cavation decreased. But that is what we have in this case. The statement the min; in ister gave this afternoon shows that every case where any considerable quantity of work has been done, the solid rock has enormously increased, the loose rock has enormously increased, and common excavation has decreased. There are three or four cases where it is different. For in stance, on contract No. 7, the estimated quantity of solid rock was 633,000 cubic yards, the actual quantity returned is 533,000; but in this case there is only 46 per cent of the work done. In some other cases it is the same way. For instance, in contract No. 12, the estimated quantity of solid rock was 990,000 cubic yards, the amount returned is only 188,000. Of loose rock the estimate was 633,000 cubic yards, and only 130,000 were returned, but in that case only 8.8 per cent of the work has been done. So it is all down the list. For instance, in contract No. 14, the quantity of solid rock is still below the estimated quantity, but in that case, loose rock has got up from 210,000 cubic yards to 707,000 cubic yards, and only 28 per cent of the work has been done. Now, this is the position, that from end to end of that 1,800 miles there is one invariable system, namely, that the loose rock and solid have grown enormous ly, while common excavation has slipped out of sight. We can understand an occasional error. It is said by competent engineers that we should allow perhaps 10 per cent for error as regards variations in classification. But you should have the total quantities correct, and there is no competent engineer who will say that you can have these enormous discrepancies and account for them on the double basis of competent engineering in the first place, and competent and honest classification in the second place. Now look at some other of these figures. Take the first two contracts. There it is said there is no solid rock at all, that there is only a small quantity, in the one case 130,000 cubic yards, and in the other case less than 60,000 cubic yards of loose rock. That makes, in the two contracts, a total of 58 miles. What does that indicate? It indicates an agricultural region, there is practically no stone at all. Yet when we come to figure that out, we have loose rock growing from 130,000 cubic yards to 938,000 cubic yards. Then take contract No. 8, a startling case. Here we had an estimated quantity of 918,000 cubic yards of solid rock, that has grown so far as returned into 1,365,625 cubic yards. We had an estimate of 395,000 cubic yards of loose rock, that has grown into 1,382,000 cubic yards. Of common excavation, we had an estimate of 3,091,000 cubic yards, and that has shrunk to 869,000, and we have only 67 per cent of the work done. Now take No. 10. There was an estimate of 776,000 cubic yards of solid rock by com- of We These are startling figures to everybody except that commission who are fighting us to-day, and the government which is backing them, and I am going to appeal to the minister, because he is not yet into it up to the shoulders as some of them are; I am going to appeal to him now and ask him what he is going to do about it? There is no Prac use paltering about this question, there is no use in delaying. The minister has referred this evening to the fact that we have a board of expert engineers at work trying to find out how this is. How much work have they done? There is not a syllable for tically none. the people, for the government, for the members of this House from that Board of Arbitrators yet. My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) was a member of the Hodgins' Committee, and two and a half years ago he and other members of the committee on the government side fought us to prevent us from going on with the Hodgins inquiry, as we were ordered to go on by this House, and as we were ordered by the motion made by the first minister, to go on with that inquiry on all the charges contained in the various papers referred to us. They fought us and by force of numbers prevented us from And why? going on with that inquiry. Because these arbitrators were at work and it would interfere with their work, and we would have a report at once which would be satisfactory and conclusive on all these matters. Two and a half years have gone are not a step closer to a by and we determination of this question, as far as anything practical is concerned. I appeal to the minister and I say on my respona member of the House, that sibility as instead of that commission endeavouring to find out on behalf of the people what is wrong, the action of that commission from first to last, in connection with the appoint con ment of this board, has been consistently and persistently to prevent an inquiry in this matter. In the return which has been brought down on the motion of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) every page where there is a line written by the commission is a page and a line showing a desire to prevent a full and thorough investigation of this matter. That is the action of that commission, and I say to the minister he is the one more than all others who is responsible, and that if he wants to keep his reputation up, to do justice by the people, to see that this railway does not become a perfect scandal from one end of this country to the other, and before all countries, he should take this matter in hand and take some measures by which the people will be protected and this system will not be tinued. I believe every word I say in this matter. I have given a good deal of time to it and I intend to give a good deal more to it if necessary, but I do say that this is becoming one of the most iniquitous works ever carried on on this continent and some years ago they had some pretty bad ones to the south of us. The minister has not as yet become so deeply immersed in it as some others, but I say to him that he should look at the action of this commission critically and impartially, and if he can believe that this commission is acting in the interests of the public then he should go on; but I have read the records in connection with this investigation, by these arbitrators, these experts, and I can come to no other conclusion, nor can any one who reads the evidence, than that systematically, persistently, and determinedly, the members of this commission-the chairman, perhaps, more persistently than any others have endeavoured to block this inquiry and to confine it within the narrowest possible limits. I have talked warmly on this, let me come down to calm pleading with the minister. It is up to the minister, it is essentially his duty not to allow this matter to run on any longer, but to take some active, definite action to protect the rights of the people as regards the expenditure of money on the Transcontinental railway. Mr. GRAHAM. I shall not take up the time of the House following up my hon. friend, and I hope he will not think it discourteous on my part. He said what he said before in discussing this matter and what I would say in reply would be what I said before. Mr. LENNOX. When did I say it? Mr. GRAHAM. The hon. member spoke with a good deal of heat some weeks ago and I answered at some length. The situation in short is this: When this Act was being passed, the House unanimously decided on the method by which any differences as to classification would be adjusted and settled for. It was understood, of course, that in all works there would be differences of opinion, or you may call it something else if you like, that there would be differences in the classification as between the commission's engineers and the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific who had to take over the work. Parliament understood that would occur, and, without one dissenting voice, appointed a board to settle all these differences, a board of experts, not like my hon. friend or myself who has to take other peoples' word absolutely for it. They named a method by which a tribunal would be appointed. Mr. BARKER. Meantime you want to spend $20,000,000 more? Mr. GRAHAM. As a matter of fact there was a great deal of difficulty and a good deal of cross-firing in getting the board finally appointed. Some work has been done but a report has not been made. As soon, however, as the snow is gone this spring this board, fully equipped with authority will go out and do this work, all precautions will be taken. My hon. friend will agree with me that he would not be a good man to judge of this? Mr. LENNOX. A good man to judge of your commission? Mr. GRAHAM. Not a good man to judge impartially, he gets too enthusiastic, as I do myself sometimes, in trying to convince people that mine is the only view and that there is no other view that possibly could be right. But the parliament of Canada, including my hon. friend. mapped out the way in which these things should be settled and that is the way they are being settled and will be settled, I hope, to the satisfaction of the country and even of my hon. friend. Mr. CROCKET. Are payments being made to the contractors on certificates furnished by these engineers who have made the over-classification, who have been objected to? Mr. GRAHAM. My hon. friend asserts been over-classification. that there has Progress estimates are paid to the conof the entractors on the certificate gineers. Mr. CROCKET. The same engineers who have been objected to? Mr. GRAHAM. My hon. friend starts out, of course, with the idea that the engineers are guilty. Mr. CROCKET. The classification has been objected to by the Transcontinental engineers and by the chief engineer of the commission. dis Mr. GRAHAM. My hon. friend will understand that engineers are not charged because some person objects their classification. to Mr. CROCKET. Is the government continuing to make payment on certificates furnished by these same engineers just as before? Mr. GRAHAM. Progress estimates are paid to the contractors on the certificates of engineers approved by the chief engineer, and subject to revision. Mr. BARKER. gineers? have Mr. GRAHAM. $166,440. Mr. BARKER. And when you pocketed that you are over half a million dollars short. Mr. GRAHAM. I have not pocketed anything that I ever heard of. Mr. BARKER. I am speaking of the government, and not you. You have already paid over half a million dollars in advance of your estimate. Mr. GRAHAM. On that contract there are no objections to the classification. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. On contract No. 1 for example, is the engineer who was reAre they the same en- sponsible for the estimate in the first instance the same engineer who is responsible for the classification in the final payment? Mr. GRAHAM. .Some are, and perhaps all. The amount of security held back from each one of these contractors is as follows: OnA,' $1,133,583.81; on 'B,' $1,701,308.91; on 'C,' $12,942.90; on 'D,’ $656,668.07; on E,' $193,914; on F,' $1,218,143.85, or in round numbers $4,915,742.69. Mr. J. HAGGART. curity? Mr. GRAHAM. No, Mr. Dunn is now with the Grand Trunk Pacific. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. In how many cases and on what contracts is the engineer who made the original estimate of classification the same engineer, who has certified the classification which seems to have been What form of se- adopted? If that information is not at hand it would be better to produce a statement later. Mr. GRAHAM. Cash security. Mr. GRAHAM. I will take the district Mr. J. HAGGART. Is not the most of it the 10 per cent retained by the govern- engineer, he is responsible for the whole ment on the progress estimates? Mr. GRAHAM. Most of it is. Of course as the work goes on these amounts increase rather than decrease. Mr. J. HAGGART. I want to know the amount paid out to the contractors, and what the amount of the contract would be on the original estimate? Mr. GRAHAM. We will take No. 1 as a sample. The chief engineer's estimate on No. 1 was $1,017,051.43; the estimate on the basis of the lowest tender $989,895.96; gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1909, $1,664,410.07; less the draw back of 10 per cent. Mr. J. HAGGART. The original contract was let for $900,000, and the lowest tender taken on the estimated quantities. Your engineer's estimate was $1,000,000, but you have already paid to the contractors $1,600,000. You say that in the revision of the contract it may be corrected, and that it may possibly be not in excess of the original tender. Where is your money to guarantee that? district. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I do not know who is responsible, but the minister will understand exactly what I want. I want to know in respect to every mile from Moncton to Winnipeg, in what cases the same man is responsible for the original estimate, and for the final result which is so absolutely different from it. Mr. GRAHAM. I will get that for my hon. friend. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. There are some other things I would like to know. I do not know whether this information will be available to-night, but I want to get it some time I want to know exactly the character of the investigation that is made upon which these estimates of classification were founded; I want to know at what distances these pits were sunk where there was need of sinking pits; I want to know at what distances borings were made; I want full and complete information as to the character of the investigation which was made before this estimate was handed into the government. Then I want to know something more about the engineers. I want to know what steps the commission have taken up to date in the way of seeking information from the engineers who Mr. BARKER. How much have you made this original estimate which has been held back on that contract now? Mr. GRAHAM. I am frank to confess that I do not think it will ever be reduced on the original estimate. so absolutely falsified in the result. I want that information in respect to every mile of the line from Moncton to Winnipeg. I think the minister will agree, in view of the remarkable situation that has developed that I am not asking any too much. To put this matter in plain terms, unless there has been the most extraordinary and inconceivable incapacity and negligence in the first instance, then there has been perpetrated on the public treasury of this country one of the most gigantic steals ever heard of. This dilemma the government must face in connection with this matter: the one or the other of these twe things must be true. 66 5.. 6.. 7... 8... 1 45 9.. 10... 66 14. 66 15. 20... 21... 66 1970 Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Now, would the minister be good enough to have a statement prepared, showing the cost of the entire line from Moncton to Winnipeg, based upon the estimates of classification which were made in the first instance, for the purpose of comparison with the estimates which have been certified by the engineers in respect of the work done up to the present time? The minister, then, will be good enough to give us this further information with regard to contract No. 1, contract No. 2, or whichever one first developed this situation. When it became apparent to the commissioners, who, I assume, were attending to their business, either that the estimates presented to the government in the first instance were absolutely worthless, or else that some one was getting money from the government to which he was not entitled, what explanations did the commissioners ask, what investigation did they make, what steps did they take to get to the bottom of this matter? I am not disposed to blame the minister too much, except that I do not think that he has been prompt and vigilant in demanding an explanation from the commission. He has the duties of a great department to attend to outside of this. But these men were there, paid by the people of this country to look fully into matters of this character, and I would like very much to know, when this situation first developed, what steps they took about it. I have heard some very curious statements made on the authority of reputable men as to what the action, not of all, but of some of the commissioners, was in that regard; and if I should repeat the statements here, which I do not propose to do to-night, or until I verify them a little further, I think every hon. gentleman in this House would be startled by them. But whether these statements, which have been rather free of late, be true or not, certainly this House is entitled to the fullest possible information as to what was the action of the commissioners in this connection-whether they conceived it to be their duty at all to investigate the astonishing condition of affairs which has been disclosed by the information afforded to this committee by tracts: care Mr. GRAHAM. I could give my hon. friend now the estimated cost, and then I could give him exactly what has been paid up to date on each one of these contracts. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The estimated cost of course, is for the whole? Mr. GRAHAM. The estimated cost of solid rock, loose rock, and common excavation Does my hon. friend want it for the whole? got it by contracts I suppose? Has my Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Yes, you have not hon. friend got it distributed by the several contracts, or in one lump sum? Mr. GRAHAM. I have the different con (E) The Engineer's estimated quantity of Solid Rock, Loose Rock and Common Excavation in the section of line covered by each contract, and the estimated cost under these headings, based upon the rates of accepted tender, are as follows: cost. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. This statement is headed, 'The engineer's estimated quantity of solid rock, loose rock and common excavation in the section of line covered by each contract, and the estimated cost under these headings, based upon the rates of accepted tender.' As I understand, that is not restricted to the work done up to the present time; it is an estimate in respect of all the work from Moncton to Winnipeg under these items. Mr. GRAHAM. The estimate for the three Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Of the work up to classifications, solid rock, loose rock and date? Mr. GRAHAM. The original estimates. I am prepared to give the cost up to date. Mr. J. HAGGART. Could you not add the estimated cost to finish it? Mr. GRAHAM. I can give my hon. friend the amount estimated to finish each contract. Mr. J. HAGGART. That will do. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Before the minister goes into that, may I ask whether this statement he has just read covers the entire work of excavation from Moncton to Winnipeg? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, twenty-one contracts. common excavation made at the time the contracts were made. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. We know what has been paid up to the present time in respect of the work done under these contracts. That has been given, I understand? Mr. GRAHAM. No, I have that in the next statement. I was going to give the amount paid on each of these contracts under each heading. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Does the minister distinguish the amount paid from the amount covered by the progress estimate, because there is a certain reduction? Mr. GRAHAM. I am going to give the amount actually paid to the contractors. REVISED EDITION. |