1905-03-03

OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA FIRST SESSION-TENTH PARLIAMENT 5 EDWARD VII., 1905 VOL. LXX COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TO THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL, INCLUSIVE OTTAWA PRINTED BY S. E. DAWSON, PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY ERRATA VOL. XI.

[Stage Direction]
Col. 2063, 3rd line from top insert ' Mr. Bennett.'
Ool. 2334, 30 lines from bottom ' Who recalled that Henley,' should read : ' Who recalled that at Henley, Seholes the famous oarsman,' &c.
Col. 3286, the first financial statement : * Amount to be paid annually to each province	 an annual payment of $2,207,875 each, should be transposed to Col. 3287 and read after the fifth line from the top.
Col. 3744, heading of ' Kaslo and Lardo-Bunean Ry. Co. .	.	. Motion agreed
to,' should be' deleted.
Mouse of Commons Hebates

[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 3, 1905.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 89) respecting the Monterey Electric and Gas Company, and to change its name to the Monterey Railway, Light and Power Company.-Mr, Macdonell-by Mr. Ingram.
Bill (No. 90) respecting the Esquimau and Nanaimo Railway Company.-Mr. It. Smith-by Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 91) respecting the Temagami Railway Company.-Mr. McCool.
Bill (No. 92) respecting the Ottawa and New York Railway Company.-Mr. Bel-court.
Bill (No. 93) respecting the Grand Council of the Catholic Mutual Benefit Association of Canada.-Mr. .T. J. Hughes-by Mr. Me-Isaac.	[DOT]
Bill (No. 94) respecting the Brockville, Westport, and Northwestern Railway Company.-Mr. Derbyshire-by Mr. M. S. Schell.
Bill (No. 95) respecting Gillies Bios., Limited.-Mr. A. A. Wright.
Bill (No. 96) respecting the Montreal and Southern Counties Railway Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 97) respecting the Kingston and Dominion Central Railway, and to change its name to the Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston and Georgian Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Harty.

Hon. GEO  E.@: FOSTER, Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would point out to the Minister of Railways that in compliance with the order of the House yesterday in reference to the hay matter, he brought down a supplementary return, but the main return which was ordered five days before, he has not brought down, and of course the codicil is of no use without the will. I wish to have the return as soon as possible.



THE BUDGET.

Mr. FOSTER.: I may be a little premature, but I would like to know if the Minister of Finance can tell us, about what time he proposes to bring down the financial statement.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: I am not prepared to state at present but I will do so on an early day.
Mr. FOSTER, It will not be I suppose for a day or two ?


William Stevens Fielding: Not for a few days to come, but an answer will be given in due time so that my hon. friend will have ample notice.



DOMINION LANDS-INQUIRY.

George Eulas Foster: I wish to ask the Minister of the Interior, or the minister who is acting for him, when I may expect the return ordered early in the session as to the lands that had been sold in the Northwest during the past year.	,


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: I brought down a report about lands a few days ago.


George Eulas Foster: That is not what I referred to.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will have the matter attended to.



SEPARATE SCHOOLS-INQUIRY RE PUBLICATION.

George Eulas Foster: Has the First Minister had time yet during these busy hours, to inquire as to an official statement or semiofficial statement that was distributed recently in reference to separate schools in the different provinces ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand it was distributed by the Secretary of State, and I am further told that the document contains no comment but is composed simply of extracts from the former debates of the House.
Mr. FOSTER, My criticism was that though there is no argument in so many words, yet the whole is arranged in the form of a sustained argument and the clauses



which bear particularly upon tbe maintenance and establishment of separate schools are italicised all tbe way through. That would not appear in an official statement, or ought not to. Evidently there is a tendency in it to make an argument as well as to present official information.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not prepared at this moment to dispute what my hon. friend says ; I simply tell him that it was done by the Secretary of State.
REPORT FROM RAILWAY COMMIS-,	SION.


Mr. H. LENNOX.: On the 22nd of February last there was a discussion in reference to obtaining a report from the Board of Railway Commissioners on their work during the last financial year. Probably sufficient time has not elapsed for the r>re-paration of that report, but I would ask the Minister of Railways if he can inform the House when we may expect it ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: I had a conference with the chairman of the Railway Commission, and he stated that the secretary of the commission was now preparing such a report. As soon as it is placed in my hands I will lay it on the table of the House.


Haughton Lennox: Can the hon. minister state any definite time when it will be ready ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did not ask the exact date. Only to day the chairman assured me that it was being prepared, but I did not ask whether it would be ready in a day or two. I assumed it would be ready in the near future.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY-SURVEYS.

George Eulas Foster: There is another question I would like to ask the Minister of Railways. We have on several occasions pressed for some information with reference to surveys made upon the route of the Grand Trunk Pacific. It is a question in which parliament is of course very deeply interested inasmuch as parliament furnishes the guarantees for all, or very nearly, all the road and the money for a large part of it. The House has had no information at all up to the present time and the Minister of Railways has fallen back upon the non possimus argument; he has stated that he has no control over the commission. There ought to be some medium of communication between the commission and this House, and I imagine that it ought to be through the Minister of Railways. The representatives of the people ought to have access to the earliest information, especially when they are in session. Information has leaked out or has been given out by mem-Mr. FOSTER.
bers of the commission as to what has been found. It is said that grades and facilities in the way of running a line have been discovered that were not dreamed of before. If this can be fairly w7ell established it should be made known, but I find that the other day Mr. Hays, in making an address before a club in Toronto, gave absolutely definite information as to grades and curves. We have been in session now for two months, we, the representatives of the people who are responsible for the cash and the credit. Surely if there is such information we ought to have it, and it does look derogatory to the privileges of parliament and to the good business conduct of public affairs that a private club in Toronto or anywhere else should have definite and specific information with reference to this subject that has been withheld from the House. I simply call the attention of the First Minister and the Minister of Railways to this in order that it may be remedied. That information must be there or Mr. Hays could not have used it. If it is available I think it should be furnished to us as the House has asked for it.


Wilfrid Laurier: The request of my hon. friend is not at all unreasonable, but I must tell him that the government has no information whatever up to the present time upon this subject. We have heard hearsay, as my hon. friend has, from different quarters that grades have been found which are very satisfactory and that the character of the land has been found to be far better than was expected. The Grand Trunk Pacific have had engineers surveying this country for the past two years and more and they may have information which the government has not, but which perhaps the commission may have at this time.


George Eulas Foster: That is the point.


Wilfrid Laurier: The commission has not made a report. The question has come up as to whether the' commission should be asked to make a report. As to that I have not come to any conclusion ; it is a question that deserves fair consideration before an answer is given one way or another. The government, however, have no information. It may be advisable to ask the commission for information. It is a matter for consideration which may well be looked into.


George Eulas Foster: It seems to me that after we had pressed for the information before, some one should have taken the trouble to have asked the commission if they have information. Surely the government must have some means of getting that information. I must say to my hon. friend that the commission require money to carry on their work and I am sure that this House will not consent to give the money to carry it on unless we have the information. That

is a basic principle, we cannot give money for expenditures unless we bave the information.


Wilfrid Laurier: Unless they have the information they cannot give it.


George Eulas Foster: That is it exactly.


Wilfrid Laurier: No one can object to that.	.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART.: I understood from the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson) that the location of part of the Grand Trunk Pacific line had been deposited in his department. The terminals of the different routes have been deposited in his department for a long time.


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


John Graham Haggart: And his reason for not bringing down the information to the House was that it required the approval of the government before expropriation work could be done on that particular part.


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


John Graham Haggart: Surely we are entitled to that information. The minister's answer to the House was that he was not going to open it up for speculators from one end of the country to the other in order that they might purchase land at probable locations of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The answer to this was that the information has been furnished to individuals in his own department already. If that is so, why has the House not been placed in possession of the information?


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: And why does the general public not have a show too ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I stated to the House, and now I repeat, that plans had been deposited as respects the proposed terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur and also on the Pacific coast. That information is in the department. If my instructions were carried out, and I think they were, it is information that is under seal. I can say to my hob. friend that I even have not seen those plans and that they are under seal until the matter can be taken up. The reason given, I think, is a very good one that the information should not go out until the matter has been decided, until it has come under the consideration of the Minister of Railways and his colleagues. Until then it cannot be furnished and I think that on the ground of public policy and public interest it would not be wise to have the information given.


Mr. A. C. BOYUE (Algoma).: I am somewhat astonished in view of what I know to be tiie facts-


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend is to make a speech on the subject,
6oi
I would say to him that we will move the House into supply shortly and he will then have an opportunity to speak.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I am prepared to move the adjournment of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: It would be preferable for the hon. gentleman to make any remarks he wishes to make when the House is moved into supply.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: My remarks are entirely along the lines of those of the gentlemen who have preceded me, and I would rather give them now. I will not take long.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The more usual course is to wait until the House is moved into supply.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I was surprised to hear the Minister of Railways in view of what he has placed on record and of the historical facts in connection with these plans. I had the honour of moving before the House for a return of these plans early in February. The motion duly came on and the Minister of Railways informed me that it was impossible, having regard to the provisions of the Act, I think section 122 of the Railway Act, as revised in 1903, to place them upon the table of the House, because although he admitted that such plans had been deposited in the department and therefore he knew that plans with reference to Port Arthur, Fort William and the Pacific termini had been deposited in the department they had not, in accordance with that section of the Act which differs from the section of the Act as consolidated in 1888, been approved of by tiie' department. The answer the hon. gentleman gave to the House was that he was not going to make these plans public to this House, because it would encourage speculation. I had been informed before making that motion, and I have verified my information since, that at that time copies of those plans showing the intentions of the Grand Trunk Pacific with regard to Port Arthur and Fort William had been issued from the Department of Railways, were being handed about and were being used by speculators. I thought, therefore, that it was an extraordinary matter that the Minister of Railways should come down to the House in reply to a motion for return and say forsooth, that it would encourage speculators if these plans which were deposited but not approved of were laid on the table of parliament, but they could be handed out by the back door to speculators in that part of the country and elsewhere. I think the situation calls for an explanation at the hands of the hon. gentleman and I trust that he will explain as fully as the circumstances require.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am certainly surprised at the remarks of the hon. gentleman.

I have said that I personally have not seen the plans of these terminals. The very first moment that I learned of these plans being deposited was when I was informed of the fact by my deputy minister, who asked me if any one would be allowed to see them. I said no, certainly not, that on the contrary they should be placed under seal, and that no one should be allowed access to them either in the department or out of it. My hon. friend says that copies of these plans have gone out from the department. I wish to characterize that statement as absolutely unfounded in fact. If there are such plans In circulation, they do not come from the Department of Railways and Canals. I have too much confidence in the deputy minister and the officers of that department to believe for a moment that my instructions were not very closely observed, and I am satisfied that no one has been permitted to see these plans. I know personally that one day when I was in the department a prominent representative of a railway corporation in this Dominion came to me and asked to see these plans, and he will bear testimony to the fact that I snid it was impossible for any one to see them and that he could not see them. No doubt my hon. friend made the statement he did in good faith. Possibly it may be true that there are some plans in circulation. If there are, they may have come from the corporation that prepared them, but certainly that any such came from the Department of Railways and Canals, I absolutely deny, and I base my denial on my confidence in my deputy minister and officials. I am confident that they would not permit anything of the kind, and I am satisfied that these plans are still under seal in accord with my instructions.


Mr. II AGO  ART@: The extraordinary part of this matter is that these plans should be kept secret. Under the old Act of parliament the depositing of the plans was simply a mechanical act, the same as filing them m the registry office or filing the plans of a railway for the purpose of incorporation. These' plans were afterwards filed in the different counties through which the railway was to run. Why the plans in question should be kept under seal is most astonishing. Why are they not open to the public ? Why it should not be made public that this road would pass through a particular town or portion of the country, is something I do not understand. The last amendment to the Act of Parliament was simply to make the department or the government responsible for the character of the road which was obtaining government assistance, so that the government might see that the gradients and curvatures and everything else were up to the requirements of the contract. But when a railway company deposits its plans in the department, I cannot possibly understand whv the public should not have access to them. As to the fact of these plans having Mr. EMMERSON.
been made public, I was informed by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Boyce) that to his knowledge-and of course I am not holding the minister at all responsible but accept his statement as made in perfect good faith-parties have had access to the plans in the department and know exactly where these roads are to be located.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They know more than I do.


John Graham Haggart: 1 am not accusing the hon. minister. I believe that he spoke exactly what he considered to be the fact, but I believe that the facts, from the information given by my hon. friend, ai'e different from what the hon. minister believes them to be. If that be so, the parties who disregarded the ministers instructions should be dismissed.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You can rest assured of that.


John Graham Haggart: But what I arose particularly to protest against is that when plans or other documents giving the location. character, gradients and all the other principal requisites of a railway are filed in the department, they should be looked upon as secret papers and kept from the public until the minister has given them his approval.


Wilfrid Laurier: The question before the House is this : The plans have been filed for approval of a station ground at Fort William. The minister thought proper, rightly or wrongly, to have these plans kept secret until such time as the location is approved of. Some time ago my boa. friend from Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Boyce) asked to have these papers communicated to the House and his request was refused. That refusal was in accord with the decision of the Minister of Railways and Canals that until the plans were approved it was advisable in the public interest that they should not be made public. Whether that decision was right or wrong is a question open for discussion. But the charge is made these instructions of the minister were disobeyed and that these plans have gone out by the back door to some interested parties. This is a very serious charge.
Mr. FOSTER, Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend has information on which to base a charge of that kind, it is his duty to give it to the House so that it may be investigated. If his statement be true, it is in the interest of the government and the country that those who are the culprits should be known and punished, for it would be intolerable that such dereliction of duty should be allowed to go unchecked.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I may say in reply to the right hon. gentleman that so far as the Information given me is concerned, I do not

doubt it for an instant. It came to me in the first instance indirectly and before I made the motion to have these plans laid upon the table. The answer I then received from the lion. Minister of Railways, and which will be found on page 917 of Hansard, was somewhat startling.
There are no plans deposited and approved in the Department of Railways and Canals. Therefore thD motion could not very well pass.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) did not say ' approved.'


Henry Robert Emmerson: They cannot he dealt with unless they are approved. It would be proper to bring them before the public ; that might very well serve the interests of those who wished to indulge in speculation, but I do not think it would serve the public interest.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Have any plans whatever been deposited, whether approved or not ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They have not been approved.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I asked if any have been deposited ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.
Now, the request for the return of these plans was justified by the language of the hon. gentleman himself. Though the reason given for withholding these plans was that, while pilans are in transition in the Department of Railways, under, as the minister is pleased to say, the seal of secrecy, they cannot be made public to this House, yet others, if my information be correct- and 1 make the statement upon the best ot information, and believe it


Henry Robert Emmerson: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Boyce) give me the source of that information V


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I state to the Minister ot Railways here that I have such information. And I have investigated that information as well as time and circumstances permit


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend will pardon me :	I would be glad if he would
give me the source of his information. Because, as he himself must recognize, it is a very serious charge that he is making against the officials of the department. And it is due to himself, it is due to these officials, it is due to the House, if not to me, that the source of that information should be given to me either on the lioor of this House or privately, to enable me to make a proper inquiry. If my hon. friend is not pre. pared to do that, I am sure he would feel that, in justice to himself he should withdraw the very serious charge made against the officials of the department.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The Minister of Railways evidently is taking advantage of the fact that I am a very new member.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not overly modest.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Perhaps I can learn sorne-v hat in the way of modesty from the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson). I had no desire to make a charge against the Department of Railways which would at all reflect upon tlie hon. gentleman who presides over that department. But the fact that the circumstance I refer to has been brought to my notice is beyond peradventure. 1 make the statement, as I made it before, that the information was given to me, that I investigated that information to a certain extent, sufficiently to satisfy me that it was not false, that it was genuine information ; and I bring it to the attention of lion, members in order that the contrast between the reply of the Minister of Railways in refusing my return with the facts as they exist, and as I am informed they do exist, may be made apparent to the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is hardly sufficient, my hon. friend (Mr. Boyce) will permit me to say. He stated a moment ago that he knew that this information had been passed out of the back doors of the Department of Railways.	.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The right hon. gentleman (Sir AVilfrid Laurier) will pardon me. 'Hansard ' will show exactly what I did say. My reference to the back door of the department was somewhat of an allegorical one. I did not for an instant suggest that as a physical fact that the plans, or copies of the plans, had been handed out by the back door of Jhe department, because I did not know7 the channel by which they w7ere taken out. I merely meant to convey the fact -and so stated-that information had reached me which I believed to be reliable that copies of the plans so deposited had been furnished.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then, the hon. gentleman meant to convey the information to the House that the plans had been im-pi operly conveyed by somebody from the Department of Railways, and that the hon. gentleman himself had investigated the information, and was satisfied that it was correct. The impression is conveyed to the House, the statement is made to the House, that somebody in the Department of Railways has improperly, and in, violation of his duty, given copies of these plans. Under such circumstances, 1 think the hon. gentleman will agree with me that it is not sufficient for him to say that he is satisfied that his information is correct. Somebody in the Department of Railways-if the hon. gentleman's information is correct-has committed a breach of his duty. We ought to know w7ho it is, for such a person ought not to be retained in the service. It is the duty of the hon. gentleman to submit the information and make his charge, if he has charges to make.


John Graham Haggart: This is a most extraordinary statement for the Prime Minister

to make, that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) had improperly received information.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not say that.


John Graham Haggart: Then, I misunderstood the right hon gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and 1 beg his pardon. In any case he said that this information had been improperly given by some one in the department.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, if the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Boyce's) information is correct.


John Graham Haggart: We on this side for the first time have received the information from the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson) that these plans are private and not open to the public. That is an extraordinary position to take. Who can be more interested in the location of the road or in its passage through any part of the country than the public themselves ? Is it to bring influence to bear upon the department or the government in reference to a more proper location of the road ? But, if the plans are concealed from the public, only those who have charge of the plans know of the matter. The object of plans being filed either with the government or in the registry offices in the different parts of the country is to give notice to the public where the road is to be located.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Blit it may not be located there.


John Graham Haggart: Where it is proposed to be located. These are located plans of the different terminals filed in the office of the department; and the sole object in filing them is to give notice to every one interested where that road is to be built.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend (Mr. Hag-gart) will pardon me ; I will ask kirn if these proposed plans are not the subject matter of a decision of the government as to whether they will be accepted or not


Mr.  W. F. MAOLEAN@: You may not approve of them at all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Precisely, there is the answer.


John Graham Haggart: The Act of parliament was amended last year for the purpose of getting the approval of the Minister of Railways in reference to the matter. The hon. gentleman says that these plans are not filed for the purpose of having the approval or otherwise of the government. Why does he seal them up ? Why does he tell my hon. friend that there are no plans filed or approved of ? Why does he give that answer to the House ? What a peculiar position he takes. First of all, he denies there was a plan filed at all ; then he gets out of it by saying that there are no plans filed or, and approved of.


John Graham Haggart: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, I said filed and approved of.


John Graham Haggart: The very words I used.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You used the word ' or.'


John Graham Haggart: I corrected it and said ' and.' He said there were no plans filed and approved of. What inference would the House draw from that ? That there had been no plans whatever in the department. It was only by slow means that the hon. gentleman dragged the information out of the head of the department that the plans had been there for a number of weeks for his approval, but they had not been approved of. There is the position. But it is a new departure that these plans have to be sealed and secret. In old times any one could go to the department, the plans were open, and any one could get a copy if he liked. Perhaps the official who gave copies of the plans looked at the Act of parliament and knew for what object they were filed, and thought that it was within his duty-until he got different instructions-to give them to any one that applied for them.


Mr.  W. F. MAOLEAN@: I have been reading over the law on the subject in the Railway Act and it provides that once these plans are filed, they are open for inspection, and if any one has an objection to make he can urge it on the minister, and then the minister may order a change in the plans-it is all in that direction. I say we have a right to the plans ; and on the other ground, that this parliament is paying for this expensive commission. This parliament represents the country, this commission is dealing with an important interest, and all their plans ought to be subject to parliament.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I may be permitted to trespass again on the attention of the House-this question of whether the plans are to be given to the House or not, will come up on Monday when the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) has a motion for the production of these papers. The question may be properly brought up then whether we should give them to the public or not. But the charge lie made was that these plans had been improperly communicated to some one, that is the point under discussion.


George Eulas Foster: With that statement of the Prime Minister, we might let the discussion drop at present and take it up again.


William Stevens Fielding: Is it fair to the officers of the Railway Department to allow a charge of that nature to be made and stand as it does now ? I think the hon. gentleman who has made it-made it in good faith-must feel that he ought to furnish the minister, if

not publicly tlien privately, with such information as would enable him to investigate. It is not fair to the officials of a great public department that a charge should be made on the floor of the House that some of them did a very wrong thing, and then let the matter stand in that way by saying :
I believe it, I made the statement in good faith, but I decline to go any further. I think he will see on reflection that he ought to go further, and assist the minister in making an investigation.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: I do not agree with the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: If the rooters desire to fulfil their proper function let them all root together. The First Minister has behind him a number of gentlemen who have no other function than to root; but the great drawback is that they do not root together, and there should be some person to give the signal so that these rooters may all come in together. The Finance Minister suggests that when a charge is made against the officer of the Railway Department, the man making the charge should help clear it up. There is the responsible head of the Railway Department, and he is the gentleman who is covered by the charge. My hon. friend here assumes responsibility for his words, and cannot be bluffed down. That little bluff game of getting up and calling,
Name, name,' is played out in the House. This gentleman has had the hardihood and the manhood to stand on his dignity, though he is a new member of this House, and to assume the responsibility of his statement. The government has its usual recourse if it wants to get at the facts. Let them appoint a Royal Commission with a gentleman of the calibre of Judge Britton at the head of it, and perhaps we will get some information on the subject.


William Stevens Fielding: It sometimes happens that my hon. friend is mistaken. He has not stated the case accurately. The hon. member for Algama (Mr. Boyce) stated that he did not make any charge against the hon. the Minister of Railways. He did not make the charge against anybody in particular, he made it against the department.


Mr. COCHRANE.: He merely stated the fact.


William Stevens Fielding: That is not enough. If I make a statement that an hon. member has stolen somebody's purse and say I believe it, that is not enough ; I must give some evidence. If the statement were made as affecting the Minister of Railways, my hon. friend from Algonm would be obliged to withdraw it, because the statement could not be sustained once the denial is made. But there is no responsibility involved in an hon. member simply saying : I am informed and believe that some official of the
department has done something very wrong.


Edward Cochrane: He did not say the department at all.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, well, now that is another thing. My hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) says he did not say the department at all. If the hon. member for Algoma says he made no statement about these plans


Edward Cochrane: But he did not refer to the officials in the department at all, and the Finance Minister is drawing a red herring across the track.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member for Algoma distinctly stated that these plans had been given out of the Railway Department ; my hon. friend will not deny that.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I think- the Minister of Finance has made a little mistake himself, he has misconstrued my words. The whole matter arose out of the question which I addressed in the early part of my remarks to the Minister of Railways asking him how it was that the plans of this proposed route were withheld from this House when, as the information which I had given to me, and which I believed to be reliable information, was that they were handed out to others.


William Stevens Fielding: The Minister of Railways stated that these plans could not have been given out because to his knowledge they w'ere placed under seal and remained under seal. Thereupon the member for Algoma said that he had information that that could not be the case, because he was aware that these plans had been given out to friends in order to be made the basis of speculation.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The Finance Minister will remember that the Minister of Railways then stated that the plans might have been derived from some other sources.


William Stevens Fielding: But that is not the statement of the hon. member for Algoma. He did not say they were derived from some other source, he said they had been given out of the Railway Department. Therefore my hon. friend's observations, standing as they do now, leave a cloud on the reputation of Mr. Collingwood Schreiber and all the officers of the Railway Department. I do not think that is a fair position in which we ought to leave the officials of our public service.


George Eulas Foster: I thought I could see a light twinkling in the eye of my hon. friend when he was putting this forth with such an assumption of seriousness. He is too old a parliamentarian and has been too long in this House not to know that it is the privilege of any member to get up in his place and make a statement, from in-

formation tlmt lias come to him, that he believes such and such a thing is true. It is entirely within his own judgment as to whether lie will go further, and as to how he will g'O. Now there is no use attempting to bluff down a new member, and I am glad to know that my hon. friend here has not been bluffed down by the Minister of Railways or by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Railways intimated that my hon. friend here lacked in modesty. Well, that is one thing that the Minister of Railways does not lack in. He certainly did not lack in that admirable quality last year when certain very important legislation was going through intimately connected with his department and when all the King's horses and all the King's men could not draw a word, on account of his excessive modesty, from my hon. friend the Minister of Railways "and Canals.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is my natural reserve.


George Eulas Foster: If I heard rightly, what my hon. friend from Algoma said was this -the essence of it is certainly known to all members of the House. The words that a man uses sometimes, when lie is making a statement, are not just exactly what he would have liked them to have been. There was a notable instance of that in the case of an hon. gentleman who sits a little behind my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals the other day. That often happens in this House, but what my hon. friend said was that, according to the best information he had, private parties had in their possession plans of these terminals, and were using them for their own purposes.


William Stevens Fielding: And that they received them from the Railway Department.


George Eulas Foster: No ; he did not say that they received them from the Railway Department. I do not think that will be shown by ' Hansard.' But see the statement made by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. It was that these things came to him under seal, and that they were kept under seal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; I did not say that.


George Eulas Foster: It was that they did not come to him under seal, but that he immediately put them under seal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is it.


George Eulas Foster: Very well ; they did not need at all to have had the seal broken and to have been distributed by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, or by his deputy, to be seen by other servants in his employ. Evidently the men who prepared the plans did not think they were of such a nature that they had to be transmitted under seal to the minister. They were in the Mr. FOSTER.
course of transmission to the department, and no one knows how long they lay there until they were taken byr the hon. minister and put under seal. The hon. minister has not been over spry-on account of his modesty, I suppose-in overtaking the details of his department, and these same plans having been lying in life department since July or August, I think he said, anyway for a good long while, and the hon. minister has done nothing at all in regard to them yet. How long did they' lie there before the hon. minister got hold of them and put them under seal ? During the time of the transmission to the hon. minister they were not under seal, and they were evidently not looked upon as information that should necessarily be under seal, and it was possible Tor this information to have gone out. After the plans came there, and before they were put under seal, it was possible for this information to have been obtained. My hon. friend will agree with me in that, and that is all my hon. friend from Algoma said-that in some way or other these plans got into the hands of private parties. Then the hon. Minister ot Railways and Canals said: Oh, they are secret ; they are not to be seen, and I have put them under seal. And then the statement was made that it must have been through the back door of the department that they came. But, as to the matter itself, we will take that up when we come to discuss the whole subject. It does seem to me that there will be a good ground, not a party ground at all, for inquiring into this matter, because we want to know what is the best thing to do.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am waiting to take the matter up again. After hearing the pretty' little romance from the hon. member for North Toronto, I wish to say that in August, or last autumn, when the first plans were submitted to the department, they were shown on a certain day; and on the next morning, the very first morning thereafter, I was made acquainted with the fact by the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals. Accompanying that information was the request to know whether parties could see these plans, and whether the public, or anybody who called, would be permitted to see them. I stated no, most certainly not ; that they could not be considered as public property until they had been considered by the government, and that it would be wrong to have that information go out from the department. I asked him to place the seal of secrecy upon the plans, and not permit anybody to see them. I did not see them myself. Now, since then, and within a few months or a few weeks, other plans came in, and I have the right to assume that the same policy was pursued in respect to these. That is the case in a nutshell. I personally have not seen them. I did not ask to do so ; I was not in a position to do so ; I have not done so,

and 1 tliinlc I am right in the position which I have taken. It is a question as to whether or not I was right in the judgment which I exercised in the matter, but the charge which is made is a different thing, and it is a more serious matter. If there has been any official in the department who has given out that information, and it is known, either by the back or the front door, and if my hon. friend from Algoma has any information in respect to any official doing that in violation of his instructions, I think it is due to me, due to the department, due to all concerned and due to the public, who have confidence in the officials of the Department of Railways and Canals, that he should give me, either publicly In this House or privately, the information as to who the man is or who the men are.


John Graham Haggart: Just one word.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Will the hon. gentleman allow me ? I think the discussion has been running out of order. Several hon. gentlemen have spoken twice on each side, and those who have spoken before will not have an opportunity again unless with the permission of the House. The motion is that tlie House do now adjourn.


Mr. OSLER.: Mr. Speaker, just one word. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) states that these plans were at least one day deposited in the ordinary manner and treated as ordinary plans. He says that he thinks it was the morning following that on which they were deposited that he gave instructions to have them sealed up. It is six months nearly since they were deposited, and the hon. minister's memory may be quite astray within a day or two, and it is quite possible the plans were kept in the department in the ordinary way for two or three days before his instructions were given.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Will my hon. friend pardon me for just a moment ? I have the right to assume that when Mr. Schreiber asked me that question he had not previously to that moment shown any one these plans ; else, why would he come and ask me ?


George Eulas Foster: Nobody suggests that he did.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes ; that is the suggestion which has been made.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I assume that they were deposited in the office in the ordinary manner, and it is exceedingly likely that all sorts of people would want to see these plans. I fancy it is a common occurrence that people want to see plans fhe moment they are filed in the department, and if they were deposited in tlie ordinary way in the minister's office for three or four days, or it might be longer, it is more than likely that these plans were seen.
Motion (Mr. Boyce) to adjourn, negatived.



PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.

George Eulas Foster: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if he can give any information to the House as to the probable date at which the second reading of the Autonomy Bill will be taken up ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Not this day, but I think I can inform the House early next week.



SUPPLY-MUNICIPAL TAXATION, C. P.


Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


William Findlay Maclean: I wish to direct the attention of the House to a very important judgment delivered recently by the Supreme Court of Canada. The court pronounced on the contention of the western municipalities that tlie lands of the Canadian Pacific Railway were subject to municipal taxation, and the holding was absolutely against the municipalities in that respect. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that when he is preparing any more measures dealing with territorial autonomy he should have this judgment before him, because there are laid down in it certain very important interpretations of the constitution. It is well also that the general public should become acquainted with those interpretations in view of other questions which will be discussed in this House, and I therefore ask the Prime Minister to have the judgment of the Supreme Court printed. From the copy of the decision I have been able to get, I read these extracts from words of tlie chief justice speaking the unanimous opinion of the court.
I am unable for myself to reach the conclusion that the principles with regard to legislation generally and specially with regard to India laid down in the Burah case have or can have any application to the special tentative and uncertain powers of legislation which were vested in the Lieutenant Governor in Council or by and with the advice of the assembly for the Northwest Territories in 1881.
Further he says :
Reliance was placed in the judgment below and in the argument before us upon the education clauses of the Territories Act of 1880, section 10, as the section was originally enacted in 1875 and re-enacted in the Consolidating Act of 1880, its operation was expressly made contingent upon a system of taxation having been first adopted in the district. That limitation upon the operation of the section was, it is true, abolished in 1885 by parliament (48-49 Vic., cap. 51), but when the latter statute was passed the Northwest Territories Council had already in 1883 and 18S4 passed ordinances introducing systems of taxation for municipalities and school districts throughout the territories, and the words of limitation were no longer neces-

sary. This statute of 1885 enacted that the amendment removing the limitation from section 10 of the Act of 1880 should take effect from the date of the passing of the latter Act presumably in order to remove any doubt as to the validity of any school taxation which might have been imposed in the meantime.
In conclusion the judgment says :-
I am of the opinion that the powers of legislation of the Northwest Territories Council were delegated powers from the Dominion and that the exemption from Dominion taxation in the 16th clause of the contract embraced and included taxation by the Territorial Council or hv any municipal district as well as by any school district afterwards established therein.
I cannot dispute the law laid clown, but I point out that in this decision the Supreme Court of Canada has declared that all the legislation of the Legislative Council of the Northwest Territories was tentative or temporary and can be repealed at any moment. This is important in view of some other great questions that will arise in this parliament. I would like to have had present to-day the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) and tbe member for Lisgar (Mr. Green way). The Prime Minister expressed the view the other day that this exemption of the Canadian Pacific Railway from taxation was most burdensome and most unjust to the people of the west, and he deplored it and he stated that it was the law of the country and it could not be remedied. The Prime Minister knew of no remedy by which the shackles which have been put upon the people of the west could be removed. I have raised this question in the House before ; I hope to bring it up again this session and I trust that I shall have greater assistance from the member for Brandon than I have had in the past. The people of the Northwest are suffering from two grievances in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway. It has been held that the Canadian Pacific Railway lands are not subject to municipal taxation, and it has also been held that the railway rates on the Canadian Pacific Railway are not subject to revision until a certain dividend is paid on the capital invested in the construction of the road. I do not agree with the Prime Minister that there is no cure for these evils. For every legal wrong there is a legal remedy.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the remedy ?


William Findlay Maclean: There is the remedy already adopted by the Prime Minister in other legislation, that when you are negotiating with the Canadian Pacific Railway for franchises and other privileges they seek, you can at the same time negotiate with them for a removal of existing abuses. This session the Canadian Pacific Railway is asking franchises to cover the whole country ; they are constantly coming here for legislation of every kind. They may be here in a very short time for a grant of land Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
or a bonus for some of their undertakings, and then is the time to negotiate with them for reforms, just as the Prime Minister did in connection with the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. Large sums of money were granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway to aid in the construction of that road and certain concessions were made by them in return. Sir John Macdonald in his time took a similar course. The Canadian Pacific Railway had a monoply in regard to lines going south and that monoply was abolished by negotiation.


Wilfrid Laurier: By payment.


William Findlay Maclean: Even so, and fortunately the money value of the relinquishment of this privilege which the people of the Northwest complain of can be very easily ascertained. I believe that if the Prime Minister makes an effort he will find a remedy for these grievances. The other day the right lion, gentleman grieved about this imposition placed upon the people of the west, and I would remind him that when he is framing other legislation he ought to be careful that lie does not forge further shackles to manacle the people of that country. The member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) has just come into the House and I appeal to him to assist me and to assist the Prime Minister in finding some remedy for the evils which exist in this connection. As I have said, the Prime Minister grieved for the people of the Northwest the other day, and he declared that in all his reading of legislation he never saw anything quite so bad as this legislation which was enacted by a former government.
" Now I say it is possible through negotiation to remove that restraining law whatever it may be, and I trust that now that the hon. member for Brandon (Hon. Mr. Sifton) is not in the ministry he will take the matter up and assist the people of the west in having this obnoxious law removed. Again I ask the Prime Minister for the benefit of the House to try and have this judgment of the Supreme Court distributed to the members before he proceeds with his Autonomy Bill, because it is a very illuminative document. It shows that any powers exercised by the Northwest legislature or the Territorial legislature are delegated ; that all their legislation has been temporary and tentative and that all the legislation of this Dominion as regard these Territories has been temporary and tentative, and, therefore, revocable at will. If that is the case we ought to be in a position to have this document before tis for use in the coming discussion in connection with the Autonomy Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Prince Edward Island Railway-chargeable to capital-to increase accommodation at Char' lottetown. $108,000.
Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a revote ; the matter was fully discussed last year.


Mr. A. MARTIN.: During this session 1 asked for some correspondence about the location of this road. I think the minister will find it in the ' Hansard ' of Ferbuary 3. I asked for a return of the correspondence in connection with the location of this station and it would be of some service to us in the discussion. .


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend will have an opportunity of discussing this in connection with the supplementary estimates. The return lias not yet come from Moncton. We had to send to Moncton for copies and they have not been returned, otherwise I would have had it laid on the table before this. The whole subject was very fully discussed last session.


Alexander Martin: There has been a very great deal of delay in the location of this station. The matter has come up frequently and several delegations have come to see the minister about it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: A delegation came to see me about it at Moncton before I came here in the early part of January or the end of December.


Alexander Martin: It is very important that this station should be built without r.ny more delay. We have found in Prince Edward Island that delegations come here with some object in view, one time about a railway station and


Henry Robert Emmerson: The trouble is you do not agree.


Alexander Martin: The people of the pro-v'nce are put to the expense of these delegations and I think it would be better if the minister went down. We have heard that the minister was going down to settle about this, and I would like to know if he is going down.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did promise this delegation from the Board of Trade that I would go over, that was on the eve of the session and I had hoped that I might be able to steal away for a few days, but the weather conditions which have prevailed since and my duties in parliament made it impossible for me to leave, and I do not now anticipate that I shall be in a position to go until the close of the session, at which time I purpose determining the question of site. It is one with reference to which there is a great difference of opinion among people without regard to any political phase of it, and I have very great difficulty in determining the location. I have to bear in mind the interests of the railway, the question of expenditure, and I would like, as far as possible, to consult the convenience of the people. I find it quite impossible to do that without having some personal knowledge, because after all I have to bear the responsibility to this House and be able to answer any objections.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: Has the hon. minister any option on any particular land in Charlottetown ?. 1 notice on page W-43 of the Auditor General's Report that there is a charge of $1,500 for land taken for increased accommodation at Charlottetown and option $14. Will, the hon. minister explain that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was $1,500 paid for land we purchased from the province of Prince Edward Island. It is near the end of the Hillsboro bridge.


Angus Alexander McLean: I do not think there is any government land there.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is land covered with water. I believe, required for the use of the railway, and was purchased from the province.


Angus Alexander McLean: I should think that would be the property of the government of Canada.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We would hardly purchase from the government of the province land which belonged to ourselves. The railway track io between the water and this land, and this land belongs to the province. The titles were searched and deeds passed in connection with them.


Alexander Martin: I find a vote in 1904-5 for $115,000 and in 1905-6 of $108,000. That would indicate there was an expenditure of $7,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is a misprint. The $115,000 should be $110,000. We estimate that $2,000 will be spent before the 1st of July and we ask for a revote of $108,000.
To dredge and blast rook at deep water terminus at Halifax, $18,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Last year we asked $30,000 and the estimated expenditure during this year is $12,000. The object of this dredging and blasting is to give 30 feet of water at low tide. We are asking for a revote of $18,000. This work cannot be carried on expeditiously. They do not seem able to make as much progress as we hoped for. Therefore only $12,000 are likely to be expended out of the $30,000 during this fiscal year.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What depth of water have you at present ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: About 28 feet.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose there is 30 feet of water along a portion of the dock?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: This is to extend that area ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Mr.   I@: Is it expected that the thirty feet will accomplish that ?
Mr. EMMEI1SON. No, the whole of it would cost about $70,000. We would require at least $30,000 more after the year 1905-6 if the necessity for it should arise. A certain number of berths will be provided by this expenditure ; and if the traffic increases as we hope it may, there will be at least $30,000 more required to complete the whole work.


Robert Laird Borden: How many berths will the present vote provide for ?


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: When this is completed we will have five berths.
Double tracking parts of line, Intercolonial Railway, $100,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I should like to have a statement of what work is done, how long it has taken, when it is anticipated the double track between Halifax and Windsor Junction will be completed, and whether or not the hon. geptleman contemplates double tracking the line from Halifax to Truro ?


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: Last year we had a vote of $150,000 for double-tracking- parts of the line. We anticipate that the expenditure during the present fiscal year will be $100,000, so we shall require a revote of $50,000 for the year 1905-6. The proposal for double tracking under this vote includes these portions -.-From Richmond to Rockingham, about 24 miles, estimated cost $47,768 ; from Bedford Bridge to Windsor Junction, about 5 miles, $112,200 ; from Rockingham to Bedford Bridge, about 44 miles. $112,000; widening of Bedford Bridge, which will cost about $45,000 ; making a total for that section of about $317,000.
We have had in contemplation the double tracking of the line between New Glasgow and Stellartou, and also between Pointe Levis and Ckaudi&re Curve. That has not been undertaken as yet. We have also in contemplation the double tracking between Moncton and Painsec Junction. No vote has been asked for these. AVe hope ultimately to extend the double tracking from Windsor Junction to Truro. No steps have been taken as yet to ask parliament for that vote, because these works cost a good deal and we do not wish to ask for excessively large votes. We prefer to await the gradual increase of the business. I believe, in view of the growth of the traffic, that it will be absolutely necessary to double track from Halifax to Truro-indeed right on to Moncton.


Robert Laird Borden: Some portion of this work has been completed ?


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: Yes, between Richmond and Rockingham has been double-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
tracked and is in use. Between Rockingham and Bedford Bridge is under contract, and it is expected that the work will be completed early this spring. A further contract has been let between .Windsor Junction and Bedford Bridge.


Robert Laird Borden: 44rlio are the contractors V


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: Reid AleAIanus had the contract between Bedford Bridge and Rockingham, and also has the one between Windsor Junction and Bedford Bridge. That contract was let in January.


Air.  R. I.. BORDEN@: These were let after public advertisement, I suppose?


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: Yes.


Air. B. L. BORDEN.: I do not know whether the minister can give us information as to the possibility of avoiding some serious delays that have taken place. I am not speaking by way of criticism. After a delay of si-xty-four hours at Oxford Junction on my way to Halifax recently, I was inclined to be critical I must confess ; but when I had an interview with the divisional superintendent and had examined the snow banks they had to contend with-mountains one might say-and understood the very compact nature of them, I was rather inclined to wonder that the men got the train through as quickly as they did. But I may say, to give Jion. members an idea-I suppose the minister has an idea already-of what the men have to contend with, I was told by tbe divisional superintendent that when two engines with an ordinary snowplough, which, it is well known, will stand a very great strain, charged one of the snow-banks at fifty miles an hour, the snow-plough crumpled as if it were so much paper. In some cases there had to be a cutting through banks not less than forty feet high. Loaded teams came along while the train ahead of us was stalled for four days, and succeeded in getting across by driving over the top of the snow-plough. It occurred to me and others in the train, that, possibly delays might be prevented to some extent in the future by building snow-sheds or snow-fences. I talked that over a little with one of the officers of the road, and he told me there were snow-fences already at some of the exposed points. But it seemed evident that, if we are to have winters in the future of anything like the severity of that through whLh we are passing, a 'great saving of money could be effected to the department and the country by making provision to prevent to some extent, at least, the immense drifts that have piled up over the railway during this winter. Of course, the minister will realize that, not only has there been very great inconvenience and loss of time, sometimes under very distressing circumstances, but

there 1ms been actual suffering. A gentleman who keeps a country store in the vicinity of Westchester told me that there was suffering in his vicinity through lack of supplies. He himself had been obliged to take flour out of his own House, that is from his domestic supply, to satisfy his customers. Freight had not been through there for a very long time. People are destroying their cattle and horses in many parts of the country because they have not food for them. And, generally, great loss is entailed by the conditions. Now, while we may not be Inclined to criticise the efforts of the department during the present winter under the conditions which have prevailed, we are, I think, justly entitled to consider whether or not some remedy may be found for this in the future. I would like to ask the minister whether that is in contemplation ; and, at the same time, I would like to know whether the minister has any reports from his officers which indicate that the freight, which necessarily has been at a standstill, as I understand, for three or four weeks on some portions of the road, is likely to be moved in the near furture, so that better conditions may speedily prevail.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I may say to my hon. friend that I have private accounts, and from the officials of the Intercolonial, statements which are certainly not exaggerated of the conditions prevailing on that road. This *winter for severity has been phenomenal in the province of Nova Scotia. I have been for a good many years familiar with the weather conditions in that section of the country and certainly in my lifetime there has been nothing like it, particularly in the province of Nova Scotia. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition knows the conditions on the Intercolonial well. They were bad indeed, but were not nearly so bad as they were down in the Annapolis valley. According to the information which I have had from time to time, the people there were actually in want. I know that the schools in that locality, Acadia College and affiliated institutions were on the point of being closed. They had no coal, they had nc fuel, and they really had very little supplies. There was actual want in all sections for sixteen days. They did not have a train at all. The Intercolonial went to the assistance of the Dominion Atlantic and finally they were successful in making an opening into the Annapolis valley. I understand that they had a prospect of getting to Yarmouth last night. We have information to-day from officials who are on the spot that freight is being moved all over the line. The weather is fine all over, and at all points freight is being moved, except on the short line division between Oxford Junction anu Pictou. But every effort is being put forth to have that line opened up.
I want here to pay a compliment to the
men of the Intercolonial for the splendid manner in which they have given themselves to the work of removing the snow blockade.
1 think from what I have heard from private sources and from what I have seen in the newspapers, that it is impossible to speak too highly of them, of the personal sacrifices that they made, and the risks and exposures to which they were subjected in | endeavouring to relieve the situation. The men have worked faithfully, not only in the interests of the railway, but in the interests of the travelling public, and have done all that is possible to secure their comfort, and to make conditions as easy as possible for those who were in that unfortunate position. We could not have expected such a winter, there never has been one like it in the history of the Intercolonial. In fact it is seldom during the winter season that we have any snow to speak of between Amherst and Halifax. But this winter, on the Intercolonial and others railways, has certainly been exceptional. I have not had any special report. We hope that we will not have a repetition of the occurrences of this winter. We need more motive power on the Intercolonial ; that has had something to do with the difficulty. It is through no fault of the management if we have not sufficient locomotives. We have a limited number of ploughs. We were asked by all the railways to loan them ploughs and engines on those branch lines that were closed. They find themselves blocked in without coal, they cannot move their engines, they are without water, without snow ploughs, and it is impossible for them to get out. I am told that in the county of Queen's, New Brunswick, there is actual suffering and want. A telegram came to me last night from Cliipman that simply told a tale that was heart rending. We are endeavouring on the Intercolonial, although it has put us to a great deal of inconvenience, to relieve somewhat file suffering of the people.
Now as to the future, I am sure that every precaution will be taken at points where the greatest drifts are to be found. When you see a snowdrift forty feet high, and contemplate that a team of horses can travel over it, across the channel cut out for the railway track and across the top of a snow plough, you can realize what a quantity of snow must have fallen and the force of the wind that drifted it. Snow fences can be of no avail under such circumstances. Why, snow fences get covered rp, and after that they are of no possible value. It would only become - a question ol Whether you should have a tier of snow fences one on top of the other as the drift got higher, raising your fence as the drift increased. But, the wind has been so fierce there would be difficulty in doing that ; they are blown down.


Samuel Hughes: That very thing was tried in the west where they have built fences with brush.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The snow is packed in so hard there would he more difficulty in getting that brush out again than there would be in going to the woods and bringing in a supply of brush. They say these drifts are very hard. The leader of the opposition can probably testify on that point. The wind was so strong and it packed the snow so hard that people could drive teams of horses over the drifts without their sinking in. That is my information.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that you can expect freedom from conditions of this kind in the future. We know that there is a great deal of precipitation of moisture in the maritime provinces, both in winter and summer. During the past six or seven 'ears, or up to three years ago, a great deal of that came in the winter time in the form of rain, or of snow followed by rain. But conditions were not such during the past winter. If you have a winter of unusual severity when the precipitation comes almost altogether in the form of snow, and sometimes in the form of rather moist snow which packs very hard, and may be followed by severely cold weather. You must expect occasionally to have conditions such as have prevailed during the present winter, although perhaps not to so great an extent. So far as regards the snow fences, I did not gather from those with whom I conversed that they were of no use; on the contrary I was told they were of considerable use, but that the snow fall was so enormous this winter that they did not suffice to prevent a blockade.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are good up to a certain point.


Robert Laird Borden: The benefit is greater if you have two or three fences on the exposed side. But I understood that at one time there were snow sheds there, I do not know whether they were regarded as useful now. On the line below the city of Quebec, I know there are snow sheds, I do not know whether they have been found useful. I suppose this matter is in the hands of the officers of the department, who are making a study of it. What I desire to suggest is that I think some provision should be made to guard against the recurrence of this difficulty in the future. Even if it should occur only at considerable intervals, nevertheless, it would be wise to take what is a reasonable precaution, because the enormous cost the country has been put to during the past winter would serve to erect snow fences and wind breaks along the road to a very considerable extent between Halifax and Amherst.
To increase accommodation at Halifax, $200,-
000.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like the hon. minister to explain this item.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We are only asking during this year for $200,000. My lion.


Samuel Hughes: friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) smiles over that modest request, but when he has heard of all the requirements of the situation I am afraid that he will not be in the mood for smiling. The situation at Halifax is such that we will necessarily, before the terminals there are put in such a condition that they will meet what we hope to be the requirements of the country, require a very large expenditure of money. The improvements contemplated cannot all be carried out in one year. The expenditure will have to be extended over a number of years. This year we have very modestly, I think, asked for $200,000. We had in 1901-5 an appropriation of $385,000. We anticipate that the expenditure during this current year will be $185,000 and we are asking for the balance of $200,000 as a revote on the assumption that we can only spend $200,000, or not more than that on the ordinary construction works, provided the same progress is made during 1905-6 as is being made during the current fiscal year. There are several things to be done at Halifax. We require land for the engine house and that is a very difficult proposition. The physical conditions near Richmond where this engine house requires to be, make it almost impossible that we can secure land without very great expense ; indeed, we cannot secure it without blasting or without constructing land somewhat encroaching upon the water, and in order to do that we have to do a lot of blasting so as to get the rock removed. We require an engine house which will be circular in form. The diameter will be about 350 feet. To get a piece of land there for that purpose, or to construct land, would require in the vicinity of $35,000. Then, we want some land on Cornwallis street for the purposes of the railway. We want an electric plant. That is under construction.


Robert Laird Borden: For what purpose- for lighting ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: For lighting the shops, station and everything of that kind. We require and we have been making improvements to the station. These improvements will cost about $6,000. We want new tracks at the elevator. We anticipate that they will cost $4,000. That work is now being done.


Mr. TAYLOR.: And no grain going to the elevator.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not this year but we are hopeful. We do not anticipate that it will be a case of hope deferred. Then, we require the new wharf and freight shed which are under construction. They will cost about $125,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is the new freight shed to be constructed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Right on the wharf. It is under contract now.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a freight shed in existence.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is just near Richmond at what is called the deepwater terminus.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. minister be good enough to explain what will be the use of that as compared with the freight shed which extends to the foot of Cornwallis street ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The use of that is in connection with export shipments brought down on the cars to the steamers. The cars go right out on the wharf and the merchandise is to be put into this warehouse on the wharf. This is where these 30 foot berths are, and it is part and parcel of this deepwater wharf. It is practically a warehouse on the wharf. Then, there is crib work with tracks on it which will be used largely in connection with the shipment of lumber brought from the interior. That work will gradually be carried on. Something is being done already in connection with it. We also want in addition to the land for the engine house a 30 stall engine house which, complete, would cost at least $162,000. Nothing is being done in that regard just now. The old one is being utilized as far as possible. Then, we want a water supply from the city supply extended to the site of the [DOT]engine house which will cost $7,500. With the shops and engine house, &c.. we will require to do some grading at Richmond, because, as my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) knows, there is a very narrow strip at Richmond. There are high banks right in the rear and it is necessary to do a large amount of grading. This will involve a large expenditure. Then, there is that other question of the land on Water street. I may say that since the matter was up at the last session when it was referred to by my hon. friend, I did, recently in December, when I *was in Halifax at the time of the arrival of His Excellency, go over the ground again.
I recognize, as I think every one must, that to perfect the terminal at Halifax, having regard to the future, if not to the immediate present, it would be necessary to purchase this land. Of course, when landowners know this, their idea as to the value of land increases abnormally, and the department that undertakes to expropriate never gets off very cheaply. I have had several conferences with the Halifax Board of Trade, and they say that it is absolutely necessary, in the commercial interests of the city and the province, to have a Hour shed on the wharf. The people of the out-ports who deal with Halifax, and the people interested in the flour trade of the western provinces, coincide in this view, and insist that this should be done. This will cost $100,000. It has been suggested that we might take the marine wharf now occupied by the Department of Marine and Fisheries and that they could transfer to Dartmouth.
This proposal, although at first condemned by the city council of Halifax, is, I understand, now favoured by them. We are preparing accommodation for immigrants arriving at Halifax, which will cost $40,000 ; and there is to be a covered way from the steamers to the immigrant shed, which will cost $4,000. It is in the interest of this terminal that we should have a car shop, and it is believed that the work could be advantageously done there if facilities were furnished. The excavation of the land between the railway property and the Campbell road would cost $50,000. In addition to this, it is absolutely necessary that there shall be a double-track from Richmond down to the terminals. The leader of the opposition is familiar with the locality, and he knows that at Richmond a great number of tracks converge into one track running down to North street and beyond that to the dockyard. The passenger and freight business has to be shunted over this long single track at considerable expense, at great loss of time and at great inconvenience to the business people of Halifax and the people of the west who are interested in the export and import trade of that port. The Messrs. Allan have been to see me on more than one occasion to complain of the delay caused in transferring passengers, mails and freight, because of the single track. We will require a large sum of money, due to the physical conditions, to enable us to secure at least a double line of railway. All this will involve an expenditure of not less than $1,000,000. Of course, that would not be much to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I am sure my hon. friend the director of that railway will not complain.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The Canadian Pacific Railway would make it pay before they would do it; that would be the difference.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Canadian Pacific Railway could not make it pay until they increased the facilities, and we do not expect to make it pay until we incur the expenditure and do the work. If we had proper facilities last autumn and winter, we could have had a very large amount of traffic at Halifax in connection with the Grand Trunk Railway and the Allan Steamship Line, but we were unable to take advantage of this because of the existing conditions. Of course, we cannot hope 40 do much trade in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway. This is an outline of all that is mapped out for the future of Halifax. I am not asking for the total sum now; I am only asking for a sum of $200,000-* that is trifling in comparison with the larger amount that will eventually be required to complete the terminal at Halifax. After all, I do not think this committee should be startled about this.


Edward Cochrane: We are not startled at anything from the Intercolonial Railway.


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: I am glad of that, for I would not wish to affect the nerves of my hon. friend. The other day my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) was anxious that large sums of money should be handed over to the imperial government for the benefit of imperial interests.


Samuel Hughes: When was that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In connection with the defences of Halifax.


Samuel Hughes: If the minister will be good enough to read ' Hansard,' lie will not find anything there to support his statement.


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: Well, I am only referring to my hon. friend in a very mild manner, and venturing the statement that he very worthily proposed that Canada should spend a large sum of money in connection with imperial defence.


Samuel Hughes: You do not put it the right way.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It does not relate very much to the present discussion, but, at all events, I think he advocated the expenditure of a large sum of money for imperial interests, and I am just reminding him that if we are ever to build up a national trade in connection with our national ports, we must afford equal facilities at Halifax and St. John to those that are to be found in Portland and Boston. It is no use for us beginning to launch out on imperial ideas until we are content to improve the national interests of Canada, and I conceive one of the most important national interests of Canada is the advancement of its export and import trade via Canadian seaports at all seasons of the year.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as concerns one matter which the minister has mentioned, namely the acquisition of the land south of the station and along the western side of Water street, I advocated the acquisition of that land three or four years ago and on more than one occasion since. I still think it is desirable to acquire it, and while 1 fully realize that men who have property which is likely to be taken by the government are apt sometimes to put a very high figure upon it, nevertheless the government can always acquire property at a fair valuation by means of expropriation. There is something to be said on behalf of these men on Water street so far as the price of their property is concerned, because, as I pointed out to the committee some two or three years ago, that property has been very seriously depreciated by reason of the fact that the Intercolonial Railway tracks run along the east side of Water street; the width of the street has been seriously diminished and business formerly done on that street has been transferred to other parts of the city.
With regard to the general proposition of the minister. I sincerely hope that his expect-Mr. COCHRANE.
ations in regard to traffic may be realized. I gather that these expectations are very largely basis on the hope of traffic to be gained by means of some arrangement with the Grand Trunk Railway, but in view of the proceedings which are now in progress for alleged violation of an arrangement made some six or seven years ago and in view of what I understand to be the pronounced attitude of officials of that road as to their duty in connection with those agreements, it does not seem to me that the expectations of the department or of the country should be placed too high. The policy of the Grand Trunk Railway, as very frankly announced in those very arbitration proceedings, was to send their traffic to Portland where it pays them best to carry it. 1 do not know whether the minister's expectation is based on any definite agreement with the Grand Trunk which we have not seen or heard of, or whether it is based on something else, but certainly if it it based on anything else than an absolute and distinct agreement we cannot expect very much from it so far as Halifax is concerned. If it is based on as distinct an agreement as that to which I have referred, we may still in the future be confronted by the necessity of seeking the same remedy by arbitration oi otherwise as we are now seeking.


Air. WAI. ROCHE.: I desire to say a word in connection with this subject. For a number of yrears people owning property along the line in Halifax connecting the present passenger station with the deep water station have understood that the government intended to take over the properties; the properties have been allowed to dilapidate and to decrease in value in consequence ot repairs not being made upon them. This would be a favourable juncture for buying these properties. If tile railway does not take them over now the people who own them will begin to repair and consequently Hie value will be much enhanced. So far as I have heard from several proprietors along the line they are disposed to take moderate prices, and I would strongly support the intention of the government to purchase tlio property now and not to wait until it would be enhanced in value when it would be absolutely imperative to take more property.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose this work is done partly by the department directly and partly by contract.


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: It is being done almost entirely by contract.


Robert Laird Borden: Are there contracts now outstanding?


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: The contracts are outstanding; the crib work, the wharf and the shed on the wharf, in fact, almost all tlio work is being done by contract that can possibly be done.

Rolling stock, $698,500.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The minister promised certain returns of figures before the item was taken up.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was asked by my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Osier) to give the expenditure on the Intercolonial Kailway in connection with rolling stock on capital account since 1896. The figures are as follows:
1896- 7	$ 14,996 04
1897-	8	
54,565	971898-	9	
619,999	261899-	1900	
533,223	401900-	01	
1,563,705	771901-	2	
2,066,879	381902-	3.. .t	
254,694	381903-	4	
643,020	83I	gave the hon. gentleman credit yesterday of trying to get back to the good days of the Conservative government.
Steel rails and fastenings, $380,000.


Mr. BARKER.: The hon. minister promised us an explanation of this.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have been unable to get the exact data of the amount charged to maintenance on the one hand and to capital on the other, if any were charged to capital, but I am having a statement prepared of all that was purchased and shall bring it down before the supplementaries are submitted. We shall unquestionably require a further vote in regard to steel rails ; and if I should consider that our policy should be on the line indicated by my hon. friend, I shall certainly follow his advice.
Total	 5,751,085 03
There are two heavy locomotives purchased before 1897-8 on which there was paid in that year a small balance of $389.60. This purchase had been made some few years before the balance was outstanding.
In 1S97-8 two dining cars were purchased at a cost of $10,944.95. In 1899-1900 refrigerator cars were purchased to.the extent of $30,016.09, making a total of $5,792,441.27. In answer to the inquiry of my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), I may read to him the following statement of rolling stock on hand:-
30th June, 30th June,
	1896.	1904.
Locomotives	
.	.. 204	302Passenger cars.. ..	.. 276	367Freight cars	. 6,667	10,107Snow ploughs, &c.. To be rebuilt-	.. 77	86Locomotives	,. None.	3Passienseir cars.. .	.. None.	3Freight cars.. ..	.. 198	265Snow ploughs!.. .	. None'.	1


Edmund Boyd Osler: What is the rule when a car or engine is absolutely destroyed and has to be replaced ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The cost of rebuilding or replacing is charged to revenue.


Samuel Barker: The return just read carries out what I said last night, namely, that the hon. gentleman is getting back, as regards the condition of rolling stock, to the good times left by my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart). In 1896 the freight cars out of work were 198. We got continuously worse every year until this year, 1904, when we have got back to some extent to the condition under the late government, the hon. gentleman has brought the number down to 265. He knows that every year from 1896 the number of freight cars and others out of service and absolutely off the list increased until a year ago there were 555 out of service. That is what I have been complaining of all the time, and 66
Mr. BARKER, Does the hon. minister want us to pass this item ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Samuel Barker: And if in the meantime, before the supplementaries come down, he should find that, according to the proper method of keeping accounts, this should be charged to revenue, will he revise his method ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It will be too late to revise it as regards this item but my hon. friend will get the benefit of it.


Samuel Barker: Could we not revise the item when going into supplementary estimates ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The item could not very well be revised on acount of its being in the main estimates then, but as regards any future vote, I shall be governed by what I consider to be right in the matter.


Mr. BLAIN.: How does the quality of steel rails made in Canada compare with those imported ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am informed by my officer, that, so far as their experience has gone, our Canadian steel rails are certainly equal to any imported.
Murray harbour branch and Hillsborough bridge. $357,400.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Last year we asked $650,000. We are asking now $357,400. The estimated cost of the bridge was $1,494,-
097.15.


Alexander Martin: In 1898, if my memory serves me well, the cost of the bridge was $750,000. I think that * Hansard ' will bear me out in that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The matter has been repeatedly referred to. And I know that, last session when we asked for this vote, the matter was again gone into. I am not familiar with what was done in the past. 1 am only speaking of the figures giving the total cost of the bridge and the esti-



mated cost of the branch to Murray river, which was $926,460.70. And the estimated cost of the line to Murray harbour is $104,-
000.32. The whole estimated cost, including the cost of rolling-stock and crib work in Murray harbour is $2,795,113.17.


Alexander Martin: How much is it for the bridge and railway separately.


Henry Robert Emmerson: For the bridge $1,494,-
097.15,	and for the railways-that is, the branch to Murray river and the extension to Murray harbour-$1,031,061.02.


Alexander Martin: That is very singular to me, because, on the 23rd of January, the minister gave us this information
Total expenditure in connection with Murray harbour branch railway to January 1, 1905, is $1,018,711.93.
And a little later on I asked what the cost would be of completing the road, and he told us that the estimated cost of completing this work was $561,253.93. I asked bum further if there were not some wooden bridges which required to be replaced and he told me that there were three of them at least which would cost $8,000. In the face of the figures the minister cites, I am astonished.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That includes the bridge.


Alexander Martin: No, if the minister will turn to 'Hansard' of January 23rd, page 106 of the revised edition


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not see wherein the figures given on that day in any way differ from these. I am giving the estimated cost of the works. On the 23rd of January, I was asked what was the total expenditure in connection with the Murray harbour branch of the Prince Edward Island up to 1st of January, 1905. And I answered that that expenditure was $1,018,711.93. And the estimated cost of the bridge is $1,494,097.15.


Alexander Martin: I want to get the cost of the road and of the bridge separately.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total estimated cost of the road was $1,031,061, and I have said that the total expenditure was $1,018,711.93.


Alexander Martin: But the hon. minister forgets, that a little later on I asked him this other question.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was asked the total expenditure on Hillsborough bridge to January 1, 1905, and I stated that it was $1,220,968.32. The estimated cost of the bridge was $1,494,097. Both expenditures were within the estimate.


Alexander Martin: I asked this question :-


Mr. EMMERSON.: 1.	Has the Murray Harbour branch line of railway in Prince Edward Island been completed ? If so, when ?
2.	If not, what remains to be done, and what is the estimated cost of same, including rolling stock ?
3.	How many of the bridges are wooden or partly wooden structures ? Are they to be replaced by stone or steel ? If so, when, and what is the estimated cost ?
To these questions the minister gave me this answer :


Henry Robert Emmerson: Will my hon. friend give me the date.


Alexander Martin: I have not got the date here, but I think it was about ten days after the first question was asked. The minister gave me these answers :
2.	The work remaining to be done is as follows. viz.:
Hillsboro' Bridge.
Rip-rapping, completion of approaches, riprapping piers, erecting and placing in position five fixed spans and one swing span, building rest piers, tracklaying and flooring of whole structure.
On the line.
Three iron bridges to be erected to replace temporary wooden trestles, station and terminal facilities to be completed, water tanks to be erected, rolling stock to be provided.
The estimated cost to complete above mentioned works is $561,253.93.
3.	There are three temporary wooden bridges which will be replaced by iron or steel, probably during the current year, and the estimated cost is about $8,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is all right, is it not ?


Alexander Martin: That would make a toal cost of $587,964.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But you must remember there is to be an improvement. You add $270,000 on to that estimated cost of the railway, the estimated cost of rolling stock, $200,000, the estimated cost of crib-work at Murray Harbour, $69,955, all included in the cost of the railway. Now let me resume in a few words. The estimated cost of the Hillsboro' River bridge was $1,494,-
097.15.	We expended from the beginning to November 30, 1904, $1,217,744.98, showing a balance of $276,352.17 on the Hillsboro' River bridge, as between the estimated cost and the amount actually expended.


John Graham Haggart: When was the estimate made for the bridge alone ?-because the estimate furnished to the House was one-half of that $750,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think my hon. friend is speaking of the substructure.


John Graham Haggart: I am talking of the bridge.


Henry Robert Emmerson: On July 5 last, the estimate, including the wharf, was $2,795,-

113.17. That is exactly the same as I have read out to this committee.


John Graham Haggart: The estimate was made in 1898, what was it then ? The minister is talking of the last years' estimate.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is ancient his-toiy. I have now to resume. The branch to Murray Harbour was estimated to cost $1,031,061.02.


Angus Alexander McLean: When was that estimate made ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know.


Angus Alexander McLean: Is it not a fact that that road was estimated to cost $8,000 a mile, and now we find it has cost in the vicinity of $32,000 a mile? The House would like an explanation of the jump of $24,000 a mile in the cost of a railway in a level country without any grades. The Prince Edward Island Railway was built for $8,000 or $10,000 a mile, and we find this railway costing three times as much per mile as the railway built in 1871, though labour* is cheaper, material is cheaper, and the mode of construction is cheaper. Besides that, I believe the rails were second-hand rails taken from the Intercolonial.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They were just as good rails as are being put down on the Intercolonial to-day, except that they were a lighter rail. They were practically new rails. You do not require 80 pound rails on a narrow gauge railway ; but you have just as good rails on that railway as you 1 have anywhere on the Intercolonial, except that they are lighter.


Samuel Barker: May I ask if these rails that were quite good, were taken off the Intercolonial ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Samuel Barker: Then you charge the Intercolonial capital account with the whole of the new rails ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I might explain here; the total expenditure on the branch and Murray Harbour was $870,121.91, leaving a balance or difference between the estimated cost and the amount expended, of $160,931.11. Then for rolling stock, the estimate was $200,000, and there was expended up to November 30 last, $145,992.35. That left a balance of $54,007.65. Then there was an estimate for rails at Murray Harbour in connection with the railway, of $69,955. No portion of that had been expended, and therefore there was to expend $69,955. Now in answering the question with respect to the balance to be paid on these works, I said there was still to pay and still unexpended, $561,253.93. That total is reached by adding to the $276,352.17. the balance on the Hillsboro' River Bridge, $160,939.11 the balance on the branch to Murray Harbour, $54,007.65, and the balance on the 66i
rolling stock, $69,955, for rails at Murray Harbour. Those several amounts make the total sum of $561,253.95, which is in accordance with the answer which I gave to the hon. gentleman on the floor of the-House.


Alexander Martin: What would be the total for the road now ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total for the road, including rolling stock and crib-work at Murray Harbour, would be $1,301,016.02, plus the balance that is to be paid, according to the statement which I read to my hon, friend a moment ago.


John Graham Haggart: My statement is that the bridge was only to cost about $750,000, and the road about one-third of tae present estimate.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think the hon. gentleman has mixed up the superstructure and the substructure.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 43) respecting the Lake Champlain and St. Lawrence Ship Canal Company.-Mr. Gervais.
Bill (No. 56) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Bole.

Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.) Mr. Speaker, it becomes my very sad and painful duty to announce what is already known, I think, to a great many members of the House, the very sudden and lamented death of our friend Mr. E. F. Clarke, member for Centre Toronto. I understand that an opportunity will be given on Monday to make fitting reference to this very sad event. I rise at the present time to suggest that as a tribute of respect to the memory of the late Mr. Clarke, we should adjourn now and not proceed further with the business of the day. I am sure that all of us on both sides of the House will feel that we should pay this tribute to the memory of our late confrere.


Hon.  W. S.@: The House has heard with profound regret the sad information conveyed by the leader of the opposition, of the death of our late colleague, Mr. E. F. Clarke. I am sure that the Prime Minister will share with the leader of the opposition, as we all do, in the deepest sorrow at this unexpected visit of the angel of death. It is becoming that we should act on the suggestion of the leader of the opposition. I

have no doubt that the sad event will be appropriately referred to on Monday next, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 8.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 6, 1905.