving sheet piles over 1,855 lineal feet on the west side, and 1,200 lineal feet on the east side, and placing in the work 1,200 cords of ballast stone. The work is necessary in order to make the protection work of a permanent character. This channel is the only one for traffic between Red river and lake Winnipeg
Red river-St. Andrew's lock and dam-improvements, $22,000.


Frank Oliver: What is tlhe matter with the dam. I understand that the St. Andrew's dam is as bad as the Transcontinental.


Robert Rogers: This is to provide for an extension of the north lock wall at a cost of $14,000. Then grading, seeding, sodding and fencing has to be done at a cost of $8,000. The work proposed is the 9 p.m. extension of the north lock wall for a distance of 220 feet, with a return wing of 20 feet.


Frank Oliver: These are outside improvements?	'


Robert Rogers: Yes.


William Pugsley: Was the bridge ever built?


Robert Rogers: Yes
Selkirk-harbour improvements and repair to plants, $10,000.


Frank Oliver: What harbour improvements are there at Selkirk? I see there was a vote last year for $100,000.


Robert Rogers: We have to provide a harbour for the different steamers on the lakes. A considerable amount of work in that direction was done last year, and I understand it was much appreciated.


Frank Oliver: Was the $100,000 spent last year? Will this $10,000 complete the work?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Winnipeg Harbour-wharves, $75,000.


Frank Oliver: What new work is being done at Winnipeg harbour?


Robert Rogers: We are having two or three wharves built at Winnipeg to accommodate the traffic that has developed on the Red river owing to the advantages of the St. Andrew's lock and dam, which have made tlhe Red river very navigable. We had an estimate in last year for $200,000, but did not spend very much of it.


Jacques Bureau: Where are the wharves located?


Robert Rogers: At the foot of Notre Dame street, right in the city of Winnipeg.


William Pugsley: Do I understand the minister to say that there has been a very satisfactory increase in traffic between points on lake Winnipeg and the city of Winnipeg as a result of the building of the St. Andrew's lock?


Robert Rogers: Yes, a wonderful development has taken place there.


William Pugsley: I am very glad to hear that because there has been a great deal of

doubt as to the desirability of spending so much money there. Greater wharf accommodation at Winnipeg would necessarily result from an increase in traffic.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend is quite
right. Hon. gentlemen can expect that when I come here next year I shall ask Parliament for a considerable sum for the development of harbours and wharves in the city of Winnipeg, which will be necessary on account of the increased traffic on the Red river.


Jacques Bureau: Has that traffic developed only below Winnipeg, or above as well?


Robert Rogers: It has developed all the
way up the river.


Jacques Bureau: What kind of boats have they there?


Robert Rogers: Some are flat-bottomed
and some are not.


Jacques Bureau: Do they go up as far as Emerson?


Robert Rogers: No.


Jacques Bureau: How much of a draught is there above Winnipeg?


Robert Rogers: About 14 feet.


Jacques Bureau: Is that due to the lock at St. Andrews?


Robert Rogers: The water backs up the
Assiniboine river for five or six miles.


Frank Oliver: It has been stated that bad sanitary results to the city of Winnipeg and vicinity have followed from the holding back of the water by the St. Andrew's lock. Have there been any bad results and, if so, has any action been taken to relieve the situation?


Robert Rogers: We have had no special evidence of very bad effects. The backing up of the water causes a good deal of the silt to fall in, and that necessitates a certain amount of dredging between Winnipeg and St. Andrew's lock. Apparently the river remaining at the high level is washing in the banks to some extent. I have not heard much about the sanitary conditions or any objection in connection with that side of the question.


William Pugsley: Having reference to the sanitary conditions by reason of the curtain in the lock gates, if that be the correct expression, there is always a splendid opportunity for drainage; at all events in the spring the whole river flows right out.


Robert Rogers: But you inflict very serious damage if you open the locks and let the water rush out. It affects the bank of the river through the city of Winnipeg and people complain very bitterly about that condition. We have to exercise great care in opening the locks in that way so that the water will go down at a very gradual speed.


William Pugsley: Still the curtains are an essential feature in making a success of it?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Frank Oliver: If the river only falls gradually it will not flush the undesirable element out very satisfactorily?


Robert Rogers: The river has to be flushed out at a very slow rate.


Frank Oliver: Well, if it is not really
flushing, it is not doing very much. Everybody in the West is interested in the city ol Winnipeg. I would like to say that there is liable to be serious consequences from emptying the sewage of Winnipeg into that water, made dead water, by the dam at the locks. Probably the only remedy would be to carry the sewage down past the locks so that it would drop into the water, if sewage has to be emptied into the river, below the part where the water is held still by the dam. There must be a very serious sanitaiy problem involved which ought to receive attention before the terrible results that might occur have occurred. At some time, if there is a terrible outbreak of disease in the city of Winnipeg, the people will be very much interested and it will take very stringent measures to remedy the condition. I think the time to apply the remedy is before the catastrophe occurs. When we know that there is a condition which in the nature of things must tend to very undesirable results.


Robert Rogers: We have had no complaints up to date.
Public Works, Saskatchewan and Alberta- Pigeon lake-improvements, $2,500.


Frank Oliver: What is the nature of the improvements at Pigeon lake and what is the purpose?


Robert Rogers: Pigeon creek traverses 15 miles of low lying land between Pigeon lake and the Battle river and it is proposed to straighten the creek at several bars and to clear the creek of dams and dead wood. The estimated cost is $2,500. A very large area of hay land bordering on the creek is subject to overflow. The purpose of straight-

ening the creek is to improve the flow and Jet the water dram ouj of the hay land. This is hr the contin uiFcn of work done last year and the building of a dam in some clearing which has been of immense service to the district. We require this amount to complete the drainage of about 20 square miles thereby allowing a large number of settlers to procure hay for stock.


Frank Oliver: What the minister has said to indicate dealing with the stream that flows out of Pigeon lake, I would like to know if the action that is being taken in connection with the straightening of that stream is with the intention, or is likely to have the result, of lowering the level of Pigeon lake?


Robert Rogers: It is just the removal of certain obstructions. I could not give my hon. friend a very definite answer on that point, because I have not the information before me at the moment, but if my hon. friend is 'Specially interested, I will be glad to have it looked up in the department and get the report of our engineer dealing fully with the matter.


Frank Oliver: I would be very much interested in getting the information as to what the Government has in view. Although Pigeon lake is not in the constituency which I represent, it is in the immediately adjoining constituency, and there are certain reasons why it is of particular interest - to the people of Edmonton. While I have no criticism to offer of the attempt to straighten the creek, which is the outlet of Pigeon lake, I would like to say that I have very great objection to such action being taken as would tend to lower the level of the lake.
I would think it would be very much more in the interest of the country at large if means were taken to hold the water of the lake at such a level as would conserve the spring freshets and would .allow a more permanent flow of water down the creek than occurs now in a dry season.
I would suggest that, if anything is being done with Pigeon lake, such works should be constructed as would constitute it a reservoir rather than that any action should be taken that would decrease the water in the lake.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: How large is Pigeon lake?


Frank Oliver: It is about 8 miles long by 6 wide.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Is there a stream running right through?
[Mr Rogers.]


Frank Oliver: It is the source of a stream which, with another similar stream, forms the Battle river. Pigeon lake is a very remarkable body of water; it occur pies the crest of a height of land and is one of the sources of the Battle river. It is a lake that is very remarkably prolific in whitefish, contains very good water and has sometimes been looked to as a possible means of water supply for the city of Edmonton.	/


Robert Rogers: You have some navigation?


Frank Oliver: The lake itself would be navigable but it has no source of supply except springs. It occupies practically the height of land. The flow from the lake is practically nil at certain period's in some seasons and the little stream is practically dried up. I think it would be quite in order to make provision against that condition by holding the waters of the lake when there is a surplus and allowing them to pass out in such quantity only as to maintain a continuous supply of water in the stream.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Is the lake drying up at all?


Frank Oliver: Like all the lakes in the West it rises and falls, and w<= cannot tell exactly why it does so. It may not fall in a dry season; it may not rise very much in a wet season; it rises and falls by some rule of its own; but at any rate it does rise and fall, and while it may be for a succession of years the stream coming out of it will fall continually, at other times it will , rise.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Is there as much water in it at any season of the year as there was four or five years ago?


Frank Oliver: Yes, there is no permanent depletion.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Nearly all our lakes in Manitoba, except lake Winnipeg and similar lakes, are apparently drying up, although they were formerly good lakes.


Frank Oliver: That is not the case with this particular lake, but it is in a very remarkable position. While most of the lakes in Manitoba and the prairies generally occupy depressions and have other waters flowing into them, this lake is on the crest of the height of land.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: We also have a lake on the top of Turtle mountain, lake Max. During the last two or three years the water

in that lake has been getting less, although for twenty-eight years or so previous to that it contained each year about the same quantity of water.


Robert Rogers: In answer to what my hon. friend has said, I find the following words in the report made by Chief Engineer Elliott:
This work will be a great public service in holding the water rights of the lake.
Whatever he means by that, perhaps my hon. friend will understand.


Frank Oliver: I do not know.


Robert Rogers: I shall be glad to send my hon. friend the chief engineer's full report on the matter.


Frank Oliver: Notwithstanding what the report may be, I hope the minister will keep in mind that my judgment is that the water of the lake should be conserved.


Robert Rogers: That is evidently what the chief engineer says this work will do.
Prince Albert protection works, $9,000.


Frank Oliver: What is the nature of
these protection works?


Robert Rogers: This vote is required for the construction of 504 feet of bank protection work for the completion of the work on the wharf at Prince Albert. This work was asked for by the district engineer in order to protect the river bank from being carried away.


William Pugsley: I suppose that is the same wharf that was undertaken while I was minister?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Frank Oliver: In this connection I wish to draw the minister's attention to the fact that for a number of years there has been before the Government application for assistance or action looking to the protection of the river bank in front of the city of Edmonton. In many respects the two conditions are similar. The city of Edmonton is located along the river bank; and if the bank falls away the ground supporting the buildings also falls away and the streets and buildings in the city are destroyed. About 500 yards of the river bank, in front of a very thickly inhabited part of the city, where the main street runs close to the edge of the bank, has fallen away so much that some houses and a part of what at one time was the main street have sunk into the valley. The damage occurs from time 137
to time. Very many representations have been made to the Government asking for assistance in protecting the bank, and several surveys have been made by the department. I think delegations have come here urging the Government to take means to protect the bank; and there has been a suggestion that if the Government would make the plans, the city would be willing to put up half the cost to show its good faith and willingness to help itself. The conditions are so different from what they are at Prince Albert, the bank of the river being 200 feet high at Edmonton, that it is absolutely beyond the financial ability of the city to protect the property interests on its own account. At the same time we feel that the Government has the same responsibility in regard to the protection of the bank at the front of the city of Edmonton as it has in regard to the front of the city of Prince Albert. If the minister has any information he can give in regard to the intentions of the Government towards Edmonton, I shall be very glad to have it.


Robert Rogers: I have some knowledge
of the conditions at Edmonton which my hon. friend has described. In regard to the small item in the Estimates for Prince Albert, it is not altogether fdr the protection of the bank; it is for the protection of the wharf and probably of the bank to some extent at the same time. The two cases are probably not parallel; but I fancy the case in the city of Edmonton is parallel to some extent to the case we have in the city of Winnipeg in respect to the outflow of the water through the St. Andrew's lock, causing a great deal of damage to the banks as to which very serious complaint is made from time to time by the owners of lots on the river. This complaint has always been transmitted from the city council to the Government, and we are held blamable to that extent. In view of the fact that no new or special items of any account are in the Estimates for this year, nothing has been suggested in the way of providing protection for the banks either in Winnipeg or in Edmonton; but I believe when we are here next year, we shall have to get together and see if we cannot got Parliament to vote an amount for each place with a view of protecting the banks at both cities. The work in both Winnipeg and Edmonton is very necessary, and it probably belongs to this Parliament to render certain assistance. The city of Winnipeg, like the city of Edmcnton, is very



willing to contribute its share; but it does not deem it its duty to pay the whole cost of protection of its banks. This matter will come up at a later date.


Frank Oliver: Several surveys of the bank at Edmonton have been made by officers of the Government. The problem is possibly complicated or difficult; and, while I would not wish to throw any aspersions on the abilities of any officers who have already made examinations, I think the Government would be acting wisely if it secured the best talent that could be got on this continent to make an expert examination of the ground with the information that the surveyors have already collected.
The gentlemen who have made the surveys are no doubt expert engineers, but I doubt if they have any expert knowledge of the peculiar conditions which have resulted in that sliding bank. If there are any parties who have expert knowledge of these conditions, I would urge upon the Government the desirability of getting their advice, based on an examination on the ground and with the advantage of the surveys that have actually been made, so that when Parliament meets again the Government would have that information before it on which to base any consideration it might see fit to give to the matter.


Robert Rogers: I will have that looked into.
Sturgeon river improvements, $9,500.


Frank Oliver: This is a matter in regard to which I have had some correspondence with the department. In that correspondence I said that while I had no doubt the Government had the best intentions in entering upon these improvements, they apparently have incurred the opposition of a number of the settlers wlho occupy lands along this river. I would urge upon the minister that however desirable it may be to constitute this large creek or small river into a measurably navigable stream, there are certain property rights of the people owning the land on both sides of the stream that are entitled to be regarded. Apparently, the officers of the Government, in dealing with the matter, have proceeded without any regard to these rights, having torn down fences and blown up bridges which were, as I understand it, actually on the property of these owners, and built at their expense and for their convenience. In the first place, I do not think the Government had the right to do this, and if it had the right,

I do not think they should have done it, at any rate without due consideration, or without compensation to the people so injuriously affected. I do not know how far the minister is aware of these facts, but I have taken some trouble to bring them to the attention of the department by correspondence, and I take this opportunity of bringing them to the minister's own notice.


Robert Rogers: The matter is an important one, evidently. However, I must confess I do not remember having had it under my personal observation. But I shall be glad to make a personal matter of it and to look into the facts. If conditions are as my hon. friend suggests, they should be corrected, and will be corrected.


Frank Oliver: I cannot help but say,
from the information I have received, that the officers of the Government have acted very reprehensibly in ignoring what was thoroughly understood to be the absolute property rights of the people who owned the land along the stream. I have no fault to find if the Government sees fit to spend the money to make this stream navigable for motor-boats,-that is the most that can be hoped for. The stream will make a pleasant connection between two lakes, and it runs through a nice tract of country. I have nothing but commendation for the Government for undertaking this work, but in carrying it out they have certainly run counter to the rights of the people occupying the land and have incurred a great deal of enmity. I am not saying that I am particularly sorry for that.


Robert Rogers: We shall have to correct that.


Frank Oliver: I should like to see it
corrected.
Harbours and rivers, B.C.-Fraser river improvements, $300,000.
Mr. PUG8LEY:	Is this to improve the
navigation between Westminster and the gulf of Georgia?


Robert Rogers: Yes, to continue the jetty and to carry on dredging as well.
Fraser river (upper) and tributaries

improvements, $15,000.


Frank Oliver: What is it proposed to do on the Upper Fraser?


Robert Rogers: To remove obstructions
to navigation on the Upper Fraser, Nechaco, Stuart and Tachi rivers which drain a large area tributary to the Grand Trunk Pacific

railway. There are small towns, mining camps and farming settlements that will be afforded access to the railway by the improvement of navigation conditions.


Frank Oliver: When the track was being laid down the Upper Fraser valley, the question whether the two bridges to be built above and below the canyon were to have draws in them was raised. The bridges have been built without any such draws and of course they prevent steamboat navigation in that part of the river. What is the attitude of the Government in regard to that? Is it the intention to leave the bridges as they are, or has the Government any authority to compel the putting in of draws?	.


Robert Rogers: When such plans as the
hon. gentleman refers to are approved, there is a condition attached that in the event of a request for navigation, the railway company is obliged on request to provide an opening suitable for the navigation of the locality.
Okanagan river-protecting and improving of navigable channel, $5,000.


William Pugsley: What is this for?


Robert Rogers: This is for the maintenance of protection works constructed during the past several years, to continue bank protection and erect controlling weirs. The Okanagan river has been navigable fox small power-boats, and this is meant to maintain a uniform water flow. The improvements were originally asked for by petition of the people of the Okanagan district.


William Pugsley: Does the Okanagan
river connect the upper and lower Okanagan lakes?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


William Pugsley: When I was minister an experiment was made in the way of connecting those two lakes; has that experiment been successful?


Robert Rogers: The report indicates that it has been successful.


William Pugsley: This vote is to do some further work in connection with it?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Is the North Thompson river navigable at Kamloops?


Mr. STEVENS:: Yes; large, flat-bottomed, river boats run up the river for a distance of about 80 miles.
Ki7i
Williams Head quarantine station-improvements and repairs, $3,000.


Frank Oliver: A gentleman in British
Columbia has done me the honour of asking me to bring to the attention of the minister a matter relating to a wharf at Kootenay bay, in the riding represented by the hon. member for Kootenay. The information given me is that the district engineer, F. W. Aylmer, reported favourably, on March 14, 1912, on the construction of a wharf for which an appropriation of $7,500 had been made. His successor, J. P. Ford, re-surveyed the site, and the writer assumed that he also reported favourably. He says that although this engineer told him that he would recommend the same wharf as his predecessor had recommended, as a matter of fact he recommended a floating wharf, pile-protected, which would cost about $5,000. There actually has been constructed only a comparatively inexpensive floating wharf, which, the writer complains, is not adequate for the business, and is not in accordance with the understanding had with the Government. This gentleman has asked me to bring the matter to the attention of the Government and to urge that the original intention be carried out.


Robert Rogers: A wharf costing a large
sum of money did not appear to be necessary; only one man was very specially interested in it, and it was thought that a floating wharf would be sufficient. In view of the fact that, on the recommendation of the engineer, we have carried out the construction of that floating wharf instead of a wharf costing $7,500. I am afraid that it would be impossible for us to make any change in our plans during the present year.
Dredging-new dredging plant, Maritime Provinces, $46,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister explain that item?


Robert Rogers: This amount is required
for the construction of new plant to carry on dredging in the Maritime Provinces. It includes: Dredge No. 2, St. Lawrence, new boiler, $9,000; No. 3, Restigouche, new boiler, $10,000; No. 9, Montague, new bucket one cubic yard larger, but lighter than old one, $900; Prince Edward, new independent swinging engine, 8 by 8, $800.


William Pugsley: A few days ago I asked the Minister of Public Works to give me some information with regard to dredging plants purchased by the department in the

Maritime Provinces, and I mentioned particularly the plant at Fort Lawrence.


Robert Rogers: I am sorry that I have
not the information here, but the chief engineer will see that it reaches the hon. gentleman to-morrow.


Mr. McKENZIE:: What Government
dredges were operating in Nova Scotia last summer?


Robert Rogers: I am afraid that I canmot give that information now, but we can get it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Can the minister give
me any information as to where the dredge Cape Breton was engaged last summer, and what she did? It was brought to my attention that she was rather poorly handled, and did not do very much work. There was lots of work to do, but she was late in getting to work and knocked off early. While she was supposed to he working she was not very successful. If the minister has any record of her operations it would he very interesting to a Cape Breton representative tc know something about them.


Robert Rogers: I have taken a memorandum and I will see if we can get the information.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister intend building a new dredge? He has spoken only so far of repairs to existing dredges.


Robert Rogers: The items are all repairs.


John Howard Sinclair: It is not a new dredging plant that is proposed?


Robert Rogers: Oh no.
Dredging-Maritime provinces, $600,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In the last year some very useful and necessary dredging was being done at a place called Little Bras d'Or, opening up a channel which makes a proper entrance in to the Bras d'Or lakes. There is little more to be 'done, but it is very necessary that it should be finished this year in order to make what has been done available for use.


Robert Rogers: We will take a memorandum and wall see that it is finished.


John Howard Sinclair: What dredging is proposed in the Maritime Provinces this season?


Robert Rogers: Mr. Dufresne, who has the dredging under his control, has not yet completed his programme for the coming year and is at present out of the city, so I cannot give details.

Dredging-Ontario and Quebec, $600,000.


Robert Rogers: There is a material reduction here: it is $300,000 less than last year.


Charles Marcil: Is it intended to do that work or will the item merely stand in the Estimates?


Robert Rogers: The dredging is generally all done, the vote is usually exhausted.


Charles Marcil: The dredging I am interested in is in the Restigouche river. Some $30,000 has been spent at that mouth of that river around the property of the Bay de Chaleur Mill Company. I do not know whether the minister intends to continue that work. It is merely adding to the value of private property. I have heard former Ministers of Public Works advocate more dredging in Bonaventure and Gaspe; but they always told us that the dredges were very scarce but would come in the future. I have heard that promise for the last fourteen or fifteen years. Very little dredging has been done in that 'district. In the Baie de Chaleur they build breakwaters and wharves, but very few of them can be reached by a steamer. Some of them might be made very useful if dredging were done by the department. The chief engineer, who is very familiar with the district, could inform the minister where some very useful dredging could be done. At the Bonaventure river, which is the outlet for important timber limits, dredging was started in 1908 or 1909, but the dredge was taken away before the work was completed. A breakwater was built to keep open the mouth of the river at the entrance to the harbour, and the idea was to dredge out the entrance so that boats could go in and load at the wharf. The work was not completed. The dredge, which was owned by Mr. Lemoine, was removed to another place. Some useful dredging could also be done at Maria, where a wharf has been made and at New Richmond and Ruisseau Leblanc and other places on the coast. The minister would be well advised to have his officers report to him the work that might be done in that respect. Mr. Tache, district engineer for Bonaventure, is an experienced official who used to be on the north shore. He is familiar with all the conditions in the Baie de Chaleur. I am sorry to say that although the late Mr. [DOT]Monk, when Minister of Public Works, asked Mr. Tache to report fully on all the works required there, and I understand

that Mr. Tache did so. The Department of Public Works carried out but very few of his recommendations. If economy has not been practised generally throughout the Dominion in public works it has been in Bonaventure. We have only two items this year, one for $1,500 at Paspebiac and one for $2,000 at New 'Carlisle on a coast line of 1,500 miles where people live largely by fishing and have a hard time to get along. Many works which have been commenced on the coast have remained uncompleted. I do not want to give the list because I might frighten the Minister of Public Works, but seeing that the constituency has this long - shore line, with a wharf or breakwater about every ten miles. Only about four or five of these wharves are accessible to steamers. The others are practically only commenced. An extension would make these wharves much more useful to the fishermen, and to the people of the locality generally. As the minister knows, practically only the fringe of the Gaspe peninsula has been touched so far. The interior of the country has not been opened up to navigation at all. It is an immense pulp country, and a great country for agriculture, though the season is shorter than in the rest of the province of Quebec. The fisheries in the Baie des Chaleurs are about as good as any in Eastern Canada. Railway communication is very poor, but now the Minister of Railways has his law on the Statute Book, I hope he will remedy this state of affairs. I know the Minister of Public Works is a progressive man, and I hope he will do something for the Gaspe peninsula too. I do not expect to get anything to-night, but I am just doing a little proselytizing. 1 want to call his attention to the fact that at Chandler, in the township of Pabos, in the county of Gaspe, quite close to Bonaventure, a large pulp industry has been established. Unfortunately it is the case that it sometimes takes Americans to realize the value of some of the resources of this country. A syndicate from Philadelphia has opened up this pulp business with a capitalization of between two and three million dollars, and in the spot which was a wilderness five or six, years ago there is now a thriving town, with all 10 p.m. that is necessary to give employment to the people. This syndicate is going to utilize the Gaspe railway, and the deep water wharf that the department has constructed at Gaspe basin, and they intend to carry on a large business. I want to point out to the minister that if the department extended proper
facilities, industries of this kind of work could be started all along the coast. We not only want wharves extended, but some dredging done, so that the boats can get in and out all along the coast. I hope the minister will pardon me for having gone into this matter at such length, and I hope that at the next session of Parliament he will remember Gaspe peninsula, which has been overlooked this year.


Robert Rogers: I am quite sure that my hon. friend will appreciate the fact that it. is very difficult for me to be familiar with the local conditions which he has so well described to us. I will promise him that I will present his statement to Mr. Dufresne, who has not yet completed his dredging plans for the coming year, and who I am sure will carefully consider what the hon.. member has said.


Edmund William Tobin: I notice by the Auditor General's Report of last year that several thousands of dollars were spent in the county of Rimouski, in dredging a small brook at St. Mathieu. I should like to ask the minister on whose recommendation the work was done and for whose benefit it was?


Robert Rogers: I have not the information here, but I can get it for my hon. friend.


Ernest Lapointe: 
Jacques Bureau: That was for hand dredging.


Ernest Lapointe: The shovels are less expensive than those the Minister of Militia got. They have no holes in them. You would suppose, Mr. Chairman, that a new highway of transportation was being opened up from lake St. Simon to St. Fabien. You can almost see large merchant ships plying, between St. Mathieu and St. Fabien. I' think it will be suffiicent for me to quote, the report of the Minister of Public Works, for the year 1913-14, page 218:

St. Mathieu-Dredging.
Saint Mathieu, in the county of Rimouski, is situated four miles south of the station of St. Simon, and is an important parish with a population of about 1,500. Farming and lumbering are the principal industries of the locality. There are two saw-mills, one of the best butter factories of the district and one butter box factory.
There are, at St. Mathieu, two lakes separated by a strip of marshy land; Ithe upper or west lake is about 4 miles long, and the lower lake 1J mile. The discharge of the two lakes is what is called River St. Simon, and passes by St. Fabien, near the station of the Intercolonial railway. By dredging between the two lakes and a portion of the river, it will permit of navigation to a depth of 3 feet sufficient for the driving of logs and timber.


Robert Rogers: Very useful work.
Mr. LAPOINTE (reading);
During the fiscal year 1913-14, the strip of land between the two lakes was dredged for a length of 400 feet by a width of 30 feet, and an average depth of 4 feet, containing an area of 13,200 feet or 1,955 yards. The entrance of the river was also dredged for a length of 900 feet by a width of 35 feet, and and average depth of 4 feet, containing an area of 31,500 feet, or 4,666 cubic yards.
Amount expended, $4,804.89.


Jacques Bureau: Who owns the lake?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend the member for Richmond and Wolfe (Mr. Tobin). The Minister of Public Works has just stated that this log driving was a very useful work. Well, this is the first time I have heard of the Federal Government giving money to help the lumber operators in driving their logs. I know that under the provincial law, lumber operators have certain rights of expropriation, but they have to pay for those rights. The hon. member for Richmond and Wolfe is the owner of this lake. The timber limits in the vicinity are owned by the Trois Pistoles Pulp and Lumber Co., of which the hon. member for Richmond and Wolfe is president; and I think he can bear me witness that no lumbering is done there now. I think this was only a scheme to get money out of the treasury of Canada.
When we see in the Auditor General's Report the words " making a navigable channel from lake St. Simon to St. Fabien," we must conclude that it is a very fine title for a very small thing. I really think that this work should not have been done and that the money of the country should not have been spent there. I know that river and lake very well. I have been there on a couple of fishing trips and there is very good trout fishing. A friend of mine at Rivibre du Loup said it would be very easy

to go and fish in lake St. Mathieu. "Why?" I asked. "Because," he replied, " we can go there by motor boat from the station at St. Fabien; we have dredged the river to such an extent as to permit motoring." I do not think the department spent that money for the purpose of giving sportsmen a chance to go fishing in lake St. Mathieu but I do think there is no other purpose served.


Robert Rogers: I am always generous to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, and especially so to Tny hon. friend ft'Om Richmond and Wolfe (Mr. Tobin).


Edmund William Tobin: The hon. member for
Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) said that the lake belonged to myself. I will say that it is a private lake. I have owned it for years although the lumber further up belongs to the Trois Pistoles Pulp and Lumber Company, of which I am presiuent. We have never asked for any work to bo done in that oart of the country and certainly no dredging. It was a surprise to me and my company when we were informed that there were people at work dredging that small brook. It is only a small brook that you could jump across at places,-eight or ten feet wide. No lumber is floated down it. Probably, as my hon. friend from Kamouraska said, this improvement will be very useful for fishing purposes but in the public interest it was not called for and I think the money of the country could have been spent on more profitable work than dredging this small brook which will enable you to sail down from lake St. Mathieu to St. Fabien.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did they need
rubber boots for it? -


Edmund William Tobin: How much water is there
in this brook when they required rubber-boots to do the work. For shovels that cost about $8 a dozen they charged $15 a dozen. These items do not amount to very much money but the purchase of rubber boots for working in a small stream like this is simply putting the country to unnecessary expense. I do not know who asked for the work. I would like to find out from the Minister of Public Works.


Robert Rogers: I will look it up.


Ernest Lapointe: Will the minister
let us know who got the rubber boots?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Mr. TURRIFF:: Is it customary for the
department to buy boots for men who are

doing work for the department and who are receiving the ordinary wages? Do they buy clothing as well?


Robert Rogers: That has been a common practice for many long years.


Jacques Bureau: I understand from the
minister that Mr. Dufresne, who has charge of the dredging in his department, has not yet finished his programme?


Robert Rogers: No.


Jacques Bureau: I would ask him to take into consideration the necessity of dredging the St. Lawrence opposite Three Rivers. The Grand Trunk comes in on the south side of the St. Lawrence opposite Three Rivers and the only communication between the Grand Trunk wharf at Three Rivers and that at Doucet's Landing, is by way of ferry. Last year the city of Three Rivers went to a good deal of expense in getting a modern steel steamer to perform the service between these two points. Two or three times during the summer the service was interrupted on account of boulders and shallow water. I would ask the minister to have an inquiry made a'nd see if it would not be possible to dredge this channel. It is a great inconvenience to have the boat put out of commission. The propellor is often broken by these boulders and we are without communication with the Grand Trunk sometimes three, four and five days. There is no dock where we can repair the boat except at Sorel. It takes one day each to go to Sorel, dock the boat and bring it back. It would be a very small item. Five or six days' dredging with a Government dredge would be sufficient to enable the traffic to go on uninterruptedly during the summer months and even during the winter. It is very seldom that the river freezes opposite Three Rivers during the winter but sometimes the water gets low in the winter, as it does in summer, and it would be a very material help if we could have this work done.


Robert Rogers: I will see that my hon. friend's statement is brought to the attention of Mr. Dufresne to-morrow.
Dredging-Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, $95,000.


Frank Oliver: Is any of this dredging to .take place in Alberta, and, if so, where?


Robert Rogers: This is like the other dredging ; we have not Mr. Dufresne's programme for the work ready yet. This is just for the maintenance of our own departmental dredges that we have in existence there.
We have them at Anderson's Creek, Mackey river, Labelle, Oak point, Gimli, Poplar Park, Fort Qu'Appelle, Last Mountain, Cumberland lake and Grouard.


Frank Oliver: What is proposed to be done at Grouard?


Robert Rogers: We have nothing proposed for the present year, but we have a dredge there apparently.


Mr. McCRANEY:: When the minister gives more information I wish he would let me know the programme of dredging in the province of Saskatchewan as well. I spoke to the minister before dinner and asked for some information in regard to the price paid for the Saskatoon post office site and the amount paid and when the minister gives his answer I hope he will give it so that it will go into Hansard.


Robert Rogers: I have a note of my hon. friend's question.


Frank Oliver: In some years past there have been river improvements on the Athabasca at Grand Rapids. There does not appear to be anything in this section of the Estimates regarding the Athabasca river. Is there any provision anywhere for the continuation of those improvements?


Robert Rogers: We have no provision made up at the present time -as the programme has not been completed for the dredging work but if there is necessity for any work in that locality it can be provided for out of this vote. I will bring the remarks of the hon. gentleman to the attention of Mr. Dufresne.


Frank Oliver: The work at Grand Rapids on the Athabasca has claimed the attention of the Government for several seasons. It is a very difficult piece of work and perhaps some mistakes may have been made in the method in which the work has been done; but it is of very great importance to carrying on the trade of the north country until the Waterways railway is completed. Therefore, I would urge upon the minister that with the opening of spring it would be right and proper that an examination should be made of the condition of the rapids and the result of the previous work, and that if there is anything that can be done to better the conditions for the business of the coming season, it should be done. There is a period of low water after ths ice goes out; that is, as soon as sprier; opens, there is low water for a short tima when work can be done to better advantayr

than it can be done at any time until the late fall of when winter sets in. My impression is that while some betterment has been created by the work done, some difficulties have also been created that it may be well to have 'removed.


Robert Rogers: We will have the matter looked into.


Frank Oliver: Grouard is a town situated on Buffalo bay, partly an arm and partly a separate lake from Lesser Slave lake. The original intention was to have the shallows, which to a certain extent separate Buffalo bay from the lake, dredged so that lake steamers could pass freely up to Grouard settlement. Now that the railroad has gone into that country and there is a railroad station at Sucker creek on the south side of the lake about ten or twelve miles from Grouard, it is just as necessary as it ever was, if the people of GrouaTd are to have the best .advantage from the nearness of the railroad, that there should be free navigation from the railroad station at Sucker creek to Grouard town on Buffalo bay, and that the shallows intervening between the bay and the lake should be dredged so that the lake steamers could pass freely. I would like to bring that very strongly to the attention of the minister.


Robert Rogers: I will take the matter up with the department.
Roads and bridges-Banff-new bridge, $20,000.


Frank Oliver: Where is this bridge to be situated?
Mr. ROGERS': On the old site.
Mr. OLIVER; Has anything been done yet?
Mr. ROGERS 'Ihe plans are not finished yet.


Frank Oliver: The old bridge is becoming somewhat insecure.


Robert Rogers: Yes, we will have to get at this work very soon.


Frank Oliver: I wish to inform the minister that the bridge is pretty old and is becoming insecure and it should be repaired.
Dominion bridges generally, including approaches, $5,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are they all old bridges?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
fMr. Oliver.]


Charles Marcil: Is the approach of the Dominion bridge at Matapedia completed ?


Robert Rogers: Tlhe engineer informs me that it is completed.
Interprovincial bridge across Ottawa river at Hawkesbury, the Ontario and Quebec governments each to contribute $15,000, $80,000.


Edmond Proulx: Last summer the department called for tenders, and I thought the contract had been awarded because a certain contractor from Montreal brought some machinery to Grenville, which is opposite Hawkesbury; but I was informed the other day by the minister in answer to a question that I put on the Order Paper that no contract had been awarded. Has the lowest tenderer been notified that his tender has been accepted?


Robert Rogers: No tender has been accepted as yet.


Edmond Proulx: How is it that the contractor came to Grenville with machinery expecting to start on the work? In fact, he urged upon the town council of Hawkesbury and the town council of Grenville to press the matter upon the Government and they cabled Sir George Perley, who represents Argenteuil, to urge upon the Government to award the contract.


Robert Rogers: Sir George Perley has been cabling urging us to start the work. We will get at it this spring.


Edmond Proulx: Has a certain gentleman in Montreal been notified that his tender has been accepted?


Robert Rogers: No person has been notified yet.


Edmond Proulx: Then I cannot understand how this contractor brought some tools and machinery to Grenville and expected to start on the work. I thought he had been notified that his tender had been accepted, but that the contract had not been signed.


Robert Rogers: The contract is not signed yet.


Edmond Proulx: As to the right of way,
before the election of 1911, a certain right of way through the mill property of the Hawkesbury Lumber Company had been expropriated. After the change of Government, the right of way was changed, and I understand that the other right of way, which the company now wish the Government to take, will be just as convenient for the public, but I would like to know

whether this new right of way has been deeded over to the Government or expropriated?


Robert Rogers: A new set of plans
has recently been made for a new right of way. ' I do not know whether it covers a portion of what my hon. friend has in mind or not.


Edmond Proulx: I know that the engineers of the department either last summer or the summer before surveyed a new right of way. Has it been acquired by the Government or expropriated?


Robert Rogers: We will look up the information for my hon. friend. I am not clear on the point.


Edmond Proulx: I would like to know also what compensation the company is asking for, the other right of way, In 1911, the Government offered $5,000.


Robert Rogers: Was that not considered enough?


Edmond Proulx: The company was not objecting so much to the amount, but it had objected to the location of the right of way, and the matter has not yet been decided by the Exchequer Court. After September, 1911, I understand, the company prevailed upon the Government to change the right of way. I put a question on the Order Paper to ascertain what compensation was paid by the Government, and the answer was that no compensation was paid, that the right of way had been expropriated. I do not understand how it could have been expropriated without compensation.


Robert Rogers: Probably it has not been settled by the Exchequer Court up to date.


Edmond Proulx: I suppose the department would say that the survey had been registered, and the Exchequer Court had not yet settled the amount. What amount does the department offer the company?


Robert Rogers: Somewhere about $5,000.


Edmond Proulx: Do they refuse to accept that?


Robert Rogers: Evidently, or we should not have gone to the court.


Edmond Proulx: I hope my hon. friend will get the information.


Charles Marcil: I desire to call the attention of the minister to the request repeatedly made by the people of Campbellton and Bonaventure opposite for a bridge across the Restigouche river. Seven or
eight years ago a Bill was passed to erect a joint highway and railway bridge at this point to connect the Gaspe system of railways and the Intercolonial. Fifty thousand dollars was voted as a subsidy. But this was deemed insufficient, and it was not found possible to float the securities necessary for the work. Meantime, the change of Administration took place. Since that time, the people on both sides, apparently assuming that the prospect of the joint highway and railway bridge was rather remote, organized a crusade in favour of a purely highway bridge. Deputations have come to Ottawa, and I understand that the Campbellton Board of Trade and all the municipal councils concerned have joined in this request. I understand that the last move made by the minister or the department, in answer to the deputation, was to instruct Mr. Stead, the department engineer for New Brunswick, to report upon this project of a highway bridge. Has any progress been made in ascertaining the cost? Has the department abandoned the policy of a joint railway and highway bridge and decided to limit itself to the highway bridge? The time will come when a railway bridge will be needed at this point to connect the Intercolonial with the Transcontinental and other railways.


Robert Rogers: We had a deputation here about a month ago of the different councils interested in this work. They pressed for a highway bridge. The information we have goes to show that this is a very, very expensive undertaking, much more expensive than was at first anticipated. After going into the facts with the deputation, it was decided that we should have a re-survey by Mr. Stead, who is supposed to be a first-class engineer, and Mr. Stead has undertaken that service. We shall not have his report for some considerable time. We thought it would be a good time to make u more extensive survey, in order to get at the facts in a detailed manner and t >
judge what is best in the public interest.


Charles Marcil: Has the department come to a conclusion as to building merely a highway bridge? Has the project to build a combined railway and highway bridgj been abandoned?


Robert Rogers: We have not come to any decision, and cannot arrive at a decision until we get the report of Mr. Stead showing the difference in the estimated cost of the two.


Charles Marcil: If a combined railway and highway bridge were built, it is calculated that Gaspe Basin, with a railway connection, would be brought into close communication with New England cities, especially with Boston, the great fish market for the United States. Gaspe and the whole Baie des Chaleurs district would be within twenty-four hours of Boston.


Isidore Proulx: How many tenders were there for the substructure of the bridge at Hawkesbury?


Mr. EOGERS:: Six.


Edmond Proulx: What was the lowest?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will give the hon. gentleman the list:	R. E. Sutherland, "Lind
say, $70,000; Galbraith, $78,000; Kennedy Construction Company, Montreal, $78,000; Jones Company, Limited, Ottawa, $90,000; Doney & McDonald, Alexandria, $90,000; Thomas & Wood, $90,000.


Edmond Proulx: The tender of Mr. Galbraith is $78,000, and there is one for $70,000. Which one is that?


Robert Rogers: Sutherland.


Edmond Proulx: Is he the one who will get this contract?


Robert Rogers: If he is capable of doing the work, certainly.


Edmond Proulx: Have the tenderers been notified that their tender is accepted?


Robert Rogers: Not that I am aware of.


Edmond Proulx: Is it the intention to go on with the work?


Robert Rogers: We have been urged very strongly to go on with it. Sir George Perley has been cabling about it, and we have promised to do it if possible.


Edmond Proulx: I hope the minister will carry out this work, for it has been under way for quite a few years and is very much needed.
Matapedia road-repairs and improvements, $2,500.


Charles Marcil: Will the minister give some explanation of this item?


Robert Rogers: This is to repair and improve seven miles of this highway. This road was built as a military road and has always been considered as Federal property, and the Government has authorized repairs several times. "It is in good condition, and is under the control of the

municipalities, except for nineteen miles, where there is no municipality.


Charles Marcil: I understand this Work was done in the unorganized territory along the Intercolonial. This was the road along the line of railway. I would call the minister's attention to the fact that between Millstream and Matapedia in the municipalities of St. Andre de Restigouche and St. Laurent ' de Matapedia, ninety-five per cent of the population	live on	the	high	land,	whiledown along	the line of	railway there are very few residents, indeed. They have to pass through there to reach Matapedia and Cam-pbellton, where they do most of their business. The work is not yet completed, and I think the minister might as well see that the work is completed right through, especially through that portion beyond Millstream which is known as St. Andre de Restigouche. It would be unfortunate if the usefulness of the road, which is now being put into first-class condition, should be destroyed by the last two or three miles being left in an impassable condition.


Mr. BOULAY (Translation) :: Mr. Chairman, I am in perfect harmony with the few remarks made by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), regarding the road in Matapedia. I myself last year called the attention of the Government engineer to the necessity of having the road between Millstream and Matapedia repaired at the Government's expense, because those who are charged with the maintenance of that part of the road are settlers who reside at a long distance from it and who are of rather limited means.
The Bellechasse Telephone Company, in constructing its line, has erected its poles in the middle of the road, and notwithstanding the repeated request of the Government engineer, has left them there. That road is now fit for carriages and I urge upon the department that the necessary steps be taken as soon as possible to have these poles removed as they constitute a public nuisance.
Miniota-bridge to Indian reserve, $8,000.


Frank Oliver: How does it happen that the Government is building this bridge?


Robert Rogers: This amount is required for the construction of a steel bridge across the Assiniboine river at Miniota, at an estimated cost of $25,000. A request for its construction was made on behalf of the Miniota municipality by letter dated

March 17. I am informed that the settlers are very anxious that the bridge shall be ready so that the spring crop may be carried over it. I do not know why we should be building a bridge there; this is the first I have heard of it.


Frank Oliver: If this were established as a precedent, there would be a rather heavy demand upon the department for bridges throughout the West.


Robert Rogers: The only reason for the Government's share in its construction is probably its connection with the Indian reserve. The Dominion Go' eminent is asked to pay $8,000 of the cost, the balance to be paid by the Provincial Government and the two municipalities concerned.


Frank Oliver: I know several places in the Edmonton district where bridges are needed.


Robert Rogers: I am afraid it is a bad precedent.
Athabaska Landing to lake la Biche telegraph line, $1,000.


Frank Oliver: To what point on lake la Biche does this line run?


Robert Rogers: My information is that the line to be followed is from Plamondon-ville to the Roman Catholic mission, a distance of ten miles.- It was originally asked for by petition of the residents of lake la Biche and Plamondonville.


Frank Oliver: Is the line completed to the mission?	x


Robert Rogers: It is completed to Plamondonville.


Frank Oliver: I would say that this line should run to the Hudson bay establishment, which is some little distance beyond the Roman Catholic mission. The Hudson bay establishment is the point on the lake to which the railway has been constructed, and has been and naturally will continue to be the business centre of that district. I would urge upon the minister that this line be carried to the Hudson bay establishment, so that it will connect with the railway line.
Battleford-Isle la Crosse line to complete, $7,000.


Frank Oliver: How far is that line completed now?


Robert Rogers: My information is that it has been completed to a point forty mil as north of Green lake. The work
had to be stopped for the season owing to the non-delivery of poles by the contractors, who promised to deliver the balance during the winter, too late to enable the work to be completed during the last fiscal year.
Mr. OLIVER It will be completed to Isle la Cross this year, will it?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Construction of telegraph line from Athabaska Landing to Fort McMurray-to complete, $15,000.


Frank Oliver: In what position is that
line? I think when the late Government went out there was a sum in the Estimates to complete this line to Fort McMurray.


Robert Rogers: I understand the line is completed and this vote is to provide stables, offices, etc.


Frank Oliver: I would again impress on the minister the desirability of having a loop line connection from House river, where this line leaves the Athabaska to follow the portage over to FoTt McMurray, about 8 or 10 miles down to the head of the Grand Rapids, where the great difficulty in navigation on the Athabaska occurs. There will be an operator at House river and a telephone from there to Grand Rapids would be of very great use to navigation on the river. With the reasonably efficient management the minister now has in connection with the construction of that line it should be possible to do that this summer.


Robert Rogers: We will take it up and see.
Peace river telegraph line-offices and dwellings to Saskatoon Take and Grande Prairie, $5,000.


Frank Oliver: The other night the minister promised to give me information about the rental of certain buildings at Grande Prairie.


Robert Rogers: We rent just the one
building, the immigration building, at $65 a month from Mr. A. Patterson.


Frank Oliver: What accommodation has the telegraph office now?


Robert Rogers: The deputy has no information about that here, but he thinks we have our own office.


Frank Oliver: Will these buildings be
erected during the coming summer?


Robert Rogers: We expect to establish
them this summer.

Peace river telegraph line-erection of office at Dunvegan, $3,500.


Frank Oliver: Is that to go on this
summer?


Robert Rogers: Yes, we have promised
that for this summer.
Peace river Grande Prairie telegraph line- extension from lake Saskatoon to Hudson's Hope, B.C., $12,000.


Frank Oliver: How far has that line
been completed?


Robert Rogers: This is required to complete the construction from lake Saskatoon to Hudson's Hope and a telephone line from Port St. John to Hudson's Hope, an approximate distance of 50 miles at an estimated cost of $12,000.


Frank Oliver: Is the line completed to
Fort St. John?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Frank Oliver: And it will be completed to Hudson's Hope this summer?


Robert Rogers: Yes, we are to go on with that.


Frank Oliver: Is the work being done by contract?


Robert Rogers: The poles are being got
out by contract, but the stringing of the wires is being done by our own men.


Frank Oliver: I am given information
that there has been some mismanagement of affairs there which resulted in a number of. teams going from Grande Prairie to Grouard for wire and coming back empty. If that were done by a contractor it would not make any difference, but if it were done under the Government I think that the department ought to be aware that that is the way their business is being managed, as there will certainly be a serious and unnecessary addition to the cost of construction if very much of that sort of thing is being done. The trip would be about 125 miles.
Telegraph and telephone lines generally, $7;ooo.
Mr. M.cKENZIE:	Under this item I
would ask for some information about the telephone system in Nova Scotia, particularly in the island of Cape Breton. In 1911 provision was made for the building of a line-indeed, I think it was pretty well under way-between Baddeck and the northeast of Margaree and also from Baddeck to Little Narrows and from Little Narrows to McKay Point. I think the line has been
[Mr Rogers.]
completed from Baddeck to northeast of Margaree and from Baddeck to the Little Narrows. What has been done towards completing the line from Little Narrows to McKay's Point? There is a section of country there which is rather isolated from the rest of the country by an arm of the sea, and it is exceedingly difficult in some seasons of the year to communicate with the towns without a telephone or telegraph line. The intention was to give the people along that section of the country the benefit of a telephone line. The poles were got out, I think in 1911 or before, and I understand that the wire has been put on the ground. Has anything been done towards the erection of a line from Little Narrows to McKay's Point which is right opposite the shire town of Baddeck on the other side of that arm of Bras d'Or lake?


Robert Rogers: We do not appear to have any information about that with us to-night. I have asked the deputy to write to my hon. friend to-morrow and give him the particulars of the conditions.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The county of Victoria which I represent has not the benefit of competing telegraph lines like other counties in Cape Breton and all the counties in Nova Scotia. Most of them have the services of the Government line, the Western Union and the Canadian Pacific railway, all competing lines, giving a good service. But in Victoria we have only the one lone, solitary Government line and we have an extension of something over 100 miles from the shire town across to the extreme north end of the county with no means of communication except the Government telegraph line. Of course, we have the mails, but we have no telephone and no other telegraph system.
It is at the northern end of the county that the cable connects with the Magdalen Islands. Considerable business goes over that line. The minister will understand that, as we are dependent for rapid communication upon this one line, it is exceedingly important to the people of the county that the service should be well conducted. But I regret to say that it is not managed with that business style and acumen that I think should be shown in connection with so important a service. I am sorry that in this connection I have to bring to the notice of the minister something that is political in its character. I brought it to the attention of the minister last year, but I do not think anything has

been done about it. I am not bringing this matter up for the purpose of asking the minister to dismiss any of his officials. For one thing I would not expect him to appoint in the place of a dismissed official any friend of mine. But what I ask the minister to do is to discipline his officials so that there will be a proper management of the Government business. Without mentioning names, I submit to the minister that a message sent from Baddeck over this line to any part of the county is not regarded as private. The facilities furnished in connection with the office at Baddeck are of such a character that the service is not private. Perhaps the man in charge of the office does not get enough pay to keep it private, or to conduct it as business of this character should be conducted. I have already brought to the notice of the minister that, during a local election that was conducted in the county a year ago last February, this whole system-the only system in the county-was absolutely commandeered by the managers of that campaign ; they took it entirely under their "wn control, and for the month or so that the campaign was in progress they used the line for their own purposes with-11 p.m. out paying one cent to the Government for the service. I am rather sorry to find that as far as I can learn nothing has been done or said about this matter since I last brought it to the notice of the minister. We had a trial in the town of Baddeck in connection with that election, and the man whom the minister ha3 in charge	of	that work	went
on the stand, and of his own volition told under oath how 4 he took the responsibility of taking over that line as a piece of electioneering machinery while the campaign was on, and he swore that he did not charge any one of his friends one cent, and that he made no return to the Government. That evidence was given on oath before the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. That is the condition of affairs in connection with the only telegraph service we have in the county; and I appeal to the minister whether that is satisfactory and as it ought to be. As a *sound, progressive business people we have a right to expect better things. We have a Tight to expect that not only the office at Baddeck but every office on the line shall be well conducted, and that the minister shall give strict orders that .such a thing as commandeering such an important piece of public property for the use of any party-I care not which-shall
not be tolerated for one moment. I trust it will never occur again.


Robert Rogers: I remember that the hon. *member brought this matter up last year. I do not think he has had any reason to complain of irregularities during the last year. I can assure my hon. friend that I gave strict instructions that such a state of affairs would not be tolerated. The telegraph service should be kept absolutely private for every citizen of the country, and I shall endeavour to see that it is kept private.
Public Works-Engineering Branch-salaries of engineers, inspectors, superintendents, draughtsmen, clerks and messengers of outside service, $435,000.


George Perry Graham: About how many people does this include?


Robert Rogers: Over 200 people, the
whole engineering staff of the Public Works Department.


George Perry Graham: Both inside and outside service?


Robert Rogers: Not the inside service at Ottawa, but apart from that it includes both' inside and outside.


George Perry Graham: Is. this increase accounted for by additions to the staff or by salary increases?	,


Robert Rogers: Additions to the staff.
Miscellaneous-monument of His Late Majesty King Edward VII, $10,000.


George Perry Graham: Is that monument completed? .


Robert Rogers: It is in the hands of the *sculptor. It is to be erected in Ottawa.


Charles Marcil: Did the Dominion Government subscribe anything to the Montreal monument? ,


Robert Rogers: I do not think so.
Miscellaneous-construction and operation of water storage dams on the Ottawa river and tributaries, surveys in connection therewith and settlement of land damages, $200,000.


George Perry Graham: Would the minister tell us briefly what is being done? Are the land damages very heavy? I believe that the Provincial Government had to pay more in land damages than the cost of the dams.


Robert Rogers: This amount of $200,000 is required to provide for the construction and operation of dams and sluiceways at points on the, Ottawa river and its tributaries. The object is to store the spring

floods and augment the low water flow, thus equalizing the run-off of the Ottawa valley throughout the yeaT. This also necessitates the purchase of lands damaged by maintaining reservoir surfaces at high stage during summer and autumn.
The appropriation now applied for is apportioned as follows:
Timiskaming1 Dam.
Stone riprap to protect river bottom from scouring	$40,000
Sluice opening machine . . . . 30,000 Dam tenders and extra labour
operating	 3,000
Damage claims inundated lands. 25,000 Quinze Dam.
Sluice opening machine	 30,000
Dam tenders and extra labour
operating	 3,000
Booms and cribwork passing
timber	 5,000
Kipawa Dam.
Repairs, booms and cribwork... 2,000 Dam tenders and extra labour
operating	 3,000
Salaries, supplies and travelling. 10,000

Ottawa Storage Dams-General Surveys.
Salaries of office staff....$25,000
Travel and supplies	 5,000
Survey, metering, labour and supplies	 20,000

 50,000

Say	$200,000


George Perry Graham: This is to be expended this year?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Mr. G. V. WHITE:: Does this include repairs to the dam that was carried away some time ago?


Robert Rogers: Yes,


Jacques Bureau: I understand the dam was built for the purpose of regulating the flow of the Ottawa river. Is it the intention of the department to do anything towards the construction of a dam at lake La Loutre having the same object; that is to regulate the flow of the St. Maurice river, which is a navigable river and is under the control of the Federal Parliament?


Robert Rogers: No, we have had no request to contribute to it that I know of.
International Commission, river St. John, N.B., $12,000.


George Perry Graham: Are they still busy?


Robert Rogers: Apparently.


George Perry Graham: I do not know who they are. They may be still drawing their pay and not be busy.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Who compose this commission? It has been recently reconstructed, I presume, since the lion. Postmaster General (Mr. Casgrain) was appointed.


Robert Rogers: That is the International Commission; it has nothing to do with this.
The National Gallery of Canada, including the purchase of paintings by the board of trustees, $25,000.	[DOT]


George Perry Graham: Last year we had an item of $100,000. Could the minister tell us what purchases of works of art have been made out of that $100,000 and what it is proposed to purchase with this $25,000?


Robert Rogers: A large number of important and valuable works of art, both Canadian and foreign, have been purchased. The expenditure upon foreign pictures, which totals $79,579, includes the acquisition of such well-known and interesting works of art as the following:
Oil Paintings.
Francecco Goya, A Governor of Cadiz.. $15,000
J. F. Millet, Oedipus taken from the
tree	 20,000
Olaude Monet, Waterloo Bridge	 6,000
Bart, de Bruyn, Christian von Conersheim and his wife, 16th Century..	. .8,500
French Primitive, Christ carrying the
Cross, 15th Century	 1,000
Frans Floris, The Five Senses	 2,700
Spanish School, The Slave, 17th Century	 1,500
J. B. C. Corot, Street at Anvers	 3,500
Frantin-Latour, Bouquet de Roses.. ..	3,250
W. McTaggart, Through the Com.. ..	2,500
A. Monticelli, Don Quixote.-	 2,000
Allan Ramsay, Countess of Guilford. . . .	3,250
Etchings, drawings, lithographs, etc. ..	3,879
Bronzes: Antoine Barye, 9 bronzes of
animal studies	 7,500


Charles Marcil: Are these Canadian paintings?	'


Robert Rogers: No.


Herménégilde Boulay: Will the
minister tell me the names of the members of this commission?


Robert Rogers: Sir Edmund Walker,
Senator Boyer and Dr. Sheppard of Montreal.
Monument to the memory of the late Hon. Thomas D'Arcy McGee, $8,000.


Charles Marcil: Has the contract been
awarded for this monument?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Charles Marcil: 
Robert Rogers: It is completed, but it
has not been put in place yet.


Charles Marcil: :	Has a site been chosen
on Parliament Hill?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Who has the contract?


Robert Rogers: Mr. Alwari, of Toronto
Georgian Bay Ship Canal, Royal Commission, $25,000.


George Perry Graham: Quite an amount has
been expended on this Royal Commission- apparently $15,000. Have they given us any report of what they have done? We ought to have something beiore the House for $15,000. Have they given the minister a verbal report as to what they are doing and where they are sitting?


Robert Rogers: They are sitting in the
Bryson building on Queen street, Ottawa. I would invite hon. gentlemen, if they have the time to spare, to go down and inspect the work they are doing. I do not think there is any more creditable work being carried on in any branch of any department of the Go vein merit than tnat which they are carrying on in obtaining the information in connection with the proposed canal. It would interest any hon. member of the House, if he has a moment to spare, to go in there, meet Mr. Evans and see the plans they are preparing, and the information they are collecting. It *viil be very valuable to the House and the country.


John Howard Sinclair: Who compose the commission?


Robert Rogers: Sandford Evans.


Gerald Verner White: Has the minister any idea when the report will be completed?
Mr. ROGERS; As soon as they get the inmrroation that they are collecting now they wiiU hold puhlic hearings in different parts.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I suppose it can be
indefinitely extended to suit the convenience of the Government?


Robert Rogers: I do not know that there is any convenience to the Government. We are anxious to go ahead with it.


George Perry Graham: How long does the minister imagine it will take?


Robert Rogers: I think-at least this year.


George Perry Graham: This is a matter that
should not be dragged out any longer than necessary in order that the country may be seized with the information. It would have been a good idea if Parliament had been given an interim report to show what they have been doing. I do not mean that they should give away any information that t'aej' are not ready to give to the public, but we would like to know what methods they are adopting to get the information. It would be of great interest to many people who are watching for some report from this commission. I quite understand that if they do their work well they could not rush it, but it would have been a good idea if the Government had given us an interim report showing what progres had been made.


Robert Rogers: That might have been
done, but I hope my hon. friend will take the trouble to go down and see the commission some day.
To pay Western Drydock and Shipbuilding Co., Limited, of Port Arthur, a portion of the second payment of subsidy due them upon their completion of the work covered by the agreement ratified by chapter 57, 3-4 George V, 1913, notwithstanding the work is not completed, $35,641.50.


Robert Rogers: This is under the Act.


George Perry Graham: Are you going to make them a progress estimate, a payment on account.


Robert Rogers: This is the second payment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What size of vessels will this dry dock at Pout Arthur accommodate?


Robert Rogers: It is 400 and some odd feet in length.


George Perry Graham: What class of dry dock is it?


Robert Rogers: Third class. It will accommodate boats for the lake trade, and is 'doing very satisfactory work.
Public Works-for operation and maintenance of inspection boats, $60,000.


John Howard Sinclair: How many inspection boats have you in the service, and where are they?


Robert Rogers: 21 steamboats and gasoline launches. I will send over the list to my hon. friend, if he cares to see where the inspection boats are.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the nature of their work?


Robert Rogers: They inspect the public works, such as dredging and so on, that is going on in the different districts.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We have no such
luxury in the Maritime Provinces.


Robert Rogers: There is an inspection boat at Halifax and one at St. John. They 'do not go up the very small rivers.
Pub He Works-chargeable to collection of revenue-Slides and booms, $95,100.


Jacques Bureau: I find in the Auditor General's Report that over 2,000,000 feet of British Columbia fir was supplied for slides and booms on the St. Maurice river between Shawenegan Falls and Three Rivers, the price paid being $43 per M. feet. Were any tenders asked for this timber and who supplied it?


Robert Rogers: The chief engineer does not seem to have that information.


Jacques Bureau: My reason for asking the question is this. Before the late Government went out of power, whenever any quantity of timber of that character was supplied, prices were asked for from lumbermen or from men handling that line of business. The gentleman who supplied the 2,000,000 feet of lumber and who got $9,000 for it is an undertaker. I have known him for a number of years and l)ie only knowledge he has of the lumber business is in the handling of caskets and coffins. I was wondering how he came to supply this Government with British Columbia fir, when he is not in the business at all.


Robert Rogers: We will have to have this matter looked into. It looks a bad case.


Jacques Bureau: It is rather a bad case. 1 do not see how it can be that this gentleman, who has been doing nothing but performing the very painful duty of carrying people to their last resting-place, should all of a sudden bob up in Three Rivers and have the supplying of this lumber there. If the old practice had been followed and prices asked from the lumbermen at Three Rivers, which is an important lumbering centre, better prices could have been obtained, and in fact the transaction would not have looked as shady as it looks now. If I could get some explanation, I would be satisfied.


Robert Rogers: I told my !hon. friend that we have not the information here.


Jacques Bureau: Can I get it later on?


Robert Rogers: Yes, I shall be glad to look into the matter.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I asked the minister
last night if he would be good enough to give me the report of the engineer upon the construction of the breakwater at James-ville, Victoria county.


Robert Rogers: The chief engineer will send you a copy.
Department of Public Works-to appoint E. Li. Horwood chief architect at $7,000 per annum from October 1, 1914, $3,500.


George Perry Graham: I suppose this item is inserted in this particular manner because Mr. Horwood was not appointed under the Civil Service Act?


Robert Rogers: That is correct.


George Perry Graham: I do not know the gentleman at all or how the appointment came to be made outside of the Civil Service Act.


Robert Rogers: Mr. Horwood is a prominent architect in Ottawa; and when Mr. Ewart asked to be relieved of the duties of his office, we had to find a suitable man to take his place. Mr. Horwood, in the judgment of the department, is the most available man for that particular position. It is evident that the chairman of the Civil Service Commission did not think so, though he was not very definite about it. He wrote a letter, which I forwarded to the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux), at his request, and I would ask that hon. gentleman to be good enough to give his friends that letter, which explains the position taken by Mr. Shortt in this matter. We have to have a chief architect, and we could not find a person more suitable for that position, in our judgment, than Mr. Horwood. He had, all the qualifications, and Mr. Shortt was not able to supply the name of anybody whom he would recommend.


George Perry Graham: Has Mr. Horwood proven satisfactory to the department?


Robert Rogers: He has only been there a few months, but he has done good work.


George Perry Graham: You cannot tell the result of his work yet?


Robert Rogers: No.
Harbours and rivers-Port Arthur and Fort William-harbour and river improvements-

further amount required, $500,000; Vancouver harbour, B.C.-improvements-further amount required, $350,000-$875,000.


George Perry Graham: How does it come that
we have to put in nearly a million dollars after the Estimates are made out?


Robert Rogers: In the original Estimates the amount for the harbour at Fort William was very much cut down, and it was found we had not sufficient to carry out the contracts we had let there. The same applies to Vancouver harbour.
Brockville public building-alterations and improvements, $2,400.


George Perry Graham: Is this work on the post office building?


Robert Rogers: Yes, alterations and improvements.


George Perry Graham: You are not changing the system of letter boxes?


Robert Rogers: No.
Kemptville public building-additional land required, $1,500.


George Perry Graham: This is to enlarge the
site?


Mr. J. D. REID :: At Kemptville, the store of Mundell & Purcell, which was right up against the public building, was burned down, and it has been suggested that it would be well to get that land which is now vacant and add it to the site upon which the public building stands. No other building would then be up against the public building, and it will be quite an improvement.
London fair grounds-rebuilding grand stand, $15,000.


George Perry Graham: What is this for?


Robert Rogers: Last year when the troops were mobilized at London, the owners of the fair grounds put their buildings at the disposal of the Department of Militia. Unfortunately, a fire took place and destroyed the grand stand. It is estimated that it will take $15,000 to make good the loss sustained.
Quebec-Cap de la Madeleine-enlargement of wharf, $6,300.


Jacques Bureau: This is the famous wharf which is 100 feet long, and for which timber of sufficient length could not be obtained in the district of Three Rivers, which is one of the most important lumber districts in the province of Quebec. The lumber was obtained in British Columbia. This wharf was to be built for the sum of $49,000, and the cest has new run up to $66,000, although 138
not a boat has docked there, and there is no prospect of any boat docking there within the next ten years. I should like to know whether or not this is the end of it.


Robert Rogers: This finishes the work.
Ste. Anne de BeauprS-to repair wharf, $19,000.


Jacques Bureau: What kind of repairs are being made in this case?


Robert Rogers: This is for reconstruction.


Mr. McCREA:: Has the minister anything in his Estimates for repairs to the wharf at Barachois, Gaspe county? The breakwater there was more or less damaged by ice and water and should be repaired. I have looked through the Estimates, but find no item for it.


Robert Rogers: There is apparently nothing in the Estimates.


Francis N. McCrea: I think it should be repaired. Repairs are necessary if the breakwater is not to be washed away altogether.


Robert Rogers: We will take a memorandum of it.
Hamilton harbour improvements, $250,000.


George Perry Graham: What is the minister doing at Hamilton?


Robert Rogers: This is simply a revote from last year which was omitted by mistake from our Estimates.


George Perry Graham: Only $90,000 is a revote. Is it dredging or building of docks or what?


Robert Rogers: A revetment wall and dredging in Stype's inlet.
Quebec harbour-river St. Charles-improvements to navigation, $500,000.


George Perry Graham: I suppose this vote is for improving the St. Charles river to make it an ocean terminus in connection with the National Transcontinental railway?


Robert Rogers: No, the vote has nothing to do with that.


George Perry Graham: The National Transcontinental railway is getting down into the valley of the St. Charles, and, if I remember correctly, one of the reasons for this increased development in the St. Charles is to make it an ocean port for the Transcontinental road instead of having the docks along between Cap Rouge and Champlain market.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend is not
quite correct. The St. Charles river is a



separate and distinct work in itself. It is for the development of the river for the advantage of Quebec in providing additional accommodation. The harbour is very short and limited, and it is necessary to develop the St. Charles river in order to give additional space for the number of ships coming in.


George Perry Graham: Is it not nevertheless true that this important work is more costly as they expect to take care of the ocean traffic of the Grand Trunk Pacific at that point rather than in the neighbourhood of the Champlain market?


Robert Rogers: No, we have an item for that too.


George Perry Graham: For docks west of the Champlain market?


Robert Rogers: Yes. A contract wvi given under the late Government.


George Perry Graham: If I remember correctly certain land was purchased, but I think that under the new scheme there was a proposition to take care of part of the traffic in the St. Charles river rather than at the Champlain market.


Robert Rogers: I think that is correct.
Montreal postal station " A," St. James street, $160,000.


George Perry Graham: This is what is called the Carslake property, is it?


Robert Rogers: Yes.'


George Perry Graham: Certain discussion has taken place about this and I think the minister brought down a return concerning it the other day.


Robert Rogers: Yes, all the information is contained in that return; and I would like my hon. friend to read it and then send it on to his newspaper in Montreal so that the people there would understand it.


George Perry Graham: People are accused of owning things they do not; and, as the hon. member for Edmonton said to-day, sometimes they are very expensive luxuries and even unwelcome attachments. I see no reason for having the item held any longer.


Jacques Bureau: Before the committee
rises I should like to ask the minister what he has decided to do about those two items for Ste. Anne du Saguenay: one is $10,000 for a wharf extension, and the other $10,500 for repairs to wharf:	The minister stated

that this was a duplicate item, and that he would look into it.


Robert Rogers: We have looked into it, and after discussing the matter with the hon. member for St. John, have decided to let both items remain in the Estimates. They were passed some time ago.


Jacques Bureau: I hope the minister will not forget to bring down to-morrow the explanation he promised me about the lumber that was supplied to D. Lariviere, the undertaker.


Robert Rogers: I will ask the deputy
minister to get the information.
Supplementary Estimates, 1914-1915-Department of Justice, including Penitentiary Branch -contingencies-further amount required, including payment of $400 to Miss Georgie Avery, for temporary services from October 31, 1915, $8,000.


George Perry Graham: I suppose this is in
violation of the Civil Service Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This young lady was
born in the United States. Her father was naturalized after he and his family had lived for a long period in Canada. The young lady passed her examinations and was accepted by the Civil Service Commission as a British subject, but they afterwards discovered that she was of age when her father became naturalized. She is now taking the regular steps to 'become naturalized.
Department of	Justice-Penitentiaries-
Kingston, further amount required, $15,000.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I might explain this
item. It was found that in view of the increased cost of provisions, supplies, etc., our main Estimate was not sufficient to carry us through the year 1914-15, so these Supplementary Estimates were made last fall. It may be consoling to hon. gentlemen to know that we think we may possibly have made an over-estimate now.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER read a communication from the Governor General's Secretary announcing that the Hon. Sir Louis H. Davies, acting as deputy of His Royal Highness the Governor General, would proceed to the Senate Chamber on Thursday, the 8th instant, at 4 p.m., for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills.
On motion of Mr. Rogers the House adjourned at 12.03 a.m. Thursday.
[Stage Direction]

Speaker: Hon. Thomas Simpson Sprotjle.
Thursday, April 8, 1915.