1. S40.599.83.

2. $128,027.57.

3. $14,560.23.

4. and 9.

Mainten-Miles ance

Ashcroft-Highland Valley, B.C. 28

Ashcroft-McKennais, B.C 13

Asheroft-Savona, B.C 33 89.12Ashcroft-Lilloet, B.C

60 2,924.89Lillooet-Lytton, B.C 49 430.00Lillooet-Bridge River, B.C.. 72 13.41Clinton-Gang Ranch, B.C.... 57 637.66

100 Mile House-Canim Lake,

B.C 23

150 Mile House-Bella Coola,

B.C 362 7,366.37

150 Mile House-Quesnel Forks,

B.C '

66 251.62Quesnel-Barkerville, B.C.. .. 59 1,593.55Vanderhoof, B.C

12 992.23Stuart lake, B.C _ 41 83.50

Burns Lake-Francois lake-

Ootsa, B.C 573 84.62

North Bulkley-Ootsa lake,

B.C 24 50.29

New Hazelton-Skeena Crsn'g,

B.C 19

Miles Mainten- ance

New Hazeltoii-Silver Standard, B.C 8

Queen Charlotte line, B.C. 113 9,896.45Hazelton-Prince Rupert, B.C. 189| 34,770.30Prince Rupert-Port Simpson, B.C 30 1,190.29Prince Rupert-Digby Island, B.C 4 Terraee-Stewart, B.C 171 19,097.1CTagish-Carcross, Y.T 25 1,653.1CHootalinqua-Livingston creek, Y.T 35 6.71

l,551i $81,131.66

5. $47,135.93.

6. $223,719.46.

7. 1,737 miles from Ashcroft to Forty Mile; The line from Vancouver to Ashcroft is owned by the C.P.R. Telegraphs.

8. 511 miles.

10. 1594 miles.

1. Are the harbour commissioners of Montreal calling for tenders for a new grain elevator to be erected in the vicinity of Tarte pier, Montreal?

2. If so, will tenders of all companies operating under Dominion or provincial charters receive consideration?

3. Is there any truth in the report that tenders which may be received from companies with headquarters outside of Montreal will not be considered?

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. No.

1. Is there any truth in the announcement made by Director Gough of the Canadian National Railway and by J. E. Dalrymple, vice-president, in Toronto evening papers, Friday, March 23rd, that the Canadian National Railways is to erect the largest skyscraper in the British Empire on the corner of King and Yonge streets, Toronto, for regional headquarters, and have the National Railways under the existing legislation the power to erect such a building without the consent of parliament and by what statute?

2. What will be the cost of said building, how will the money be provided, and will parliament have to pass on the money for this item?

3. Is it intended that the building of this skyscraper shall have priority and take precedence over the contract the city has with the government for the building of the following long delayed essentials and the carrying out of the contracts herein, viz.:-

(a) A post office,

(b) A customs house,

(c) Completion of the new Union Railway Station,

(d) The viaduct,

(e) Harbour improvement?

Questions

4. Why are the Canadian National Railways expropriating this property when private ownership was ready to build a similar building on this site, and was not the new Union Station erected for this required accommodation if at present needed at all, and is not the new station the logical site for headquarters?

5. Is the erection of said building not a violation of the station and viaduct agreement, 1913, by which headquarters were to be in the new depot?

6. Who recommended this construction to the government, and why?

' Hon. Mr. GRAHAM: .

1. If such a statement were made in Toronto, it was without authority. The property has been expropriated largely for ticket office purposes and to protect the interests of the Canadian National Railways in its uptown location. An amicable arrangement in the matter has been reached with the owners.

2. Plans for the utilization of the property have not yet been decided upon. When they ire, whatever requisite authority is required will be obtained.

3. The necessity to protect the railways' interests uptown does not interfere with any other public improvement required at Toronto.

4. The lease of the Grand Trunk for the location in question was expiring, and no other suitable site was available.

5. No violation of said agreement is involved.

6. The Railway Management recommended the expropriation for the purpose already referred to.

1. What is the tonnage capacity of the dry dock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, or the Canadian National Railway, at Prince Rupert, British Columbia, for vessels?

2. What is the total investment in the said dry dock?

3. How many main sections comprise the complete dry dock ?

4. How many of such section, or sections, of dry dock are used at present, and what class of vessels, and how many of such vessels, have been repaired in the dry dock during the year 1922, and up to the end of March, 1923?

5. What is the tonnage of the largest vessel repaired in said dry dock between the 1st of June, 1922, and the 28th February, 1923?

0. Would the government, or the Canadian National Railway, be willing to move a portion of such dry dock to Vancouver under reasonable terms and conditions?

7. Is the government, or the Canadian National Railway, or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, or whoever has the legal authority in that behalf, willing, under reasonable terms, to lease certain sections of said dry dock as are capable of being moved to Vancouver, in order to provide dry dock facilities for the vessels entering and leaving Vancouver?

1. 20,000 tons.

2. $2,940,000.

3. Three.

4. All sections have been used from time

to time and all classes of vessels up to 17,600 tons displacement. During the year 1922, dockings totalled 182, and from beginning of January to end of March, 1923, total dockings 37, mostly small vessels. %

5. 8,000 tons D.W.

6 and 7. So far as the government is aware the question of moving any part of the Prince Rupert drydock has not been considered.

Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):

For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, orders in council, and all other documents, relating to the lifting of the steel on portions of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern railway between Edmonton and the western boundary of the province of Alberta.

Mr. SHAW:

Before this motion is put, I wish to say that I have just received a copy of the Supplementary Estimates, indicating that it is proposed to vote a sum of $5,500,000 to cover provisional bonus allowances for the inside and outside Civil Service. I take this opportunity of indicating the difficulties from which many civil servants suffered last year owing to the fact that this bonus was not voted until, I think, the month of June. The civil servants consequently found it necessary to get along without that bonus, which many of them needed, until the vote was passed by parliament. I simply rise to call the attention of the government to the necessity of having this matter disposed of as early as possible in order that there may be no interregnum whatsoever in the payment of the bonus allowance to civil servants this year.

Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:

I may as well take this opportunity as any other to call attention to an official statement that I see

1GC5

Gratuities-G.T.R. Officials

in the press, authorized by the government, I believe by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the effect that a royal commission has been appointed, presumably under the Inquiries Act, to make inquiry into certain payments made by the former Board of Directors of the Grand Trunk in London, England, by way of gratuities, first of all to themselves, and secondly to others of their officers who still continue in their employment. I wish to ask: Is it the fact that a royal commission is to inquire into this matter? If so, what is there that is dark or misunderstood about it? In a word, what is there that is not known? What is the phase of it that still needs the light? Is it contemplated that this royal commission will proceed to England and have a trip over that portion of the world, and after they get there, how are they to be given such powers as will enable inquiry in England? In short, what is the general purview and what is the specific purpose of this inquiry? Anent this, it would be interesting to know who are in line for these positions, and how many? What is the proposed remuneration, besides the trip?

Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Acting Minister of Railways) :My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) has soared into the realm of unknowable details. I am not giving any new information to the House when I say that when the fact became known that certain grants were made by the London Board of Directors to their own members as well as to officials of the Grand Trunk, it caused considerable uneasiness throughout the country as to just how far these grants went, whaat authority there was for making the grants, and if other grants were made the details of which have not yet become known. I want to make it clear that the suggestion of a royal commission, is no reflection on any person, but the conditions surrounding the making of these grants ought to be made quite clear to the public in Canada who now own the property out of which, at least, a proportion of these grants came, as the assets of the Grand Trunk Railway Company were less when they came into the possession of the Dominion of Canada than they would have been had these grants not been made, without casting a reflection on any person, but merely with a desire to get at the real situation, so that the Canadian National Railway may be started on its career from now on without any cloud or suspicion hanging over it in regard to any of these transactions, the government thought it advisable to ask some independent body or person to act as a royal commission, to get the

facts as briefly and succinctly as could be done, so that they might be given to the public.

A letter was written if I remember correctly-and I am speaking from memory now -in October, 1919, by a legal representative of the government of that date in reference to a proposed agreement for taking over the Grand Trunk Railway. That agreement, although its provisions I believe were outlined in this letter, was not executed and did not become operative till the following March. There was one clause in that agreement, if I am correctly informed, which stated that after the execution of the agreement the Grand Trunk could not dispose of any of its assets without the consent of the government of Canada. In December, 1919, midway between the letter of October and the bringing into operation of the agreement, the board of directors met and passed a resolution giving gratuities to certain officers.

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

May I ask, was the resolution made public at that time?

Mr. GRAHAM:

I do not think so. It was made public a few days ago, as far as I know. In addition to that, that money was taken out of the fund set aside for fire insurance purposes. True, that fire insurance fund belonged to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, but it never was set aside for the purpose of giving gratuities, and the public would like to have cleared up the details surrounding the decision in regard, not so much to the giving of the gratuities, as to taking them out of the fire insurance fund which had been set apart for other purposes; because to the extent that these gratuities were taken out of the fire insurance fund, that fund was reduced when the Grand Trunk system came to the Dominion of Canada.

Then a resolution was passed by the board of directors, giving themselves a gratuity of five years' salary on account of the disappearance of the Grand Trunk and, consequently, the disappearance of the board of directors. I might say, in justice to the board of directors, first, that I believe that, under the Railway Act of Great Britain, gratuities of that kind are given to directors under similar conditions, and that, while the company may not have been chartered under that act, yet they were living in the shadow of it, and this resolution would be passed under conditions similar to those * existing in Great Britain.

But in addition to that, it is said in the resolution that these funds payable to the directors came out of another fund, contributed by the holders of the guaranteed se-

166G

Gratuities-G.T.R. Officials

curities, debentures and stock of the Grand Trunk. The holders of these securities are the men who have value, or to put the matter plainly, who do not lose by the transference of the Grand Trunk to the Dominion of Canada or to the Canadian National Railways. Just why a resolution of the board of directors ought to be necessary to dispose of privately contributed funds is a question that ought to be cleared up. I want to be fair to every person, and this might be the situation As I understand the matter, the holders of these securities contributed certain funds for the purpose of protecting their interests or the interests of the shareholders before the board of arbitration, and this fund may have been so contributed that the board of directors had the power to use it even for the purpose of giving themselves the five-year gratuities. Everything that has taken place may be perfectly explainable; but there are surrounding the payments of these gratuities to officers in Canada, conditions which, to my mind, make it essential, in order that the people of this country who now own these properties may have the utmost confidence in them, that this should be cleared up.

One thing which has come to my attention is this. These funds were paid out of the fire insurance fund; but when the officials signed the receipts for their gratuities, they found that those receipts stated distinctly that the contributions were gifts from the shareholders to them for long and contiued service. There are as regards the vouchers which were originally presented, details which, I think, require a good deal of investigation, and it would be in the interest of the public that some independent body-the government suggests a royal commission-should be named to make this investigation and to give to the people of Canada who own this property, a clean slate as to what has occurred, so that we shall all know through what vicissitudes our property has come before it has reached us. I think this is fair to the officials, fair to the British board as well as fair to the various Canadian boards.

I need not go into details. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) has asked me who was in line for the position of commissioner. If we take the men who are able, the line would be long; but up to the present time the personnel of the commission has been a secondary matter. Our sole purpose is to clear the air of whatever clouds may surround the transference of the Grand Trunk to the Dominion of Canada, and we believe it is in the public interest that this should be done. It may be necessary to have one commissioner; it may be necessary to have more. The

government has not even discussed the question of the personnel of the commission. My right hon. friend has asked: Shall he or

they have power to go to England? If it be found in the early stages of the investigation in Canada that it is in the interest of the public that the commissioner or commissioners should go to England, he or they should have the power to do so in order that the people of Canada may have the fullest information as regards this the greatest undertaking which the Canadian people have ever had on their hands.

The government had first thought of a Parliamentary committee; but they are unanimously of opinion that owing to' the lateness of the session and the peculiar conditions surrounding this tranfer, the interests of the public would be better and more speedily served by having a royal commission.