1908-06-08

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 184) to amend the Chinese Immigration Act.-Hon. Frank Oliver.
Bill (No. 185) respecting the Lake Champlain and St. Lawrence Ship Canal.-Mr. Johnston.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 179) to incorporate the Synod of the Diocese of Keewatin.-Mr. McCraney.
Bill (No. 182) for the relief of Hattie Spratte;-Mr. Smith (Nanaimo.)


[Stage Direction]
Mr. BERGERON-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked :
1.	Were tenders called for in 1907 and 1908 by the Public Works Department for dredging in Ontario and Quebec? If so, were tenders received?
2.	What were the prices at the different places ?
3.	What were the names of the dredges mentioned in tenders?
Hon.   WM@: PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works! :
1.	(a) Yes ; (b) Yes.
2.
For 1907.	Price paid per cubic yard, scow measurement.	
	Kock.	All other materials.
	$ cts.	cts. 25 m 17 20 11 25
	4 00 2 00	
		
		
	2 50 4 00	
At Goderich, Ont			

For 1907.	Price paid per cubic yard, Scow measurement.	
	Rock.	All other materials.
	$ cts.	cts.
At Hamilton, Ont	2 (10	12At Kincardine, Ont	4 00	25At Meaford, Ont	2 30	34At Midland, Ont	2 25	26At Midland-Tiffin, Ont 	
At Nigger and Telegraph Islands,	2 00	271 (Nothing done.)	J 2 00	18At Owen Sound, Ont	2 00	20At Penetanguishene, Ont	2 00	14At Point Edward, Ont	0 50	13At Port Burwell, Ont	2 25	151At Port Elgin, Ont	
At Port Stanley, Ont	4 00	252 25	151At Rondeau, Ont	2 25	151In Sydenham River, Ont. 	20"In Thames River, Ont	6 50	13At Thornbury, Ont	2 30	34At Toronto, Ont	4 00	13JAt Trenton and Dark Channel,	0 40	14At Victoria Harbour, Ont	2 00	8At Waubaushene, Ont	2 00	13At Wiarton, Ont	2 00	20At Wingfield Basin, Ont	4 00	65In Batiscan River, Que	5 00	1011621In Chateauguay River, Que ....	1 65	22At Dorion, Que	3 75	35 .In Godefroy River, Que	
At Hay Island, Que	2 60	11 161At Hudson, Que	2 00	18In L'Assomption River, Que	16In Maskinonge River, Que	2 50	20In Nicolet River, Que	0 40	13At Pointe Cavagnale, Que	2 50	26In Kacquette River, Que	2 50	24At Rimouski Pier, Que	1 65	61In River Jesus, Que	2 60	271At Riviere du Loup, Que	0 40	13At Riviere Ouelle, Que	2 65	69In Saguenay River, Que	
At St. Andrews, Que	2 35	312 50	25In St. Francis River, Que	5 00	118At St. Pierre les Becquets, Que .	0 40	13At St. Placide, Que. . . 	2 50	211At Sorel, Que	2 50	19At Vaudreuil, Que	2 00	18In Yamaska River, Que	6 00	10iPrices pkb Cobic Yard.	Lowest Tenders or 1908.	Scow Measurement.	Bucket Measurement.	Boulders.	Other Materials.	Boulders.	Other Materials,At Blind River, Ont	
At Burlington, Ont	$ cts. 3 00 2 00	cte. 23 20	$ cts. 3 00 2 00	cts. 22 20Lowest Tenders for 1908.	Price per Cdbic Yard.	Scow Measurement.	Bucket Measurement.	Boulders.	Other Materials.	Boulders. '	Other Materials.$ cts.	cts.	$ cts.	cts.At Cobourg, Ont	3 00	18	3 00	18At Collingwood, Ont .. .	2 18	75	2 18	75At Goderich, Ont	4 00	35	4 00	35At Hamilton, Ont	1 50	15	1 50	15At Kincardine, Ont	4 00	35	4 00	35At Little Current, Ont...	1 78	25	1 78	25At Meaford, Ont	2 80	34	2 30	30At Midland, Ont 	2 25	28	1 75	21At Nigger and Telegraph	Islands, Ont	3 00	95	2 50	65At Owen Sound, Ont....	2 75	25	2 75	25At Penetanguishene, Ont.	2 75	19	2 75	19At Picton, Ont	1 00	12	1 00	10At Point Edward, Ont...	1 00	18	1 00	18At Port Burwell, Ont....	1 50	39	1 50	39At Port Elgin, Ont	1 95	22	1 95	18At Rondeau, Ont	l 50	33	1 50	31At Summerstovvn, Ont...	2 50	23	2 25	23In Thames River, Ont...	1 00	20	1 00	20At Thornburv, Ont	2 80	34	2 30	30At Toronto, Ont	
.	1 50	19J	2 0J	15In Trenton Harbour and	Dark Channel, Ont.. ..	1 95	26	1 95	18At Waubaushene, Ont...	3 50	15	3 25	14At Wiarton, Ont	2 75	24	2 75	24At Wingfield Basin, Ont.	3 00	78	3 00	70Castover	17	In Becancour River, Que.	17	At Blanche Shoals, Que..	21	In Chateauguay River,	Que	2 25	22	2 00	15At Dorion, Que	3 90	35	3 00	18At Fraserville, Que	5 00	45	4 75	14In Godefroy River, Que..	13	At Hay Island, Que	3 90	24	3 00	18At Hudson, Que.	1 95	18	1 95	15At rAssomption, Que....	2 00	16f	2 00	10In Maskinonge River,	Que	3 90	3H	3 00	18At Nicolet, Que	4 00	22	3 00	15At Port St. Francis, Que.	1 65	22	1 65	20In River Jesus, Que	1 95	29	1 05	20At Riviere du Loup (en	haut), Que	5 00	21	4 75	14At Riviere Ouelle, Que.. .	2 50	48	2 50	40In Saguenay River, Que.	1 95	32J	1 95	30In St. Francis River, Que.	5 00	18	4 75	14At St. Lambert, Que	1 65	22	1 65	20In St. Maurice River,Que.	10	At St. Pierre les Bee-	quets, Que	1 95	29	1 65	20At St. Placide, Que	3 90	2H	3 00	50At Vaudreuil, Que	2 25	22	2 00	15In Yamachiche River,	Que	5 00	20	4 75	4In Yamaska River, Que..	5 00	18	4 75	14 1
3. ' Hackett,' ' St. Lawrence,' ' No. 5,' ' No. 7,' 'Togo,' ' Trenton,' ' Excelsior,' 'No. 9,' ' Main ' (new), ' Monarch,' ' Edmund Hall,' ' No. 1,' ' No. 14, ' 'No. 1,' ' Mead,'

' Kingsford,' ' 'Chief,' ' Hamill,' * Hamell,'
' Arnold!,' ' Iroquois,' ' Algonquin,' ' Mohawk,' ' Huron,' ' Oneida,' ' Mohican,'
' King Edward,' ' No. 15,' ' Frank,' ' Prince Louis,' ' Prince Gay,' ' Prince Willie,' ' Duke of York,' ' Pontiac,' ' St. Pierre,' ' T. F. Moore, No. 1,' ' T. F. Moore, No. 2,' 'No. 6,'
' Ottawa,' ' Canada,' ' Hercules,' ' Little Giant,' ' Chateauguay,' ' Central City,' 'Capital,' ' Dominion, No. 2,' ' Dominion No. 3.'


SOULANGES CANAL ELECTRIC POWER.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked:
1.	Is not the Soulanges canal lit by electricity its whole length?
2.	If so, does the government itself produce that electricity?
3.	What is the degree of horse-power at the disposal of the government in its workshops on the canal?
4.	Why are not the villages of Des Cedres, St. Ignaee and Coteau Landing lit by means of the same power?
5.	Are those villages situated on the banks of the same canal?
6.	Has the member for the county of Soulanges asked that this be done?
7.	Have any steps been taken to secure this advantage ?
Rt. Hon. Sir W'lLFRID LAURIER (for the Minister of Railways and Canals) :
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.	[DOT]
3.	Approximately 250 horse-power is available at present.
4.	The department has no information.
5.	No.
6.	No proposition looking to the entering into a contract with the department for electric lighting has been made by the villages in question or on their behalf by any person.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PORTER-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked :
1.	Is W. S. Buell, of Brockville, Ontario, in the employ of the government or of the commission appointed to inquire re telephone, &c., in any capacity? If so, what?
2.	Has W. S. Buell been paid by the gov-enment for any services during the past two years? If so, how much, when, for what services, and how was he engaged, by day or otherwise ?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for the Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Mr. Buell along with Mr. Shepley, K.C., has been retained in the public interest upon the application of the telephone and express companies to the Board of Railway Commissioners, for the approval of their schedule of tolls and rates.
2.	He was paid in 1907, $2,514.66 ; he was paid in 1908, $1,064.53; total, $3,579.19. He was retained for the inquiry, and he is being paid at the rate of $30 per diem and expenses.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: 


SKINNER'S COVE BOAT CHANNEL.
Mr. STANFIELD asked :: 1.	What was the amount of contract for the boat channel at Skinners Cove. jNova Scotia, who were the tenderers, what is the amount of each tender, and to whom was the contract awarded ?
2.	When was the work commenced, when was it completed, and what was the total amount paid under contract?*.
3.	What extras, if any, did the contractor receive, for what were extras paid, and what were the several amounts paid as extras?
4.	Since completion of the work has any expenditure been made on the same? [DOT] If so, when were the expenditures made?
5.	Wbat were tbe reasons for making each
expenditure since completion of work under the contract ?	.
6.	What is the total amount to date paid since completion under contract?
7.	Is any further repair or addition to be made to work in current year? If so, what is the reason for such repair or addition, and what is the estimated cost of same?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	(a) $10,965 ; (b) W. J. Landry, $10,965 ; A. W. Girroir, $11,200 ; Hugh McDonald, $12,285 ; (c) W. J. Landry.
2.	(a) 17th June, 1905 ; (b) 1st August, 1906.
(c) Contract work	$10,965 00
Extras	 927 41

3.	Additional	walling andsheathing	$369	91
Extension of protection
work, east side	
245 00 Extension	of protectionwork, west side	
225	00Additional dredging	
87	50

4.	Yes, in November and December, 1907.
5.	To protect the dredged entrance channel.
6.	$822.37.
7.	(a) Yes. (b) Construction of pile, brush and stone works at tbe inner end of pier for tbe protection of the channel leading to the harbour ; also for dredging channel to depth of 8 feet, estimated cost, $6,500.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-AMQUI STATION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked ;
1.	What sum has been voted by parliament for the construction of an Intercolonial Railway station at Amqni, in the county of Rimouski, province of Quebec?
2.	What was the cost of construction of such station?
3.	What was the cost of the changing of the Intercolonial Railway line at the time of tbe construction of the said station at that place?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for the Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1. $5,500.
10013 JUNE 8, 1908 10014	
2.	$5,450. 3.	$5,942.71. RIMOUSKI COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS. Hr. MONK-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked: 1. What sums have been voted by the parliament of Canada for public works in the county of Rimouski, province of Quebec, except for the Intercolonial Railway, during the years 1900 and 1907, inclusive? [DOT] sums have actually been expended in the said county for public'works, with the exception of the Intercolonial Railway, during the said years above-mentioned? Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) : 1 and 2. ,r Appropria- Expendi-Years- tion. ture. Jdic Harbour- 1899-	1900	$ 1,500 J900J	 6,500 $ 1,541 39 1901-	2	 5,400 1902-	3 	 2,500 1,043 78 1903-	4	 1 58 1904-	5 	 5,000 5,044 59 1905-	6	 5,000 4,490 23 4906-7	 5,000 5,969 64 Father Point- 1900-	1	 5,000 3,402 13 1901-	2	 15,000 625 77 1902-	3 	 25,000 22,355 85 1903-	4	 61,000 39,162 26 1904-	5	 40,000 22,115 58 1905-	6	 30,175 30,166 52 1906-	7	 8,000 7,387 95 Pointe des Grands Meoliins- 1903-	4	 5,000 1904-	5	 15,000 3,597 36 1905-	6 	 20,000 727 58 1906-	7 	 20,000 291 56 Les Boules, wharf- 1900-	1	 5,000 2,352 73 1901-	2	 ,10,000 1 81 Matane, wharf- 1899-	1900	 4,000 239 70 1900-	4	 4,000 3,951 08 1901-	2	 4,000 1,411 09 1902-	3	 9 00 1903-	4	 4,500 2,973 34 . 1904-5	 2,000 1,878 36 Rimouski harbour- 18994900	 2,500 2,499 67 1900-	1	 10,300 7,514 19 1901-	2 	 2,505 32 1902-	3	 1,323 32 1903-	4	 50,000 27,236 75 1904-	5	 30,000 26,576 49 1905-	6	 30,000 31,081 03 1906-	7 	 21,100 38,474 11 Rimouski post office and custom house- 18994900	 17 00 19004 	 2 68 1901-	2	 8 55 1902-	3	 29 18 1903-	4	 119 08 1904-	5	 25 64 1905-	6	 26 40 1906-	7	 1,200 445 86 Riviere Blanche, wharf- 1901-	2	 792 86 1902-	3	 750 750 00 1905-	6	 1,000 999 83 1906-	7	 1,500 1,499 97	THE LEE-ENPIELD RIFLE. Mr. SAM. HUGHES-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked : 1.	Is the government aware that within the last two weeks on the Rockliffe range, a Lee-Enfield rifle bolt blew back, inflicting an injury on Lieutenant Wolseley, of Ottawa? 2.	Is it the intention of the government to call in all the Lee-Enfield rifles issued, owing to the number of serious and fatal accidents arising from the use of that weapon? Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence): 1.	On May 9 last at Rockliffe, Ont., [DOT]while target shooting the bolt of a Lee-En-fleld rifle, in the hands of Lieut. Wolseley, 43rd Regiment, blew back inflicting upon him slight injuries. 2.	It is not the intention of the government to call in all the Lee-Enfield rifles issued at the present time. WHARF AT LAKE MEGANTIC Mr. AMES asked : 1.	Is the government constructing a wharf in the county of Beauce at the point where lake Megantic discharges into the Chaudiere river? If so, what expenditure has already been made in this connection and what work accomplished? 2.	Who has been the inspector of said work ? 3.	At what rate per day has he been paid, and for how many days' service? Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) : 1.	(a) Yes. (b) $970.07. <c) The crib substructure supporting outer pier was sunk in place and fully ballasted and the stone approach about one third done. 2.	P. H. Renaud. 3.	At $2.50 per working day. He was paid for 45 days covering all services to-31st March, 1908. TORONTO HARBOUR CONTRACT. Mr. KEMP asked : 1.	What is the amount of the contract for the new western entrance to Toronto harbour? 2.	Was there any provision in the contract that Canadian timber or lumber should be use in the work ? 3.	Is it the intention of the contractor to use timber or lumber made in the United States ? Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) : 1.	$495,000. 2.	No. 3.	Department is not aware what the intentions of the contractor are ; timber supplied must have approval of the resident engineer. *


COMMON'S HALIFAX GARRISON COAL SUPPLT.
Mr. DANIEL asked :: 1.	How much coal is supplied each year for the Militia Department in connection with the Halifax garrison?
2.	What price is paid for hard and soft coal, respectively ?
3.	Is it true that the government pays $4.3' per ton of 2,000 pounds, while the imperial government paid the same price per ton of 2.240 pounds
4.	Is it true that the imperial government
obtained delivery not only in the city but at outposts and forts for the price of $4.35 per ton of 2,240 pounds, and that the present government, in addition to the increased price above-mentioned, pays the cost of delivery to the outposts and forts at a cost of about $1 per ton?	.
5.	What part, if any, of the 12,000 tons is supplied after public advertisement and tender ?
6.	How long have Messrs. George E. Boak & Son, or George E. Boak, had this contract ?
7.	Is it true that the contract is given to them direct by the department without tender ?
8.	What are all the facts in connection with the supplying of this coal and the increase in price to the country, if any ?


Mr.  M. S.@: .
1.	The quantity estimated as; required for 1907-8 was 1,532 tons hard coal and 3,061 tons soft coal. The accounts for the year are not yet closed.
2.	$4.35 per ton of 2,000 pounds for soft coal ; $6.20 and $6.25 per ton of 2,000 pounds for hard coal.
3.	Yes, the contract with the Imperial government was made in May, 1904 ; that with the Canadian government in January, 1906.
4.	The contract made by the Imperial government with the Dominion Coal Company made no provision for an extra charge for * delivery outside city limits. It was originally for one year endin'g May 31, 1905, but was extended from time to time till December 31, 1905. The last extension was for delivery within the city limits only.
The contract made by the Canadian government in December, 1905, after tenders had been obtained, provided that for delivery outside city limits and to outposts, an extra charge of 75 cents per ton would be paid. This extra charge was stipulated for by all tenderers.
' 5. Twelve thousand tons are not required. In December, 1905, tenders for soft coal were obtained from George E. Boak and Company, and the Dominion Coal Company, for the year ending December 31, 1906.
In June, 1907, tenders were obtained by letter from the Dominion Coal Company, A. T. Weldon, and George E. Boak and Son, for the supply for the year ending June 30, 1908. The contract was given to the lowest tenderers, George E. Boak and Son.


William Pugsley: For hard coal competitive tenders were obtained by newspaper advertisement, in June, 1906, from George E. Boak and Company and James Hall, for 1906-7 ; and in June, 1907, by letter from Boak and Son, Dominion Coal Company and A. T. Weldon. The contract was awarded in each case to the lowest tenderer, George E. Boak and Company, and George E. Boak and Son.
6.	Since January 1, 1906.
7.	No.


BRANTFORD STRIKE.
[Stage Direction]
IMr.	iOOCKSHUTT-by Mr. Rocheasked :
Has the Honourable Minister of Justice had any correspondence with the officers of the law at Brantford in connection with the strikers who were under arrest recently in that city for picket duty? If so, what was the nature of such communication?
Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) :: During May, 1908, two letters
were received from the County Crown Attorney at Brantford and one from counsel for members of various trades unions and a reply was sent to each letter.
These letters discussed the provisions of section 501 of the Criminal Code and the true interpretation of the said section and whether any amendment of the said section was desirable.


PAY OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.
Mr. FOSTER.: I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works if it is true, as has been alleged, that the employees of the Public Works Department in Hamilton have not received their April pay, and what is the reason ?


William Pugsley: I am not aware of it but will make inquiry.
Mr. FOiSTER. Probably let us know in the afternoon session.



SUPPLY-PAY OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['We will take Railways first, and, if there is time, Militia.']
Mr. G. W. FOWLER (Kings, N.B.).: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to a certain misrepresentation which appears in what purports to be a letter issued by the Railway Department to its employees. I am quoting from the ' Daily Telegraph ' of St. John, New Brunswick, Saturday, June 6:
Intercolonial Railway employees here have been notified by a circular, a copy of which is posted in the freight shed, that salaries or wages will not likely be paid until further supplies have been voted by parliament.
The circular which bears the name of the late superintendent G. M. Jarvis and is dated from Truro on June 3, informs all concerned

that a letter dated June 2, had been received from the general manager which reads as follows:
I am instructed to advise you that the interim partial appropriation voted by parliament for works and. staff under the control of the Department of Railways and Canals, will shortly be exhausted, if not already so, and that no further appropriation has been obtained from parliament at the present date, and to instruct you to notify the several members of your staff of the position, leaving it to their option to decide whether they will continue work on the understanding that no salary or wages will be paid them until further supplies have been voted.
Similar notices are posted at Moncton and elsewhere along the line. A Moncton despatch says: In view of the circular, employees are wondering whether or not they are to receive any pay this month. The office employees, including men in the shippings, train men, &c., have yet to be paid.
What I complain of Is that those instructions, issued from the Department of Railways and Canals


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What date ?


Mr.   POWLER@: It must have been previous to June 2, because on June 2 the General Manager sent his circular to the different road superintendents. Therefore the instructions must have gone from him before June 1 in order to have enabled him to issue these instructions on June 2. The idea no doubt was to make the people working on the Intercolonial Railway believe that the opposition were preventing them from getting their pay. As a matter of fact, however, the Minister of Railways has never asked this parliament for Supply to pay the employees of the Intercolonial Railway or on the canals. Last Friday night, after the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) had moved that the committee rise and report progress, and after midnight when we had been sitting from 11 in the morning, the Minister of Railways- evidently by preconcerted arrangement- rose and said he would like to get some Supply. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) objected that it was very late and that some of the members of the committee in connection with railways and canals, on the opposition side, were not present. The minister demurred to this on the ground that he could not be here on Monday. Well, we know why the minister could not be here on Monday. The minister is not detained by anything in connection with his department from being here; the minister is up in Brockville attending to the provincial elections. The minister has a right, if he sees fit, to take part in the provincial elections, I have no fault to find with that at all. But the minist<>r should not neglect the work of his department in order to take part in provincial elections. We are now going into Supply; if the Minister of Railways were here 318
there would be no difficulty in getting Supply for the employees of his department. But as I say, he has never asked for Supply except in the manner I have mentioned, on Friday night. I say that this instruction that has been issued from the Department of Railways and Canals is absolutely and entirely misleading, and is a misrepresentation of the true situation here. We have been charged with obstruction; and my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B., (Mi', Carvel]) stated the other day that a great many resolutions had been moved by the opposition, who had taken up a great deal of time unnecessarily. Now as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the greater portion of the time of this House, as will be found by an examination of ' Hansard,' has been taken up by lion, gentlemen opposite.


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh.


George William Fowler: My hon. friend says oh. I have carefully examined the ' Hansard ' from the first of this session in November down to the end of January, and during that time hon. gentlemen opposite have taken up a considerably larger portion of the time.


Mr. CARVELL.: Do you include in that the time you devoted in asking questions over Supply?


George William Fowler: The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) has asked a question, I do not know what-he means by that. I have taken very little time in asking questions over Supply; in fact I do not think, if there is any person that can be accused of obstruction on either side of the House, that any one can properly accuse me of having unnecessarily taken up the time of this House. I have taken up very little time, less time than my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell); but the short time I have taken up has been far more effective, so far as the general business of the country was concerned,, than the much longer time taken up by the member for Carleton, because no man can use more words and say less than that hon. gentleman. Now I have examined the discussion of the various resolutions that were debated, the resolutions which the hon. member for Carleton said were silly and absurd. If they were silly and absurd, it is a singular thing that the ministerial members should find it necessary to talk so much about them. Of course my hon. friend, when he made that remark, did not mean it, he only made it for the purpose of getting a laugh from his friends. I find that on the various resolutions that were introduced in this House and discussed from the time we began to sit in November down to January, the ministerial members occupied thirty-eight columns of ' Hansard ' more than the opposition members did -discussing these various resolutions which



the hon. member for Carleton said were silly and ridiculous.


Mr. FIELDING.: What was the number in each case, the totals for each side?


George William Fowler: I can give them in detail, I can show the Minister of Finance how much time he wasted. Now take some of the larger questions. I find that on the address, the Prime Minister used up twenty-five columns of ' Hansard I find that the Minister of Finance used thirty.


William Stevens Fielding: Not on the address.


George William Fowler: Yes, he was the worst offender on the address. Now on the address the opposition used up more columns of the ' Hansard ' than did the government, the government spoke 176 columns, while the opposition spoke 275. But in the debate on the immigration question, the Postmaster General was the worst offender, for he spoke 28 columns. The Minister of the Interior, in that debate, spoke 17 columns; total, 54 columns to the government and only 24 to the opposition, a debit of 30 against the government. Then on the motion for the appointment of a fishery commissioner introduced by the hon. mem-/ ber for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), the government spoke 27 columns to the opposition 12, making 15 against the government. On the British Columbia legislation, the government spoke 22 columns to the opposition one. On the original documents discussion, the opposition spoke 35 columns and the government 11. On the Franco-Can-adian trade treaty, the government spoke) 63 columns and the opposition 44, nineteen against the government. On the seed grain question, the government spoke 22 columns to the opposition 13. On the constitution of the Senate, the government spoke 53 columns to the opposition 50. On the motion of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Air. Ralph Smith) on oriental immigration, the government spoke 57 columns and the opposition none; that debate was confined entirely to the members from British Columbia. On the motion of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Air. Alonk) respecting the FrancojCanadian trade treaty, the opposition spoke ten columns and the government one. Concerning original documents there were two debates; in the one on the motion of the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), the opposition spoke 41 and the government 22. On all these different resolutions there is a total against the government of 38 columns of ' Hansard,' and yet we are charged with obstruction. Now what is true of that time is also true of the balance of the time, and even in greater measure. It is natural that the opposition should occupy more time than the government. because we are here to criticise, to ask questions with respect to these various matters. But in these cases the government apparently desired that Supply should Air. FOWLER.
not pass,_ there can be no other conclusion. The ministers in giving their explanations, have given them very fully, in many cases more fully perhaps than was absolutely necessary, and in this way time has been wasted. But what I object to, Air. Speaker, is misrepresentation on the part of the responsible minister of a department, when that minister knows very well that he has never asked for any appropriation from this House to pay the employees in his department.


William Stevens Fielding: In regard to the number of columns of ' Hansard ' that might be occupied by the respective parties, I have not taken the trouble to make any analysis, but I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that if he wished to go further into the question be should reduce the whole time to the basis of so much per column for th'e average member, and he will discover that inasmuch as our numbers are two to one, roughly speaking, as compared with hon. gentlemen opposite, I have no doubt he will find that the proportion of time occupied by the average member of the opposition is vastly greater than the proportion of time occupied by the average member on the government side of the House.


George William Fowler: That means nothing.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, if there is any thing in the argument at all that is the only way to examine it. But I confess that I do not attach very much importance to that form of argument. It is not to discuss it that I rise to take exception again, and I do it with regret-I think my hon. friend from Kings and Albert (Air. Fowler) must have been out when the discussion came up on a previous occasion-but I am obliged again to take exception to the statement he made as to applications for Supply. The hon. gentleman says the Alinister of Railways never sought the co-operation of the opposition to obtain Supplies. I state again that the Minister of Railways through me, acting for him officially and for all my colleagues, made application to bon. gentlemen opposite for a further vote on account. We received one vote on account, an eighth, and we desired to obtain a quarter. Hon. gentlemen opposite thought it was better to confine it to an eighth. If we had taken a quarter, as we asked, we should have had money in hand to fully meet the needs of the various branches of the public service. At a later stage we asked for a further vote on account. No particular figure was mentioned. Hon. gentlemen opposite-I am not quarrelling with them on the matter or finding fault, but merely stating the facts- when^we made that application in a proper wav. informed us that they were not prepared to co-operate with us and grant it.


Afr. HATJGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: I desire to say a word or two on

the question of obstruction. The hon gentleman (Mr. Fielding) who has just spoken said it is not a question of the measure of time occupied, and that, 1 think, is true to a large extent, for surely any person who considers the matter at ail carefully will realize that the opposition must necessarily occupy more time, if they are to adequately discharge their duty, than is occupied by the government and their supporters. I entirely dissent from the suggestion that in this matter we are to be measured by numbers. If there were only ten men in opposition here, the duty would rest upon them, with even greater responsibility, perhaps, than if there were a hundred. The opposition, whether few or many are bound to reasonably scrutinize and criticise the propositions advanced by the government from time to time, and it is altogether immaterial whether this work is done by many or by few, and it is really immaterial how much time is occupied, so that the time is usefully employed. I, for one, will not hesitate at any time to take up whatever time may seem necessary to discuss any question that may arise in order that I may fairly place my views before that House or the committee as the case may be. I may say, in passing, that from a hasty and somewhat incomplete analysis of the proceedings of this House during the last six months,
I am led to the conclusion that the government have, as a matter of fact, occupied quite as much time as have the opposition. But that is not so material to my mind, as the fact which forces itself upon attention, that, on very many occasions, the government have manifestly put up their supporters for the purpose of marking time, for the reason, evidently, that they had not ready the legislation necessary to bring before the House. It requires no elaborate research to discover that this government, this session, have been notably remiss in bringing down legislation, and that the long time to which this session has been drawn out is attributable mainly to the fact that the government have not put themselves in a position to supply the House with the matters which have to be dealt with before we can prorogue. However I more particularly desire to call your attention to a statement made and repeated in this House in somewhat varied form- insultingly repeated, I may say-by some distinguished members of this House (not always by members of the government), to the effect that the opposition have been delaying the progress of the House and blocking the Supply by the introduction of ridiculous resolutions supported by ridiculous arguments. Now, Sir, I venture to say that it is our duty to place before the people in a succinct, definite form what these resolutions are-or, at least, the main 3181
onesi-and let the public judge whether they are ridiculous or not;-and I think that during the progress of debates the public have judged whether the arguments of the opposition are ridiculous or not.
Down to the adjournment for Christmas, the time occupied by the sitting of the House was very fairly distributed. There seemed to be no effort on either side, as
JW 1 cai!. see' to so very deeply into difficult questions. We had, of course, the address ; and on that address three resolutions were moved by members of the opposition, resolutions which were voted down by the government, but which, I think, will commend themselves to the public. These resolutions I will not read. The first was that of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) calling attention to absence from the address of certain matters of great importance as to the enormous expenditure and-what I think is evident to every one-the very serious mismanagement of the government on many important questions. Perhaps we could hardly expect that the government, at that early stage, would adopt that resolution. They did not adopt it. Then came the amendment of the hon. member for East Lamb-ton (Mr. Armstrong) in reference to rural mail derivery, a question which the government will have to face, a question on which,
I think, many hon. members will find it difficult to explain to their constituents why they took part in voting down that resolution by a straight party vote. Then came the amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) in reference to the Quebec bridge, a matter which the government will have to explain and answer for, but which I will not discuss here further than to say that, on this question also, some hon. members will find it difficult to explain the votes they gave. There were certain other matters under discussion before the House rose for the Christmas recess. We had the very interesting resolution moved by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. A. A. Wright) in reference to the hours for adjournment. We had the motion of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in reference to the Anglo-Japanese convention, with a necessary, but short, discussion. Then came the resolution of the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. J. T. Schell), a supporter of the government, in reference to the Transcontinental railway. Then we had the very full, interesting and useful debate intro-troduced by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) occupying-and quite properly, I think-a very considerable time and confined, 1 believe, entirely to supporters of the government-of that I make no complaint. Then we had, concluding the part of the session before the Christmas vacation, the question on the

motion of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) in reference to Japanese immigration, in which the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and a number of others took part.
Now as to the resolutions brought forward after we reassembled on January 8, which have been characterized as being ridiculous. The first was very concise-not at all ridiculous in wording-and the government met it and resisted it. This was the motion of the hon. member for St. Antoine which was as follows :
That an order of the House do issue to the proper officer for a return laying upon the table of this House the original applications and tenders in respect of timber berths 1107, 1108 and 1171.
That invoked a short but very decisive discussion. The government took a definite position on the subject, mainly at the instance, I take it-and compelled to it very probably-by the attitude of the Minister of the Interior. And the government's supporters, to a man, by a straight party vote, voted down that resolution and affirmed the principle that the members of the opposition have no right to have access to the public documents of this country. That motion was followed on the 21st by a motion of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) in these words on going into Supply :
And the question being proposed; Mr Borden moved in amendment thereto, that all the words after the word 1 that ' be omitted ana the following substituted therefor:	subject
to such consideration of public policy as can be validly urged in any case it is the undoubted right of the people's representatives, in parliament assembled, to be informed ot everything necessary to explain the policy and proceedings of the government and for that purpose to have an opportunity of seeing and examining all documents connected with the transaction of public business; and the denial of such right by the government justifies the refusal by this House of further supplies to the Crown.'
That followed very closely upon the resolution I previously read, but, strange to say, this government then, as on many occasions, pursuing a peculiarly vaccilating policy, came down and accepted it. You would have thought that would end the matter, that the matter would have been definitely settled, but not so, Sir.


Mr. DUNCAN ROSS.: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. gentleman in order in referring to
record of the 21st, but every supporter fell into line. The resolution upon that occasion was moved by my hon. friend from Bast Hastings (Mr. Northrup) in amendment to the motion to go into Committee of Supply, and was :
That all the words after the word * that ' in the proposed motion be omitted and the following substituted therefor: ' subject to such considerations of public policy as oan be validly urged in any case members of parliament have the right to have access to all the records of the government and to all archives.'
It is pretty difficult to see in principle what the difference is between that resolution and the resolution of the 21st, but it does not always seem to be necessary to find a difference in order to justify hon. gentlemen opposite in taking a different position. Therefore, we find them voting down that resolution and thereby swallowing themselves on the position which they had previously taken.


George Eulas Foster: I think that resolution was an exact transcript of a statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister.


Mr LENNOX.: If there was any difference there ought to be the difference of the additional merit which it might possess in the eyes of hon. gentlemen opposite by reason of the fact that it was a literal transcript of the words of the right hon. Prime Minister.


Mr. JOHNSTON.: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I ask if the hon. member (Mr. Lennox) is in order?


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) will not be permitted to discuss these resolutions.


Alexander Johnston: He has been doing so all along.
Mr. SPEAKER, He can illustrate the point he is making as to delay or no delay.


Haughton Lennox: That was the attitude of the government on the 24th January, but to follow the transaction, to trace the history of this government as to this


Duncan Ross: Mr. Speaker, I again call your attention to the fact that for purely obstructive tactics


George Eulas Foster: I rise to a point of order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman who has first risen has the first point of order.
Some hon. -MEMBERS. Order.
a previous debate?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think this is in illustration of the point that is under discussion.


Duncan Ross: For purely obstructive tactics


George Eulas Foster: I rise to a point of order.


Haughton Lennox: We found that the government were going back upon the policy they had adopted on the 21st and a discussion which arose was determined on the 24th by a straight party vote in which the government not only went back on their Mr. LENNOX.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: What is the point of order?


Duncan Ross: I rise to a point of order.


George Eulas Foster: I assert that my point of order be taken because it would prevent-


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) is plainly out of order. The hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Ross) rose to a point of order and I have not heard what that point of order is.


George Eulas Foster: In making that point of order he imputed motives-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Eulas Foster: -and it is


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Eulas Foster: -on that point


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Eulas Foster: -that I raise the point of order.


William Stevens Fielding: Let the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo present his point of order and then we will take the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Foster) point of order.


George Eulas Foster: I rise to know whether the hon. gentleman has the right or not-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Order. Let the hon. gentlemen both take their seats for a moment. If I understand the position it is that the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo rose to a point of order, and in the course of his statement of the point of order he stated that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) who had the floor was proceeding for obstructive tactics. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) then rises in the midst of the point of order that the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo is taking, to take the point of order that the suggestion that the hon. member who has the floor is taking the course he is for obstructive tactics, imputes a motive to that hon. gentleman. That, of course, is a proper point to be taken at any time.


George Eulas Foster: Then I rise to that point of order and ask you if-


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Order.


Duncan Ross: In order that my point of order may be properly before the House I have no hesitation in withdrawing the suggestion that they were purely obstructive tactics.


George Eulas Foster: That is all I want.


Duncan Ross: My point of order is that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) is relating the history of numerous debates that took place in this House during the present session and that consequently he is not in order.	-


Robert Laird Borden: If I may be permitted a word in so far as this is concerned, the statement has been made that the time of the House has been wasted by ridiculous motions supported by senseless arguments. It is perfectly proper to call the attention of the House to the nature of the
motions which have been offered during the session.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think that is the proper position, that he can illustrate the point which the hon. gentleman started out to make, namely, that members of the opposition have not obstructed, by a reference to past debates without discussing them. But if he attempts to discuss any motions that we have had before the House or to make a reference to a past debate otherwise, he will be subject to being called to order.


Haughton Lennox: I quite recognize, Mr. Speaker, that I have no right, and I do not propose to try to discuss the merits of what has beeii discussed before. I merely want to show what we have done that has been complained of and the motions which have been characterized as ridiculous and which it is said have been supported by ridiculous arguments. That vote on the 24th was followed by a statement of the premier that he would make a statement on the following Monday, which he did, and which brought us to the position that the government then surrendered unconditionally. On the 13th February, however, we found that the difficulty had arisen in another quarter, and consequently my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) was compelled upon this same question of public documents, to move this resolution :
The Committee on Public Accounts is constituted for the purpose of affording full and free examination and inquiry into the receipts and expenditures of public moneys and the circumstances in connection herewith.
That in the public interest the greatest possible freedom of investigation and inquiry should be -enjoyed by the committee.
That any action of the majority of that committee in excluding evidence, or restricting inquiry should be the subject of appeal to this House, and upon request for that purpose the necessary report of the proceedings ought immediately to be ordered.
By a straight party vote that right was denied. That disposes of the question of public documents. I shall now refer to other resolutions, some of which intervened, On January 15 we had the resolution of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) which did not occasion a division owing to the fact that amendments to it were moved and so the debate was shunted off. Mr. Cockshutt moved :
That in consideration of the great congestion that at present prevails in the labour market in many of the industrial centres throughout the country, it is highly expedient that assisted immigration, excepting only the agricultural and domestic servant classes, should immediately cease, and^that no further bonuses shall be paid to individual agents or companies for sending or bringing in such immigrants. Further, that the time has come for the strict enforcement of the law that requires that only the financially, morally and


Haughton Lennox: 


Duncan Ross: I wish to rise to another point of order. As I understand, the hon. gentleman is attempting to answer an argument that was advanced on Thursday or Friday last to the effect that hon. gentlemen opposite were using obstruction.


Haughton Lennox: No.


Duncan Ross: My point of order is that that debate was disposed of last Thursday or Friday and the hon. member cannot now renew it, that the proper time for him to have made his speech was when the statement was made, not to-day.


Haughton Lennox: I am not confining myself to the somewhat extravagant language used by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) the other day, blit I am talking of the attitude assumed by the supporters of the government and their press outside the House and on the public platforms from one end of Canada to the other.
On March 10 we had a resolution by the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) moved in amendment to Supply:
That all the words after the word ' that' he struck out, and the following substituted therefor: ' in the opinion of this House tenders received by any department of the government should be immediately placed in safe custody under seal so as to prevent any possibility or suspicion of tampering, and should be opened in public at the time and place mentioned in the advertisement and in the presence of at least three of the principal officers of the department; and the persons so tendering, or their duly authorized agents, should he at liberty to attend at the said time and place and see such tenders opened and recorded, if they so desire.'
That was voted down by a straight party vote.
On March 12, we had the resolution of the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) on going into Supply, as follows:
That all the words after the word ' That ' be struck out, and the following substituted therefor: ' the revenues of Canada belong to tbe people of this country and should be expended in the public interest;
And that this House condems the action of the present government in expending public moneys on works which are really for the benefit of favoured corporations and private individuals and not for the, public benefit.'
The supporters of the government, one and all, saw their way to voting down that resolution.
On March 16, we had the resolution of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) in reference to cigarettes. Mr. Blain moved:
That the object of good government is to promote the general welfare of the people by a careful encouragement and protection of whatever makes for the public good; and by an equally careful discouragement and suppression of whatever tends to the public disadvantage.

That the smoking of cigarettes has been proved by overwhelming testimony to be productive of serious physical and moral injury to young people; impairing health, arresting development, weakening intellectual power, and thus constituting a social and national evij.	.
That the legislation, licensing and restricting the sale of cigarettes has not proven sufficient to prevent these evils, which will continue while the public sale of the cause of the mischief is permitted to go on.
That this House is of the opinion, for the reasons heretofore set forth, that the right and most effectual remedy for these evils is to be found in the enactment and enforcement of a law prohibiting the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes; and that it is expedient to bring in a Bill at this session to prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes. .
Mr. Clarke moved in amendment thereto;
That all the words after ' disadvantage ' in the 4th line of the proposed motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor^
' That the smoking and use of tobacco in any form has been proved to be injurious to the physical and intellectual development of the youth of the country besides encouraging habits of idleness. That the legislation now in force restricting the sale of cigarettes, cigars or-tobacco has been ineffectual to wholly prevent these evils. That this House is of the opinion that the most effective remedy for the existing evil is to amend the Criminel Code bo as to make it an offence for persons under eighteen years of age to use tobacco in any form for smoking or chewing or to have possession of tobacco for either of such purposes, and also for the sale or gift of tobacco in any form to persons under eighteen years of age. That it is expedient to bring in -a Bill at this session to give effect to this resolution/
Although the hon. member for Peel on subsequent occasions endeavoured very strongly to get a vote upon that, he has not, by reason of private members' days being taken by the government, been able to get a vote. I am not able to characterize it under the ruling of the chair, I believe, any further than that. On March 30 we had the following resolution moved by the hon. member for North Toronto :
Mr. Poster moved, that all supplies purchased for the use of the various departments of the government should be procured on the basis of public tender and contract, under the direction of a competent purchasing commission, and with regard primarily to quality and price.
The government and their supporters voted down that resolution as being ridiculous and absurd. On April 23, we had a resolution in reference to immigration moved by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) on amendment to going into Supply :
That all the words after the word ' That' in the proposed motion be_ omitted and the following substituted in lieu thereof:	' while
recognizing the importance of legitimate well directed efforts to encourage desirable immigration, this House declares that it is time to cease paying a bounty at so much per head to agents for immigrants coming to Canada.'
This was voted down by a straight party vote. On April 30, we had the following resolution moved by the hon. leader of the opposition in amendment to Supply :
Mr. Borden moved in amendment thereto, that all the words after the word ' That ' be left out and the following substituted therefor : r the investigation conducted by the Civil Service Commission was confessedly partial and incomplete.
That the proposed inquiry before Mr. Justice Cassels is unsatisfactory and insufficient, inasmuch as it relates to only one paragraph of the report of that commission and touches but a portion of the administration of one department.
That this House regrets the deplorable extravagance, waste, inefficiency and maladministration revealed by that report and declares that immediate steps should be taken to reform and redress the same.
That the public interest imperatively demands the appointment of an independent commission with full powers to make a thorough and searching investigation into the several departments of the public service.
This was voted down by a straight party vote. On May 19, on going info Supply, we had this resolution moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle :
Mr. Lake moved in amendment thereto, that all the words after the word ' That ' be eliminated, and the following substituted therefor:
' this House regrets that the present government has permitted the improvident alienation of immense areas of valuable timber lands which are now held for speculative purposes to the detriment of the people, and records its opinion that such full and unrestricted investigation should be made and such available proceedings taken as may be necessary to revest in the Crown any timber lands m respect of which fraud or imposition has been practised/
And the government voted down that resolution by a straight vote of themselves and their supporters.


Duncan Ross: Mr. Speaker, let me renew my point of order. With reference to rule 16 Bourinot says, on page 479:
No member, in speaking, can refer to anything said or done in a previous debate during the same session.	.
My point of order is that the hon. member is placing on * Hansard ' in concrete form all that has been done by the opposition this session. I do not think he is within the rules of the House in saying that such a resolution was defeated and such a resolution was passed. It surely comes within the category of things done in the House.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Speaker, I propose to proceed. I do not propose to argue that kind of interruption.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I have to rule on the question.


Haughton Lennox: X suppose so. I am quite willing to take your ruling.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The liOB. gentleman is obliged to hear the ruling. Hon. members are in the habit of making remarks of that kind which are quite out of place. My ruling is this. X can hardly think that the matter under discussion has been the subject of past debate, and my rulings have been based on that view. In the next place, I think that practically everything the hon. member has been saying thus far is in illustration of the point he has been seeking, rightly or wrongly, accurately or inaccurately, to make, namely, that the opposition lias not been obstructing the business of the House, and to that extent I think it is permissible. I do not know just how far the point which the hon. member has taken as to references to what has been done, has force in it ; but at the present moment I cannot rule that the hon. member is out of order in what he has said.


Haughton Lennox: In saying that I was quite willing to take the ruling Mr. Speak, er, I think you will bear me out that I am always willing to take the ruling of the chair. I was only proceeding on the supposition that it was not necessary to discuss the question. The next resolution I propose to refer to, in combating the statement which has been made from time to time, that the resolutions have not been important or worthy of full discussion, is a resolution moved by the hon. member for Sherbrooke on May 21, as follows :
candidates whose competency has been established through open competitive examinations, conducted under a non-partisan civil service commission/
Whatever the reason may have been, the members of the government and their supporters saw fit to vote down that resolution. On May 29, the last resolution to which I will refer was moved by myself on going into Supply, in reference to the debate affecting the Minister of Militia :
Mr. Lennox moved in amendment thereto, that all the words after the word ' That' be struck out, and the following substituted therefor: 'this House is of the opinion that ministers of the Crown should not be connected with associations or companies seeking contracts, aid or subsidies from the government of which they are members.
That resolution, after a most vigorous debate on the subject which had originated it, was accepted by the. government.
Now, I had intended to refer to a number of matters which have occupied time during the session, introduced by members who are supporters of the government. Not that I complain at all of those resolutions. Some were very interesting, some were of practical importance, but many were merely academic. However as I am anxious that we should get into Supply as early as possible, I shall not take up time in referring to those, more than to say that an examination of the record will .show that the government seems to have been actuated by a desire to get time. These motions were brought up from time to time by government supporters, just as we were in good position for proceeding with Supply, and take up a great deal of time, and some of them were mere theoretical motions which might very well be dispensed with.
Mr. Worthington moved in amendment thereto, that all the words after the word ' ThatJ in the proposed motion be left out and the following substituted instead thereof :
'the dealings of the Department of Militia and Defence in connection with the adoption and maniifacture of the Ross rifle as an arm for the defence of Canada have displayed deplorable inefficiency, have been characterized by gross extravagance and improvidence and have impaired public confidence both in the alleged efficiency of the rifle and in the management of the department/
That was voted down by a straight party vote, a very small vote, it is true, on both sides of the House, as it was during the current Ontario elections. On May 26, this resolution was moved by the hon. member for North Toronto on going into Supply ;
Mr. Foster moved in amendment thereti that all the words after the word ' That ' h left out and the following substituted therefor the civil service system of Canada should b based on merit and character alone, and th appointments thereto should he made froi Mr. ROSS.


Mr. J. W. DANIEL (St. John City).: I cook the trouble to look over the month of April to see how the oratory was apportioned during that month, as between this side and that. I find that the government members took up 436 columns and the opposition 326*, showing a surplus of 109J columns of Liberal oratory over Tory oratory. I find there were two main resolutions introduced-one relating to the Hudson Bay Railway, which was submitted by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knowles), and which took up some little time; the other, proposed by my hon. friend from Jacques' Cartier (Mr. Monk), related to the cessation of immigration [DOT] bounties. In addition to the discussion on these two main resolutions, there was a short debate on the postal mail service introduced by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), and then we bad the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. Lavergne), during one afternoon, moving the adjournment of the House. The hon. member for St. Hya-cintbe (Mr. Beauparlant) had quite a good deal to say with regard to the criminal code

amendments. Therefore, as regards the month of April at all events-the only month I have looked over-I find that the opposition cannot be accused of having taken up more time than the government side. As a matter of fact, they took up 1094 columns less. Then as regards the moving of resolutions, one was introduced by a member supporting the government and the other by a member on this side.


George Eulas Foster: I wish merely to make one or two remarks. In the first place, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the tabulation of the resolutions submitted this session by members of the opposition. I am very glad that they were massed together so that the country may see practically the effective answers to the wild statements made in the newspaper press and sometimes in this House, namely, that the resolutions proposed by the opposition were merely theoretical and designed to waste time. I do not think you can say of any one of those resolutions that it was purely academic. I do not think you can come to any other conclusion than they had the practical object of drawing attention to abuses and proposing a remedy. I am willing to let those resolutions go to the public, and I think no parliament need be ashamed of the discussion we have had on them.
It has evidently become solely the duty of the opposition to criticise the acts and policies of the government. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if we had to depend on gentlemen who support the government to raise a single voice of criticism or dissent along any one of the lines traced in these resolutions, would we have had one of them presented to this House? It does not seem to be considered the function of supporters of the government to raise a single note of protest or criticism regarding either any measure of the government or the estimates. That has to be done by the opposition, and the opposition are here for that purpose. No opposition would be worth its salt if it did not carry out that purpose, and no country would long tolerate an opposition which failed to do its duty in that respect.
Take the estimates. The government have brought forward $100,000,000 or more. Will any one have the hardihood to deny that if it were not for the members on the opposition side, these estimates would all go through practically without a word of criticism? The supi>orters of the government do not consider that they have any duty in that respect. The Minister of Finance would soon set them in their proper place, according to his idea, if they attempted to criticise the estimates. They are here to do the bidding of the government and not to criticise its acts or policy. Just as in the Public Accounts Committee, there would be no criticism or examination of a single item if it were not for the opposition. I am not sure that it was not
the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who made the astounding suggestion a week ago that he thought the opposition ought to pass the estimates without any criticism.
I hope that the opposition will never be so relax in its duty as to fail to criticise the estimates. When millions of dollars are put before us in block sums, it becomes absolutely necessary to find out what this money is wanted for. A vote comes down for $5,000,000 for the post office. It is divided into three items only, millions in each. And this is only illustrative of many other resolutions brought down in Supply. You might just as well argue in favour of bringing in one resolution providing for the appropriation of $100,000,000 for the government, to be spent by their different departments, and pass it through without criticism as to take up this blind mass estimates of millions of dollars for a given department, nothing definitely shown, either by statement in the estimates or by the explanations of the minister as to what exact use is to be made of the money covered by this lump vote. This, I think, the country will quite understand-that, if we are to have an extravagant government, we must have an over-vigilant opposition, that if we are to have a government with so many bad places in its policy and so many worse places in its administration, then the opposition must take the time to thoroughly criticise-so far as it can against the obstructive tactics of the government in committee and in this House-and bring to the knowledge of the country the facts concerning each vote.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the motion is carried, I would like to say that I think it a matter of regret that the Bill to amend the Civil Service Act which is now on the Order Paper, has not been introduced in the House. It is a very important measure. It was first placed on the Order Paper on May 22. In respect of a portion of the delay, I have no complaint or criticism to offer, because the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) was necessarily absent. But he returned some time ago, and it is to he borne in mind that this has stood on the Order Paper for eighteen days, during which time we might have been considering the Bill-for, undoubtedly, it will demand very serious and somewhat prolonged consideration by the House if its terms are along the line stated in the public press. Though the item has stood on the Order Paper for eighteen days, we know no more about the Bill than we did on the 22nd of May last. And there are other government measures not yet before us. We understand that a measure is to be introduced with respect to the Hudson Bay Railway. That has not even been placed upon the Order Paper. Nor have we any means of judging what its terms may be. We were advised in the speech

from the Throne that a measure is to be introduced with regard to the boundaries of Manitoba. But the House, up to the present time, is in complete ignorance what that measure may be. When hon. gentlemen on the other side suggest that the labours of the session should come to an end within five months, it would be well for them to bear in mind that if parliament had ended within that time, each of these three important measures could not have been brought before the House at all. And one, if not two of these measures, was mentioned in the speech from the Throne. It is hardly worth while to look at the matter from one standpoint alone, but we must bear in mind that the most important measures of the session are not yet before the House, nor does the House understand what their terms are to be.


Rt.   H@: It is quite easy to
see the effort made to-day, to cloud the issue which is now before the House and the country.	The motive is quite
transparent and the reasons also. We have been told on the floor of the House by members high and low on the opposition side that Supply would not be granted, the .business of the House would be blocked, the aims of the government would be blocked, unless the government would drop clauses 1 and 17 of the Election Bill. It is easy to understand that this is the basis and motive of the opposition which we have had to carrying on the business of the country. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that, when we introduced the Election Bill, we received the criticisms made by gentlemen on the other side in no unfriendly spirit, not with any determination to force it down their throats willing or unwilling. We received their criticism, I believe, in a fair spirit, with an idea of improving the Bill, and meeting their criticism as far as we might. With regard to clause 1, the motives which have been attributed to us d0 not exist at all. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) stated that, as far as Quebec was concerned, the object was to have the votes of the aliens employed on the Transcontinental Railway on the lists. There is no such intention. We are willing.to meet hon. gentlemen on the other side when this Bill is called up and discuss these questions on their merits and endeavour to meet their wishes as far as possible. We are told that section 17 is an attempt to interfere with the secrecy of the ballot.' I have no desire to discuss. the Bill, but I may be permitted to say that the effect of section 17 in the Bill as introduced is simply to provide that the honest elector who casts his vote shall not be disfranchised either by the accidental action of the deputy returning officer or, worse, by the wilful action of such officer.


Robert Laird Borden: The Bill does not provide more than that. But it may be that there are reasons why even this mild remedy should not be adopted in the public interest. We are willing to discuss that with our own friends to see whether the law should remain as it is, or whether it should be amended. We are willing to discuss whether it should be left in the power of the deputy returning officer to disfranchise any elector, or any ten or twenty electors, or whether the honest elector who casts his ballot should be responsible only for his own action and not made to suffer for the action of another man. But the question is not upon the Election Bill. The first duty of parliament is to vote Supply-and the question of the Election Bill and all other legislation is set aside. Generally, when parliament discusses legislation, the Supply is voted a year in advance, the machinery of government runs smoothly. But through the change that has taken place in the fiscal year, by which it ends on March 31, instead of June 30, the country has been left without Supply and the business of the government cannot be carried on. We did what is always done under such circumstances-for this has happened before-we applied to the opposition to give us one-quarter of the Supply covered by the resolutions before the House. We were not granted one-quarter, but we were granted one-eiglith, which carried us up to about May 15. On May 15, a similar demand was made, but, up to the present time, it has not been granted. The first duty of the House, at the present time, therefore, is to see to it that the supplies are voted. If the Election Bill does not pass, if the Civil Service Bill does not pass, if the Hudson Bay Bill does not pass, the country still goes on- the public will be inconvenienced, some valuable improvements will be set aside, some valuable reforms will remain to be taken up another year, but the country will still go on. But the country cannot go on unless the creditors of the country are paid, unless the civil servants of the country get their salaries, unless the whole machinery of government is carried on- and this is what we are trying to effect at the present moment. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) says that we want the opposition to swallow these estimates holus bolus. No, we do not want anything of the kind. All legitimate criticism can be made, and ought to be made. But, for the last two or three weeks, what have we obtained from hon. gentlemen opposite ? We have obtained the vote for the Post Office, the vote for the Customs and part of the vote for the Department of the Interior.


Mr. LAKE.: And the Mounted Police.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: And the Mounted Police, also-certainly, there could be

no criticism over that. These votes have taken two or three weeks' time. It is of no use to tell us that the opposition is facilitating the business. They may or they may not, just as they choose. But I have to point out to them that at the present time the duty of the government and the duty of the opposition is to see that the wheels of government are not clogged, that the King's government is carried on, that the public service is carried on, that the public servants and the creditors of the country are paid the money that is due them. If our friends opposite at the present time will give us what it is their duty to give us, there will be no difficulty whatever.	[DOT]


Mr.   I@: What does the right hon. gentlemen mean by that?


Wilfrid Laurier: I mean to give us enough Supply to carry on the business of the government.


Robert Laird Borden: Let me direct the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that since the 20th of May the voting of Supply has gone on at the rate of about a million dollars a day.


Wilfrid Laurier: At the rate of a million dollars a day ! And we were told on the floor of the House that if we would withdraw clauses 1 and 17 of the Election Bill the whole Supply would be voted in five minutes. I do not care whether you vote it at the rate of a million a day, or $500,000 a day; what I do care is that every day the government should have enough money at its disposal to carry on, not new projects, but the ordinary purposes which the government have to undertake as a matter of course every year. An hon. gentleman stated some time ago in this House that he was surprised that the government, with so large a majority, could not get Supply. That hon. gentleman surely must understand, and the whole country must understand, that under the rules governing parliamentary procedure, rules which we have adopted from Great Britain and of which we are all proud, every member of parliament has the right to speak and protect himself, the opposition have the right to protect themselves. At the same time, while the rules of parliament give the opposition power to protect themselves, and the right to speak, when the House is in Supply, once, twice, three time, four times, a hundred times, to take up the time of the House for a week, or a month or a year, the only limit which the opposition ought to recognize upon their privilege to speak is their own sense of what is reasonable and fair.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the right hon. gentleman suggest that during the time I have mentioned, the opposition have unduly criticised ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am surprised at the hon. gentleman's interruption. What else have they been doing?


Robert Laird Borden: I venture to say that during the ten days I have mentioned, more time has been taken up by the ministers than by the opposition.


Wilfrid Laurier: I daresay, because the minister had to answer the questions put to him, not once, but twice, three times, again and again, and again; and after the minister had given his answer and his explanation to one hon. gentleman, the same question was repeated by some other hon. gentleman, and the same answer had to be repeated, and the same explanation given many times over. Under such circumstances we have been forced to speak much more often than we should have been. But I leave it to the common sense of my hon. friends on the other side, What else have they been doing but giving usl Supply in driblets, while the time has been going' on? But we have now come to a point when, not only the government, but the opposition must recognize that it is their duty to see that the business of the country is fairly carried on.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Dominion Lands-chargeable to income-* commissioner's salary, $3,200; salaries of the outside service, $321,800.
["I daresay, because the minister had to answer the questions put to him, not once, but twice, three times, again and again, and again; and after the minister had given his answer and his explanation to one hon. gentleman, the same question was repeated by some other hon. gentleman, and the same answer had to be repeated, and the same explanation given many times over. Under such circumstances we have been forced to speak much more often than we should have been. But I leave it to the common sense of my hon. friends on the other side, What else have they been doing but giving usl Supply in driblets, while the time has been going' on? But we have now come to a point when, not only the government, but the opposition must recognize that it is their duty to see that the business of the country is fairly carried on."]
Robert Laird Borden: Why does not the Minister of Railways and Canals go on with his estimates for the Intercolonial ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The Minister of Railways and Canals will be prepared to go on with his estimates to-morrow, I hope.


Robert Laird Borden: The reason I asked that was because we have been told that the members on this side of the House should be in their places attending to public business. If that is a practical observation as applied to private members, it is much more practical as applied to ministers of the Crown.


William Stevens Fielding: The ministers are here to-day. But the Minister of the Interior has taken up his estimates which, in the judgment of the government, are important.


George William Fowler: We would like to have an explanation of this item.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: .The sum of $300,000 was voted last session for the fiscal year 1907-8. It was estimated that the sum of $325,000 would be required for the next year, an increase of $25,000. There are 362 employees to be paid out of this appropriation, and to cover their salaries for the twelve months, the sum of $320,760 will be required, leaving a balance of $4,330 to be used for increases to these clerks who will become entitled to

the same during the twelve months ending March 31, 1909.


George Eulas Foster: Who is the commissioner?


Frank Oliver: Mr. J. W. Greenway.


George William Fowler: The minister mentioned that there were $4,000 required for increases in salaries, hut that $325,000 was required. What does he propose to do with the other $20,000?


Frank Oliver: Since the last vote was submitted to parliament there have been a number of appointments to this service which will take up about $20,000 of the amount, leaving approximately $5,000 which will be available to pay the statutory increases or the increases which will be on all fours with the statutory increases of the inside service.
Mr. FOWLER, Were these appointments rendered necessary by increased work ?


Frank Oliver: The work has increased and must necessarily increase from year to year. I had occasion to explain to the House, when the civil government estimates of the Department of the Interior were up, that although th,e number of homestead entries has not increased since last year, the increase in the number which took place three years ago is now bearing fruit in increased work in the department because of the work entailed by the inspection of homesteads, the recommendations for patents, and intermediate to these, the applications for cancellation. The taking of the homestead entry is the smallest part of the work connected with the land transaction. It is when we deal with the entry afterwards that the work accrues. Commencing five years ago, there was a very rapid increase of homestead entries from year to year, the number having risen from 10,000 to 20,000, to 30,000 and finally to 40,000 and it is due to this large increase that the work to-day is increasing in the department.
Mr. FOWLER, Are these additional officers principally homestead inspectors ?
Mr. OLIVER, There are some additional homestead inspectors, but the requirements run through the whole list of the service. The inspection of a homestead is only one feature of the case. There are applications for extensions, for cancellations, for patents ; there is an enormous amount of work that begins at the land office in the west and ends in the office here.


George William Fowler: That means more clerical work then ?


Frank Oliver: More clerical work as well as more outside work, such as the work of inspection.


George William Fowler: Are the new clerks who have been taken on principally men or women ?


Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: The larger number are men, but there are a number of women.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand it, the expansion of a few years ago is of such a character that it entails a considerable increase in the work ?
Mr. OLIVER, Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: That is why you are asking for this increase so far as it is not devoted to increases in the salaries of officers ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: May I call the hon. gentlemen's attention to the curious itemizing of his estimates in this respect ? You have the huge item of salaries ; I do not object to that There could be no object in the itemizing of salaries. Then you have an item of $100,000 for contingencies, the information in regard to which is of a very general character. Then you have protection of timber $100,000; the information in regard to this is also of a very general character, Then you come down to the salary of one carpenter, $914.50. It seems to me to be in curious contrast-huge items of a very general character and then one item for the salary of one special carpenter, $914.50. I do not understand it, although there may be consideration that make these large items necessary in special cases. The minister explained matters in that regard to my satisfaction the other evening. Would it not be possible with respect to an item like this to divide it up a little more without inconvenience to the public service.


Frank Oliver: It would be possible to divide the salary item up but it would be difficult to divide contingencies so that the item would be intelligible and at the same time applicable to the case.


Robert Laird Borden: You may desire to have it general in order to have the money available for a purpose that may not be foreseen.


Frank Oliver: Yes, for things that may not be foreseen. We know that the services will be required but we cannot tell how much will be required for each. As to this unfortunate carpenter's salary, he is not in any of the classifications that are covered by the general vote, and, of course as we are ground between the upper and nether millstone of parliamentary criticism and the Auditor General's check, we have to put his salary into the estimates in this way.


George William Fowler: Is he at Banff or at Ottawa ?


Frank Oliver: Ottawa.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems clear that he cannot be regarded as a contingency or he would not be by himself.	[DOT]


Frank Oliver: No.


George William Fowler: I notice that the vote for the protection of timber comes under this heading. Have you added a number of fire rangers or taken additional precautions for the protection of timber ?


Frank Oliver: We have added two forest rangers.


George William Fowler: In what districts


Frank Oliver: One at Edmonton and another stationed at Sapperton, in the New Westminister district.


George William Fowler: I would call the minister's attention to this very important feature ; that is the protection of forests, not only in British Columbia but in the Northwest. I think that the money expended for the purpose of protecting our forests from fire is money well spent, indeed, and I do not think at the present time the precaution taken is sufficient. I do not believe there are enough fire rangers provided in the west and, particularly since this new Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is going through different wooded sections of the country every precaution should be taken as you have the danger from natural causes in addition to the danger from the ' recklessness of the class of men who are employed upon these railways, who are very largely foreigners, who care nothing whatever for the interests of this country and who would be rather delighted iu doing mischief of that kind just for the sake of seeing the flames arise. I think it is most important that the minister should look into that matter very closely and appoint the necessary number of fire rangers.


Richard Stuart Lake: I would like to ask what the policy of the minister is in regard to the filling of vacancies in the different land offices of the Northwest and in the outside service generally. I asked him a question the other day with regard to filling a vacancy at Edmonton and, from the answer he gave, I understand he brought a man in entirely from the outside, a gentleman who could not possibly have any knowledge of the details of the work and who would have to rely upon the juniors, the men whom he was going to supersede in that event, to coach him and make him familiar with the work that he was going to do. I do not know whether the same policy is being carried on in other parts of the Northwest, but I would imagine that it is an extremely bad thing for the whole outside service to let men labour under the impression that no matter how good their work is, they have no chance of appointment to the best positions going. I would like the minister to give us a general idea of what his policy is in regard to promotion in the outside service.


Frank Oliver: It is very hard to lay down a general policy that would not be chiefly
known, like the rules of English grammar, by its exceptions. In the case mentioned, the appointment was made of a gentleman who had hitherto been outside the service but we believed that by reason of his opportunities he was able to bring into the service ability and advantages that no person whom we then had in the service at that point was able to bring, and we had need of all the men who might be presumed to be of equal standing at other points where they were employed.
I may say generally that while it is very desirable that employees in the land offices shall have accurate knowledge of the routine of the office and of the department generally, in as much as they are from day to day in immediate touch with the people for whose convenience and benefit these offices exist, it is even more necessary that the man at the head of the land office should have such standing and qualification as will be to his advantage in coming in contact with the public at large. We may be able to get men who are perfectly competent to transact clerical work, who can keep in touch with the routine of the office and of the department, who are in themselves in every way creditable persons, but who lack the knowledge of matters and things in the world outside that would enable them to deal satisfactorily with the general public and with the questions between the department and the general public which arise from day to day in those offices and the settlement of which questions is really the main duty of the land agent. Under these circumstances, while we have given due consideration to the possibilities of promotion from within the service, it would not be fair to the House or to the service to let it be understood that the principle of promotion was our leading principle in providing for the outside service. It is absolutely necessary that we should have men in touch with outside conditions and we cannot always depend upon meeting that requirement by promotions from the service. When occasion arises we have to do the best we can and take them from the outside.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Richard Stuart Lake: At one o'clock the minister had been giving the reasons for bringing in men from the outside and putting them in good positions in the outside service over the heads of officials who had qualified themselves for those positions. The reasons which he gave were, to my mind, a considerable reflection on all the officials of the outside service. To say that men who are dealing with the public every day with regard to the special questions which come

before their offices, who Are thoroughly conversant with all the difficulties which arise in connection with those dealings, who understand how the ordinary run of questions are ordinarily dealt with, who know what questions can be decided locally and what questions have to be referred to headquarters-to say that these men are not as competent as anybody can be to deal with the usages of a land office is to my mind a reflection upon them. It is all the more of a reflection to say that they are not as competent as men brought in from the outside, with possibly no experience whatever of official life and having to learn all the duties after they come in. This must have an extremely bad effect on the members of the civil service. The Civil Service Commissioners in their report referred to the outside customs officers as men without hope. Unless the minister is careful, that will be the condition of members of the outside service of the Department of the Interior if this course is constantly pursued. Difficulties are inevitable in dealing with the many questions which come before these land officers if you bring in men without official training-men who are placed in those positions probably for services rendered to the party. However, much such men may wish to lay aside all partisan feelings in taking up a position of that sort, it would be impossible for them entirely to divest themselves of party feeling. Many cases have come to my notice in which I have been unable to avoid the feeling that local officials have allowed party bias to influence their judgment in dealing with the cases which came before them. I think that must inevitably be so if you bring in men without proper training for the positions which they are to occupy and who are being promoted for party services. The minister and'his senior officials here may say honestly that they desire to administer the land laws without any bias or party favour, but if they are being served by men who are strong partisans I think they will find it impossible to prevent party bias from creeping into the service. When the minister was speaking of the Edmonton case, he spoke of there being no one on the spot as -well qualified in his opinion as the man he brought in for the position of land agent there. It struck me that the first idea in his mind was that it was necessary to make a promotion of some one who happened to be in the land office at Edmonton. I think that would not be a good thing for the service. Where a man shows himself to have done his work well, it does not matter whether he happens to be in the particular suboffice where the vacancy occurs or not, and it should be possible for the minister to bring in the most efficient man he can find in the outside service to fill the position. Men should be encouraged to do their work well with the hope that if they do it properly Mr. LAKE
they will be entitled to promotion at one time or another. I would like to ask the minister whether within the last couple of years he has brought in any others to take positions in the outside service who have not already been doing work in the service?


Frank Oliver: In establishing the new office at Moosejaw the gentleman who was appointed agent was from the outside. In the new office at Humboldt the agent appointed was from the outside. In the case of the Lethbridge office we promoted a man from the staff as agent. In the Regina office we also promoted a man from the staff. In each case we acted according to what we thought would give the best results in the public interest.


Richard Stuart Lake: In these other two cases I presume you had to bring in other officials to help the untrained officials put in as agents. What was the reason for the changes which took place in the Moosejaw office? I understood that another official had been appointed as agent and that after he had been doing his work for a short time the decision came that the office was to be closed, and then a further decision came that it was to be reopened again with the new officer in charge.


Frank Oliver: I think my hon. friend must be misinformed. The gentleman now in the office is the gentleman who was first appointed, and there has been no break in the business such as my hon. friend suggests.


Mr. HERRON.: Has the minister any intention of opening the land office at Pin-cher Creek which was closed about a year ago? It is very desirable to have an office there. Our district is thirty miles away from the next subagency and there is a very large settlement extending in every direction. In my opinion there never was sufficient pay to induce a first-class man to keep the place. Would the minister not promise to reopen that office?


Frank Oliver: The reason of the resignation was that the salary paid was not sufficient. The agent was quite an efficient man and did very good work during a number of years. In fact he did so good work and so much of it that there did not remain sufficient to be done to warrant our paying him any increase of salary. A subagency is opened simply as a temporary convenience and does not at all replace the land agency. It is simply to enable people, who are not familiar with clerical work and have some difficulty in putting down upon paper their intentions, to get information from the subagent and deal with a person responsible to the agency. While it is our policy to open these agencies as the press of settlement renders them necessary, it is also our policy to close them when

the need has passed ; and although I would not say that the need has altogether passed at Pincher Creek, yet when the agent saw fit to resign because his salary was not sufficient and when, because of the general settlement of the country, the need for a subagency had decreased, we did not feel called upon to reopen the office.


John Herron: The minister is aware that the settlers have to travel from Crow's Nest Pass all the way to Fort Macleod at present, which is a great inconvenience. Would the minister be disposed to continue the office at a salary of $25 per month ? Even at that price a suitable man might be found.


Frank Oliver: If we could get an efficient and reliable man to act as subagent, I think we would be willing to pay him the sum suggested, but of course, as the business Is not as large as it was some years ago, there Is not the same necessity for a subagent. If however we could get one satisfactory to us to do the work at a fair compensation, there would be no objection to reopening the office.


George William Fowler: Does this cover the cost of the National Park at Banff ?


Frank Oliver: No, there is another item dealing with the park.


Richard Stuart Lake: With regard to the Moose-jaw case, the statement was made in the papers that Mr. Plaxton had been appointed at Moosejaw, that after having had the office open some little time, the office was closed and the papers were packed up and sent to Regina. But after a week or ten days the boxes were returned from Regina unopened and sent to Mr. Plaxton by mistake. In the meantime another land agent had been appointed. Why was Mr. Plaxton dismissed and a new agent appointed ?


Frank Oliver: There was a subagency at Moosejaw and the business of that subagency increased so very rapidly, because Moosejaw is at the western fringe of settlement, that it became necessary to establish an agency there. A large proportion of the business of the Regina agency was transacted through the Moosejaw office. Mr. Plaxton was subagent at Moosejaw, and, as in the case of other subagents, we were not presumed to be paying him a salary for the whole of his time. He had other occupations and only worked for us as a convenience and advantage to the settlement in that direction. When we established a land agency, we appointed an agent and did not appoint Mr. Plaxton. There was no connection between the two positions.


Richard Stuart Lake: Am I to understand that Mr. Plaxton was not suspended?


Frank Oliver: No.


Richard Stuart Lake: And that his services were entirely satisfactory ?


Frank Oliver: I am under the impression there was no complaint. The trouble was that the volume of business became so great that it did not appear right and proper that it should be handled through a subagency.


Richard Stuart Lake: It seems to me that the proper man to appoint would be the man who had been carrying on the work of the subagency in a satisfactory manner and who had got in touch with the people. Another complaint was that the office was removed from a very convenient situation to one much less convenient to the public.


Frank Oliver: That is an error because there is very little difference between the location of the two. One was down a flight of stairs and the other is up a flight of stairs, and both are within a few doors of each other on the same street.


Mr. W. J. ROOHE (Marquette).: How many subagencies were closed in Manitoba during the past year ?


Frank Oliver: I cannot say at the moment.


William James Roche: Why was the subagency at Ranchville closed ?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend (Mr. W. J. Roche) asked the question in the House in the ordinary way, and, if I remember well, the answer was very much the same as I have given in the case of the question put by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Herron) except that in that case the subagent had not resigned. We felt that the settlement of that part of the country had progressed to such an extent that it was not necessary to keep up the subagency. There is no doubt that the subagency is a very great convenience. But we have to draw the line somewhere ; the House would not justify us in establishing subagencies everywhere or in keeping them open everywhere they have been established. The subland agency is more particularly a convenience in the newly-settled sections. A great deal of the business to be transacted with the land office by old settlers can be transacted by letter, whereas entry must be made in person and the presence of the subagency enables the entry to be made by the settler in the vicinity of the land. So, there is a reason for the subagency in the new territory that does not exist in the case of an old-settled section.


William James Roche: If the business had fallen off in this sub-agency, there would be force in what the minister has said. But I am informed that more business was done there last year than was done the year before. I know that the subagent has said-I have had no direct com-

munieation with him-that, judging by the business of 1907, there was more reason for maintaining the subagency than ever before. It was hardly necessary on the ground of economy to close the subagency, as the saving would be only $25 a month, I have had complaints from a number of the residents of the district concerning the closing of this office. A statement has been furnished me of the business of the office in February last. There were six entries for homesteads-proceeds $60-and implements, $15 ; three inspections were made ; there was one abandoned homestead, and there were thirty-two applications for patents. I think that this volume of business would compare favourably with that of any other subagency in Manitoba. Information with reference to the closing of this office has reached me as follows: The subagent, who in years gone by, was a very active politician, during the last provincial contest remained inactive. This did not please the Liberal candidate-who was defeated and who attributed his defeat not so much to the efforts of his political opponents as to the inactivity of the subagent. And it is no secret in that part of the country that this defeated candidate takes credit for having had this agent discharged because of his inactivity in the elections. If the information I have is correct, the business has not fallen off, but increased.
present land office; and I think I have shown that there was no good ground for closing this subagency.


Richard Stuart Lake: Before the Moosejaw question passes, will the minister please tell us what special experience had Mr. Smith before his appointment as agent ? And also, I would ask him whether the minister does not consider that it would be more in the public interest, if, instead of closing subland offices and taking away the business for a week or more, it would have been better to make the transfer on the spot ?


Frank Oliver: As to the office being closed down for a week or more, I can only say that it was an error. I do not know how it can be explained, but certainly it should not have been closed down for a week, whatever the explanation. As to the first question, I may explain that the agent's name is not Smith but Rutherford. I am not aware what experience he may have had with reference to land matters before he was made agent, but our experience of the conduct of that office since Mr. Rutherford's appointment has been eminently satisfactory. We believe we did not make any mistake in selecting either Mr. Rutherford or his staff. It may be to the credit of the staff, or it may be to the credit of the agent, but the office has been exceptionally well handled.


Frank Oliver: I think the committee will agree that the volume of business stated by the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. J. Roche) is hardly sufficient to justify the maintenance of this office. And, if this was an increase over that of previous months, I think it is pretty good evidence that instead of being wrong in closing the office when we did, if we had closed it sooner it would have been better in the interests of economy. But I admit that, once an office is established, it is difficult to get it closed. There is a certain amount of convenience to the public in having the office there, and there are always people who are offended and complain if it is closed. I do not wonder that there are complaints about the closing of this office any more than about the closing of the office at Pincher Creek. I have no hope of ever closing a subagency offic e without complaints being made, and yet I feel that we must close these offices from time to time ns settlement progresses.


William James Roche: The nearest agency is in the town of Dauphin, and the land agency in my own town of Minnedosa has been closed. The people in the section to which I have referred must go aeross the Riding mountains to Dauphin, or must go round by way of Neepawa a couple of hundred miles, or else by way of Roblin on the Canadian Northern. These people south of the Riding mountains are very inconveniently situated to reach the Mr. W. J. ROCHE.


John Herron: When will the minister arrive at a policy with regard to forest reserve parks ? I have had some requests from men who wish to build hotels-temperance hotels, I may say-


Frank Oliver: What ?


John Herron: I say, requests from parties wishing to build hotels at Waterton lake. I understand from the people of the department that the government has not arrived at a policy on that subject. When will the minister be able to state when and how these men can get permits or privileges to build ?


Frank Oliver: As has been stated, we have hardly arrived at a definite policy in regard to these various reserves, because the conditions differ in each reserve. The particular matter to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Herron) refers came before me some time ago, and if any gentleman desires to establish a resort within the limits of that park, I do not think there will be any serious difficulty in our coming to an arrangement if they make a proposition-we can come to an arrangement for a lease of the ground for a term of years. The Water-ton reserve, while, in terms, a forest reserve, is rather of the nature of a park, as it is reserved for park purposes rather than as a forest preserve. It completely surrounds with the Waterton lakes in the

Rocky mountains and is eminently suited for a park.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. What new reserves have been made on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains within the last year ? I saw it stated in the newspapers in the west supporting the government that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) had said, at a meeting of the Forestry Association in Montreal, that all the east slope of the Rocky mountains from the national boundary to the northern limits of the country had been set aside as a forest reserve. Has the government made up its mind as to that ?


Frank Oliver: There must be "some error Somewhere, there has been no such reservation. There is of course the Waterton reservation.


George Eulas Foster: What is the size of that?


Frank Oliver: One or two townships. It is an old reservation set apart many years ago, and was never withdrawn from the departmental reservation. Then there is the Banff Park reservation, and there is also a large reservation at the Jasper House on the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. That is about fifty miles in length from the southeast to the northwest, and extends from the foothills to the summit of the mountains. It will not be as large as the Banff park in area, because the Banff park, in its northeasterly portion, extends out far beyond the foothills of the Rockies. The railway will intersect it at about the centre. These are the only reservations that have been made on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains. But at some future time further reservations may be made.


John Herron: How many forest rangers are employed along the foothills from the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway near Banff to the boundary line-and I would like their names.


Frank Oliver: Mr. W. I. Margacli, with headquarters at Calgary, has charge of the timber business between Calgary and the boundary line. He has the necessary authority to appoint fire rangers at $4 a day whenever, in his judgment, there is danger from fire. He authorizes them to take such measures as may be possible to guard'against fire. I have not a list of those fire guardians who are employed in that part of the country. They are merely temporary.


William James Roche: What check, if any, has the government upon these forest rangers as to the work they do, and the number of days they are employed? I understand that those employed on the Riding Mountains timber reserve are paid $4 a day. Is there any particular time of the year in which they are supposed to do this work ?


Frank Oliver: The timber inspector who authorizes their employment, that is to say, who calls them out for service, checks their diary and certifies to their accounts. They keep a diary for the time they are out. Whenever the timber inspector thinks it is desirable that, in certain parts of the country, there should be one or more fire guardians on duty, he warns them out. They are local men. Of course he has a note of the day when they are supposed to start out. They keep a diary of their operations until they return. He examines these, and certifies to their accounts.


William James Roche: Do they send in any reports ?


Frank Oliver: We get our reports from the inspector who sends these men out. We do not get individual reports from the fire rangers in the head office. They come to the local land office and are dealt with there.


William James Roche: The minister speaks about their being local men. I could understand why it is necessary to have local men. But I am aware of at least one man who cannot be considered a local man. He lives in a town at least fifteen or twenty miles from the nearest part of the Riding mountains. I looked up his account, and I find that last year he put in an account for 112 days. I do not know when he could get in those 112 days, because for months at a time he is never outside of the town, and the impression is that there is very little work secured by the government for the $4 a day.


Frank Oliver: What is his name?


William James Roche: His name is Armitage. You will find it on L- 77.


Frank Oliver: It is in the nature of things that there may be abuses in the method by which we carry on this business, but I do not know how we can check it down any better than we are doing. It will be admitted that it is not desirable that men should be on pay all the year round for a work of this kind. In some years there is a great deal of necessity for their services, and in other years there is no necessity at all. I think the only thing we can do is to keep a watch for abuses, and to remedy them whenever we find any to exist.


George Eulas Foster: What is the German system?
Mr. OLIVER, The German system would not be applicable to the conditions under which we employ these men of whom I am speaking. That is to say that the men simply go out into the Crown lands and do what they can to prevent the starting or suppress the spread of fire.


George William Fowler: Do you have a statutory declaration made by the ranger ?


Frank Oliver: I do not think so.


George William Fowler: Do you not think it would be an additional check if he were to make a statutory declaration as to the distance he travelled and what he did ?


Frank Oliver: I think that is a very reasonable proposition, I will take it into consideration.


Mr. STAPLES.: How many acres of school lands were sold in Manitoba last summer and how much money was realized from the sale ?


Frank Oliver: I have not the information at hand but I will obtain it.


William D. Staples: Is there any definite time mentioned during which these sales shall be advertised and how they shall be advertised ?


Frank Oliver: There is no time laid down in the law, as far as I am aware, but there is a custom which is followed with regard to the time and place of advertising and I do not think that custom has been deviated from.


William D. Staples: Who was the auctioneer last summer in Manitoba ?


Frank Oliver: My memory is that most of the sales were conducted by Mr. Norris.


William D. Staples: Is the minister not aware that Mr. Ingram sold probably as much as Mr. Norris ?


Frank Oliver: Where the sales were not on a large scale I believe Mr. Ingram did make them. In order to ensure, in so far as we can ensure it, the sale to the highest bidder and a fair opportunity to every one to bid, the auctioneer should be under the control of the department. Mr. Ingram is a salaried official of the department who is particularly concerned in the school lands and we have thought that where the sale is not on such a large scale as to require additional assistance Mr. Ingram can very well act as auctioneer. We think that his position is such that we can feel assured that the work will be done fairly. But where the sale is on a larger scale, where Mr. Ingram will be needed to keep track of the books and where we have to employ an auctioneer we think it is better to employ only one auctioneer, a gentleman whom we think we can depend on and who may look forward to further employment if his work is satisfactory. I think we have employed Mr. Norris in a very large majority of cases.


William D. Staples: Are these lands put up at the request of any particular persons or Mr. OLIVER.
under what circumstances are they advertised ?


Frank Oliver: Of course, the province is always glad to have the lands sold provided they are likely to bring a fair price. The decision as to their being offered for sale is arrived at by the Department of the Interior, opportunity being taken of the construction of railways and the settlement of the country concerned when we think that the land has reached, if not its maximum value, at any rate a fair value.


William D. Staples: How is the auctioneer paid ?


Frank Oliver: He is paid by commission except that the amount must not be more than $200 on any one sale.


William James Roche: Did the government sell any land at Fort Saskatchewan last November ?


Frank Oliver: No, I am informed there was no sale. There was a sale advertised, but the upset price was higher than the people seemed inclined to pay so that the sale was abortive.


William James Roche: The reason I asked that question is that I remember reading a report in one of the western papers to the effect that there was a sale advertised to take place at Fort Saskatchewan and the objection was urged that it was a very inopportune time for such a sale to take place, in the midst of the financial stringency when people generally would not be in a position to bid and also there was a misconception as to where the lands were situated. They were believed to be in the town site of Fort Saskatchewan, when, as a matter of fact, the lands were, I am informed, two miles out. The sale would have had the effect of reducing the price of lands and there was very strong objection' to the sale taking place at that time, the general belief being that the bidding would be eonfined to a few favoured individuals.


Frank Oliver: The sale did not take place. In answer to the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) I may say that the area of school land sold in Manitoba year was 102,761.70 acres and the price realized was $1,063,157.


Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY.: I find the statement to which I referred the hon. Minister of the Interior some time ago about the announcement of the hon. Minister of Agriculture at the meeting of the Dominion Forestry Association, held in Montreal on March 12. The ' Calgary Morning Albertan' says :
Montreal, March 12.-The important announcement was made by the Hon. Sydney

Fisher at the Dominion Forestry Convention here to-day that the Dominion government had decided to set aside the whole eastern slope of the Rocky mountains forest area as forest reserve extending clear from the boundary to the extreme northern limit of the country. This vast region, he stated, would he kept free from settlers and held for forest growth which would be cut from time to time under such striot regulations as would preserve it for all time as a forest reserve for the west. The announcement was received with hearty cheers by the delegates.
That statement received a great deal of prominence throughout the press of Canada and I can hardly understand how it is that the Minister of Agriculture would be so reported if he did not make it. The impression has gone broadcast through the west that this was going to be done. Has the matter been discussed or is the minister at liberty to tell the committee if it has been under consideration ? I understand that some ten years ago there was a reservation along the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains and that It was subsequently thrown open, I am given to understand, on the advice or suggestion of the Minister of the Interior. Apparently the Minister of Agriculture must have had some authority for making that statement because we could hardly suspect that he would force himself upon the Department of the Interior and make any such statement as that when there was no foundation for it.
Mr. OLIVER, I think there must be some misunderstanding. For instance in one point the Minister of Agriculture is quoted as saying that it was the intention of the government to make a reservation along the whole eastern slope of the Rocky mountains from the boundary line to either the northern part of Alberta or of the Dominion. My hon. friend is aware that the slope of the Rocky mountains after a certain point is not under the jurisdiction of this government but of the government of British Columbia. As to the fact of their being a general reservation, such as my hon. friend has mentioned, I understand there was some suggestion of such a reservation but I did not understand that it was ever made.


George William Fowler: It is another Instance of the Minister of Agriculture butting into some one else's department. He has not fared as well in this case as in the Militia Department, because the Minister of the Interior does not propose to back up his statement in regard to this reservation.


Frank Oliver: It is a matter between the Minister of Agriculture and the newspapers, not between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of the Interior.


George William Fowler: It shows conclusively that the Minister of the Interior proposes to run his own department.
319i


George Eulas Foster: The matter is important in two ways. I remember distinctly the announcement having been made at a great meeting in Montreal by the Minister of Agriculture, and I remember that all the newspapers heartily approved of the idea of what they thought to be, from the minister's statement, an accomplished fact, namely the reservation of the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains. It is strange indeed that the Minister of Agriculture should go to Montreal and before a very representative gathering from every part of the Dominion make that authoritative statement on behalf of the Dominion government and then, three or four months afterwards, when we come to question the Minister of the Interior who has it in charge he says that no such thing has been done and if I understand him rightly that no such thing has been discussed with any practical idea of carrying it out at the present time. That is a very reprehen-sive proceeding on the part of one minister of the government and, as my friend has just said, it is not the first time that the Minister of Agriculture seems, to have spoken very recklessly and entirely apart from the record. If it was not done, it certainly was in harmony with all the resolutions passed during the last ten years by the forestry meetings, and by what we may call in Canada the authorities on forestry. I remember that in this House not long ago a speech was made by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of the Interior in which he took up as one branch of this subject the question of forest reserves and showed the immense importance of having forest reserves made and made quickly so that there should not be any longer delay. He was good enough to refer at that time to some remarks made in the House some months before on the same subject, and I understood that the government and the Minister of the Interior very heartily subscribed to those ideas as they were brought out in the general discussion in the House. If the minister has done nothing it rather goes to support what was said in the debate in the House some four months ago that whilst information has been ' being gathered ' and while the statements have been favourable to such a policy the Dominion government is letting year after year pass practically without doing anything. Of course it is of no use to have forest reserves unless the government at the same time go in for a system of preserving the water flow of the country as well, that is setting apart the reservoir sites so that the waters which would otherwise be wasted in overflows might be preserved and be made very useful in the later time when the water was more necessary. The minister knows very well that the United States government has spent millions of money and inaugurated a really wonderful policy in that direction

taking hold of the forest slopes and of the arid regions and by a system of water dams or reservoirs really turning millions of acres, formerly arid and of no use, into very eligible lands which they are selling at a large advance and out of which they will recoup themselves for all the expenses they have gone to and more. But what is of more importance is that at the same time they are keeping the forest reserves and turning arid lands into splendid agricultural lands and thus filling up the country with a very eligible population who go to these lands and do small farming in a tidy and intensive way, making themselves the best producing citizens in the agricultural line.	,
The minister to-day tells us that there are only three reserves, one of them the Banff, which we have had ever since we remember anything almost in our Northwest history, then this little picayune Waterton one, a township or a township and a half which really can hardly be called a reservation and the other one intersected by the National Transcontinental Railway. Those are the three at the present time and that is all we have. Does the minister not think that this is one of the most important questions that could engage the attention of his department and does he not think that most valuable time is passing while he is doing nothing ? Is there not the possibility that the timber areas and water supplies will have passed into the hands of private parties before the government inaugurates a comprehensive policy of reserves ? The minister comes from the west and knows that there is nothing which so agitates the people of that country and will agitate them as this very question. I read a most striking statement by Professor Robertson not more than three weeks ago in which he really called a halt to this self-glorification in which we have been indulging as to the mighty things we are doing in the west. He pointed out that we are in reality doing nothing in the west except shearing the fleece off and making no return or preparation for subsequent growth, that there is nothing like intensive farming and really no proper guarding of the reserves in water, forests and coal ; but that we are simply taking all that comes in sight and laying up no reserve force for a rainy day. That process has taken place in the United States and the United States government has only recently, under President Roosevelt, taken up that large and broad system of 'reserves and of bringing in to the assistance of nature, nature's forces, which heretofore have been allowed to go to waste or to become destructive.
Now, we in Canada cannot commence too soon in that business. The fertility of our Northwest depends on our taking care of our forest reserves and looking after our Mr. POSTER.
resources of moisture. In the southern states and throughout the western states the immense losses from sudden overflows are year after year becoming more and more onerous, and men who give their attention to the subject point out that these losses arise very largely from the denudation of the forest areas. We cannot commence at this work too early; yet I am afraid that the minister is pottering around on non-essentials instead of giving full force to this very important consideration. Some one persuades him to build out here a sort of castle of Chillon in which to immure fifteen or sixteen astronomers who will try to discover a new ring around a planet or the tail of a comet in some far-off nebula. $150,000 has gone into that venture; but $150,000 put into this other matter would yield greater results to this country, and the stars might be allowed to cavort around a little longer without being subjected to the inspection of peering eyes. A man comes to a minister with a telegram, and we build a mint, and spend $600,000 on it; and now we have the mint, and we shall have the loss for ever and a day. In the meantime our western country is crying out for the preservation of those things which are essential to its growth and its continued prosperity. The minister is not doing much, though he is doing something. He takes particular trouble to secure a herd of three or four hundred buffalo at immense expense. It is nice to have the buffalo, but they will not form water reservoirs or keep the forest tracts of the country where they should be. All these things have their proper place, but it seems to me that if we neglect this matter of forest preservation, we neglect the greater thing while bestowing a great deal of pains and cost upon subsidiary things.


Frank Oliver: A mistake has possibly arisen from confusing the two words reservation and preservation. There is not much difference in the words themselves, but there is a vast difference in the meaning of the words.


George Eulas Foster: One is necessary to the other, isn't it?


Frank Oliver: That is where my hon. friend and I do not altogether see, alike. My hon. friend seems to think that reservation is preservation. I do not think that it is necessarily so. With regard to the preservation of the forest areas along the eastern slope of the Rocky -mountains, I would not wish my hon. friend to suppose that the subject has not been considered ; but it has been considered with this in view, that we have a Forest Reserve Act passed with a view to certain conditions, and we find that the conditions prevailing along the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains are such as hardly to make it advisable to apply the provisions of that Act along the

whole slope. We have there deposits of coal ot stupendous amount and value- but they are of no value unless they are operated, and the purpose of the government is, so far as it has any connection with the matter, to secure their operation to the limit. We want as much of them as possible operated as soon as possible. I think I am safe in saying that that is the view taken by the government.


Mr FOSTER.: As much as is necessary for the country's need.


Frank Oliver: As much as is possible to be operated; because we believe that we have coal to spare to all the world, and that the operation of these coal measures for an outside market would add greatly to the wealth and prosperity of our country /and not do ourselves any harm. If the little country of England, with its stupendous population and its stupendous industrial requirements, all dependent on the use of coal, as ours are not, owing to our water-powers, can afford to ship coal to all the world that will buy it-and it is as a matter of fact shipped to all the world, even to its most remote corners-we in Canada with a coal supply in comparison with which that of the British Isles is insignificant, can very well afford to take the same view and make what money we can out of our coal as opportunity offers. That is at any rate my personal view at the present time. The application of our Forest Reserves Act and its limitations to the area to which we look for the operation of our coal measures would be a clash of interests. It would interfere with the operation of our coal measures and the general industrial development along the base of the Rocky mountains. That, however, does not exclude a policy of forest preservation or of reforestation with a view to preserving both the water supply and the supply of timber. With this explanation my hon. friend will see that there is not so very much difference between the statement as It appears in the newspaper and the statement I presented to the House. As I said a few moments ago, the hon. gentleman seems to think that reservation is preservation. On that point I want to take very direct issue with him. We must give opportunity for the investment of capital and the application of energy, enterprise and intelligence in the turning to account of our natural resources, or our natural resources are worth nothing to anybody. They are not worth reserving or preserving unless there is capital and intelligence and energy and opportunity to a reasonable degree to turn them to account. In the United States at the present time and under present conditions, with the stupendous development of population, of wealth, of industry which has taken place in that country, after having shorn the fleece of 99-100 of its value, they
may very well turn round and adopt a policy of preservation, or reservation if you like, in regard to the balance. The time has come when that may very well be a leading policy of the government of that country. Had that policy been adopted when the United States had only a population of 5,000,000 people, had it been then announced that there would be a policy of reservation for the sake of preserving the natural resources of that country throughout all its vast area, we would have had to wait several thousand years for the development that has taken place. There has been a waste, if you like to call it so, of the natural resources of the United States, but there has been there the most phenomenal development the world has ever seen; and I am under the impression that, for the present at any rate, while we should have due care for the preservation of our natural resources, we should also see that there is ample opportunity for the employment of capital and labour in the development of those resources and in turning them to account as contributions to the wealth and prosperity of the country.


George Eulas Foster: At the risk of taking up a few moments more I want to put another view. I do not agree with my hon. friend in the main. I still hold that reservation is absolutely necessary for preservation. I do not mean that the government should stretch its hand over every bit of natural resources we have and lock them up from any private or corporate development. That would be the climax of absurdity. But if you are going to preserve a sufficient amount of our natural resources, you have to begin now. Suppose you give to every corporation and individual with capital to invest all our natural resources, suppose you hurry to put every bit into their hands, what will you have for the state? Now is the time for the government to decide what it ought to reserve and reserve that portion. My hon. friend says, speaking of coal, that the government cannot make these reservations because there are coal areas upon them. But it is quite possible to reserve your coal areas and administer them as they ought to be administered. I do not think it should be the policy of any government to get as many of those coal areas as possible into the hands of capitalists. these are the country's own resources and the country has a perfect right to their usufruct. As they belong to the people, the people have the right to parcel them out as they please with the object of letting the people have at least its fair share of the profits. It is not necessary to give capital all the profit from these areas in order to have them developed. Mr. Whitney did not take that view, and his policy has been of great advantage to the province of Ontario. Under the old policy, the mining areas were sold

-at $3 an acre. Whoever applied for them *and complied with the conditions got them *at that rate. Mr. Whitney reserved, however, certain portions of the Cobalt area absolutely to the government and allowed no prospecting upon them. He had them prospected himself, through the government officers, and there is not the least doubt that there is a patrimony stored up in those reservations of millions and millions of dollars which will ultimately go into the treasury of Ontario. Is not that the proper policy? But if my hon. friend s contentions were carried out, Mr. t\ hitney would sell these areas at $3 an acre in order to bring in capital for the development. Take Cobalt Lake, for instance; there was supposed to be beneath the lake, which is 25 to 40 feet in depth, mineral leads of different qualities, because all along the sides these leads had been prospected. If the old government had been in office, under its policy the 40 acres would have been sold for $120. But Mr. Whitney did not do that. He put them up for sale and tender and he got $1,087,000. And there was no difficulty in getting capital to come in. My hon. friend asked what would the United States have been if they had adopted such a policy? Why, the wealth of the United States people would be to-day immeasurably greater than it is if thirty or fifty years ago they had reserved a propel portion of their natural resources in timber lands, coal lands and mineral lands and had kept them until the present to be operated by corporations or private parties or the state as they might think best. A-nd the one thing which the best people in the United States deplore to-day in connection with this great question of capital and labour-the few rich and the many poor-is the improvidence of the state m having put too much its great natural resources into private hands instead of keeping them for the public good and giving the people their share of the profits. My hon. friend is anxious to get the coal areas in the Northwest opened up so that we may export our coal into every country in the world. I do not think that any well-wisher to the people is anxious for such consummation. He says that Great Britain has been exporting its coal a century and more. So it has, but to-day the British people are up against a coming failure of their fuel supply, and before many years you will find the people of England very chary of selling for export the only available fuel reserves they have. Canada is supposd to exist for more than a hundred years, for more than twenty-five centuries, and I am not at all anxious that we should too rapidly use up our coal reservations in the Northwest by sending out our coal to every country in the world in order to realize immediate profit. Our great natural resources are as much a national defence as the arms which we put into the hands of our soldiers. In this Mr. FOSTER.
great competition between nation and nation, when coal is the only fuel we have left, the last thing in the world that Canada should do is to denude itself of its coal areas. If we should, future generations will curse the policy which disembowelled the earth of its fuel resources and distributed them to strangers for the sake of the little profit obtained at the time.
I believe that a country has just as good a right to defend itself by keeping its great coal area to itself, and its pulpwood and timber to itself-for the same remark applies to these-as it has to engage in any other defensive measure. Why should we hurry and rush to get our timber cut down and exported in exchange for a small sum of money, when, for centuries to come, our own people in increasing numbers will want timber ? Rather we should regard this as a fund held in trust for the whole of Canada for the whole of the future, and we should make it a policy that not one stick of timber shall be taken off without making sure that another is growing to replace it. Reforestation rather than a spendthrift destruction for export of these natural resources should be the policy of the country. I invite my hon. friend to think over these things in the night watches, to consider what I have said and see if he cannot revise his opinion, and, by all means, get a hustle on and reserve these water resources, timber resources and mineral resources as far as proper. One thing more I ivould like to ask him : Is he taking any steps in regard to the large forest areas that have already gone into private hands, so as to have regulations made by which these forests shall be perpetually kept up ? They have been granted, and for a song, and it will add, of course, to the value of the grant if the government makes regulations which make the supply perpetual; but the country has so great an interest in the matter that I 'would rather see this than see it left in the hands of these speculators to denude these areas of their timber. I think the minister ought, with all the wisdom there is in his department, to give his attention to how it is possible to preserve every acre of timber and prevent it being denuded, keeping it as a perpetual producer for the benefit of the people of this country, even though the benefit inures directly to the individuals who, at the present time, are the fortunate possessors.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) has placed a proposition before the House, as it appeals to my mind, of having you cake and eating it. I do not think he has been able to make clear how that end is to be arrived at. He said that, if the United States fifty years ago, had adopted a policy of reservation in regard to its natural resources, that country

would have beea vastly richer to-day. We cannot tell what would have been the case had a certain policy been adopted fifty years ago. But I submit that the most valuable asset of the United States-admitted in all the rest of the world and admitted in the United States as well-is the individuality, the energy, the enterprise, the industry of the people of the United States. And, had it been the policy of the government of the United States at any stage of the history of that country-a policy which, of course, would have been impossible in the temper of the people-to put up the bars against the exercise of the energy, enterprise and inventive spirit of the people there could not have been the development, the prosperity, the success that there has been. It is because the forests have been cut down, it is because the earth has been 1 disembowelled of its coal ' and of its iron, it is because these natural resources have been turned to the uses of man that the United States is as it is today. Take the case of Ontario, this very country. Given conditions as they are on the continent of America to-day outside of the province of Ontario, and the province of Ontario would be more valuable if it were covered with the trees with which it was covered a hundred years ago than denuded of its trees as it is to-day. But had the province of Ontario and the rest of the continent remained (covered with trees during all these years, there would have been no value in the province of Ontario to-day. You must give opportunity to the application of energy, intelligence, enterprise and industry, or you have no value. What I am trying to impress upon the minds of hon. members is that the natural resource has not, of itself, any value, it is made of value by the application of the energy, intelligence and industry of man in supplying the needs of man-in that way and in no other. There is a time coming-it has no doubt come in the history of the United States, and it is coming in the history of Canada-when there will be a sufficient aggregation Of accumulated wealth and of population and of surplus energy, for a policy of reservation and preservation and special care of the natural resources that remain to be entered upon. But I submit that the fact that this time has arrived in the history of the United States is no evidence that it has arrived in the history of Canada. It is, however, a fact that we should be unworthy of our position if we did not learn by the experience of others. Recognizing what has taken place there, we may recognize also what has been done to couple preservation with enterprise, and that is the object of our policy at the present time. We hope to achieve a reasonable measure of preservation of our natural resources so that they may be turned to useful account, but it is not to the degree suggested at any rate by
my hon. friend a policy of reservation that would prevent them being turned to account by the energy, enterprise and industry of our people. To get away from generalities, and to deal now with matters of more detail, speaking of our policy in regard to coal, under the regulations by which the coal lands of the west are administered at the present time, we do not contemplate the alfenation of these areas except on condition that they shall be operated.


Robert Laird Borden: Tnat is the present policy ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Within what time must they be operated ?


Frank Oliver: Within a year from notice given by the government.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: On lease.
(Mr. OLIVER. Yes, and the lease is conditioned upon their being operated within a year from notice given by the government. That is the point I want to -show-the difference between reservation and preservation, between reservation and development. We are not handing out-as I think my hon. friend suggested-the coal areas of the country to private hands; we are holding them in the hands of the government until the time arrives when they can be worked at a profit. And then our policy is that the opportunity shall be there to the firstcomer, the first man who is prepared to take them over upon the terms upon which we otter them which terms involve their operation.


George William Fowler: Have you increased the size of the area that may be given to one individual under the new system of leasing instead of selling ?


Frank Oliver: Our regulations do not provide for granting more than four sections to one individual, but they do provide that several individuals may combine their interests. When we sold, we onjy sold half-sections.


Robert Laird Borden: In the form of lease you adopt, is there a certain ground rental and a royalty ?


Frank Oliver: Yes. The ground rent is $1 an acre a year ; the royalty is five cents a ton.


George Eulas Foster: Can that be raised by the government ?


Frank Oliver: I think not during the terms of the lease.


George Eulas Foster: Is there any system of computation as to acreage payment and royalty payment ?


Frank Oliver: A coal lease is available to the first comer who will accept it on the conditions. We place a ground rent upon the land so that there will be no inducement to any one to hold it unless he

operates it, and the condition of operation is a condition of tlie lease, upon notice being' given. In regard to timber, the condition is somewhat different from that imposed in regard to coal. It is possible that for one reason or another the supply of timber within a section of country may at some future period become exhausted. It is also to be remembered that the timber supply may be renewed while the coal supply cannot. Therefore it is proper that any policy dealing with the disposition of the timber should have as a part of that policy the reproduction of the forest. That is, I may say, a part of the policy of this government, although not yet developed as highly as we hope it will be at some later time. But there are many things to learn in regard to this matter. We have not yet been able to form a scientific system with regard to the widely varying conditions prevailing over our vast territory. We may be going too slowly, but we have to consider the public purse, and we do not like to ask for large sums until we feel that we can assure parliament that we are going to get value for the expenditure. The timber which is under the control of the Dominion government, I may say, is but a comparatively small part of the total timbered area of Canada. Under the previous regulations the principle was the same as that which prevails in regard to coal, that is to say, that the first comer got it on application, subject of course to sale by tender. But now we hold practically the whole of our timber under reservation, and we only offer it for sale when we are satisfied that the public interest requires it. That is an important difference between the former system and the present one. Formerly our timber was open to the first applicant. We did not have to put it up, it is true, but our practice was that tffe timber wTas offered to the first applicant. Now we advertise it to the world when we think that the public interest will best be served by putting up any part of it. This system actually places the timber under reservation.
In regard to the reproduction of the forests, or the reforesting of the present forest area, let me say that while the forest is valuable and while the reproduction of the forest is valuable, the land is also valuable for agriculture. Where there is an area of country that to-day is covered by mercantable timber that is required for the use of the people and when that timber is cleared off the land is valuable for farming purposes, it is a question whether we would be warranted in all cases in insisting upon the reforesting of the area cut off. It is no secret that the Dominion of Canada, in its stupendous area, is not all fertile. We have, it is true, vast areas that are fertile ; but I do not think I can be charged with decrying the country when I say that there are also vast areas that are not suitable for agri-Mr. OLIVER.
culture, but which, in many cases, are covered by timber and in some cases by timber of great value. Now under these circumstances if there are immense areas of country covered by timber the land of which is of agricultural value when the timber is cleared off. it would be a fair proposition to say that we should limit our efforts at reforestration to some extent at least, to those areas that are not valuable, or less valuable for agricultural purposes. That is the policy of the government. There is in the railway belt of British Columbia where the greater part of the timber supply is situated which is under the control of this government, very limited areas of most valuable agricultural land which is to-day covered by timber of great value. There is, however, in that same area a very large proportion of the land covered by timber, which land is of much less agricultural value. My view is that when the timber is cleared off land that is of especial agricultural value, we should not undertake to reforest it. At the same time we should have a well defined and aggressive policy of reforestation, and I will be glad to bring before the House such a policy as soon as we have information at hand, and are able to present to the government a system that we would be warranted in asking the House to support. I wish to confine our efforts at reforestation to the vast area in the railway belt which is of lesser value for agricultural purposes. The same policy will be applied to the three prairie provinces. Where the laud is not suited for agricultural purposes it may be very well adapted to reforestation, init where it is suited for agriculture it seems to me that the greater value is achieved by employing it for purely agricultural purposes because, after all, there is plenty of land callable of producing timber and good timber that is not of great value for agricultural purposes.


George William Fowler: There is a distinction between the different, classes of natural resources which illustrates the difference between reservation and preservation. Timber is a natural resource that reproduces itself while mineral is a natural resource that does not reproduce itself. Therefore, where we have a natural resource which reproduces itself preservation will meet the full requirements of the case without any general system of reservation. If proper regulations are enacted governing the cutting of timber there is no question whatever, that, if you provide a proper fire guarding system, the present supply of timber in the country will be maintained throughout the years that are to come. But, it is important that there should not only be proper regulations with regard to the cutting of timber, but that these regulations should be stringently enforced. Having had some experience wi+h resrard to timber, I see no

objection whatever to the leasing of the timber limits of the country under proper conditions. The difficulty has been in the United States that the men who have been engaged in the lumber business have thought only of the present and have, in taking out the larger timber, destroyed the smaller growth which eventually would make the larger timber and the fact that in the United States there is not a very great timber supply has made it necessary for them to adopt a general reforestation system. I think that at the present time in this country it is not necessary_ and it will not be necessary if we adopt and carry out proper regulations for the preservation of timber. Therefore, I am to a considerable extent of the same view as that which the minister has expressed with regard to the timber supply of the country. I think, that the minister should apply himself to the working out of a proper system of regulations. The regulations we have, in fact, at the present time, are not so bad if they are properly carried out and I think that this question of the timber supply and of the water supply, consequent upon the forest being maintained, will not be a serious question for at least many years to come in this country.
In so far as the coal in the west is concerned, I do not think we need, for many years to come, have a great deal of fear about exhausting the supply. I would be glad to see every ton of coal that is produced in this country used for the production of manufactures so that we would not be shipping out one ton of coal and so that it would not be shipping out a natural product but a product in its manufactured state. But, under the conditions as they are at present, that is not possible and therefore I do not think it would be advisable for us to enact legislation which would prevent coal owners from shipping to foreign countries. We hope the time will come when we can employ all our coal at home because it is a great advantage to us if we can use all our iron, coal, and limestone in the manufacture of steel and iron, but at the present time, I think it would be a suicidal policy for us to say that no coal shall be exported. On the coast of British Columbia the tremendous amount of labour which is employed to-day in the mining of coal, because the coal owners are allowed to ship south when they have no coal, would be turned out of employment if legislation of that sort were enacted. I think that the present policy is an excellent one, that the coal areas should no longer be absolutely alienated but that they should be leased, the Crown retaining control. I think that policy is all right. Perhaps it is not well that there should be an absolute figure fixed for the royalty which cannot be increased. I think that the government should have the power to make a general increase in the royalty. Again, on that question of royalty
it does seem to me that the ease or difficulty with which the mine can be operated ought to have some effect upon the amount of royalty which a man should pay because it has a great effect upon the profit that would be produced from a mine and there should be a sliding scale. I can understand how difficulties might creep in and how favouritism might be used in this case but it seems to me that a distinction should be made, that a sliding scale should be adopted.


Ralph Smith: I would like to ask the minister if he has received many applications for the leasing of coal lands under the new regulations?


Frank Oliver: 1 cannot give the number. We have not had nearly as great a demand for leases as we have had for purchases, but still we have had a very considerable demand. I will give the figures later.


Ralph Smith: With regard to the regulations governing the leasing of coal lands, my opinion is that it would be utterly impossible to get coal lands in the Northwest leased under these regulations because of their stringency. Every' one knows that in coal mining, a large amount of capital is required and if you say to a man: You can have these coal lands, but you must agree to operate them, to pay a royalty and to give up your lease at the expiration of twenty-one year's, you lay down conditions that will make it utterly impossible to get these coal lands taken up and operated. Twenty-one years in the life of a coal mine is nothing at all.


George William Fowler: The leases are renewable?


Ralph Smith: The regulations do not say so. It is entirely at the option of the Governor in Council.


Mr. GALLIHER.: It is the usual way.


Ralph Smith: It is the usual way, but we have to take what they say. A man will not make a large investment if he can only have a lease of coal lands for twenty-one years. The business is one which requires hundreds and thousands of dollars and in my opinion it will be utterly impossible to get the coal lands operated.


George Eulas Foster: The timber leases are only from year to year; yet they are considered to be perpetual.


Frank Oliver: One of the objections that our hon. friends opposite take to the present leases is that there is a provision made that on the fulfilment of certain conditions which are set out the lease will continue so long, as there is timber on the limit.


Ralph Smith: I do not think there is any such provision with regard to coal mining leases.


Frank Oliver: No.


Ralph Smith: I have consulted men who have been operating mines on Vancouver Island with reference to extending their business to the Northwest and they have refused to take any interest i(n these coal areas under the present regulations. As to the contention of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) with reference to the reservation of coal lands, if that were carried out we would not have any coal mined in British Columbia to-day. The principle laid down by the hon. gentleman was that we should simply hand over coal areas in proportion to the demand of the home market. The British Columbia coal mines have developed simply on account of the foreign market which they supplied. Seventy-five per cent of the production of coal in British Columbia to-day is depending on a foreign market. Not a dollar would have been invested in coal mining in British Columbia had it not been that the capitalists who went into these ventures knew that they had a market in the United States. The development of the Crow's Nest Pass mines proceeded upon the assumption that their principal market was in the United States. Of the coal of Vancouver Island for many years 98 per cent found a market in the United States. If the principle advocated by my hon. friend were carried out it would be impossible to operate mines. By operating mines you increase your home market. As a matter of fact within six or eight years in Vancover Island the home market for coal has increased from 10 per cent to 50 per cent; half of the coal of the island is going into the home market by reason of the development of British Columbia, especially the Pacific coast. According to the principle of my hon. friend the coal will have to remain there until you have a home market when, as a matter of fact, it is the operation of coal mines with the increased population and development of manufactures that creates the home market.
I would like the minister 'to consider the possibility of making extensive changes in the coal regulations. Under the existing regulations they have to operate, they have to pay a royalty and they have a lease for -twenty-one years which may or may not be renewed according to the good will of the Governor in Council, which I am informed will prevent the development and operation of coal mines.


George William Fowler: I did not know that the leases were for 21 years only. The royalty,
I consider, is all right; perhaps an acreage royalty might be collected. I think you should have the leases renewable because as my hon. friend has pointed out the operation of coal mines calls for enormous capital. You cannot equip a mine to produce 700 or 800 tons a day without the expenditure of $300,000 or $400,000. If a man has to invest $300,000 and after 21 Mr. OLIVER
years he might be at the mercy of Tiberius, he will be in a serious condition and will not put his money in. You will remove the worst objection if you make the lease renewable.


Ralph Smith: If all conditions are fulfilled.


George William Fowler: If all conditions are fulfilled of course, and if the conditions are not fulfilled, you should have the right to enter at any time and take possession of the property. As to the area I do not believe that four sections are enough.


Ralph Smith: Hear, hear.


George William Fowler: The person going into the business has to get the names of fictitious persons to apply for leases. _


William Alfred Galliher: They may be genuine names but the leases may be assigned.


George William Fowler: But they may not have any interest in the matter. We know that is the case. It is done all around. When we used to sell coal lands, the area wras only 320 acres and of course you had to get people to assign them. I think it better to make the limit double that amount, eight sections. When you are going to invest $300,000 or $400,000, four sections is a small area to work. Coal mining is not all profit, I have had some experience and know that it requires a very large amount of money.


Ralph Smith: I understand that according to these regulations the price at which coal is to be supplied to settlers in the district is fixed.


Frank Oliver: To settlers in the vicinity.


Ralph Smith: Did the coal leases granted by the Crown contain such a provision ?


Frank Oliver: Oh, yes. It was because the previous regulation contained that provision that it was continued in the present regulation, not because I had any personal belief in its merits.


Robert Laird Borden: That period of 21 years does seem a very short term on which to invite the investment of ajarge amount of money in the development and operation of coal mines. The system under the Nova Scotia lease is for a term of 20 years with provision for three renewals, so that the total term reaches SO years, after which the government is not obliged to renew, although, I suppose, under ordinary conditions they would certainly do so. There are also two important provisions in the Nova Scotia statute, section 46, chapter 18 of the revised statutes of Nova Scotia, 1900:
Every lease shall contain a provision that the royalties may be increased, diminished or otherwise changed by the legislature.
And in respect to the renewals to which I referred, it contains this provision :

In any such renewal the rent payable by such lessee may be increased under the authority of this chapter or of any such statute, subject to the provsions of the next following section.
Under this provision the royalty might be increased at the end of each 20 year period. It seems to me that some such system as that would be a good one to adopt in regard to coal lands in the west.


Frank Oliver: When the present regulations were adopted I had in view the operation of coal lands in the prairie rather than in the mountains. The operation of coal mines where the seams are horizontal and regular and the distance below the surface is not great does not require such a large investment. I will confess that I had not in mind, to the degree that I should have had, the application of these regulations to the mountains where the seams are irregular and where the expense of installation of a mining plant is stupendously greater. However, as these are regulations and not statutes it is a matter that can be very easily adjusted, and I may say that the very great demand that was being made for coal lands under the recent regulations seemed to me to have outrun the probability of development to such an extent that I did not think the interest of the country were going to suffer seriously under the new regulations until we had at any rate plenty of time to see them experimentally in operation and to see where the faults and failings lie. I do not presume to be able to foresee every condition and I am very grateful for the suggestions that have been made to me. They have struck me also in this way. The Canadian Pacific Railway have a very valuable coal mine in operation in the Banff park under conditions as to lease and they have a lease for a term of 20 or 21 years. .Everybody knows that they have made a large expenditure and are operating a very useful mine. They are intending to eniarge their operations and require the investment of a still larger capital, but in looking for further capital to increase their operations they bump into the restriction of a 21 year lease. They say to us : We would like to get the privilege of a renewal of this lease and unless we can get that privilege we cannot secure the larger investment that we desire to make, and that is desirable in order that the country should get the full benefit of the coal measures there. Thus the matter has been brought very pointedly to my attention and I think in time we will be able to remedy the difficulty.


George William Fowler: Is there any distinction between the anthracite and the ordinary bituminous coal under the regulations ?


Mr OLIVER.: We have not under our present regulations. The former regulations made a difference, the anthracite was sold at $20 an acre while the ordinary coal was sold at $10 an acre. I do not think it would be advisable to provide for changes in the royalty, at any rate during the term of the lease. I think it would be very proper to arrange that there should be a renewal of the lease, and that at that time the royalty might be changed, but I do not think it would be a proper inducement to capital to hold out the possibility of the royalty being changed during the term of the lease. It would be very much better, if you ask people to invest their money in the enterprise, that you should let them know exactly what the ground rent and the royalty are, during a reasonable period, at any rate. If I were willing to concede any change, it would be in regard to the ground rent rather than the royalty. I may assume that the regulations, as far as they have come under criticism as yet, are reasonably satisfactory and I shall certainly take account of the representations that have been made in regard to the extension of the term.


William Alfred Galliher: Will the royalty be applied to all companies which are now operating mines?


Frank Oliver: No.


William Alfred Galliher: The government propose, however, to levy a royalty on all Hew mines?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William Alfred Galliher: I think the principle is a good one from the beginning, but it rather places the late developer at a disadvantage, because he will be called on to pay a royalty while some of those operating large mines obtained some time ago will not be, and so their coal will cost so much less. I have been written to in regard to this matter of discriminating against the men who now invest their capital, but I presume that the policy has been adopted by the department as being in the best interests of the country and of coal development. With regard to the leasing regulations that have been adopted, I have heard very much the same sentiment as that expressed by the bon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith), that the term of twenty-one years is somewhat short. I can understand the desire of the minister to check some of the applications that were made at large in years gone by in regard to coal lands. At the same time, I would point out that under the leasing system lie is practically placing all the coal lands in the hands of men with capital and beyond the reach of the prospector. Under the old system, which I admit had its abuses, the man who went into the hills and searched out these minerals and who could get to-

gether some of his friends and form a syndicate to purchase a tract of land for coal mining purposes, had some advantage. I do not like the idea of cutting out the prospector. With regard to the twenty-one year lease, I understand that the lease price is a dollar an acre. That means that for the term you are paying $21 an acre for your coal lands, or, if the lease is renewed for another term, $42, and by the time it is renewed for 99 years you are paying a pretty high figure for your coal. If it is decided to be the best policy to continue the leasing principle, I quite concur in the propriety of including in the lease a provision by which the lessee would know that at the end of the period, if he had conformed with the regulations, his lease would be renewed for a further period. I would also favour some reduction in the charge per acre.


Frank Oliver: The point which my hon. friend has mentioned in regard to the prospector is certainly a very important point, and it is one on which I feel quite as keenly as he does, and I am not sure that we might not be able to make some change in the regulations to avoid cutting out the prospector. But at the time the regulations were passed, I think everybody will agree, the prospector was rather overdoing a very good thing-he was getting in his deadly work at a rate which the country could not stand, and it was necessary to cut him off short. However, I appreciate the prospector and the value of his work, and I can assure the House that he shall get every possible consideration at my hands.


George William Fowler: I think after all that the prospector will not be very much the worse. Previously he had to buy the land, now he can lease his four sections.


William Alfred Galliher: He cannot dispose of it in the same way.


George William Fowler: But still we must look at what is going to be in the general interest of the country. Perhaps the government will employ prospectors. I think they ought to do that, to find out where these coal lands are, because they are going to get a larger income from them.
Mr. FOSTER, I see the Minister of Agriculture has come in, and I think I will renew the matter that we could not decide during his absence. For his information I may say that in the course of the information that has been given us, it was stated by the Minister of the Interior that no reservation had been made or was contemplated of the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains. The hon. member for Calgary informed the Minister of the Interior that the Minister of Agriculture had some months ago in the city of Montreal announced to the Forestry Association that the government had reserved or was on the eve of reserving the whole of the east-


William Alfred Galliher: ern slope of the Rocky mountains, and great applause was given to the minister and to the government for undertaking that policy.


John Herron: I have the honour of representing a district where I think the largest coal areas are to be found and the greatest quantity of coal mines of any portion of the Dominion. I shall not take up time by repeating what has been well said by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) and Kings (Mr. Fowler) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). But I wish to emphasize the fact that the development of new mining has practically been brought to a standstill by the system of leasing. The minister may have had many applications for leases of new coal lands but they are nearly all in connection with some coal lands already in operation. Were it not for that, I think I am safe in saying that he would not have had any applications whatever for the leasing of coal areas. I wish to point out the disadvantage a man is under who has only a lease. It is impossible for him to get capital to any extent to open up his coal mine, under the lease system, when the government practically only grant a lease for twenty-one years. The prospector has therefore quit looking over coal. Dozens of men know where there are large coal fields, who do not think it worth while to apply for them under the present system. It is quite true that there were great abuses under the old system but the new system has gone to the opposite extreme. Where a man complies with the conditions of the lease, it would be very easy to continue it. It would be very easy to give him a guarantee that if he complies with the conditions made from time to time by the government, he would be assured of a continuance of the lease for a longer period. It takes a very large amount of capital to develop a coal mine. One company in my riding whose mine has been in operation only four years, has put in two sets of machinery, their last set cost them over $400,-
000.	Another company has spent in developing work mostly, in the way of machinery and a railway, over $4,000,000. It is impossible to develop a mine without from $250,000 up to several millions, and no one will risk that money under the present lease system. I would recommend the minister to make some provision by which, if a man is going to open up a mine, he will have a lease for a longer period than twenty-one years.


Frank Oliver: I think it will be found that the lease system is not so much against operation as against speculations. One of the most highly developed coal properties in the west has been developed under the lease system in the Banff park. This is the Anthracite coal property, now oper-

ate<l by the Canadian Pacific Railway. True they would be better off if they had a longer lease or if I could arrange so that they would have a longer lease ; but the fact nevertheless remains that out of the five or six mountain mines now in operation, this one is under lease and has the most thoroughly equipped plant of them all.


William Alfred Galliher: That was long before the present regulation,


Frank Oliver: Yes,' under regulations which applied to Banff- park alone. Those regulations are to a great extent the basis of the regulations now applicable to the whole country.


William Alfred Galliher: Is the lease the same as at present 1


Frank Oliver: Practically the same.
Mi'. GALLIHER. As to time ?


Frank Oliver: Yes, it does not provide for a renewal, but I think the difficulty can be overcome in the case by legislation. If I should come down with a Bill asking for an amendment, my hon. friends will understand that the question has been already before the House. There have been leases issued to the number of sixty-four since the 15th June, 1907, under the present regulations. Quite true, a good many were in order to add to property already held under purchase; but, on the other hand, there are also a number of applications for leases, for operation as separate mines. True it is that the inducements which formerly existed to prospect for coal-that is to say the speculative inducement-does not exist to-day; and I am free to admit that that speculative inducement was a right and proper, and up to a certain time, necessary feature of our coal development. We could not, in all human probability, have reached the development we have attained to-day under the existing regulations. There had to be in the beginning the element of speculation, but it seems to me that we have now reached a reasonable measure of development, and the spirit of speculation having absolutely run wild, it was thought the proper time to put the industry on a basis of development rather than of speculation.
I submit that, with the provision for an extension of the lease on the conditions being fulfilled, the present regulations are more favourable for actual operation than the former ones. The fact that a number of operating mines have taken out leaseholds under the regulations is fair evidence on that point. But to clinch the matter absolutely, the former regulations provided for the sale of the lands and coal area at $10 per acre, subject to a royalty of ten cents per ton. The present regulations provide for the sale of the land-if you like to call it so-at $21 per acre and a payment of royalty of 5 cents per ton.
Now, if you calculate the amount of coal contained in an acre of ground and figure it at 5 cents a ton, you will find, in operation, the land that was purchased at $10 an acre has, in many cases, cost vastly more than that which is leased.


Ralph Smith: But in one case they own it and in the other they do not.


Frank Oliver: Precisely-in one case
they do not have to operate it and in the other case they do. 'Consequently, the element of speculation was very pronounced under the former regulations-though, as I have said, those regulations were prefectly proper up to a certain point. That element of speculation was too strong to be allowed to continue in the present condition of the country and especially in view of the fact instanced by the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Galliher) that there had been already alienated some of the best areas of coal-bearing lands in the grants to the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Calgary and Edmonton Railway, and the homestead lands given to settlers before the imposition of the royalty. And the fact that we were selling coal lands on a royalty of 10 cents per ton alongside lands that carried no royalty kept out of operation the land that we were selling. We have reduced the royalty by half so that there is only 5 cents a ton between the coal mined under our regulations and coal mined free of royalty. Therefore, there is not the same bar to the operation of coal lands held under our present law as there was under the system of purchase which prevailed before.


John Herron: Has the minister come to a settlement with the companies in the Crow's Nest Pass that have applied for a rebate ?


Frank Oliver: The companies operating in the Crow's Nest Pass have applied for a rebate or remission of royalty, but so far, we have not been able to give either, and they are required to pay the royalty according to the terms of their purchases.


Mr. SGHAFFNER.: First, I would like to ask one or two questions in connection with section 10, 17, 17 west of the 4th meridian, concerning which I have been trying to get information for a client of mine in Winnipeg. On June 1, I asked the following question :
1.	When and to whom was patent granted for section 10, 17, 17 west of the fourth meridian?
To this the hon. minister replied:
1. Homestead entry has been granted for the four quarters of this section, but no patent has yet been given for the surface rights to any of the four homesteaders.
As I understand it-I am not well acquainted with these mineral districts-the

surface rights of a given area may be granted to one party and the mineral rights to another, in that case, what protection has the man owning the homestead right against the man who has the mineral rights?


Frank Oliver: The homesteader owns the surface, but the man who acquires the mineral right, if 'he is operating his coal lands, has rights, practically, of expropriation against the surface holder.


Mr. SCHA  FFNER@: I understand that these parties made application to homestead. It is the second part of the question and its answer that I particularly cannot understand. The question was :
2.	How many applicants were there, what were the names of the applicants, and what was the date of each application?
And the answer of the hon. minister was:
2. No patent has yet been granted for the mineral rights under the section in question, hut there have been five applicants for these mineral rights.
Then follow the names of the five applicants. Now, does the minister mean by this answer that the mineral rights have not been disposed of ?


Frank Oliver: I have no intimate knowledge of the instance to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Schaffner) refers, but judging from what he has read I should say that the mineral rights had not been disposed of.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That is what I took from the answer, and sent off that information to my client in Winnipeg. But he was not satisfied; and, on going to the department, I found that these rights had been disposed of.


Frank Oliver: Let me revise the answer. I understood the hon. member to read a direct question asking if the rights had been patented. The question was how many people had applied. The answer did not convey the information that none of these applications had been granted.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: However, I find that the mineral rights have been disposed of. Perhaps, I misunderstood it, but I gathered that these rights had not been disposed of at the time I asked the question. But, from information I get, I understand that they were disposed of on March 20, 1907.


Frank Oliver: Disposed of to one of the applicants named ?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: To two of the applicants named. But my client seems not satisfied that these were disposed of at the time his application came in. However, the point is the patent had not been granted, but two applicants had rights on two halfsections, though apparently the patents had not been granted.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: 


Frank Oliver: They have not completely paid for it, and therefore they have not got the patent yet.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I asked a question the other night with reference to this Turtle mountain timber reserve, and the minister was not in a position to answer at the time, but said he would refer to it on the next occasion the matter came up. Has he now the information in regard to the resurvey of the land there ?


Frank Oliver: The townships in two ranges, 20 and 21, were subdivided in 1879. The lines were marked with wooden posts, and the marks are now obliterated. A resurvey of these townships has been asked for several times. As most of the lands have been patented and have passed out of the control of the Crown, it was not considered to be the duty of the government to take care of the boundaries. But a resurvey can be undertaken when all the owners or persons having interest in that land shall agree to accept the new .survey and abide by it. Should such an agreement be obtained, the request for a resurvey will receive careful consideration. The land having passed out of our hands we claim that we are relieved from the duty of making a resurvey. A survey made by us now would not affect the rights of the patentees unless they gave their consent. Therefore, while we are willing to go on and make a resurvey, it is absolutely necessary, in order that it may be of any value, that we first get an agreement by the patentees to accept that survey.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I think that is satisfactory as far as it goes. But I think I asked, about two years ago, if a part of this had not been resurveyed. I am told by the settlers that about two years ago a part was resurveyed and iron stakes were put down, but the work was not completed.


Frank Oliver: My information is that the question was asked of the Surveyor General, and he says the request had been made, but that no resurvey had been given.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: In regard to the timber reserves in these two townships to which we have been referring, I understood the minister to say that the forest rangers made no report directly to the government, but they made a report to the inspector, and he reported to the government.


Frank Oliver: That is as regards the fire rangers, men who are in the transient employment of the government, in the wooded country. But I think that the men who are employed regularly within the forest reserves do report to the head office.
Mr. SCHAFFNER, In the Turtle mountain reserve, for instance, there is one forest ranger who is permanently employed.


Frank Oliver: He would report direct to Ottawa ; but the men whom he employs, would not.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Has he any other du* ties outside those of forest ranger? I refer to Mr. Charles Wakinshaw, forest ranger of the Turtle mountain reserve.


Frank Oliver: My impression is that he is assigned to the duty of looking after the timber and the general interest of the forest reserve.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What the minister said a few moments ago in reference to reforestation bears out the principle I have been contending for in this House for two or three sessions. I fully recognize the necessity of reserving these forests, if we can do anything with them in view of our climatic conditions. The minister said that after the timber was cut on these so-called reserves it was not always advisable to replant them. I agree with that. I have brought this matter up several times, and more particularly in connection with this very reserve, that part of it which is in township 1, range 21, west of the 1st meridian. That is an illustration of what the minister has been saying. We have a forest there in township 1, range 21, over which the fire swept some years ago, and the timber on it has been practically all destroyed. I stated the other day that all the new timber, trees two, or three, or four years old, in this whole township, could be put into two sections, that would be only two sections out of thirty-six. I took pains to drive over that township last fall, and I say that it has all grown up with grass ; and as I stated the other day, no one knows better than the present Minister of the Interior that trees and grass cannot be grown together. Quite a lot of that land has been cultivated by so-called squatters, though I believe they are now practically all off. But I am confident we can never make a success of growing ti'ees in that particular township. Now the township east of that, which would be township 1 in range 20, I think can be made a success as a forest reserve, but I am confident that township 1 in range 21 cannot be made a success. I agree with the minister that this is a township which comes under his definition, it Is a township that will be useful as farming land. The best of wheat can be grown in the greater part of that township. I have asked before that some inspection be made of that township, because I think it is useless for us to plant trees upon it. Some men have planted trees this year, but they have sown seed on only a limited area of that land which has been cultivated. But undoubtedly seed that was sown on that land which was cultivated last year would grow, because we have had heavy rains. I am talking of the general principle of planting and I would like if the minister
would look into the conditions prevailing in that township. If I am wrong I am willing to take back anything I have said. If we can get timber to grow there that is what we want. However, these settlers are confident that the efforts to establish a timber reserve in that particular township will be a failure and if it will not make a timber reserve they think that these squatters should have their rights recognized. If in two or three years my opinion with regard to the township prevails and this land is open to homesteading, and I have no doubt [DOT]in my mind that it will be, then, I say, that a moral if not a legal injustice will be done to those who have been there for quite a number of years. These men have met with great hardship during the last winter and I do not think it is out of place to make a short statement in connection with that matter. They were promised land away up in the north some place, a great many of them went away last fall and I understand they had a very hard winter. I had a letter with regard to the matter this week. Certain privileges were offered them, they were to get hay and other provision was to be made for them and I understand that some of them have not been very well treated. Although these men had no right to squat on that land they did so and were there for a number of years. They erected buildings and cultivated the land. They were ordered off last fall and perhaps rightly, but if that land is thrown open these men should know it as early as possible and they should receive due consideration. I would like very much that the matter should be looked into by the Minister of the Interior this summer. I do not see why we should not have a proper inspection made. Who is the inspector over Mr. Wakinshaw-Mr. Stevens ?


Frank Oliver: No, Mr. Knechtel, a Canadian by birth who has had experience in scientific forestry in the United States, is the superior officer in the west of the forest rangers who are employed directly on the timber reserves and we depend upon his report from actual examination for final action in regard to these reserves.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Does he live in Winnipeg ?


Frank Oliver: His headquarters are in Winnipeg.	,


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: How long has he been in the employ of the government ?


Frank Oliver: He came into the employ of the government on the 1st March, 1908, and went west immediately.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Can he have authority to inspect this township ?


Frank Oliver: I propose that he shall make a very careful inspection of the Tur-

tie Mountain reserve. His first orders were to deal with these squatters who had been removed and see that the promises made to them were carried out. I have had some communication which would lead me to believe that he has done so and that the conditions are much more satisfactory than they were formerly.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I do not say that is not possible. Will he make an inspection this summer to determine whether it is suitable for a forest reserve or not


Frank Oliver: I will certainly assure my hon. friend that it will be inspected by Mr. Ivnechtel. I could not say definitely that a determination will be reached because such a question might depend upon more than the present appearance of the locality. It might require some little time to reach a conclusion.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: If that township is inspected and it is determined that it shall be opened to homesteading will these people be reinstated or will they receive any consideration ?


Frank Oliver: I think that is looking pretty far ahead. These gentlemen had no legal right upon the land, they squatted on that land which was under departmental occupation, they were, under the authority of parliament, required to be removed and we gave them as much consideration as we could in their removal. They have taken land under ordinary homestead right elsewhere and I do not see that they would have any prior right should the township be reopened for settlement at a later date.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: They have not all taken up homesteads in another place. Some have gone up there but the land did not suit them as well as in the Turtle mountains and they have not taken up homesteads. I think it would be only fair that these men who spent several years on these lands and made improvements there should be reinstated.


Richard Stuart Lake: I wish to make a few remarks with regard to the granting of the townsite of Buchanan on the Canadian Northern Railway. The papers in connection with this matter were brought before the Public Accounts Committee and after several attempts I managed to see them while they were in charge of an official of the department. But, I was only able to glance through them very quickly as the official was anxious to get away. I would like to give to the committee the result of the few notes I was able to make and to ask the minister if he will give an explanation of some of the points which stand forth in regard to this question. The townsite is in one of the odd numbered sections which was included in the Doukhobor reserve. It is the northwest quarter of section 35-31-6 west 2nd meridian. At the time that the Mr. OLIVER.
correspondence opened the land was in the possession of Dimitry Soochochen, a Doukhobor, who was the owner of the quarter-section in the early part of 1905. The first matter of interest in the file is a communication from the agent at York-ton on the 29th June, 1905, forwarding Dimitry Soochoehen's abandonment of the north west quarter. I made inquiry in this House as to whether Soochochen had received any consideration for the abandonment and I was given the answer by the minister that he had not. Now, the information comes to me that he did receive a very considerable consideration, that is to say that he got the title to another quarter-section, or rather the title to another quarter-section was vested in Peter Veregin, head of the Doukhobor community, but of this I cannot speak with certainty. On receipt of this communication from the agent at Yorkton, dated 29th June, a telegram was sent by the Commissioner of Dominion Lands to the agent at Yorkton dated 5th July, 1905, as follows :
Dimitry Soochochen has abandoned northwest quarter of section 35; allow O. Ramsland to apply scrip forty acres and homestead balance.
No correspondence appears on the file to show how Ramsland came to be an applicant for this quarter-section, but apparently a week or so after the abandonment had been made a telegram is sent to the agent at Yorkton to allow a certain specified individual to make an entry for a quarter section, partly as a homestead and partly as scrip. This is an odd-numbered quarter-section. I understood the minister the other day to say that when the Doukhobor reservations were thrown open the odd-numbered quarter-sections included were considered in the light of homestead land and were thrown open to homestead entry. Apparently that was done in this case, but it seems to me that one principle at any rate was violated, that after an abandonment had been made of the land, instructions should be sent to allow a particular individual to make an entry on that land. I understood that the rule of the department was that the first applicant should have the first right of entry.
On July 27, the agent at Yorkton wrote asking what portion Ramsland should be allowed to scrip. He went on to explain that he understood that the Canadian Northern Railway had located the townsite of Buchanan on the section and he asked to be advised if the area of the townsite and the right of way was to be reserved and if so he wanted the area defined.	,
The next letter appeared to be after some considrabie delay from the secretary of the Department of the Interior to the agent at Yorkton, dated October 13. He said :
It appears A. J. Sinclair (half-breed) allows to scrip south half. Please report all facts.

Have you ascertained where townsite is located ?
It seems to me that throughout this whole question a good deal must have been done by personal communication, because there are several gaps and no letters appear to take up the continuity of the negotiations.
Next comes an acknowledgment of the abandonment by this Doukhobor, which is returned to the department undelivered, and the right to make a second entry which was sent to I). Soochochen. Apparently neither of them reached him, at any rate the papers were returned uncalled for and appear still on the file. If my information is correct, however, the Doukhobor had not much cause for complaint in this case ; he got other land and apparently handed on the title to the head of the community.
On November 2, 1905, the agent at York-ton informs the secretary of the Department of the Interior that Mr. O. Ramsland made homestead entry for the north half of the northwest quarter, on the 5th of August. He goes on to state that his information with reference to the townsite of Buchanan is that the township is not yet surveyed and when surveyed the entire site becomes the property of Mr. Ramsland according to arrangement with the Saskatchewan Valley Band Company.
The secretary of the Department of the Interior apparently wrote Ramsland on December 22, with reference to a letter which he' had sent to the Minister of the Interior, referred to specifically, and which is not on the file :
It is assumed since the scrip was located thereon that the townsite of Buchanan forms part of the south half of the northwest quarter of 35, which has been assigned to you. There could not have been any, objection on the part of the department to half-breed scrip being located on 80 acres instead of the legal subdivision only.
So it appears that the half-breed scrip finally is located on the whole quarter-section. The patent apparently had issued to Ramsland for the whole section, less right of way and station ground. That is in February, 1906. Ramsland abandons some months later the entry to the north half of this quarter-section in order that he may apply scrip to it and take up another homestead of 160 acres.
The secretary of the Interior on May 11, acknowledges Mr. Ransland's last letter and says :
It has been decided to permit you to scrip this land. This will exhaust your homestead right.
Now apparently he is told that he may take this choice between the two courses, either to scrip the whole of the land and exhaust his homestead right or to continue to homestead the portion for which he had obtained homestead entry. Then apparently some one else steps in and protests 320
against this arranged infringment of Rams-land's right to make another homestead entry.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Stuart Lake: Mr. Chairman, when you left the chair I was discussing the question of the town site of Buchanan, and I was referring to the fact that after Mr. Ramsland had been granted the right to place scrip upon the quarter-section upon which the town site was situated, he made a complaint that he was not to be allowed to exercise his right of homestead entry subsequently. I see by the correspondence that apparently Dr. Cash, M.P., the member for that district, complained of the action of the department in informing Mr. Ramsland that in placing scrip upon the quarter-section he had exhausted his right to homestead entry, and that instructions were sent to the land agent at Yorkton by the Commissioner of Dominion Lands that it had been decided that Mr. Ramsland's right of homesteading again had not been exhausted. It [DOT]appears that a little previous to this many of the Doukhobor entries had been cancelled, and that the department had decided that the other three-quarters of this section should be put up for sale at public auction. Instructions were sent to the agent at Yorkton to this effect, with a poster advertising these other three quarter-sections for sale at public auction, and the agent was instructed to give notice that these quarter-sections adjoined the townsite of Buchanan. The instructions went up on May 13. 1907; the sale was to take place on July 8, 1907; but we find that on July 6, there was an application from Mr. Robert Buchanan, a very leading Liberal, I believe, in that district, to purchase one of the quarter-sections. This was granted to Mr. Buchanan, subject to the right of the Doukhobors in tlie property, and there is a memorandum by the chief clerk, dated November 14, 1907, stating that the land was sold to Mr. Buchanan subject to homestead duties. It does not appear in the return what Mr. Buchanan gave for the land. The return does not state that both of the other quarter-sections were put up for sale at public auction; but one of them apparently was sold at public auction for $19 an acre ; and the gentleman who purchased it, Mr. Edward Pinkerton, had in addition to give free right to the Doukhobors to take off their crop and to pay for their improvements. There were eighty acres broken, and he had to pay $2 an acre for this. So that this very desirable quarter-section cost him $20 an acre. The papers are very incomplete. A good deal of the correspondence must have been done privately or the communications may have been personal. At any rate,



this is the way the matter stands: That the government, in possession of the fact that the northwest quarter of section 35, township 37, range 6, west of the 2nd meridian, was destined to be the townsite of the town of Buchanan on the Canadian Northern Railway, agreed, on the Doukhobor who at that time had the homestead right abandoning his homestead, to allow Mr. M. O. Ram-sland to place scrip on the quarter-section and in that way become its possessor; that subsequently, after the cancellation of the homestead entries for the other three-quarters of that section, the government decided to have them put up for sale at public auction; that one of those quarters at any rate was sold privately prior to the public auction to a supporter of theirs, the price not being stated, but carrying with it the homestead duty, so that it may be taken! for granted that the price was not very large. A return has been brought down showing the sales of land during the last year and up to the early part of the present year, and in that return the sale at auction to Pinkerton at $19 per acre does appear, but the sale to Mr. Buchanan of the other quarter-section, with homestead duties attached, does not appear, so that I do not know at what price it was sold to him. At any rate, the whole transaction appears to me to be a very unusual one. and I think the Minister of the Interior should give us an explanation of it-in the first place, why he allowed an odd-numbered section to be taken from the Doukhobor reserve and seripped, and why afterwards he allowed a private sale of a quarter-section to take place just in advance of the sale by public auction, and at a very much smaller figure than it was afterwards found could have been got.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the townsite of Buchanan, as the transactions occurred some time ago, they are not very fresh in my memory. But, as I gather from what my hon. friend has said and after hurriedly looking through the papers


Richard Stuart Lake: I informed the Commissioner of Dominion Lands this morning that I was going to bring up the matter, and I was in hopes that he would have the papers here.


Frank Oliver: I have the papers here. As I said, in speaking the other day in regard to the Doukhobor reserves, the Canadian Northern Railway line runs through what was originally the Doukhobor reserve, and in this case runs through a quarter-section that was entered as a homestead of a Doukhobor. At the time the transaction spoken of took place, in the summer of 1905, we had not arrived at any conclusion as to how we were going to deal with the Doukhobor lands; Those who were in this House at the time will remember that when the estimates of that year were under dis-Mr. LAKE.
cussion, some questions were raised, and I think it was made abundantly clear that the department had very little knowledge of the situation with regard to the Doukho-bors. While the information of the department was in that condition and before we had arrived at any conclusion as to how we should deal with the question, it was brought to our attention that the Canadian Northern Railway desired very much to place a station upon this particular quarter-section.
And, if the station were to be placed there, it is altogether desirable, in the interest of the surrounding country, that the land, or a portion of the land, should be available for townsite purposes. My hon. friend will understand that a station of itself is not of the full value that a station is when accompanied with the advantages of civilization and settlement which naturally arise in the vicinity of a station. Therefore, it seemed to us that it was in the public interest that the wishes of the railway company and of the settlement should be met by arranging that this land should become a townsite. Now, it was impossible, as I understand it, to make any arrangement with the Doukhobor who bad entered in regard to this townsite. His entry stood in the books, and it might have been possible to cancel it under the law as it stood. But I did not feel that we were justified in taking action in regard to these Doukhobor entries by piecemeal. I wanted to decide on some policy before I took action in regard to it, and I was not then in a position to decide upon a policy. Therefore, it seemed to me, when the proposition was made that this Doukhobor should be induced to abandon his entry and another man be allowed to take entry of the land-the other man one who would make arrangements in regard to the town-site-that the country stood to lose nothing, because the land was already entered by the Doukhobor, and he was in a position to exercise his rights of proprietorship, for it seemed to me it would not be well, as a matter of sound public policy, to abrogate these Tights at the time. It was a case in which it was better for all parties that a quiet solution should be arrived at. Therefore, the Doukhobor was allowed to abandon his entry and Ramsland, as the first applicant, was allowed to place scrip on part of it and enter as a homestead for the balance. Now, the reason for the permission being given to place scrip on one part and homestead entry on the other was that Ramsland entering upon the whole of the land as a homestead would be in no better position than the Doukhobor to have the land dealt with as a town site, but if he entered three-quarters as a homestead and placed scrip on one-quarter, if he sacrificed his homestead right for 120 acres and placed scrip on the other 40, he would be

in a position to demand a patent for the 40 acres and to place land on the market for townsite purposes. It was with that in view that Ramsland, being the first applicant after the Doukhobor had abandoned the homestead entry, was given the privilege of putting scrip on a part of it in order that it might be used as a townsite, to the advantage as we believe of the railway company and of the surrounding settlement. As is known, the scrip is issued in 240-acre lots-that is, 160 acres and 80 acres. Therefore, we allowed Ramsland to put scrip oh 80 acres instead of 40 as originally intended and to homestead the other 80 acres, and a patent was given him, I presume, for the 80 acres placed under scrip. Ramsland was then in the position that he had 80 acres of land under patent and 80 acres under homestead entry. It is true we could have held Ramsland to the position, but I do not know* that it would be any particular advantage to the country or any one else to retain him in that position, and, as my hon. friend has said, he was given an opportunity to place scrip on the remaining part and was told, as my hon. friend said, he would thereby exhaust his homestead entry. However, up to that time, we had not arrived at a general policy in dealing with the question of placing scrip upon lands that had been homesteaded'. There were cases when it had been permitted and the homestead right had not been exhausted, and there were cases where it had been permitted and the homestead right had been exhausted. It was represented-il assume, as I have not had time to study the matter-that, for one reason or another, Ramsland was entitled to the best treatment, that is to the right of placing scrip upon the land and not exhausting his homestead right. At any rate, that is the treatment that was accorded him. He was given notice, some time in May, I think, that if he placed scrip on the remaining 80 acres he would thereby exhaust his right. But, on June 1 he was notified that he would be permitted to take homestead elsewhere and that the exhaustion of his homestead right would not be insisted upon.


George Eulas Foster: Why was that ?


Frank Oliver: I am not able to answer that question. I have already explained that decision as to exhaustion of the homestead right had depended upon the circumstances of each case. But, shortly after this, we got out our general regulations for the guidance of the department-something that had never been done before, and, under these regulations, we provided that whenever scrip was permitted to be placed upon a homestead, the homesteader's right was thereby exhausted. We have held to that principle, but, up to that time, we had not established that as a principle. I am 320i
assuming that there were circumstances- or there were, in our estimation circumstances-in this transaction of Ramsland's to entitle him to consideration to that extent.


Richard Stuart Lake: The minister has not made any explanation of the sale in advance of the public auction.


Frank Oliver: I beg pardon. I am not able to give any explanation to that instance. In the return placed before the House, I think last session, a statement is given of the sales that were made, and this return states specifically that the three quarter-sections in question were sold at auction and the prices are given. I am bound to assume that my hon. friend's statement is correct and that the return is incorrect


Richard Stuart Lake: Does the minister's file, show that ?


Frank Oliver: The file does not sho\w that it was sold at private sale but that it was applied for by Buchanan and that he finally purchased it. The return given to me shows that the three-quarters were sold at public auction.


Mr. CASH.: I was present at the sale and the three-quarters were sold at public auction to the highest bidder. One was bid by Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Ramsland was bidding against him.


Richard Stuart Lake: What price t
Mr. -CASH. One-quarter sold at $17 the other at $5, and the other, at a price between the two, about $10 or $12.


Frank Oliver: The figures I have here are $19, $17 and $5 respectively, sold at public auction.


Richard Stuart Lake: How can the minister account for the fact that in the return brought down, Buchanan's name does not appear.


Frank Oliver: Which return ?


Richard Stuart Lake: Return No. 88-R brought down the 21st April last.


Frank Oliver: I cannot answer that. The file does not show that the land was sold to Buchanan at private sale. It shows that he applied for certain lands and got them but does not say that he got them at private sale.


Richard Stuart Lake: In the papers there is a memo, by the chief clerk ' land sold to Buchanan subject to homestead duties.'


Frank Oliver: These three sales were all sold subject to homestead duties.


George Eulas Foster: The minister does not seem to have made an explanation which satisfies himself, on account of his not being familiar with the file. He should take

the first opportunity of making a thorough explanation to the House.


Frank Oliver: Of which part ?


George Eulas Foster: That townsite sale.


Frank Oliver: I suppose it will be agreed that the question of the distribution of the three quarter sections has been settled.


George Eulas Foster: I do not see a complete explanation as to why you told Ramsland that If he scripped eighty acres he would exhaust his homestead rights, and afterwards on June 1, you notified him he would have his homestead rights. The minister said there must be circumstances but did not know what they were. We should have that explained. As to the sale to Buchanan two days before the auction, that ought to be explained.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Cash) has settled that point. He says he was present and saw these three quarter sections sold at auction to the highest bidder, subject to the performance of the settlement duties, and that is in accord with the printed report I have laid on the table.


George Eulas Foster: But the real explanation should come from the papers themselves. The file ought to give a complete explanation, should- it not ?


Frank Oliver: The printed report, which has been before the House ever since the latter part of the last session, says that these sections were sold at auction on the 8th August and that they brought $19, $17, and $5 per acre respectively, realizing a total of $6,453.70.


Richard Stuart Lake: The application of Mr. Buchanan two days before the sale and the statement in the papers show that my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Cash) may have been mistaken. The papers left me under the impression that the entry had been granted Buchanan at that time.


Frank Oliver: In order that we could compel the performance of the homestead duties, the homestead had to be granted.


John Herron: How is the situation of the Blairmore townsite at present? I have heard it reported that the people residing there are not able to obtain patents for their land. Is the owner able to issue a patent at present or how does it stand ?


Frank Oliver: I cannot answer at the moment, but I am under the impression that the patent has not yet been issued. There may be some question of adjustment with regard to the grant of land that was to be sub-patented to Pelletier and Lyon.


Richard Stuart Lake: Another question I want to bring up is the matter of the homestead entries to section 16 of township 24, range 28


George Eulas Foster: west of the second meridian. This is a whole section entered for by a certain Mr. Tanguay and his three sons on the 29th March, 1902. I asked some questions with regard to this particular matter, and the minister will find all that I know about it on pages 3432 and 3433 of ' Hansard.' I asked the minister how many applications there had been for cancellation of two of these homesteads-the two which were held by the sons, namely : the northwest quarter-section and the southeast quarter-section. With regard to the northwest quarter section, the minister said that there had been an application for cancellation on the 19th September, 1903, by W. R. Kane, and that another application had been made on the 4th August, 1906, which the agent had not officially reported. That is to say that the whole number of applications for cancellation with regard to that quarter-section had been two, but that there had been three inspections made by the homestead inspectors of this quarter-section, and that, seven times in succession, extension of time had been given to the holder of the quarter-section.
The date of his entry was the 20th of May, 1902, and extensions were given to him up to the 1st of July, 1907; therefore, for considerably more than five years the land was held for him, although he was not performing the homestead duties. Now,' in regard to the other quarter-section, another son of Mr. Tanguay, Adolphe, made a homestead entry on the 29th of May, 1902. The minister stated that one application for cancellation had been made by W. R. Kane, on the 19th of September, 1903, and that on the 13 th May, 1905, Mr. Robert Brown said that he had applied for an inspection, but this was not officially reportetd. Yet in connection with this same homestead we find that there were three different inspections carried out by officials of the department, that seven distinct extensions of time were given to the applicant to make good his entry ; that he did not put in his residence at all until the 15th of September, 1907, and that after that time permission was given to him to purchase the land. Now the point I wish to make is that there were certain gentlemen applying for cancellation, and that if the persons who had made the entries were not doing their duty, and continued to refuse doing their duty, the persons who had put in the cancellation had the right to get the entry for homestead. I understand that Mr. Brown made an application for the cancellation of both of these homesteads, and he was hoping, up to quite a recent date, to get at any rate the second homestead to which I have referred, that of the southeast quarter-section. I sent to Mr. Brown the answers which the minister had given to my questions in the House, and Mr. Brown stated that they were abso-

lutely incorrect, that his application was still on file, and that he believed that the Mr. Tanguay who held the entry for the southeast quarter had never been a resident. And yet the minister had given permission to have this homestead purchased at $3 an acre, thus depriving Mr. Brown of the right which he undoubtedly had to have that homestead cancelled in his favour. I noticed in some of the correspondence which was sent to me that on the 15th of July 1907, the Hon. Walter Scott, premier of Saskatchewan, w-rote to Mr. Brown in regard to this matter, acknowledging that Mr. Brown and other parties had written to him' about the cancellation of these quarter-sections ; that he was informed that while permission to purchase was cancelled, further extension had been granted the homesteader until the 1st of November following on condition of cultivation and other improvements for the present season. That letter was sent to Mr. Brown. Mr. Scott further informed him that he did not think any good purpose would be served by communicating further about these cases at that time. So Mr. Brown understood that leave of absence had been granted until the 1st of November, and on the 2nd Mr. Brown put in an application for the homestead again. He was met, however, with the statement that the land had already been sold to Mr. Tanguay. I find in the return which was brought down in regard to .the sale of the land that this land was sold to Mr. Adolphe Tanguay on the 21st of October, ten days previously, for $3 an acre, the reason given being that it was his cancelled homestead. Now I would like the Minister of the Interior to give us an explanation of this matter. It seems to me that Mr. Brown had certain rights in regard to this land; it also seems to me that he was done out of these rights, and further, that it is a new departure, according to my idea, that the Minister of the Interior should undertake to sell cancelled homesteads to the persons against whom they were cancelled, especially in cases where, apparently, no residence duty at all had been performed. I would like to ask the minister whether he is prepared to continue these sales of cancelled homesteads in such cases as that, and whether he would make these sales applicable to anybody who chooses to apply for them. It seems to me that the minister must have had very strong reasons to act as he did in this case, and no doubt he will be able to give them to us. I may say further that the following extensions of time were granted to Adolphe Tanguay. It will be remembered that he made his homestead entry on the 29th of Mav 1902 :
Seventeenth November, 1903, until May 1, 1904. On father's representation and promises. April 8, 1904, until May 1. 1905. August 23, 1905, until May 1, 1906; crop destroyed by hail. May 17, 1906, until July 1, 1906; considerable area under cultivation claimed. June 28, 1906, until August 1, 1906. November 12, 1906, until April 1, 1907. May 2, 1907, until November 1, 1907.


Frank Oliver: I am not in a position to give the committee full information in this case and I am sure I will be excused from going into the actual details. I have some indistinct remembrance of it, and I am sure my hon. friend will see that in the stupendous number of cases passing through the Interior Department, some proportion of which come to me for final adjustment, I can hardly be expected to keep in mind many of them, at least, so as to be accurate in regard to details. I have a remembrance of the Tanguay case, but I cannot explain it in detail. However, as it comes to my mind, it is something like this : The father and several members of the family went west some time In 1902. The idea was to settle the members of the family together-the father, two or three sons, and, I think, some sons-m-law. It is frequently the case that a father desires to have his sons and sons in-law settled near him. It may have been that, as the practice of accepting proxy entries prevailed at that time, some of the young men did not enter in person and did not go into immediate residence upon their land. I cannot speak upon that point, but, as I remember the case, Tanguay senior and one or two of his sons and sons-in-law did actually settle on land in this neighbourhood, are settled there yet, are settlers who have made substantial improvements were entitled to their patents and have secured their patents. With regard to these two particular quarter-sections, apparently, for one reason or another, the settlement duties were not properly fulfilled, but. on the other hand, I think the evidence is that a substantial amount of work was done upon these homesteads by the father on behalf of these sons, or by the sons themselves. In so far as I can remember, it was represented to me that when these young men had put in some part of their residence duties and very fully complied with the requirements of the law with regard to cultivation, it had become impossible, in the transaction of their business, to actually settle upon that land, and it was a question as to whether they should lose what they had done, that is lose the value and the advantage of their improvements and residence, or whether they should adopt some means of permitting them to acquire title. There have been many cases in which we have done this: When a settler had, to a measurable degree earned his patent, that is to say, when he had completed practically the duties but had not entirely completed the duties, we were not entitled to give him the patent of a free homestead, and yet it would not be fair, in our estimation to deprive him of the time labour and money which he had expended upon the homestead; we have,

in order to clear the account, in fairness both to the government and to the settler, sold him the land. When a settler had resided upon his land to the full requirements of the law, except, It may be, a few days, a week or two, sickness had intervened, he had made a miscalculation, something had occurred, he had fulfilled the duties, except a small portion of the residence duties, we have, in order that we may be able to give that man his patent, in order that he may not lose the time and labour that he has placed upon the land, sold it to him at a dollar an acre. Then again, if he has been short of his residence duties but has performed his cultivation duties to the satisfaction of the department we have sometimes sold to him, in order to square the account, at $3 per acre.


Richard Stuart Lake: Suppose he has done no residence duties at all?


Frank Oliver: In that case our practice is not to do anything but to cancel the entry. Our information is that these Tan-guays did perforin their residence duties, not to a sufficient extent to entitle them to their land, but that they did their other duties either themselves or through their father in the way of cultivation and imf provements to such a degree as would, apart j from residence, fully entitle them to their patent. It is on that principle that we have made the sale that my hon. friend mentions and of which Mr. Brown complained. It may be that in this case we have erred by being too liberal in our construction of the practice, but, in administering the lands of the country, in order to secure settlement and development, it has been the practice to give every reasonable consideration to the actual settler who is on the land and especially to the families of settlers. My hon. friend knows that it is a definite provision of the Land Act that if a man has ten sons all may acquire patents for their homesteads without ever living a day upon the land ; but by residing with their father they can complete all the duties upon their homestead. While we refuse proxy entries generally one member of a family may make a proxy entry for the other members of the family. It is considered to be sound public policy to give consideration to the desire of families to settle together and it was in pursuance of that idea that the consideration which we have given to the Tanguays was given to them. Perhaps we erred a little, but we believe we erred on the right side in giving consideration to these people and allowing them to protect the expenditures which had been made on their behalf and retain the land in the neighbourhood in which the other members of their family are located.


Richard Stuart Lake: I sympathize with the minister in the position which he takes that facilities should be afforded to families to settle together. But, in this particular case, iMr. OLIVER.
apparently one son, to whom permission was given to purchase his homestead, never performed any residence duties at all until a month before the purchase was permitted. The gentleman who brought this matter to my notice apparently is under the impression that the son has never set foot upon the land at all even up to the present time, although the government state that he had gone into residence just a month before permission was given to him to purchase the land. I think it ought to be understood that if proof can be adduced that no residence duties at all have been done in a case of this sort cancellation ought to take place. The minister agrees to that.
Another point is that Mr. Brown says he made application for cancellation of both these quarter-sections at different times. In one case the minister apparently has no record of his application. In the other case he simply states that Mr. Brown says he put in an application but does not know whether that is the case or not.^ These applications for cancellation are important particularly in regard to priority, because if a man knows that the duties are not being performed on a desirable homestead, and believes there is no intention to perform them he has a right to expect that the law will be carried out and unless there is a valid reason that cancellation will take place. In these cases, from the government's own showing, cancellation apparently never took place and the gentleman had to go elsewhere. I have known of other cases where there has been strong feeling in regard to this question of cancellation. 1 have had correspondence with the department in reference to more than one of them. I wish to impress on the minister the absolute necessity of having a complete record of these applications for cancellation because the man who applied for cancellation has rights under the law which should be respected.


Frank Oliver: I quite appreciate the view of my hon. friend in regard to cancellation.	I hope that he and
the House will understand that cancellation is one of the most difficult questions with which we have to deal in the administration of the lands. We have to be guided on one hand by considerations of the rights of the worthy but poor settler, and on the other hand we have to give due consideration to the rights of the man who wants to fulfil the duty which the other man is failing to fulfil. It would be impossible to fulfil the law so as to satisfy both parties when a conflict necessarily exists between the homesteader and the applicant for cancellation. From time to time since June last we have defined our position in regard to cancellation as fully, as completely and we believe, as fairly as has been possible under the very difficult circumstances. I do not know whether my hon. friend is ac-
1Q093

quainted with the regulations in regard to cancellation, but we find that from time to time the healing of one difficulty is followed by the opening of a new difficulty. It is impossible to foresee the ingenuity of man in protecting his entry when it ought not to be protected or in attacking another man's entry when it ought not to be attacked. We can only try to strike a fair average in dealing with these hundreds of cases and we hope to get fair consideration for trying to do what is right and fair between man and man according to the best interests of the settlement of the country. We do not pretend that we are able to please both sides to a dispute in which only one can win.


John Herron: I have seen a good deal of this question, particularly in my own locality. I can say from experience that I commend the minister for a great many acts of his in the way of being lenient, while still within the law, to settlers in allowing men to purchase in some cases at a dollar an acre, and in some at $3 an acre, if they have not fulfilled all the requirements of the law. But at the same time I know-many cases in my locality where the government has been either very seriously imposed upon by people getting places or else a great deal of partiality has been shown. I know one place near my own town where a man had an entry for a quarter-section. He was not able to go on it for the first six months, but I do not know that he did not get an extension of time for six months. However, before the second term was up he was notified his entry would be cancelled, if he could not show reason why he had not done certain improvements. He was not able to comply with the law and another man got his entry. This man held it about two years. He never resided on it or made any attempt to reside on it, and he was allowed to purchase it at, I think, $3. As soon as he got the patent he sold the land for $20 an acre, but he had never made any attempt to live on the land or improve it. There are a great many other cases of the same kind I have seen. The minister has been lenient and I would recommend him to be lenient with men who have made a conscientious attempt to comply with the conditions.


Richard Stuart Lake: I wish to ask the minister as to the disposal of the quarantine lands near Estevan. They were disposed of apparently by public auction. What where the conditions of sale, where were they advertised, what time was given to carry them out and what bids were received ?


Frank Oliver: This relates to a certain area of land, about two sections, on the boundary line near Estevan, about where the Soo line crosses the boundary. They were reserved for the use of the Agricultural Department for holding stock in quarantine upon them. After a time the Agricultural Department decided that they did not require them any longer and they were released from reservation, in the meantime the land around had settled up and they had become, as we thought, of some little increased value. We felt that if they were open to ordinary homestead entry there was likely to be a good deal of hard feeling about priority of entry. Therefore in July, 1907, they were put up for sale at an upset price of $3 per acre subject to settlement conditions, that is to say subject to cultivation of twenty acres and 12 months residence. No tender for more than one-quarter section was to be accepted from the same applicant. Tenders were received in the department, but the sale was not carried out in view of an irregularity in regard to the highest tender. The cheque accompanying it was not certified or marked by the bank, in accordance with the conditions of the advertisement. The cheque accompanying the next tender had been marked by the bank, but we did not feel justified in accepting it, although it was really the highest that complied with the terms of the advertisement, as the lack of the mark on the cheque accompanying the highest tender might have been only an inadvertence. Therefore we decided that for the time being we would call the sale off and again advertise the lands for sale by public auction, when no mistake would be likely to occur in regard to the cheque. The date of this sale has not yet been fixed, but it will take place some time during this summer.


Richard Stuart Lake: What are the sections ?


Frank Oliver: Half of section 6, half of section 16, three-quarters of section 18, and one-quarter of section 23.


Richard Stuart Lake: The return brought down says that the northeast quarter of section 16 was sold by tender on the 15th of October to James Rutherford at $3 per acre. How did that tender come to be received ? I understood from the minister that the tenders were called for in July.
iMr. OLIVER. The information I have is that the lands were to be put up in July to be sold on the 16th of December. It may have been that the date was postponed from October to December.


Richard Stuart Lake: 
Frank Oliver: The House will see that these lands are for sale, not at the highest price, but under settlement conditions,

which of course detracts considerably from the price that would otherwise be got for them. The statement that $7.50 per acre was offered must be a mistake. It is quite possible that the land would be worth that figure as a speculative proposition, but I do not think we would receive any such figure with settlement conditions attached. However, the sale did not go through, and the land will be offered at public auction some time this summer.


George Eulas Foster: Is it an absolute rule that unless a homesteader literally fulfils the settlement conditions, he cannot get his patent, and that all the government can do in such a case is to allow him to purchase at a certain reasonable price ? Suppose a man did his settlement duties for three years, doing everything that was necessary in the way of building a shack, breaking his land and putting it under crop, but something occurred to make a break in the performance of his residence duties, would he not be able to get his homestead entry ? Is that absolute ?


Frank Oliver: That is as we understand it. We have no authority to issue a patent unless the requirements of the statute are fulfilled. There is, however, an instance in which we have stepped outside the statute, and in the proposed amended Land Bill I am asking for provision for that; that is, where ia settler suffers from some physical disability that absolutely incapacitates him from fulfilling his duty. In one or two instances of this kind we have taken an order in council as authority for issuing the patent.


George Eulas Foster: After a man has gone on and done his duty faithfully as a bona fide homesteader, something might happen, like the fall from a load, to prevent him fulfilling all the conditions; and it scarcely seems fair justice to say to him, you can buy your homestead for $3 an acre, when other land can be bought at the same price. There ought to be a remedy somewhere, whether by report to parliament or otherwise. It seems very harsh that the result of three years work should be entirely voided because of some unforeseen and unavoidable accident.


Frank Oliver: The best we can do in such a case is to sell the land at $1 an acre, unless in a case where the man is absolutely incapacitated and then we get an order in council.


George Eulas Foster: I think you would have to come to parliament.


Frank Oliver: Possibly, but once the patent is issued, I do not think the government is subject to political attack or the patent to a legal attack. I wish to remedy that position by an amendment to the Act, so that there will be no question about the Mr. OLIVER.
authority. The best we can do is to sell at $1 an acre, and we only sell at $1 an acre when there is merely a trifling difference between the performance and the duty.


George Eulas Foster: Is that ministerial administration or by order in council?


Frank Oliver: It is ministerial. There is a provision in the Act that the minister may sell at $1 an acre, and he exercises that power in that case. In such a case as that mentioned by the hon. member for Qu'Appelie (Mr. Lake), where we sell at $3 an acre, there has been a substantial failure in the residence, but a liberal fulfilment in the cultivation. We simply say that the man has failed in the essential particular required by the statute, but in order that he may save the money that he has put into the land we make the sale to him.


George Eulas Foster: I notice by the return that in the aggregate there are a large number of those sales at from $1 to $3 an acre and sometimes more than $3. Is that done on ministerial responsibility or is an order in council required?


Frank Oliver: These are dealt with by ministerial authority. In the few instances where the price is over $3 the sales are in British Columbia.


John Herron: Are there any sales at $2 an acre?


Frank Oliver: There may have been, but since I have been minister we have either made it the one way or the other. They are made at $1 an acre in order to save the man who has substantially fulfilled his residence duties, but we sell at $3 an acre to the man who has failed in what we consider an essential part of his duties, the residence. We do not sell to any one who has altogether failed in his residence duties. There must be some residence or there is no sale. There is another instance where we sell, namely, where there are fractional pieces of land adjoining lakes or large rivers-a piece less than eighty acres, the corner frequently of an adjoining homestead. Our practice is to sell that to the owner of the adjoining land, believing that the area is too small to warrant any one taking it as a homestead and believing that, if the adjoining owner wants it it is reasonable he should have it, and we sell it at that price.


George Eulas Foster: The minister must be, to a large extent, at the mercy of his officials who report to him from all through the country. Does he think that these officials are influenced by political or party considerations? Some of these difficulties may arise from that fact.	.
Mr. OLIVER, By the time the case comes from the inspector to the agent and from the agent to the head office and runs the gauntlet in the head office, it is pretty

well trimmed of anything but its merits, and there is not much chance to hang anything else to it.


George Eulas Foster: What is Mr. Obed Smith's position now?


Frank Oliver: He is assistant immigration commissioner in London, England.


George Eulas Foster: Is he there permanently?


Frank Oliver: As permanent as anything in the outside service. An exchange was made early this spring between Mr. J. Bruce Walker, who was assistant immigration commissioner in London, and Mr. Smith, who was assistant commissioner in Winnipeg. The salary was the same in both cases.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister issue instructions to his land officers throughout the west, by circular or otherwise, forbidding them to engage in the business of buying and selling land or changing or otherwise the homesteads?


Frank Oliver: I think there is a provision in the Land Act itself which forbids an employee of the Lands Department from taking part in any transactions having relation to government land. It does not forbid their engaging in transactions with regard to other lands. I do not know that we have issued any instructions, but the Land Act is very definite.


Richard Stuart Lake: I notice that a number of pieces of land have been sold to the Grand Trunk Pacific for townsite purposes at $1 an acre. Does the minister consider that a proper price?


Frank Oliver: The land was sold to the homesteader at $1 an acre and he sells to the company for whatever he can get. The Grand Trunk Pacific of course runs through lands owned by private individuals and other corporations as well as through government lands, and it is necessary that they should not only have stations but conveniences for the handling of grain and other business in order that they may give full benefit and advantage to the surrounding country. In placing their stations where they will be most suitable the company frequently has to select quarter-sections occupied by homesteaders. The homesteaders could not sell that land to the Grand Trunk Pacific and could not make it into a town-site, and it amounted to a hold up of the development of the town at that particular place until he got his patent.
Where the settler got his patent he would do as he pleased with it. Under these circumstances, the railway company, being desirous of getting action for the development of this town as soon as possible, for the sake of the business, and for the sake of knowing definitely where they were, desired to acquire these lands. Now, so far1
as the government was concerned, the right to the land had already passed, and there was no way by which the government could recover its ownership in that quarer-section. The homesteader had the right to earn the title, and, so far as we knew, he woukb earn it and would become the owner. Therefore, it was a mere question of allowing the railway company to get beneficial action upon the property or delaying that action until the homesteader earned his patent. In order that action might be had as soon as possible, we sold the land that the railway company wanted to purchase for a townsite to the homesteader and he sold to the railway company for what he could get. I hope he made a g"ood sale. We allowed him to take land elsewhere. It was a fortunate thing for the homesteader, and, I say frankly. I do not regret giving him the advantage, for the government lost nothing and it was not a matter of taking advantage on the part of the homesteader. He was there as a settler, the railway came and made his land valuable in spite of him, and I know no reason why he should n'ot get the benefit. Where the railway saw fit to place its station upon land still remaining in the Crown, the arrangement is different. There we think it quite fair and reasonable that there should be facilities for the establishment of a town, and we sell the land to the company at $3 an acre, retaining one-quarter interest in the proceeds of the sales that may be made. The reason why we prefer to retain an undivided one-quarter interest is that if we were to retain a divided interest the question of municipal taxation would necessarily arise, and we have found that a very difficult and vexing question. It Is a generally established principle that the government pays no taxes. We do not feel that we should be warranted in breaking through that rule and paying taxes on the land when it became part of the municipality. Therefore we conclude that probably the best way to deal with the matter was to sell the land to the railway company at a price and simply retain an interest in whatever result might Come from the future sales. I think the transaction is one that will commend itself to the House and the country.


George Eulas Foster: But if you had braved the dangers of municipal taxation, your relation with the railway company would be that you would have one-lialf the townsite still.


Frank Oliver: That would be the usual system of dealing with a railway company.


George Eulas Foster: Instead of that, you keep one-quarter upon which you pay no taxation. That is, you keep the municipality out of the taxation


Frank Oliver: That is


George Eulas Foster: Well, you cut them oul of it.


Frank Oliver: No, the railway company owns tlie land and has to pay taxes.


George Eulas Foster: On the whole 'of it?


Frank Oliver: Yes. If it were divided, part of it would not pay taxes.


Richard Stuart Lake: The minister says that the government charge $3 an acre, but the return shows that the amount paid is $1 per acre. That is why I asked the question, thinking $1 too low a price.


Frank Oliver: The mistake must arise in the case of townsites where the purchase is made by the homesteader.


Richard Stuart Lake: It does not show that in the return.


Frank Oliver: I am satisfied that that is how it arises. When we sell to the homesteader we sell at $1 an acre, but when we sell to the company we sell at $3.


Richard Stuart Lake: In this return, wherever the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Grand Trunk Pacific Townsite and Development Company is mentioned, the price is $1 an acre, and I see no sale at $3 an acre. Sales should appear in the return as they were made? Another question I would like to ask the minister is in reference to one sale by G. II. McKague, 160 acres at $2.50 per acre ' in lieu of cancelled pre-emption.' What is the explanation of that?


Frank Oliver: I cannot recall the particular point mentioned. But I may say that the question of pre-emptions is one that arises occasionally. The right of pre-emption expired some time about 1889. But, though it is so long ago since this right expired, there are isolated cases where the pre-emption patent has not yet been issued because of the failure of the homsteader to complete his payment for pre-emption or for some other reason. It may be that there is some part of the payment due, or it may be that there is a seed-grain lien, or a lien of some other kind against the land. In any case, every now and again, we come across a pre-emption entry of which the homesteader is not entitled to a patent and the question arises what we are to do with it. In some cases, they have paid part of the price, and it seems hard that the man should lose what he has paid, even though he has not entirely completed the payment. I do not recall the instance my hon. friend has mentioned, but I can imagine that it was of this character. We find in our books an instance of pre-emption the payment upon which had not been completed, and not being able to get into communication with the homesteader or the man who had the preemption we have cancelled it. After a time, the owner has waked up and found that he has lost some property. He comes to us with his tale of woe; he tells us that he paid part of the money and could have paid the balance if he had known, that he Mr. FOSTER.
ought to have it, that we ought not to rob him, and so on. And it may be that we have felt there was merit in the man's ease and have met his grievance in the way my hon. friend suggests. I do not know that this is such a case, but I say it is quite possible it may arise in that way. The other day a case came before me where a pre-emption owner had notice that his preemption was cancelled. Though he had got it in 1889, and had paid $240 out of $480, he had never been able to raise the balance, and it was only when he got notice that his land was cancelled that he woke up and came back to us, and wanted reinstatement and the privilege of paying up the balance of the price.


Richard Stuart Lake: I would like to mention another matter that has created a good deal of feeling in the neighbourhood where I have been living. There have been complaints that certain parties are able to get cancellations in the land office at Regina when other parties cannot do so. It is also complained that the government officials are in the habit of taking money from settlers, and giving cancellations which other parties were not able to procure. This was brought to my notice some time last year, and I think I called the attention to it of the Commissioner of Dominion Lands. Later on when I got home, it was again called to my attention. Several different individuals came to see me about it, and told me of case after case. I was not able to go into these eases and verify them. But something did happen which enables me to bring the matter before the minister. I will not give the names, because I do not know if the complaints are well founded ; but the minister will easily be able to identify the case which I propose to lay before him. A certain individual stated that he had been approached by one of these parties who professed to be able to control the cancellations, and had offered to get the cancellation of a certain very desirable quarter-section on payment of the sum of $400. I may say that he was a supporter of hon. gentlemen opposite. This individual went to the land office and found that he could not get a cancellation. But he there and then made an affidavit, which was taken in the land office, and I will read the affidavit, leaving out the names. I think the minister will agree that it is just as well the names should not be mentioned :
I .... do solemnly declare that the homesteader is not in residence, and has made no improvements. The only improvement on the place is thirty acres broken in 1905 by a party at	who told me last year that he
could let me have this land for $200. The land was entered for on October 17 last, and the entrant has not started to live on it, but states that he can let me have it for $400. I understand that he has written to have it protected.

The matter was reported to the head office here, and the homestead inspector was told to report. His report states:
I have not discovered any evidence of manipulation in connection with the evidence.
I cannot believe that the homestead inspector could have made the inquiry he ought to have made under the circumstances, because I know from the amount of talk all through the neighbourhood, that he must have been able to get something more than is contained in that report. I would like the minister to make inquiry and see whether there is any ground for this complaint. It is in connection with this same office that I mentioned, as furnishing complaints about cancellations not having been properly recorded.


Frank Oliver: I am not able to follow the incidents my hon. friend has mentioned. Certainly, the idea that there is favouritism in cancellations is very injurious to the standing of the department in the minds of the public, and is therefore an injury to the settlement of the country, because confidence in the administration of the land office must lie at the foundation of successful settlement. It has been my object to establish that confidence. Our departmental regulations in regard to cancellation read as follows :	[DOT]
Application for the cancellation of the entry of a homesteader in default, must be made in person at the land agency for the district within which the land is situated.


Richard Stuart Lake: How long has that been in force ?


Frank Oliver: I cannot say how long it has been in force, but it has been printed and in the hands of all parties concerned ever since the 1st of October last.


Richard Stuart Lake: That is subsequent to a good many of the cases.


Frank Oliver: Then it goes on, a page and a half of provisions intended to guard against fraudulent applications for cancellation. There was, as we found some years ago, a great abuse in the matter of cancel-lationg. There was no restriction, anybody could go into a land office and apply for a cancellation of a whole township for homestead entry. Among some of the other provisions of these regulations, are the following :
An application for cancellation will not be accepted or considered if made within six months of the date on which the homestead entry was granted, unless the application should be made on the ground of ineligibility of fraud. In such case the application may be accepted at any time after the date of entry, and must be accompanied by a statement on oath giving full particulars.
Only one application for cancellation will be accepted against an entry until such application has been finally disposed of.
The applicant for cancellation must be eligible to make homesteading, except in the case of a minor, and eligible to have land reserved for him.
I am aware that circulation of reports such as those my hon. friend has mentioned are injurious, and I will be glad to follow them out to a finish, if he will furnish me with information. I am afraid there may have been matters that were not absolutely correct in the Regina land office some time ago. As my hon. friend is aware, there was a change of agency there over a year ago, and I was under the impression that matters were more satisfactory since. I am not a respecter of persons, I want to have the confidence of the people with regard to the fair administration of the land laws, and if, on investigation, I find that a wrong has been done, wherever the lightning strikes somebody will be hurt.


Richard Stuart Lake: I am very glad to be able to bring these matters to the attention of the minister. I have been in communication with respect to two or three of them with the Commissioner of Dominion Lands who, no doubt, will bring them to the attention of the minister. I expect that the commissioner knows about this particular matter to which I have just referred. A return was brought down in connection with it. There is just one other matter to which I desire to call the attention of the minister. I have had several resolutions sent to me by boards of trade in the southern part of my constituency, one of which is as follows :
Resolved, that this board heartily endorses the resolution recently passed by the Saskatchewan Game Protective Association in respect to the establishment of a national park and game preserve in the Moose mountains and the placing therein of a herd of buffalo and other wild game.
Has the minister been able to give any consideration to the question of forming a park in the Moose Mountains ? I see that a good deal has been said about it lately. It is an ideal spot for a timber and game preserve. I would like to hear from him in regard to the matter.


Frank Oliver: When the project of purchasing a herd of buffalo in Montana was first brought up the Moose Mountain timber reserve was the place I had in mind for the location of the herd. But, afterwards, when I heard of the resentment that was felt locally against the removal of the herd from Montana, I thought it would be rather doubtful policy to place such a large herd of buffalo within what you might term easy reach of the boundary line.


George Eulas Foster: What would the distance be ?


Frank Oliver: About forty miles which is not a very long run for a band of buffalo. I thought it would be better to place them

temporarily where they were placed and afterwards make arrangements for an area of grazing land where they would be practically out of reach of anything of that kind. At the same time I am aware of the advantages of the Moose Mountain country and I quite sympathize with the desire of the people to have some specimens of game there. When we get our buffalo settled down, when we get our principal grazing ground entirely inclosed and our herd installed there I will be very glad to take up the question of pleasure parks, as they may be called, in different parts of the country. As my hon. friend is aware, there is an Indian reserve adjoining the forest reserve at Moose Mountain. We have been able to secure from the Indians the surrender of a piece of land adjoining a very pretty lake there with the view of it being used as a summer resort and I think that in due course we may be able to do something in the way that the resolution suggests, but at the present time we do not feel that we are in a position to deal comprehensively and intelligently with the question of the location oi the buffalo beyond what we have already decided. It is an old saying that you must first catch your hare before you can cook him, and I would like to have all the buffalo that we are going to get well in hand before I decide upon the policy of distribution.


George Eulas Foster: How many are there in the herd now ?	[DOT]


Frank Oliver: There are about 400.
iMr. FOSTER. How are they distributed as to sex ?


Frank Oliver: I am sorry to say that the majority is against us, b-ut still there is a fair proportion-well, not a fair proportion as breeding cattle are understood-but we have a very considerable number of females and there was some measure of increase this spring although owing to the rough handling last summer there has not been as great an increase as we otherwise might have expected.


John Herron: As I had some experience of buffaloes in the early days, I have great sympathy with the government in procuring that herd. I think they did well to secure the buffalo which are natives of our land, but I rather think it was unfortunate that they were placed in the northern country where they are at present. Does the government not anticipate a great deal of trouble in securing and removing them from the present place to the new park laid out for them or the place where it is intended to locate them permanently ? I understand that they are in a wooded or partially wooded country. I doubt very much if the government will ever be able to secure the buffalo from that timbered country, get Mr. OLIVER.
them loaded on the cars and move them to another part of the country. You cannot do that with ordinary domestic cattle in a timbered country. It is impossible to get them out of the timber until they are ready to come. I do not know what is to be done with the buffalo. I feel certain that there will be great disappointment in getting them out. Has the government taken that into consideration ?


Frank Oliver: Yes, the government has taken it into consideration but it is one of those things which is really not for consideration. It is something that has to be done. I quite appreciate the difficulties of it but I do not see any other recourse and I have no doubt that, when we were able to secure so many of the herd as we did under the unfavourable circumstances which surrounded our getting them, we will be able to make the transfer from the park where they are to the park where we want to keep them permanently.


George Eulas Foster: Are they inclosed at present ?


Frank Oliver: Yes, they are in an inclosure four miles square. As my hon. friend (Mr. Herron) says, part of the area is wooded and part is prairie. It is a very nice location in itself but it is not an ideal buffalo range, but the park which we have now reserved and for the fencing of which we are asking an appropriation, is in a part of the country which is considered to be an ideal buffalo range. We hope to get the park fenced in time to receive the remainder of the herd that we hope to get from Montana this summer and later will make the transfer.


George Eulas Foster: You have 400 already and you expect to get more ?
Mr. OLIVER, It is believed that there are about 200 more. When we entered into the bargain first we thought that the whole herd amounted to 350, but as they were on a wide range and had not been rounded up it was impossible to ascertain the exact number. But we feel that we are getting them at a price at which we can afford to take the whole herd and if we are able to corner the market by getting the whole herd that fact will appreciate the value of what we have.
Mr. FOSTER, You did not buy them by the number ?


Frank Oliver: We got them at so much per head.	.


William D. Staples: How much per head ?


Frank Oliver: $200 per head landed at Edmonton, plus the actual cost of transportation, which amounts to $45 per head. The seller stood the loss until arrival at Edmonton. We paid only for what arrived at Edmonton.


William D. Staples: Who negotiated the purchase?


Frank Oliver: Mr. H. Douglas, superintendent of the park at Banff.


William D. Staples: Had he any assistance?


Frank Oliver: I think so, Mr. Ayotte, the immigration agent at Grand Forks, may have assisted in Mr. Douglas' absence.


William D. Staples: That gentleman was a deputy returning officer in the last Dominion election in Manitoba.


Frank Oliver: I am not aware.


William D. Staples: I saw in a western paper that he had assisted in the purchase and had made a clean up of $25,000.


Frank Oliver: I have no hesitation in saying that as far as the clean up is concerned, the statement is absolutely untrue.


Richard Stuart Lake: In reference to the purchase of lands by the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company, have all these lands been paid for and the patents made out and have the lands become liable to taxation?


Frank Oliver: I cannot answer that definitely. If the payments have been made the patents will issue without delay.


Richard Stuart Lake: Are not the patents completed ?


Frank Oliver: I understand so.


Richard Stuart Lake: And all conditions fulfilled?


Frank Oliver: That Is our understanding.


William D. Staples: How many acres of swamp land were transferred to the Manitoba government this year?


Frank Oliver: I am afraid I cannot give that. I think we have transferred in all about 2,000,000 acres ; about three-quarters of a million acres were transferred this year.


William D. Staples: How many acres of Dominion lands are there still in Manitoba?


Frank Oliver: I could not say until tomorrow.	*


William D. Staples: Who are the inspectors inspecting the swamp lands in Manitoba?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Dukes and Mr. Ducker are and have been for some years.


William D. Staples: What conditions are required to qualify lands as swamp lands?


Frank Oliver: The requirement, is set out in an order in council. Roughly it is that some portion, one-quarter or one-half of a quarter-section, must have been at some time under water. Then it can be reported as swamp land and we can transfer it.


William D. Staples: The minister knows that it has been a grievance in the province for
many years that according to the Act of 1885 about 7,000,000 acres should have been turned over to the province long before now, and not more than two and a half million or three million acres have been transferred. That land is drying up and what would have qualified as swamp ten years ago would not qualify now. The province is losing a good asset owing to the delay in inspecting and turning over the lands. Before and after the change of government here, Mr. Greenway, then the leader of the provincial government, said that upon the Liberals coming into power in Ottawa these lands would be quickly turned over to the provincial government, but they have not been.


Frank Oliver: I do not know my hon. friend's authority for the statement that there are 7,000,000 acres which should be transferred to the province.


William D. Staples: That was the estimate in 1885.


Frank Oliver: It may be that in all Manitoba there are 10,000,000 acres that would qualify, but the agreement is that the lands are only to be handed over on their being surveyed. As the survey has progressed the inspection has been made and the lands handed over. We have now handed over 2,000,000 acres and there remains very little that has been inspected and surveyed to be handed over. There is, however, an account to be adjusted between the two governments in respect of lands which have been handed over to the province as swamp lands and which have been squatted upon by settlers before being handed over. In the protection of the rights of these settlers it has been necessary to make some adjustment with the province of Manitoba. This account is still open, but as far as the lands are concerned they are inspected and handed over. The grievance that the province of Manitoba is suffering because lands which were not handed over as swamp lands some years ago have become dry and are now not eligible to be handed over as swamp lands, may be. a good argument on behalf of Manitoba, but I am afraid that my hon. friend will not receive sympathy from other sections of the Dominion in his complaint, because if it was a loss to Manitoba it was a corresponding gain to the Dominion. But I think my hon. friend's contention is imaginary rather than real. Taking one year with another, the average has been about even, and the province does not stand either to lose or gain by delay.


William D. Staples: I think the province of Manitoba should have its rights; and should not lose this valuable asset by lapse of time. There has been nothing to prevent this government in the last ten years putting on the necessary surveyors and inspectors to survey these lands, so that they

could have been handed over to the province ; and I am sure that the sister provinces of this Dominion would not consider that Manitoba was getting the best of them. It is generally conceded throughout this Dominion that the province of Manitoba has not been treated as it should have been by this government. I do not think the other provinces want to take an unfair advantage of the province of Manitoba, or make a gain from the fact that these lands, by the lapse of time, are continually drying up and will not qualify as swamp lands. If they had been inspected ten years ago and had been turned over to the province at that time as swamp lands, the province would have got the benefit. I am not making this complaint against this government only, but against the late Conservative government as well. What the people of Manitoba expect is fair treatment, and therefore I would ask the minister to take immediate action to put on the necessary surveyors and inspectors, and turn over to the province what lands will qualify as provincial swamp lands.


George Eulas Foster: In connection with this item I have a matter placed in my hands which I do not understand very well, and I am going to ask the minister to allow us to take it up on some other of his items, so that we may get the information required.


Frank Oliver: What is it in connection with ?


George Eulas Foster: It is in connection with a request of the Robbins Irrigation Company for a re-arrangement of their lands.
Government of the Yukon Territory, $365,000.


Frank Oliver: For salaries and expenses connected with the administration of the territory $165,000 was voted for the fiscal year 1907-8, and the same amount is asked for the current fiscal year. The principal items are: salaries, $70,720; living allowances, $40,800; insane patients' expenses connected with transportation to asylum at New Westminster and for maintenance at Dawson and Whitehorse. $15,000; travelling expenses to and from Dawson and the territory, $5,000, printing and stationery, $7,000; advertising mining regulations, proclamations, &c., $5,000; telegrams, telephones and postage, $2,500 ; expenses connected with collection of export tax, $3,500; to pay commission of 10 per cent to the Royal Northwest Mounted Police on sums collected by them as mining recorders and inspectors, $6,000.


George Eulas Foster: Is the minister making any change with reference to living allowances ?


Frank Oliver: There is no change proposed in these estimates. The living-allowances are the same this year as last, and Mr. STAPLES.
j they were the same last year as the year before.


George Eulas Foster: I understand that Mr. Gi-rouard is no longer registrar, and that some re-arrangement has been made. Will the minister explain what that is ?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Girouard has retired, and Mr. LalibertS, who was librarian to the Justice Department, has been made registrar at $3,800 salary and $1,200 living allowance instead of $4,000 salary and $1,500 living allowance which Mr. Girouard received. His salary as librarian of the Jusice Department I understand will drop.


George Eulas Foster: What was that salary ?


Frank Oliver: I am not able to answer that, as it is in another department; but the idea is to combine the duties of the two offices under the one salary, which shall be that of the registrar.


George Eulas Foster: It has been charged that there are too many officers there at present for the work there is to do. Has the minister looked into that ?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend will remember that some time ago there was considerable reduction in the number of officials. I am not able at present, beyond this change with regard to Laliberte, to offer any proposal for reduction. The commissioner of the Yukon was here a little while ago in connection with the reduction that we proposed to make in connection with the government of the Yukon, and I discussed the matter with him, and he informed me that he was not able at the moment to make any suggestion as to reduction. I urged on him the desirability of reductions being made if they could be made, but I regret to say that in one or two instances he seemed to think that more assistance would be heeded rather than less. For instance, he says that the surveys are very much behind, and that we should have more assistance in that work.


George Eulas Foster: What are the duties of F. T. Oongdon, who is receiving a very large salary and a large living allowance 7


Frank Oliver: Mr. Congdon is not in the employ now. He retired about a year ago. He was legal adviser. When Mr. Congdon retired, Mr. Senkier, who before that was gold commissioner', was made legal adviser at the same salary and with the same living allowance. Mr. Gosselin, who had been assistant gold commissioner, was made commissioner, and the office of assistant was dropped, it being believed that, with The Placer Mining Act, there was not the necessity that formerly existed for a gold commissioner and an assistant.


George Eulas Foster: Has any reduction been made in the number of clerks in the Gold Commissioner's office ? There seems to be

altogether too many of them. For instance you have appointed a clerk, L. G. Bennett, gold commissioner's office, getting a salary and allowance of $1,690 for the. nine months; Bolduc, a clerk, gold commissioner's office, with a salary and allowance of $1,600 for the nine months ; a stenographer, gold commissioner's office, with a salary and allowance of $1,837 for the nine months ; Aime Dugas, a clerk in the gold commissioner's office at $1,900 salary and allowance for the nine months ; Finnic, chief clerk, gold commissioner's office, $2,625, salary and allowance for the nine months ; another mining inspector, and then you have Fysh, clerk, gold commissioner's office, $2,025. salarv and allowance for the nine months ; Gosselin, assistant gold commissioner, with a salary and allowance of $3,900 for the nine months ; Grant, clerk, gold commissioner's office, salary and allowance, $1,800 for the nine months. Then more mining inspectors. Then L'Hereux, clerk, gold commissioner's office, $1,100, salary and allowance for the nine months ; Little, stenographer, gold commissioner's office, $2,025, salary and allowance for the nine months ; Macfarlane, clerk, gold commissioner's office, $1,760, salary and allowance for nine months. Then you have an accountant in the gold commissioner's office at $1,500, salary and allowance for the nine months. Another stenographer and gold clerk, at $2,475, salary and allowance for the nine months. An assistant gold commissioner at White Horse, over $3,000, salary and allowance for the nine months; G. D. Munroe, clerk, gold commissioner's office, salary and allowance. $1,440 for the nine months ; W. O. Noble, clerk, gold commissioner's office, $1,650, salary and allowance for the nine months ; G. Fepin-that is the ministrel, I suppose-clerk, gold commissioner's office, $1,575, salary and living allowance for the nine months ; G. Petre, clerk, gold commissioner's office, salary and living allowance, $1,500 for the nine months ; A. H. Povah, gold commissioner's office, $1,370, salary and living allowance nine months ; E. C. Sinkler, gold commissioner, salary and living allowance for the nine months, $4,875. Another stenographer in the gold commissioner's court, $1,586, salary and living allowance for the nine months : another stenographer, gold commissioner's office, $1,575, salary and living allowance, nine months ; a correspondence clerk, salary and living allowance, $1,800 for the nine months ; an assistant correspondence clerk, salary and allowance, $1,200. That is a tremendous staff. Does the minister really think all that array is necessary for the work in the gold commissioner's office there ? He himself was there and looked into it. What I am told is that there is an aggregation of men there absolutely unnecessary. Any business man could do' the work with a very much less number of men and expense.


Frank Oliver: Of the names mentioned, Munroe, Macfarlane and Pepin are not in the employ there at all, and their places have not been filled. Macfarlane is employed as mining inspector on one of the creeks at Granville in the place of another man who has left the service. These are some of the decreases I mentioned.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister not think that the pruning knife could still be applied ?


Frank Oliver: It looks to me as if it could. I did succeed in getting some pruning done. I have discussed the matter very fully with the present commissioner, and although he may not be as anxious to apply the pruning knife as my hon. friend, still I think lie will do what is right, and I hope the staff will not be allowed to remain over the requirements, if it is too large. It does look bulky for the amount of business.


George Eulas Foster: The minister must take into consideration the fact that the commissioner lives night and day with these people, and the last thing in the world he wants to do is to recommend that any of them be cut down. If the minister waits until that is done, he w'ill wait a long time.
I think he ought to exercise his own judgment about that. If it was a large place, where the people were distributed a good deal, the commissioner would have all the more liberty that way, but they form a circle of their own, and it would be like cutting out one of his own family for the commissioner to make recommendations in that way. I hope he will do what is right, but I do not think there is much hope that he will face the live flesh with the idea that he is going to cut down their salaries and living allowance, because I do not think he is courageous enough to do it. As regards Mr. Congdon, the local adviser, he was for a long time the representative of the government as controller or administrator of estates ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Is it true that, although the law required he should give bonds, he never did give security, all the time he was administrator of public estates ?


Frank Oliver: I am not aware that he acted twice in that capacity, that is before he was commissioner and after he was commissioner.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, he was in and out all the time.
Mr. OLIVER, I am not aware that he gave bonds on either occasion. I am satisfied that on one occasion he did not.


George Eulas Foster: I think the papers will show that he never gave either an individual bond or a guarantee bond or anything of the kind. Who is administrator now ?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Senkler, the present legal adviser, and administrator during the absence of Mr. Henderson.


George Eulas Foster: Does he give bond ?


Frank Oliver: He Is under a bond of


George Eulas Foster: Is it also correct that Mr. Congdon, all the time he administered the estates as public administrator, never really made any statement with reference to any estate he administered, and that the department has not a single statement made by him of' a complete estate-of the transactions from start to finish.


Frank Oliver: I am not able to answer definitely. I am under the impression however, that, so far as our department is concerned, my hon. friend is probably correct. However, I understand that the case Is that the administrator of estates-as the practice was there-was under the direction of the local government, the Yukon council. We appointed him and paid his salary, but, as I understand it, his administration was in accordance with the laws and ordinances of the Yukon council, and it was understood that his responsibilities were to them and not to us. For that reason, the statement that he would make would naturally be to the Yukon council, not to us.


George Eulas Foster: Is it not true that the public administrator represented the Minister of the Interior ? If so, surely the minister here ought to have statements of his administration. It does not seem to me that the Bill is not filled when he is simply left to the tender mercies of the council which he himself dominates. Mr. Congdon is a rather dominatingly-inclined man, as shown by his whole history. He went out and went in a good many times, and never went back without having an increase in his salary, a very material increase. He was a kind of character who really controlled and had a dominating influence. He was commissioner some time, and member of the council generally. It would be an odd thing to have the public administrator accountable to himself as a member of the council. Is the minister aware whether he ever made a statement of an estate he managed as public administrator-finished statements and duly audited, before the local government ?


Frank Oliver: No, I am not aware how the business was transacted between himself and the local government in that connection. I may say that I have found the position as it was, and 1 stated it to my hon. friend, entirely unsatisfactory, for practically the reasons which he has placed before the House and because of the divided responsibility, so to speak. The responsibility was not definitely fixed, either with the Yukon council or with the government.


George Eulas Foster: We, I assume, took it for granted, that the Yukon Council, having passed laws and ordinances under which the administration was to be carried on, would see to it that the laws and ordinances were properly administered. They, on the other hand, possibly thought that, as we appointed the administrator and paid him we were looking after the matter. I am afraid that, as a result of the examination made last summer by Mr. Beddoe-I think the report has been brought down-the matter was not in a condition that was satisfactory, or, I will go so far as to say, creditable to any of the parties concerned. I propose to cure that difficulty for the future. We did cure it in a measure when Mr. Senkler was appointed, by our requiring him to deposit securities to the amount of $10,000. There was a question raised as to our right to do that, the supposition being that it was the right or duty of the Yukon council to do it. However, we required the deposit of the security. And, in the Bill now before the House in regard to the Yukon, we propose to take the responsibility in regard to the administration of estates, to appoint the administrator, to require him to give security, and, while he administers the estates subject to the laws and ordinances of the Yukon council, he will make an accounting to the representative of the Auditor General. That will be more satisfactory. It is not that we wish to take from the rights or responsibilities of the local government, but we feel the condition in the past was such that we are warranted in future, in such an important and delicate matter, in absolutely fixing the responsibility. We will be quite prepared to fix the responsibility and place it entirely on the local government, but, if we are to assume any part of it, we "want to assume it all.


George Eulas Foster: I am glad to hear the statement made by the minister. I assume that, under the new arrangement, we shall not have what appears to me to be such a scandal as has been there for so many years. There is one other question we ought to have satisfactorily at rest; Is it not the intention of the government to demand from Mr. Congdon an account of his stewardship ? He has been there, he has administered estates, he has acted as guardian for infants and had had charge of trust mattters dealing with the most intimate relations that the government has with its wards; and all the time he has been there, as we have seen, he has not really finished up an estate so far as putting in a statement that anybody could get hold of, properly audited and shown to be absolutely correct. Does not the minister think that Mr. Congdon should be called upon to make a full report of every eslate he has had in his charge, thoroughly

audited, and that the past negligence should be atoned for, at least by having it as far as can be effected, put in regular shape ?
I think that is the only thing that can he done to secure the government from the imputation of allowing its representative there to carry on matters of that kind in a very lax way. And I do not think it w ould be at all improper that Mr. Congdon should be asked to give a thorough and complete statement of every estate that he has managed and to have that statement thoroughly audited if it has not already been audited, and made as plain as it can be made at this late date.


Frank Oliver: I feel not at all in a pleasant position in this matter of administration of estates so far as we have been able to reach a statement in regard to them. There is, no doubt, something to be said in favour of the view taken by my hon. friend. The difficulty that might, or may, arise if we decide to take such action is that we may not have the right to call for the statement. The position may be taken that I have suggested-1 believe may very weH be taken-that the accounting is not to us but to the local government. It does not appear that there is any legislation or any definite delegation of authority that would put us in a position to absolutely demand this accounting.


George Eulas Foster: May I ask the minister, is it not the fact that either the government here is in a position to demand that accounting or the government there is in that position ?


Frank Oliver: Precisely.


George Eulas Foster: Then, as the government here practically controls the government there by its appointed members, there is no difficulty in the government getting at the matter. I am not stating this to make a point against any one or anything of that kind; but I think it will be quite too bad- to say nothing stronger-that the matter should be left in the position in which it is. For instance, I have the right, I believe, to move for a return, showing the estates administered by the public administrator in the Yukon, and I suppose the House would pass a motion for a return of that kind and that we ought to have it. But that will not be necessary if the minister himself will see that, through their own legislation or through their control of the government of the Yukon, that statement shall be made. I do not know' that I ought to press the minister, because I suppose he has gone as far as he can under the circumstances. But as regards the present legal adviser, who is receiving the people's money as an employee of the government, is it proper for him to put himself at the head of a political organization, and fight out political campaigns, strike down opponents, boost up his 321
friends, with all the arts that he can use? The present incumbent of that office, Mr. Senlcler, is he disposed to take that line of conduct? If he does and I were in the Yukon, I would never let him rest. Mr. Congdon was legal adviser, he was commissioner, and almost everything by turns, always well paid for it, and all the time he wras an ardent partisan, continually menacing, threatening and cajoling in order to work up a party interest. It does not seem to me that men who are paid by the people's money and put in official positions, should be allowed to do that out there any more than they would be here. I cannot conceive that Mr. Senkler would be a man of that stamp.


Frank Oliver: I do not understand that the hon. gentleman suggests that Mr. Senkler is taking that course, I think it would be very far from his character. As for Mr. Congdon, I think it is fair to say that in my judgment the hon. gentleman has presented the case in a very extreme light. Mr. Congdon was legal adviser of the government in the Yukon, and on the retirement of the Hon. Mr. Ross from the commission-ership, Mr. Congdon was promoted to the commissionership. There may have been an interval during which he was not legal adviser or commissioner, but it was practically a promotion from the position of legal adviser to that of commissioner. I cannot agree that any slur is to be cast upon Mr. Congdon for partisan or political action while he was commissioner. It is true, he retired from the commissionership, and became a candidate as a supporter of the government. In the contest he was unsuccessful. There have been grave statements made as to the. methods in which the political contest was conducted which resulted in his defeat. I am not prepared to say whether those assertions are correct or not. But I have heard no such assertions in regard to his conduct when he was reappointed as legal adviser. When Mr. Mclnnes was commissioner I had no knowledge of any political activity on his part. He was acting as legal adviser amongst the people who had supported him for the position of member of parliament. True, he did not quarrel with those people. But I am bound to say that so far as my observation went while I was in the Yukon, he was not in any sense using his position as legal adviser to advance any one's political interest. He seemed to be attending strictly to the business he was appointed to do. I am bound to say that I know of no person whose qualifications are better than those of Mr. Congdon. Any one who knows him will agree that he is a very brilliant man, with a very good knowledge of law, and a most excellent method of expression. Besides, he is a man of absolutely blameless private life.


George Eulas Foster: What is the reason for all these timber men?


Frank Oliver: We pay members of the mounted police who are stationed on the creeks, ten per cent on the collection of timber dues. We have one timber inspector, Charles Sylvester.


George Eulas Foster: I find here that you have Mr. Martin, crown timber and land agent, $2,250 for nine months; you have W. H. Povah, clerk of timber and land office, $2,000 for nine months; you have Mr. Sugrue, timber inspector, $1,400 for nine months, and Mr. Sylvester, timber inspector, $1,800 for nine months. Those are in the timber branch. I do not think that the timber business is very heavy in the Yukon.


Frank Oliver: Martin and Sugrue are not now in the employ of the government Povah is employed in the gold commissioner's office as stenographer. We have only one officer in the timber business; that is Mr. Sylvester.


George Eulas Foster: Well, that makes it better. It would seem that the gold commissioner's office, the mining engineers and the inspectors might all work together. It is a cognate business. What does Mr. A. J. Beaudette, mining engineer, do?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: I notice that the Yukon ' World and Official Gazette ' got $3,520, a large part of which was for printing and a part for advertising. Does the minister himself supervise that ? The Whitehorse ' Star,' for advertising the mining regulations for twelve months, got $600 and also something for advertising. These payments seem to be large. Then a lot of smaller papers, some of them in eastern Canada, received various sums. What are the reasons for running down here and publishing these advertisements?


Frank Oliver: We publish the mining regulations in the Dawson and Whitehorse papers and in some of the British Columbia papers pretty fully. We also publish in some of the leading eastern papers in centres like Montreal and Toronto a synopsis of our homestead and mining regulations and we charge the part of the advertisement relating to mining regulations to this Yukon vote. But that is only a small part of the expenditure.


George Eulas Foster: Where are the insane taken charge of?


Frank Oliver: In the New Westminster insane asylum.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Beaudette is, in my estimation, the most valuable man we have in the Yukon. His duty is to satisfy the recorders or the gold commissioner, as the case may be, as to the facts upon the ground with regard to any matter of dispute that may arise.


George Eulas Foster: And is necessary in that regard, I dare say.


Frank Oliver: Whereas the other mining recorders and inspectors are local officials who accept entries for mining claims and collect royalties and do other office duties, Mr. Beaudette is the man out on the creek who actually inspects the work.


George Eulas Foster: Could the collections be made by the gold commissioner's clerks?


Frank Oliver: These are the collections made on the creeks.


George Eulas Foster: I find that the Povahs seem to be quite a family up there. There are three of them.


Frank Oliver: There is only one of that family, Mr. W. F. Povah, who is now in the employ of the government. He is a stenographer and he was formerly in the timber office. The others are not in the service.


George Eulas Foster: Is the grant for the local council of $125,000 given them in a lump sum?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: How is it audited?


Frank Oliver: There is a quarterly audit by the Auditor General. The accounts do not go to the Department of the Interior; they go direct to the Auditor General and are audited by him. Of course, there is a local accountant. The Auditor General is sending one of his officials to the Yukon now to make an audit on the ground. Under the Bill which is now before the House we propose that the accounts of the Yukon, both local and federal, shall be audited in the Yukon by a representative of the Auditor General ; that is to say, that the Auditor General shall officially be there for a part of the year to audit the accounts. Without waiting for this legislation the Auditor General has sent one of his men to make such an audit under the authority that he now possesses or believes himself to possess.


George Eulas Foster: Well, according to Mr. Beddoe's report, it is not a bad thing to have it done.
Government of the (Northwest $9,800.
Territories,
.,	FOSTER. Have all the expenses of
the Treadgold Commission been paid. I notice $1,000 paid to Judge Britton. Does that finish up the expenses of that commission?


Frank Oliver: 


George Eulas Foster: What are the services that Mr. Fred White gives apart from the work which he carries on in connection with the Northwest Mounted Police?


Frank Oliver: Mr. White's duties as commissioner of the Northwest are fairly set out in the items which I have before me.


George Eulas Foster: There is clerical assistance in his own office?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: And schools. Would the minister explain what these are?


Frank Oliver: There are a number of mission schools scattered throughout the Northwest Territories and one which is not a mission school, and Mr. White oversees the distribution of assistants to these schools, simply assisting the efforts which are being made on behalf of education.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister give us the particulars with respect to these schools?


Frank Oliver: The list is as follows :
some mention of it in the published reports.


William James Roche: Is that the only school is Keewatin?


Frank Oliver: It is the only one to which we give any assistance and the only public school we have any knowledge of at the present time.


George Eulas Foster: I think the attendance and such information in reference to these schools should be given in return for the help we give.


Frank Oliver: 
George Eulas Foster: How many children attend that Barrows school?


Frank Oliver: I have not the numbers here. The school is at a village north of the Canadian Northern which is just beyond the line of the province of Manitoba. The school is in a saw milling village which is outside the jurisdiction of [Manitoba and is reached by a short piece of railway. It is not a mission school?


George Eulas Foster: Do these schools report?


Frank Oliver: Yes, they report as to their work.


George Eulas Foster: Where is that report printed.


Frank Oliver: I do not imagine that that report has been printed. There will be 321i


William James Roche: What disposition is made of insane patients from the Northwest Territories?


Frank Oliver: There are only two insane patients at the present time from the Northwest Territories and I believe they are being treated at the Brandon asylum.


William James Roche: There is no change since the formation of the new provinces?


Frank Oliver: No, they have not made arrangements for the care of the insane.


George Eulas Foster: Where are the prisoners taken care of?


Frank Oliver: I think that depends on the locality. The Northwest Territories

extend along the north of five provinces and I fancy prisoners will be taken to whichever province is most convenient.


George Eulas Foster: What is included in miscellaneous expenses?


Frank Oliver: It is necessary always to have a small amount to meet contingencies that may arise, but here we are asking an increase of $600. My note says that we now have accounts amounting to about $1,200 in connection with what is known as the Fiddler murder in the Keewatin district.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: If you take Supply to-morrow, in what department?


William Stevens Fielding: We will take Railways first, and, if there is time, Militia.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 9, 1908.