1905-03-07

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 99) to incorporate the Title Guarantee and Trust Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 100) respecting the Guelph and Georgian Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 101) to incorporate the Winding Ledges Power and Boom' Company.-Mr. Costigan.

Rt.   H@: The attendance of the House yesterday, Mr. Speaker, was so small that after conference with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, we both agreed that tbe moment then would not be opportune to call the attention of the House to the great loss we have sustained in the death of one of the most prominent members of this House, the late Mr. E. F. Clarke, inembei for Toronto Centre. We had been aware for some weeks past that Mr. Clarke had been suffering from an illness which his friends and admirers knew to be severe but hoped would not be fatal. We all cherished the belief that his strong constitution would be stronger than the disease which was attacking him, but by a strange fatality, it so happened that his death occurred on the evening of the very day when the press bulletins informed us he was out of danger and when it was hoped and believed that within a very short time he would again occupy the seat in this House which he held so long and well, but which is to be his no more. Such is the uncertainty of our lives. I am sure that when we parted last session, no one would have believed that our late colleague, then so strong and hearty, then in the full flush of health and activity, would have been the first victim in this parliament of death's relentless hand. This is but another illustration of the old truism, that we can never be sure of to-morrow, and that the future is ever full of uncertainty. When Mr. Clarke came here in 1896 he had already achieved in another sphere a very high reputation for ability. He had been long connected with municipal affairs in his own city of Toronto. Of that city he had been several times elected chief magistrate, and he had also won for himself a prominent position in the legislature of his province. It was therefore no surprise to us who had followed the politics of Ontario to find that as soon as he came here he commanded at once a prominent position. Those who had the pleasure of sitting with him in the last two parliaments ' will agree with me that he was one of the

ablest debaters we have ever had in a Canadian parliament. His speeches were always to the point, put in strong but never offensive language. There is no record that an offensive word ever passed his lips. He had the faculty of making his points as strong as they possibly could be made, without at the same time attacking anybody personally. I well remember the speech he delivered on rather a ticklish, if I may use the expression, subject, when resolutions were introduced some years ago in favour [DOT]of Home Rule for Ireland. The speech he made on that occasion was to my mind a model in every respect. I did not agree with him in his views, but it would have been impossible to present his case in stronger and more manly language. I need hardly say that his loss is one not only to that side, but to both sides. In saying this I am sure I echo the voices from my side as much as I do those of the other side. We may therefore sadly, but in the most united assent, convey to the family of our late colleague, the expression of the grief, not only of his colleagues of his own part}' but also of the party opposed to him in politics, and upon this occasion pay this last tribute of our sincere admiration for his many great qualities and our deep sorrow at his loss.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.) On behalf, Mr. Speaker, of those on your left, I wish to thank my hon. friend the Prime Minister for his very feeling and eloquent reference to our late colleague, Mr. E. F. Clarke. My right hon. friend has not said one word too much in his praise. The death of Mr. Clarke is not only a loss to his party in the House of Commons but it is, as the right hon. gentleman has well said, a loss to the whole House, a loss to his native city, a loss to his province and above all a loss to Canada. Mr. Clarke was a man of very *earnest and intense convictions, but at the same time he was a man of broad ideas and a great generous heart. He was gifted with an unusual power of clear and vigorous expression, yet with all his intense convictions and earnestness, no word of his, as my right hon. friend has well said ever left any sting of bitterness in the hearts of his political opponents. Those who sat with him in this House as his colleagues from 1896 until his death, especially those on this side of the House, look upon his loss as that of a dear brother. He has passed away in the fulness of his powers and in the enjoyment of a love such as it has fallen to the lot of few men in any country to gain among their fellow countrymen. More than that, he has left behind him a legacy of strong conviction, wise moderation and above all of intense faith in the future gi'eatness of his country which he loved so well.


Mr. E. B. OSDER (West Toronto).: May I too, Mr. Speaker, add on this occasion a few words to the expressions which have
fallen from our leaders on both sides of the deep sorrow we feel in the loss we have all sustained. The death of no other man in Canada, I believe, could bring such widespread sorrow and such deep sorrow to so many homes. In the warm hearted feeling of respect, admiration and sympathy which he gained among all classes, he excelled any man it is my privilege to know. He was a strong man and yet-what is most unusual in this world-he had not an enemy. As a rule a strong man makes enemies, but Mr. Clarke made none. Everywhere, even among those who differed with him, he created the conviction that he was absolutely fair. In him labour found a friend such as perhaps no other man in this country has proved himself to be; and yet capital had absolute confidence that he would never do an injustice as between labour and capital. He was, as we all know, a strong Orangeman, an Orangeman from conviction, and yet no man in the city of Toronto had as many dear, warm friends as he among the Roman Catholics. His home life was simply an ideal one. His unselfishness he carried to such a degree that he neglected his own interests practically from the time he devoted his energy to the cause of the public in municipal, local and Dominion affairs. Lives such as his furnish examples that are badly needed in these days, when human energy is devoted almost entirely to material objects. In our late colleague, Canada has lost a man, and we have lost a friend, but lives such as his leave enduring recollections which will ever tend to soften the asperities and bitterness of political strife and incite public men to higher, broader and more unselfish ideals.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: I would like, Mr. Speaker, as coming from the province of Quebec, to add also my meed of praise to the well deserved tributes which have just been rendered to our late lamented friend. I became acquainted with the late member for Centre Toronto when we entered parliament together in 1896, and I found him one of those men with whom acquaintance soon ripens into friendship. No doubt we all without exception appreciated his many qualities, but those who had the advantage of being near to him in the exercise of their daily duties can testify more particularly to his extreme kindness, to the gentleness of his nature, and to the firmness withal of his convictions. Mr. Clarke had the rare gift of being able to urge his convictions with great force and yet give offense to nobody. I can well endorse the tribute my right hon. friend paid to Mr. Clarke for the manner in which he presented his views on a certain occasion to which he particularly attested. Mr. Clarke then rose to the height of great eloquence upon a thorny subject, bristling with difficulties, he spoke with great warmth, but yet not oue word escaped him
.COMMONS
which could give the slightest offence to those who held different opinions. What impressed me particularly in our late friend, was his earnest advocacy, on every occasion of the rights of the working man. It was easy to see that in his early life he had known the struggle which many of us have had to go through, and never missed an occasion to promote and make perfect, by means of that eloquent and argumentative ability of which he was so absolutely a master, every measure which could in any way advance the interests of that important class of our community. Mr. Clarke was too rare a visitor to our own province of Quebec ; but when he came he made hosts of friends amongst all classes. I am not surprised at all that the city with whose iife he was identified should have thought lit to do his memory special honour. We cannot have too many men of his stamp in this House. The place he has so ably filled in this important assembly will be hard to fill now that he has gone.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: As one who was intimately associated with the late Mr. Clarke for many years, perhaps I may be permitted to say that I appreciate personally the very sympathetic references to his early demise and agree with every word that has been said, and so well said, on that subject. In every relation of life in which we were brought into connection with the late Mr. Clarke, he was regarded as one of the highest types of manhood-sympathetic, forbearing, intelligent ; a man of strong views and aggressive in maintaining what he believed to be right, but never desirous of interfering with the rights of others. In his death, not only has this House lost a valuable member and his constituency a very respectable and intelligent representative, and his city one of the important links between the various nationalities and the civic life of that important centre, but this country has lost a man whose place it will be hard to fill. He seemed to be a connecting and uniting force between what otherwise might have been divided elements of our community. Eveu those who might seem hi be the antipodes of public thought and feeling he brought together in relationship pleasing alike to all. But while this House and the city of Toronto and this country, have sustained its loss, nowhere will that loss be felt as in his own home where his loving wife and his family remain. The hand of death has taken from them one who was there sustainer, their comfort and their joy. It is to be hoped that the fact that he had so high a place in the affections of the people will have some effect in assuaging their grief. It was -with deep sorrow that the people assembled yesterday to pay their last tribute of respect to him. They were there in very large numbers, and it was felt and expressed by many that one of the most dearly beloved men Toronto had ever kno wn Mr. MONK.
was yesterday consigned to his last x'esting place.



ASH WEDNESDAY ADJOURNMENT.

Right Hon.   S@: That when this House adjourns this day it stand adjourned until Thursday the 9th of March, instant.
The reason for this motion is that tomorrow, Ash Wednesday, is a statutory holiday.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before this motion is adopted, I desire, if possible to get some information from the Prime Minister. The second reading of the Bills to establish autonomy in the Northwest Territories is expected to take place some lime soon. There are many members who desire to be present on that occasion. In referring to the matter, I am not in any way intimating a desire to have an early second reading of the Bills, because the later this comes on the better for our aims and our desires. My object is to ask the Prime Minister if he will be good enough to set a day -and that as late as he conveniently canter the second reading. There is very deep interest in these Bills throughout the country, and I entertain the hope that, even if the leader of the government does not now realize the strong sentiment that obtains throughout the country with regard to some of the provisions of these Bills, he may become aware of it at a later stage and may be influenced somewhat in the amendments to the Bill that, we are told, he is about to make.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The House will be entitled to know some days in advance at what time the Bills will be taken up, and I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) that reasonable notice will be given in advance to prepare for the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 52) to amend the Franchise Act, 1S98-Mr. Fitzpatrick-was read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Hon. G. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: What is the explanation of this Bill ?


Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice).: The object of this amendment is to provide that a copy of the electoral lists which bears the imprint of the King's Printer shall be prima facie evidence when it is produced in any court of justice. At the present time it is necessary in order to prove the qualification of an elector-for instance in an election petition-to produce the list in possession of the Clerk of the

Crown in Chancery, which is an expensive proceeding, or to produce a copy of the list certified by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Inconveniences have resulted from the latter practice. The intention here is to make the imprint of the King's Printer on the copy of the list prima facie evidence of the contents to the same effect and to the same purpose as the certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.


Mr. BERGERON.: If I remember rightly, under the old clause, in the event of a controverted election, the clerk of the Crown* in Chancery had to go to the court and submit the list which had been used. If I understand, it is now the intention to replace that procedure by making an ordinary list signed by tile King's Printer sufficient.


Charles Fitzpatrick: A list which purports to be printed by the King's Printer.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It would not be the list which had been used, but a copy.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is not a copy; it is a duplicate, a duplicate original.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Before long a case may come before the courts where the lists which have been used have been tampered with and a duplicate from the King's printer would not practically show the list used at the time of the election.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not know the case which my hon. friend has in mind, but he will realize at once that the present law Which requires that the production of the original list by the clerk_of the Crown m Chancery is somewhat expensive. But if, in future, any one desires to incur the expense of doing so, he may send a subpoena to the clerk of the Crown in Chancery and make him appear. This amendment will not prevent any one doing that. Under the present system you have perhaps a preliminary objection in an election petition, and it is necessary at the very outset to prove the qualification of the petitioner. Now, for that simple purpose it would seem to be unnecessarily burdensome for the clerk of the Crown in Chancery to have to go down. Under this amendment the petitioner will simply produce any copy of the electoral list on which appears the imprint of the King's Printer, by which it will appear that the list was printed in the King's Printer's office and the fact that he has printed his name on that list will be sufficient. The leader of die opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and myself had some conversation about this and there has been an agreement.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I understand the point; it is only for the simple purpose indicated, and the papers to which I have referred can be brought down just the same.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: It does not at all prevent that. Any step of that kind which
could have been taken in the past can be taken under this amendment. I would like to say to the Minister of Justice that I submitted this Bill to one of the counsel who had brought the matter to my attention, and while I have not been able to give his suggestions very careful consideration, nevertheless I have so much confidence in his judgment and in his study of the question that I would venture to submit his suggestion to the minister. He points out that the object to be aimed at, is not so much to give evidence of the original list, but substitute a copy for the original in every case in which you now have to subpoena the clerk of the Crown in Chancery to produce the list. He suggests as an amendment to strike out all the added words that have been suggested, that is, all the words which follow the words ' Clerk of the Crown in Chancery ' and substitute for the words in the clause these words :
And in every case in which the said original list could be received in evidence such printed copy purporting to be so authenticated shall be received in evidence in all courts without further or other proof than the production of such copy purporting to be so authenticated.
He has one other suggestion which is this:
Subsection 2 of section 10 of the Franchise Act, 1898 is hereby amended by inserting after the word ' division ' in the third line thereof the words ' or electoral district.'
I may be permitted to read what he says in regard to it:
I have also suggested that subsection 2, section 10, be amended by adding the words ' or electoral district ' after the word ' division,' in the third line thereof. The definition of a ' polling division ' in section 4, makes it include, when used in reference to provincial elections, any territorial area for which there is a special voters' list, or in which a poll may be held, but it is not clear that in subsection 2, section 10, the expression * polling division ' is used in reference to provincial elections. It rather looks as if it were used in reference to Dominion elections.
You will notice that ' electoral district ' is also used in section 9, even in reference to provincial elections.
I shall pass the letter over to the Minister of Justice. I may say that this letter is in reply to a letter of mine inclosing a copy of the Bill now under consideration.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Under these circumstances I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again in order that I may have an opportunity of examining this suggestion.
Progress reported.



SEAMEN'S ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 38) to amend the Seamen's Act.- Hon. Mr. Prfifontaine-read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
[Stage Direction]
On section 1.
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: This Bill is introduced at the special demand of the board of trade and shipping interests of British Columbia. It will have the effect of allowing the ship masters, mates, &c., who are engaging crews in British Columbia to do so through the shipping master and to permit them to pay a reasonable price for getting these crews. At present it appears that in British Columbia, as the fact has been represented to us, shipping mates and masters have found it impossible to procure crews in Victoria, or Vancouver, or other places where they could be procured. Thev are obliged to go to Puget Sound on the American side to get crews, because, according to the laws that govern the shipping master, he cannot charge more than fifty cents per head for the men whom he engages or furnishes to the vessels. It is represented even that shipping masters have been fined, as provided by section 18 of chapter 74, $40 for procuring crews and charging more than fifty cents per head which is the fee provided by the law. At the present moment it is quite impossible to procure crews in British Columbia ports, and last year very strong representations were made in the sense that the law should be amended so as to provide that the shipping master at any port can delegate his power to a deputy or any one he chooses, and that he can charge whatever price he thinks reasonable for procuring crews. I would suggest that the first line and part of the second line of section 1 of the Bill be struck out. This Bill was prepared last year, it was intended to be put in force at "the end of the session, and the date then [DOT]fixed for putting it into operation was the 1st of September. There is no reason this year for these words to appear in the section, and I propose that they should be struck out. They are ' on and after the first day of September, one thousand nine hundred and five.' I also propose to strike out the words ' shall be ' in the third line and substitute the word 'is.' By striking out section 18 we strike out the section which provides for the fine. Section 18, of chapter 74 reads as follows
Every shipping master or deputy shipping master, and every clerk or servant in any shipping office who demands or receives any remuneration, either directly or indirectly, for hiring or supplying any seaman for any ship, except the lawful fees payable under this Act, shall, for every such offence, incur a penalty not exceeding forty dollars, and shall also be liable to be dismissed from his office by the Governor in Council.
This is a very strong enactment which was put in the statute book some years ago in order to prevent crimping.


George Eulas Foster: What is the fee now?


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Fifty cents, hut under the Bill the shipping master can charge more than fifty cents in British Columbia without incurring the fine.


Mr. R. B. BORDEN.: Would the hon. minister be good enough to read the clause of the Bill now under consideration as he proposes to amend it ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: It will read as follows
Section 18 of the Seamen's Act, chapter 74 of the Revised Statutes, is amended by adding thereto the following subsection :*-
2. This section shall not apply to the province of British Columbia.
It is intended to provide that section 18 shall not apply to the province of British Columbia.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. minister be good enough to explain, because I did not quite catch his remarks in that regard, on whose petition or memorial or request this amendment is being made ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It has been suggested in a long memorandum transmitted to the department on the 2nd of May, 1904, by the secretary of the Board of Trade of Victoria, B.C.


George Eulas Foster: What are the reasons ? The hon. minister has not given any reasons. The only thing that is stated is that this change has been requested by the Board of Trade, but it seems to me that either the hon. minister or the department speaking through him should inform the House what the reasons are. My hon. friend knows that reason for this law was to curtail and get rid of the very great nuisance, hardship and outrage which were perpetrated of old in the ports in order to get sailors to man vessels. This Bill does away with that ju-otection and has the other objectionable feature of introducing an exception to the general law which the hon. minister will agree is not a good thing to do if it can be avoided at all. These two things being taken into account the minister ought to give us some reasons on his own behalf or on behalf of the Board of Trade.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The reasons that I gave in explaining the measure were to the effect that during the past couple of years it has been represented to the department that crews could not be procured at all in the harbours and ports of British Columbia.


George Eulas Foster: What have they been doing the meantime?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They have been securing them in Seattle and other American ports. The letter which accompanies the memorandum reads as follows

May 2nd, 1904.
The Hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-This board has had under consideration the disadvantage under which vessels loading in British Columbia are operated in consequence of it being necessary to go to United States ports in order to secure crews.
A committee has reported upon the matter and I am instructed to transmit the accompanying copy of their report and on behalf of the board to ask your good offices in securing the desired relief.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) F. ELWORTHY,
Secretary.
Then, the report reads as follows
To President and Members
Victoria, B.C., Board of Trade.
Gentlemen,-Your committee appointed to report upon the conditions under which crews are at present shipped on foreign going merchant vessels in British Columbia ports beg to report as follows :-
The regulations now being enforced in regard to the shipping of crews on foreign going vessels are prejudicial to the interests of Canadian trade on this coast and must inevitably work in favor of United States ports.
The shipping masters will not undertake the responsibility of finding crews for outgoing vessels and captains are not permitted to employ any other person to assist them in securing crews.
In a recent case in Vancouver, that of the ship ' Linlithgowshire,' five men had been shipped by a boarding house master and a prosecution was instituted, fines being imposed amounting to $500.
It was disclosed that this prosecution was instigated by the Puget Sound boarding house masters for the purpose of preventing crews being obtained in British Columbia ports, and with this object in view it is understood that agents from Puget Sound frequent the British Columbia ports for the purpose of compelling the authorities to enforce the regulations to the utmost to the serious injury of Canadian shipping interests.
Vessels arriving here from long voyages invariably lose a portion of their crews by desertion, and often, the whole crew of seamen has to be replaced by the time the vessel has completely loaded.
The Canadian regulations have always made it difficult to secure crews with facility, whereas the boarding house masters in the United States ports on Puget Sound are always ready to supply crews, and in many cases have yearly contracts with the shipowners.
Although the charges made by these men are often extortionate, owners of vessels would sooner pay these excessive charges than have their vessels delayed after loading, and it has been not unusual to tow vessels, after loading, to Puget Sound ports to pick up their crews.
The extra cost involved by this course has caused a discrimination in freight rates against British Columbia, and it' has also resulted in vessels obtaining their sea stores in the United States port instead of at the British Columbia loading port. Recently the authorities at Vancouver have refused to give clearance to a loaded vessel unless the full crew was first
shipped, the captain desiring to proceed to Puget Sound to procure a crew.
The position, therefore, is that' the captain is unable to secure a crew in Vancouver, because no one is permitted to give him the necessary assistance, unless gratuituously, that he cannot legally bring in a crew from Puget Sound and that he cannot get a clearance, even for Puget Sound, without a crew.
Nothing but harm is done to Canadian interests by the creation of such a deadlock, and it is evident that the present regulations should be modified without any delay.
Owing to the proximity of American ports to Canadian on this coast, the conditions are quite different to those on the Atlantic coast and if the shipowners find themselves under disadvantage in British Columbia ports the injury to trade is immediate and direct, owners protecting themselves by raising freight rates. At the present time the shipments from British Columbia ports by cargo vessels consist of lumber, coal, salmon, ore and general produce, and it is vital to all these trades that shipments should be made at as low freight rates as are current' elsewhere on this coast and especially on Puget Sound.
It has not bean easy to keep a supply of seamen for foreign going vessels in British Columbia ports owing to the inducements held out by the agents of the Puget Sound boarding masters.
The shipping masters have never made any effort to provide crews for vessels and the only assistance to the shipping interest in this essential matter has been given by boarding house masters.
The majority of unemployed seamen in Pacific coast ports having left their previous ship without being paid off, the only remuneration which the boarding house master can receive must be out of the seamen's advanced note, and any sum paid by captains for procuring crews.
In the past in British Columbia ports, under, perhaps a not too strict interpretation of the law, certain boarding house masters have undertaken to provide crews, with results satisfactory to both captains and seamen.
Your committee is informed that the fee charges here have been $10 per head and on Puget Sound from $35 to $80 per head. On the other hand the wages paid to seamen here have1 usually been twenty-five per cent higher than on Puget Sound, where the seamen are made to accept lower wages to compensate for the extra amount charged the captains by the boarding house masters.
Your committee is of the opinion that a continuance of the practice of boarding house masters charging a moderate fee for securing crews in British Columbia ports will be to the advantage of seamen and all other parties concerned, and your committee would recommend such an amendment of the regulations as will permit this. It seems to your committee that under subsection ' C ' of clause eleven of the Shipping of Seamen Act, shipping masters should be allowed to license not more than two reputable persons in each port who would be authorized to assist captains in securing crews, and that for such services a fee of not more than $10 per head should be paid.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
(Sgd.) J. J. SHALLCROSS, JOHN G. COX, HARRY F. BULLEN.


George Eulas Foster: Is this the first representation, or has it been before the department for a number of years ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This is the first official representation to the department since I have been minister. When I visited British Columbia last fall, the hoards of trade of Victoria, New Westminster and Vancouver, made strong representations on the subject.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: This amendment to the law has been pressed for a number of years by those interested in the shipping industry of British Columbia, on whom the existing law imposes a very great hardship. When a ship loads at our mills with lumber or at our docks with salmon, in 99 cases out of a hundred she goes to Puget Sound ports to complete her crew. The result is that the ships purchase their supplies at the American ports to the great loss of the merchants of British Columbia. The small sum of 50 cents which is allowed by the law for each seaman is not sufficient to interest any boarding house keeper to go into the business of supplying crews. A case occurred last year which brought this question to a head. A boarding house keeper in the city of Vancouver who runs a sailor's home, undertook to supply a crew for a ship about to sail for the old country. He secured a number of men for the shipping master in contravention of the terms of the present law and a prosecution was entered at the instance of the Puget Sound hoarding house masters, so I am informed- who, of course, did not appear in the prosecution although privy to it-and this man was fined $500. We wish the law to be amended so that the shipping masters of Vancouver, New Westminster, Nanaimo or other ports can appoint one or two men to supply sailors to ships. If this be done it will be of great service to the shipping interests of our province. I may state that many of the boats loading in our harbours take supplies for their whole voyage which in some cases amount to from $6,000 to $10,000, and of course, when they take these supplies at American ports it is so much lost to the merchants of British Columbia. I trust the House will consent to this alteration in the law.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite understand what the prosecution referred to was for.
(Mr. PREFONTAINE. The prosecution was instituted because there was an infraction of some sections of the Act which provide that the shipping master or deputy shipping master shall alone engage crews at the rate of 50 cents for each sailor employed.


Robert Laird Borden: What did the shipping master do in this case ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He charged more than the legal fee. The ordinary fee in Mr. PREFONTAINE.
British Columbia is $10 per head, whereas the legal fee is only 50 cents.


Robert Laird Borden: There must have been something beyond that. It would seem that the boarding house master was involved in some way.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Perhaps I can explain. The Seamen's Shipping Act provides for the hiring of all seamen by the regularly appointed shipping master who receives the fees fixed by sections 16 and 17. In times past, certain difficulties arose over the shipping of seamen in the city of Quebec, and as my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) will remember, also in Halifax. Section 18 was introduced to put an end to these occurrences. Shipping masters were then in the habit of entering into contracts with boarding house keepers under which the boarding house keeper supplied the seamen for the captain on the understanding that the shipping master would receive from the captain, in addition to his fees, a somewhat large remuneration which he divided with the boarding house master. When sailing vessels used to come to Quebec, it was a common practice for the boarding house master to induce seamen to desert a ship, and then the captain was obliged to go to the shipping master who in turn applied to the boarding master to get a crew. This resulted in a crew being induced to-desert from one ship to another ; the boarding master getting very large commissions in this way. As a result of this, a dreadful murder was committed at Quebec. A boarding house keeper who was attempting to ' crimp ' a seaman from a ship was met by the captain-a man named Pelletier whom I knew very well-and was forbidden to go on board the vessel. The boarding house keeper persisted and the captain killed him with an axe. He was tried for it, and the original law, 36 Victoria was enacted to prevent such an occurrence. I understand that the object my hon. friend has in view, with respect to British Columbia exclusively, is to enable the shipping master to apply to a boarding house keeper for a crew, and to authorize the snipping master to receive, in addition to the fees provided in the Act, practically an additional remuneration, which he would divide with the boarding house keeper1. I would like to point out that while the Bill amends section 18 and relieves the shipping master of the penalty, the opportunity for extortion remains ; so that if the object of the law is a desirable one, I think that in addition to amending section 18, it would be necessary to amend sections 15 and 16 as well.


Frederick William Borden: The difficulty to which the hon. Minister of Justice drawa attention is one very well known, not only in this country, but in England, to such an extent that men were knocked down in the street, dragged to one of these boarding houses and kept drugged until they woke

2122:
up and found themselves at sea. That took place in the days when it was the practice to press men, not only for the navy, but in connection with merchant shipping also. If you are going to amend the law so as to permit a shipping master to enter into a compact of this kind with a boarding house keeper and to divide the profits, are you not taking a rather serious step ? It seems to me that to authorize an officer of this government to enter into a partnership, as it were, with a boarding house keeper, under no restrictions whatever as to the amount that may be extorted from the seamen, is going very far indeed. We must remember that these seamen are not only the wards of the courts of the country, but the wards of parliament, and that these fees have ultimately to be paid out of the seamen's wages.


Charles Fitzpatrick: They are advanced out of the seaman's wages.


Robert Laird Borden: I know that. It may be wise legislation, but I doubt it, and venture to think we ought to look around before applying such a remedy to an evil that does not exist.


Robert George Macpherson: The hon. leader of the opposition is looking at the matter in the worst possible light. I do not think the intention of the Bill is to allow the boarding house keeper and the shipping master to act in collusion and charge an exorbitant price to the seamen and then divide the profits. I know that this House would not agree to anything of that kind. At present the Puget Sound people are supplying practically all the crews leaving our ports for foreign ports and charging exorbitant prices for them. The resolution sent to the hon. minister names a fee a good deal higher than any I ever heard suggested. I understand that from $10 to $is per man is asked in British Columbia ports and is always got. I think there ought to be some provision specifying a certain sum, beyond which a boarding house keeper could not charge, while giving him sufficient latitude so that he will be remunerated for what he is doing for the benefit of the port. He may have to keep these men four or five weeks at a time.


Robert Laird Borden: It is proper that he should be remunerated for the board of the men during the time they stay at his house ; but the Bill seems to go farther than that, by allowing the boarding house keeper to charge a certain fee for providing these men, and allowing the shipping master, although an officer of this government, to divide up that fee with the boarding house keeper.


Robert George Macpherson: There is no such provision in the Bill.


Mr.   R.@: Tj. BORDEN. That is the way it would work out. In fact, I think it was
suggested in the memorial that a shipping master might select three or four of the best boarding house keepers and make an arrangement with them. That arrangement would involve some division of the fees. My hon. friend from Yarmouth (Mr. Law) has some knowledge of this matter, being largely interested in shipping, and I should like to know what he would think of a proposal of this kind.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I may have possibly misconstrued the object my hon. friend has in view ; but it seems to me that we must understand what we are providing for. I understand that the object my hon. friend has in view is to enable vessels that go to British Columbia ports to supply themselves with crews there instead of going to American ports. That is a most desirable and laudable object, and we ought to carry it out.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly.


Charles Fitzpatrick: How are we going to accomplish that by the amendment ? Are we going to accomplish it by saying that the shipping master shall not be liable to the penalty if he charges more than the rates fixed in sections 15 and 10 ? That does not provide the remedy. We must offer some inducement to the boarding hous'e keeper to procure men for the shipping master. My hon. friend has properly suggested that the shipping master will authorize the boarding house keeper to procure these men; but he cannot do that unless some remuneration is to be paid to the boarding house keeper. If that is the object, we must see how far we can go to carry that object into effect.


George Eulas Foster: In the last analysis, it. comes down to the boarding house keeper, who is the medium through whom the shipping master acts. Could it be provided that any amount that is paid over and above a reasonable fee shall in no case come out of the sailor's wages ? There are three things to be considered. There is the difficulty experienced by the ships that come into port of having their sailors taken away from them, referable to the desire of the boarding house keeper to get his fee from them on their being re-engaged. Then there is the idea of cruelty in the way of getting these men, by drugging them and the like of that. Then the poor sailor in the end, when he wakes up, finds that this unearned fee has been deducted from his wages. Could not legislation be secured to meet that difficulty ? First, by fixing a reasonable fee, and then by providing that if anything was paid over and above, that it would be at the expense of the shipping men themselves, and could not be taken as an advance on the sailor's wages. I can see the difficulty, and only wish there had been more general representations in the matter. It would have been better if the other

boards of trade and shipping men generally had given their views as well. We ought if possible to keep the trade in our own ports, and it is a grievance that these large vessels should be obliged to get their men at the American ports, because that naturally entails their buying at these ports the supplies they need. On the other hand, we should be careful to protect the sailor, and I would suggest that no part of the advance, except a reasonable fee, should be taken from his wages.


Mr.   MAOPHERSON@: The sailors go to Puget Sound to ship and there these advances to them are taken from their wages.


Robert Laird Borden: Why do they go there ?


Mr.   MAOPHERSON@: It comes back to the question of the boarding house keeper. At present it does not pay any man in Vancouver or Victoria to go into the business of keeping a sailor's home. A sailor gets broke and wants to ship. He then goes to a sailors' home and says to the keeper : I want to go on the first boat that sails. Well, there may not be a boat sailing for three weeks and during that time he has to be boarded somewhere, and is charged by the keeper of the sailors' home say $5 a week, so that by the time he ships he is in debt $15. But before the boarding-house keeper will give him credit, the sailor must agree that the boarding-house keeper shall be paid the amount due when he sails, and that amount is paid by the shipping master and charged in his fee. It is subsequently deducted from the sailor's wages. But that cannot be done in Vancouver under the law.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand how section 18 affects this.


Mr.   MAOPHERSON@: Supposing ten men owe the boarding-house keeper $15 a piece, making $150 all. When he ships these men, he is not going to take 50 cents apiece for them, or in all $5, to pay for that debt.


Frederick William Borden: But section 18 does i ot deal with the boarding-house keeper at all.


Mr.   MAOPHERSON@: I recognize that thoroughly, but you have to come back to the boarding-house keeper. The shipping-master is not going to. put himself to the trouble of hunting these men up for the sake of fifty cents apiece. But if the boarding-house keeper could go to the shipping master and say :	I have ten men for the
first boat, but must be paid what they owe me, say $150. Then when the first boat goes to the shipping master and asks for ten men, the shipping master will reply : Very well, I will furnish you with the ten men, but you will have to pay $150. The ship master of course will deduct that amount from the wages at the end of the voyage, I fully recognize the possibility of grave Mr. FOSTER.
injustice being inflicted at times and will gladly support any measure to avoid it, but we are working an injustice at present by continuing the present system.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it not be better to fix a higher fee for the shipping master lather than leave the amount to be taken from the seaman indefinite ?


Mr.   MAOPHERSON@: That might be a very good idea, but I do not see how you can fix a fee that would meet every case. $100 might be due the boarding-house keeper, and it would hardly do to make the fee $100.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not seem that section 18 is very much concerned with what the sailor owes, because it does not deal with moneys advanced to him. It deals altogether with another matter and that is the fee to be paid the shipping master.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The difficulty is this, the boarding-house keeper keeps a sailor a certain period of time. Then when the sailor is shipped, he goes down with him 'to the shipping master and makes his bargain with the captain, and the captain gives the shipping master not money, but an advance note. That advance note is to the effect that three days after the final sailing of the ship with the sailor in question on board, the amount shall be due. There is this inconvenience, that the boarding master cannot always prove that the ship has gone with the men in question on board, and the result is frequently the money is lost. The object here is to make provision that hereafter that amount of money shall be made payable to the shipping master for his services in supplying these men and shall be paid by way of a fee instead of by an advance note as at present.


Robert Laird Borden: In other words, the intention is to relieve the shipping master from the necessity of proving that the man has gone on board before he can be paid the advance note. But is this not an awkward way of accomplishing it ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: It does not accomplish it. It is always a thankless task to interfere in legislation of this sort, but if I may offer a suggestion, I would suggest that we allow the Bill to stand so that we may see whether we cannot find some way of accomplishing the object in view more effectively.


George Eulas Foster: Does not the Department of Justice draft all these Bills ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not always.


George Eulas Foster: They always do it if asked.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The correct practice in these matters is this : When it is in-

l
tended to Introduce legislation, the promoter should go to the law clerk of the House of Commons and give him the instructions, and he drafts the Bill. It is only for my own convenience that I deem it my duty to take up all these Bills and revise them. 1 do not say this for the purpose of unburdening myself of any responsibility.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In this case the correct custom was followed ; the Bill was prepared by Mr. McCord ; it was then transmitted to the Department of Justicie, and it was returned to me as being correct.


George Eulas Foster: Well, you have it amongst you.


Robert Laird Borden: Better let it stand.
Progress reported



SUPPLY-IMMIGRATION OF PAUPER CHILDREN.

['No; there is lots of time.']
Right Hon.   S@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. URIAH WILSON (Lennox and Addington).: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the government to a matter that seems to me of great importance. A general meeting of the poor-law guardians of Great Britain has been called to consider the advisability of sending young paupers out to the colonies. It is stated by Dr. Barnardo that the mortality among the children of five and six years of age whom he has in charge has been very great-as high as two hundred out of every thousand. There is a Mrs. Close who has taken a very active part in promoting a scheme of immigration for pauper children. She intends to send out children of from two to three years of age. And she has had some correspondence with the Department of the Interior upon the subject. She has been very modest in her demands. She has asked for one-half section of land-that is, 320 acres- for each party of four adults and twenty children. These locations are to be within an hour's drive of the railway. She asks for government timber to construct the necessary buildings. And, in cases where the children are young, or, for any reason it is thought best not to send them to the Northwest, she asks to be furnished with farms between Ottawa and Montreal, farms of 80 acres each. Now, I think this a matter well worthy the consideration of the government. Personally, I am entirely opposed to this kind of immigration. We are opposed to having adult paupers come into this country, and we have deported quite a number of them during the past year. This lady to whom I have referred does not even propose that these children whom she intends to bring here shall be permanent settlers in Canada. She proposes to have the
right, when they have grown to twelve or fourteen years of age, to say what number of them may go back to England for such purposes as she sees fit. I am sorry that the letter from Mr. Smart that the First Minister gave me the other day says that the Minister of the Interior is considering the matter favourably. I do not see anything in this proposition that will promote the best interests of this country. We may have our sympathy with the poor people of other countries ; and we may say that we have a great country, with plenty of room for all. But we must not lose sight of tiie fact that our first duty is to our own people. We have a splendid country, we have a population that, I believe, is second to none, and we do not want to do anything to degrade it or lessen its efficiency. I do not wish to take up time in discussing this matter, because I expect that, at a latter stage we shall have a discussion on immigration generally, when we can go into the matter more fully. But I wish to call the attention of the government to the subject. that they may do what 1 think they ought to do-nip this scheme in the bud.


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: In the absence of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) I would say that the matter to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. U. Wilson) has referred came before me personally a little while ago. The Department of the Interior has had a certain proposition laid before it by an English lady who was instrumental in securing that meeting at the Mansion House in London, to which my hon. friend refers. The department is in no way committed to that scheme ; it is a proposition which, at present, is, perhaps, a little more clearly defined in the mind of the promoter and others interested than in anybody else's mind. But I would point out to my hon. friend that, when any child immigrants come to this country, they come subject to the careful inspection of the officers of the Department of Immigration. And, if arrangements were entered into for bringing child immigrants to this country, those children would certainly be subject to that same inspection and careful supervision.


Uriah Wilson: May I ask the minister a question ? I would like to know whether the government entertains favourably the idea of bringing to this country pauper children of two or three years of age ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not prepared to say. I do not think the government has come to any conclusion on such a subject, so, I could not give a categorical answer to my hon. friend. But, as he says, it will be discussed at greater length at some future time. At present, the question is entirely in the air-in this respect, that it has not been decided upon even by the authorities

in England. Apparently there are great differences of opinion among them concerning the scheme. Some are opposing it very strongly, and others are supporting it as a scheme that might be worked out to advantage. Until it assumes more definite shape, and until there seems to be a more definite prospect of anything being done, I would not say anything in the name of the government as to how it will be treated. The suggestions made will be dealt with by the department here.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: While it seems almost inhuman to prevent these children coming to our country, still we must guard the interest of our own people. The minister says that even if they came they would be under very careful inspection before being allowed to land. I want to say as a medical man that, even with the greatest care and with the most rigid inquiry and examination, it is impossible to know the inherent ailments to which these children are subject. There may be hereditary taint in the individual which will develop afterwards. I have observed this in the case of a considerable number of children who were brought from the old country. While, apparently, in first-class health, they afterwards showed evidences of hereditary diseases that were very intractable ; so that, in some cases within my own knowledge, these people became practically wards of the state because they were unable to support themselves. My fear would be that we might suffer from something of that nature and that no inspection or examination could avoid it or foresee what would be likely to occur with many of these young children. So if they are allowed to come I would suggest that not only should a careful examination be made, but also a careful inquiry into their history, so as to ascertain, so far as possible, that they are of healthy parents or of somewhat healthy parents, so that they might not afterwards become burdens on the state.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into -Committee of Supply.
Murray Harbour branch and Hillsborough bridge, $357,400.
['While it seems almost inhuman to prevent these children coming to our country, still we must guard the interest of our own people. The minister says that even if they came they would be under very careful inspection before being allowed to land. I want to say as a medical man that, even with the greatest care and with the most rigid inquiry and examination, it is impossible to know the inherent ailments to which these children are subject. There may be hereditary taint in the individual which will develop afterwards. I have observed this in the case of a considerable number of children who were brought from the old country. While, apparently, in first-class health, they afterwards showed evidences of hereditary diseases that were very intractable ; so that, in some cases within my own knowledge, these people became practically wards of the state because they were unable to support themselves. My fear would be that we might suffer from something of that nature and that no inspection or examination could avoid it or foresee what would be likely to occur with many of these young children. So if they are allowed to come I would suggest that not only should a careful examination be made, but also a careful inquiry into their history, so as to ascertain, so far as possible, that they are of healthy parents or of somewhat healthy parents, so that they might not afterwards become burdens on the state.']
Mr. LEFURGEY.: Will this complete
both contracts for the bridge and the railway at Murray Harbour ?


Mr. EMMERSON.: Yes.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: That will complete both contracts ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: As far as the estimates are concerned it will.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Do you contemplate any more work next year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is no more -work.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The railway is entirely completed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Murray Harbour branch is completed, except that there is certain work in the estimates for which this is to be paid.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Has it been taken over by the government ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was taken over November 5.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Has the contractor been fully paid for the work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have paid the last estimate.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Then this amount is to complete the bridge, is it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What is to be done to the bridge yet ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is the erection of the substructure and some work on the approaches that is not yet completed.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Was there not some trouble with the substructure ? Was there not some recommendation that the piers be enlarged ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I understood last year and it was acknowledged last year, that there was some difficulty with the piers ; they had listed or something and it was found necessary to enlarge them.


Henry Robert Emmerson: One of the piers settled to one side, but that was remedied last summer. The foundation settled, but that has been entirely straightened up.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Is the substructure all in Charlottetown ready for being placed in position ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think it is practically all there.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What has been the cause in the delay of completing this work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In the first place, the contractor who had the contract to transport it across the straits from (Miramichi to Charlottetown was delayed in performing his contract.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: When does the minister expect that this bridge will be open for traffic ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Some time in June, before the 1st of July.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: And this amount in the estimates will complete all the work that is to be done ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: All the work that is under contract, all the estimate.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Then do you contemplate any new work on the bridge ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We do not contemplate any new work.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: We have never had a satisfactory explanation about this work. We find that when the estimates for the bridge and railway were under discussion in 1899, the minister said that the cost of the railway line was estimated to be in the neighbourhood of $470,000, and that the cost of the bridge was to be in the neighbourhood of $800,000. Now, from the remarks of the minister upon these items, the -other day in the House, I find that the cost of the bridge is to be $1,494,000, providing that this sum in the estimates will complete it. This is nearly double the first estimated cost of this bridge, and we find that the railway which was to cost only $470,000, will cost $1,031,000, provided there is enough in the estimates now to finish the work. This matter has been up before the House on several occasions. The minister may say that he knows nothing about the past estimates of this contract, but it certainly is up to the government to explain to this House why two contracts that were to cost together in the neighbourhood of $1,270,000 have now cost over $2,494,000. We have never had a very satisfactory explanation. There must have been some very *grave mistake in the estimates for this work or some very grave waste of material and extravagance in method of construction.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can repeat the explanation that has been given to the committee not only by myself last year, but also by my predecessor in office. 1 do not know whether any explanation that I would make would be satisfactory, because my hon. friend qualified the word ' explanation' with the word ' satisfactory.'


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: We will say a reasonable explanation.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can certainly give that. It must be within the knowledge of my hon. friend that there was some change in connection with this bridge after the original estimate was made. That was explained on the floor of this House by Mr. Blair in his day. In the first place, the location of the bridge was changed whereby there were three or four additional spans necessary and that required two abutments and one pier to be added. There were required four pneumatic piers, increased in size, and one of the abutments was built by the pneumatic process. The character of the approaches was changed from mere crib work to earth and stone embankment. This has been explained time and again. This vote has been made yearly, and there have been explanations given of these *changes, so that necessarily the cost of the bridge, the character of which was entirely
changed, enlarged and improved, was very much more than the original estimate.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: I notice that on January 30 my hon. friend from Queen's, P.E.I. (Mr. Martin) asked certain questions in reference to the stations which were to be built on this railway, and it was stated by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals that:
Three booking stations are proposed to be built, one each at Uigg, Murray river and Murray haTbour.
And that:
Two shelters are proposed to be built, one at Surrey and the other at Belle River. The question as to building stations at Grand View and at Newton Crossing is under consideration.
Grand View and Newton Crossing are important centres and, although it was stated in a return made on the 31st March, 1904, to this House that stations were to be established at these places, it is now stated that they are only under consideration. I notice in the return that stations are to be built at Vernon River, Uigg, Grand View, Iona, Surrey, Melville and Belle River. The policy of the government it seems is that there shall be no station built at Grand View, or at least it is now stated that it is under consideration. I think in a matter of this kind it should be made clear where these stations are to be built before the money is granted. It is necessary that these stations should be built, and the hon. minister should be able to state where they are to be located. I do not wish to take any exception to this in any carping spirit, because I think the road is a necessary work. It was handed over to the government on the 6th November last, but there has not been one train run on the road yet, and goodness knows when any train will be run. This road, fifty miles in length, was commenced on the 13tli April, 1899, and it is not completed yet. No trains are running over it. I think at is only right that the hon. minister should explain why this road has taken such a great length of time to complete, and why the estimate of $470,000 has been departed from to such an extent as it has been in this case. In my opinion, and in the opinion of a great many people in that section of the country, this road could have been constructed for $470,000. There is no doubt that if the moneys had been properly handled all the roads that were asked for by the Liberal-Conservative party in 1896, and which were then promised by the Finance Minister, could have been constructed for the amount of money which has been expended on this road and on this bridge.


Mr. BLAIN.: How long is it ?


Angus Alexander McLean: The road is only fifty miles long. The first portion was forty-two miles, but an additional number of miles was added to it since the contract

was let, making the total length fifty miles. I think it is nothing but right and just that the hon. minister should explain to this committee why it is that such a large sum of money over the estimate was necessary to be expended in the construction of this small public work. He told us a few days ago that some grades were met which were not anticipated at the time, but when you consider that there were several surveys made before a blow was struck, and that the government were in possession of all the information before they commenced it, that they are in possession to-day, I think it is nothing but right that a full explanation should be made as to the reasons why over $600,000 more than the estimate has been spent in the construction of this road.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I made the statement that this contract had been finished on the 4th or 5th of November, but that did not relate to the contracts for building the stations. I think the contract that I referred to was that of the contractor who had eharge of the roadbed and track-laying. The Messrs. Schurman & Company have contracts for the construction of certain stations. They are not completed, but the money is being provided for that in this estimate. In respect to the location of certain stations, I may say that I am not familiar with the circumstances myself. There was a complaint made to me that certain stations, one at Grand View and another at another point, would be too near together if built where proposed, and that they should be more widely separated. 1 have promised to look into the matter, and, pending the information, I am not in a position to determine the question. It was represented to me by some gentlemen from Prince Edward Island that the two stations, as now located, by some subsequent location apart from the original arrangement, made these booking stations very near together, and that the original plan would be perhaps the better arrangement. I, of course, am not in a position to determine the matter, because I do not know the locality ; I do not know the settlement, and I am in no sense familiar with the conditions. I have thought that when I am in that locality in the early spring in connection with the Charlottetown station I would inform myself as to the stations ip question.


Angus Alexander McLean: In reference to these stations which the hon. minister refers to, it seems that in 1904 the department had decided upon a station at TJigg and another at Grand View. But now it seems that two gentlemen came up here, self-constituted delegates, Messrs. Warburton and Prowse, from Prince Edward Island, and they held an interview with the hon. minister. It appears that at that interview some cold water was thrown upon the construction of a railway station at Grand View. I do not Mr. A. A. McLEAN.
see why the opinion of these gentlemen should be taken in a matter of this kind after the government had determined that these stations should be built.


Henry Robert Emmerson: How close are they together ?


Angus Alexander McLean: Some five or six miles, I presume.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Does my hon. friend know the original arrangements for stations there ?


Angus Alexander McLean: I know what is contained in the original statement as laid on the table of this House. This is a return dated the 31st March, 1904. The stations are stated here to be Vernon River, TJigg, Grand View, Iona, Surrey, Melville, Belle River, Wood Island, Hopefield, Murray River and Murray Harbour. If that arrangement is carried out, the people of that locality would, I think, be perfectly satisfied, but the minister is getting away from the question ; what I asked him was if he could account for the cost of the road being so largely in excess of the estimated detailed cost.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Was it in connection with the bridge or the road?


Angus Alexander McLean: The railway.


Mr EMMERSON.: In the case of the railway it was simply a matter of scheduled prices. I do not know what the original estimate was.


Angus Alexander McLean: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: For that whole distance ?


Angus Alexander McLean: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The contracts were let at schedule prices. The estimated cost of the branch from Murray river is $926,460.70, and for the extension to Murray Harbour $104,600. In addition to that there is the rolling stock and the cribwork at Murray Harbour which .would be $270,000.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Some years ago a return was brought down to this House giving the detailed estimated cost of all the work to be done on that first section, and for the first forty-four miles it would average according to the engineer's figures $10,000 a mile. According to the figures now given by the minister of the actual expense, it has cost, not $10,000 a mile, but in the neighbourhood of $32,000 per mile. That is a very grave difference. Even if we add the $200,000 for rolling stock and the $70,000 for crib work the estimate cost would not amount to anything like the actual cost. The minister has given no reasonable explanation as to why this work has cost such a vast sum of money.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will take my hon. friend's word that there was such an esti-

mate, but I have no record of it. It certainly could not be based upon any survey of the engineers, because my hon. friend (Mr. Le-furgey) knows that is a very rough country.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Do you call Prince Edward Island a rough country?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Generally speaking Prince Edward Island is not, but the locality through which this railway runs is a rough country. My hon. friend knows it is undulating and hilly and there have been a great many cuttings. There were no long rivers or streams which could be followed by a railway and in many cases the embankments have been quite extensive. In addition, a great deal of rock cutting was developed as the work progressed. I do not think that any such estimates could be based on the survey of an engineer.


Mr. INGRAM.: The first estimate brought down was $8,000 a mile.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Who says so?


Andrew B. Ingram: That is the first estimate brought down and yet the minister now tel's us this is a hilly country and a difficult one in which to construct a railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Will my hon. friend point out that estimate to me; this is the first I have ever heard of it. This item is largely a revote of last year, and then the matter was discussed and the same figures were given by me as are given to-day and they were not called in question.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Whether it is a revote or not has no bearing on the fact that the estimated cost of $10,000 per mile has become an actual expenditure of $30,000 per mile. The estimate brought down for the first 44 miles was $10,000 per mile which we are referring to was the detailed estimate brought down to the House.


Henry Robert Emmerson: When?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It was brought down four or five years ago when the work was first undertaken.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think that >s correct.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I have here the return brought down and it deals with each mile up to 44 miles and the cost per mile is given. This return is worked out in detail and it gives the cost of the railroad down to Murray river bridge, not including the bridge over the Hillsborough river, at $10,445 per mile.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Are you quoting from the original return brought down?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: If it is not the original it is an exact copy.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If that were sent over to me I might be able to tell what it is.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: To show you how nearly the estimate tallies with the minister's statement in 1899 as reported in ' Hansard,' I find that he placed the cost at $477,000, while the detailed estimate was $470,419. With the estimated cost differing so largely from the actual cost, the minister should certainly give some more reasonable explanation than he has seen fit to give the House this afternoon.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Carried.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think the minister can ask . this item to be carried after that statement. Here is a return brought down from the Department of Railways itself, giving the detailed estimates, which total about $470,000, while it now turns out that some $800,000 have been spent on that same section of road. The minister has given us no explanation, but what he has tried to do is to throw doubt on the accuracy of that return. The minister was not in the department at the time the estimate was given, but his engineers were there, the men who are responsible for giving estimates to this House. They got their vote of $470,000, and after that had been got, we find that the cost has been doubled^ There may be some reason for that, but it has not been stated by the minister. I do not think the minister ought to ask that this item be lassed until that is cleared up.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have asked two or three times to see the papers.


Angus Alexander McLean: There are other branches in Prince Edward Island that ought to receive attention ; and when their claims are urgent, we are met with the statement that a great deal more money has been spent in Prince Edward Island than has been necessary. I would like the minister to explain why that has been the case.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I understand that the first eleven miles of this road were let after tenders had been advertised for, and that afterwards the department, instead of following the usual method of calling for tenders for a work of such magnitude, simply handed over the balance of the work to the same contractors at the same figures for which they built the first eleven miles. Perhaps that would enable the minister to explain the large difference between the estimate and the expenditure.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If the contract was let at schedule prices, that would not affect the cost. It may be that a certain amount of money was asked for based upon the first estimate of cost, but that subsequently, as sometimes is the case, the department found that a very different railway at a larger cost would be necessary. Then the question was. was the department justified in going on ? Apparently they did go on, and their action was ratified, not only once, but twice.



Last year $650,000 was voted, of which $300,000 has been expended. It was then liu own and stated by me what the cost of these different branches would be, and everything the department has done ; and asking now for a revote of $350,000 of that $650,000 is not like asking for a new vote to pay for expenditures which have not been made known to parliament. I remember that there had been a discussion annually in regard to the Hillsborough bridge and the Murray Harbour Railway, ever since I have had a seat in this parliament. Both last year and the preceding year the facts were gone into thoroughly in connection with the estimated cost and the contract.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to ask the hon. minister how much has been spent on the Hillsborough bridge to July 1, 1904 ? 1 find that in answer to a question in this House, on April 28, 1904, the hon. gentleman gave the expenditure from 1899 to February 29, 1904, as $966,181.60 on the Hillsborough bridge, $736,200.88 on the Murray Harbour branch, and $110,212.18 on rolling stock for the Murray Harbour branch. In other words for these three services between the dates I have mentioned there was expended $1,-S12,594.66. If the hon. gentleman will inform the House what amount has been expended from February 29 to July 1, 1904, we shall get at the correct figures of the expenditure on these three items.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have the amounts expended to June 30, 1904, but they are not tabulated.


Mr. BARKER.: The hon. gentleman will find in his own report, at page 22, the statement that the expenditure on the Murray Harbour branch to June 30, 1904, was $983,671.70. The estimates of last year up to 1S95 were $650,000 of which he has a revote for $350,000. That means that $300,000 were had since June, 1904, and he is asking another estimate now of $357,400, which, I take it, means for the Murray river branch or altogether, $1,640,000 including his present estimates. Taking the 50 miles, that would make $32,800 a mile.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That of course includes the rolling stock and the crib work. We got a vote of $650,000 last year, and it is estimated we will spend $300,000 before the 1st July of this year. Up to the 30th November last we expended on these works from the 30th June, 1904. $96,102.79. That would be on the bridge and the Murray Harbour branch. I have not yet separated those accounts. When the estimates were prepared a month ago, a statement was tabulated up to that period. I would have to go to the department to get the items separate because the whole thing has been carried through as one vote-the Murray Harbour branch and the Hillsborough river bridge. The amount asked for last year Mr. EMMERSON.
was for these works combined, and there is a revote.


Samuel Barker: Will the hon. gentleman separate them now and tell us what each required last year? This is another instance of what I have been complaining of, namely, the way he mixes up his estimates. Why have two such important works been thrown together?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Because they are practically one work.


Samuel Barker: In the hon. minister's report they are not found together. There are different contractors and different expenditures. When he makes a report of what is done, he gives the details ; but when asking for the money, he will not condescend to give that information.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am stating exactly what amount is asked for.


Samuel Barker: How much of this money is for the bridge and how much for the railway ?	1


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think that that is necessary or essential, because it is one work. The point is this, that they were connecting Charlottetown with Murray Harbour. There are separate contractors on these works as there are separate contractors on every line of railway. Even on a railway itself there are separate contracts for the roadway and the rails and the sidings and stations. The bridge itself was under a different contract, but it is part of the one scheme, and I think that the minister of that day was justified in asking parliament for a sum to build a certain work, namely, the work of connecting Charlottetown with Murray Harbour by railway. True the bridge was a very important feature of the whole work, but I do not think it was necessary to separate it, and I do not think that parliament has in any way been prejudiced by the vote having been taken in that way.


Samuel Barker: At page 22 of the minister's report he separates these two items. He gives the capital account of the bridge and the railway separate up to the 30th June, 1904. If there was any object in doing that, why should they not be kept separate in the estimates, and the hon. gentleman tell us what money he wants for each ?	.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did give the other night the expenditure on capital account on the Murray Harbour bridge and the Hillsborough river bridge but perhaps my hon. friend was not here when that statement was made. Up to the 30th November last, there was expended from the beginning on the Hillsborough river bridge, $1,217,744.98 and on the branch to Murray Harbour, $70,121.91, and on the rolling stock, $145,992.35.


Samuel Barker: Is that any reason why the hon. gentleman should not tell us how much he wants on capital account for the future for each of these. More than that. I would ask him to explain why it is that he has been buying $141,000 worth of rolling stock when he is not using the railway. It has never been opened. How long ago has that $140,000 been spent ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We had hoped to have this railway opened last summer, but in consequence of the delays on the extension to the bridge we were not able to open it. By taking considerable risk it possibly could have been opened at the time of the exhibition in Charlottetown last year. The people there were anxious it should be and we had prepared to have it open, but I did not feel like accepting the contract at that time or assuming any risk. The cars had been under construction from time to time at the car works of the government at Charlottetown. Engines have been purchased from the Kingston works.


Samuel Barker: When ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Last year.


Samuel Barker: Were the cars built last year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Some of them were. The work has been going on.


Samuel Barker: For how long ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Each year there has been a statement in the accounts showing the expenditures in the construction of these cars.


Samuel Barker: For how many years ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot recall, and I have not the statement before me.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman seems to have got them well in advance of the completion of the railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is true. We wanted these cars to be built in Prince Edward Island. Unless we began before the completion of the road, we could not have them, as we have not great car works there. We began this work anticipating the completion of the road, in order that Prince Edward Island might have the benefit of the outlay of the money.


Samuel Barker: When were the first cars completed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have just told the hon. gentleman that I have not that information. It is not likely I would have it in memory, particularly when I was not personally connected with the matter. And even the general manager cannot give me the date. The Auditor General's Report will show.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The statement of the minister last year showed that $110,000 69}
had been spent, and there is only $35,000 more up to the present time.


Angus Alexander McLean: In the statement which the hon. minister submitted last year I find the following :
1899- 1900	$ 7,531 81
1900-	1901	
41,990	851901-	1902	
35,210	741902-	1903	
9,526	26July 1, 1903, to Feb. 29, 1904 .. 15,952	52
110,212 18
I would like to ask if this rolling stock was used by the contractors, and if so, what return they made for its use ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was not used by the contractor. The contractor did hire from the Prince Edward Island Railway some rolling stock, but it was old rolling stock.


Samuel Barker: But these cars, some of them, were constructed six years ago.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The construction of cars has been going on from time to time, anticipatory of the completion of the road.


Samuel Barker: Were the locomotives that the contractors used old ones ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Samuel Barker: Belonging to the Prince Edward Island Railway 7


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Samuel Barker: Some of these cars were bought six years ago ? Where have they been used ever since ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They were manufactured in Charlottetown, and I do not think they were wholly completed. They are uearly all there now ?


Samuel Barker: The statement made in ' Hansard ' shows that a certain sum was expended in 1899 for rolling stock. The question is what has been done with that rolling stock ever since :	It would seem
that the hon. gentleman has been charging to capital account the construction of rolling stock and using it for the purposes of the railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There were about forty old cars taken off the Prince Edward Island Railway and rented to the contractor of the Murray Harbour branch. And, in the estimates made up from time to time, there are charges against the contractor for the cars.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Is it the noted gentleman by the name of Kitchen who had the contract, without tender, for the full thirty miles of this road ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not understand what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) means. There is a Mr. Kitchen who has a contract on the road. I do not know that

he is ' noted.' He is a very respectable gentleman, a man who stands very high in the estimation of the people of New Brunswick and of the city of Fredericton, as I am sure my hon. from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) can testify. So, I do not think it becoming in my hon. friend from Bast Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) if he will pardon me for saying so, to apply the expression ' noted ' to Mr. Kitchen, for that would indicate something that would reflect upon that gentleman. There is nothing in Mr. Kitchen's record as a contractor, as a citizen, or as a gentleman, that would justify any reflection upon him. Mr. Kitchen got the contract under tender, as I am informed ; he got it under certain schedule rates. That contract was extended, so far as the Murray Harbour section was concerned, because legally it was a part of the original contract. And the money was voted to pay Mr. Kitchen.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: As to the word ' noted,' from what 1 can learn of Mr. Kitchen, he is one of the largest contributors to the election fund of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) wants to indulge in discussion of that kind, I wish to say distinctly that Mr. Kitchen never, directly or indirectly, so far as I know, contributed to an election fund of mine-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh !
Mr. EMMERSON

and I think I can
say beyond all question that he has not done so either at this or at previous elections.


George Eulas Foster: Easy ! Easy !


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am speaking of the facts. We can surely discuss this Hillsboro bridge matter Without indulging in discussion such as my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) seems inclined to provoke. If that sort of thing is to be gone into, let us understand it. But I prefer, so far as I am concerned with these matters, to discuss each item on its merits. And, if there has been anything wrong in connection with any of them let us hear what it is. I do not fear criticism, but I want fair criticism. I do not think it is necessary for us to travel beyond the merits of each.question. And when a statement is made by an hon. member who comes from another province, and who, in speaking of these matters must simply say wThat has been pumped into him, reiterating some hearsay story, I wish to correct him at once and say that if he harbours the idea that Mr. Kitchen contributed in any way to election funds, he is absolutely astray, because nothing of that kind has ever occurred.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then, will the minister istate that, so far as Mr. Kitchen is concerned he was not given the contract for the last thirty miles without tender ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know what occurred previous to my coming into the department. But I know that, in so far as the last six miles of the road is concerned, that is from Murray river to Murray Harbour, the matter having been submitted for legal opinion, it was deemed to be a part of the contract he had for the building of the line to Murray river, and he has gone on with it.


Mr. HAGGART.: He made that excuse for the extension-and this is the first time we have ever heard of it-that under a legal interpretation of the contract he was entitled to the whole 40 miles.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not said that at all ; my hon. friend has certainly misapprehended me.


John Graham Haggart: The last six miles.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was speaking of the last six miles, from Murray river to Murray Harbour.


John Graham Haggart: What are the facts of the case 1 A person gets a contract for 11 miles of this road which is extended to 40 miles without any tender and without any competition and then under the contract the minister says the legal interpretation extends this contract for six miles more.


Samuel Barker: I wish to remind the minister that a few minutes ago when I asked for an explanation of the rolling stock that the government had acquired for this 50 miles of road, before the road was opened, the minister said that last year, in anticipation of the immediate opening of the road they had bought cars and locomotives.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Oh, no, excuse me, if my hon. friend gathered that from my remarks, it was not what I intended to say. I said that in anticipation of the final opening of the road the railway had purchased the cars not last year, but from time to time from the very beginning.


Samuel Barker: That is the second explanation.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was intended to be the original. If X used any words capable of any other construction I certainly did not intend to use them, because there was no such purchase of cars last summer m anticipation of the opening of the road. But there had been from time to time with a view to having the cars constructed on the island, in anticipation of the final opening of the road, certain cars constructed so that the railway would have sufficient cars to operate that road. These cars had been constructed on Prince Edward Island.


Samuel Barker: That was either explanation No. 2 or explanation No. 3. The first explanation made by the hon. gentleman

was that, anticipating the opening of the road he got his rolling stock ready, or he might have got it ready for an exhibition that was coming on, the St. Louis exhibition or something of that kind. He did not want to take any risks on it. However, my hon. friend here read from ' Hansard ' answers that had been made on a previous occasion, and the minister then began to recall something about building some cars year after year, and now it appears that he began this building when he saw the approaching completion of the railway. We will now see what the facts are and then perhaps the hon. gentleman will give us a new phase of the matter. I find in ' Hansard ' of April 28, 1904, page 2,186 that in 1899-1900 the first expenditure took place on the Mui'ray Harbour branch of the railway and the expenditure in that year was $20,970. I find that in that same year, the very first year of the expenditure on the railway, he expended $7,531 on rolling stock. He began the construction of the rolling stock equipment at the same time as he began the construction of the railway, and this is very significant considering the friends who have had the contract. The next year, 1900-1901, he expended on the railway $73,673 and in that same year he expended for rolling stock on a railway that was 6 years from completion 2?41,990. That is he expended on rolling stock more than one-half of what he expended on the railway. The next year, 1901-02, they were getting on with the work and he spent $237,193 on the railway and in the same year he spent $35,210 for rolling stock. Then he spent in the following year $331,326 on the railway and $9,526 on rolling stock. So it goes on year by year ; from the very beginning of the construction of this road, he has been buying or building rolling stock. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that unless he can make a very clear explanation everybody in this House will arrive at the conclusion that this rolling stock was1 obtained for the contractors and for nobody else.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have made the statement that not one of those cars was used by the contractors. Of course if that statement will not be accepted it is so much the worse for me, but these are the facts, that the rolling stock thus constructed from time to time was not in use by the contractor, nor for him directly or indirectly. If the department had waited for the completion of the road, they could not have had the rolling stock constructed on Prince Edward Island. They would have had to go to the mainland to get it, which would have entirely frustrated the object the department had, in having the expenditure made on the island.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Is this rolling stock used at the present time ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, I think not.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: On the main line of the Prince Edward Island Railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes it is.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Was any of it taken across to the Murray Harbour side, to Hillsborough ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: None of it was taken over on Mr. Kitchen's contract. Mr. Haney when building the Southport bridge and the Hillsborough bridge did have two engines during the past summer taken over there, but the general manager is not in a position to tell me whether they were the two engines that were purchased for this road or whether they were the ordinary engines of the Prince Edward Island Railway. But Mr. Kitchen who had the Murray Harbour branch had no portion of this rolling stock at all.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I understood last year from the superintendent when they had a very great shortage of cars for the mussel-mud men and for cordwood service in the western part of the island, that the freight cars that might have been available for this work were over on the Murray Harbour side. If I understood him correctly at that time, and I do not think I was mistaken, a large part of the rolling stock consisting of flat cars was over on the Murray Harbour side.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have already said that there were forty old cars belonging to the Prince Edward Island Railway, under rental of Mr. Kitchen ; but that not one of the cars that form a part of the rolling stock of the Murray Harbour branch was ever in possesssion of or used by Mr. Kitchen. I cannot be more explicit. I have no personal knowledge of the transaction at all ; I am simply making the statement on the authority of the general manager.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I did not make any allusion as to whether the cars were being used or not. I simply said that I understood they were over there.


Henry Robert Emmerson: These particular cars?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The cars that were supposed to be for the use of that branch. I do not know any particular cars.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Do you mean in so far as they were available for the trunk line of the Prince Edward Island Railway.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It was a fatal piece of policy on the part of the government to run the main line short of cars for the purpose of carrying on the work of the contractor.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is another phase of the question. It is a question of fact.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It is important for the committee to know why the railway costs

so much more than the estimate and of course this is oue of the phases of the question that is naturally brought into the discussion. One reason, I presume, is that the contract is let without tender. Another reason is that possibly the contractor was favoured a lot and that he had the cars which should have been available for use by the people of Prince Edward Island along the main line in order to help out his work. This has a great deal of bearing on this question. X would like to ask the hon. minister if all of the rolling stock including coaches is to be built in Prince Edward Island or if only flat cars are to be built there ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Coaches, freight cars and all.


Richard Blain: The hon. minister asked for the original statement given to the House in respect to the expenditure on this road.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would have been disappointed if the hon. gentleman had not produced that.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend asked across the floor of the House that some one should produce the original statement. Although be is rather severe on us who come from the province of Ontario, I propose to say something. At page 9211 of ' Hansard ' of 1899 the hon. minister will find the following :
Towards the construction of a branch line-


Henry Robert Emmerson: What year was that- last year ?


Richard Blain: No, some years ago, 1899, when the road was first proposed to be constructed. I am assuming that this was an estimate given after the survey of the road was made and the plans and specifications prepared.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What was the amount of the vote ?


Richard Blain: $250,000. The estimate is as follows :
Towards the construction of a branch line from Charlottetown to Murray Harbour, including bridge over the Hillsborough river, $250,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is a new work, is it not ?


The MINISTER RAILWAY AND CANALS (Mr. Blair).: This is for an extension of the line of railway to Murray Harbour.


Mr. WALLACE.: Has the hon. gentleman a map of it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Mr. Blair).: I have no map of it. . . . It is estimated that the railway and all permanent works in connection with it will cost $470,
000.
I suppose the committee are anxious to know upon what plans and specifications prepared by the department the Minister of Railways and Canals made this statement Mr. LEFURGEY.
to the House when asking for $250,000. Now, as the hon. minister of Railways and Canals has increased the expenditure until it reaches, I think, the neighbourhood of $2,000,000 including the bridge, I suppose the committee will be anxious for the hon. minister to produce the plans and specifications that were prepared by the department on which this larger amount was asked by him. That seems to be reasonable information to be furnished the committee, so that the committee shall know where the money is going and where it has gone.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think that my hon. friend desires to convey the idea that the $470,000 was to complete the bridge and the railway as well.


Richard Blain: No, I did not make that statement at all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman's remarks were capable of that interpretation. I do not think he wished to convey that idea and therefore I mention it. I am sure he will recognize that whatever discrepancy there may be between the original estimate and the actual cost, it is one simply between the $470,000 and the final estimate of the railway down to Murray Harbour. I can very well understand that in the original estimate perhaps rolling stock was not taken into consideration. I can very well understand that the extension from Murray river to Murray Harbour was not taken into consideration. I think the survey had not then been made. I am not familiar with the circumstances, but it may be that at that time a thorough survey had not been made. But it appears that subsequently, after this had been done, this contract was let by competition on schedule prices. There cannot be any very great wrong in connection with the expenditure of the money, because it is based on schedule prices and the lowest prices in competition, and it is a question of measurements from time to time. Certainly everything was considered correct in that respect because the itemized figures appeared in the Auditor General's Report. More than that, in so far as this committee is concerned, it is a matter to be justified as regards the estimates in 1902, in 1903 and in 1904-the two preceding years by my predecessor and the last year by myself, when I asked for $650,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: What was the estimate the hon. gentleman gave when he asked for the vote last year?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I gave the estimate that I repeated here to-day. The estimate was that the bridge would cost $1,494,097.15. The estimated cost of the road to Murray river and Murray Harbour was $1,031,061.02. There was estimated for rolling stock $200.000 and for cribwork at Murray Harbour,

$69,770. This is the only statement with which I have had to deal during my connection with the department. There has been no advantage taken of parliament. The expenditure of $350,000 during the current year was based on two representations to parliament and the same is true in respect to the expenditure of 1903. Of course, it is well for us to consider these matters, and if there was a mistake on the part of the department it has been condoned by the action of parliament itself, so I do not think any reflection can be made on the department in connection with the expenditure of money during the past year, because parliament knew exactly the position.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the minister attempt to say that in the year 1899 parliament was in possession of the information he has now given us?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My statement as to that was confined to the past three years.


Andrew B. Ingram: In the first instance the government asked for $470,000 for the railway and $800,000 for the bridge. According to the hon. gentleman's own statement he has asked for and expended $2,234,559, and that is only the expenditure up to the 30th of November, 1904. In addition to that he wants money for the work from the 30th of November up to the present date and he is asking for $357,400 more, which, if you total up, you will find comes to $2,591,000. If the Minister' of Railways had asked for $3,000,000 in the first instance we probably would have no reason to complain, but what we do complain of is that parliament was asked to pledge itself to an expenditure of $1,270,000 and that the actual cost was run up to about $3,000,000. Every one knows that the manner was in which the contract for this railroad was let was the subject of a scandal, and the then Minister of Railways was found fault with because the contract was given to this man without tender. He was contractor for one portion of the railroad, hut the other portion was let to him without tender, when the department and the minister should have insisted upon tenders being called for. That is what we. complain of.


George Eulas Foster: I would suggest to the minister that after dinner he should give the information that has been asked for. This is one of the strangest things I have ever seen ventilated in parliament with reference to a public work. I for one-and I am sure every gentleman on this side of the House is of the same opinion-I propose to have all this cleared up before this item passes even if it takes all summer.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think it is necessary to threaten. What information is required?


George Eulas Foster: The minister has given us absolutely no information this afternoon;
he has talked and talked, but has given us no information.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The minister is to give an explanation.


Mr. LENNOX.: The minister does not appear disposed to speak. He appears to be balky. That is only in accordance with what I believe is the prevailing sentiment on that side of the House at present-there is a general balk. We shall have to prevail on the minister to say something, or else take it upon ourselves to move that the committee rise. I do not suppose tlkit we are called on to vote these estimates in the dark. There have been a good many precedents for that, not only during the present session, but during the last four or five years. The minister may as well understand that we are making a respectful protest against this kind of thing. He may as well realize, and the other members of the cabinet, so far as they are present, though there is only one, may as well realize that we are here for business and not for humbug. We are not here for a farce or to consent to a farce; but the manner in which the public accounts are being dealt with in this House is becoming farcical. The hon. minister is a gentleman of large experience in parliamentary life, a gentleman who had a distinguished career before he came to this House, and is having a distinguished career in this House, more one of silence than anything else ; but he must realize that reasonable information must be given to the committee. Let me say, moreover, that the time has come when attention should be called to the fact that it would be in the interest of the public that the mere fact that other ministers' estimates are not under discussion is no reason why they should not be present. I understand that they have joint responsibility ; the items run into one another to some extent ; and yet w6 have had this unfortunate state of things, that if the minister whose estimates are under discussion happens to know nothing about them-and that has been painfully evident on more than one occasion -there is no other minister to come to his assistance, and we are at a dead lock. We are almost in that condition to-night. WTe did think that on the suggestion of the hon. member for Noyth Toronto the minister would avail himself of the couple of hours that have elapsed so as now to be able to give us some information. For my part, I listened this afternoon during the whole time these estimates were under discussion, and I have come to the conclusion, very definitely, that if it is necessary to suspend operations, or to get up and talk, in order to prevent estimates going through,

214S
when no reasonable information lias been afforded to the House, I am prepared to assist as far as I can in order to see that the people's interests shall be fairly protected. Now, I do ask the minister to make an effort to explain this estimate, and not waste the time of the House by absolutely refusing, as, in affect, if not in words, he is refusing to give information to the House.


George Eulas Foster: Perhaps the minister would give it piecemeal in answer to questions. So far as I am concerned, I simply want to get at the foundation of this matter as far as I possibly can. As it has been developed during the afternoon, it looks to me like a very peculiar transaction. I am not saying that there is anything shady in it. It may be extravagance, or neglect, or error, or anything else ; but that there is something wrong appears to be certain from the facts as far as we have them. The minister this afternoon seemed to think that because this was largely a revote, and the matter had been gone over before, he ought to be excused from giving detailed information. That, I do not think, can be allowed. It is not possible for the committee to allow any excuse of that kind to stand as against any information they require, whether it is the first vote, or a supplementary. or a revote, or whatever it may be. We have, in the first place, a project thrown into parliament to build an extension of the Intercolonial Railway in Prince Edward Island, from forty-two to fifty miles in length, to build a bridge over the river, and some other necessary things which have been added. We had an estimate put before us at the time of the first vote-and it was all figured out, over the signature of the chief engineer of government railways, as made in 1898-that the 42-8 miles of railway would cost about $472,000. The minister has stated that up to the 30tli of November, 1904, that identical piece of road has had expended upon it $870,121. He has also stated that last year his own estimate was that it would be finished for $1,031,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was apart from the rolling stock and the cribwork.


George Eulas Foster: I am not taking into account the rolling stock, nor was it included in the original estimate. It is also stated, and I believe is not denied, chat tenders vyere called for, and a contract was given I or 11 miles, and 11 miles only. It is also *stated, and I believe not denied, that no other tenders were called for and no other contracts .were given upon tenders, but that in some way or other the remaining part of the fifty miles, over and above the II miles, were given for construction to the same contractor, and were built by the same contractor. Now, whether the 11 miles of the first contract were of exactly the same character as the remainder of the 50 miles Mr. LENNOX.
we have not been told. We have not been told, and it is important that we should know. You cannot take a stretch of 50 miles in a country like Prince Edward Island-you might do it in the prairies of the west-and be sure that the very same expenditure in the construction per mile of the whole 50 miles would apply as on the 11 miles, the prices of which had been determined by tender. And in some way or other in the building of the remaining number of miles, the estimate of $470,000 has been run into an estimate made in 1904 of $1,031,000. When we asked the minister for an explanation, he cannot give us one that is satisfactory. He talks about the contracts being let on schedule prices and says that if the schedule prices amount to so much, that is what they amount to, but I do not think that is satisfactory. The engineers of the department surveyed the ground,' made their estimates, moneyed it all up,' and came to the conclusion that it could be built for $470,000. In that way-in some way certainly not hitherto explained-has it been made to cost nearly three times as much as the original estimate, and according to the cost of the first 11 miles of contracts, which were given after tender and awarded to the lowest tender as I understand. The minister has not given us any satisfactory answer to that. But I want to ask him one thing more. His estimate last year wasi that that would cost $1,031,000. What is his estimate to-day as to what that 48 or 50 miles will cost when completed, because he probably is nearer the end of it and could make a nearer approximate estimate than' he did last year. Will it cost more than $1,031,000 or not so much ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The figures that I gave last year are those I still hold and the estimated cost to Murray Harbour is $1,000,000 exclusive of rolling stock and the crib work.


George Eulas Foster: I have already said that we have not taken into consideration the rolling stock and cribwork in all these figures. Now we come to the Hillsborough bridge. The estimate given by' the minister; hr, the authority of his department when hel got the money for it, was that it would cost $800,000. Up to November 30, 1904, the actual cost was $1,217,744, and the estimated) total cost, to which I imagine the bon. gen-, tleman adheres the same as in the othet case, will be $1,494,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: That is the estimate which parliament was given and on which it gave the votes. These were made on the statement of the department and the minister that it could be done for $800,000, but we find it will cost $1,494,000 or $694,000 more than the estimate. I believe my hon. friend

lias given some explanation as to that. I have not heard it myself, but it will require a pretty lucid explanation and a pretty full one to justify the department In making an estimate for the work, with all the engineering ability of men familiar with the ground, at its command. That road does not lie in the far west or far north, but where materials are easily available, right on the travel routes of the country, and if anywhere a very close estimate could be given, it ought to be there in a construction of that kind. Yet here we have $694,000 more spent than was estimated. We should have a very full explanation as to that. l!ut there is another thing. The minister tells us, and other ministers have told us, that they have been accumulating rolling stock, laying it up for a rainy day so to speak. When they commenced the initial sod turning of their construction, they began to accumulate rolling stock to be used on that road when some six, seven or eight years afterwards it would be in a condition to utilize rolling stock. It appears that the minister began in 1899. He then made his first appropriation on capital account to get rolling stock for this extension and for nothing else. It was not for the Intercolonial Railway or for the other parts of the Intercolonial in Prince Edward Island, but for this extension alone, and from year to year at first as much was spent on rolling stock as on construction; altogether, $145,992 up to November 30, 1904. The question I want to put is this. Part of this rolling stock was made in Charlottetown. The excuse for getting it so long in advance was that it had to be built gradually. There may be something in that. The shops are not extensive, and the department went on the idea that it would do as much as it could afford each year, and that by the( time the road was ready these cars would be) built. I want to know how many cars are. represented in that $145,992 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will give the exact number in a few moments. But approxi-t mately about 80 cars and six engines.


George Eulas Foster: Are they all flat ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, some are box cars.


George Eulas Foster: How many are box cars?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will be in a position to give the information in a moment.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose 80 cars were built) by the time this money was expended, have any of them been used or are they all there,; new rolling stock for this extension and. bridge ? [DOT]
Mr. EMMER'SON. They are all there, but some of them have been used from time to time, as they were needed, in connection with the Prince Edward Island Railway.


George Eulas Foster: What proportion of them ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They were used as they were needed. This bridge is to be used, in connection with the Prince Edward Island railway system and is a part of it. Of course, they have been completed from time to time, and, if necessary, they have been used. There are 12 passenger cars, and 8S freight cars.


George Eulas Foster: These were all new cars built there in the shops ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Then, the minister's answer practically is that, from 1899 up to the present, he has been, from time to time, building freight and passenger cars out of a vote on capital account for this branch and extension, and these cars have been used for the Prince Edward Island road generally. I suppose there would have been no sense in storing them and keeping them out of use. But the question is as to the accounts. Practically the minister admits that he has been getting a vote on capital account for rolling stock for this branch and he has been using it for the road in general on revenue account.


Henry Robert Emmerson: With this qualification-that 40 of the old cars of the Prince Edward Island road, and 4 locomotives were used on this new branch in connection with the construction of the branch and the bridge.


George Eulas Foster: That was the contractor's business.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Of course, that was the contractor's business. But the cars and locomotives were under rental, and, in making out the estimates an allowance was charged for the use of this rolling stock.


George Eulas Foster: Then, does not the minister see that what he has been doing is to get a vote on capital account for new cars for this branch, turn the new cars over for use on the road in general that he might be able to take from the road old ears and loan them to the contractor ? In other words he has been drawing on capital account to build rolling stock to rent or loan to the contractor. If 40 ears were taken off and it became necessary to replace them, as the minister himself has said, and if they were replaced with 40 new cars built for this extension, it is simply six of one and half a dozen of the other-he might as well say in the first place that he has built cars in*order to help the contractor by renting them to him. There are two other questions I would like the minister to answer. In the first place, does he invariably charge the contractors a rental for the use of cars and engines ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Under the contract, 25 cars and 2 locomotives were to be furnished to the contractor. That was part of the consideration.


George Eulas Foster: Under which contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Under the original contract.


George Eulas Foster: Under the contract for eleven miles ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: The original contract was not given for the whole line. The first contract was for eleven miles. And the minister now says it was a part of that contract that the contractor was to have so many engines and so many cars for the eleven miles.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was in the extension of the contract.


George Eulas Foster: Now, I have the minister exactly where I supposed he would get


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman has me exactly where the facts bring me. And 1 always give the facts.


George Eulas Foster: We are getting the facts, but we now have something we never had before.


Samuel Barker: Absolutely new.


George Eulas Foster: And how did we get it ? By threatening to stay here until summer-


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is a very heroic way.


George Eulas Foster: It seems to me the only way to bring the minister to his p's and q's. Now, I would like to know if the minister will bring down the agreement that was made with Mr. Kitchen-the contract for eleven miles ? Was there any agreement in the first contract for eleven miles for the loan of cars and engines as part of the consideration ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not the contract here, and, of course, I cannot get it to-night. So, I cannot give that information. The matter was discussed last year, and I did not suppose that it was necessary to bring the contract here. If my hon. friend wants that information, we need not waste further time on this item-


George Eulas Foster: Time will not be wasted, unless the minister wastes it-


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend (Mr. Foster)-I understand that he wants this information.


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We cannot get this information to-night, and so we might as well pass over this item.


George Eulas Foster: But there is other information we want that the minister may have.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Oh, very well.


Henry Robert Emmerson: :[DOT] \


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister make a note of this point : We want the first contract for eleven miles, and the agreement made afterwards without contract for the building of the remaining part of the line. And will he answer this question : To what account did he charge-but there was no rental charged on some cars.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Twenty-five cars and two engines-for these there was no rental ; for the remainder there was a rental.


George Eulas Foster: To what account was that rental put ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was credited to the Prince Edward Island Railway.


George Eulas Foster: That is, the minister was taking from capital account and crediting to the revenues of the road ? Now, will the minister say how many engines have been bought out of that $145,992, and at what cost for each engine ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Six engines, at $59,000 for the six.


George Eulas Foster: When were these engines bought ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Two were purchased in 1901, two in 1902 and two last year. The two engines that were used were the old engines built away back in the seventies.


George Eulas Foster: That is the two that were loaned to the contractor


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Then you had six new engines. Have these six been in use from the time you bought them severally until the present time ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: On the Prince Edward Island road ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I want to be understood. The contractor had two under the arrangement as part of the consideration ; in addition to that he had two more. That made four engines, all of the old type, not these new engines.


George Eulas Foster: So he had four ; he had double the number loaned.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Two were under rental and two were jiot.


George Eulas Foster: Were these engines old engines of the Prince Edward Island road, or were four of these new engines bought at Kingston ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They were four old engines off the Prince Edward Island road.


George Eulas Foster: Then the six engines bought as rolling stock for the Murray Harbour branch of the road, as they were bought were turned out loose on the road

and were engaged in doing work on that road.
Mr. EMMBfiSON. Two of them were rented to Mr. Haney last year. '


George Eulas Foster: Then 55 freight cars and 6 engines have been in use on the Prince Edward Island road for from one to four years.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Hardly that.


George Eulas Foster: Two of them were bought in 1901 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: But this is only 1905.


George Eulas Foster: Has any charge been made to the Prince Edward Island Railway for the use of these freight cars or engines during that time ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


George Eulas Foster: That is the information I was after, coupled with the contract and with the agreement and unless other gentlemen have some information to ask, for, so far as I am concerned I have none and I will agree to the minister's plea that this item should stand.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Perhaps the hon. member will allow it to go through and then I can bring down the information ?


George Eulas Foster: No, we must have a full explanation of this, and a full investigation.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the amount of the rental of which the minister spoke a while ago as having been charged against [DOT]the revenue account of the Prince Edward Island Railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: $5 a day each for locomotives, and 20 cents for the cars.


Robert Laird Borden: Can you state it in a lump sum ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I hare not the figures.


Samuel Barker: Were these new or old engines ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They were old engines built in 1870.


Samuel Barker: Used for construction purposes ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Used for construction purposes.


Samuel Barker: And will the hon. gentleman say after consultation with the general manager that $5 a day is a reasonable charge for the use of a locomotive on construction ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: You must remember that these are the small locomotives on the Prince Edward Island Railway.


Samuel Barker: Is it a reasonable charge for such a locomotive as these on construction ?


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) m speaking of the first proposition of the Department of Railways and Canals omitted to mention one of the conditions submitted to this House when the item of $470,000 was asked for, that the people of Prince Edward Island were to contribute one half of the cost of this bridge. They agreed to pay 31 per cent, on half the cost of the bridge and one half the cost was supposed to be $400,000. They were to pay annually about $12,000. I have not heard the minister say whether that part of the programme has been carried out or not. The other evening, I took occasion in this House as representing a constituency in one of the other provinces to say that all provinces, whether large or small should be treated in precisely the same way. I complained then of the older provinces having to contribute to the smaller or newer provinces to complete and construct their railways. In Prince Edward Island we have this railway, the construction of which was commenced in 1899. That may be a very proper thing and I have no fault to find with it, but if the government undertakes to construct a bridge which is not interprovincial as the bridge between this city and the province of Quebec, if a bridge is purely within the province, then, in constructing a railway bridge it should be purely and simply a railway bridge. In this case the government have constructed not only a railway bridge, but a bridge for the use of foot passengers and teams. Whether the government thought at the time that the offer made by Prince Edward Island was a good and sufficient offer, that is to say, that they would pay one half of the cost, and by reason of the people of Prince Edward Island agreeing to do that the government were willing to accommodate them in respect to both passenger and team traffic over this bridge, I am not prepared to say, but I would like to know as one representing a constituency in a different province whether the people of Prince Edward Island have carried out their part of the programme. In addition to that, before six o'clock I complained of the method of extending the contract for this line of railway. They have extended that 111 miles of construction which they gave under contract. They extended the contract to Mr. Kitchen for the construction of some 321 miles additional, it is claimed, with the same scale of prices as they allowed for the 111 miles. If the statement of the hon. minister that this is a rough and hilly country is correct, any man knows perfectly well that the conditions surrounding the construction of the 44 miles of railway would vary and that the prices would vary very materially.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You mean the total would vary ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Probably two miles of the road would cost as much as 10 miles in, another locality.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The cost of excavation, per cubic yard would not vary very much.


Andrew B. Ingram: The material you would, have to excavate would vary.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But you had your schedule prices for that.


Samuel Barker: A yard of material hauled 500 yards would cost very much more than a yard of material hauled one yard or 100 yards.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I know that two and two make four.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am not so green in regard to the matter of railway construction as the hon. minister may suppose, because I have had some experience in that line myself.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not setting up any great knowledge in respect to railway construction.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like the hon. gentleman not to interrupt by dragging a red herring across the track. Any man knows very well and an engineer ought to know better than any other man, that if you tender for the contract to build 44 miles of railway you can afford to do it on much better terms than if you undertake to construct lli miles. If the government had constructed this line of railway what would have followed ?-reasonable wages would have been paid to the men employed. But instead of that, the contract was extended to Mr. Kitchen, and Mr. Kitchen took very great pains to grind down those employed on the road to the lowest wages in order that Mr. Kitchen might make a big profit out of the enterprise. In addition to that there is a political feature which must not be lost sight cf. In the riding of Queen's, I think it was, they issued a circular saying that if any man wanted employment on this road he should vote for Mr. McKinnon and promising that if he voted for Mr. McKinnon he would be employed. It appears that this is not a matter of hearsay, but that it is a matter of record.


Henry Robert Emmerson: When did all that happen ?


Andrew B. Ingram: If my hon friend will refer to the records of the court in Prince Edward Island, he will find the statement to be correct. If he has any doubt about it, all he has to do is to turn around and ask one of his followers from Prince Edward Island and he will assure him of the truth of the statement.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is not answering my question. I asked when all this happened ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Andrew B. Ingram: This was in the election in which Mr. McKinnon was elected to this House. I think it was in 1900 that Mr. McKinnon first came here and I presume it was during that time.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then the hon. gentleman is not referring to the general election?


George Eulas Foster: It makes no difference if it is a by-election or a general election?


Andrew B. Ingram: It is the same thing whether it is a by-election or a general election. The method of extending this contract is what we find fault with. We also find fault with the action of the government in coming down in the first instance and asking for this estimate. That is what we are complaining of day after day and week after week, and that is the reason why we are obliged to remain here for many months, it is for the purpose of getting information from ministers of the Crown who decline to give it unless it is actually dragged out of them as this information has been dragged out of the hon. minister to-night. We hold that when a minister comes down with his estimates he should be prepared1 to give a candid statement of the actual facts in connection with it.


George Eulas Foster: What was the contract price for the first 11J miles ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot recall that.


George Eulas Foster: Will the hon. gentleman make a note of that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You will have that.


George Eulas Foster: There may be something more than the contract; it may be that there are extras.


Angus Alexander McLean: There was one remark made by the hon. gentleman who preceded my hon. friend from North Toronto, that I take exception to. My hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) endeavoured to imply that the cost of railways in the lower provinces such as Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia was paid by the larger provinces.


Henry Robert Emmerson: By the province of Ontario ; they pay for it.


Angus Alexander McLean: I do not quite agree with the hon. gentleman. Take for instance the question of railway subsidies ; there has been voted for railway subsidies since 1883 something like 856,000,000. Not one cent of that was expended in the maritime provinces ; at any rate not in Prince Edward Island. We have no canals in the maritime provinces and I think we are about even on that score. Probably the account is in favour of the maritime provinces. Prince Edward Island has paid for its own railways something like $3,000,000. The only railway we have got since 1873 was a small piece of line to Cape Traverse. We

are now asking for more railways, but I take exception to the way in which the government are spending the money in connection with this branch. When the estimates for these railways in the maritime provinces are exceeded by something like $24,000 per mile it is time this House took hold of the matter and made an attempt to discover what the cause of this unnecessary outlay of money is.


George Eulas Foster: That is our point. Nobody objects to the legitimate expenditure of money in Prince Edward Island for legitimate purposes. What we object to, and as a friend of Prince Edward Island what I object to and what my friends from Prince Edward Island object to is not to a work which should cost so much, but what we object to is, that by some hocus pocus or other, the work did cost two or three times as much as it should and that it is charged up against Prince Edward Island. That is the main point to be kept in mind. My hon. friend from Prince Edward Island stated that this road which was estimated at $470,000 could, he believed, have been built for $470,000. If 3 or. make it cost $1,100,000, then you have by that extravagant use of money there, made Prince Edward Island's case just that much worse instead of better. You have charged up to its account a large amount of money spent extravagantly and uselessly which for all time to come will stand as an expenditure in Prince Edward Island. What my hon. friends from Prince Edward Island stands for and what we stand for is that money shall be economically spent in Prince Edward Island as in every other province, so that they shall get the worth of the money iii the work turned out as the result of these public expenditures.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am sorry that my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. A. A. McLean) misunderstood me. I have argued before and I wish to argue again that this system or method of expending public money is objectionable whether it be in Prince Edward Island, or Ontario or in any other province. I want to give a sample case in the province of Ontario for the purpose of illustrating my argument. We will say, for instance, that this parliament declare that it is necessary to build a line in the province of Ontario and in the neighbourhood of Ottawa simply for the purposes of the operation of the railway. But, when you include the building of a bridge for foot passengers and teams to pass over and when you go beyond the accommodation of the railway, then I say that is a system which has not been adopted in the province of Ontario. My point in respect to Prince Edward Island was simpl.v this ; Prince Edward Island had agreed to pay 3 per cent on half of the cost of the bridge. I presume that one of the reasons which induced them to
do that was that in addition to the railway bridge they got facilities for crossing it as a highway. I merely asked the minister if the people of Prince Edward Island who were so willing to contribute had carried out their part of the bargain and paid the 3 per cent on one-half the cost of the bridge ? The people of Prince Edward Island themselves made the proposition and no man from Prince Edward Island should object i.o me asking if they had carried it out. We must not be too sensitive, even if we do come from Prince Edward Island or from Nova Scotia or from any other province.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I do not think the people of Ontario will find any fault with the government for spending a little more money so as to make the bridge afford accommodation to the people of the neighbourhood. If it is necessary to have a bridge there it would cost only a trifle more to make it a thoroughfare for teams and passengers while the work is under construction, and I do not believe the people of Canada will find any fault with the government for doing that. When he gave a subsidy of $500,000 to rebuild the Victoria bridge at Montreal it was provided that the Grand Trunk Railway should give accommodation to the general public to cross that bridge, and it has proved a very great convenience. I do not object to the opposition asking for all the information necessary to properly discuss these items, but I do protest against this useless waste of time. The whole afternoon and evening has been used up in frivolously and uselessly discussing an item which should be passed in a very few minutes. This is an old question which has been discussed year after year. All the information asked for has been given to the House in past sessions, and considering that the present Minister of Railways has not been long in the department I must say that I never saw a man who gave more information and who was more ready to answer questions. On a vote for the completion of a work it is not to be expected that all the information that has been given for several years past should be repeated. And because, forsooth, the minister does not happen to have at his finger's end all this information the mighty opposition say : We are going to hold it up if it takes all summer. It is amusing to hear the member for North Toronto (Mr. Poster) talking about the enormity of a bride that was estimated to cost $800,000 costing considerably more. When an estimate is brought down to the House we hope the work will be done inside the estimate, but unforeseen difficulties maj'' occur, and unless the opposition can show that the money has been wasted it is useless to discuss the fact that the estimate has been exceeded. To hear the hon. member for North Toronto talk, one would suppose that this thing never occurred before. He was Minister of Finance for a good many srears. Does he recollect the

Langevin block that was to cost $400,000 and that cost $800,000 of the people's mono under his regime? Does he recollect the St. Charles branch railway, 131 miles long? The estimate brought down to the House of Com mons-I believe by himself or by the party he supported-was that it would be completed for $500,000, but before we got through it cost us $2,300,000. That is his record. And yet the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) holds up his hand in holy horror because a certain work has exceeded the estimate and he threatens that he is going to keep the House here all summer long. Well, he has not much to attend to and I suppose he might as well stay here as any where else. He is fresh; he has been out of the House for the last four years and he wants all the information that has been given to the House during his absence. It is a well known fact that in all large works done by private individuals, as well as by the government, the first estimate is generally exceeded, and unless these gentlemen are prepared to show that in the construction of this bridge and railway money has been unwisely spent, they have no warrant for detaining the House. Does the ex-Minister of Finance recollect the Curran bridge in Montreal? The Curran bridge was estimated to cost $175,000, but it cost us $430,000. He forgets all that. The Liberal party was able to show that the money was wasted in that cause, and that it was not expended in the public interest, and if these gentlemen op posite can show that a single dollar of this money has been squandered they could make out a case. But, Sir, I protest against this long, useless, wearisome discussion on m itefti that has been discussed over and over again.


Mr. TAYLOR.: The hon. member (Mr. Campbell) challenges us to show that one dollar has been wasted and I accept his challenge. If he will turn to the Auditor General's Report and follow me he will find where $60 was wasted.


Archibald Campbell: How many cents ?


George Taylor: Never mind the cents. The Minister of Railways sent an agent to purchase oils for the Prince Edward Island Railway and another to purchase oil for the Intercolonial Railway. One of these agents went to a political friend in Charlottetown and he purchased 289 gallons of raw linseed oil at 72 cents per gallon and he bought 89 gallons of boiled oil at 75 cents. The minister sent another agent to Halifax and he purchased his raw oil at 50 cents a gallon and his boiled oil at 53 cents, so that just on that 365 gallons of oil for the Prince Edward Island Railway 23 cents a gallon more was paid in one place than in the other, which shows a loss of about $70 given to political friends. Nearly all the supplies for thr Intercolonial Railway are bought in thi way, and the money is dribbled out to Mr. CAMPBELL.
political friends of the government. In some cases they do not even go to the trouble in these items to make a distinction between the raw and the boiled linseed oil. My hon. friend will certainly admit that there is a dollar wasted there.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If the hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell) had been here this afternoon, I do not think he would have spoken of this transaction as a trifling matter. I think it is one of vital interest to the people of this country ; and as for the minister hinting this afternoon that because I am from Ontario I have no right to take part in this debate, I wish to tell him that I consider it my bounden duty to take a direct interest in it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Will my hon. friend pardon me ? I certainly took no exception to my hon. friend as coming from Ontario taking part in this debate. I did take exception to this, that living in Ontario, and not having a knowledge of the citizens of New Brunswick, he should have endeavoured to cast a slur on a very worthy man, who stands as high in his community as does my hon. friend in the community from which he comes ; and I have a right to assume that he stands very high in that community, or he would not be here. My hon. friend who represents the county of York (Mr. Crocket) can, I think, speak of the citizenship and standing of Mr. Kitchen. I took exception to the hon. member referring to him as ' that noted character Kitchen.'


George Eulas Foster: No, no.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He used the word ' noted,' with a slur in it.


George Eulas Foster: Not at all.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I beg to differ with the hon. minister. I did not use the word with a slur, as he would lead the House to believe. I made the statement that a noted gentleman by the name of Kitchen was deeply interested in this matter ; and if I were referring to the hon. minister, I would look upon him as somewhat noted. As I said before, the hon. member for Centre York is evidently not acquainted with the subject before the House, or he would understand that the original estimate of the cost of the Murray Harbour Railway by the engineer of the Intercolonial Railway was only $474,000 and the estimated cost of the bridge was $800,000. If the hon. gentleman will compare these with the actual cost of the bridge and the railway up to the present time, he will find that it amounts to considerably over $1,000,000 in excess of the original estimate. I do not believe it is right or fair to the people of this country hat the minister should come to this House md ask for votes based on low estimates, *nd then expect to go on and expend an xtravagant amount of money. As has al-[DOT]eady been shown, a contract was let for

eleven miles of this railway, and that contract was completed ; and then the government, of which the hon. member for Centre York is a supporter, instead of inviting tenders for the construction of the balance of that road, extended the original contract for some thirty miles, and the present Minister of Railways and Canals has again extended the contract for six or eight miles. Yet the hon. member for Centre York would lead the House to believe that this is the proper businesslike way of conducting the affairs of our country. I do not believe he would dare to go into his riding and make such a statement as he has done to-night.


Archibald Campbell: Oh, yes ; I have done it for years.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I think this House will find it advisable, before this vote is passed, to have this whole matter investigated by a commission. X believe that would be in the interest of our people, and I would urge on the minister to consider whether that is not the best way out of the present difficulty.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There seems to have been a good deal of steam put on to-night in the attempt to make this matter appear to be something out of the ordinary ; but I think the attempt has been a dismal failure, and the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat have been one of its most dismal features. Some reference has been made to the bridge. Hon. gentlemen opposite, in utter disregard of anything that has been said, and in the effort to convince themselves that there have been no explanations and no reason assigned for any changes or for increased cost, have entirely overlooked the fact that there were special reasons why the cost of the bridge should have exceeded the original estimate. I cannot speak personally of what transpired in this House when the original estimate was presented. It is not an unusual thing, as has been pointed out by my hon. friend from Centre York (Mr. Campbell), to have the estimate exceeded by the expenditure. That occurs very frequently, sometimes under exceptional circumstances. This very bridge was started as a railway bridge. It was to cross the Hillsborough river at the head of the harbour of Charlottetown, over a wide and shallow expanse of water. An estimate was made of the cost of the bridge built on a cheap scale. Naturally, the people of the island were deeply interested in getting the bridge, which furnished the connection between Charlottetown and a flourishing section of country. However, the project widened out, and it gradually began to dawn on the people that it was essential that the bridge should be a combined railway and highway. This may not have been intended at its inception, but it was considered necessary to make it a better bridge, and to that end steps were taken. After the original estimate, negotiations were had
with the province of Prince Edward Island, and hon. members will find two Acts of this parliament ratifying agreements which had been entered into between the province of Prince Edward Island and the government of Canada with respect to the construction of the Hillsborough bridge, whereby it was provided that if the government of Canada undertook to build the bridge and to provide certain facilities, the province of Prince Edward Island agreed that there should be withheld from its subsidy annually after the construction of the bridge the sum of $9,750 in half-yearly payments. This is a part of the statute law of this Dominion. That is an agreement which was entered into in the year 1900 between Prince Edward Island and the Dominion.


George Eulas Foster: That is in force yet.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: What amount of money :


Henry Robert Emmerson: The original was $12,-
000.


George Eulas Foster: Did the minister ever tiave a calculation made to ascertain what amount that would be of present money ? I have no doubt he has.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I fancy there may be something in the department but I have not got it before me. In addition to that the provincial government was to keep in repair the planking of the highway portion of the bridge. I understand from hon. gentlemen opposite that the original estimate was presented to parliament in 1899. In 1900 this agreement was entered into, but I think it was not finally concluded until a later date. In the meantime the character of the bridge was determined in so far as the plans and specifications were concerned. It was deemed requisite that instead of crib work, the approaches over that long stretch of lagoon should be an earth and stone embankment, and I think that the change was a very wise economy. Of course that would cost more. They required to enlarge the waterway. That involved a change with respect to the cost of the superstructure. It required two abutments and one pier additional, and they found it necessary to have four pneumatic piers. Any one at all familiar with the construction of pneumatic piers and who has any knowledge whatever as to the practical construction of a bridge such as that across the Hillsborough river must realize that this is very expensive work. One of the abutments also had to be constructed by the pneumatic process. All this involved a larger expenditure which is justified by the conditions, and a contract was entered into whereby the contractor was held down to the schedule rates. That was done after inviting competition. My hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylorl complains

about $1.52^ cents, or something like that, was expended more on the Prince Edward Island for linseed oil.


George Taylor: $83.95 more.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am glad my hon. friend has figured- it out, but let me say this to him. It is all very well for him to insinuate that the department sends an agent to Halifax to purchase supplies at a certain rate, and then sends another to Charlottetown or Summerside to purchase there at different rates, but he ought to know that these purchases on the Intercolonial Railway are made by annual tender and contract and the same is done with respect to purchases in connection with the Prince Edward Island Railway. Any material required in the operation of the road is purchased after tenders have been called for, I have observed that the prices on Prince Edward Island for certain articles are higher than those on the mainland. Whether that is due to the isolated condition of the island, -whether it be because they have to furnish a certain proportion of the material during the winter when things cost more, I do not know, but I know that the tenders on the island are perceptibly higher than those on the mainland, but we accept the lowest, and it was under those conditions that this linseed oil was purchased. It was a terrible thing that it should have cost so much more, but it was purchased at the lowest tender price.


George Taylor: Were public tenders asked for, because I only see in the Auditor General's Report the names of my hon. friend's political supporters figuring in the furnishing of supplies ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend will look through the Auditor General's Report, he will find there conlractors of all shades of public opinion, not only in Charlottetown and Halifax, but clear away up to the county represented by himself, and I am calling for tenders from day to day from all these people.


Mr. COCHRANE.: But you do not accept them 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: I accept the lowest very naturally. These contracts which my hon. friend asked for were here, if I mistake not, two sessions ago.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I do not think they were ever produced.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am pretty certain they were. They were not produced last year, because I was not asked for them.


Samuel Barker: They were produced in this fashion. If the hon. gentleman took one up from the manager and said he had a contract, that is the way those things are produced in this House.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend will not say that I produce papers in that way.


Samuel Barker: I do not say so. I am speaking of what is being done.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am always anxious to give all possible information. As far as I have knowledge of this transaction, it is better to give the facts and the information to the House rather than withhold them. I can see no good reason why these matters should be withheld. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) indulged in a little mock heroics just previous to recess. He said they were going to stay here for ever so long and that this was a peculiar transaction. Well, we have heard that kind of thing often before. If this is a peculiar transaction, we had so many of them in the days when my hon. friend was responsible, that he need hardly have become so excited. Take for instance the St. Charles branch, the expenditure on which my hon. friend must have fresh in his memory, but as that has been referred to by my hon. friend from York (Mr. Campbell) I shall not refer to it any farther. But I only invite attention to it to show that it is not necessary any hon. member should indulge in language of that kind with reference to any transaction which has been before parliament. Perhaps it was the misfortune of my hon. friends opposite that they did not have my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) here during last parliament. He evidently thinks it was or he would not now be asking that all this information should be again brought down and rehashed over after the vote has been taken and parliament has approved of the work and appropriated the money for it. It did not seem to me necessary that all that information should be brought down again before this committee. But, if, in the judgment of the committee, this is necessary, I submit to that judgment and will be glad to furnish the information.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: May I ask, with regard to the approaches to the bridge on the Charlottetown side, if the value of the land has been arrived at and a settlement arranged ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend refers to the Warburton lands ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I do not know the name.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There were lands known as the Warburton lands. A certain area was expropriated, but an appeal has been allowed, and the matter is still before the court.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What was the quantity of land and the amount awarded by the court ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The area was 4| acres, and the amount $5,000, I think.


Samuel Barker: I wish to make a remark upon the intervention in the debate on this subject, for the first time in the four or five years in which it has been discussed, of the hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell). That hon. gentleman has been in the House every year during which this matter has been discussed. But his only interventitm in the debate up to this time has been by pulling down his hat over his nose and a calling ' carried.' It became, as everybody in the House knows, a subject of laughter and derision. The hon. gentleman never wanted any discussion. And the only object of his intervention to-night-and it was with some success-was to draw a herring across the track, to divert the discussion from the subject before us. Everybody who was in the last parliament knows that this question of the Murray Harbour branch has been discussed year after year. From 1901 onwards, I took part in this discussion. I endeavoured to get at the facts. From the former minister, I never got one solitary bit of information of a useful character more than we have got from the minister (Hon. Mr. Emmerson) to-night. Year after year he got off on some side issue. And the minister to-night gets off on the plea that he was not the minister the year before last


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not crawling out of it on that.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman was in the House, and he knows that this question of the Murray Harbour branch has excited great interest in the country. Yet, this year, he puts into the estimates a very large sum for this work, and, instead of preparing himself to give information which he knows the House has been endeavouring to obtain year after year, he does not know any more about it than do gentlemen about him not connected with the Railway Department. He has been forced, step by step, to give certain information. He has produced some little paper, handed him by the oflicer in the department, and he reads that as if it were something that he had been considering before he brought down this item. He actually tells us that we ought to reflect that this work is developing, that it is not what it originally was. One would suppose from what he says that there had been great changes in it. I defy him to show that there is one feature of the work that was not contemplated when the matter was first explained. I do not speak of matters of small detail, of course. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) speaks of it as a great highway for the people there. But that is not new. When the work was first proposed and we were told it would cost $470,000. this is what the minister of that time said :
I may explain that the bridge will be not only a railway bridge but a highway and traffic bridge for vehicles and pedestrians.
The whole structure as we have it to-day is as it was originally contemplated. We were told the railway would cost $470,000 and the bridge apart from the superstructure $800,000 ; that is the whole work, apart from the superstructure of the bridge, was to cost $1,270,000. It has been before the House for the last four or five years, and the hon. member for Centre York has sat there with his ' carried ' and voted three and a half million for that work. He has never questioned it, and he would not have questioned it had it been ten and a half millions-it would have been all the same to him ; what does he care about it ? He sits behind the minister and calls ' carried ?, And yet this gentleman who treats important matters of this kind in this way stands up and criticises gentlemen on this side who are endeavouring to do their duty. Now, I understand the minister is willing to give us the information we have been asking for. And if I understand him, he is willing to let the item stand until he has given us the information. I hope he will. Let him take this from the beginning and compare the estimate for the work with the expenditure before the House and let him give us a fair statement of what has been done and what is proposed, and he will find no obstruction on this side. We are prepared to spend any necessary sum for public works in Prince Edward Island, or any other part of the country. But we object to standing before a minister who practically tells us that he does not know what he is asking for, but refers us to discussion on the past.


Archibald Campbell: I am obliged to the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) for the lecture he has given me. It is true that I have not occupied as much time in discussing these items as he has. Possibly I have been a subject of derision as he says. But I can tell him one thing-if I was the subject of derision, it was when I was in my seat and not on my feet making a fool of myself. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) has taken up a great deal of the time of the House. He poses as a great railway man ; he is the railway expert of hon. gentlemen opposite. And, for the last four years he has had this question up, asking the same questions and desiring the same information.


Samuel Barker: I never got an answer.


Archibald Campbell: I venture to say there never was a subject upon which fuller information was given. The minister has referred hon. members to the Auditor General's Report giving all the information any man could expect. He has told you the amount of the first estimate and the cost, the arrangement made with the Island government and the amount that that government paid and he has furnished all the information that any man would want. It appears to me ' that the hon. gentlemen do not want infor-



216S
mat ion. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) let the cat out of the! bag when he said they would stay here all summer. That is the idea, it is to obstruct and keep back instead of getting information. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has got his information every year for four years and he has gone over the same questions all afternoon and again tonight and I venture to say that again next year the same formula will be gone over again the same questions will be answered and we have to stay here and take it.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Poor fellow.


Robert Laird Borden: I am sure we shall give to the protest of the hon, member from Centre York (Mr. Campbell) all the consideration that it deserves. I would like to say to the minister that as this estimate was made very much in detail, as it shows that the cost of 42-85 miles was to be $447,000 to which is to be added $22,800 for a wharf at Murray bridge, making a total of $470,000, and as the total cost of that work lias not been confined to the $470,000, but has extended, as I understand, to $1,030,000 or nearly $600,000 more, as you have in detail here all the items of expenditure, and as there has been that enormous difference, I would think that the minister ought to be prepared, when this matter is again taken up, and when he lays before the committee the information that has been asked for this evening, to go over this estimate a little m detail and show us in what items the enor-mouslv increased expenditure has taken place.' The estimate is made in the utmost detail, and includes about 30 different items comprising clearing, close-cutting, cropping, earth excavation, rock excavation, ditching, fencing, public crossings, farm crossings, ballast, rails, fastenings, culverts, sidings, stations,-everything is set out in the utmost possible detail. The information for which I have asked must be In the possession of the department, and I think it should be furnished to us. Some one has spoken of unforeseen difficulties ; I think it was the hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell). I do not remember whether the minister spoke of them.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was in connection with the bridge ?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not speaking of the bridge just at present. Then there were unforeseen difficulties so far as the milway is concerned ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot speak as to that.


Robert Laird Borden: That makes the situation -worse. There are no unforeseen difficulties.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did not say that.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg pardon.


Mr. CAMPBELL  .@: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said I could not speak as to that ; I could not give that information.


Robert Laird Borden: I must say, with all deference to my hon friend, that when be comes to justify an increase in expenditure of more than $500,000 he should be able to af least inform the committee -whether or not there were any unforeseen difficulties, because if there were not, the increased expenditure seems to me to be of a very peculiar character. However, the minister himself, suggested that the item should stand, and I think it is a very wise thing to have it stand, I bring to the attention of the minister these matters to which 4 have just referred, in order that we may have a more detailed explanation of the increased expenditure when the item is next presented for the consideration of the committee.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Some hon. member has made the statement that the railway cost $32,000 per mile. That statement, taking the estimate which I brought to the notice ol' the House last year,- is very far from the fact. The actual cost, according to the estimate of the expenditure as detailed by me, was less than $25,000 per mile. It was about $24,600 per mile, which includes the rolling stock, but does not include the Hillsborough river bridge and wharfs.


Samuel Barker: That is part of the rail-w ay is it not ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, the Murray Harbour wharf was a work that was to be built for the railway ; it is not being built, there has been no expenditure made on it; there is an estimate with respect to it that it would cost about $70,000, but the total expenditures-and I have given them right to November 30-and indeed the total estimated cost is as I have stated somewhere about $24,600; so that the hon. gentleman who made the statement that it cost $32,000 was very much astray ; at least he was $8,000 astray. I do not think lie would wish that statement to go on record or to misrepresent me.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: X may say, Mr. Chairman, that the remark was made, I think, by the hon. member for Queen's, P.E.I., but as the minister did not have the different items separated, that is the bridge and the railway, he inadvertently included the $200,000 for rolling stock.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have given that time and time again ; X gave the information the other night.
Mr. LEIfURGEY. This remark was made the other night and if the hon. gentleman did inadvertently make the mistake of $8,000, he is surely less to blame than the government, who, from the minister s own statement, made a difference between the estimate and the cost of construction of

some $16,600 a mile. This work was not to cost over $10,000 per mile according to this sheet which we have here, and the minister himself declares that it has cost $24,600 a mile, so I do not know which is to be blamed the more, the government or the Lon. member for Queen's.


David Henderson: I do not think he is to blame at all; I think he wants to correct the error.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: We from Prince Edward Island are very sorry to have this matter brought before the House year after year, but I know that since I have been in the House we have asked time and time again for information about both of these works. We were always met by the cry that it was going to cost so much more. No excuse or no explanation was given, excepting that it was going to cost so much more, and that so much more money was needed. It was $470,000 for the railway and $800,000 for the bridge. Next year $200,000 more was asked for the contractors. There should be no great cry raised against the opposition for inquiring into such a state of affairs, and I think it is due to the people of Prince Edward Island, and due to the members of this House, that some explanation should be given for the increased cost of these works. Prince Edward Island is certainly entitled to a great deal more than she has received, even if these works cost the enormous sums which the hon. minister has placed before the House. The Conservative party is not complaining about these works being constructed in Prince Edward Island. The Conservative party was pledged in 1896 to the construction of these works, and the Liberal government is only carrying out what is actually due to Prince Edward Island. In view of the immense amounts of money that have been expended in subsidies to railways, in building the canals and in numerous other works, particularly the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme, which does not directly benefit Prince Edward Island, Prince Edward Island has received a very small share of the public works and of the moneys that should have been expended, and we hope and believe that if this government is true to its pledges it will construct other lines in Prince Edward Island which are necessary. If the government is sincere and true to its pre-election promises, we believe we will get these lines. But it is clue to us to know and to feel that the moneys of this Dominion that are expended on public works in Prince Edward Island are expended legitimately and fairly. That is all that this side of the House is asking of the hon. minister.


George Eulas Foster: Will the hon. minister remember to bring down the infoi'mation as to what the wharf cost ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The wharf ?


George Eulas Foster: Yes ; the hon. gentleman will see that it is not included in this item.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is not yet built.


George Eulas Foster: But you have expended some money on the harbour improvements there.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Nothing was expended up to the 30th November on the wharf at Murray Harbour.


George Eulas Foster: Is there anything out of this vote that is to go to the wharf or to cribwork there ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: What is that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: $69,955 is to go to the wharf at Murray Harbour. It is included in this vote that we are asking for of $357,-* 400.


George Eulas Foster: But the hon. minister will see how very inconvenient it is that large sums of money shall be completely hidden in a vote which gives not the least indication at all of the service to which that money is to be voted. I would suggest, if the hon. minister would consent, that we should put it in this way :
Murray Harbour branch, Murray Harbour wharf and Hillsborough bridge.
You are only taking money for the Murray Harbour branch and Hillsborough bridge, and I can tell the hon. gentleman that the Auditor General would find a very excellent excuse for refusing to certify any money for anything else except the Murray Harbour branch and the Hillsborough bridge. All these should have been under three separate heads. You should have put in what you wanted for the Murray Harbour Branch Railway, for the Hillsborough bridge and for the Murray Harbour wharf.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We will consider that when the matter is again taken up. This vote is to stand.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Do we understand that the estimates before us to-night will complete the work ; or, if not, how much more will be required to complete both the bridge and the railway, with stations and necessary sidings ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That completes the estimate.
Item allowed to stand.
To improve water service, $10,200.


George Eulas Foster: What is the explanation of that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The water service on the Intercolonial Railway is by elevated tanks, and they fill the tenders from these tanks. On the Prince Edward Island Railway they have to pump the water by an inspirator, and, as it takes a great deal of time, we are changing the method of doing this. Last year we took a vote of $26,800. The estimated expenditure will be $15,000.

We are asking for a revote for 1905 of


George Eulas Foster: What is the total amount estimated for the whole improvement ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total estimated cost was $30,000, but we are only asking for $26,800.


George Eulas Foster: So that in order to complete there will have to be a further vote ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There will be a small further vote.
Branch line from Cardigan to Montague bridge, $75,000.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: To what extent has this work been carried on ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This line was let. Mr. Kitchen was the contractor for this work. The total estimated cost of the line is $195,128.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: How many miles are let ?
Mr.	EMMERSON.	About	six and	a half
miles.
Mr.	LEFURGEY.	That	makes	about
$30,000 a mile. Is this a difficult section ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, it is considered very difficult, I believe.
Mr.	LEFURGEY.	Were	tenders	asked
for ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.
Mr.	LEFURGEY.	How	many tenders
were there ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Three or four.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Who were the tenderers ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was advertised in the newspapers and there was only one tenderer, Kitchen & Co.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What was his tender?
Air. EA1AIERSON. I will give the details as to the estimate : Contract price for grading, $121,000; for ties, $7,080; for rails, $13-. 200; for fish plates, $1,144; poles, $460: spikes, $969; land for right of way, $14,321; bridges at Brudenelles and Vichy creek, $24,000; telegraph lines, $650; snow fences and land, $4,000; contingencies, $8,000.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Will you give us the cost per mile?
Mr. EAIA1ERSON. I will give you a detailed estimate of the $121,000.


Air. KEMP.: Does the minister say that public tenders were asked for and that only one contractor tendered? How does the minister account for that?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know how io account for it. It was advertised in the newspapers of Nova Scotia, New Bruns-Mr. EMMERSON.
wick and Quebec and also in the newspapers of Prince Edward Island and by posters there.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It was not advertised in Ontario?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not sure, but I do not think these advertisements usually escape the newspapers.


Albert Edward Kemp: It is the most remarkable case I ever heard of.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are lots of similar cases every day. I am often surprised that with respect to materials advertised for there is often only one tender. I suppose it shows that every one has as much work as they can attend to.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. gentleman says he advertised in all the newspapers.


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: I would not say ' all.'


Albert Edward Kemp: All the prominent newspapers ?


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: Well, the choicest; tin.' truthful ones.


Albert Edward Kemp: The minister must know that there are a great many contractors ; they are to be. seen on the streets of this city and in the lobbies of this House, anxious to get work. In the provinces in which the minister advertised for tenders for 61 miles of railway to cost $190,000 there must be two and a half millions of people and yet there was only one tender. This railway in the province of Prince Edward Island is to cost $30,000 a mile and yet the Minister of Finance estimated last year that the National Transcontinental line through the Rocky mountains would not cost much more than this. Here we have $30,000 a mile to build a railway through a level Inhabited country and all there is for bridging on that six and a half miles is $24,000-what is the gauge?


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: Narrow gauge.


Albert Edward Kemp: And a narrow gauge railway at that.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The main line of the Prince Edward Island Railway throughout its whole length only cost $8,000 a mile.


Albert Edward Kemp: If the minister does not feel at liberty to make any further explanation as to this extraordinary thing, I suppose I will have to leave it at that.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Will the minister bring down the schedule of prices under which the contract was let to Air. Kitchen? [DOT]


George Eulas Foster: Before tenders were asked for did the engineers of the department make a survey and an estimate of the cost?


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: Yes. $195,128 is the estimate made by the engineers of the de-

JJui lUlvlILj ullU UId i lo UcUScll Oil Lilt: b 111 V Cj 15
made by those engineers. The contract is made at the scheduled prices.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister no explanation to make as to why six and a half miles of road in Prince Edward Island alongside of the main line cost so much per mile, while the main line cost so much less ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have given the details of the engineers' estimates, which is the only information I can give to my hon. friend. The estimates are based on the engineers' report made upon the surveys under instructions from the department, and 1 have a right to assume that they did the work correctly and honestly. I am in their hands in that respect, and I am giving exactly what they have furnished to me through their general manager. Last year I asked for $100,000. We anticipate that $25,000 of this, will have been expended by the 1st of July, and we are asking for $75,000 of a revote.


George Eulas Foster: Is this road being built on any better grades, or is it of a higher standard than the main line ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: As to alignment it probably would be, because the alignment of the Prince Edward Island Railway was certainly very defective, and it has been necessary since the original construction of the line to expend a great deal of money in straightening it. But otherwise, I do not think there is any higher standard asked for.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister, of his personal knowledge, know, or can his officers inform him whether the country through which these six and a half miles run, is of a much different character from the general country in Prince Edward Island through which the other roads run ? For instance, the Murray branch road, even at what it has cost, is being built for a good deal less than these six and a half miles.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The chief engineer, Mr. Mackenzie, told me that it was a very difficult section of country through which to build a line of railway. This information came to me during the last session of parliament, at the time the original vote was taken. _ I was surprised to learn that the cost of the road would be so much, but it was on a line with the chief engineer's report. In Prince Edward Island there is this difficulty, that there are no large rivers with valleys which you can follow up in constructing a railway.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I would like to ask the
minister if the survey has been prepared for a branch line from West Cape to O'Leary or some other place on the main line ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That survey has not been made.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Can the minister assure me that in the spring when the weather conditions permit, the survey for that branch will go on ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have a vote for it. I had expected that the survey would have been made before this. I have that survey in mind.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I know that section of country very thoroughly and its absolute need of a branch line. It is one of the most fertile sections in Prince Edward Island, there is a stretch of 10, 15 or 20 miles where they have absolutely no method of getting their produce to railway except by teams, and for a good many miles along that section there is no accommodation for vessels to carry their produce to the other side. It is certainly very necessary that some railway ac c-ommodation should be given these people, and the natural course of the territory over which that railway would go would make its building very economical. I trust that the hon. minister will have in the spring a survey made on this line so that the work may be gone on with as early as possible.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES.: I think that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), in the question he put to the hon. the Minister of Railways referred to the original railway of Prince Edward Island built some 30 j ears ago, whereas the minister evidently thought he was referring to the Murray Harbour branch. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) asked, was there any reason why this road should cost_more per mile-was it broader or wider* or was there anything to make it cost more. I understand that the dumps and the cuts of the proposed branch will be wider and that they are also considerably wider on the Murray Harbour branch.


George Eulas Foster: That may be.


James Joseph Hughes: In consequence of that it will be easier to operate as the cuttings being wider the snow will not lodge in them so easily, but that would be one reason for its costing more. The original road was what is called a surface road and was built in as cheap a way as possible. Consequently a good deal of expenditure has had to be made since to keep it in proper repair and straighten it. The culverts Mere also of as cheap a kind as possible whereas the culverts on this new road are of good masonry and of very much better character. I think that the cost of the old railway is greater than the sum of $8,000 per mile which was given by my hon. friend from Prince (Mr. Lefurgey).


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: That has been stated on the floor of this House and not contradicted.


James Joseph Hughes: I am not prepared to contradict that statement, but the lowest

price I have heard given was $13,000 a mile. The $8,000 could not have included the rolling stock.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If you are discussing the question of the original construction of the Prince Edward Island Railway, it must be borne in mind that for many years, that railway was not ballasted at all, and it was very far below the standard of the Murray Harbour branch or the proposed new branch. These branches are up to the standard of the Intei'colonial Railway, but of course with a narrow gauge.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Do you mean to say that the main line of the Prince Edward Island Railway is not up to the standard of the Intercolonial Railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am speaking of the original line. My hon. friend gave the cost as $8,000 per mile. I do not know whether that is correct or not, but I presume my hon. friend wanted to be correct.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am not sure, but I have heard that estimate given. However, as my hon. friend from King's says, possibly that does not include the roiling stock.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I waut to point out that the original main line of the Prince Edward Island Railway was operated for many years without even any ballasting on the road. I think that the ballasting has been done since it became a government read.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What I would like at present is that this branch line should be surveyed from West Point to O'Leary, and I would like to have the assurance of the minister to that effect, because I have letters from people down there asking if it Is necessary, now that the elections are over, for them to petition the government to have that survey go on.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is no necessity for any petition. The reason I could not have that line surveyed last year was because we had not sufficient engineers. I did the best I possibly could but expect to have engineers there this spring to make the survey.


Andrew B. Ingram: The exact figures are $195,000. I did not understand that Kitchen A Company was the only firm that tendered.
. Mr. EMMERSON. I have given thel estimate of the department.


Richard Blain: What is to be understood by doing this work at schedule rate ? The minister said that as there was only one trader he would not accept it, but the work was to be done by schedule.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We asked for tenders at schedule rates-so much per cubic yard for concrete, so much for earth em' Mr. J. J. HUGHES.
bankment, so much for excavation, stone foundations, abutments, culverts and so on, each class of work having schedule prices attached to it. If you only have to excavate 200,000 yards, instead of 300,000, j our expenditure is so much less. It is not a built sum, and that is why all tenders are asked for at schedule rates.


Richard Blain: How long has the work been going on ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This was only authorized at the last session of parliament, tenders were asked for in November, and the contract was entered into in December.


Richard Blain: Does this contractor do the masonry and the grading and the laying of rails and all the different class of work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, only the road laying.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is this the only method of letting contracts ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not the only method, but the one that has been generally pursued on the Intercolonial Railway and in connection with other railways for some years. I know that the Murray Harbour and the Rivibre Ouelle branches and other lines have been let according to that method. That also is the method which has been pursued on the canals for a great many jears.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the hon. gentleman find that the contractors object to tendering on that principle ? Suppose you have 6i miles of road to construct according to certain plans and specifications, would the contractors not prefer taking the contract to build under those plans and specifications rather than according to the scale the hon. gentleman mentioned.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not consulted the contractors ; I did not think it my duty to consider what would be better in their interest. I only know that this is the course pursued by the department in connection with the canals for many years, and, I believe, in connection with railway contracts also. The amount of work done can readily be ascertained and calculating it on the basis of the schedule prices, you demonstrate at once the value of the work.


Andrew B. Ingram: What I was asking was whether the contractors have complained ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not recollect any complaints on that score.
Prince Edward Island Railway-Summerside, improvements at, $8,000.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What are these improvements ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Of this amount, $2,000 is to be expended in widening the wharf and extending the freight shed on the wharf

and on the land. There is some question as to other improvements needed there, but I have not been able to go into them personally. I want to go there when 1 am at Charlottetown this spring to consult the board of trade who have certain views as to work that should be done.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Is it something in connection with yards.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I thought it was for that, and I trust the minister will go there at the earliest day possible.


Henry Robert Emmerson: As soon as I can get to Charlottetown. I will make one trip do both.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It is very dangerous to the public and very inconvenient as well.
Prince Edward Island Railway-branch line to Vernon river bridge, $30,000.


Angus Alexander McLean: Has a contract been let for that work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, to Messrs. Schur-man, Morrison, Mutch & Co.


Angus Alexander McLean: What is the amount ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total estimated cost was $72,000.


Angus Alexander McLean: Has the right of way been purchased ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, we have provided in this estimate of $72,000 a sum of $10,000 for the purchase of right of way.


George Eulas Foster: For how many miles ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
Albert Edward Kemp: This line of a little over four and a half miles is to cost $72,000. The estimated cost for six and a half miles of the other branch was $195,000. What causes the difference ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is of easier construction. Of course, the estimate is based on the survey of the engineer, who served under the same chief as the engineer in the other case. This is not at the extreme eastern section or down near Murray Harbour or Charlottetown where the land is undulating, making railway construction difficult.
Prince Edward Island Railway-swing span for Morrell river bridge, $15,000.


Angus Alexander McLean: Has anything been expended on that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Nothing yet. The contract has been let and we estimate that the expenditure this year will be $10,000.


George Eulas Foster: Is that on the main line of the road ?
Prince Edward Island Railway-to apply M. C. B. coupler to rolling stock, $11,000.


George Eulas Foster: What does that mean ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We are going over the rolling stock of the line and putting on the standard coupler.


George Eulas Foster: What does ' M. C. B.' mean ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: ' Master Car Builders.' It is the standard coupler all over the continent.


George Eulas Foster: Where is it made ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: At different places in Canada, including Wallterville and Montreal, and at a number of places in the United States.


George Eulas Foster: How does the department buy it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: By tender.


George Eulas Foster: There is practical competition, is there 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.
Prince Edward Island Railway-to apply Westinghouse air-brakes and air signals, $20,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is the usual vote.


George Eulas Foster: The usual ? It is not to go on for all time, is it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We are trying to get the whole line equipped with these air brakes and signals.
Mr. FO-STER. What Is the estimated total expenditure ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Fifty thousand dollars.


George Eulas Foster: How much has been spent so far ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Up to November 30 last $38,775.


Albert Edward Kemp: Have ordinary hand brakes been used on the cars and locomotives ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: On freight cars ; but on passenger cars we have had the Vacuum brake.
To Increase accommodation at Kensington,


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to provide a balance of $2,200 in connection with the building of a station at this point.


Angus Alexander McLean: The minister informed the House, in answer to a question by the hon. the senior member for Queen's (Mr. A. Martin), that a survey had been made for a branch railway to New London, but that the report had not been handed in owing to the illness of the engineer who had made the survey. I would like to ask the minister if it is the intention of the government to proceed with the work

of tlie construction of that New London branch ? New London is situated on the north side of the island, and of late years the harbour has been filling up with sand, so that it is now almost impossible for a vessel of any size to enter the harbour. The people are handicapped owing to their having no facilities for shipping produce and other commodities. They are too far from the main branch of the Prince Edward Island Railway to make use of it, and they have repeatedly petitioned the government of Canada, and the matter has been brought up on several occasions, but nothing has been done towards providing them with railway accommodation beyond the making of a survey. I am informed that the engineer who made the survey has recovered from his illness, and I would ask the minister to obtain his report as soon as possible. I notice that there is nothing in the estimates for the construction of that line, and I would ask if it is the intention of the minister to proceed with this branch line ? It is perhaps the most necessary work in the province at the present time. I would also mention the branch to Rustico, which is also in contemplation by the present government. I would think that an amount would be placed in the supplementarles for the completion of the new London work. It is a small work, and I think it should be completed.


Henry Robert Emmerson: As I stated, the surveys and the report of the engineer have not been placed before me, and I am certainly not in a position to submit any estimate to parliament. Last session we asked for a vote to enable us to have a survey ; the survey was made, but, unfortunately, the engineer was taken ill, and it is impossible to get the results of that survey in concrete form, so that the department would be in a position to decide the question which my hon. friend asks. Of course, it would depend largely on the result of the engineer's report, and I would hope that it may be considered in time for the supplementaries. Certainly it will be given due consideration.


Angus Alexander McLean: I understand that the engineer has recovered from his illness, and probably, if the minister would ask, he could get the report.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not yet received the report. Mr. Ruel, I think, was the engineer.
To increase accommodation at Georgetown, $18,500.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That requires some dredging and rails and fastenings on the wharf there. We also want a ereosoted pile wharf there, and additional accommodation, and an extension to the freight shed.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister his detailed estimates there of what that will cost ?


Angus Alexander McLean: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: Dredging to 20 feet of water	$ 3,840 00
Rails and fastenings	
2,000	00Creosoted pile wharf	27,511	11Extension to freight shed	j .. 5,500 00Engineering and contingencies	
1,148	89Total	
40,000 00The estimated expenditure during the present current year is $15,000. The warrant for this expenditure is found in the fact that Georgetown is the port of call in winter for the winter boats plying between the mainland and Prince Edward Island. They certainly need additional accommodation there for these boats, apart from any requirement they may have in connection with summer navigation. I have personally viewed the situation there, and I know whereof I speak.	*
Freetown-dwelling for agent at, $1,560.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is to furnish a dwelling for the station agent.


George Eulas Foster: Do you not build these as additions to the station house ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a separate building.


George Eulas Foster: Is that the policy that is adopted 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, that is the policy that is adopted along the line of the Intercolonial Railway very generally where we have to furnish dwelling houses at all. In the larger places we have discontinued even furnishing any dwelling for the station agent.


George Eulas Foster: Is not that a more expensive system than to have the dwelling in the station house ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are some dangers incident to having the dwelling in the station, and I think it has been found by actual experience along the line to be a little more expensive having them in the station.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is it customary to build houses for agents on the Grand Trunk Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The custom was established on the Intercolonial Railway because, when the Intercolonial Railway was built, it ran largely through a country that was not very well settled, and it was necessary to furnish the agents with living accommodation.


George Eulas Foster: That was always done in the station house.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was the custom, but that was changed, because the judgment of the officials of the department was that it was more desirable to have them out of the station. There was less danger by having them in separate buildings. This
218]

custom of having dwellings for the station agents grew out of the practice on the old Eastern and North American line of railway between St. John and Shediac, and also on the Nova Scotia branch. When these became part of the Intercolonial Railway, in 1ST5 or 1876, this custom prevailed and has continued. The same custom has been adopted on the line, of the Prince Edward Island Railway. There was some question as to whether my hon. friend would like to take up the revenue item.


George Eulas Foster: I think that would be a pretty large item for us to go into to-night.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The item has been discussed. It is only the usual vote excepting that we have added authority for spend-:ng more on account of the increased wages on the Intercolonial Railway and the additional mileage.


George Eulas Foster: That vote will cause a good deal of discussion.


Richard Blain: Before the hon. minister leaves that railway question, I want to ask him what would be the difference in cost of constructing a standard gauge railway as compared with a narrow gauge raiway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I certaiuly could not answer that off-hand. Naturally a wide gauge road would cost more, because of the width of the road, the ballasting, the larger class of ties and the heavier rails. We are using for these branch lines in Prince Edward Island now under construction a heavier rail than was put on the trunk line of Prince Edward Island.


Albert Edward Kemp: Are they new rails ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In many instances we are taking off the Intercolonial Railway a heavier rail which is practically a new rail, because in many instances a great many of the rails taken off the Intercolonial Railway arc really new rails to all intents and purposes.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. minister has made the statement this evening that most of the purchases were made by public tender. I notice in the Auditor General's Report that there is a number of very large items amounting to $40,000. Do I understand the hon. minister to say that supplies amounting to $40,000 are furnished by public tender and contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Purchases of railway ties, lumber and heavy material are made by public tender. There is a certain class of supplies furnished, the purchase of which is made, by what you would call public tender in a sense ; that is, we sent notices to those engaged in the trade.


Albert Edward Kemp: I will make it explicit. For instance in the Auditor General's Report 1 see the following items : W-160, I. & E. R.
Burpee $5,575.13 ;	W-161, B. J. Coghliu &
Co. $16,752.56 ;	W-163, Josiah Fowler Co.
$8,474.07 ; W-166, T. McAvitv & Sons $31,449.13 ; W-168, McLean, Holt & Co. $39,-3S2.S1 ; W-169, Portland Rolling Mills Co. $39,432.80 ;	W-171, Starr Manufacturing;
Co. $10,066.16. Are these supplies purchased by public tender ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend will give me a memorandum I will procure the information as to that.


Albert Edward Kemp: And if they are purchased by public tender will the hon. minister be good enough to furnish us with the form of tender, the amounts of the tenders and who they were from ? I will be glad to furnish the hon. member with this statement.


George Eulas Foster: I would like the hon. minister to bring down a list of the papers in which the advertisement for the Cardigan Branch Railway was published.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I And at page W-149 of the Auditor General's Report the following items :	M. J. Haney, unloading cargo
of stone, $15 ; derrick unloading pine timber, 3J d. at $30. This was a little job for an ordinary derrick and he received for it $105.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) does not care to go on with the item of revenue, the next item on page 40 is in regard to the National Transcontinental Railway for surveys, construction and other expenses. This is a large item, but I was going to say to my hon. friend in respect to it that I can furnish him with the ir formation as to the expenditure that has been made up to this time, but tliere will be necessarily an item in the supplementary estimates which will enable a full discussion of the matter to be gone into and at that time. I will then receive from the commissioners the report which the chairman told me the other day would be furnished by the secretary at the earliest possible moment.


George Eulas Foster: The trouble as to that is that supplementary estimates have a fashion of coming down very late in the session and being crowded into the last six or seven days in the session when the House is tired out and a great majority of the members have left, we have always found that it was most unsatisfactory when an item which requires full discussion is left over to be discussed on the supplementary estimates.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If there is any objection to it I am not going to press it.


George Eulas Foster: If we are going to have a discussion upon it I hope the hon. minister will be able to give us what we want to get Hold of. One thing certainly that we want

21S4
to find is a channel of communication between this House and the commission. No one on the ministerial side seems to have been able to excavate a passage of communication between the commission and the House, and surely there ought to be such a passageway whether it is a pneumatic tube or an open air gallery or whatever it may be.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would judge that my hon. friend is in a mood for furnishing the dynamite to get through.


George Eulas Foster: We must have some information in reference to what this commission is doing in regard to the old matter of the surveys aud the like of that, and we want to know as quickly as the newspapecs and other people outside of this House as to the nature of these surveys. We need a lot of explicit information which the minister says he has not in his pockets to-night. Will he please put on the suit in the pockets of which the information is and wear it when he appears next time ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: X am afraid I have no suit the pockets of which will hold all the information you are thirsting for.
Gratuity to family of late C. J. Carter, $103.50.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is this item for?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is the usual gratuity of two months' wages to the family of an old servant.


Andrew B. Ingram: I approve of the item, but I point out that last year I brought up the question of a person who lost his life in the government service through no fault of his own, and I asked that some provision should be made for the widow and family.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That opens up a very much wider question. I am in hopes that such cases will be dealt with in a Bill that I am trying to bring before parliament.
Portion of interest on cost of double track between St. Lambert and Beloeil, $2,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Are you sure that is right?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is in accordance with the agreement which we have with the Grand Trunk Railway. We certainly need this double track to expedite the movement of trains on that portion of the line.


Robert Laird Borden: In glancing over the claims which have been made by the government against the Grand Trunk Railway in the arbitration proceedings, as well as those made by the Grand Trunk Railway against the government, I find that the government claim they have made a great many payments which they should not have made and which they are now seeking to get back. It would seem that a great deal of caution should be exercised in making these payments demanded by the Grand Trunk Rail-Mr FOSTER.
way, because it is very much easier to investigate them beforehand than after they have been paid. I do not object to this item passing, but we must have an opportunity of discussing the claims that have been made, and of ascertaining fully the position of the arbitration which is still pending between the government and the railway company.
* Some resolutions reported.
Sir WILLIAM MTJLOCK moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up at the next sitting?


Mr. FIELDING.: There may be some Bills which will have priority and the Minister of Railways will continue his estimates.


George Eulas Foster: No budget speech ou Thursday ?


William Stevens Fielding: No; there is lots of time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 9, 1905.