PEECH OP W. GIBSO^T :m.p. ox THE CURRAX BRIDGE COXTRACT K(JU8E OF COMMONS, OTTAWA, TUESDAY, 18th JUNE, 1895. -Mr. (UBSOX. Till' liou. gcutlenian who lias just takeu his seat has undoubtedly inaile The best that could be made of tlio brief that has beeu given him. But it Is evident that he has no practical knowledge of tlie work ; for if lie had, I am sure he would never have made the speech he has made. He denies the statement made that l\lr. Hannaford offered to do this work. He sliould liave consult«Hl the evidence t^iken before the rublio Accounts ('(jiumittee, when he would have found that Mr. Hannafortl state(l under oath, which statement I have under my han.N. I will read the stab'meut later if t!ie hon. gentleman will have patience. Mr. Hannaford undertook to build ilie subslruflure of tlie Urand Trunk bridge for ))>':?.'.(>( 10 nnd the superstructure for $35.- (WK*. in all $7(MK>t>. And. in the evidence inki'U before the Tuldic Accounts ('ommitt«H>. Mr. Hannaford staled that he was willing to stippiy a bridgi' containing l."»,0(>o pounds; mo/e of iron tlian tie bridge built by the Dominion Bridge Company, and now in use by the Government, including that in his $35,()()0 estimate. At page 272 of the evi- dence you will find the statement made by Mr. Hannaford : Esiimated cost of erecting a new swing bridge for Grand Trunk Railway traffic at Wellington Street— 275 feet over all- square ends, say 600,000 pounds, includ- ing gearing at 4 cents, erected $27,000 Painting, false works, wooden superstruc- ture, engines and machinery and sutj- dries 7,000 $34,000 Raising approaches, paving, &c ,5,000 $39,000 Less by present bridge 4,000 $35,000 Exclusive of masonry, crib-work piers and pro- tecll.ins. E. P. HANNAFORD, Chief EnglneT. Montreal, 2.'jth October. 18^2. And the other estimate reads : Montreal— Lachlne Canal bridge. Wellington Straet for Grand Trunk Railway traffic, approxi- mate estimate : .\ hutments— two at 250 cubic yards, 500 cubic yards at $30 $15,000 roncrete. 300 cubic yards at $15 4,500 i^Jxcavation, fiOO cubic yards, say 500 Timber for foundation 2,000 Crib-work for piling 9,000 Taking down two piers and sundry work 4,000 $35,000 Summary — Say, masonry, &c $35,000 Superstructure 35,000 $70,000 E. P. HANNAFORD, Chief Engineer. Montreal, 24th December, 1892. Now, Mr. Hannaford was asketl by Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, what was the depth of navigation, and Mr. Hannaford's answer was : These estimates were made for 19 feet. That is Mr. Parent's plan. The evidence goes on ', By Mr. Bergeron : Q. Is that 19 feet navigation ? — A. 19 feet navi- gation. It was a Government plan. By Mr. Gibson : Q. So you arrived at that estimate from the Gov- ernment plan, and you say that your estimate of $35,000 for masonry and $35,000 for superstruc- ture, a total of $70,000, that when you made that estimate on behalf of the Grand Trunk Railway, you were satisfied there was a profit of $10,000 for the Grand Trunk Railway Company ? — A. I was satisfied there was, if the season was decent. Q. And the work could be done under those circumstances, providing they gave you sufficient time to work, for $60,000 ?— A. Yes, $60,000 or $70,000. It could have been done for my esti- mate. I felt that my estimate was a very high one for the substructure. Q. Now, Mr. Hannaford, supposing that you had been obliged to go four feet further down, how much would that have added to the cost of the substructure ? — A. Another 4 feet in addition to the 19, well, I should have had to do pumping and all that. Altogether, I should say $8,000. Q. $8,000 additional to have taken down to the depth the Governiuent took it down themselves ? — A. I don't know that, sir. You see the Gov- ernment and any government would do the same. You don't want to have 22 feet to pump ; you want to sheer off a little. Nineteen feet is as much as would carry one of the Allan line ves- sels. Q. Supposing the Government had decided, after you had taken the work, to have gone down to the 22 feet, you still think that you could have done it for $8,000 additional, and that the Grand Trunk would not have lost anything ? — A. I think, as the matter turned out ; I think that the whole thing co\:ld have been done for $70,000. I made up my mind, after the work was done. In May, 1893, that the work would have been done, and that we should have done It at a saving of $10,000. So you see that although the hon. gentleman who has Just taken his seat, claimed that all this additional cost to the country was on account of the Government sinking the channel four feet deeper than was ut first intended, here you have the evidence of Mr. Hannaford, who is quite competent to judge upon these facts, that so far as the Grand Trunk bridge was concerned, he was in a position as chief engineer to say that he would undertake the work for $8,000. And after he had seen the work done, ho still says he could have done it for the $8,000 extra, and the country would have saved $10,000. My hon. friend to the left of me says it was a bigger bridge. Of course it was a bigger bridge. It weighed 15,000 pounds more, and was worth $6,000 more than the bridge the Government put in. and it was a t)ridge that was to be turned by steam, whereas the present bridge is turned by hand. Neither the present bridge nor the Wellington bridge are finish- ed, and probably never will be. Now, my hon. friend spoke about the quantities that would be required on a large work of that kind, an-l the different kinds of material that would be required. Well, we have a statement made by Mr. Desbarats, who has been spoken of so highly to-day, that in the estimate made by him for the construction of these works, and he provided ever5i;hing so far as he could foresee as an engineer, 550,000 feet board measure of all kinds of timber was all that was needed for that work. I would like that hon. gentleman, before he goes away, to explain to me l^ow it comes about that according to the report of the Government's commissioners there was charged for 3,613,600 feet board mea- sure, and the Government commissioners say in their report that there could have been used in that work only 2,594,800 feet board measure. Now, where are the 1,018,- 800 feet paid for and not used ? Mr. HAGGART. Does the hon. gentleman say it was paid for ? Mr. GIBSON. According to the Govern- ment's report. You will have a chance of explaining how much you paid for, and how much you have not paid for. There is one thing, however, that is clear. These men made up accounts for 3,600,000 feet of lumber, of which over a million feet cannot be found ; and it was given in evidence last year tnat 450 pieces of timber 12 inches by 12 inches, from 25 to 30 feet, were taken away or stolen in one nl^ht from the banks of the Lachine Gjiual, and has never been beard of since. I have not heard that the Minister of Railways nor the Solicitor General have been looking for the culprit who took that timber. The hon. gentleman spoke about tenders being ap- plied for, and that all kinds of work, were done under contract. Sir, the commissioners' report contradicts that statement to this ex- tent, that $45,992.4(5 worth of timber was delivered and paid for that never was con- tracted for at all. That does not bear out the statement tMat everything was done under contract. You can see that In the report of the commissioners, page 11 : A large amount, $45,992.46 worth, has been pur- chased without calling for tenders, and without demands or requisitions from either Mr. Parent or Mr. Kennedy. Now, my hon. friend stated this afternoon that Mr. Kennedy was not In charge of the work. Sir, Mr. Kennedy was In charge of the work, as appears on page 327 of the evidence : 3 By Mr. Haggart : Q. You went up to Ottawa ? — A. Yes. Q. And why didn't you go to the department and make your complaint ? — A. Because I was stot>ped by Senator Drummond aad Mr. Curran, and I said here on Friday that I was sorry often that I did not carry that out, and Senator Drum- mond expressed himself since that he was sorry I did not carry it out, which I hope the " Star " paper M-ill put that in. If I had been discharged then, I saould not have been in the position I am to-day. I should have been a free man. If Mr. Kennedy was discharged, he must have been employed at one time or another, because on page 295 of the same evidence, we find : Q. Would you kindly explain ; we want to have the truth, that is all we want ? — A. That is what I want to give, as far as possible. That inter- view was held between Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Ogilvie — Mr. Curran was also present — in Mr. Trudeau's office. What took place between them at the interview I don't know. Then Mr. Curran and Mr. Ogilvie came to me in an adjoining room, and Mr. Ogilvie informed me that Mr. Trudeau would be highly pleased if I would accept the ap- pointment of overseer of the construction of the Wellington bridge. I said that I would, condi- tionally. He wanted to know what those condi- tions wore, and 1 told him that the conditions should be. that if I was to be held responsible for the construction of the Wellington bridge, that I should have full charge, that is to say, having all the men employed directly under my charge, having full control of the men, the plant, material and everything else. That Is to say, the placing of the plant in the proper place and having the material necessary to do the work. Mr. Ogilvie made the remark, " Never mind the conditions, It will be all right." I said, " It may be all right now. It is better to take precautions now. It will save trouble later on.' Mr. Curran said, " Kennedy Is right ; he should stipu- late conditions, and they should be allowed bim, or he should not take charge of the work ;" but Mr. Ogilvie overruled both Mr. Curran and I. He also stated that Mr. Trudeau did not see how Kennedy could be remunerated for taking such a position, which was outside his official duties, and they preferred doing it thus In order to en- sure those Interested in the waterways having double Interest of getting It finished. I said I did not care anything- about that. That shows conclusively that the desire of these parties was not only to put Mr. Ken- nedy in a position of trust, but to put him over Mr. Parent, the engineer. It was quite evident throughout the vvhole in- vestigation that Mr. Kennedy occupied the j)rin{ipal position, because he did what he pleased and carried out what he pleased, without con.sulting Mr. Desborats or Mr. Parcj)t In any way whatever. Then, my hon. friend spoke about the nun.ber of men pmpIoyi»d. We were told that no one kept * the time. That was evident. Thousands of i hours wf^re charged that were never put 'n. ! Sorn<» of the men were i-ocommoD'^^d, not ' for their fltnoes, but because of some poli- tical influouce they could use in the nelgli- bourliood of iMontival. \^here they ilved, for wo find tuat at one of the oxainlnatious conducted by Mr. Tarte, Mr. Kennedy said , tliey were recommended b., different partitas, : that quite a few were recommecded by Mr. Onimet, and that a number were put on, \\ hether Mr. Desbarat'5 or Mr. Parent re- , quired them or not, on the order of ^Ir. St. ; Louis liinisolf. The ^liuister said tiiere wa.s no undertaking between Mr. St. Louis and himself regarding tlie change of pay m:ide wl^en cnipioycd by tlie Government and by the contractor, from $1.25 per day when in the Gr from one side of the yard to the other and take it back the follow- ing day. that thousands of feet of lumber were brought from Henderson's yard at night without any supervision, and the only check exercised was that the men on tlie following day weri? asked wlio brought it down. In this way there was no practical check on the work, and the (iovernjneat were obliged to accept the charges of the lumber dealers whetlier they were right or wrong. I cau- not add anything to the report made by tlie Government's own vcomjuissioners. In conjunction with that I may say that this recklessness extended over all the other works upon the Lachine Canal. We found that these men were doing work for the mill-owners along the line of the canal ; that timber was charged for in excessive quantities, and that in one case, a box drain was said to contain 356,000 feet of lumber, which was charged for, while the actual quantity in the work was less than 19,000 feet, board measure, or, to be more accurate, 18,714 feet. The commissioners say : A large amount of plank has been charged to the " box drain," 356,081 feet, b.m., of this only 18,714 feet, b.m., was used in the work. It is shown from the evidence of Mr. T. H. Tnhey, that, of the plank above mentioned, 220,000 feet, b.m., was never purchased or delivered, though the account for this quantity of timber is certified to by Mr. Kennedy and other canal employees. The lumber purchased consisted of some pine deals, pine timber, and a number of pieces of oak. Not being able tc charge the quantity of oak pur- chased to the box drain, a portion of it Jvas in- voiced as pine, to an amount equivalent to that originally charged for the oak. The account was originally rendered as oak, and, at the request of the superintendent of the canal, was changed to pine. In the account (A— 1) there Is charged 220,000 feet of pine plank, instead of 37,448 feet of oak which was delivered, and which Is not yet used, ard is a raft in the canal. So far as appears from the evidence, only the value of timber actually sold to the department was paid for ; there does not appear to have been any necessity for buying the oak in the autumn of 1892. Besides this transaction, there Is charged to the box drain an account of Henderson Bro- thera for 48,942 feet, b.m., of plank, which was delivered subsequent to the date on which the repairs to the box drain were made, and conse* quently could not have gone into that work. This system of management might lead to the fraudu- lent manipulation of accounts. The account made up for material and the work done amounts to $4,223.15 ; a much less sum, probably under $500, was rxpended upon the box drain, for which an appropriation of $5,000 had been voted. I may say in this connection, that in the evidence of Mr. Desbarats, he states lie ordered the following materials namely, bracing for piles, 44,160 feet, board measure; rear waling, 3,960 feet, board measure : oak waling, 19,167 feet. None of this timber was ever put on, and to-day the tops of the piles in the Lachine Canal is withoiir waling, either outside or inside to protect the Government works from the vessels crowding against them. The Government, instead of claiming the work to have cost a certain sum of money, should have finish- ed the work before they came to Parliament to state that it was complete. The work is not complete. We were to have a bridge open- ing and closing by electricity, but the day I went down there to examine it, instead of a motor being in use. I saw five or six men working at it, and taking five minutes to open it, and fi/e minutes to close it. In- stead of the work being of such a char- acter that the Government of this country should feel proud of it, the Minister of Rail- v.ays. his chief engineer, and every oflicial of the department connected with it, ought to feel ashamed at leaving the work in such an unfinished condition. It does not speak well for the Minister or his chief engineer that they should sqiiander $400,000 on these two bridges without having the decency to make the job complete. Unless I am greatly mistaken, it is as unfinished to-day as it was when the water was let into the La- chine Canal. I repeat, again, that this House ought to condemn the Minister and his department for allowing the work to remain in its present condition.