Mr. H. LENNOX (South Simcoe).

In accordance with the motion that was carried the other day providing for the consideration of the fourth Lumsden report, and having regard to the retirement of three members of the Lumsden Committee, I propose to address a few remarks to the House this afternoon. In retiring from that committee I had in mind the extreme gravity of the situation, and I realized that we were taking a somewhat unusual course which we would not be justified in taking unless for grave and important considerations. In fact, any one who examines at all the circumstances surrounding the construction of the National Transcontinental railway must realize, as I did, that it is the duty of every member of this House, and much, more of the members of that committeei of seven, to do everything in his power to elucidate this question, and to ascertain whether there has been, as we believe there has been, gross mis-Mr. WALLACE.

management and perhaps gross dishonesty in connection with the construction of that road. The most casual investigation into the returns and the papers that have been brought down must convince everybody that the enormously increased? expenditure in the construction of that railway cannot be harmonized with any theory of honesty in the staff or ability in the management. For instance, taking up the matter of classification, let me give an illustration of how enormously rock grows:

Statement in reference to nine contracts.

Total cost under Contract Rock alone

Contract. was to be will cost.No. 4 $1,898,124 21 $1,475,480" 5

1,646,253 65 1,847,942" 8

5,011,346 00 4,318,368" 9 and 10.... 5,297,257 45 7,905,504" 11

1,691,073 41 2,336,320"12

4,'559,284 50 4,324,000" 19

5,937,208 75 5,800,000" 20

1,158,258 25 1,009.116" 21

13,010,398 92 13,012,000

Mr. SPEAKER.

I wish to remind the hon. member that there is no motion before the House at present. Does he intend to conclude with a motion in order to regularize the proceedings?

Mr. LENNOX.

I did not intend myself to conclude with a motion, I intended to refer to the circumstances in connection with this road, and I am referring to these items for the purpose of showing that there ia a necessity for everybody to be vigilant in investigating this matter, and that I, as a member of that committee, would have remained to investigate that question if it had been possible; and I was proceeding to point out the reasons for having the fullest investigation.

Mr. SPEAKER.

The hon. gentleman will understand that his proceeding is irregular, as there is no motion to consider the report. If a motion was made for the adoption of the report, or a motion to bring the report before the Chair, his action would be in order. But at present there is nothing at all before the Chair.

Mr. LENNOX.

It was not a report, as I understand, that required adoption, it did not ask that anything should be done. Of course, if necessary, I could formally move an amendment to the report. But what I proposed to discuss, and what has been standing for discussion for some time, is the question of the retirement of three members of the committee.

Mr. SPEAKER.

There is no objection to discussing that, only I would like to have something before the Chair.

Mr. SPROULE.

The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) gave notice that on motions being called for he would move that the report be concurred in.

Mr. SPEAKER.

That is the reason I inquired if the hon. member was going to conclude with a motion.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

That was my impression the other dav when we asked to have this day set aside to discuss the matters referred to in the committee. I understand a motion was to be moved for the adoption of the report, and I supposed my hon. friend had an amendment to move to that motion. But on looking at the report since, I see it is not one that requires a motion for its adoption.

Mr. LENNOX.

We could only move an amendment to the report, we cannot move for the adoption of the report, because it is not a report that requires adoption. On Tuesday, when the report was brought in, I moved that it be considered on this day. The resolution was carried. I do not understand that I have to make any motion in order now to discuss it. I am proceeding to "consider the report as brought in.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

In order to place the matter before the House, some one should move that the report be taken into consideration. That would give an opportunity for discussion.

Mr. LENNOX.

Well, I move that.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Very good.

Mr. LENNOX.

I move, seconded by Mr. Barker: [DOT]

That the fourth report of the special committee appointed to investigate the Lumsden charges be now taken into consideration.

I was proceeding to refer to some of the items of the classification, and I will turn now to the figures, as given in a return brought down, of what the road as a whole is going to cost us, and the situation is still more startling. I have compiled, from the return 426, what this road is_ likely to cost us, and I find a most startling set of figures as regards what it must inevitably cost upon the information that is available at- the present time. These figures are as follows:

Thirteen Contracts.

No. To Cost. Costing.1 .. $ 989,895 $ 1,765,6002 .. 289,090 536,6633 .. 767,434 951,0914 .. 1,898,134 2,475,0955 .. 1,646,253 3,170,0006 .. 1,385,941 2,105,5247 .. 2,377,409 3,256,7388 .. 5,011,346 7,320,7639, 10.. .. .. 5,297,257 12,963,24311 .. 1,691,073 3,637,62714 .. 3,815,279 5,154,35021 .. 12,000,000 17,456,268$37,169,101 $60,792,962

An excess of 60 per cent.

We were told by the department that:

The above amounts stated to be required to complete are approximate and are subject to revision; no special estimates having been made for the purpose.

Complete'figures for the other 8 contracts are not available, but when we find that these thirteen contracts are going to cost us this enormously increased amount, it is fair to assume, I think, that those upon which the work has not been done yet will cost us in the same proportion. Therefore, you may add to the eight contracts yet to be completed at least 60 per cent of the estimated cost at the time the contracts were made. Then we will have the follow-in result: .

Statement of Cost under Contract.

We have then 13 contracts to cost

$37,169,101 costing $60,792,962

We will have 8 contracts to cost

$26,866,051 costing 12,985,686

Add under-estimate of 5 per cent. 5,188,932

And the 21 contractors will be paid. $108,967,580 Add interest during 8 years construction, say 1 years at 31 per cent simple interest 15,155,161

Total cost when road completed for

schedule items only $121,123,011

Add 7 years interest at 3 per cent compounded 28,532,128

Total cost of scheduled items 7 years

after completion, this is all extra. $152,655,169

We must make some allowance, more or less, for errors-honest errors if you like- and we might well make an estimate, according to the experience we have had, of probably 20 or 25 per cent. But, I will not make any estimate of that kind. I will assume that there has been an error of 5 per cent. Add 5 per cent for under estimate, which will give you $5,188,932, and it will bring the amount to be paid to these twenty-one contractors up to $108,967,580, or nearly $109,000,000. You have to add interest during the construction period which, when this matter was launched, was said to be five years. Seven years have gone now, and far more than five years will elapse before the Quebec bridge will be completed; and before a good deal of this work will be done. Count eight years, which will give an average of four years for construction-, and if you add four years at 31 per cent simple interest, you get $15,155,461, making the total cost at the time this work is completed, $124,123,041. These are not speculative figures. These are the figures taken from the returns brought down. Then, we have to bear the expense of the road for seven years at all events, and we will have to pay compound interest; there is no getting out of that because we will have to borrow the money. We will have therefore to pay for seven years 3

per cent compounded which will amount to $28,532,128, making the total cost, not of the road, but of the 103 schedule items alone of $152,655,269, at the end of the seven-year period. The Finance Minister, not relying upon his own information, but after sufficient inquiry, after investigation, after consulting experts, assured us that he had ascertained that the total cost would be $51,300,000. That was for everything. Now, for the schedule items alone we have $152,655,169, or three times the estimated cost as given by the Finance Minister. But that is not all by any means. We have to add to this all the items that are not included in the contracts let to contractors. These do not include right of way, the rails, the fastenings, the terminals, the station houses, the turntables, the sidings, the telegraph system, the workshops, the elevators, the bridges, and the Quebec bridge, built, fallen and to build in all, counting for more than $50,000,000 yet. This is a very startling condition of things, and therefore, it is one which demands, not of the members of this committee alone, but of every member, of this House, yes, and of every Canadian, a thorough, a full, and searching investigation. It is something so startling, and so unusual that it demands of the Prime Minister now, that he shall say, as being more responsible than anybody else, that we shall have a thorough, , full, and searching investigation. These figures represent instead of the $25,-00d or $28,000 a mile that was estimated by the Finance Minister, an actual expenditure for the work let of over $84,000 a mile. That ought to be sufficient to make the Prime Minister think. With all the items added it will make the total cost of this road $200,000,000, and it will not be one dollar less according to the figures we have. It represents an actual total outlay for these 1,084 miles of road of $111,000 a mile. Yet, we have a committee of four, or of seven, whichever you like, pottering over a little matter that is practically of no importance, spending time over some' isolated instances instead of meeting the situation boldly, and carefully, and inquiring how it is that this road, which was to cost $51,300,000, according to the estimate which the Finance Minister said he had taken the best means of ascertaining to be correct, is costing at least $200,000,000, from Winnipeg to Moncton alone. There are some other instructive figures I intended to read before coming to this. We have eighteen contracts upon which work has been done. We have three contracts upon which no work has yet been done. I take these eighteen contracts which have been proceeded with, and I take the figures upon Mr. LENNOX.

which they were let, the total estimated cost, according to the estimates at the time these contracts were let, and I find that i lie rock alone-I mean loose, and solid rock altogether-will cost a sum equal to the Finance Minister's estimate of the total construction cost of the whole road. I hope I will have the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham). He is peculiarly responsible, almost as responsible i.s the Prime Minister. It is said that he does not hear me. If he does not hear me some other people will, and the country will know how these figures are. They are government figures, taken from a government return, and they cannot be gainsaid. The government give us the amount that the work was to cost, and they give us the percentage of work that has been done. I add to the whole work done the percentage yet to be and the following results appear r

Rock

to cost. Has cost. Will cost.No. i.. .. $ 71,158 $ 579,628 $ 610,1352.. .. 29,236 109,198 175,9303.. .. 244,379 317,234 373,152" 4.. .. 920,760 1,106,610 1.475,4805.. .. 716,738 1,385,956 1,847,9426.. .. . 308,716 859,157 909,695" 7.. .. 1,017,305 914,300 1,956,602" 8.. .. 588,821 2,878,912 4.318,3689.. .. 608,607 803,853 1,071,804f* 10.. .. 1,303,517 4,950,507 5,569,32011.. . 471,450 1,668,702 2,336,184" 12.. .. 1,946,169 376,093 4,324,960tt 14.. .. 369,071 534,826 1,900,080t< 15.. .. 486,620 [DOT] 459,125 1,377,375" 18.. .. 422,160 491,840 1,008,272tt 19.. .. 3,926,610 1,179,960 5,800,000tt 20.. .. 754,975 681,837 1,009,11621.. .. 6,723,843 12,140,755 13.012,000$20,910,145 $51,036,415

So that we have this result, that the rock excavation in these contracts, which according to the engineer's estimate, based upon what was said to be reliable data at the time the contracts were let, was to cost $20,900,000, is costing, according to the returns brought down by the Minister of Railways, $51,036,000; or, in other words, the rock excavation alone is costing what the Minister of Finance said would be the cost of the whole 1,800 miles of road. Now, in this condition of things, I recognize, as everybody must recognize, that however we were hampered in the committee and outside of the committee, it is the duty of us all to investigate this matter in every possible way with the view of finding out how this enormous squandering of the people's money has been brought about. It is said by the organs of the government that the reason we left the committee was that we were disappointed that things were not coming our way, I suppose that by that

they assume-and they must be the judges of their own view of the matter-that we wanted the investigation to turn out badly. 1 deny that entirely. We did want a thorough and searching investigation. We had not proceeded very far with the committee work until we found good reason for believing that we could not obtain that thorough and searching investigation, and any one who has even casually watched the proceedings of that committee will not be convinced that there is very much investigation about it down to the present time. But, taking the suggestion of the Grit press with the ' Globe ' at the head of the list, and the minor organs chipping in and singing the chorus, that we did not think matters were turning out bad enough, let me look at a few pages of Mr. Lumsden's evidence, and see the result. I have taken the trouble to take out of the long array of items furnished byMr.Lumsden some thirty or more instances of which he complains. He told us in the committee that he had only given us one-quarter of what he had ascertained in the few days he was going over the road. Mr. Lumsden told us that he had got a statement of the returns which had actually been made by the government engineers to the commission, the prices according to those returns, and the amounts that were to be paid, and as he went along he noted what he thought was wrong in the classification. From those notes of the engineer I have been able to ascertain what was the overpay in each case. Now, if the government organs, the ' Globe ' included, want to be fair about this matter, they ought to be reasonably well satisfied. I start with the minor cases, which run up from eighteen per cent of excess of payment to nearly 400 per cent. That strikes me as being something that ought to arrest the attention of the government, something that ought to make the government feel that there should be more than this little petty investigation that is going on at the present time; and I want to tell the Prime Minister what it means, if he has not been following the evidence. It means this, that just as in the Hodgins inquiry the whole bent of the inquiry was to find out that Hodgins, the gentleman whom the government employed, was no good, so in the bigger case to-day, the whole bent of the inquiry, the energy of the prosecuting counsel, Mr. Chrysler, the energy of that other independent gentleman, Mr. Smith, the energy of Mr. Moss,- and it is all right as far as he is concerned-the energy of all these parties is to show that the government employed for their chief engineer an absolute fool. If that is the way the government are going to finish their work, If that is the way they are going to reinstate themselves

with the public, well and good; but that is the, drift of the cross-examination; that is what eight or ten men, an army of engineers, and a large number of lawyers, at an expense of from $800 to $1,000 a day, are engaged in at the present time. I have numbered these statements, and I will summarize them:

No. 1-Engineer's note ' Something wrong here; rock should not be more than one-half in all the cuts, and one-half the remainder common excavation.' It was all charged as rock and loose rock. It should have cost $4,945; it cost $5,845, an overpayment of $900, or an excess at the rate of eighteen per cent.

No. 2-The engineer's note is ' Cut all sand and gravel, very few stones The cost was $16,499.30. The engineer said the cost should be $12,882. So there was an overpayment of $3,617.30, or an excess at the rate of twenty-eight per cent.

No. 3-The engineer's note is ' Borrow pits; all common excavation '. It was charged nevertheless as 1,743 cubic yards of loose rock, and the rest common excavation. It should have co3t $1,307.10; it cost $1,829, an over-payment of $521,90, or forty per cent excess.

No. 4-The engineer's note is ' Ballast pit, no boulders in sight, all sand, and a little clay '. They found, however, 437 cubic yards of boulders, and 24,033 cubic yards of loose rock. The cost should have been $17,620.50, whereas it was $25,428.20, an over-payment of $7,807,70, or an excess of forty-four per cent.

No. 5-The engineer's note is ' All common excavation But there was returned 1,050 cubic yards of loose rock. The cost should have been $630; it wa3 $945, an over-payment of $315, or fifty per cent more than it should have cost.

No. 6-The engineer says that this was 'All common excavation,' which should have cost $3,887.77, or 12,959 yards at 30 cents. It cost, however, $5,746.80, making an overpayment of $1,859.10, or 47 per cent.

No. 7-The engineer's note with regard to this is, * Ploughed and scraped,' meaning common excavation. This cost us $29,970, and it should have cost only $19,597.50, making an over payment of $10,372.50, or 53 per cent.

No. 8-The engineer says that this was all muskeg, common excavation. Yet I find that we paid for 7,049 cubic yards of loose rock at 60 cents, and only 4,985 common excavation at 30 cents. We paid in all $5,724.90, whereas we should only have paid $3,610.20, making an over-payment of $2,114.70, or 58 per cent.

No. 9-The engineer's note is, ' Not a boulder.' Yet we paid for loose rock, 4,679 yards at 60 cents, and common excavation, 3,046 yards at 30 cents, making a total paid

of $3,721.20, whereas we should only have paid for the whole as common excavation at 30 cents, $2,317.50, making an over-payment of $1,403.70, or 60 per cent.

Did our engineer know what he was talking about? Does the government take the position that he is a ninny? Mr. Lumsden is probably sixty years of a*e. Well, men who are sixty years old, and who are drawing a salary of $6,000 a year, do not throw up such a good position on a whim or without good cause. Had the engineer not been a man of principle, had he simply been bent on keeping office, he would have effaced himself and passed everything. But he took the opposite course. And remember there is no pension attached to the office. The engineer does not belong to the military branch of the service. Yet we find this man throwing up a salary of $6,000 a year, and we can come to no other conclusion than that he had to do so or act dishonestly by the country. His action was not that of a nonentity. The government and their press are, however, straining every nerve to show that this man was an imbecile, that he was no good. Well, Mr. Speaker, if he were, he would have clung to his position and done what he was told. But contrast the position which the government now takes with the one they took two years ago. At that time I called its attention, in pretty strenuous terms, to the necessity for an investigation _ in connection with the resignation of Major Hod-gins. I then asked the government whether they were satisfied that their chief engineer, Mr. Lumsden, was a competent man. I said to them: Do you think you have the right man, or is there something wrong? It would be better to pay $10,000 a year more and get the best man to be had. The government replied that their chief engineer, Mr. Lumsden, was quite competent, that everything was all right. At that time, however, they were fighting Major Hodgins, and now they are doing their best to crush" Mr. Lumsden.

No. 10-This shows an over-payment of $1,574, or 68 per cent. We should have paid only $2,304, whereas we paid $3,877. -

No. 11-The engineer's note is ' No stone in sight.' However, we find the following paid for:

Rock, 90 yards at $1.70 $153 00

Loose rock, 500 yards at 60 cents.. .. $300 00 Common excavation, 502 yards at 30

cents $150 60

Total $603 60

This should have been common excavation, 1,092 yards at 30 cents, $327.60, making an over-payment of $276, or 84 per cent.

No. 10a-The engineer's note is ' All looks like common excavation; may have been 50 yards loose rock south side.' Yet we paid as follows:

Mr. LENNOX.

Loose rock, 6,600 yards at 30 cents.. $3,300 00 Common excavation, 4,400 yards at

21 cents 924 00

Total $4,224 00

Whereas we should only have paid for 50 yards of loose rock, and the balance common excavation, or a total of $2,324.50, making an over-payment of $1,899.50, or 81 per cent.

No. 12-Engineer's note is ' 50 yards loose rock at east end, all the rest common excavation. No solid rock.' Well, we paid $3,878, whereas we only should have paid $2,304, making an over-payment of $1,573.97, being an excess of 84 per cent. This over-payment is due to the fact that 996 yards were charged as solid rock at $1.50, and 1,047 as loose rock, at 50 cents.

No. 13-The engineer's note is 'Except possibly 5 yards loose rock, it is all common excavation.' But instead of paying only for 5 yards of loose rock we paid for 3,324 yards of loose rock at 60 cents and 405 yards of common excavation at 30 cents, or a total payment of $1,515.90, whereas we should only have paid $820.20, making an over-payment of $695.70, or 80 per cent.

Remember that these are only upon a little section of the road. Now take up No. 14.

The chief engineer's note is, 'No signs of a stone.' Yet we paid as follows:

Solid rock, 1,562 yds. at $1.50 $2,343

Loose rock, 2,562 yds. at 50 cts 1,280

Common excavation, 10,821 yds. at 21 cts. 2,274

Total $5,896

Whereas we should only have paid for 14,953 yards at 21 cents, $3,140, being an over-payment of $2,757, or 87 per cent.

No. 15-The engineer's note is 'AH common excavation, no sign of rock or loose rock here.' Yet we paid $595 instead of $315, or $280 over-payment, or 88 per cent.

No. 16-The engineer's note is 'All common excavation.' Nevertheless, on a total of 870 yards we paid for 580 yards of loose rock at 50 cents. Or we made an over-payment of $160, being at the rate of 92 per cent.

No. 17-The engineer's note is 'All common excavation,' I find, however, that out of 2,740 we paid for 2,000 yards of loose rock and only 740 of common excavation, making an over-payment of $580, or an excess of 100 per cent.

No. 18-The engineer's note is 'Looks like 10 yards of solid rock, 300 of loose rock, and the rest common excavation.' But what did we pay for it? We paid for it:

Rock, 3,446 yds. at $1.50 $5,169 00

Loose rock, 4,329 yds. at 50 cts 2,164 50

Common excavation, 14,143 yds. at 21 cts 2,970 00

Total $10,303 00

Whereas all we should have paid was $4,702, making an over-payment of $5,600, or 119 per cent.

No. 19-The engineer's note is 'All common excavation.' We paid $697 for the little work done there. Whereas, all we' should have paid was $311, making an overpayment of $385, or 123 per cent.

No. 19a-The engineer's note is 'No rock; say 1,000 yards loose rock, rest common excavation.' Yet we paid for 5,790 yards of rock and 3,850 yards of loose rock. Or in all we paid $11,735, whereas, on a proper classification, we should only have paid $4,400, making an over-payment of $7,295, or 164 per cent.

The importance of these items is this, that they show the hollowness of the arguments of the Grit press that the opposition members on the committee retired because there was no evidence of wrong-doing. What better evidence could they want? It seems to me that the evidence is very strong. It seems to me strong enough to satisfy the right hon. the Prime Minister that when he narrows the inquiry into a trial of Mr. Lumsden and diverts it from the true issue, as to whether that road is costing more than it should, he is not doing justice to the country.

Take No. 20-The engineer's note is 'Dug in places to test it; good ballast; whole cut common excavation, might be a few yards of rock in boulders.' Well, we paid for 4,730 yards of solid rock at $1.70 and 9,672 yards loose rock at 60 cents, and 2,007 yards only of common excavation at 30 cents. We paid a total of $14,686, whereas, we only should have paid $5,054, making an over-payment of $9,231, or 169 per cent. We over-paid $9,231, or at the rate of 169 per cent.

No. 21-The engineer's note says 'This seems all common excavation, no rocks, but a per cent of loose rock, say 25 per cent for boulders, some of it good ballast.' It cost us $84,771.34 according to the classification. Ihe engineer says it should have cost us $29,993.59. In that case there was an over-payment of $54,777.76, or 182 per cent.

No. 21a-Mr. Lumsden says ' Little or no rock. Considerable loose rock, say one-third; rest common excavation.' We paid for this $16,577.45; we should have paid $5,844.25, an over-payment of $10,733.20, or 183 per cent.

No. 22-The engineer says ' May have been a few yards rpck, one-fifth loose rock, remainder common excavation.' We paid for that $43,270.13; we should have paid $15,129.06, an over-payment of $28,141.07, an excess of 186 per cent.

No. 23-The engineer's note reads ' May have 'been a few yards, say 20, of rpck, one-fifth loose rock, remainder common excavation.' The quantity of solid rock returned was 20,267 yards, and of loose rock 18,409 yards. We paid $43,269.65, when, according to the judgment of the engineer, we should have paid $15,068.43, an over-payment of $28,201.22, or 187 per cent.

No. 24-The engineer's note says ' May have been 10 yards rock, and say 1,000 yards of loose rock, the rest common excavation.' We over-paid, in that case, according to the government engineer's estimate, $6,854.32, or 190 per cent.

No. 25-The engineer's note says ' Say 2 boulders, 5 yards rock, one-eighth loose rock, the remainder common excavation.' For these two boulders, we paid for 4,127 yards of solid rock and 4,210 yards of loose rock. The excess payment amounted to $6,079.25, or 194 per cent.

No. 26-' Nothing but *common excavation in sight,' says the engineer's note. We paid $10,833.57 more than, according to the figures given by the engineer, we should have paid. That is, we made an excess payment of 245 per cent-three and a half times more than we should have paid.

No. 27-In this case, 'No rock in sight, say one-eighth loose rock, the remainder common excavation,' is the way the engineer's note reads. We paid $23,9*90.27, when we should have paid $6,826.45, an excess payment of $17,162.82, or 251 per cent.

_ No. 28-The engineer's note says * No rock in sight, one-eighth loose rock, remainder common excavation.' We paid $5,853.45, when we should have paid $1,611.95, an excess of $4,241.50, or 263 per cent.

No. 29-The engineer's note ' No rock, only say 100 yards loose rock, the rest common excavation.' Yet, there were returned 2,142 yards of rock, and 1,395 of loose rock. We paid $4,198, where we should have paid $1,059.89. That is, we over-paid $3,138.73, or 296 per cent-about four times what we should have paid.

No. 30-The engineer's note says ' Except 150 feet east end, all common excavation -say 600 yards loose rock at east end.' We paid $7,711.93, when we should have paid $1,735.35, an over-payment of $5,976.58, or 344 per cent.

And yet, this pious editor of the ' Globe,' the gentleman who, when he is not praying or pretending to, is negotiating our treaties at Washington, or is slandering somebody, is very much concerned because he thinks that the members of the minority of the committee were so athirst for gore, that they were not satisfied with these disclosures. I have only touched the fringe of what Mr. Lumsden gave in the first two days of his investigation. What he has done since is easy to ascertain for anybody who will follow the investigation. He has given some answers to Mr. Chrysler which will do neither harm nor good. He has been in the hands of Mr. Smith for many days in an honest endeavour to show that the government had an engineer who was

no good. What comfort the government is going to get ont of that I do not know. We want a capable, as well as honest, government; this kind

Now, I have referred to these items, first as to the railway question generally, and then as to a few of the disclosures during the two days of investigation when we were present in the committee, for the purpose of emphasizing the fact that I realize that our duty was to stand to our guns and fight in the interest of the country if we could fight effectually. But I take the position that, while it is my duty to stand firmly in the interest of the people in this committee of mystery, it is also my duty to select my fighting ground to some extent, and also to select my weapons. And now, I come to the point of why we left that committee-or, the more important point, as not involving the personal question, what was the attitude of that committee which necessitated the retirement of three of its members. And first, let me say that I am not afraid of fighting. Perhaps, sometimes, I am recklessly hold. I do not mean that I fight

effectively, or that I am a match for the hon. gentlemen who were on that committee. But I do say that I am not driven away by any feeling of timidity. I left that committee when I

came to the conclusion that, by reason of the manner in which the proceedings were being carried on, and 'by reason of the drift of matters, it was impossible to serve the public in that committee, and that if I remained I would become a party to a farce -a laughing farce if it were not so serious in the interest of the country, a farcial investigation which was an insult to the intelligence of the people of Canada. Now, the position was this:

On the first day of the inquiry, the commission appeared by counsel. Mr. Lums-den announced that he was merely a witness, and he did not propose to have counsel. It is said in a lying pamphlet-I want to choose my language on this occasion- it is said in a lying pamphlet that is circulated by supporters of the government from week to week, that goes out every day during the session, and that has been dealing with this investigation, goes out under frank of that sapient gentleman, that very busy gentleman, the Solicitor General (Mr. Bureau), that goes out under his frank the year round, both during the session and after the session, that the members of the minority insisted that Mr. Lumsden should have counsel. That is not true. No member of the minority committee suggested that Mr. Lumsden should have counsel. We recognized from the first that, not Mr. Lumsden, but the commission, and ultimately the government, -were Mr. LENNOX.

the people on trial. You cannot shirk that issue, the government is on trial, the commission is on trial, .and Mr. Lumsden is merely a wdtness. It _ is absolutely false to say that the minority of the committee ever urged [DOT] that Mr. Lumsden should have counsel. But what we did say was, that before this investigation went further, there should be counsel to represent the people. Mr. Lumsden did not appear by counsel, and I think he was a wise man. He had no axe to grind, no fight to put up, although the government is fighting to-day tooth and nail, as they fought Mr. Hodgins. The government is on trial in this matter, and we said that as the government was represented by counsel, there should be somebody to represent tire people. The chairman took the ground that it was a fight-just imagine!-a fight between the subordinate engineers and Mr. Lumsden, and therefore there was no need for counsel for the people. Another gentleman, the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Wilson), did not know who the people meant, and so far as I know he does not know yet. What a pity, what a lovely position that is to be in, that we have on this investigation a gentleman who does not know who the people are. Let me read his exact language. I had been talking about the people, and he said:

Mr. WILSON.

I understand that Mr. Lums-den has made some charges or some reflections against some engineers, and I for one will be delighted if Mr. Lumsden is represented by counsel, and that the party or parties against whom he has laid complaints should also be represented. But when you talk about counsel to represent the public, that seems to me a very vague word.

There is a good deal in that. When wo have gentlemen who sit in their seats until the Prime Minister rises, and if he should make a mistake and sit down, they would not get up, men who think that Providence, and Canada, and the nation are bound up in the Prime Minister-when you get men of that kind on a committee, it is not surprising that they do not know who the public is. They are fighting for the Prime Minister, they are fighting for the government, fighting for the party. But nothing for the public, nothing for the people. I was thinking of this, as I walked up to-day, and I remembered that possibly I could find some lines that fit the case in a poem of Riley, which I find in a little volume called ' The Flying Islands of the Night.' I will only read a line or two:

Wo follow ever on and on-

O'er hill and hollow, brake and lawn;

Thro gruesome vale and dread ravine-

And there have been many gruesome vales and. dread ravines in the political history of our hon. friends opposite:

6021)

Thro gruesome vale and dread ravine Where light of day is never seen.

We waver not in loyalty,-

Unfaltering we follow thee-

We follow, follow, follow thee?

Then let me give the concluding stanza: We follow ever on and on;

It doesn't make any difference where, they are so used to it.

We follow ever on and on;

For wheresoever thon hast gone We hasten joyous, knowing there

Is sweeter sin than otherwhere-

Does the right hon. gentleman appreciate that? There has been a lot of sweet sin, there are mountains and mountains of sweet sin in this railway, this great National Transcontinental railway that the right hon. gentleman talked about, and which I am afraid will have to be called the great National Transcontinental Graft railway.

We follow ever on and on; tor wheresoever thou hast gone We hasten joyous, knowing there Is sweeter sin than otherwhere-

Leave still its latest cup,

It s latest cup.' What a splendid thing if we could only believe that we had finally got to the latest cup in this iniquitous railway deal.

Leave still its latest cup, that we May drain it as we follow thee.

We follow, follow, follow thee!

Now, that sums up fairly well the attitude of the hon. member for Laval. As to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), his methods are so well known they are so creditable to his ability, that I won't say anything about him. But we did urge that at this initial stage of the proceedings, not that Mr. Lumsden should be represented by counsel, but that the people should be represented by counsel, seeing that the government was already represented by counsel paid by the people. Well, we could not get our way. Finally it was understood that Mr. Lumsden would give us a statement in writing, and there was to be no cross-examination. That agreement was not kept. We went on, with a counsel there for the commission, and the chief commissioner, himself an able counsel, being there; we went on, the minority against the majority, and every question that could be interjected from time to time by the hon. member for Pictou, with his excellent ability, was interjected for the purpose of getting, if possible, to the same stage at which that same hon. gentleman lauded Mr. Hodgins some two years before. Then, at the end of two days, my hon. friend proposed that we should have counsel for the committee. If, on the first or second day when we proposed that counsel should be retained, it had been ac-192i

ceded to, and an adjournment had until counsel was retained to represent the public, I would not have felt so strongly that it was absolutely necessary that the nomination of counsel should be left in the hands of the minority. But matters developed during these two days, and by the end of these two days I was convinced, and I think any one who will read the evidence will be convinced, that it was absolutely necessary, if this investigation was not going to develop into a greater farce than it was at the beginning, that the nomination and engagement of counsel should be left in the hands of the minority. Well, we met, and what we proposed was that inasmuch as the majority of the committee were favourable to the government the engagement of counsel should be left in the hands of the minority. I ventured to say that the political affiliations of the majority of the committee, all things being equal, -upon a balance of evidence-would lead them rather to decide in iavour of the government than -against the government, and I ventured to say that, all things being equal, having regard to their political affiliations, and convictions, upon a balance of evidence, the minority of the committee would be disposed to decide in favour of the Conservative view of the matter. For that I was called a cynical partisan by that great organ of public opinion, the 'Globe.'

I am not ashamed of that view; I could press it farther than that. But, the majority being favourable to the government, the government having in their employ counsel paid by the country, the government having at their; disposal a well organized staff, the commissioners having also Mr. Smith, an able lawyer, at their elbow, throughout the whole investigation, and also having at their beck and call when necessary the Justice Department of the government, it being well known too that the contractors, and the commission stood in together, fighting Mr. Lumsden, and it being well known that the contractors were going to have counsel, that array of counsel being on the government side, on the side of the commission, and on the side of those who were accused, I claimed then, and I claim now, and on that I am prepared to be judged by the country, that if this investigation was not to be an absolute, and abominable farce we should have the right to name the counsel on behalf of the people as we were the only members standing independently in the matter. If some one says; ' Give the decision to the minority.' I reply that we do not absolutely ask it for the minority. We said we want to name counsel in whom we have confidence, whom we can go to, talk to and consult', but we will not force anybody upon the committee, we will submit names, and if one shall be found to be objectionable for a.ny cause we shall submit another, and

(3031

so we shall go through the list. We will not. ask you to appoint a partisan of any kind. We parted on the understanding at that time, as is evidenced by the statement tof the chairman, that that right would be conceded to us. But the ma_-jority on the committee, in the end, would not a now us that right. They said: We

will name the counsel. They did not wait to submit a name, but they went to Mr. Wallace Nesbitt, and they engaged him, and secured his services. Every lawyer in the House, almost everybody in the country, knows what the effect upon the mind of counsel is as to who may engage him. He naturally looks for his instructions to the party that engage him, and he naturally expects to advance their interests. Tell me if you like that the majority of the committee want a fair investigation. I will grant it if you like, but I will say that there is yet their political affiliations, their_ political leanings, their desire is to have it appear that there is nothing wrong except Mr. Lumsden, that everything was done above board, that the classification was honest, that the country was not defrauded, and that, whilst the road will cost four times what we were led to believe it would cost us, yet it is honest, just, and fair. That is the fight of the government, that is the fight of the Minister of Railways in this House, and that will be the fight of the majority of the committee. They said: We

will appoint Mr. Wallace Nesbitt, and the ostensible reason for that appointment was that he is a man of commanding notoriety, he is known throughout the whole country as a prominent counsel, and, they said, we cannot consent to appoint any body of less eminence than Mr. Wallace Nesbitt. They said: He is a Conservative. What has

that to do with it if we are to have an honest investigation?

Some; hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.

Mr. LANCASTER.

When they want an honest counsel they have to get a Conservative.

Mr. LENNOX.

Well, as to the Conservative 'branch of it I am not much concerned. I retired before Mr. Wallace Nesbitt's name was mentioned at all. I have enjoyed the friendship and acquaintance of Mr. Nesbitt for many years. He is a very clever counsel. He has a brother here, a supporter of the government. That has nothing to do with it. Mr. Wallace Nesbitt is the one Conservative in all Canada that the government have anv confidence in. They appointed Mr. Wallace Nesbitt as a judge of the Supreme Court. They had never transgressed in any other instance or in any other appointment. Clear grit every time except that one time that was the only time that they ever lapsed into virtue. I am not going to Mr. LENNOX.

say anything against Mr. Wallace Nesbitt. He had the grace, when he found that we were opposed to him, not to Tatify the appointment. He had consented, and he was appointed. I am not going to ask whether he is a Conservative or not. He came from that riding that the late James Sutherland used to represent-Oxford-and we have had many peculiar types of Conservative from that Tiding. I made no objection to Mr. Wallace Nesbitt on personal grounds. But, there was an insuperable barrier to Mr. Wallace Nesbitt being the counsel and my hon. friend from Pic-tou (Mr. Macdonald), who was a member of the Hodgins Compiittee, and my hon. friend, the chairman of this committee, who was the chairman of the Hodgins Committee well knew it all the time. I knew it and my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) no doubt knew it. Who is the gentleman they wanted to have? Why, the gentleman who gave them an opinion in writing two years before against the contention of Mr. Lumsden. And the hon. member for Pictou, behind the back of the committee-I do not mean that in the sense that he acted wrongfully-but without consulting the committee, engaged Air. Wallace Nesbitt and Mr. Wallace Nesbitt would have been the counsel as far as -we know but for the fact that the minority would not consent.