1908-06-05

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 182) for the relief of Hattie Spratte.-Mr. Ralph Smith.

Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: I would like now to present the motion of which I gave notice a day or so ago regarding the fourth report of the committee appointed to supervise the official reports of the debates of the House.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Would my hon. friend permit me-I have received a communication from Mr. Gervais, chairman of the committee, in which he asks that this report be not taken up in his absence. I would ask my hon. friend to let the matter stand until Tuesday next when Mr. Gervais will be present.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As that report was adopted on the 20th of May it might be acted upon and that may be invoked as a reason against my motion. If I have the assurance of my right hon. friend that the delay will not be invoked against the motion which I am about to make I have no objection.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am informed that action has been assumed upon that report.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHNSTON moved that the third report of the committee on Public Accounts be concurred in.
Mr. SPEAKER.: In all these cases there must be appended to the motion a clause asking that the rule be suspended. We had a discussion on that matter a little while ago and this course was recommended.
Motion amended and agreed to.



REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Last report of the International Waterways Commission-Soulanges Canal.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will the Minister of Railways and Canals be good enough to lay upon the table of the House the report made by Mr. Boyer upon matters concerning the Soulanges Canal. It is absolutely necessary we should have that report before the estimates for that department are gone into.


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: That report has been received but I have not had an opportunity to act on it as yet. It would hardly be wise to place the report on the table before I have had a chance to digest it and take action on it. I expect in a very few days to be able to lay it on the table.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is necessary that we should wait for that report until the department takes action upon it. The matter is a serious one, and have we not the right before going into the estimates to see what the commissioner has reported as to the state of affairs existing upon the canal ?


George Perry Graham: Before we get through with the estimates there will be no trouble about it. I think my hon. friend will agree that it would be unwise to discuss these reports in public before the department decides what action it will take.
ORDER IN COUNCIL re IMMIGRATION.


Mr. LENNOX.: When will the order in council regulating immigration into western



Canada passed in pursuance of the statute of this session, be laid on the table of the House ?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: I think I will be able to lay it on the table of the House as soon as the estimates are taken up.


Haughton Lennox: This is a matter of urgency and importance and there has been already a great deal of delay. I ask that it be laid on the table of the House at once.


Frank Oliver: As soon as I have an opportunity to see the commissioner of immigration I will do so.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. DANIEL.

Mr. J. W. DANIEL (St. John).: As a question of privilege I desire to refer to some of the remarks made by the Minister of Finance last night when I was not present in the House. Referring to me and to the subject I brought to the attention of the House yesterday he said :
At an early stage of the session the hon. gentleman placed a notice on the paper intimating his intention to bring this matter before the House and he had abundant opportunity to do so but for his own reasons he did not avail himself of it, and months passed, and now in the seventh month of the session he has brought up the question at a time and in a manner which certainly is not calculated to advance the cause he claimed to have at heart. ... It was quite evident that the object of my hon. friend was not so much to invite the attention of the House to the matter as to join his friends in that policy of delaying the business of the House which in their judgment they have seen fit to pursue.
With regal'd to the latter statement I have to state that it is untrue in fact.


Mr. FIELDING.: Order.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Well, if there is any other parliamentary term that the bon. minister prefers that expresses the same idea, I will use that. The statement attributes a motive to me which did not exist. There is no basis for any such insinuation. I placed this proposed resolution on the Order Paper as early as the 13th of February. There were a very large number of resolutions on the Order Paper, and mine was not reached before the time came when the private members' day was taken away altogether. After that, on two occasions, at the most, I made arrangements to bring the matter up, but at the request of gentlemen who wished to speak upon it, I delayed it, and this was the first time


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I hardly think the hon. member is out of order in explaining why he brought up this question yesterday, and not earlier.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am not debating the question. I am simply giving the reasons why it was not brought up before. After the private members' day was taken, the only method left to me to bring this matter up at all was on the motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply, and I took the first clear opportunity that occurred to me to do so, and brought it up yesterday.


William Stevens Fielding: As the hon. gentleman has been allowed to give the reasons why ho did certain things, I am at liberty to give the reasons why I made the observation I did. The hon. gentleman had ample time, long before the private members' day was taken by the government, to bring forward this matter, If be desired to treat it as a great and Important matter. I do not undertake to discuss the wisdom or unwisdom of the course he has pursued. As to whether or not he delayed the business of the House, I have nothing further to say than that the record of yesterday's proceedings will speak for itself.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It was only in the first week or two after the resoultion was put on the Order Paper, at the most that I had the opportunity to bring it up on private members' day.


William Stevens Fielding: Private members' day stood for several months during the session.


John Waterhouse Daniel: There were previous motions on the paper and they took up the time.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-HON. MR.


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to rise to a question of privilege. I was out of the House last evening, when, as I observe by the report in ' Hansard,' the bon. member for the county of York (Mr. Crocket) referred to the fact that I had, previous to coming to this parliament, taken an interest in this question of representation and that I had argued the question on behalf of the province before the Jndicial Committee of the Privy Council as well as before the Supreme Court, and he criticised quite severely my absence from the House and my not taking part in the discussion. Mr. Speaker, all that I desire to say is that I felt, and felt most strongly, that the hon. member for the city of St. John (Mr. Daniel) had brought this question before the House at a most in-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order. Mr. LENNOX

appropriate time-at a time when, if hon. gentlemen on this side of the House engaged in any lengthy discussion, they would only be aiding my hon. friend in what I thought was an obstruction to the important business which this House was called upon to deal with. In my department there are public works of great importance, the carrying on of which is delayed by reason of our not getting the Supplies. There are thousands of labouring men throughout this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: Just allow me one word. Mr. Speaker,-and therefore I thought that I ought not to be a party to wasting one minute of the time of this House under such circumstances.


Mr. TAYLOR.: What are you doing now?



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Mr. LEFURGEY.: I would like to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Public Works to a return which I asked for on January 29, with regard to the public expenditures in Prince county, r. E. I. It would not take very much trouble to make up that return, but it is not down yet.


William Pugsley: I am quite satisfied that that return was brought down some weeks ago.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I went to the return room yesterday morning, and wag told that the return had not yet come down.


William Pugsley: I find by the Votes and Proceedings, on page 1015, that that return was brought down on the 26th of May.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals when we may expect the return that was promised early in the session in regard to the investigation of the tunnel matter.


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend will remember that it was not a report oi an investigation, but a return of certain information that the chief engineer had been compiling on the subject. I might say that so far nothing very definite concerning the tunnel has been found. I will make inquiry about it.



ILLEGAL DISTRIBUTION OF WHISKY.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to call the attention of the government to a very urgent and important matter.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It is only for the purpose of asking a question ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Only for the purpose of asking a question. Information has reached me from a reliable source to the effect that there is $8,000 worth of whisky in bond in charge of the customs at Thetford Mines belonging to F. X. Labranche of Megantic, and the whisky is being distributed in the counties of Beauce and Megantic without duty being paid. My information is to the effect that the whisky is out of the possession of Mr. Labranche and that he is not a consenting party to this operation. I would like to ask the government if they have any knowledge of these acts, and if they will take immediate steps to check this violation of the law if it exists.


William Stevens Fielding: Is my hon. friend in a position to give the source of his information ? Such charges are almost invariably denied, and if we had the source of the information, it would facilitate inquiry.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My information comes from a very reliable source, and I will have no objection, when my hon. friend is through, to communicate it to him.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend will send me the name privately, I will make inquiry of the Customs Department at once. I think that there must be a mistake; or that the information is incorrect, because I cannot imagine that the customs authorities would permit such a thing as my hon. friend has mentioned.



SUPPLY-CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["I have no objection to accept my hon. friend's statement and let Mr. FIELDING.\nthe Bill go through, as far as I am concerned.\nBill reported, read the third time and passed."]
Mr. C. L. OWEN (East Northumberland).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I wish to bring to the notice of the government a report in that great Reform newspaper, the Toronto ' Globe.' That paper does sometimes sin a little in reporting the sayings of hon. members on this side of the House, but I admit that it is always very accurate when reporting the sayings of hon. members on the government side. Therefore I take this report as being correct. It is a report of a political meeting held on Wednesday evening in the city of Brantford, where the hon. Minister of Customs, Mr. Paterson, is reported to have said :
In his department there were 1,800 men who could not get their pay because the Tory obstructionists would not vote supplies.
gome hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Charles Lewis Owen: The Hon. William Paterson knew, when he stated upon the hustings in the city of Brantford, that his supplies had been voted by this House before he left Ottawa on Monday evening for Brantford. Therefore it was very unjust and unfair for him to endeavour to mislead the people in his own city by making them believe that

we would not vote him supply required to pay the men in his department.


Mr. EMMBKSON.: Where is the Supply Bill ?


Charles Lewis Owen: I am coming to that in a few moments. I notice also that the employees in the postal service have been finding fault because their salaries haye not been paid. If I take the Toronto ' World ' -and that good paper is generally correct -I see that the whole amount of the post office supply was voted the 22nd May last -the full amount of over $5,000,000. I am given to understand that the trouble is that the government have not brought down their Supply Bill, and until that Bill is brought down this money cannot be paid out in salaries. It is very unfair and unjust for a minister of the Crown to go around the country trying to make the people believe that the opposition are obstructing.


An hon. MEMBER.: What are you doing now ?


Charles Lewis Owen: Why, it was only about a week ago that the Minister of Customs brought down his estimates. We held him up a week and were justified iu so doing, because he was asking for $100,000 more this year than last and could not give any satisfactory explanation what he was going to do with it. He said that a lot of men had worked overtime but he could not tell who they were or what they were doing. All he could say was that they had sent in affidavits. What kind of an explanation was that to give ? Then he wanted $50,000 more but could not say what that was for. He said it would be nice to have that amount on hand. But we do not approve of that way of voting money and the people will uphold us. Before voting money we want to know how it is going to be spent. I submit that the fault lies with the government in not having brought down its Supply Bill. How can we concur in a Supply Bill before It is submitted to us ?


William Stevens Fielding: I regret that my hon. friend did not deem it expedient to wait until my hon. colleague the Minister of Customs returned and was in his place.


Charles Lewis Owen: I was hoping he would be in his place this morning.


William Stevens Fielding: No doubt my hon. friend hoped that the minister would withdraw his valuable voice from the political campaign. But if, in the exercise of his judgment as a citizen, my hon. colleague sees fit to absent himself, as other hon. members are doing, in the exercise of his rights as a citizen, that is no reason for attacking him in his absence. It is no reason why, if the hon. gentleman has anything to say Mr. OWEN.
against the minister, he should not wait until my hon. colleague is in his place. I can assure him that he will have difficulty in persuading the country that the Minister of Customs would make a statement before any public audience which was not made in good faith and could not be substantiated. He is too well known for any one who knows him to assume that he would do anything of the kind. I repeat that not a dollar of supply has been voted for the Customs or Post Office Departments.


Mr. OWEN  .@: Have not all the supplies that have been asked for been voted ?


Mr FIELDING.: They have not been voted at all.


Charles Lewis Owen: Have they not passed this House ?


William Stevens Fielding: They have not. I again say that they have not been voted. Not one dollar of supply has passed this House.


Charles Lewis Owen: Did they not pass this House in Committee of the Whole ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Charles Lewis Owen: Then the fault lies with the government in not having brought down a Supply Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: Does my hon. friend contend that every time we pass an item in the Committee of Supply we must immediately bring down a Supply Bill ? Last night we passed a couple of hundred thousand dollars for the Department of the Interior, and according to my hon. friend's view we should immediately bring down a Supply Bill converging these items.


Charles Lewis Owen: Are you sure you have not used that money for any other purpose ?


William Stevens Fielding: We have not. There is no power under Heaven could get a dollar of that money until the votes pass through their several stages in this parliament-not only of this House but the Senate as well. When my hon. friend says that we did not bring down a Supply Bill, he is mistaken. We did some time ago. and after the usual procedure it became-law; but surely he will not seriously say that every time we pass an item we must bring down a new Supply Bill ? Such a contention is preposterous. The Supply Bill is usually brought down after we have passed all the estimates. The estimates are then consolidated into a Supply Bill which is duly presented. But the hon. gentleman assumes that the moment the Post Office items were passed we should bring down a Supply Bill, then later on bring down another Supply Bill when the Customs estimates are voted, and so on with each department. My hon. friend must see that the argument lie advances is entirely unwarranted.


Charles Lewis Owen: I notice that we passed last month over $11,000,000 of Supply through Committee of the Whole. Was it not worth while to bring down a Supply Bill covering these items and thus enable the employees to obtain their wages ?


William Stevens Fielding: I am not disposed to discriminate. I am not disposed to make fish of one and flesh of another. The public officials and others who have claims against the government in the different departments and provinces have all equal rights and I do not propose to discriminate among them. I do not propose that the employees in one branch shall be paid for their services and the others not.


Charles Lewis Owen: I have not forgotten that the Minister of Finance did say a few months ago that we have no rights in this House.


William Stevens Fielding: That phrase for a time seemed to do my hon. friends opposite some good. I will be glad to repeat the same statement and give my hon. friends the benefit of it once more. Every member of this House and every group of members has just as much right as the majority accord to them, and no more. That is true to-day as it was true then. But the trouble is my hon. friends opposite have abused their rights. The trouble is that we have got iuto the habit of permitting an easy going method of procedure whereby hon. gentlemen opposite are permitted to delay the business of the House to an extent that would not be allowed in any civilized country outside of Canada.
Some bon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: It was just such difficulty that compelled the mother of parliaments to adopt a procedure which allows the majority to rule. But it is difficult to bring some people to understand why the majority of this parliament should not rule. Let it be uuderstood that if men on both sides would realize their responsibility, if they would realize their obligations to the State as well as their party interests, they would admit that this parliament has allowed a latitude and freedom of discussion which enables any half dozen men in this House to hold up any one measure the whole session. It was never supposed that any member would abuse that privilege the way hon. gentlemen opposite are doing.


Charles Lewis Owen: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he remembers the holdup in 1896 ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, but in the so called hold up in 1896 there never was an hour when the necessities of the public service were not provided for. In all the discussions in 1896. supplies
were available, the public servants were being paid, the public works were going on, contracttors were getting their money and they were paying their workmen, and these, in turn, were paying the grocer, the butcher and the baker

all the wheels of government were turning and there was no obstruction. That is not the condition to-day. Supplies that were held up in 1896 were the supplies of a future period, and there was always abundant money for the immediate purpose of the government. That is not the situation today. To-day, by the exercise of a privilege that this House mistakenly has given to the minority, a privilege which is not granted in the mother country, a privilege which is not granted in the corresponding body at Washington, a privilege more liberally interpreted in this House than in any other legislative body in the world, hon. gentlemen opposite have been able to hold up the supplies and prevent the people of this country from getting the money which is their due.


Mr. D. A. GORDON (East Kent).: Mr. Speaker, the innocence of hon. gentlemen opposite is certainly most notable.
I think the time appropriate to discuss at some length the question of obstruction so that we may see where these hon. gentlemen stand. Before I finish, I will take opportunity to refer to the rules that have been adopted in the British parliament, and I think it will be seen that hon. gentlemen opposite stand in exactly the position in which the Minister of Finance has put them to-day so far as their relation to the voting of supplies is concerned. I fully realize my inability to discuss this question from either a legal or technical standpoint, but must content myself with viewing it from the standpoint of the plain, ordinary business man dealing in simple parlance with the organized tactics that are daily pursued by hon. gentlemen opposite for the purpose of obstruction. It is a time-honoured custom, on going into Supply, for an hon. member to discuss any question affecting his constituency or the country at large, to air a grievance or complaint. This rule is a most salutary one and, particularly in the earlier part of the session, the greatest latitude of debate in this respect should be allowed and should be taken advantage of by members on both sides of the House. This is consistent with free speech, as it affords ample opportunity to discuss questions of importance. On this freedom we pride ourselves. But we should jealously guard our discussions and in no way permit them to interfere with the transaction of public business. When this good rule is broken, when freedom of debate is taken advantage of, not to discuss matters of urgency or importance, but simply to delay or block

the despatch of legitimate business in the House, then, Sir, I submit, the freedom which is so abused should be curtailed in some way. It is my humble opinion that, after a certain stage in the session, such discussions as I have referred to should not be permitted on more than one day in the week, and even then only for a limited time-at most for an hour or two.
Although the government, as is well known, was ready with its work at the opening of this session, practically nothing has been done to date; in fact, any reputable business house in the country could transact in six weeks' time as much business as we have put through here in six months. Generally speaking, I believe the average voter throughout the country feels disposed to hold the government responsible for the delay, not understanding clearly our methods of procedure, not realizing that a dozen men-or two men, for that matter-can hold up indefinitely the voting of supplies or the transaction of the country's business. Under such conditions, it becomes, in my judgment, our duty to find such a solution of this difficulty as will effectually overcome the evil we have to face. We are sent here to legislate for the country's benefit and generally to assist in the transacting of the country's business. We believe it to be our duty to assume any responsibility necessary to attain these end's and to render an account of our acts not to the opposition in this House but to the people we represent.
Mr. Speaker, I desire to put myself on record as advocating the adoption of such rules as will enable the House to proceed with the business of the country, giving that business preference in all eases, and shutting off the long, windy speeches, which, at best, are only for party purposes and cannot serve the best interests of the country in any sense. Year after year the length of the session is growing greater. In order to make the comparison clear, yet as brief as possible, I have made up the figures in 10-year periods.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is not my hon. friend (Mr. Gordon) delaying the House by this long disquisition ?


David Alexander Gordon: I hope that, in the end, it will have the effect of facilitating the business greatly. In the period from 1878 to 1887, the average length of the session was 100 days, and the average length of each day's sitting was 3 hours and 34 minutes. From 1888 to 1897, the average was 1141 days, and the average sitting of the House was 7 hours and 9 minutes. From 1898 to 1907, the average session was 169 days and the time of the average day's sitting was 7 hours. Now, to make a comparison, I have taken the figures for South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria. The figures are as follows :


David Alexander Gordon: Average Average length of length days of session sitting days, hours
minutes.
South Australia, average for 25
years of	 82	4:30
Tasmania, average for 25 years
of	
83	4:28Victoria (previous to	1880)....	64	6:51
Now, as to the tactics pursued here, we on this side are not alone in complaining. We find that newspaper organs representing the Conservative party also complain. In this connection, I would take the liberty of reading an article which appeared in the Montreal ' Star,' a paper well known to hon. gentlemen opposite :
So far as we can gather from the sleepy reports which the papers have been able to give us of the ' terrible struggle ' which went on at Ottawa during the last three days of last week, it was a fight for more readiness to bring down information. Now an opposition is certainly justified in demanding the fullest information. But the minister who was behind with his ' information ' explained that his department was getting it ready as rapidly as it could, and that he would soon lay it on the table. He did not refuse to give the information; he promised to give it.. . . The result was the opposition kept parliament sitting, at great cost to the country, through three weary and empty days while they protested against a minister who could not turn out information faster'than his clerks could work. Obstruction is the heaviest piece of siege artillery available to an opposition. It is, moreover, a gun which can very easily blow itself to pieces. At Westminster it has blown itself to pieces, and that is a free parliament. At Washington the very pieces have been buried out of sight, and the minority lies helpless at the feet of the majority


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: would like to have.
That is what you


David Alexander Gordon: The opposition should think of this before it runs out its hundred-ton cannon to brush away the fly.
I believe the House would agree, and not only the House but the country, that these hon. gentlemen opposite have been every day bringing out their 100-ton guns to brush away flies.
If the minister positively refused information, then the situation would be changed. If the information, when it comes down, reveals scandalous wastefulness or worse, then we shall expect the opposition to make the most of it. But it will only weaken its power to attract public attention to great wrongs if it insists upon flagging the fast express of parliament every time it wants to ask a mail clerk why a letter has been delayed.
Now in view of what has transpired, it is easy for us to realize whether we are drifting when, on many occasions, a


Mr. LANCASTER.: Whose language is the hon. gentleman reading which speaks of the rights of minorities ?


David Alexander Gordon: May on Parliamentary Practice.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will he send the book over to the Minister of Finance for his Information about the rights of minorities?


David Alexander Gordon: If my hon. friend will be patient he will see what this leads up to.
But of late, these salutary rules have been strained and perverted, in the House of Commons for purposes of obstruction. Such a course, if persisted in, would frustrate the power and authority of parliament, and secure the domination of a small minority, condemned by the deliberate judgment of the House and of the country. That it was unparliamentary and opposed to the principles of orderly government was manifest: and on the 25th of July, 1887, it was declared by the Speaker ' That any member wilfully and. persistently obstructing public business, without just and reasonable cause, is guilty of a contempt of the House, and would be liable to such punishment, whether by censure, by suspension from the service of the House, ^or by commitment, as the House may adjudge.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What about the hon. gentleman's own course at this minute ?


David Alexander Gordon: If the hon. gentleman will only have patience, the much needed light will come :
That a revision of the standing orders must be made to secure the due transaction of public business, and to maintain tbe dignity of the House, became obvious. The matter was considered by a select committee in 1878, and
a standing order was passed, 28th February, 1880, amended 22nd November, 1882, for the suspension of a member from the service ot the House, on question put forthwith, who shall he named hy the .Speaker, or the chairman of a committee of the whole House, whether he be the chairman of Ways and .Means or any other chairman, for committing the offence of disregarding the authority of the chair, or of abusing the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House, or otherwise. Suspension under the standing orders as amended, 22nd November, 1882. lasted on the first occasion, for a month; the second, for a fortnight; and on any subsequent occasion, for a month; but these periods of time were taken out ot tlie standing order in the course of its amendment in session 1902 with a view to the substitution of other periods. As these, however, were not agreed upon by the House, the suspension of a member under tbe standing older continues for the session unless tbe House terminates it sooner. An amendment o1 the standing order made on the 7th 'March, 1901, provided that if through the refusal of a member who had been suspended to withdraw from the House the .Speaker has to call the attention of the House to the fact that force was necessary to compel obedience to his direction. such member is thereupon without iur-ther question put suspended during the remainder of the session. Notices standing in the name of a suspended member are removed from the notice paper of each day as it is made out, as long as the suspension lasts, bus-pension carries with it exclusion from the precincts of the House. The offence must arise in the House, and be dealt with at once. No motion can be. made that a suspended member be heard at the bar.
Temporary provision was also made bv the urgency resolutions of sessions 1881 and 1882, to facilitate the consideration of several important Bills; and in subsequent sessions resolutions have been agreed to by the House prescribing the conditions under which, and the times at which, the outstanding stages ot Bills should be concluded.	,.
Limitations were also placed by standing orders No 22, 23 and 30, passed during the session of' 1882. amended session 1888, upon obstructive motion for adjournment, and vexatious divisions, and provision was made by standing order No. 19 to check the irrelevance or repetition in debate. These standing orders, during session 1888, received .increased stringency; and the transaction of business was also furthered by providing for the classification, on the notice paper, of Bills other than government Bills, after Whitsuntide, and for the appointment of motions for the introduction of Bills, and for the nomination of select committees at the commencement ot business. -By standing order also, with few exceptions, the Speaker leaves the chair foith with for a Committee of the House.
On page 605 we find the following :
In session 1896 the practice was introduced of devoting a day in each week to the business of supply, and of limiting the time to be allotted for that business during the session. This practice, which was carried on with vaii-ous modifications under sessional orders until


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: The hon. gentleman's light would have been out some time ago.


David Alexander Gordon: As far as the member for North Toronto is concerned, I would fear the results.
Mr. Speaker, before closing I desire to enter my strongest protest against hon-members opposite interfering with the transacting of the country's business, by means of obstructive tactics such as has been resorted to during the past six months. We believe many members on both sides of the House would welcome a change in rules, and trust now that the time is opportune, that the House will agree to such changes in the rules as may be necessary to prevent in future such wanton waste of time. If this cannot be done then speaking for myself, I believe the government should take the matter in hand and show the country that while they have been patient there is also a limit to which patient endurance will not submit, and that the country will no longer suffer what we have been forced to endure during the past six months.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As I am anxious that the proper business of the House shall be conducted, and unlike my hon. friend who has just sat down do not wish to take up the time of the House by talking of matters entirely beside the question before the chair, I desire first of all to say a few words in protest against the language of the Minister of Finance who replied in a very impatient and angry manner to the perfectly proper matter which was brought up by the hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Owen), and then I shall say a word or two in regard to the remarks of the hon. member for East Kent (Mr. Gordon). As I said, the question brought up by my hon. friend (Mr. Owens) was a perfectly proper matter to deal with on a motion for supply. The Minister of Customs has seen fit to leave his duties in the House of Commons and to leave Ms department to enter a provincial campaign in the province of Ontario. He has not been talking on provincial politics but, according to a ' Globe ' despatch, he talked of nothing but Dominion matters. The ' Globe ' despatch devotes an inch and a half space to Mr. Paterson and all of that refers to what he said on federal politics. The Minister of Customs is improperly away from this House, and when my hon. friend drew this matter to the attention of the Minister of Finance, he should have thanked him and apologized and promised to do better, if he could, in controlling the noise and thunder of the Minister of Customs and keeping it in this House, in order to get the business done and not allow him to go out of his sphere into provincial politics, during a session of this House. The Minister of Customs, speaking in Brant, as reported in the ' Globe,' said:
There were 1,800 men who could not get their pay because the Tory obstructionists * would not vote supplies.


Mr. JOHNSTON.: Hear, hear.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: My hon. friend from Cape Breton says ' Hear, hear.'


Alexander Johnston: Sure thing.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Well, he has forgotten, as the Minister of Finance seems to have, what happened. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman who is so fond of applauding everything said by the ' Globe ' or any of the ministers whom he so blindly follows, was awake in the House when the Minister of Customs ceased to do his work here two or three nights ago. The Minister of Customs got all the supply he asked for through.


Alexander Johnston: When ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Three nights ago.


Alexander Johnston: Why not the night before?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He didn't ask for it the night before.


Alexander Johnston: Pardon me, he did.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Minister of Customs brought down the information which he promised on the second night and he then got through live items and the sixth item he was asked to allow to stand so 'Rat the member for Brantford might be present. The Minister of Customs stated that under ordinary circumstances it *would be reasonable to let that item stand, but he pleaded with us as a matter of courtesy to pass the item and let him go because he had made an arrangement to be out of the city next day, and he went with the consent of the opposition who according to his own admission had the right to keep him here. The Minister of Customs went to Brantford and made his speech, and when it is brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for East Northumberland, the Minister of Finance gets excited and undertakes to read my hon. friend (Mr. Owen) a lecture about bringing up the matter in the absence of the Minister of Customs. But what was the Minister of Customs doing in Brantford? He was talking to the electors who did not know what was taking place in this chamber about what had taken place here, and he was talking to them behind the backs of every member of the opposition, who had they been present would have shown where he was wrong. The Minister of Customs was talking behind the backs of the members of this House who were absent at Ottawa attending to their duties while he was neglecting his.


William Stevens Fielding: Has my hon. friend not been absent on the same mission as the Minister of Customs?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not for one minute during the whole of this campaign, because I thought my duty was here.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman has been frequently absent from his place in the House and I assumed he was engaged in that work.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Minister of Finance had better not assume what he knows nothing about.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not assuming anything when I say the hon. gentleman has been frequently absent. I know that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: My total absence from this House has been 12 days since last November. Has any one got a better record than that? Let the Minister of Finance look at his own supporters ; let him look at the member for Welland (Mr. German). How many days has the member for Welland been here to look after the interests of the Niagara district? Before the Minister of Finance undertakes to talk to people on this side of the House he had better know the facts. We all know the Minister of Customs is absent in the provincial election, campaign.


Mr. ZIMMERMAN.: The reference to the hon. member for Welland is not fair because that hon. gentleman has been ill all this session.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That statement is not correct because I have seen the member for Welland in court half a dozen times this session. I have known the hon. member for Welland to be attending to his private business every month except the last month. I understand he was ill during the last part of May, but he was attending to his own private business up to that day to my certain knowledge. What is the use of the hon. member for Hamilton trying to mislead the House about that matter? But my difficulty is with the Minister Of Finance who, because he is not satisfied with the way in which the people of Canada view the actions of the government-*


William Stevens Fielding: But I am satisfied.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He knows the people of Canada do not approve of the actions of the government and so he gets excited and finds fault with the opposition. If the Minister of Customs made that statement at Brantford as reported in the ' Globe,' he made a misleading statement.
I do not say that the statement is wilfully untrue, but I do say it is not a fact and the member for East Northumberland was-only discharging his duty when he brought the question to the attention of the House, and the Minister of Finance blames the hon. gentleman for talking behind the back of the Minister of Customs. But the Minister of Customs is talking behind the back of every member on this side of the House and talking what is not correct. Now, these supplies have been voted by the Committee of the House, but the Minister of
9909 JUNE 5, 1908 9910	
Finance complains that no Supply Bill has passed. Does he expect the leader of the opposition to draw up his Supply Bill for him? Mr. FIELDING. When we asked the leader of the opposition to consent to a vote on account the leader of the opposition refused. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. So far as the appropriations for the Department of Customs are concerned, and it is with them we are dealing, no Supply Bill has ever been asked for. The Minister of Finance did ask to have the rules of the House suspended in order that one-eighth or one-fourth of the total Supply Bill might be passed at once and without discussion. That was assented to last March ; it was not assented to later. Mr. FIELDING. If the rules of the House require to be suspended for that purpose why should they not be suspended? But it is implied whenever you attempt to facilitate business in this way that the rules of the House will be suspended and all that I asked hon. gentlemen opposite to do was to give us a vote on account for the customs and for every other department, and that was refused. If that vote had been granted as we asked it, or had the opposition given us the vote of one-fourth which we originally asked for, today the departments would have money to pay the public service. ' Mr. R. L. BORDEN. It was not refused in the way in which the hon. gentleman states. Mr. FIELDING. I did not say in what way it was refused. I say it was refused. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. We asked, before we should consent to the suspension of any rules of the House, that we should come to an understanding about a certain very controversial measure which had been brought on for discussion in this House nearly five months and a half after the opening of the session, and brought on with the full knowledge that it was an extremely controversial measure which would produce great discussion. Mr. FIELDING. The fact that my hon. friend differs from us regarding a certain Bill respecting the province of Manitoba is no possible excuse for failing to give supplies to pay the postmaster down in St. John. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. As far as the postmaster in St. John is concerned, the supplies for him have already been voted in this House. Mr. FIELDING. My hon. friend is incorrect again; the supplies have not been voted by this House.	Mr. R. L. BORDEN. So far as I am concerned all have been voted that have been asked for. Mr. FIELDING. My hon. friend is wrong; they have not been voted by this House. Mr. LANCASTER. I was anxious to let the Minister of Finance go on because he is proving my case every time he opens his mouth. He admits now he did not ask	 Mr. FIELDING. Would my hon. friend permit me	 Mr. LANCASTER. Let me finish my sentence. Mr. FIELDING. I ask my hon. friend to permit me	 Mr. LANCASTER. I am not going to be interrupted by the Minister of Finance when I am in the middle of a sentence. I am perfectly willing to let him get as excited as he can when I have finished, but I am not going to be interrupted in the middle of a sentence, because it does not do justice to the people who sent me here and who know that I can frame a sentence correctly. The Minister of Finance knows that too, and he does not want the sentence finished. He knows the Minister of Customs has not asked for any Supply BUI to pay these customs salaries. Mr. FIELDING. I said that on behalf of the Minister of Customs and on behalf of every minister of this government I applied" to the hon. members opposite through the proper channel to ask them to consent to a Supply Bill, first for one-fourth of the estimates. The hon. gentlemen refused, but agreed to vote one-eighth. That was done. Whatever credit they are entitled to for it I frankly give to them. When that was exhausted, I called for a further vote on account of customs, the Post Ofiice and every other service of the government, and hon. gentlemen opposite -I do not debate their reason, that is their business-refused. Mr. LANCASTER. The Minister of Customs did not say what the Minister of Finance has just stated, but the very opposite. He said that in his department there were 1,S00 men who could not get their pay because the Tory obstructionists would not vote the Supply. He knows that that is not correct; he knows that the supplies for those 1,800 men were voted the very night before he left here to go and interfere in the provincial elections. He must have had that fact in mind when he went to Brantford, and it is no wonder that the Minister of Finance cannot find any other way of getting around it than by getting angry.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think the hon. gentleman should accuse me of getting angry. I am not angry.
. Mr. LANCASTER. Appearances are very deceptive, then. The hon. gentleman should take a stage manager with him, so that we would not think he was angry when he was not. We must be judged more or less by our actions in this House, and the Minister of Finance must expect to be judged by the tones he uses. If the Minister of Customs wanted to make a statement to the Brantford audience in good faith, why did he not say what the Minister of Finance has just said ? What he should have stated was that the supplies for those 1,800 men and every thing he had asked for had been voted the night before he left, and that it only needed the Supply Bill to put it into full effect, and that the government had not yet asked for the Supply Bill. I shall be curious to hear what the hon. Minister of Customs will say when he returns to this House. He is a gentleman for whom we have always had the highest respect, and I do not think that he will be willing to live under the imputation of having made a statement so absolutely deceptive. The Minister of Finance says you cannot bring down a Supply Bill every day. If he will look through the statutes of this parliament during the last seven sessions, since I have been here, I venture to say that he will find that there has not been one year in-which there has not been more than one Supply Bill, and in some years there have been three or four. If the hon gentleman wanted a Supply Bill in order to get the money for these 1,800 employees, why did he not ask us if we would pass a Supply Bill ? He knows very well that we wrould. He knows that as soon as an item goes through the Committee of Supply , our opposition to it ceases, and we always allow a Supply Bill to go through in five minutes, whenever it is brought in. 1 he Minister of Finance must not try to deceive the people of this country ; they are too intelligent to be deceived by that sort of thing. We have passed, as has been pointed out, between eleven and twelve million dollars. Why, then, has the Minister of Finance not asked for a Supply Bill, if he wants this money ? The hon. member for East Kent (Mr. Gordon) had the temerity to refer to the fact that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was not able to get his estimates through for two or three days. He forgets entire]}7 that the whole trouble was that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries wanted us to take his word instead of bringing down some original papers which we wanted to see. If the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had exercised any common sense, he Mr. LANCASTER.
would have withdrawn his item and said that it -was not reasonable that he should ask this House to vote it when the original papers were asked for and were not produced. The hon. member for East Kent intimated that the department were making up the papers as fast as they could, and that the clerks were overworked. The hon. gentleman knows that we were not asking for any copies, or for one minute's work to be done by any clerk in the department, but that it was the original papers we wanted to see, the papers on which the minister was relying for the statements lie was making, before we allowed that large and very contentious item to pass. The hon. member for East Kent also, following the Minister of Finance, undertakes to give us some advice as to what we ought to do in discussing the business of this country, and he quotes an authority who is dead against what the Minister of Finance said about the rights of minorities. Let us settle this matter if we can, seeing that the hon. member for East Kent, for some reason, does not want the Minister of the Interior to get through any supplies this morning. The hon. gentleman got up at 11.30 o'clock and stopped supply by making a speeeh about amending the rules of the House with regard to matters which should have been attended to a year or two ago when the rules were being amended. The hon. gentleman says the rights of the opposition should be curtailed but does not propose any amendment defining in what respect they should be restricted. We had from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) over and over again the statement that the minority in this House have no rights except what the majority give them.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Are these hon. gentlemen who interrupt not satisfied with that declaration of the Minister of Finance or are they convinced that he is talking nonsense when he says the majority have no rights in this House?


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman continues to repeat that I said the opposition had no rights. I said nothing of the kind. I said that every member of this. House has the rights which the rules of the House, passed by the majority, give him.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We had a lively discussion on that question, and the Minister of Finance said that we have no rights except what the majority chose to give us.


William Stevens Fielding: That is right.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Now the hon. member for East Kent (Mr. Gordon) says our rights should be curtailed.


David Alexander Gordon: We complain that you are abusing and going beyond your rights.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If we have none at all how can we go beyond them? The Speaker could prevent our exercising any rights if we have none. When the Minister of Finance said that we have no rights he said what was not true, and now we have the hon. member for East Kent (Mr. Cordon) making a speech to prove that the Minister of Finance was all wrong in his statement and that the rights of the minority should be more curtailed than they are. But he is thus opening up a very large question indeed; and if that question be discussed until midnight, it is entirely his fault. The hon. gentleman said, on the motion to go into Supply, that he had an important question to bring up which should be settled. But he did not move any amendment, and therefore we are completely in the dark as to what method he proposes to curtail our rights. I apprehend that he himself has been taking up the attention of the House simply for the purpose of obstructing Supply. When he talks of preventing members of the opposition from discussing matters which are properly before the House, he should have backed up his speech by a motion so that we might have some idea of what he proposes this House should do in order to accomplish the object he aims at. He should have moved an amendment in concrete form and in not doing so he has been guilty of discourtesy to this House. He urged that before going into Supply, the rules of the House should be amended. In this way he was obstructing Supply, and yet he does not submit any motion which would indicate exactly in what way he proposes to curtail our rights. And while raising such an important discussion and thus taking up valuable time, he expressed the hope that this discussion would not delay the House too long. But if he were sincere in not desiring to waste the time of the House, why did he not move an amendment so that we might know what he means? Possibly the hon. gentleman is one of those many members from the province of Ontario who are convinced that their usefulness as members of this House has gone and that they stand no chance, or very little chance, of being reelected. Possibly he feels that he cannot expect re-election if he undertakes any longer to support this government through thick and thin, and therefore is seeking a pretext which will enable him to go before his electors and claim that he is not backing up the government in everything. True the government were complaining that the opposition were preventing Supply going through, but the hon. gentleman wants to be able to say that he has acted as an independent and was not going any longer to follow the Laurier government in that regard. How else can we account for the fact that when the government is asking for Supply, we find him raising such an important question now as that affecting the rights of members of this House to criticise the conduct of the government. For my part I protest against the hon. gentleman arguing that the rules should be amended and then sitting down without putting his ideas into the concrete form of an amendment to the motion to go into Supply.


David Alexander Gordon: Was it not the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Owen) who started the issue?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not at all. That hon. gentleman simply drew attention to a statement of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), which was utterly unfounded, and which he made while neglecting his duties in this House in order to take part in a local election. Had the hon. member for East Kent not interfered my hon. friend from Northumberland would have made his statement, which did not take him five minutes, we would have had the answer of the Minister of Finance and my reply, and we would have been in Supply an hour ago. But the hon. member for East Kent (Mr. Gordon) stood up in his place; and in order to show the people of his constituency that he was not entirely in the hands of the government on this question, he raised the issue of amending the rules of debate without at the same time indicating, by a motion, in what respect he would have them amended. Had it not been for his interference in the discussion and for his bringing up a question so open to discussion, we would have been in Supply at twenty-five minutes to twelve. The hon. gentleman in fact blocked the Supply and prevented the Speaker leaving the chair, and he did this by raising the question of interfering with the rights of the minority, although his leader, the Minister of Finance, has declared that the minority have no rights.


David Alexander Gordon: The hon. gentleman finds fault with me for taking up half an hour of the time of the House, but how many hours has he taken up this session?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not pretend to know, but I do say that the hon. gentleman who has just spoken is the first member of this House who has said that I wasted time by speaking here. He may have plucked up courage enough to say that here, but I venture to say he will take it back if he should meet me at lunch time. He has said to me in conversation, not once only but half a dozen times, that if all the members of the opposition talked as little and as sensibly as I do there would be no waste of time. Now, I do not care a button which of the different opinions the hon. gentleman expressed is his real opinion. Ail I say is that be ought to have a conservative mind and say the same thing whether he is in the House or out of it. He ought not to be so

good a supporter of the Laurier government as to say one thing at one time and a different thing at another time. I am not influenced one way or the other by the hon. gentleman's opinion, I do not speak in this House with a view to either winning or opposing such opinion concerning myself. I think that like other hon. members on this side I speak only when it seems to me in the interest of my constituents and the country that I should speak. But, when we are in Supply and a cabinet minister refuses information, refuses even to produce original documents, would the hon. member say that we should allow that Supply to go through without getting the information to which the country is entitled ? The hon. gentleman's argument is that the rights of the opposition should be curtailed according to the wish of the Finance Minister or any other member of the government who may have certain business he wishes to put through. What would become of responsible government if that view of the case should prevail ? The government undertakes to do something knowing that the people are against them, and knowing that the feeling against them will be the more increased the more the matter is discussed. The hon. gentleman would say :	Gag the
opposition. If this could be done, there would be no object in people electing members to check and criticise the government, for the opposition would be deprived of the opportunity to perform that function. What would be the result ? There would be a petition to the King to reconsider the constitution of the country. If the hon. gentleman knows anything about public rights he must know that.


Alexander Johnston: Give it to him.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Give what to whom? If I could give the hon. gentleman from Gape Breton (Mr. Johnston) some knowledge of the duty he owes to his constituents- who, I understand, are'not very anxious to send him back after the approaching elections-it would be a good thing. But what the hon. gentleman says does not affect me, for he no more than the hon. member for East Kent (Mr. Gordon) gives me sincere advice. The hon. gentleman is willing that the country should be dealt with by the government as the government pleases. But we are not in that position. The people have the right to know what is to be done with the taxes they pay to this government, and it is the duty of the opposition to see that that information is supplied. It would suit the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) very well at present to have the government all-powerful. But after the next election, he will come to the conclusion that the opposition should have some rights.


Alexander Johnston: It is just a quarter to one. Does the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) think he can talk it out ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I will try, if it will accommodate the hon. gentleman.


Alexander Johnston: Only a quarter of an hour more.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am willing to sit down now if I have convinced the House of the correctness of the position of the hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Owen) in raising this important question. And the hon. members who are interrupting me are doing no good to the country as a whole by taking the position that the Minister of Customs, or any other minister, is justified in leaving the House, especially at a time when business is so pressing that morning sittings have been ordered, to take part in the provincial election and to complain to the public about the business here not being done. I wonder that some good intelligent Reformer, did not ask the Minister of Customs why he was not down here doing what he could, at any rate, to have the business put through. In fact, that may have happened, but the ' Globe ' has not seen fit to repeat it. And the Minister of Customs has not represented the matter fairly before the country, in complaining that the money of which he spoke was voted.


Alexander Johnston: No, no.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is what he said. What is the use of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston) denying it ? The money was voted in Committee of Supply. ' It could not be available without a Supply Bill, but the Minister of Customs did not propose a Supply Bill. So he is misleading the people when he says he cannot get his 1,800 men paid. In view of the statements made by the member for East Kent (Mr. Gordon) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) concerning the rights of the minority, I thought it well to discuss this matter, but I understand that some hon. gentlemen desire to speak, so I will give way.


Mr. DUNCAN ROSS (Yale-Cariboo).: Mr. Speaker, it is not in keepiug with the eternal fitness of things that the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) should represent Lincoln and Niagara-that there should be so much wind-power located so near the magnificent water-power of Niagara Falls. This question has come up, and I do not think the House could be better engaged than in discussing the situation that has developed here during the last two or three months. I take it that this government was sent here by the people, with a majority of 60 or 70 members, to transact the public business. I also take it that if the rules of the House do not enable this government to transact the business of the country as against a weak minority, the sooner the rules are changed the better. I am not surprised that hon. gentlemen opposite should strive so valiantly to justify the hopeless and in-

defensible position in which they find themselves to-day. They have simply brought the parliament of Canada into disrepute by their actions during the last two or three months. Now they are trying to argue that they have not held up Supply. Why, Sir, they have systematically held up Supply ever since this Hou#b began this session. Every time the government has endeavoured to get 'Supply, some senseless, silly resolution has been moved by some hon. gentleman opposite, and the discussion continued until we find that, after five or six months of session, we have been unable to carry on the business of the country. Let me say in all seriousness to this government, that the responsibility attaches to them to see that the business of the country is carried on; and let me also say that if lion, gentlemen opposite persist in the course they have been pursuing for the last two or three months, the sooner the government realizes the fact that the people of this country expect them to carry on the public business, the better it will be for this parliament and for this country. Let me call attention to the fact that a similar situation developed in the imperial parliament a number of years ago, and the then Speaker, exercising an authority which the House did not give him, but acting in the best interest of the country, put the question immediately without any authority by the rules of the House. A similar situation has developed here, and if the House does not transact the business it ought to transact, business that a majority of this House is no doubt willing that it should do, and which the people are now insisting upon, I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, you will have to do what a distinguished Speaker did in the imperial House, and put the question without being so authorized under the rules of the House. Let me take up a minute of time by putting on ' Hansard ' the position which the British Speaker thought it his duty to take at that time:
A crisis has thus arisen which demands the prompt interposition of the chair, and of the House. The usual rules have proved powerless to ensure orderly and effective debate. An important measure, recommended in Her Majesty's speech nearly a month since, and declared to be urgent, in the interests of the state, by a decisive majority, is being arrested by the action of an inconsiderable minority, the members of which have resorted to those modes of ' obstruction' which have been recognized by the House as a parliamentary offence.
The dignity, the credit, and the authority of this House are seriously threatened, and it is necessary that they should be vindicated Under the operation of the accustomed rules and methods of procedure, the legislative powers of the House are paralyzed. A new and exceptional course is imperatively demanded; and I am satisfied that I shall best carry out the will of the House, and may rely upon its support, if I decline to call upon
any more members to speak, and at once proceed to put the question from the chair.
No doubt that was a drastic course for the Speaker to take, and it was not until a year afterwards that the imperial parliament amended the rules of the House by adopting closure. I say, and say most emphatically, that the minority of this House have absolutely no rights but what the majority choose to concede them. I also say that the rules of the House as at present constituted can only continue so long as the majority wishes them to continue. I am bound to say that when a minority of this House attempts to obstruct business, and attempts impudently to dictate to the majority what legislation shall be introduced and what legislation shall be passed, the sooner the rules of the House are amended the better it will be for the government of this country. Let me quote an authority which even hon. gentlemen opposite will appreciate. In introducing the closure in the imperial House, in 1882, the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone said, as will be found on page 1145 of the British ' Hansard ' of that year :
There is hut one sound principle in this House, and that is that the majority of the House should prevail.
And again later on lie says:
But God forbid that we should see so vast an innovation introduced into the practice of this House, applicable to our ordinary procedure, as would be a rule of the House under which the voice of the majority was not to prevail over that of the minority.
So you see, Sir, that the situation which has developed here is that the minority have said to this government-they cannot get away from it now-that unless certain legislation, good or bad, wise or unwise, is withdrawn, they will refuse to allow the business of the House to continue; that unless certain legislation is withdrawn we are going to be here until the snow flies; that unless certain legislation is withdrawn they will vote no Supply to this government. Now, that is the position they have taken; it is an intolerable position, a position that this House and this government, If it recognizes its own dignity and importance, cannot yield to for a single moment. I do say in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, that we would be much better employed at the present time in discussing, but uot discussing for very long, the question of amending the rules of the House so that the business of the country may be proceeded with. I say more than that, Mr. Speaker, that while the people sent this government here with a large majority to do the business of the country, if they do it well, it is all right, if they do it badly, they must answer to the people therefor. But the people are not going to stand by and see this government held up by, a hopeless minority, while we

sit here month after month incapable of carrying on the public business.


George Taylor: I have five minutes before one o'clock, and I presume it is well to utilize it so as to save time.


William Stevens Fielding: Will my hon. friend be able to finish before one-otherwise we might as well call it one.


George Taylor: No, I will not be able to finish. The Minister of Finance said with reference to a statement made by my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) that the Minister of Customs has had just as good a right to go into his own constituency and talk at a provincial election as my hon. friend from Lincoln had, or any other private member of the House. Sir, I claim that there is a great difference between the position of a cabinet minister and that of a private member. If a private member absents himself from the House, $15 a day is deducted from his sessional indemnity. It may be the case with the ministers. But the people of this country are paying the minisr tors, besides their sessional indemnity, $7,000 a year to stay here and attend to public business. They are not supposed to vacate their seats when parliament is in session, and run away to take part in provincial politics, as the Minister of Customs is doing. It has been the practice of other ministers to absent themselves for two or three weeks when they ought to be here to answer questions relating to their departments. They are being paid by the people of this country their sessional indemnity of $2,500, and $7,000 in addition, to be here and attend to public business. What would be said by any bank or any other corporation in Canada if one of their chief clerks, without saying a word to anybody, left his office and went out into the country whenever he saw fit, to take part in politics or in any other outside business and at the same time draw his salary from the company ? The company would soon dismiss that servant as the people of Canada will, on the first opportunity dismiss the ministers, saying : We are paying you $7,000 a year to stay in your place while parliament is in session, yet nine out of thirteen of you have been away taking part in the provincial elections. Will the Minister of Finance say that it is right to have the Minister of Customs go away and defraud his employers of the services for which they are paying him ?


Duncan Ross: Order.


George Taylor: I say that is what it amounts to. No cabinet minister has a right to go away when the people are paying him $7,000 and expecting him to perform services in return for it.
At one o'clock, House took recess.


Duncan Ross: House resumed at three o'clock.


George Taylor: When the House rose at one o'clock I was trying to convince the Minister of Finance that he was in error when he stated that the Minister of Customs had as good a right to be away stumping in the provincial elections as had the member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster).


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And I was not away stumping.


George Taylor: The Hon Edward Blake and the Hon Alexander 'Mackenzie always claimed that the Dominion government had no right to interfere in provincial elections, but the present Liberal government has repudiated that great plank of Liberalism, and to-day we see the ministerial benches empty and the ministers away stumping Ontario and Quebec notwithstanding that the people of Canada pay them $7,000 a year and their indemnity besides to stop here and transact public business And yet the Minister of Finance says the ministers have as much right to be absent as have the members of the opposition but if the members on this side are absent they are docked $15 a day, while the pay of the ministers goes on.


William Stevens Fielding: The ministers are docked too.


George Taylor: Not on the $7,000.


Duncan Ross: Is the leader of the opposition docked ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He is never away.


George Taylor: I notice by the Auditor General's Report that the ministers draw their full indemnity and yet we have questions on the Order Paper day after day and the government has to ask them to stand because the ministers are not ready with the information and these questions have to be reprinted from day to day at a cost of thousands of dollars to the government. The statement made by the minister of Customs at Brantford is not correct in any particular. The government has no good reason to put the blame on the opposition because some of the civil servants have not got their pay.
Mr. EMMERiSON. It is cruel to blame the opposition.


George Taylor: Yes it is cruel, and the country does not believe it is the fault of the opposition. This government is trying to mislead the people about that. Parliament was called on the 27th of November and although the law states that the Auditor General's Report shall be laid on the table a few days after parliament meets yet when we returned after the vacation in January the Auditor General's Report was not yet printed. And when complaint was made the Minister of Finance said the

Auditor General was an officer of this House and the government had no control over him, whereas the fact is that the ministers were perambulating the country and they did not send their departmental reports to the Auditor General, and hence lie could not present his report and parliament could not consider the estimates. To-day we see that some of the most important legislation of the session is not brought down yet by the government and it ill becomes them to blame the opposition for delay. The Minister of Finance stated it never before happened that the civil servants could not get their pay but let me quote to him this article from yesterday's ' Citizen ' as to what occurred in 1895-96 :
Civil Servants outside the city anxious for their pay.
Toronto, June 3.-The postal clerks and employees of the civil service have begun to feel the need of cash. In some branches of the service notice has been given to cut expenses in every way and to travel only where it is absolutely necessary, as the funds at the disposal of the department are small.
The letter carriers and clerks who are receiving from $1.25 to $1.50 per day cannot stand the strain long, and in some cases have been obliged to negotiate loans at high rates of interest to tide themselves over. The civil servants are hoping that the experience of 11 years ago will not be repeated, when they were compelled to go without any pay for a period of seven weeks.
Now I want to show the Minister of Finance what happened in 1896 when the Liberals then in opposition would not allow a dollar to be voted and when after the 30th of June of that year the civil servants were without their pay for 7 weeks. I quote from ' Hansard ' of September 3,1906, from a speech made on a resolution moved in this House by Mr. Foster in the session held after the elections.
No, Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary control is the vital point. The unforeseen character of the expense is the condition precedent to [DOT]the Governor General's warrants being issued. If hon. gentlemen are excused in the case of these warrants, they could, sir, have prorogued parliament until the 19th day of October, and taken another Governor General's warrant; they could have gone on until January; they could have gone on until they were brought up by the statute which makes it necessary that parliament shall meet at least once every year. You must look at the consequences which follow on the line which has been adopted; and if one step is allowed.-and by parity of reasoning, the second step may be taken on the same principle-it is time that this House without taking into account any predilection, should make its voice known with regard to a principle so important and so vital, a principle in which the people of this country are most interested at this present moment. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move :-
That all the words after the word ' that ' be left out, and the following added instead thereof: 'the sixth session of the seventh parlia-315
,	REVISED
ment, met on January 2, 1896, and on the 27th day of the same month the government submitted His Excellency's message transmitting the estimates for the year 1896-7, which were forthwith referred to the Committee of Supply.
That these estimates provided appropriations for the foreseen and necessary salaries and contingencies of the several departments of government and for the maintenance and construction of public works and for other services.
That on the 28th of January the House was asked to go into committee of the whole for granting supply, and to consider first the appropriations for departmental salaries and contingencies.
That neither then nor on the several occasions thereafter when, the House was asked to grant supply did the opposition agree thereto.
That appeals were made by the government setting forth the urgent necessity for making provision for the ordinary and regular expenditures for the approaching fiscal year, or in view of the impending dissolution and of the fact that the new parliament could not possibly assemble before July 1st and would probably meet shortly thereafter, for a part thereof.
That despite these repetitions and although the circumstances were well known and there was ample time at the disposal of the House, supplies for the year 1896-7 were refused and parliament rose on the 23rd day of April without the supplies being granted.
I would ask the Minister of Finance if he ever read that before, and if he did he would not make the statement he made today. In this case the Liberal opposition refused to grant a dollar to pay the civil servants of Canada.


Mr. BRODEUR.: There was money voted.


George Taylor: There was money voted up to the 30th June and after that the civil servants went without their pay for six or seven weeks.


William Stevens Fielding: We were talking about what happened when the Conservatives were in power but that was under a Liberal government and we were not discussing that.


George Taylor: 

[Stage Direction]
rants authorizing the payment of money not previously voted by parliament under the following circumstances only, to wit:
If when parliament is not in session, any accident happens to any public work or building, which requires an immediate outlay for the repairs thereof, or any other occasion arises when any expenditure not foreseen or provided for by parliament is urgently and immediately required for the public' good, then upon ithe report of the Minister of Finance and the Receiver General that there is no parliamentary provision, and of the minister having charge of the service in question, that the necessity is urgent, the Governor in Council may order a special warrant to be prepared, to be signed by the Governor General for the issue of the amount estimated~to be required.
That on the 16th dav of July, 1896-the date when parliament had been summoned to meet for the despatch of business-His Excellency was advised to issue his warrant for the expenditure of $1,067,576 for departmental salaries and contingencies, and on August 18- one day before the actual meeting of parliament-was again advised to issue his warrant for $935,561 for similar expenditures, and that these warrants did issue and that the sums named were accordingly placed at the disposal of the department.
That these amounts were not called for by any accident to any public work or building, nor were they required for any expenditures which had not been foreseen, and which could not have been provided for, but were used to pay ordinary salaries and contingencies, for which parliament had been asked to provide, and which had been refused by the House of Commons.
That, under these circumstances, this House is of the opinion that the issue of the said warrants was in contravention of the well understood principles of parliamentary control, an abuse of the powers vested in the Governor General in Council by the said Act, and a usurpation fraught with danger to public liberty and constitutional government.
That was the amendment moved by the ex-Minister of Finance. Sir Richard Cartwright replied, making a very long speech, in which he tried to justify the action of the Liberal opposition in refusing the Supplies, but he made a very lame case of it indeed. However, that is an answer to the Minister of Finance and to the arguments of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. And now the Minister of Finance and the government are trying to make the people believe that the opposition are responsible for the civil service not getting their pay. Who is responsible? This government met parliament on the 28th of November. They had not the Auditor General's Report down complete until some time in February or March. The Election Bill, which is now the bone of contention was introduced on the 9th of March. So that the government had four months before that Bill was introduced, which was plenty of time in which to have passed their entire estimates. Why did they not put through Mr. TAYLOR,
their Supplies then? Simply because they had been in Europe spending their holidays and neglecting their work, for which they are paid $7,000 a year, and had not their work prepared when the House met. The government are responsible, and they alone. We did not know anything about the Bill. It was not printed for several weeks afterwards. The second reading and the explanation of the Minister of Justice took place on the 5th of May, when this House had been in session more than five months, in which time the opposition would have voted every dollar of the estimates for the civil service of the country if the government had been ready to go on with them. The civil service and everybody else in the country must know that if the estimates have not been passed, It is due entirely to the negligence of this government in not being prepared with their work, and in not having the Auditor General's Report ready, so that the opposition could properly criticise them. The discussion on the Bill was adjourned until the 6th, again until the 7th, again until the 8th, again until the ' 11th, then until the 12th. then until the 13th, and lastly until the 18th of May. That is the time that this iniquitous Bill has been before parliament. Then lion, gentlemen opposite quit and said, now we must get some Supplies. The opposition, out of the kindness of their hearts, had voted them a month and a half of Supplies, enough to carry them until the 15th of last month. That was done before this Bill was brought down; but when they saw the iniquity of the Bill, they said, with the country behind them ; No; a government that would introduce such an iniquitous measure as that should not get a dollar to spend in this country. Thej- knew that they had been kept in power In the last election-in Manitoba by the thin red line and in Ontario by ballotstuffing and fraudulent ballot boxes, only two of which my hon. friend from West Hastings (Mr. Porter) was able to discover. We do not know how many there were, but we think a great many were used in the province of Nova Scotia. With bribery and corruption, switching of ballots and the thin red line, they managed to carry themselves into power. And now they know that the Conservative party has got on to that, and they want to do something that is even worse than ballot switching and the thin red line. They have introduced this Bill simply for the purpose of keeping themselves in power. What Is the Bill? They want to destroy the secrecy of the ballot, so that they may use the money they collect from contractors and the people'from whom they purchase goods
Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Taylor: I withdraw that statement if it is unparliamentary ; but the only interpretation you can take from the reading of section 17 in the Bill-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The objection I understand is that the hon. member is discussing a Bill which is on the Order Paper, and which is not the question now under discussion.
Mr. TAYLOR, Then we will discuss it outside, and teil the people of this country what it means. The Bill is before the House, and the opposition have a right to refuse the Supplies until it is withdrawn or is so amended that it will not be a weapon in the hands of this government to enfranchise every navvy who is working on the Transcontinental Railway in the province of Quebec, the province of Manitoba and the other provinces. The opposition have that right, and they will maintain that right as long as they can stand and endure before they will allow such a measure as that to pass, and deprive the honest electors of this country of the secrecy of the ballot.


An hon. MEMBER.: Now we have it.


George Taylor: Yes, our hon. friends have it. It is due to them, and not to the Prime Minister, that such a Bill was introduced.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. TAYLOR, Four or five years ago, these same men from Manitoba tried to bring in a similar Bill, but the Minister of Justice of that day said : No, I will never be a party to introducing such an infamous measure. The right hon. the First Minister denied any knowledge of any such Bill having been framed or contemplated, but the Bill itself, printed in the Government Printing Bureau-which is controlled by the right hon. gentleman-was read here the other day by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) ; and it was that Bill- exactly the same Bill as was brought down to-day-which the then Minister of Justice refused to introduce. To-day, however, we have a Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth), who was brought up at the feet of ex-Premier Ross, of Ontario, and taught to do his dirty work in that province


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman must not use such an expression.


George Taylor: hope to prove to the people facts which show an adminstration unbelivedly corruptible. I have no personal feeling against any Yukon official. The fault is at Ottawa, and they will have to he responsible.
Then, speaking before the General Assembly in Winnipeg, the Rev. Mr. Pringle thus referred to the immorality in the Yukon :
Rev. John Pringle, of the Yukon, spoke of the conditions surrounding missionary work in the northern field. Mr. Pringle made only a passing reference to the charges he has advanced regarding the moral conditions in Dawson and the conduct of some of the officials. 'I may have been unwise,' said he. 'I may have said things unwisely, but I have tried to do right, and I have spoken the truth.'
In the conference, before his brother ministers, Mr. Pringle reiterated that every word he had spoken was the truth, yet we have ministers of the Crown in this House contradicting him. He declares, as a minister of the Gospel, that every word he spoke was true. Then he went on to say:
Mr. Pringle declared that he did not take these things into the pulpit in the Yukon. In the pnipit he preached the Gospel to those who came to church, not to be denounced but to be encouraged, and to be helped. When be had anything to say on the outside he took off his clerical collar and donned his moccasins and sweater and went on the public platform, where he could he answered. However, Mr. Pringle promised that at a later stage of the conference he would have something to say, so that those who expected to see him in his fighting clothes need not be disappointed.
And Mr. Pringle tells us that he has not told one-tenth part of the truth yet. He asked the government to grant him a committee, and they will not grant It. They sent instead an official to the Yukon to hear what people had to say, they did not take the statements of these people under oath, and then they attempt to force upon the people of this country a law which would deprive them of the secrecy of the ballot and empower this government to appoint their owu officials to manipulate the lists and compel every navvy in their employ to cast a vote in their behalf. The opposition would he worse than serfs if they did not most determinedly oppose such a Bill, whose only intent is to defraud the electorate. We do not want anything unfair.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That Bill is not under discussion.


George Taylor: I am now talking about the franchise in Manitoba.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman was discussing the Bill.


George Taylor: I am pointing out what this government want to do. The province of Manitoba has the fairest franchise on its statutes of any province in the Dominion, vet this government want to take that franchise away. This government want to


George Taylor: appoint their own men to make up the election lists for the provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia and the unorganized districts in Quebec. The opposition would he worse than serfs were they to allow any such legislation to pass. So far as I am concerned, I have told the right lion, the First Minister that I am prepared to stay here and fight that Bill with the only weapon we have. The government want, their estimates through in order that they may then force through this iniquitous Election Bill by means of their huge majority. They want to introduce the closure. Let ig*. .teil them that the people will insist on the rights of parliament being inspected and maintained. The Minister of Finance says that the minority in parliament have no rights except what the majority choose to give them. He is confounding power with right ; but we have shown the government that when they refused to bring down original papers, we were in a position to compel them to do so. The government withheld this Election Bill until they can get their estimates through. They had it before the House from the 5th to the 19th May, and then they laid it aside in order to get their estimates through. They want to run through their estimates and then take up this Bill. But our constitution gives the opposition the right to ventilate their grievances before granting Supply, and this Election Bill is simply an outrage on the rights of a free people.
And whenever the government wish to remove that grievance, they will have no trouble in getting Supply, but until they do, I am satisfied that the opposition will use the weapon which law and constitution places in their hands. My belief is that not only Conservatives, but nine-tenths of the honest Liberals, justify the stand the opposition have taken and are taking, and would justify them if they did not vote a dollar even to pay the civil service. For the civil servants and the people at large know that it is the government and not the opposition that are responsible for the delay. As I have already said, they have allowed five months to pass with nothing done. The opposition did not hinder them ; there was no obstruction until this nefarious Bill came before parliament. In every way possible, the opposition helped on the work of legislation. But the government had no legislation ready ; they simply marked time ; the House met and adjourned. The government had not put in their accounts to the Auditor General in time to have the Auditor General's Report printed for the use of parliament. If there is delay in paying the civil service, that delay is the fault of the government and not the fault of the opposition. Now,
I hope the Minister of Finance will rise and apologize for having attacked my lion.

friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) and told him that the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), although paid $7,000 a year to stay here and attend to the people's business, had just as good a right to go stumping in a provincial election as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) who did not go at all. Why, look at the seats of members and supporters of the government to-day. There are only four or five ministers in their places and many of their supporters are away taking part in the election campaign on Monday. And when the returns of that election come in, I fancy that the government will be glad enough to withdraw this obnoxious legislation and allow the business of the country to proceed.
*MJr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.). It is really very amusing to see the attempt that hon. gentlemen opposite are making to get out of the hole that they find themselves in on this question of Supply. If my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) had been here in the earlier part of todays's sitting, he would not have taken the stand he has taken. This discussion was launched by the hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Owen) complaining of the action of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) in taking part in the campaign in Ontario. The hon. gentleman took exception to a statement made by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) on Saturday last, that the Tory opposition in this House were withholding the Supply necessary to pay the salaries of Customs officials. We had the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) taking up an hour and a half of the time of the House trying to prove that the opposition were not blocking Supply. Now, we have the hon. member for Leeds taking up an hour and a half declaring defiantly : We are blocking Supply.


George Taylor: The House opened this afternoon at 3.05 o'clock, and it is now 3.40. So, I spoke, just 35 minutes. But the hon. gentleman's statement is about as correct as any thing we hear from that side of the House.


Mr. CARVELL.: The hon. member (Mr, Taylor) started at five minutes to one. The House rose at one and sat at three and it is now twenty minues to four. So the hon. member (Mr. Taylor) has been talking for three-quarters of an hour. So I stand corrected-the hon. gentleman has only taken three-quarters of an hour to say : We are blocking Supply we will continue to block Supply. I give my hon. friend credit for being honest in the matter. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) I believe was the first to state, as he did about a month ago, that the opposition were justified in taking what he said was the only constitutional course of blocking Supply until obnoxious legislation was withdrawn. That was repeated by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and has been re-echoed all over the country. The member for Leeds boldly stated it here last week.
But now the members of the opposition are getting scared. Last week, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) took an hour and a half to prove that the opposition were not blocking Supply. Today, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) tried to maintain the same position. What are the facts ? We are told that there is to be an election in Ontario and an election in Quebec


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) ought to know ; he was out stumping.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not vote in either of these provinces, but I take the hon. gentleman's word as to the election. As I have said, members of the opposition are getting scared. About a week ago, the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) tried for three or four days to get Supply to pay the salaries of the officers of his department. In the course of that discussion, the hon. member for Leeds said :	Withdraw sections 1 and 17 of the Election Bill and we will give you Supply in a few minutes. But then they found that there was an immense vote in Ottawa dependent upon that Supply for a living. And they got scared-and virtuous. And now their cry is : For God's sake, give these people their money ; we have voted it why don't you give it to them ? Then, it was stated that no militia camps could be held because there was no money. And these hon. gentlemen got scared again, and I should imagine from the statement made by the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) that they are begging him : For God's sake, hold the militia camps. They are very anxious that all votes of Supply that can benefit them should be put through, but they will refuse to grant any thing that will not secure votes for their side. The action of these hon. gentlemen raises the question fair and square: Can the government of this country, whether Liberal or Conservative, afford to be placed in such a position as that ? Can any government afford to place itself at the mercy of an opposition and virtually declare that, if the opposition do not like any thing contained in legislation that is introduced, all the opposition has to do is to withhold Supply and the government will back down ? carried out in practice and you have a country ruled not by the majority but by the minority. The facts in this

case are very short. About Starch 1, a Bill was Introduced providing for amendments to the election law. In the first week in Stay the second reading of this Bill was moved and the opposition opposed it. I am not going to discuss the merits or demerits of that Bill. Nor will I deny the right of the opposition to oppose a Bill that they believe to be unjust. But I do say that they have not the constitutional or moral or equitable right to say : Unless you will withdraw those provisions of the Bill which we regard as objectionable, we will deprive the Ottawa civil servants, the contractors, every man or woman who is paid by this government throughout the Dominion of their pay. There is no use trying to get away from it; there is no use in these hon. gentlemen saying : We will let you pay the Customs officials for fear we shall not get their votes in the pending election : take the money to hold the militia camps for fear we may not get the votes of those interested. These hon. gentlemen would like to get away from this, but we will hold them to it-the plain question is whether this country is to be ruled by the majority or by the minority. Concede what these hon. gentlemen now contend and you establish a precedent under which any future opposition can demand the withdrawal of any section of any Bill under threat of withholding Supply. Can any government, I say, afford to be placed in that position ? Will the people of Canada justify any government in allowing itself to be put in that position ?
It is no wonder the members of the opposition are trying to recede from this position. The course they took during the last week shows that they are trying to recede' from it. They persistently obstructed Supply for three or four days over the vote to pay the civil servants in the Customs Department, then they gave in. Ever since then they have, by foolish and silly questions, delayed the granting of Supplies for hours, and finally have allowed one or two small items to go through in order that they might be able to say to the country : We are not blocking Supplies. Take their course last night. The Minister of the Interior brought in a resolution to grant $200,000 for the payment of certain salaries. I am willing to admit that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) had a right to ask the question with which he started the discussion, I am willing to admit that probably a quarter of an hour could be reasonably spent in the discussion of that question. After that, we had a spectacle which would not be tolerated in any other parliament of any civilized country in the world-we had three hours of obstruction, three hours taken up in every possible way, from the leader of the opposition down to the hon. member from Mae-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: donald (Mr. Staples), for three hours and a half all sorts of silly questions were asked, and finally they granted the $200,000.


Mr. STAPLES.: I want to ask the hon. gentleman who says : ' Down to the hon. member for Macdonald,' does he not think that the questions which the hon. member for Macdonald asked last evening are quite as intelligent as the stuff he is getting off at the present moment 1


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the hon. member wants an honest answer I shall have to tell him that I do not think so, and I think that every honest member of parliament on either side of fhe House will agree with me in my conclusion-except possibly the hon. member himself. Now, Sir, when ,the next item came up, as I said before, what did the opposition do ? They deliberately blocked Supply, and then allowed the item to pass so that they might go to the country and say : We did not block Supply, because we gave you the $200,000. I ask again: Can any self-respecting government afford to be placed in this position ? I say there is only one solution to this question ; if this opposition, or any other opposition, chose to pursue such a course, the inevitable consequence will be the closure. I am not the firs;t one to advocate the closure. I am going to quote to the hon. gentleman an authority coming from their own party, I am going to quote to them an article from the Montreal ' Gazette ' of Juue 1, in the form of an editorial, a portion of which reads as follows :
It is not the use, but the abuse of the right of discussion that creates public weariness and leads people to upset the natural order of things and to think of the government which acts as of more importance .than the parliament that only talks. So, probably, the mass of the people, without knowing much about the situation, would approve of a plan which promised to shorten the session of parliament by checking the flow of unreported talk, Closure began in the French parliament. It was adopted by that of Great Britain. It exists in the Congress of the United States. These are in their way the three leading parliamentary bodies in the world. What they have agreed to accept may be expected to come in other popularly ruled countries.
To my mind that is the proper doctrine.
I am sorry that it has become necessary that we should discuss the question of closure. Hon. gentlemen opposite, and more especially the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), have tried to show that this is not the first time Supply has been blocked in this parliament in order to prevent obnoxious legislation going through, and they have referred to the conduct of the Liberal opposition in 189(1. But I want to tell .the hon. member, and he knows I am telling him the truth, that it is not a parallel case at all. The records of this House can prove that there was no blocking of Sup-

ply. As a matter of fact parliament expired by effluxion of time on the 24th of April, and Supply was granted up to the 1st day of July following. The opposition gave the then government Supplies up to the first of July, and there was plenty of time between the 24th day of April and the 1st day of July within which to hold an election, to call parliament together and vote Supply. Therefore, I say that is not a parallel case. It is just as well that the people of this country should know that it is not a parallel case, and I hope the members on this side of the House will not forget to show the people that it is not. I am glad this question is beginning to be agitated. I am much obliged to the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Owen) for bringing on this discussion. It is a question that needs to be discussed, it is a question on which the people should have more light. I think the people ought to know that if the civil servants cannot get their pay, if contractors, cannot get their pay, if the railway navvies, as the hon. member for Leeds calls them, cannot get their pay, if the merchants andj others from whom the government purchase supplies cannot get their pay, the people ought to know who is responsible for it. The idea of talking such nonsense as some hon. gentlemen do here, that they are not blocking Supply ! I ask you, Sir, has there been an instance since this session began on the 28th of November last, when the government have asked for Supplies that they have not been met by an organized system of obstruction ? I am safe in saying that in nine-tenths of the cases where the House has been moved into Committee of Supply they have been met by some sort of a ridiculous resolution, in many cases pressed on to a vote ; if not pressed on to a vote, then by a ridiculous discussion, such as we have witnessed the last fortnight. The whole day has been taken up by discussion, and then along about midnight we get into Supply. Still hon. gentlemen opposite get up and say they have not blocked Supply. Take the last month. While the Minister of Public Works was trying to get his estimates through, we sat here might after night' while they were blocking Supply, and towards the small hours of the morning perhaps one or two small items would go through. Now they come down and say : We are not blocking Supply, we want the employees of the Customs Department to get their pay, we want the militia to get their pay. But while they say so, all the time they are blocking Supply. Then they find fault with the Minister of Finance because he does not come down w'ith a Supply Bill every oilier day, while they are only willing to allow a small item of $200,000 to get through in the course of a day. It is just as well that the people should know
who it is that is blocking Supply. Let me give you two instances of what occurred when I was in New Brunswick last week.
I met two contractors, one of them doing some work for the Grand Trunk Pacific, and another building a wharf in the county of Northumberland. Both of them have progress estimates amounting to thousands of dollars ; and although they have been obliged to borrow money from the banks, although they have incurred liabilities while doing the work for the government, they could not get a dollar. Why ? Because this loyal opposition won't allow them to have it, and because this opposition hare deliberately pursued this policy of obstruction and have refused to let the estimates go through. They want to stop the construction of every public work in Canada, and it is just as well that the people should know upon whom to lay the blame. The blame is to be laid at the doors of the opposition, and not at the doors of the government. Therefore I say that this is a matter which ought to be discussed thoroughly ; and I believe that if the opposition determine to persist in this unpatriotic, unworthy course, the next move the government will have to take is to adopt the closure. And I now say to the government that in my opinion, while I think that is the only course they -can pursue, it is one that will be sanctioned and approved by the people of this country. Let the government start in at once to change the rules of this House, if it takes months to do it, in order to adopt the closure. While I say this, I do not claim that the opposition have no rights ; I admit they have rights in this House, they have rights in every parliament. They have a right to discuss any question, they have a right to ask questions when the government are asking Supply and they are entitled to all possible information, but there is not a man of them, except the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), who has intimated that the government have withheld any information which would justify them in taking the course they have taken. They have a right to discuss all these questions and then they have a further right to demand a vote upon any item ; but that is all they have a right to do, and the people of Canada are justified in asking that they shall he reasonable and when they have exhausted these rights allow the business of the country to proceed. Therefore I repeat .that it is useless for them to attempt to withdraw from the position. Either they have to takei the position that they will block Supply deliberately, as the hon. member for Lieeds (Mr. Taylor) has done and stand by it and be responsible or take the other course and say : We will act constitutionally, we will discuss these questions as they should be discussed and when we have discussed them to that extent we will vote against

these measures and leave it to the people to say whether we have acted rightly or wrongly.
I feel that this is a matter of such importance that we should hear from more members on this side of the House. I feel further that it is up to the government, to use a slang expression, to take more drastic measures than they have in the past unless this policy of deliberate obstruction is withdrawn in a very short time.


Haughton Lennox: We have listened to quite a lecture from the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. We are not unaccustomed to it, as during this session there has been hardly a day that some hon. junior member of the Liberal party has not seen fit to tell the opposition how they should Conduct the affairs committed to their hands. For my part I prefer to be guided by the advice of those in whom I have confidence and by my own judgment. I have been absent from the House for a couple of days and have met a great number of intelligent people, Liberal and Conservative, and I venture to say that the voice of the people has come back to the members of the government and they know pretty well what they are up against now, and so, as the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) has just said, they are glad of an opportunity of speaking to-day and so they may be. The government to-day realize that if they can possibly get any excuse for talking anil beclouding the issue until after the elections in Ontario and Quebec, it is better to do so than even to get Supplies through. Who are obstructing to-day? Who but the Minister of Finance and those w-ho, at his instance, have taken up the time of the House. Was any hon. gentleman on this side opposed to going into Supply? Is there anything to prevent us, except the organized system which has developed among the supporters of the government, from going into Supply? I understand that in my absence Supply has been granted from day to day, and there is no reason, so far as I know, why we should not have been in Supply at 11.30 this morning, had it not been for the excited and unnerved speech of the Minister of Finance, followed by the long and in some cases utterly irrelevant speeches of hon. gentlemen who support him. Now that the Minister of Finance should be unnerved and excited is not surprising. If he knows the pulse of the people of Canada to-day it would be surprising if he was not unnerved and excited. If he could calmly, as a statesman, reason the questions that come up from time to time in his old time way it would be surprising to me. He' knows perfectly well that the current of public opinion has set so strongly against the government that it is absolutely necessary they should resort to any plausible excuse for tiding over


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: the difficulties pressing on them, pending the two elections which they know will have such an important bearing on the election they will soon have to face themselves. They want to try and modify the feeling of want of confidence that exists in the electorate to-day. The fact is that the government are at sixes and sevens on almost every point they have to deal with, and that they are so on this very question of Supply is perfectly evident from the statement of the Minister of Finance to-day. Tile Minister of Finance would like the House to understand that the Minister of Customs was right in his statement that he was prevented by the action of the opposition from paying the 1,800 officials in his department. On May 26 at 3 o'clock in the morning an item of $1,705,000 was brought up for us to vote. To show you that the Minister of Finance has not one leg to stand on in his contention that there is anything to prevent those 1,800 people from being paid, I refer to the ' Hansard ' and find that an hour and a half later, at the close of the discussion, the minister said :
I want to pay these men to-day. This is the day that we issue our cheques. We do not want them to be delayed, we want to issue our cheques if possible to-day and we want you to grant this item of $1,705,000.
And so it was recognized that iif we would grant Supply the money would go immediately to these employees. On the 29th, the next time it came up, the greater part of the item having gone through, he said :
Let the whole item go through because I do not think I can use a part of it. I do not know that the Auditor 'General will issue the cheques unless the whole item is passed.
Therefore he pleads to let the amount go through. The leader of the opposition said that it would be no harm to let it stand until Monday when the minister would have the cheques. The minister said:
Yes, but it is discriminating between the inside and the outside service. But will I get it on Monday so I can issue the cheques?
He was told that he could in all probability and he received the amount which was granted on the statement that it was necessary to issue the cheques at once and that the Auditor General would allow the cheques to issue as soon as the item was approved of by this House. And so he would have done if he had confidence in the administration. But it appears by the press that the Auditor General does not see his way under present conditions to allow it unless the Supply Bill passes. The leader of the opposition said at that time :
Let the $40,000 item stand.
Mr. FIELDING said :

No, it would stop the whole item. The several items constitute one resolution, so that there would he nothing to report.
But now, when they find that the Auditor General, for reasons that are sufficient to himself and in which he may be perfectly justified, refuses to allow the cheques to issue until the Supply Bill is introduced and passed, these gentlemen assume another attitude. Why do they not bring down a Supply Bill ? They have brought down Bills for infinitely smaller matters than this, and there is no reason why they should not bring in a Supply Bill. As a matter of fact, I claim it is absolutely their bounden duty to introduce a Supply Bill at once. They have made the statement that we were preventing the holding of militia camps. They know that we were never asked for a vote for that purpose and when we ask them to take action they hesitate. They do not know what they want or do not want, but meantime slander the opposition by innuendoes and statements in their press.
Is it worth while to introduce a Supply Bill? Let us see what we have passed within a little more than half a month. On May 15 we passed $533,000 of estimates for the Minister of Public Works. On May 20 we passed estimates amounting to $1,101,975. On May 22 we passed $5,479,110, a pretty big day's work. On May 29 and June 1 this item of the Minister of Customs was completed and by it we have passed $1,815,187 which, with the amount already passed, made a total vote on that item of $2,074,075. On June 2 we passed $198,548 and on June 3 we passed $216,293. Not counting the hundreds of thousands of dollars we passed yesterday we have in 15 or 16 days at six sittings of the House voted $9,347,113, and that money is immediately available for the government and' for the men.


George Taylor: Just one-quarter of the annual expenditure under the Conservative government.


Haughton Lennox: That may not appear a great deal of money to these gentlemen opposite with their -wild ideas of expenditure and ghastly extravagance, but under ordinary circumstances it is a very large sum. And they can add to that within 24 hours, because if they bring down any reasonably non-contentious items they will be passed at once. There is no disposition on the part of the opposition to absolutely block Supply, but in view of the disclosures we have had this session, last session, and the session before, the government has shown itself absolutely undeserving of the confidence of the people and in the public interest the opposition must carefully scrutinize these expenditures. The Minister of Finance has again reiterated the statement that the opposition have no rights except such as the majority at his back see fit to concede and the member for Yale-Cariboo has endorsed that statement, while the member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) has adopted a more rational view. Well Sir, it will be a poor day for Canada and it will be a wretched opposition when the opposition will consult the government of the day as to what they shall do and how they shall criticise the expenditures of the country and the policy of the government. It is the duty of the opposition to guard [DOT] the public treasury, to watch closely the progress of public business, to scrutinize the acts of the government, and in the honest discharge of that duty there should be no hard and fast rule laid down to bind them. The opposition are to-day only too anxious to take the verdict of the people of the country on whether they have been faithfully discharging their duty, and on whether the government should fbe allowed longer to remain in power. I have very great respect for the hon. member for East Kent (Mr. Gordon) both in his personal and public capacity, but I must say that he had a very ungracious task assigned to him this morning by some members of the government in having to go through an argument in which he evidently took no interest and which I doubt very much that he himself appreciated. I venture to say that no one in the House thinks that argument of the hon. gentleman had any relevancy whatever to the practical issues we are discussing today. The hon. gentleman said that the opposition had on occasions come out in their war paint, and he asked why should they use 100 ton guns to shoot flies. Well, I would like to know that too. Look at the flies on the other side of the House. It used to be flies on the wheel but now it is flies on the run or 'it will be as soon as the people of Canada get a chance at them. When the time comes that these gentlemen on the other side of the House are sitting in opposition, and that time will be soon if we can judge of the public sentiment, I wonder if they will advocate the principles we hear them advocate to-day. You talk about killing time by delivering long and irrelevant speeches, as being obstruction, and yet the supporters of the government are the chief sinners of this session. For some purpose or other they have been constantly delivering important speeches which have had no relevancy to the question before the chair, and this I attribute to the fact that the government were not ready with public business, and so their supporters had to come to their aid and cause delay. Where is the Civil Service Bill, so long promised ? Where is the Land Bill ? It was introduced just one week ago although we had it up last session and presumably the government should have introduced it the very first day of this session ; but it has been delayed until the

7th month. It is an intricate Bill and one which will require to be well considered and discussed. It is no secret that on these questions with regard to which we on this side are opposed to government, there have been dissensions amongst the supporters of the government themselves, -want of harmony in their ranks-and therefore in order to get time to bring the warring factions of the Liberal party together the government has delayed its jneasures. * Does the Minister of Finance think that we are going to enter a blind pool every time he asks us. He wanted one-quarter of the total Supply without the items being discussed and the leader of the opposition granted him one-eighth. After lettihg the whole time run until, as the Minister of Customs said, the last day for payment of these officials had arrived, they come and asked us to give another one-eighth, another blind pool. If we had granted that, they would have wanted one-Jialf, and we would have come practically *to the end of the session without one important item of legislation being brought down and the whole of the Supplies voted without our knowing what those Supplies covered. I protest against that. The hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick, (Mr. Carvell) thinks we should be limited to a quarter of an hour in discussing important questions. I do not think we are to be told Jhat we are to have a quarter of an hour or half an hour or anything of that kind. We are sent here to be our own judges of the course we pursue. I put myself in the judgment of the people, and not in the judgment of the hon. gentlemen opposite as to what course is proper. Bach member .must judge for himself what course he should take on the various measures as they arise.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the hon. member adhere to the principle laid down by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) that the opposition will and ought to resist the granting of Supplies until the Election Bill is withdrawn?


Haughton Lennox: That is just another illustration of the fact that the supporters of the government cannot appreciate either what the opposition say or what the trend of public opinion is in many cases. The hon. gentleman utterly fails to understand the significance of the argument of the hon. member for Leeds. The hon. member for Leeds, as I understand him, propounds this principle, that when an iniquitous measure is brought in, one that is far reaching in its consequence, one that is totally indefensible, one that should not be passed in the interests of the people as a whole, not some little side issue that affects a small number of people, but a great measure that affects the dearest rights and privileges of all Mr. LENNOX.
the people of Canada, the opposition should use every legitimate means in their power to prevent such legislation being passed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Just one more question. Does the hon. member contend that the absolute refusal to grant Supplies is. a legitimate means of opposing the proposed legislation?


Haughton Lennox: There are times when it would be quite proper for an opposition absolutely to refuse to grant Supplies, and I think we are probably approaching very close to that time now. I do not say that we are actually up against it. I say that when the government have acted in such a way all along the line that the opposition can have no confidence in their administration, and have no reason to believe that the public moneys will be honestly expended in the interest of the people, then we have reached a time when it is not only the privilege, but the incumbent duty of the opposition, to stand firm as one man and present a united front against the passage of any Supplies. I hope we won't come to that condition; but I do say, feeling the responsibility of my words as a member of this House, that we have approached perilously near it. I say, looking all along the line- of this administration, and seeing how it is marked by extravagance, and it does not stop at extravagance-by reckless extravagance-that would not describe it either-but by acts which I shall not characterize in tills House, but which are well known to the public-I say the administration of this government, in almost every department, is marked by things which indicate that the people have lost confidence in it; and the members of the House knowing more of their administration than the people outside, but not more than I hope the people will know very soon, I say it may become the duty of the opposition to stand firm as one man and refuse to grant Supplies to the administration. We are not at that point yet; we are not yet at the parting of the ways ; and, on the other hand, I think we ought to be almost at the point of granting Supplies this afternoon. I hope we will get into Supply now, unless as a matter of fact the government want to distract public attention unless they do not want anything done this afternoon. But if they want to tide over the first of next week, as I think they do, then we may expect that the suggestion of the hon. member for Carleton will be followed, and that we shall have more oratory from the government side of the House. Answering the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick, let me refer to other authorities on this question of withholding the Supplies. Sir Richard Cartwright, in 1896,"discussing a similar question, said :


190S
[Stage Direction]
These gentlemen were responsible for the good government of the country while they occupied seats on the treasury benches. They knew perfectly well long before the 1st of April that there was not the ghost of a chance of tlieir getting the Remedial Bill through under any condition of things.
I pause there to say that these hon. gentlemen who Introduced the Bill that has been referred to, left it until the 9th of March and then until the 6th of May, and they knew perfectly well that there was not the ghost of a right to get it through under any conceivable condition of things.
They knew perfectly well that there was not a ghost of a chance of their getting their estimates through.
These gentlemen held this Bill back, and so created the same kind of difficulty as that which Sir Richard Cartwright is here dealing with, knew perfectly well that the fiscal year expired on the 31st of March, and they did not introduce this contentious Bill until the 9th of March.
They knew perfectly well when the fiscal year expired on the 1st of July that they could not get Supplies, as they had lost control of the parliament. .
Is there any doubt about this administration having lost the control of parliament? They have not only lost control of parliament, but the confidence of the people, and it is because they realize that to-day and do not know where they are at that they do not know what is the wisest thing to do. Whenever the Finance Minister gets up now to speak, he has lost his old time vigour and firmness and is utterly unnerved and unstrung, and talks in that exciting, uncontrolled, unmeasured style I so much regret to see.
George Taylor: Lost his head.


Haughton Lennox: I will not say that; but he is going to lose his position very soon if we can get the general elections on. Sir Richard Cartwright went on to say :
What would honourable men have done in such a case? What would men imbued with the spirit of British usage and precedence have done? Why, Sir, they would have dissolved the parliament they could not control, and found out whether or not they did enjoy the confidence of the people of Canada.
Hon. gentlemen opposite suggested that they would dissolve parliament. They let it go out in the press that they would do so; but when the time came they had not the nerve to dissolve parliament, because they did not want a speedy trial and a speedy conviction. Further, Sir Richard said ;
More than that, they would have taken care to have dissolved in such time that they might
have had their elections early in May, and met early in June at the very latest, in order that parliament might deal with the questions which it was clearly impossible for parliament to have dealt with at the time I have referred to.
I have also under my hand utterances by the Prime Minister, but they are very voluminous. I will just take a statement of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), whom I see in the House. He said :
'My remarks, Mr. Chairman, are quite relevant. il wish to point out that the government are unable to pass this Remedial Bill into law, that they no longer represent the people, that they no longer enjoy the confidence of the members of this House, and therefore, that parliament would not be warranted in trusting to them the expenditure of $1,000,000 to boodle with.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: Sometimes we are called to order in this House. This hon. gentleman used the expression 'boodle' and applied it to the transactions of the government and was not called to order. He declared that the government of that day, which had been elected by a large majority, had so demonstrated their unfitness that he would not trust them with the expenditure of $1,000,000. Are we therefore to be censured for not being disposed to trust this government, whose disregard of all honesty and decency is so evident with the vast sums they are asking us to vote in the dark? I am prepared to vote Supply. We want to cooperate with the government in voting Supply. We have to call on them to bring forward the necessary -estimates-estimates in the interests of the people. Speaking for myself, I am not very much in sympathy with the remarks of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) regarding the contractors. The contractors are a dangerous element in elections. If this election Bill of the government is to go through, we ought to scrutinize these matters very closely. The distribution of large funds to contractors on the eve of the elections in Ontario and Quebec is very dangerous, and I am convinced it is better not to disburse these large amounts to contractors until after the elections. Of course I can well realize the anger and disappointment of some supporters and members of the administration over their failure to have the supplies voted before a general election. But if you will look along the line of the discussion, you will find that there has been no instance in which the opposition have been obstructing the passing of reasonable estimates. We have certainly demanded a certain amount of information, but the trouble is that when the opposition are

ready to grant Supply the government are not prepared to go on. Just as happened yesterday and the day before, whenever an offer is made to facilitate business, the government show that they are utterly unready. They realize that they are far behind with the necessary legislation-legislation they have promised and must pass this session if they are going to discharge their duties at all-and then they set up speaker after speaker to obstruct business and in this way tide matters over until after the provincial elections in Quebec and Ontario.


Mr. J. B. KENNEDY (New Westminster).: I do not very often trouble the House, and I can assure the gentleman who has just spoken that I have not been put up to obstruct legislation or delay proceedings. I was going to say a few days ago what I intend saying now, but unfortunately for myself I mentioned the election Bill and was ruled out of order. To-day however it is pretty hard to tell when one is out of order after what I have heard. I do not intend to mention the election Bill any more than to say a little about the position in which we are to-day. When I was a young man I joined a society, and one of the first things impressed upon my mind- and it was continually impressed upon me at the opening ceremonies-was that I should yield a cheerful compliance to the constituted majority. I had the idea, from my experience in societies and organizations of one kind and another ever since, that the majority should rule, and that when a man finds he is in a hopeless minority, he should fall in with the majority or at least give way when he sees he cannot get the majority to think as he does. But it is entirely the opposite in this House. There does not seem to be the majority rule here. When a certain Bill was brought into this House-I have to be very careful, but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to discuss the Bill-which affected one or two provinces, all the representatives from the province to which I belong, were quite agreeable to the provisions of the Bill. They were agreeable at least to its going into committee, and in committee they would no doubt lend a hand in altering some of its provisions. But the majority from the province of British Columbia, which is one of the two affected, were quite agreeable that this Bill should pass its second reading. In the other province affected, seven of its representatives were willing that the Bill should be proceeded with but three objected. The opposition took up the view of those three and have proceeded on the assumption that those three gentlemen are possessed of brains of such a superior calibre that their opinion and judgment should have far more weight than the opinion and judgment of the other seven. Well, I do not think Mr. LENNOX.
that is at all in accord with our ideas of responsible government. Those men should have yielded cheerfully to the opinion of the majority-a majority elected in the same way as they were. In my province there was no protest against the election of any members. They were all elected in a straightforward manner so far as I know, and I have heard very little objection from my province to that particular Bill. Therefore I do not see why the House should be tied up as it is simply because three members from one of the provinces do not like the provisions of the Bill. But even if every member on the opposition side objected to the Bill, they are only one-half as many as those who are willing that the Bill should be proceeded with. We have heard a good deal about the opinion of the man on the street. Well, let the members of the opposition take the opinion of the general run of men on the street, and they will find that these men are wondering how a government, with so strong a majority, can be held up as this government has been for some time past. On this question of holding up, we find contradiction among our opponents. One section says that the government are not held up, that they are willing the government should go ahead, and that it is the fault of the government when they do not get ahead with their Supply. But one or two others threaten that the government will not get a dollar unless they drop that election Bill. AVhat are we to understand from this? My hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has told us that he had gone up and consulted his constituents and they instructed him to come down to Ottawa and fight this election Bill to a finish and that they would get up a subscription to pay his board bill, if he were not able to pay it himself, so that he might stay here until the snow would fly.


George Taylor: That is the opinion of the man on the street.


James Buckham Kennedy: I would like to ask :	Who are these people from Leeds?
It seems to me that my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) thinks the sun rises and sets in his constituency. I would like to ask him some day to follow the sun and proceed west, and he will find that it takes five days and nights on a railway train to find out where the sun sets in this Dominion. And he will find constituencies all along that line each one with just as intelligent a population as that of the constituency of Leeds, and who have sent a majority here who are as well able to form a judgment as any of the people of Leeds. We have been taunted this afternoon with taking up the time of the House and keeping the House from getting into Committee of Supply. I am not going to be guilty of that. I am one of the ' burjrnN"E 5, 1908
docks ' on the back benches-that, I think, is the elegant expression which was used by an hon. gentleman not very far from where I sit-I am not very often heard from nor do I obstruct or take up the time of the House. But I would ask the opposition to consider this matter seriously, to think for themselves how the man on the street is likely to view their proceedings in this House. It is wonderful the prophetic view of these gentlemen and how they can tell exactly how the people regard every matter and what is to be the result of the next election. But we have heard the same thing over and over again for many elections back. And still the results have come far short of what these hon. gentlemen would wish. I think that after the next election they will find the result about the same.


Mr. THOMAS CHISHOLM (East Huron).: Like the last speaker, (Mr. Kennedy) I seldom address the House. Nor should I detain hon. members long. But there are times when even the quietest member in this House should rise in his place to protest against the way business is conducted. The question now under discussion was brought to the attention of the House this morning by the hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Owen) in a speech of five or ten minutes. And we have found hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House ready to carry that discussion along; every time a member on this side has risen to speak to-day, he has been answered in a long speech by an hoD. member from the other side. I was glad to hear the hon. member for East Kent (Mr. Gordon), for like myself he seldom troubles the House, and I am sure that his only reason for rising to speak was that he thought that what he was to say was of importance to the House and the country. Such a member should always be listened to.
Now, in the first place, when we came here-and it is nearly seven months ago- we expected that the work of this parliament would be ready to go on with. But what do we find after seven months ? We find that the most important legislation of the session is only now being prepared for our consideration. Could there be a more important subject, for instance, than the Hudson Bay Railway ? That is a subject that should be discussed here with the very greatest care. We should consider the course that road is to take, for it would be a very serious matter if it were built in the wrong position. My own opinion is after considering carefully all that has been said in the long discussion of the matter that the road should go directly from Prince Albert to Fort Churchill. Then, we have the Civil Service Bill-another question that will require time. In the third place, we have this disputed question in regard to the election law. All these things are being brought before us after seven months of
sitting? Why were these not all ready when we came here in November ? In the county of Huron we have a county council composed of business men and farmers, and I would undertake to bring them here and they would finish the business of this parliament, do everything that has to be done here, and do it well, in six weeks. I am ashamed to think that we have sat here all this time and accomplished so little. It is not that we do not go through the form of working, for we sit here such long hours that we actually endanger the health of members of the House. There is only one factory in this Dominion that I know of where the employees are expected to go to work at eleven o'clock in the morning and work until three or four the next morning, and that is this factory on Parliament Hill where we empty windbags and manufacture laws. I think that if we were to try to get our speeches into condensed and concise form, it would be much better. Why, Sir, Mr. Chamberlain has delivered some of the best speeches ever delivered in the British parliament in half an hour. And here we are on both sides-there is no use in finding fault with one side more than with the other-making speeches of four and five hours duration. Do you think any body will ever read them ? Do not you think that the people who read ' Hansard ' in after years will say that we spend forty times as long in expressing our ideas as we have any need to do? At the origin of parliament, you know, Mr. Speaker, the struggles that were gone through to establish the (rights and privileges of the body of representatives of the people. The sword, and even the stake and the axe, had to be met and overcome that we might have certain privileges and advantages. And I am sure that even the opposition has its rights that were gained in those struggles. I do not think that hon. gentlemen opposite should say that the opposition has no rights except such as the majority choose to allow them. In fact, I do not think they meant what they said. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell) admit that members of the opposition had some rights. This parliament takes up more time in legislating for six millions of people than is occupied by the British parliament in legislating for four hundred millions. I am only speaking for myself, but I should be very much pleased to see the speeches cut down. In the United States Congress, I understand, a member speaking on an amendment is limited to five or ten minutes. I think that it would be a good thing if our speeches could be made equally short. I believe also that the Speaker should leave the chair at twelve o'clock at night, just as he does at six o'clock in the evening. If these changes were made, I believe we should make better progress. It is some-

thing terrible what the members here are! expected to submit to. I came down here| from the county of Huron three years ago on the tenth of last January, and five of my neighbours came with me as members of this House. We were all strong, healthy men-I was the oldest and most worn-out man of the whole six. And where are the men now ? Three of them are dead and buried and other men sit in their places. We six were the representatives of the three Hurons, the two Bruces and North Wellington. All must have been strong able-bodied men, or we could not have gone through the labour's of a political campaign. But long hours, irregular meals aud worry did their work. Why, it would appear to be more dangerous to come to this parliament than it was to go to South Africa and fight the Boers-the death-rate here is much greater than it was there. Let me draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that, since 1904, we have had the following deaths amongst us : Messrs. McCreary, McIntosh, Proulx, Clarke, Sutherland, Demers, Johnston, Prefontaine, Bland, Laurier, Martin, Stockton, Cochrane, Gunn and Lovell-fifteen men taken away in that short time. I have no doubt at all -and I am sure the medical men on the other side will back me up in this-that this room is an unhealthy place. We get here no direct sunlight ; and we know that sunlight is necessary for health. Take a potato and plant it in a cellar where there is no light, and though you may have moisture, good soil, proper temperature and all other necessary conditions, what will be the colour of the "stems ? The stems will be pale and sickly.
I think it would be well to change the rules of the House. For instance, we should have short, concise speeches. Let it be understood that when we have something to say we say it and then sit down. A gentleman about to address the House was asked how long he intended to speak on a certain subject, and he said, ' If I know nothing about it, it will take me three hours; if I understand it fairly well, I can get through in an hour; and if I know it perfectly well, I can get through in half an hour.' I think there are some members here who speak sometimes when they do not understand very well what they are talking about. I think there should be a time limit for speeches, with perhaps some way of giving a special privilege to members under certain circumstances. I think the rules of the House might be changed in that direction. I think also that the government should have their business ready when parliament opens so that we can get right down to work. The government cannot get out of this whole difficulty by trying to throw the blame on the opposition. A certain amount of blame may be attached to the opposition. I think, however, it Mr. T. CHISHOLM.
is a good thing we have a ' Hansard,' because that ' Hansard ' will show, this year's ' Hansard ' at any rate will show, that the members on the government side of thd House have taken up as much time as we have, aud perhaps more. There is no use denying what is put down in the ' Hansard.' All the important measures of the government should be ready at the beginning of the session. There is another thing we should not forget, the health of the members ought to be considered. If we are to be kept here so many months every year it will soon become impossible for a poor man to come here at all. In fact any man who has business, or anything to do outside this House, can scarcely afford to come here now, because he has to stay here so long that it spoils his business. We will not be able to get good men to come to parliament as long as the sessions are as lengthy as they are now. I formerly thought that all the men who come to parliament were great men, but I am obliged to confess that my opinion has undergone a considerable change since I came to this parliament. My idea was that we had here two hundred and fourteen men, the greatest men probably in the world, and I came to my first session in awe and trembling. I am beginning now to think that after all they are not such great men. But I suppose that is a consequence of my view point. Now I want to say also that long sessions are causing more deaths than used to take place when the sessions were shorter. I find that during the first ten years when the sessions were shorter, there were only twenty-five deaths, while during the last three years there have been fifteen deaths. It is, however, not only a question of health, but one of business. I hope therefore we will not go on in this fashion like a lot of school boys. I think if the government gave the back benchers a chance to settle this question, and allowed the front benchers to go off on a picnic, both the members of the government and the leaders of the opposition, we on the back benches could get together, and I am satisfied we woiild settle this whole thing and finish up in about two weeks. I did not get up to talk long, and I do not intend to transgress the rules that I am recommending the House to adopt.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Contingencies in Canadian, British and foreign agencies, and general immigration expenses, including salaries of extra clerks at head office, $710,000.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the minister why this large appropriation, nearly three-fourths of the total $920,000, is offered to us under the item of contingencies? Is it not possible to give a more definite idea of the purposes to which this is

to be applied? I suppose It Is an old custom.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to be held responsible for the method In which the item is placed before the House; as my hon. friend has said, it is an old custom. While it is possible that in many particulars the House might fairly be asked for a definite amount, on the other hand, it is a fact that the ex-pendiures covered by this part of the vote are variable in their character, owing to circumstances and conditions uncontrollable by the government. If the amount were divided up and apportioned to different purposes, it might be found that by reason of changed circumstances one item would be more than was necessary while another would fall short of the requirements. That is probably the reason that prompted the former government to present the estimates m that way. Of course, we are able to give a statement of the sum that has been voted for the former year, and to give to the House our expectations in regard to the sum that we ask the House to vote now.


Robert Laird Borden: I thoroughly agree that this particular item is one which embraces an extremely varied expenditure, but I would have thought that if you left $150,000 for contingencies it might meet the requirements. I would not press that very much if the minister with his experience in the department thinks it necessary to have the vote in this form. If he would, however, give the heads of expenditure last year and briefly the heads of expenditure this year, I think it would assist matters.


Frank Oliver: If I might finish what I was about to say, generally we are able to state to the House our expectations or intentions in regard to the amounts we ask for, but in this item, if circumstances arise which render it unnecessary to make an expenditure, then when we get the bulk vote we are able to vary the expenditure, whereas if it were voted item by item we would not be able to make that variation, and it would necessarily result in a very much larger total amount being required to be voted so that all possibilities of change would be guarded against. The amount asked for this year is the same as was asked for last year. Of that amount the estimates that we make as to the expenditure as follows :	Advertising, printing
pamphlets, &c., $178,000. This is for advertising in Canada, the United States, Great Britain and Ireland and the continent of Europe. It includes the printing of what we call literature in all the different languages of the countries in which we are undertaking to do business and indeed, in the immigration work in the United States we require to use printing in different languages, Scandinavan, German and French.
The expenditure in the fiscal year 1906-7 on this account was $117,500 for nine months.


Mr. FOWLER.: Who gets up that literature, your own officers?


Frank Oliver: We just do the best we can. Some of our own officers compile some of the publications and sometimes we engage the services of other parties.


George William Fowler: How much have you paid for outside parties during the year and who were they?


Frank Oliver: The matter contained in the atlas of Canada, which has been distributed very extensively, was chiefly prepared by Mr. Carmen, of Montreal. He is a newspaper man employed on one of the papers there.


George William Fowler: The ' Herald,' probably.


Frank Oliver: I think it is on the 'Star;' he is an editorial writer.


William D. Staples: How many of these atlases were published last year?


Frank Oliver: We have published several editions. I cannot give the actual figures, but approximately about 150,000.


William D. Staples: What do they cost per copy?


Frank Oliver: The edition that is now being circulated costs 7i cents apiece in 100,000 lots. Another gentleman who was employed was a Mr. Cliff, a newspaper man of Sauit Ste. Marie, formerly resident in the Northwest for many years. Mr. Dean, editor of the Nelson * News,' contributed the matter for British Columbia that is contained in the atlas.


George William Fowler: He tv as an unsuccessful candidate in the local election, was he not?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William D. Staples: In how many languages have they been published?
Mr. OLIVER, Seven languages. Mr. Kennedy, of the London ' Times ' staff, was engaged during the past winter to do some work, the results of which have only partly been published.


William D. Staples: What would he know about Canada?


Frank Oliver: He lived in Canada most of his life, being acquainted with conditions in Canada through his residence here for most of his adult life, and being in newspaper work and now resident in England, it was thought that he would be able to present Canadian facts in a manner that would appeal to the people of the British Islands possibly better than one who was not acquainted with the British Isles.


George William Fowler: That would seem to be reasonable.


Frank Oliver: I was very much impressed with some work he did in describing the Northwest the year before in letters which appeared in the London ' Times,' and he afterwards practically compiled the same matter into a publication which he issued at his own cost in the old country.
I was very favourably impressed with his grasp of the subject and his method of presenting it, and went so far as to engage him especially to come to Canada during the past winter in order to present the conditions as to labour which existed then.
I suggested that by going through the maritime provinces he might prepare something in regard to those provinces in reference to which so far we have been rather lacking in literature.


George William Fowler: Very neglectful of.


Frank Oliver: 
George William Fowler: I hope the minister has not neglected New Bfunswick?


Frank Oliver: No, the matter which he has prepared for New Brunswick is in my hands, but I have not handed it to the printer, and lam expecting what he has to say about Prince Edward Island very shortly.


George William Fowler: How much time did he spend in the maritime provinces getting up these facts?


Frank Oliver: I think about a month. Of course I must admit that the time is short. It seemed to me that this gentleman had particular ability in that line. We were doing the best we could to get the facts with regard to these provinces as well as we could gather them and present them in a form that would commend these provinces to the minds of the people in the old country for whom we think there is a desirable field there.


George William Fowler: Some men could gather such information in a month and others would need six months, just depending upon the ability of the man. If Mr. Kennedy having had a long experience from residence in Canada is a clever man he ought to be able to present these facts in such a way as to be attractive to the English readers.


Frank Oliver: That was my idea. [DOT] He is not a cheap man by any means.


George William Fowler: It depends on his ability whether he is a cheap man or not. What will it cost?


Frank Oliver: I think the whole cost will be about $1,500 or $2,000.


George William Fowler: What time will he occupy In that work?
Mr. FOWLER


Frank Oliver: I can hardly say. It was an experiment and it appealed to me as being a good idea.	As we propose to
spend' a considerable sum of money in publications which will present these provinces to the people of the old country we think it is by no means waste to spend a good deal of money in getting the right matter.	.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a sound principle because the printing and distribution will cost the same whether the matter is good or bad. I agree that it is worth while to try the work of a man who understands the view point of the people among whom the literature is to be distributed. I think the minister has made a wise move in that.


George William Fowler: I suppose this literature is first written in English and translated into the various languages?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William D. Staples: What are the seven languages?


Frank Oliver: English, French, German, Flemish, Holland (Dutch), Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: I see that the London ' Advertiser ' was paid for printing 50.000 copies of the land reports. In what form were they printed, and were they intended for distribution in eastern Canada?


Frank Oliver: That particular pamphlet was intended for distribution especially in Great Britain.


William James Roche: Are the subagents resident in the United States working under our salaried agents at different points?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George William Fowler: Was any portion of this vote used for paying for these new Doukho-bors that have come to the country?
Mr. OLIVER, No. I presume my hon. friend refers to reports in the newspapers as to a carload of Doukhobors having some trouble with regard to their passage money.


George William Fowler: I think it was a train load.


Frank Oliver: I can assure my hon. friend that so far as any information we have in the department goes no Doukhobors have come to this country, and if any have come they have certainly come without cost to the government and without any inducement being held out by the government in any shape or manner. We are informed that one family arrived about two months ago, but as they did not come within the requirements of our present regulations

which are somewhat stringent, they were excluded.


George William Fowler: How long has the government ceased to encourage the immigration of Doukhobors?


Frank Oliver: I might answer that by saying seven years, but to make it plain I should say that the arrangement entered into with regard to the Doukhobors was a single effort in relation to a certain special colony or section, and was supposed to be made in the joint cause of religious liberty and the beneficial settlement of the Northwest. It was not carried any further.


William James Roche: How many of the Doukhobors migrated last year to British Columbia?


Frank Oliver: We have no official information. Our immigration branch is not responsible in regard to the colony as now constituted. But I have heard through the ordinary channels that about 100 heads of families have recently gone to British Columbia to occupy lands which have been purchased there on behalf of the community.


George William Fowler: I understood that an order had been issued by the department compelling the Doukhobors who desired to live in the communal condition to give up the lands that had been issued to them. Is that correct ?


Frank Oliver: That is hardly the way I would care to have the matter put. The Doukhobors made homestead entry for certain lands in 1903, but did not comply with the homestead conditions.


George William Fowler: Were those entries made by the individuals themselves or by some person on behalf of them.


Frank Oliver: They were made just as other entries were at that time allowed to be made, that is to say, they were proxy entries. Ostensibly they were made for the individual Doukhobors, each of whom made his entry in exactly the same terms as other people, and signed his application in just the same way.


George William Fowler: Afterwards ?


Frank Oliver: No. The entrant was not required to be in bodily presence in the land office, but he had to sign his application personally and he became responsible for the affidavit contained in the application.


George William Fowler: Was there not such a think as a blanket entry which the individual did not have to sign?


Frank Oliver: No. When the Doukhobors came to the country certain lands were set apart as a service, upon which 316
they alone might secure homestead entry. Up to 1903 few if any of them had made entry. In 1903 they were informed by the department that if they were going to retain control of those lands, or any part of them, they must make entry for them. In accordance with the negotiations that then took place, they made entry in the way that I have mentioned, on the ordinary forms, and these forms were accepted, and their entries stood in the book against those lands subject to the ordinary homestead conditions.


George William Fowler: What precaution (lid you take to make yourselves sure that the signature to the application was that of the individual, and that some one person did not sign 100 or perhaps 200 applications ? Did you have them witnessed or sworn to ?


Frank Oliver: I do not think the affidavit requires witnesses.


George William Fowler: The applicant has to swear that he is the person making the entry ?


Frank Oliver: Yes, as I understand it. At any rate, the entries were made, and the people who made the entries, in the large majority of cases instead of breaking away from the community system, as had been expected, were rather more confirmed in the community system than before, and were not conforming to the terms of the entry, as the law required. The matter was under consideration for some time; but the upshot of it was that in the early part of 1907 a commission was appointed to visit the settlements and to find out how many of these people were conforming to the requirements of the Homestead Act. The Rev. John McDougall was the commissioner, with Mr. Mavor, a clerk in the employ of the lands branch of the Interior Department, and Michael White, a man of Russian birth and German parentage, who understood the Russian language and was educated in English, as interpreter. They examined the conditions carefully, and ascertained how many people were conforming to the terms of the Homestead Act and how many did not wish to conform, as nearly as they could. They made a calculation as to how much land would be required to give to those who did not want to conform to the terms of the Homestead Act, enough land to cultivate and occupy and make a living upon. It was found that during the seven years that the Doukhobors had been in the country, their total cultivation amounted to about five acres per head of men, women and children. Before we appointed this commission we had arrived at the conclusion that we could not and would not be



justified in maintaining their homestead entries against lands in regard to which the duties were not being fulfilled, and that if they refused to conform to the requirements of the law by individual ownership and cultivation, there was no recourse hut to cancel their entry and leave the lands open to entry and occupation by other persons. At the same time, we had to recognize that the people were there, and that they had been living from the products of their fields for some seven years-because I may say that, with the exception of the expenses iucurred in connection with their coming to the country and their first year's residence here, they have been no cost to the government in any shape or manner.


George William Fowler: What was the cost of their first year's residence ?


Frank Oliver: I cannot answer that. They were responsible for certain advances which were made, but I cannot say just how the account stands. But since then they have been entirely self-supporting, and not only that, but they have been reasonable contributors to the general productiveness and therefore the wealth of the country. We found that they would not conform to the requirements of the Homestead Act. Their religious belief absolutely precludes private ownership of anything particularly private ownership of land ; they abhor the idea.


George William Fowler: That being the case, why did these people make these applications for the homesteads ? Either they must have been deceived when they made them or else they were false to their religion, or they have changed their views since.


Frank Oliver: I think it was a little of all three. When our commission visited them, they declared that their religious belief prohibited the private ownership of land. That was in the early part of 1907. They were then more than self-supporting. They were adding measurably to the production and wealth of the country, and we did not consider that we would be justified, although they were not conforming to the requirements of our homestead laws, in taking action which would amount to saying to them: You must get off the earth. We did not think we would he justified in doing so, as a matter of common humaftity. Those people had been then five or six years in the country, they had five acres per head under cultivation, they had been supporting themselves successfully and accumulating a little wealth off that area, and if we continued to their use say three times that much land, we thought they could have no possible grounds of complaint, and they would have abundance of opportunity for reasonable expansion as their population increased. Therefore around each Mr. OLIVER.
village we gave a reserve which would aggregate in area fifteen acres per head of the people resident in that village.


George William Fowler: About seventy-five acres to a family.


Frank Oliver: Their families are small. They hardly average as large as those of the surrounding settlers. First we cancelled all the entries, we cleared the books of the entries made by the Doukhobors who were not conforming to the homestead conditions, and in the vicinity of each village, including the site, we held in reservation land aggregating fifteen acres to each resident for the benefit of that village. We said we would hold that in the hands of the Crown for their use and benefit, so long as they saw fit to use It and we saw fit to let them have it. That was not done by agreement but of our motion. The remainder of the land held under entry by them, saving that held in conformity with our homestead law [DOT]-because quite a considerable number did conform with the homestead law-was declared open for homestead entry. We announced in the newspapers that on June 1. 1907, there would be open for homestead entry to the first applicant at the counter the land thus cancelled in a certain township; that on the second day, the land in another township would be opened, and so on until all the land which had been cleared off the books had been offered to the public for homestead entry. All of the land has not been taken because some of it is not desirable. Still there was quite a rush for the land, and the great majority of it was taken up.


Mr. LAKE.: Odd as well as even-numbered sections?


Frank Oliver: In the York district their reserve included the odd sections as well as the even. In the Prince Albert district, they only had the even sections. The odd-numbered sections were held for other settlement.	[DOT]


Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY.: Who were associated with the Rev. John McDougall ?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Maber of the Interior Department and Mr. White as interpreter.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: About how long were they occupied?


Frank Oliver: What my hon. friend is asking me now has to do with the lands branch, and the officials present are not able to give the information at the moment.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: We can defer any discussion on that until those estimates come up. I observe that the Rev. John McDougall, was paid for services $3,910 and there was advanced him for expenses $4,600. When these estimates come up, I shall ask for further details.


George William Fowler: Is that the same Rev. John McDougall, who figured in the newspapers a little while ago as speaking very eulogistically of this government? Perhaps that newspaper did not come to the attention of the minister. We shall perhaps be able to see some reason why the reverend gentleman should speak ofjhis government in such very high terms.


Frank Oliver: I am sure he had every reason to speak in the highest terms of this government and so would every other honest man.


George William Fowler: He had nine thousand reasons-good crisp Dominion bank bills.


Frank Oliver: That hardly applies to the subject before the House. I may say that this matter was not one to be easily approached. It was an undertaking of very considerable delicacy and difficulty. Now that it is over, it looks quite easy, but I beg to assure my hon. friend that I approached it with anything but confidence. However something had to be done, the question had to be dealt with, and I saw no better way to deal with it. Whatever my hon. friends may think of the amount paid the Rev. Mr. McDougall or the commission, my belief is that the money was well spent in getting a satifactory settlement of a difficult and delicate question, affecting a very large area of very valuable land.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I wanted to ask about. He cancelled their entries and gave them fifteen acres in the centre of the village for each person residing in the village. Did they thoroughly understand that and are they satisfied with it ?


Frank Oliver: That is my information. Of course, I cannot say that they were satisfied with it in the first place. Two deputations came dowm to interview me, objecting to the action we proposed to take. Although their religious views were entirely prohibitive of the private ownership of land, those views did not prohibit, apparently, the community ownership of land, and they were prepared to assert the retention of the control by the community over this area on which they seem to think they had some special claim as a community and were prepared to excite sympathy throughout the country and generally to make as strong a case as they possibly could. However, I think, owing very greatly to the tact of Mr. McDougall and his assistants on the commission, since the work was actually done, I have not heard one word of complaint either directly or indirectly from the Doukhobors or from the public except in isolated instances from people who felt, perhaps, that their particular right was not given the consideration they might have wished.	[DOT]


William D. Staples: How many communities did Rev. John McDougall deal with and where are they located?


Frank Oliver: If my memory serves me well, there were forty or forty-one villages. The majority-about thirty-were located in what is called the Yorkton district, that is, north of Yorkton and on the line of the Canadian Northern Railway. Some ten or twelve villages were situated in the Prince Albert district west of Rosthemr also on the Canadian Northern Railway. My hon. friend will understand that when the Doukhobors were located on these lands the lands were distant from railway communication and were not considered valuable to any degree. They were good enough for the Doukhobors, but not good enough for anybody else. But when the railroad was run through these tracts, the condition was absolutely changed. Besides there had been seven years' residence of the Doukhobors, during which time the fertility oif the soil and the suitability of the climate had been demonstrated. So when the road was constructed these lands acquired a very great value-not only an actual, but a speculative value. We had not only the difficulty of dealing with the Doukhobors, who thought they owned the land or ought to own it, but we had also the difficulty of dealing with the people who saw in it a very considerable cash value which they felt that they would like to handle, and thought it was theirs by right as citizens of the country who were first on the ground to get it.


William D. Staples: I think the principal objection of the people in these respective localities was that the holding of these lands by the Doukhobors retarded development. I had occasion to travel across that country and know the most valuable lands in these districts that had been located upon. People of other 'nationalities who went there found that they could not carry [DOT] on their farming operations successfully in the same locality owing to the difference of habit and custom, and so they naturally asked the government to deal with the matter in -some way. Are all these districts dealt with ? Have all these questions been settled ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William D. Staples: Well, now that is over, perhaps the minister would say whether lie thinks that the system the government adopted by way of cancellation and reopening these homesteads was the best "way in the interests of the people ? The reason why I ask is that I know a good many people who went from Manitoba to that section to secure homesteads and who underwent a good deal of hardship-they had to wait day by day upon the officials wlio were dealing with these homesteads, and many, when they got to the place where they had to make application, had

to wait for hours in the rain before they could be admitted to the building where applications were to be filed. The Liberal press at that time gave great encouragement to all to go there and get a homestead, representing that all they had to do was to go there and there would be no difficulty. Consequently many went and spent a great deal of time and money, and underwent, as I have said, a great deal of hardship, and I think that about 80 per cent of them came away without being able to secure a homestead. This was due entirely to the manner in which the press of the country represented the facts at that time. There was quite a loss to people, some of them right in my own locality. I think the government might have adopted a different system. Even had the minister followed the system in vogue in the United States in opening up tracts of country, I think the results would have been better. It is all over now, but I do think that the government might have adopted a better system in throwing open these holdings.


Frank Oliver: I do not know that any important purpose will be served by discussing the matter now. But it appears that the only objection that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Staples) makes to the system adopted by the government to make these lands available is that it was too popular-too many people applied for homesteads. But I think that when we offered the land to the first comer, advertised the fact that it would be available to the first comer, and opened it up township after township so as to minimize the rush, we did as well as my hon. friend (Mr. Staples) could have done had he had to deal with the same conditions.


William D. Staples: I did not pretend to suggest a policy. But I did refer him to the policy adopted in the United States, and I think that the people there get just as well satisfied as the men did who went out to get these homsteads.


George William Fowler: The minister (Mr. Oliver) has spoken very highly of the services of the Rev. Mr. McDougall. But the minister's commendation, high as it is, is scarcely in proportion to the salary which the reverend gentleman receives for these services. I am sorry to differ in opinion from the minister, for very often I agree with him in the work of his department-and that is something that I cannot do with the heads of some of the departments-but I must say that I think these results could have been obtained just as well without the services of the Rev. Mr. McDougall. I think this result could have been obtained just as well without the services of the Rev. Mr. McDougall as with his services. It would appear to me that these people being of a peculiar religious faith, the introduction among them Mr. STAPLES.
of a gentleman who represented a different faith, would naturally antagonize them; and perhaps a layman would have had a far better chance of succeeding in allaying any suspicion or ill feeling they might have had,, than would a gentleman wearing the uniform of the church. As to the agreement that was made, as to the disposition that was made of these lands, I do not know that I have any fault to find with that at all. I think the government was generous with these people in allowing them to remain on this land that they had cultivated, perhaps not too generous. But I do think that the money that was expended in connection with this mission was absolutely thrown away. The same information could have been gathered by the inspectors which the hon. gentleman employed, and their reports should have been sufficient for him to act upon. His own officers could have reached the same result without any additional cost. This government is altogether too fond of issuing commissions in order to reward their political friends. We saw in the papers the other day that tiie Rev. Mr. McDougall had given this government a clean bill of health; there seemed to be a mutual service and the reverend gentleman was no doubt well recompensed for his services. It seems to me that these gentlemen must have lived at a pretty expensive rate, since the expenses amounted to close upon $5,000 for the party. In the party there were only three persons. Mr. McDougall himself, Mr. Michael White, the interpreter, and Mr. Major, the officer of the department. Their expenses amounted to $4,600. I suppose it was thought prudent to travel in a magnificent style so as to impress the Doukho-bors and to make them think that this new religious leader occupied as high a position as Mr. Peter Verigen did in the minds of the Doukhobors. As regards the land settlement, I think the minister acted properly. If these people choose not to conform to the regulations of the land department, it was right to take the lands from them; and again, having come under the conditions which they did, and being in the country, it was necessary to do something with them, and perhaps the minister took the wisest course in allowing them the 15 acres per head. Have these Doukhobors votes?-because it would look as if the government thought that would be a nice way to obtain control of the votes of these communities.


Frank Oliver: No, they object just as strongly to becoming citizens as they do to owning land. To return to the items of expenditure, we are estimating for British bonuses this year, $90,000. In the year 1906-7 we paid $58,000 on that account for nine months. That goes to the booking agent's in Great Britain and Ireland. We have not got the figures for the year since

the 31st of March last. But we are asking $90,000 for the current year.


George William Fowler: How many individuals are there to whom this $58,000 was paid?


Frank Oliver: There are about 1,800 hooking agents entitled to the bonus. We have a printed list of the names. We estimate $10,000 for continental bonuses, that is, bonuses on immigrants from continental Europe. We give bonuses on the same classes as we do in Great Britain, that is, people who have followed agriculture, and who intend to follow it in this country. During the fiscal year, 1906-7, there were no bonuses paid except those paid in winding up the business of the North Atlantic Trading Gompany. As I have informed the House, we closed business with that company on the 30th November, 1906, and we did not begin to pay bonuses on any other account until some time in 1907. The bonuses which we were entitled to pay in the early part of 1907 had not accrued until the close of that fiscal year, therefore there is nothing shown as having been paid in bonuses during that fiscal year except those paid to the North Atlantic Trading Company, which were earned before the 30th November, 1906.


George William Fowler: They have not earned anything since you cut them off?


Frank Oliver: No, but they say they have.


George William Fowler: Are they suing you ? In that case we will get their names.
keeping track of the number he sends is his weekly report of the reduced-fare tickets which he issues by authority of the railway companies.


George William Fowler: Would that be a good test ? Would it not be possible for people simply coming to visit their relatives in Canada to get these tickets ?


Frank Oliver: If it is good enough to justify the railway companies in issuing reduced tickets it should be sufficiently good evidence for us to accept that the person is likely to become a settler in the west.
Last year the number of such tickets was something over 600.


George William Fowler: Where did they go ?


Frank Oliver: To the prairie west. The purpose of keeping the agent in Boston is rather to appeal to the maritime province people who are settled very largely in Boston and the eastern states. We believe that these are very desirable people, very suitable for settlers in the Northwest.


George William Fowler: They are principally Canadians who wish to come back to Canada ?


Frank Oliver: Who have gone from Can- . ada to the United States. We think they are possibly more likely to be willing to come into Canada again than native born citizens of those states. Therefore the agency in Boston, differing from those in some other states, is with a special view of appealing to this class of people.


Mr OLIVER.: I do not know who they are, 'except that they are doing business under the name and style of the North Atlantic Trading Company. The secretary is S. Cohen. Then, commissions on settlers from the United States, $5,000. _ In the fiscal year 1906-7, we paid $4,743, $3 per head* on men, $2 on women and $1 on Children. Seaport expenses at Halifax, St. John, Quebec, Montreal, North Sydney, Vancouver and Victoria, $10,000. These are the contingent expenses, not salaries. For travelling and living expenses of officers meeting boats and on trains of immigrants, also telegrams, postage, &c., in the fiscal year 1906-7, we paid $5,000. Contingencies and general expenses of United States agents were $65,000. Contingencies and agents' expenses in Canada generally were $25,000. Contingencies and general expenses of agencies in Great Britain and Ire-lantk including the London office, were $75,000.


George William Fowler: Have you an agent at Boston and if so have you any means of checking the number of immigrants he
sends to Canada ?


Mr OLIVER.: Yes, we have a salaried agent at Boston. The method we have of
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on Bill (No. 180) respecting the Crown Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Tisdale.
William Stevens Fielding: A few moments ago I received a telegram concerning this Bill. I have no information on the subject other than that contained in the telegram which is addressed to me from Montreal and which is as follows :


Hon.  W. S.@: Forget and many shareholders and policyholders, I ask that Bill be referred hack to committee to give chance for these opposed to be heard.
(Sgd.) GEORGE H. ROBERTS,
A shareholder of Crown Life.
My hon. friend from Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) is familiar with the matter and I call his attention to this. I have no other knowledge than that which comes by this telegram.


Mr. TISDALE.: Every shareholder had notice at least three or four weeks ago before the Bill was introduced in the Senate. In the (Standing Orders Committee there was an affidavit filed that every one of them had notice in addition to the public notices which have now run their full time, that this Act would be applied for at this session. Sir. Roberts, the gentleman who sent that telegram, was formerly connected with the company, but we found it necessary to dispense with his services three or four years ago, and he has since been trying to give us all possible annoyance. The Bill is important to us as an enabling Bill, and therefore I wish to press it. We have to get a two-thirds votes of the proprietors before we can do anything under the Act, and it is most important, in the interests of the company, that we should have a chance of bringing the matter before the shareholders and getting it settled.


William Stevens Fielding: I would suggest, in view of what the hon. member for Norfolk has said, that we let the Bill go through its present stage, and stand for a third reading. I have no desire whatever to postpone it, but if the statement is correct that the hon. member for Charlevoix has proxies which he desires to use against this Bill, I would suggest to my hon. friend that he allow the Bill to stand until that hon. member can have an opportunity to be present.


David Tisdale: The telegram does not come from him, but from Mr. Roberts. It is most important in the interest of the company that we should get the Bill through so that if bills are assented to next week, we may save a month or six weeks in the reorganization. I may say that I represent now considerably more than half the proxies, apart from those shareholders who have not yet sent in their answers. A notice of what we were doing was sent to every shareholder. If we have any trouble, let us settle it before the shareholders. We have the burden of getting the two-thirds vote, while our opponents do not require to do anything. Under the circumstances, I would press the Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no objection to accept my hon. friend's statement and let Mr. FIELDING.
the Bill go through, as far as I am concerned.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 71), respecting the Standard Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and to change its name to the Standard Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. McLean (York).
Bill (No. 170) respecting the Nipissiug Central Railway Company.-Mr. McCool.
Bill (No. 167) respecting the Phoenix Assurance Company, Limited.-Mr. Macdonald.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Contingencies in Canadian, British and foreign agencies, and general immigration expenses, * including salaries of extra clerks at head office, $710,000.
['We will proceed with the estimates of the Minister of the Interior. No doubt they will be passed very rapidly, and then probably the Minister of Public Works will follow.']
George William Fowler: What duties does Mr. F. O. Chapman perform in connection with the Immigration Department?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Chapman is in charge of the motor bus which travels through England carrying exhibits of Canadian produce and from which literature is distributed.


George William Fowler: Does the government own the bus?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William D. Staples: At six o'clock the hon. minister made the remark, if I caught his words correctly, that the American immigrants to the Northwest were a good class of immigrants notwithstanding the evidence from this side of the House. I do not know what evidence the minister refers to.
I wish to state here that the class of American immigrants we are getting in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta is a very desirable class. They are men of experience who come with considerable money and they have shown their ability to get to work and develop that western country. When the minister says there is evidence from, this side that we consider them not desirable, I cannot agree with him. I am sure I have not heard any one on this side reflect in any way on those immigrants. Where he got that evidence I would like to know. It would be well for this government to expend a large amount of their appropriations set aside for importing immigrants from the continent and devote it to bringing in the class of American immigrants we are getting. Take the large amount of money given the North Atlantic
.TTTNE 5, 1908
Trading Company and other companies of that nature in return for which this country has received little or no benefit and a very poor class of immigrants as compared with the Americans.


Frank Oliver: I am sure the hon. gentleman's expression of opinion as regards the American immigrants is acceptable to all ex-members of this House.


George William Fowler: I notice in the Auditor General's Report, L-23, a list of special delegates. What are they for?


Frank Oliver: A considerable proportion of those are practical farmers who are selected and sent to the old country because of the success they have achieved in Canada. We prefer to send delegates to the old country who have been born there and who have made a success in Canadian farming. These men are paid $100 a month and their expenses. While in the British Isles they are under the direction and control of our immigration service there and are generally employed in visiting the offices of the foreign booking agents. The booking agent makes the announcement that on a certain day a certain farmer from Canada will be at his office and be glad to meet any one who desires information regarding Canada. These men are not generally public speakers, but practical, successful men. And when given the opportunity of meeting practical men in the same business, they put the advantages of Canada in a very direct and favourable light.


George William Fowler: Where do you send them ?


Frank Oliver: They all report at our head office in London and then the assistant commissioner distributes them according to his best judgment and the localities from which they may come originally, and according also to the energy or reliability of the various booking agents. There may be a booking agent in a certain locality who does not take an active interest in his business, and it would not be worth while sending a delegate to him, and there may be another in a farming locality who may be very active.
Mr. FOWrLER. Are they only sent to the British Isles?


Frank Oliver: Yes, but last year we sent a Frenchman to France and a Belgian to Belgium.


Frank Oliver: I cannot say, but $100 is the maximum. No doubt there was an arrangement with Mr. Shepherd, and he was satisfied with the amount paid him. We desire to get men who have a going business and cannot leave without paying others to take their place, and we pay them sufficient to enable them to engage substitutes.


William D. Staples: Mr. Shepherd is one of our best farmers, and he had to leave some one in his place. I heard indirectly that he felt somewhat annoyed on learning that the expense account lie put in and the salary he asked had been pared down to a certain extent. He is just as good a man as the government could send from their side of politics. Why he should not receive as much salary as Mr. Larkin and many others, I do not know.


George Taylor: Are they all Liberals?


William D. Staples: As far as I know they are, and should be treated equally.


Frank Oliver: I really cannot say why Mr. Shepherd was not paid as much as the others, or why his expense account was not as great. I suppose that the fact that he was not paid so much is not an objection to the amount he was paid. At any rate we cannot be charged with extravagance in the case of Mr. Shepherd.


William D. Staples: When Mr. Shepherd was in Europe, he did good service to the coun-tw Ho paid careful attention to the way our grain "reached the foreign market. He brought home samples and exhibited them in the Agricultural Committee. I do not see why he should not receive every consideration at the hands of the government.


Mr FOWLER.: In this list of special delegates, I see a familiar name-Wagner. This delegate is named M. Wagner. Would that be a relative of Philip of that ilk .
Mr m\rvETt. Not that I am aware of.


Mr FOWLER.: Where did M. Wagner go*to!_to Great Britain or to the continent ? I see the amount is stated here as an ' advance ' on his travelling expenses. He got his ocean passage of $30 and an advance of $75 How much salary was paid to M..- which might stand for Michael ; we will call him Michael-Wagner, and what expenses did he receive besides this advance of $75 ?


William D. Staples: I see in the Auditor General's Report, page L-24, that Mr. Larkin, one of those delegates, received $100 a month and $200 expenses. Another delegate, Mr. A. Shepherd, who is quite a capable man, just as capable as Mr. Larkin, only received $75 a month and $70.30 expenses. Why this discrimination?


Mr OLIVER.: I am not able to answer ie question. He was to have his passage aid and lie received an advance on expenis. But his accounts were not reeeivea onttlement when the books were closed.


George William Fowler: Is he in the employ of the government ?


Frank Oliver: Evidently, he is one of the delegates sent to the old country-I fancy to Germany, judging by the name.


George William Fowler: I see here also Rev. Mr. Woodcutter, salary four months at $83.33, ocean passages $59.20, and travelling expenses $678.73. How does it come that the Rev. Mr. Woodcutter has such a large bill for expenses, and was paid salary for four months while most of the others were paid for from one to three months ? Was Mr. Woodcutter a farmer ? Or how and why was he sent ?


Frank Oliver: His calling is indicated by his title-he is a Roman Catholic clergyman. He is a man of very wide linguistic accomplishments, speaking a number of European languages. He was for a time in our employment at the Winnipeg office as an interpreter. Some time after his continuous employment at the immigration hall Winnipeg had ceased, it was his desire to visit Continental Europe, and we thought we should be well-advised to put him on the same footing as a farmer delegate, though he is not a farmer.


George William Fowler: In fact, to give him an outing in Europe, you appointed him a special farming delegate, paid him for four months, gave him $59.20 for ocean passage -double what you gave anybody else-and paid him $678.73 for his expenses.


Mr. HERRON.: Has the minister had any recent complaint from the south, of agents recommending people to go to any particular section of the country ? There were complaints about a year ago from Macleod and that section, of agents somewhere in the United States recommending settlers going into Canada to go to the northern and not to the southern part, on the ground that the south was a poor place for settlers to locate.


Frank Oliver: No complaints have come to my knowledge within the past year. As my hon. friend (Mr. Herron) has said, there were complaints about a year ago. I am bound to say that, on inquiry, I did not find that those complaints were well founded.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Can the minister tell me the cost of maintenance of the office in London, England ?


Frank Oliver: The Auditor General's Report shows that for the nine months ending March 31, 1907, the amount was $26,463.76. Adding one-fourth, you get a very close approximation to the amount we are asking parliament for.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. How many are employed on the staff in that office ?


Frank Oliver: There are thirteen employees.


George William Fowler: 


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I do not know whether it has come to the attention of the minister or not, but the management of that office has been the subject of certain criticism in the. western newspapers. I have seen a number of articles in newspapers published in Alberta, one purporting to give an interview with a gentleman who had recently visited the London office. This gentleman said that he tried to get some information there regarding the province of Alberta. He was handed two pamphlets six years old and could get practically no attention or information about the country. Without taking time to read these statements, I should be glad to send the papers to the minister if he has not seen them.


Frank Oliver: I have seen papers which I have no doubt are the ones to which the hon. gentleman alludes. One statement is made by Captain Thomas, of Camrose, and the other by Mr. Blaylock, of Calgary. I referred these statements to the office in London for explanation. I have not received the explanation as yet. I hope that the conditions are not quite correctly represented. But if they are, certainly some rearrangement requires to be made. When I was in that office myself it seemed to me that matters were being handled in a very different manner and a different spirit. We have supplied what we thought was up to date literature. It may be that our supply of up to date literature had at that particular moment been exhausted. We supply literature from this side, and it is possible that the new supply had not arrived at the time this gentleman called. I think there must be some explanation such as that.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: The statement of Mr. Blaylock was that he could get no information about the southern part of the province, and all he could find in the offices was a bird's eye view of the city of Edmonton. If what he states is true, while the people of southern Alberta have no objection to Edmonton being advertised in the London office as much as the minister chooses, they do not think the advertisement should be confined to that part of Alberta and that particular city.


Frank Oliver: I think the House will see that the two witnesses who have been called by my hon. friend for the prosecution hardly agree. One gentleman complains that he could not get anything up-to-date relating to Alberta and the other gentleman complains because he did get that 'which was up-to-date and which related to Alberta, because it did not relate to southern Alberta.


Mr.   M.@: 8. McCarthy. What did he get that w-as up-to-date ?



Frank Oliver: A view of Edmonton, as he says. If the description he did receive at the immigration office was a little out of the actual facts, the complaint of Capt. Thomas was that the information was too far out of date. In regard to the statement of Mr. Blaylock, I think I saw some discussion in the newspapers about it, and my opinion would be that some enterprising people of Edmonton had sent to the London office some advertising matter on their own account, and that Mr. Blaylock had seen it there. If the people of Calgary chose to send anything advertising their city it would receive the same prominence.
I want to assure the House that none of the publications sent out by this department, place Edmonton in the light that my hon. friend speaks of, as compared with any other city in Alberta or in Canada.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I asked the minister if he had seen these complaints, and from what he has said I believe now that he has seen them. Having seen them,
I would ask him to investigate them and see if they are well founded.


Mr. ALCORN.: I notice in the Auditor General's Report the sum of $92,614 paid for bonuses. This, I presume, is the sum the details of which are given on L-24 and 25, for bringing immigrants to this country. On L-23 is a sum of $19,725 under head of grants made to various corporations and associations. Would the minister give some explanation of this latter sum, and state why those grants were made ? They are apparently made to associations connected with immigration, and are expended in part at least upon immigrants after they reach Canada. How does that explanation fit with the grant of $6,000, for instance, to the Quebec and Lake St. John Railway Company ? I notice that nearly $20,000 goes to associations in the province of Quebec. I understand that Quebec was in the same position as Ontario with regard to immigration agents, who are paid for the location of immigrants in that province. For what reason is the grant of this very large sum made to associations, and in what way would the Quebec and Lake St. John Railway get their grant ?


Frank Oliver: I am glad my hon. friend ' has asked this question. We have had several attempts made in the House, both this session and the previous session, to make it appear that there was some undue discrimination by the immigration department in respect to securing and distributing settlers. The Department of Immigration is interested in securing desirable people to settle in all parts of the Dominion, its efforts and its expenditures are directed in the first place, to inducing the settler
to come, and in the next place, to establishing him in the country to the best advantage. The one great difference between the policy of the present government and that of the late government, was that the late government rather confined its efforts to inducing people to come, and did not proceed further to help them to establish themselves in the various parts of the country. This government has adopted the policy of endeavouring to secure the establishment of the settler in the country after his arrival. It is for that reason that our immigration staff in Winnipeg is so large. We have a commissioner of immigration at Winnipeg, with a large and expensive staff, an immigration hall with a great many appurtenances of different kinds. We have immigration agents and immigration halls at many other points throughout that country, and land guides at many points. All this vast expenditure is made for the purpose of locating the settler where he desires to settle after he has reached Canada. In the province of Ontario we have taken an interest in placing immigrants by establishing employment agencies in the different counties. The agents work on a commission basis, and receive $2 for each immigrant that they place on a farm in the;7' respective counties.


George Oscar Alcorn: That policy it seems to me has resulted in the appointment as employment agents of partisan supporters of the government who work almost solely for the $2 a head, and the system does not seem to me to be very successful. If people of a higher standard were employed, such as we had formerly in my own county, I think the results would be very different. The results from that system in the county which I have the honour to represent have certainly up to the present been anything but satisfactory.


Frank Oliver: I was not for the moment discussing that side of the question.
I was saying that we were making certain efforts in Ontario as well as in the west to place immigrants satisfactorily after their arrival. The expenditure my hon. friend has quoted from the Auditor General's Report as being made in Quebec are for the same purpose and to the same end. They are made on a different method from that employed in Ontario, just as the method in Ontario is different from the method in the prairie west.


George Oscar Alcorn: Are there any employment agents in Quebec paid in the same way?


Frank Oliver: Yes, but that is a very recent development and, in fact, can scarce-lv be considered to be an effective measure as yet, because, as my hon. friend knows, a large part of the population of Quebec is of the French language, and unless there

are French immigrants who come and are available to be placed, there is very little of that to be done. There has been little placing of immigrants in actual practice as yet in Quebec except in the English counties. We have made expenditures in Quebec with a view to having the immigrants whom we induced to come to the country satisfactorily placed in the positions which would be of advantage to them and to the country. The payment to the Lake St. John Railway is one of these payments. The ' Lake St. John Railway is a colonization railway. It gives communication with points reached by it in the Lake St. John region where there is some agricultural development and where there is industrial development of various kinds. It seemed reasonable that the Lake St. John Railway, being especially interested in the colonization and development of that country, should be considered and dealt with as an active and effective agent for handling and dealing with people desirous of going into that country. There are several societies in the province of Quebec looking to the development of the hinterland of that province, and we have made certain payments to these societies with the same object of having the immigrant on his arrival placed satisfactorily so that both he and the country will be benefited. The payments in Quebec are for the same purposes as in Ontario and the west, hut they are made on a different principle because of the different condition of the country.


George Oscar Alcorn: In what way do the Lake St John Railway do the work?. Do they place immigrants on their own land or how do they distribute them and find them employment?


Frank Oliver: The railway company have no grant of land. The unoccupied land in that locality is owned by the provincial government. In consideration of this grant the railway company gives free transportation from Quebec over their railway.


George Oscar Alcorn: Are these French immigrants who are brought in there?


Frank Oliver: Some are French, but there are some Belgians and other nationalities as well. Of course, it is natural that a settlement in that province will attract French immigrants, but the settlement is not confined to French. There is a Danish as well as a Belgian settlement there.


George Oscar Alcorn: Do the society of colonization and repatriation and the Quebec and Lake St. John Colonization Society deal with the same section of country?


Frank Oliver: In the estimates of the current year we are not asking ifor any money for the Lake St. John Colonization Society. We now confine our grants to the Railway.


Frank Oliver: 


George Oscar Alcorn: Is this grant of $300 the only grant to the Salvation Army in connection with the work ?


Frank Oliver: No, that is not the only grant the Salvation Army get. That grant is paid in the year mentioned, but it relates to services given in a previous year. It provides for the special lectures given under the auspices of the Army, very much as the meetings I have described are held by ordinary booking agents employing farm delegates.


George Oscar Alcorn: That would be for services rendered in Europe?


Frank Oliver: In England.


George Oscar Alcorn: It is here under the head of grants.


Frank Oliver: But the service is rendered in Great Britain.


George Oscar Alcorn: What other grants are made to the Salvation Army as a body in Canada with reference to immigration work ?


Frank Oliver: We are paying the Salvation Army a special grant this year in consideration of their placing immigrants in the four western provinces. The Salvation Army sees to the placing of their immigrants after their arrival in this country. They have a very complete and successful organization, and as they have recently developed their work very largely in the west we have thought it not inadvisable to recognize their services to the extent I have mentioned. West of Lake Superior we have our own staff on salary to look after the placing of immigrants and we do not pay a commission per head as in Ontario. The Salvation Army also has its staff and we pay it a lump sum of $7,500 for the work done in the four western provinces.


George Oscar Alcorn: Has the department an agent at Quebec who exchanges foreign money into Canadian money for the immigrants?
Mr. OLIVER, We have an arrangement with James MacNider & Co., brokers of Quebec, to exchange the money of the immigrants, and we pay MacNider & Co. $250 a year, and give them an office in the immigrant building.


George Oscar Alcorn: And furniture ?


Frank Oliver: The furniture is very limited.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What arrangement is made for that service in the winter?


Frank Oliver: We have a similar arrangement at St. John with J. M. Robinson.


George Oscar Alcorn: I have had correspondence from some persons in connection with this matter and they are under the impres-

sion that the profit on the exchange is more than the government grant. Other people are willing to do the work without any grant.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps so. It is very important that this exchange of money should be done by people who can absolutely be depended upon whether it pays them or not. It may be that the business has increased to such an extent that there is a profit in it without any payment by the government. But I presume the payment was made when the business was less extensive and when there was no profit in the exchange itself. We handle a great many immigrants at Quebec and if we can get a competent and reliable person to do his work it is cheap at $250 a year.


George Oscar Alcorn: Has the government any information as to what the profits on the exchange are?


Frank Oliver: No.


George Oscar Alcorn: Has the exchange agent an absolutely free hand, or is there any oversight on him?


Frank Oliver: He is bound to give the bank rate of exchange. He is there under the eye of the officials and subject to any complaints that may be made.


George Oscar Alcorn: He is dealing with a class who are not very likely to know the bank rate of exchange.


William James Roche: Has the minister any information as to the character of the immigrants brought out by the Salvation Army ? The Army officers claim they have brought out suitable immigrants and that none of them have become a public charge, whereas others declare that the immigrants are of an inferior class and not suitable to the requirements of our country. Have any of the Salvation Army immigrants been deported?


Frank Oliver: Considering the large number of people who have come out under the auspices of the Salvation Army the failures are very few. There have been instances where some have had to be deported, and there are some others in which the immigrants might be considered undesirable, but considering that thousands have been brought out by the Army it is safe to say that generally speaking the Army immigrants are perfectly desirable. We have had practically no complaint with regard to these immigrants. We find the army a reliable institution who take care of the people they bring out, and if they find they have made a mistake they are as ready to rectify it as we could expect them to be.


William James Roche: I quite believe that the Salvation Army looks carefully after the immigrants brought out under their auspices. I understand, however,
they do not confine their efforts to the agricultural class and domestic servants for whom we pay the bonus. The Salvation Army take a proportion of their immigrants from the cities so that the government in paying them a lump sum is paying for a class of immigrants other than those specified in the order in council.


Frank Oliver: It is possible to place such construction upon the grant, but after all it is hardly fair because there is no doubt this Salvation Army brings out a very large proportion of agricultural people. It is true that they do not confine their efforts to that class, although we confine our bonus to that class; but the grant we have under discussion now is paid to them ^ in respect of the work they do in distributing their immigrants west of Lake Superior, and I think, everything considered, they are entitled to the amount we pay them for that service, although it is not distinguished in the account from the other branches of their service. So that my hon. friend may claim, if he pleases, that we are indirectly assisting in bringing out people other than the agricultural class. We think that we may claim in fairness that we are not.


William James Roche: Is that the only organization or society to which the government gives a grant for the purpose of assisting in the work of bringing immigrants from "the old country?


Frank Oliver: Allow me to put it the other' way. We are not paying them this money to assist them in bringing people out. We are paying them to assist them in distributing the immigrants after they have come out. We are not paying a similar grant to any other society, because so far as I know there is no other society that distributes the immigrants it brings out.


George William Fowler: I notice that you employ a number of clergymen. In the Auditor General's Report is a statement of the expense of employing four clergymen. What are their duties?	[DOT]


Mr OLIVER.: The principle on which thev are employed is pretty much the same as 'that on which the importunate widow secured her desire. There are times and occasions (When it is very difficult to do otherwise than accede to the propositions that are made. As I have already said, our principle is to employ practical farmers, but we are not always able to secure the' men we want of that class.


George William Fowler: What are these clergymen employed for? They do not understand farming. What pressure did they put on the department to cause themselves to be employed? I do not think the widow story will exactly cover the ground. Is it because they wish to take a trip abroad

for the purpose of their health? There ought to he some reason given for this employment other than the fact that they belong to the clerical profession.


Frank Oliver: The reasons which they give, and which may very well be given, are that having lived most of their lives in country districts and in close touch with agricultural operations, they have a very good knowledge of practical farming; and of course, being accustomed to public speaking, they have ability in the way of addressing audiences that ordinary practical farmer may not have. While we do not object to utilizing the services of the clergymen or think lightly of their services, we want to confine our operations as closely as possible to the strictly agricultural class. Therefore, as like attracts like, we expect best to attract that class of people by sending as delegates successful actual farmers, and we employ very few clergymen, as my hon. friend will see.


George William Fowler: I notice that you have employed a doctor-Dr. Page, who visited Liverpool, Glasgow, London, Antwerp and Paris, for which he charged $439 for expenses in addition to his ocean passage ; and you also employed a Dr. Robins. What do you want doctors for ?


Frank Oliver: Dr. Page is the examining officer at Quebec. He was sent to Europe for the purpose of better informing himself in regard to the sanitary conditions surrounding the emigrants and the diseases by which they are most likely to be affected; He was sent to Europe for the purpose of enabling him to give us better service at Quebec.


George William Fowler: That is, you sent him to Europe to complete his education. I should have thought that he could have got sufficient practice by examining the people affected by trachoma and other diseases tvho come here. I notice that you sent two agents to Iceland. Why do you send two to that small island?


Frank Oliver: We only send one each year, but the two names appear because of the overlapping of the account.


George William Fowler: Do you keep a resident agent in Iceland?


Frank Oliver: No. There are large and successful Icelandic settlements in Manitoba, and we send an agent from one of these each year for a period of about six months.


George William Fowler: I notice that you paid the Allan Line bonuses on Icelandic settlers. Why do you do that? The Allan Line does not call at any Icelandic port.


Frank Oliver: This is an exceptional transaction which pertains only to Iceland. It is a small country, with a small popula-1


George William Fowler: tion, it is not on the ordinary lines of travel and the expense of immigrants coming from Iceland is much greater in proportion to the distance than those of immigrants from almost any other country. They have to make a trip from Iceland to some point in the British islands; they usually come by Leith. Instead of paying a booking agent $5 a head in this case, we have an arrangement whereby the steamship company reduces the fare to the passenger by the amount of $5 and we pay the steamship company. This is the only case in which we bonus the steamship company. In all other cases we bonus the booking agent as an encouragement to his publicity campaign on behalf of Canada. In the case of Iceland, the population is entirely agricultural or outdoor people. There are practically no undesirables in Iceland. Therefore we have made a special arrangement in their case.


George William Fowler: Then this is partially assisted immigration ?


Frank Oliver: Yes, but that is the only case.


George William Fowler: Who pays the expense of sending a deported immigrant back ?


Frank Oliver: The steamship company.


George William Fowler: How is it then that we pay so much to these steamship companies for bringing them back ?
Mr. OLIVER, The railway and steamship companies have to bear the expense, provided the immigrant is deported within the year. But if he has been here more than a year, the steamship company returns him at a special rate called the charity rate. There are also cases in which it is impossible to locate the steamship company by which the undesirable immigrant came, and in such cases we pay the charity rate.


George William Fowler: Do you not deport the undesirables from the points of debarkation such as Halifax, Quebec and Montreal? Why then all these charges t


Frank Oliver: If an immigrant does not pass the examination at the port where he lands, the steamship company has to take him back at once free of charge. But if he passes the examination and gets into the country and then we find he is an undesirable, we have to pay the costs of transportating him to the sea-board. Then if we can determine by what line he came and he is deported within the year, the company must carry him free. Otherwise we pay the charity rate.
Mr. FOWLER, I notice on page L-26 that 15,000 copies of the Halifax Chronicle,' a Dominion Exhibition number, were paid for at seven cents each or $1,132.50. What was that for ?


Frank Oliver: That was a number of the paper descriptive of Nova Scotia, its advantages and resources, and as we had not at that time published any literature having special reference to Nova Scotia, we thought it was not improper to Purchase a portion of this issue and distribute it in the British Isles.


George William Fowler: Is that the issue of which some ten tons still remain over in the immigration office in London, much to the annoyance and inconvenience of the officers in charge ? There was something in the press to that effect.


Frank Oliver: I am afraid the report my hon. friend has mentioned must have appeared in the ' Halifax Herald.' I have no knowledge of there being any portion of this issue left on the hands of the department in London, and while I have heard many peculiar stories of the unadaptability of people on the other side, I would think that where there are so many opportunities of giving away these numbers, they would not be allowed to remain in the immigration office to the disadvantage of its business.


John Herron: Has the immigration from the western states increased or decreased from latest reports ?


Frank Oliver: Last year for many reasons it fell off considerably. This year the increase so far is very satisfactory over last year, but I do not think we have arrived at the volume of immigration of the year before, which was abnormal.


John Herron: My hon. friend should encourage that immigration because it furnishes us with a very desirable class of settlers, From my observation and experience of these people, they are the best adapted to our western country. It makes no difference from what part of Europe they may originally have come to the United States, they have gained an experience In the western states which is of great advantage to them in our new country. No matter where you find American settlers, you find them adapting themseves to new conditions very much better than immigrants from elsewhere.


William D. Staples: I notice that Mr. Ayotte is employed as an immigration agent in Montana and has received from this government $1,690 for the last nine months ending the 31st of March. What are his qualifications and what does he do ?


Frank Oliver: His headquarters are at Great Falls, Montana. He ,is working in the country in which my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Herron) has expressed a desire that we should, at any rate, not slacken
our efforts. I believe that Mr. Ayotte is originally from Manitoba.


William D. Staples: What qualifications has he in education and ability ?


Frank Oliver: I can hardly answer that question. I fancy by the results which we have from Montana, partly through the efforts of Mr. Ayotte and partly through the efforts of others, that he has the necessary qualifications.


William D. Staples: He is a graduate of that notorious class of the Dominion elections of 1904, the Leach class. There were Leach, Ayotte, Ingram and Kneeham, all of whom did great work in disfranchising the electors of Manitoba. And every one of these men, very shortly after the elections, was taken charge of by the government and given a salary, so that they 'each of them' is drawing from the government from $1,200 to $4,000 a year. It is evident that Leach was the principal director and tutor of the class, for he is given the largest salary. According to the Auditor General's Report, he draws somewhere in the neighbourhood of $4,000. I am of opinion-and I think members of the House generally will agree with me-that these men were well rewarded for their great work in the elections of 1904.


Frank Oliver: If this gentleman has done so much in disfranchising the Conservative electors of Manitoba, I fancy the hon. gentleman (Mr. Staples) will be well satisfied to have him located in Montana, and will consider it cheap at the price when we pay him a salary of only $900 a year.


William James Roche: Will the minister bring down the papers I asked for as to the distribution of provisions in Gimli?


George Oscar Alcorn: While the minister is looking for these papers, I would draw his attention to another of the class referred to by my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples), and even more successful in that particular line of work-W. T. It. Preston. I would refer the hon. minister to page L-23 of the Auditor General's Report, where he will find it stated that Mr. Preston was paid $1,127. Where is Mr. Preston now, if in the employ of the government, what is his title and what are his duties ? And can the minister say what success he has in the performance of those duties ?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Preston is not in the employ of the Department of the Interior, so I am hardly in a position to give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Alcorn) the Information he desires. I understand, from reports which are as open to my hon. friend as to myself, that Mr. Preston is in the employ of the Department of Trade and Commerce as a commercial agent on the Asiatic coast of the Pacific. He was quite recently in Ja-

pan, but the latest I have heard in regard to him was that he was in either Corea or China, making a trip in the interests of Canadian trade. While not able to answer with authority, the information X have is that Mr. Preston has done good work in the promotion of Canadian trade with China, Corea and Japan.


George Oscar Alcorn: I have seen in the newspapers statements somewhat similar to those made by the minister, but I was in hopes that the minister would be able to tell us precisely what Mr. Preston was doing for the large salary he commands at the hands of this government.


Robert Laird Borden: He must be in Corea. I see the Japanese have sent a large army there.


Frank Oliver: I have here the file covering the report asked for by my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche). I will send it to him, but I would ask him not to consider it as a return laid on the table of the House, because I desire to keep it on the file in the department. I would like, however, to read the report of Mr. Walker made when his attention was drawn to the extract from the Selkirk 'Herald,' which my hon. friend read here last night. Under date of May 16, he says :
With reference to the inclosed extract from the Selkirk ' Record ' of April 25, in which it is implied, if not actually expressed that the Immigration Department has provided relief to settlers at Gimli, with a view of influencing these people politically.
I beg to say in reply that I am entirely responsible for the relief sent to the Galicians and other foreign settlers in the Gimli district, in townships 18, 19 and 20, ranges 2 and 3 east. That I have not been influenced in the slightest degree by any political circumstances, that as a matter of fact, I have no knowledge of the political leanings of the persons referred to, nor do I even know the name of the member of parliament, nor the political complexion of the member of parliament, who represents that district. Such action as I have taken has been done solely in the interests of humanity and in the interests of the successful settlement of that district. It seems to me to be extremely unkind, as I know it is altogether untrue, to add to the sufferings of these unfortunate people, by an accusation of seeking or obtaining help of this character without good reason.
I inclose herewith copies of correspondence relating to this relief, from which you will observe:
That a deputation of people petitioned the local land agent of the district for urgent help.
That the people so petitioning were not speaking for themselves, but for their neighbours, whom they described as almost starving.
That a deputation of these people, aided in their transportation by the railway company, appeared at my office, and appealed personally


Frank Oliver: for succor for their starving wives and children.
That John Lusted, a forest ranger, who lives in the locality, of his own initiative, wrote on the 12th March, among other things: ' There is a great destitution and almost starvation amongst the foreign settlers in that locality ' and ' I have found places where people are almost on the verge of starvation, having been two or three days without bread or flour to bake it-immediate relief is necessary/
That upon such urgent representations as this, I ordered on March 6 (see letter No. 1) Officer Abrahamson to proceed to the seat of the destitution, examine the matter carefully and closely, and report without delay.
On March 11 (see letter No. 2) I wrote Officer Abrahamson to remain and give his personal attention to this relief business. To investigate personally, each and every case, to report on each and every case and see that relief was given only to the most needy ones.
I inclose copy of his letter to me (see letter 3) in which he informs me that destitution of a severe character prevailed, not only among those whom he was sent to relieve, but others were coming and begging to him with the same cry for help.
On the 14th March I reported the circumstances to you (letter 4 herewith, being copy of my communication).
The shocking condition of destitution, verging upon absolute starvation, I found extended to altogether about 138 families in that neighbourhood.
In order to overtake the work satisfactorily, inquiring most rigidly into the merits of each case and to see that personal inspection was made before relief was given, I sent Officer Harvey to assist in the work.
In order further to satisfy myself that the needs of these people were really as serious as my information seemed to convey, I specially despatched Assistant Commissioner Gel-ley to look over the ground. He verified the reports of my officers, and to assist me in determining the amount and character of the assistance required. Assistant Commissioner Gelley fully bore out and confirmed the report of destitution.
I inclose herewith copy of the.joint report of Officers Abrahamson and Harvey as to the work they have done, the number of cases relieved and the character of the relief given. In addition to this, 85 families in the same neighbourhood required assistance. Some of those helped were Swedish arid other German settlers. I inclose copy of report by Officer Abrahamson on this last distribution.
In this very necessary work of distribution no help was given excepting what was urgently needed; no help was given excepting what was earnestly asked for; no help was given where the officers had not already satisfied themselves that it was necessary, and no help was offered any one who refused it. Liens were taken in the usual way, and only necessaries, such as flour, sugar and a little tea or coffee were given in anv case.
It is regrettable that the crop conditions of last year should have placed these people in such an unfortunate and unenviable position, and it is equally regrettable that irresponsible writers, for what purpose I do not know, should seek to throw discredit upon efforts

made to relieve their very serious and destitute condition.


William James Roche: Were these amongst the new arrivals?


Frank Oliver: Of that year and of the preceding year, that is to say, they were people who had come out and settled in a new country, and had not been able to get themselves well established before the bad season put them out of business so to speak.


Mr.  W. .T. ROCHE@: Was assistance given to any but homesteaders?


Frank Oliver: No.


George Oscar Alcorn: On page L-14 of the Auditor General's Report, under the heading, ' Superintendent's Office, Ottawa,' I notice that a number of men are apparently employed by the department at $4 a day and their travelling expenses. For instance:
H. Charlebois, 103 days at $4; hoard and lodging, $227; pullman, $124; bus fares, $8; livery, $3; total, $741.70.
J.	O. Cowan, 102 days at $4; board and lodging, $264; pullman, $80; car fares, $4.80; care and board of immigrants, $7.50; telegrams, 50 cents; total, $649.75.
K.	J. Henry, board and lodgings and horse feed, $204.35; boat fares and meals, $7.10; cabs and livery, $347.75; railway and boat fares, $16.45; sleepers and parlour car, $25.65; small items, $1.07; total, $716.62.
G. A. Johnston, 91 days at $4; board and lodgings, $262.60; sleepers and parlour car, $119; street car and cabs, $4.75; telegrams, $1.25; total, $733.60.
What work were these men engaged in, and how did they come to expend these large sums in travelling expenses?


Frank Oliver: Some of the names mentioned by the hon. gentlemen are of men who were employed in accompanying immigrant trains from Ottawa to Winnipeg. It was thought advisable that a government officer should be on board the train to look after the immigrants and to see that things were kept right. At present we do not employ any one in that service. These men were employed by the trip and paid by the day, going and returning, and given their expenses. Mr. Henry is an inspector of immigrant children. We have an arrangement with the British government whereby there is an inspection of children sent out under the auspices of boards of guardians. When they come out to Can ada they are placed with farmers who desire to have them, and they are inspected yearly at the expense of the British government. We employ the inspector and pay him, and the British government recoup to us the expenditure.


George Oscar Alcorn: Are these men constantly in the employ of the government, or are
they engaged to make these special trips only?


Frank Oliver: The inspectors of immigrant children are employed by the year, but the men who were employed on the train whose names the hon. gentleman read, were only employed by the trip.


George Oscar Alcorn: What was the necessity for their returning in Pullman cars?


Frank Oliver: In going to Winnipeg they travelled with the immigrants, and on their return there seems to be no reason why they should not travel comfortably.


John Herron: They seem to have charged more for travelling than an ordinary traveller who pays his own way.


Frank Oliver: We are not now employing men in that service.


John Herron: Did these men produce vouchers for their expenses, those who travelled in parlour ears, or did the government pay the bill of every man as he put it in?


Frank Oliver: They were required to produce vouchers.
Winnipeg and St. Boniface hospitals, $8,000.


William D. Staples: I think that item is one that might be increased. There is no doubt that the hospitals in the city of Winnipeg are taxed heavily by the class of immigrants that are coining to this country. They are people with small means, and if they fall sick when they get here, they have to be placed in a hospital and well cared for. During the first session of this parliament I read to this House a couple of resolutions from the hospital board of the city of Winnipeg calling upon this government for a larger appropriation. At that time I believe only about $2,600 was given, and I am glad to know that the government have increased it. The hospital is carrying on a good class of work and is looking after a class of immigrants coming from the continent who would have no other protection. I would suggest that the item might be still further increased.


William James Roche: I would like to emphasize what my friend (Mr. Staples) has said, especially in regard to the Winnipeg hospital. It is one of the most deserving institutions in Canada. I think it is at present the largest hospital in Canada. I do not remember the proportion of foreign patients to the whole number admitted, but I believe they are in a large majority. I was through the institution a month ago and speaking to some of the head men in charge, and while they were grateful for the increased grant given them, still they felt they were not getting justice. It is a very useful institution and to-day they have not sufficient accommodation to

admit all tlie patients desiring relief. They wish to extend the hospital if they can secure the necessary aid, and I think, if the government could see its way clear to make a more liberal allowance, it would be appreciated.


Frank Oliver: I am very glaid to hear the hon. gentleman speak so highly of the hospital and of the increased grant. I was successful in getting the grant doubled last year, and I am very glad that that action is approved by gentlemen representing constituencies in the province of Manitoba. I shall be glad to use my endeavours to still further increase it, because I fully appreciate the importance of the hospital, especially located as it is at the gateway of that country, at the stopping point of all immigrants from which they diverge in all directions. It makes the claims upon the Winnipeg hospital no doubt heavier than they otherwise would be. At the same time there are claims for hospital aid all over the Northwest, which are well founded, although not as large as those of the Winnipeg hospital. While doing what we can for the Winnipeg hospital we must not do so much for it as to at all detract from the other hospitals.


William D. Staples: What other hospitals receive grants from the Dominion government?


Frank Oliver: The following general hospitals : Moosomin, Brandon, Edmonton, Dauphin, Medicine Hat, Calgary, Battle-ford, the Holy Cross, Calgary; the Presbyterian hospital, Moosejaw; St. Paul's hospital, Saskatoon. These are aided according to the immigrant patients treated, so that of course the aid varies from year to year. I have not a statement before me, but we paid the difference between the provincial grant, whatever it may be, and one dollar a day for non-paying patients.


Richard Stuart Lake: Did the government find it necessary to give special aid during the past winter to any settlers? For instance what has been done in different parts of Saskatchewan ?


Frank Oliver: The only case occurring in Saskatchewan was at or near Lipton on the Kirkella branch. We received a letter'from the Rev. W. E. Wallace, of Stras-burg, stating that there was a somewhat unfortunate condition of affairs there. We made inquiry and by telegraph received a confirmation of that information from our sub-lands agent. We sent an officer, Mr. Wolf, from Winnipeg, to examine into the case and he reported that there was considerable necessity there. We then took measures to relieve it, much of the same nature as those mentioned in the case of Gimii and took Hens on the land.


William James Roche: 


Richard Stuart Lake: Were special stores selected to supply these settlers, or were they allowed to buy from their own business men, so as to get the goods at the best prices?
Mr. OLIVER, I think an arrangement was made with one of the leading business men in the neighbourhood for the supply of the goods upon orders. Mr. Walker's report says that the majority, but not all of the orders, were made upon Messrs. Hasting and McLaughlin. He states that he has no personal knowledge of these gentlemen except that they appear to be reputable business men conducting a good business in the locality, and that so far as he can see their prices are not unreasonable. They were charging $2.50 and $3 a sack for flour. He says that had time and circumstances permitted the flour might have been purchased by the carload and sent from Winnipeg which would have been cheaper, but the necessities of the case required immediate relief.


Richard Stuart Lake: Were they allowed to purchase other necessities besides flour?


Frank Oliver: I have here a list of the articles purchased by each settler. The first one purchased five sacks of flour, 50 pounds of sugar. The next purchased 14 sacks of flour, 25 pounds of pork, 14 pounds of sugar, 50 pounds of oatmeal, one pound of salt. Another one purchased 5 sacks of flour, 59 pounds of sugar, 25 pounds of beans, 25 pounds rice, &c.


Richard Stuart Lake: If you invited competition among local storekeepers you would get more reasonable prices. Have there been complaints of excessive prices having been charged?


Frank Oliver: No. I will send over a list of the articles and the prcies to my hon. friend.


Richard Stuart Lake: Was any special inspection made of the settlers living northwest of Moosejaw ?


Frank Oliver: I am informed we did not have any distribution east of the South Saskatchewan. That was done west of South Saskatchewan. Owing to the severity of the winter the year before last, $30,000 was voted for the relief of settlers who lived far from fuel and other facilities. This last fall fearing a repetition of the year before, we caused a pretty thorough inspection to be, made by the homestead inspectors and immigration officers, and they reported that there was no necessity for any special relief in that region. If any was given it would be given by the mounted police.


Richard Stuart Lake: How many officers were employed in making the inspection?


Frank Oliver: Dodds, homestead inspector, Swift Current; Braun, immigration
JUN^E 5, 1908
officer, Saskatoon ; Rutfel, immigration officer, Moosejaw ; Olouston, homestead inspector, Battleford ; Roy, homestead inspector, Winnipeg, and one or two others. We tried to coyer the district as thoroughly and as quickly as possible before winter set in.


Richard Stuart Lake: I have been informed that there are districts south of Moosejaw which are closed to all except certain classes of settlers. Is that correct?


Frank Oliver: No instructions are given the land officers to refuse entries from any one.


Richard Stuart Lake: Are they bound to accept the first applicant?


Frank Oliver: Yes. In some of the townships which have been surveyed south of Moosejaw there has been considerable delay in getting the survey plan out so that entries cannot be given, and in the meantime people have squatted there which is apt to lead to complications, although not serious.


George Oscar Alcorn: Does the lien attach to the homestead or to the land, so that if the original homesteader left a subsequent homesteader would be subject to the lien?


Frank Oliver: The officer in the department and I do not agree as to that. He says the lien attaches to the land even though the homesteader looses the land, but my impression is that the lien is charged upon the homesteader.


George William Fowler: Why should it not be attached to the land?


Frank Oliver: It was the man and not the land who got the loan. If the advance were made to a private person it would attach to the land.


George William Fowler: And why not in the case of the Crown?


Frank Oliver: Because the government is the owner of the land whether the homesteader is there or not.


George William Fowler: The government has expended nothing on account of that homestead and it gives it as a free gift to the homesteader. In order that he may acquire a home the government makes certain advances to him which it charges as a lien against the homestead. If the homesteader is unable to pay all you have to do is to provide that the next homesteader shall take the land subject to the lien. If that is not the law it should be the law.


George Oscar Alcorn: In my opinion it would be extremely unfair that a succeeding homesteader should be asked to pay a debt incurred by his predecessor.


Frank Oliver: I know that men who became indebted for advances many years ago were not afterwards personally re-317
lieved from liability under the lien they gave.


George William Fowler: If you can recover it from him all right, but otherwise it should attach to the homestead. If the subsequent homesteader prefers to take that particular land with the lien on it he can do so, but otherwise he can go somewhere else, and I do not see any hardship in it. I think the government should have a lien and should enforce the lien.


Richard Stuart Lake: Considerable advances have been made to immigrants for their maintenance after their arrival here. What progress has ibeen made in recovering those advances ?


Frank Oliver: The following is the statement with regard to that:
Statement of repayments on account of relief advances from July 1, 1901, to March 31, 1908 :
Fiscal year.	Amount.
1901-1902	$ 338 99
19024903	
459	371903-	1904	
1,178	341904-	1905	
1,411	5719054906	
2,418	341906-1907 ( 9 months)	
1,992	2719074908	
2,554	44Total	$10,353 32
We do not press for the payment of the lien. As my hon. friends who have followed the amendments to the Lands Act will know, we even issue a patent to the homesteader without collecting the amount of the lien ; but if he should transfer that homestead, then in order to give a clear title he has to pay us the amount of the lien.


George William Fowler: Do you record the lien?


Frank Oliver: The lien is endorsed on the patent, so that it is an absolute security and we are not in danger of losing the money. When the settler makes a transfer, the person to whom he sells sees that we are paid.


George William Fowler: What interest do you charge on the advance ?


Frank Oliver: Five per cent after the first year ; nothing in the first year.


William D. Staples: I understood the minister last night to promise to bring down the information I asked for regarding the persons who received seed grain in Manitoba, and the districts in which it was given. Has the minister been able to get that information ?


Frank Oliver: I have a list of the names and the acreage which I will give to the hon. gentleman.


George William Fowler: I can see how this sys-tern of advancing money to settlers can be



made very advantageous to the government in the way of getting votes. It gives the government considerable control over these new settlers in a country where interest on money borrowed from private persons is from eight to ten per cent, if they can borrow from the government at five per cent. It is quite an inducement to them to vote right, and I have no doubt that the government uses that lever to obtain the votes of these new settlers. With that great advantage in their favour, I should think they would not require this Manitoba Election Bill which works along the same line.


Frank Oliver: I can only say that the enormous sum we asked parliament for a little while ago for the distribution of seed grain was not asked, as my hon. friend knows, until the pressure of necessity became so great that it was dangerous to postpone the asking and the getting of it longer. We certainly were not acting hurriedly in that case. My experience is that the advantage is not at all as my hon. friend thinks it is. We really suffer more from jealousy and misunderstanding than we gain from the advances.


George Oscar Alcorn: It occurs to me that, if the government are sincere in making these grants in order to meet the necessities of the settlers, the better plan would be to make them as absolute gifts. The waste and mismanagement attendant on the distribution, with the vast distances at which it is made, the character of the people in whose hands the matter rests, and the great expense and work entailed upon the government in keeping a record and in attending to recover the debts, seem to me* to be altogether out of proportion to the amount expended.


Frank Oliver: The principle which has been followed ever since the first settlement of Manitoba, which occurred under very unfavourable circumstances, which rendered it necessary for the government to supply seed grain to the settlers, has been the principle that any advance should not be a free gift, but should be made on the understanding that it should be repaid. The belief was that to make it a free gift would tend to pauperize those who received it, and that it was very much better to make it as a business proposition.
Dominion lands, chargeable to capital-surveys, examination of survey returns, printing of plans, including $18,000 for irrigation surveys, &c., $800,000.


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


Frank Oliver: The proposal is to expend this amount as follows. We desire to employ four parties for the survey of the base lines of Saskatchewan and Alberta at $12,-Mr. FOWLER.
500 each. We desire to have one party for the survey of a block of 3,500,000 acres in the Peace River district at a cost of $12,500. That is an area of land in British Columbia adjoining the Alberta boundary, the rights in which are handed over to the Dominion government by British Columbia in connection with the subsidy. One party is out surveying the Yukon and British Columbia boundary. Five parties for subdivision surveys in Peace River district, $12,000. Three parties for subdivision surveys in southern Alberta $8,000. Five parties for miscellaneous surveys $8,000. Three parties, subdivision surveys in British Columbia, $8,0000.


George William Fowler: Is that in connection with timber limits ?


Frank Oliver: No, we make the same township survey in British Columbia in the railway belt that we do outside. The timber limit survey is made independently of the township survey. Hitherto such surveys were at the expense of the limit holders, but under the new regulations we make them.
ill*. FOWLER. Will that apply to surveys already made ?
Mr. OLIVER, All timber limits held under the old regulations have to be surveyed by the owners .at their expense. Under the new regulations, they will be surveyed by the government before they are put up for sale.


George William Fowler: Will the purchaser have to pay the cost of the survey ?


Frank Oliver: The government will get out of the purchaser the price and the cost of the survey will be charged against that.


George William Fowler: It is expected that the tenders will include the cost of the survey?


Frank Oliver: At present the limit holder has to pay for the survey, so it comes to the same thing.


George William Fowler: What is the average cost per mile of surveying townships in British Columbia in the railway belt ?


Frank Oliver: I do not think I can give that because that work is done on daily pay and the difference is very great between one time and another.


George William Fowler: Has all the railway belt in British Columbia been surveyed into townships ?


Frank Oliver: No.


George William Fowler: In case the base line of the township would be the line of the timber limit, would not the government survey that ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.
99S9


George William Fowler: The government would pay the cost of surveying that line, which would be one line of the timber limit and at the same time the township line ?


Frank Oliver: We would have to agree beforehand to accept it from the private owner of the timber limit. We would have to agree with him to accept it before it was done. If he did it and then came and asked us to accept, we would not.


George William Fowler: You would want to have the choice of your own surveyor ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William James Roche: Has there been any change in the regulations lately with regard to the disposal of land ? In former years when certain lands were not open to homestead entry, the land office would accept applications and keep them on file. Then when the lands were thrown open for entry, the first applicant would have priority. I understand there has been a change made recently, if not in the Act, in the regulations or the operation of them, according to which the applicant who first appears in person at the land office will have the priority.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is correct. It was the practice, up to a year or so ago, to hold all applications against lands not then open for entry, and when the land was open for entry, those applications were dealt with in order of priority. But we found that while theoretically that system was all right it did not work satisfactorily in practice. A great deal of the complaints made of favouritism and undue preference given to political friends by departmental officials arose from that system. Therefore at a certain date an order was issued that applications made for land, not then available, would have no standing in priority. It was only after the land became available that applications were considered and stood in the order of priority. That is printed in the regulations we issue now.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I would like to ask the minister again a question which I put to him last session. I then asked the minister what extent, if any, has the government or any department thereof carried on investigations in the western provinces bearing upon the measurements of streams and the conservation of water supplies for irrigation and other purposes by the reservation and withdrawal from sale and settlement of natural reservoir sites. The minister said he had three gentlemen in the field making these investigations. Later on I asked the question again and he said these men had not made any report. Have they made any report yet and could the * hon. gentlemau give us the substance of 317 J
what they have reported ? The minister will remember that this question came up at the convention held in southern Alberta, at which a number of people were present greatly interested in this question. One of the officers of the department, Mr. Campbell, attended that convention. What information has the hon. minister to give us regarding what these gentlemen have found and what the government intend doing ?


Frank Oliver: Many years ago a general survey of the irrigation country was undertaken by the government of that day. In the course of that survey it seemed fit to make a number of reservations of water [DOT] reservoirs or sites. Since then it has turned out that several of these reservoir sites were not of value for the purpose and they have been opened for settlement. At present our staff is employed rather in dealing with applications for the immediate operation of irrigation than in outlining a scheme or system of irrigation applicable to the whole country, such as would give the hon. gentleman the information he desires. While it is their duty to get such information as they may of the nature he mentions, so far the more pressing duty of meeting the demands of actual irriga-tionists have been such as to prevent their doing anything on a considerable scale in that way.
Mr. Campbell, the head of the irrigation branch, has submitted a report to me in which he draws attention to the fact which I have just stated, that the staff we have employed is not sufficient to cover the points mentioned which it is desirable to cover. He draws attention to the necessity of arriving at an accurate knowledge of the available flow of water for irrigation purposes in that country by a thorough gauging of the streams. This is something which has to cover a number of years in order to be of value. Mr. Campbell also draws attention to the desirability of making a more careful examination of the coun try with a view to reservoir sites. But to cover this work thoroughly and well requires more men than we have in employment at present; and, at a later day, I may have to ask parliament for an increased appropriation to cover that ground and collect information such as my hon. friend wishes to have, which, certainly, is very desirable.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Where can we get the information that has been obtained up to the present time? The minister told me on March 11, 1907 ;
One party was occupied in gauging the rivers and large streams to determine the flow of water therein and in obtaining general information for the hydrograhic branch. The two other parties were employed in gaug-

ing 'the smaller creeks in addition, and in inspecting works in connection with irrigation schemes.
Can the minister refer me to the place where the information already gained is to be found?


Frank Oliver: I am afraid that the report of the Irrigation Commissioner is not printed yet, but


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Will it be printed?


Frank Oliver: I understand that it is being printed. This report will go into the question with a fullness not possible In the general report of the Department of the Interior and will be printed separately. It will give all the information that we have available on the subject. I have not that Information at hand. As I have said already, our staff has not been sufficient to go into tlie side of the question of which the hon. gentleman speaks as fully as is entirely desirable. In the answer to the -question I gave, I mentioned that it was a part of their duty to secure such information as he asks for. That is true, but it is also true that, owing to the pressure upon their time of the duties necessary to meet the requirements of irrigation schemes under way or immediately in prospect was so great that they were not able to give satisfactory attention to the other side of the question.


Mr. STANFIELD.: Referring to the Auditor General's Report, page L-91. I find that the amount of $8,547.09 is given as receipt from Rocky Mountains park. Is that the total of these receipts?


Frank Oliver: The revenue from Rocky Mountain park for the twelve months ending June 30, 1907, was $21,144.04.


John Stanfield: Where is that shown in the hon. gentleman's report?


Frank Oliver: The revenue mentioned at page L-91 of the Auditor General's Report is the total revenue except that from coal lands. The amount derived from coal mined in the park would be in addition to that. Of course, it appears elsewhere.


William D. Staples: A few moments ago the minister was explaining the government's policy in regard to certain lands they were throwing open for homesteads. I desire to call attention to a claim that was sent to me by a gentleman living north of Cypress river in Manitoba. I brought his wishes before the department and I understand that he has been writing letters to the department himself. I understand that this land has been thrown open for homestead, and I would like to know the position in which it stands. This gentleman is Mr. Alex. Campbell, range 12, township 10-I think that is the location, though I am not quite sure. No doubt the minister will Mr. m. s. McCarthy
know in what position the land is at the present time. Mr. Campbell is a man who settled north of the village of Cypress river a number of years ago. He has raised a large family under a great deal of hardship, and has not been able to give his family such an education as he would like. He is very anxious to get this quarter section for two sons who are now of age. He has been making application in various ways, and has asked the government to promise him that when they threw the land open they would give him first consideration. Can the minister tell me whether Mr. Campbell has got those quarter sections; and if he has not, in what position does he stand?


Frank Oliver: What was the nature of the reservation on the quarter-section?


William D. Staples: It was a timber reservation, but the timber has been burnt off for a number of years.


Frank Oliver: Speaking generally, the rule we follow is that when we decide to withdraw a reservation such as that, ten days notice is posted up in the land office, and the first applicant for it after the end of the ten days gets the land. Mr. Campbell's application made while the land was still under reservation, would not be considered as giving him priority of right.


William D. Staples: Under these circumstances I would come to the conclusion that Mr. Campbell has not much chance of securing those particular quarter-sections, because they are a considerable distance from a well-settled district, and he has to make application in the Brandon office. From the correspondence I have seen between him and the department, I think he has not been fairly treated, if the government have allowed another person to step in and get these particular homesteads. No doubt the minister could find out for me whether applications have been made for these particular quarter-sections; perhaps he has the information now.


Frank Oliver: I have not the information at present, but if the hon. gentleman is willing to wait, I will take the name and location and give him the information at a later date.


William D. Staples: I am sorry I cannot give the location of the particular quarter-sections. They are in township 9, range 12, I think.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Campbell's own land is in township 9.


William D. Staples: It is quite close to Mr. Campbell's own land.


William James Roche: The Minister of the Interior referred to certain difficulties incident to allowing applications for land where the land has not been
jmSTE 5, 1908
thrown open. But he must admit that under the present system there is a great deal of room for collusion between the land agent and friends of his, or between the homestead inspector, who knows when the lands will be thrown open and who could easily give the tip to some of his own friends. This could be done, and I think is done at the present time. The present system, to be Impartial, should be accompanied by the greatest publicity. Every facility should be afforded the public of knowing the exact date when the lands will be thrown open. Numerous complaints have come to me with reference to this practice. About a week ago, a letter was sent from Edran's post office, Manitoba, to Mr. W. W. Cory, Deputy Minister of the Interior. it is as follows:
Dr. Roche, M.P., has kindly sent to me your letter to him

I had some communication with the department on behalf of this correspondent.
-re my application for northeast quarter-section 31, township 12, range 13, dated April 28, 1908. Now in the latter part of your letter to him you say that ' there does not appear to be any ground for complaint from Mr. Seaman insofar as the land in question is concerned.' Now I entirely dissent from this statement. What are the facts? Some three or four years ago I, with a number of others, applied for northeast quarter section 31, township 12, range 13. We were informed that the land was not open for homestead entry, but as soon as it was, we would be notified. Now the former policy of your department was that applicants were given a chance to enter according to priority of their application. About a year ago I received a letter on a Friday evening from the land agent that the land was opened for entry, and if I desired to enter I was to apply. The following morning at 10.30 I phoned to the Brandon agent and asked to be permitted to make entry by agent living there, as was formerly the practice, but was surprised to be told by him that Mr. Leslie Sanderson had already entered for this land. Now, Mr. Sanderson had never applied for this land before, and he got private information that it was open for entry before my letter arrived. Now I am aware of the fact that this homestead was given for political services rendered. This land was promised to another man during the last Dominion election, and subsequently he was requested to give up his claim to the fulfilment of the promise, with the promise of a better homestead in another district. He gave up his claim and got another homestead in another place ahead of 17 applicants who had previously applied, whereas he had not previously applied. They were all notified by letter to appear at the land office to enter, but the chosen individual got private information over the telephone, and the individual who dickered in these homesteads was a Liberal member of parliament who boasted that he had the saying of who should get the homesteads. Now I am an Englishman by birth, and I have too much fight in me to tamely submit to this injustice without protest, and
for every vote that the favoured individual got, I will get a dozen for the opposition side. This gross political partiality shall cut two ways. Had one of those got the homestead that had made prior application to myself, it would have been right and proper, and I would not have said a word. But the changing of the regulations so that the first person appearing at the land office with his $10 gets the entry, permits private information to be given to favoured individuals, and is an exactly similar case to those Burrows timber deals that we hear so much about. I had hopes of better and fairer play from Hon. Mr. Oliver's administration, but am disappointed. Will you please show Hon. Mr. Oliver this letter, and by so doing you will oblige,
Tours truly,	,


TOM SEAMAN.
[Stage Direction]
It would appear from this letter that this correspondent had, along with others, applied for this particular portion of land before it was thrown open for entry. He got word by a letter from Brandon that the land would" be open on a certain date, and the next morning he 'phoned in and found there was a prior entry, that a gentleman had appeared in person and secured the entry, notwithstanding that he had not been amongst the previous applicants. This is only one of similar complaints which I have had in reference to land in other districts. Certainly this particular regulation may be abused and is being abused by those who have knowledge of when the land will be thrown open. The minister will remember that certain lands taken out of the Riding Mountain timber reserve were advertised publicly as about to be thrown open and scores went to the Dauphin land office only to be told that the order had been cancelled and the lands would not be thrown open. Up to the present they have not been thrown open, but squatters have been permitted to go in there and have been told by inspectors that their rights will be protected. For instance in township 18, range 19, there are quite a number of settlers located not only on the even, but on the odd-numbered sections, and they say they have paid their money into the Dauphin land office, although they have not yet received their certificates. I have not had an authoritative statement from the minister as to whether these squatters will receive priority when they go on homesteads.
Frank Oliver: The only knowledge I have of settlers being permitted to occupy these lands which were taken out of the original Riding Mountain reserve is of squatters who were in the reserve as it was originally, squatters whom it was necessary to get out of the reserve in order that the purpose of the Act of parliament might be made effective. It may be fairly argued that the people who went and settled on the land when it was under reservation had no right and could be and should be ejected, but I submit it would not be sound


'9995 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
public policy to act In that manner except as a last resort. Consequently in getting the settlers out of the reserve as established by Act of parliament I have offered to these people a priority of choice in the lands originally reserved but cut out of the reserve by the delimitation laid down in the Act of parliament. We think that is fair and reasonable. If any other people are going in and squatting there they are doing it without permission from us and I cannot guarantee them any protection.
William James Roche: If what the minister says is correct, that those peo

 pie who were located as squatters on the reserve are compelled to move out, I agree they should have the land, but are they to be confined to a quarter-section or a halfsection of land? Around Clearwater lake, a colony of halfbreeds located as squatters. There might be ten families on one quarter-section. Does the minister think that each family should have a quarter-section in that part of the reserve? The minister's predecessor said that these people should not be looked on as farmers. Is it the intention of the minister to allow that class of settlers to have each the full amount of land ?
Mr. OLIVER, The squatters at Clearwater lake are squatters just as are the other people to whom we have given the privilege I have mentioned. These people have rights that we cannot ignore. I was speaking of people who have no legal right. They may be settled too close together to allow each one a quarter-section, but certainly the others, although far enough apart to have a quarter-section, were not occupying a quarter-section. I have reason to believe that a settlement with these settlers is now being arranged and I would not wish to be committed in the House to any serious or lengthy discussion in regard to them until we get the settlement. I am very anxious to get them out of the reserve and to carry out the will of parliament, and I am not inclined to allow anything that is not of vital importance to stand in the way of getting the lands cleared as parliament, I believe, desires they shall be cleared.


William James Roche: I am well aware that many of these settlers have been notified to vacate their premises on the reserve, but they have been notified so often that they look on it as a farce and have not the slightest intention of leaving. They say they will not leave and do not think the government have power or authority to expel them. I think the minister will have considerable difficulty in ridding the reserve of a considerable number of these squatters. I have here a letter from a gentleman who wished to take up land in one of the townships taken from the reserve. He says :


Frank Oliver: People are living on the lands in this township and say they have their entries in the Dauphin lands office; yet there has been no amendment in the Lands Act. Please state to me what this is? They are on the odd-numbered sections as well.
It would appear that a number of settlers are going in there notwithstanding the fact that it has not been opened for settlement. Can the minister state that he has any idea as to when those lands will be thrown open to homestead entries ?
Mr. OLIVER, We are using those lands as an assistance in clearing settlers out of the Riding Mountain [DOT]reserve and as soon as we can clear them out or find that we cannot move them out the lands will be at once thrown open. But we think it will be sound public policy to continue the departmental reservation placed upon them many years ago with a view of assisting us in the" work which as my hon. friend has declared, is certainly one of exceeding difficulty in getting the squatters out of the reserve. We cannot put the lands to any better use for the time being.


William James Roche: What publicity will be given about the throwing open to these lands ?


Frank Oliver: The same publicity as was given to the intention to throw them open on a former occasion. It will be thoroughly advertised that they will be open on a certain day as in the case of the Doukhobor reserve.


John Herron: A number of settlers have squatted on the odd numbered sections in different parts of the country and particularly in southern Alberta. Has the minister any policy with regard to the protection of those people who have lived on the odd sections and made improvements? gome of them have applied to the land office for entries but I do not suppose they were accepted.


Frank Oliver: It is provided in the Land Bill now before the House that the odd numbered sections shall be open for settlement, but until parliament has declared its will on that point I have no policy at all. The odd numbered sections are under reservation and people who go on reserved lands go at their own risk.
Mr. AMEg. Has the survey been completed of the sixteen townships which by order in council of the 37th of January, 31)07, were reserved in the Peace River district for the Peace River Colonization and Land Development Company ?
Mr. OLIVER, gome six townships or parts of townships were surveyed some I years ago.


Mr. AMES.: Has there been any survey recently or will there be one this year?


Frank Oliver: No.


Herbert Brown Ames: Has the minister any definite information from the surveys as to the agricultural character of the land in these sixteen townships ?


Frank Oliver: There are surveyors' notes made when the lines were drawn, but I do not consider these notes made for a different purpose, to be reliable information as to the character of the country.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does not the surveyor generally report on the character of the soil, water, and timber ?


Frank Oliver: I believe he does but he is there to make money by running survey lines and he is under no responsibility as to the accuracy of any report he may make on the character of the country. One report might be accurate where another would be inaccurate so that I would not place absolute dependence upon the surveyors' notes as to the character of the land.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is the government taking any steps to secure information as to the agricultural possibilities of these particular sixteen townships ?


Frank Oliver: Not at the present time.


Herbert Brown Ames: How does the government intend to deal with that company if they are not in possession of accurate information of the character I have mentioned ?
Mr. OLIVER, I do not know that such information has any particular bearing on the dealing of the government with the company. An agreement was entered into providing that under certain circumstances certain things would be done. The question at issue between the company and the government is : Has the company done these things ? If that is settled in favour of the compauy there is no difference be tween us ; if it is settled against the company the government will take such action as the circumstances require.


Herbert Brown Ames: Has the government arrived at any conclusion as to whether they will continue this arrangement ?
Mr. OLIVER, The government has notified the company that in its opinion the terms of the agreement have not been fulfilled, and the matter is under adjustment.


Herbert Brown Ames: When was that notification served on the company ?


Frank Oliver: Three months ago.


Herbert Brown Ames: How long were they given to show that the concession should not be cancelled ?


Frank Oliver: I do not know there was any definite time stated. We are awaiting their statement of their position. They demand further time to make their defence on account of the absence of some of their leading men and other causes.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister stated that knowledge as to the character of that land from an agricultural standpoint had no bearing on the case. A return was brought down to the House not long ago and that, and other information available ought to convince the minister that it would be desirable for the government to be in possession of definite information as to the agricultural possibilities of this concession. This concession was first granted in 1900 and the time for fulfilling the obligations of the company was extended by a subsequent order in council of the 8th of July, 1904, requiring them to locate on the said tract within three years from the first of October, 1904, no less than fifty settlers. I wish to ask whether on the 1st of October, 1907, there had been filed with the department satisfactory evidence that fifty settlers had been located in accordance with the terms of the order in council of 1904.


Frank Oliver: Our contention is that there has not.


Herbert Brown Ames: Probably the minister is aware of the statements made in the Edmonton newspapers and some of the American newspapers, to the effect that the commendable purpose for which the company was organized in the first place, viz.: to locate expatriated Canadians on these lands is not being carried out; and that apparently the company is permitting an American real estate company to exploit their concession. That company is said to be the Kent Realty Company-Mr. Kent being connected with the original company-and last year it took up a party to this concession who underwent great hardships in getting there. When the party found themselves on the concession, they were told that the reason they were brought out was in order that they might condemn the particular sixteen sections as unfit for settlement, in order that they might be exchanged by the company for better sections. If this company is not really fulfilling the purpose for -which it secured the concession, but is farming it out to an American syndicate operating for purely speculative purposes, the government should take that into consideration. The minister will see why I asked my question in the first place. It was this : what information is in the department as to the agricultural character of these sixteen sections ? If these are good lands, naturally the government will say these are the sections you

are entitled to and no others. If they are absolutely unfit for settlement the question will be whether the government will allow the company to exchange them for other '.sections. In settling [DOT] these questions it seems to me that the government will have to know something abc at the character of that country. Apart from that, the government should see that the bona fides of the company is lived up to. I would like to know whether the articles in these papers have been taken notice of by the government, and if so what the government intend to do with reference to this transaction.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the question of the character of the land, I have to hold to the first position, that it has nothing to do with the case. The company may have conceived a desire to exchange these particular sixteen townships for some other sixteen townships, but the government has nothing to do with that. It is no part of the agreement between the company and the government that under certain conditions as to the quality of these townships, the company would be entitled to exchange them for some other townships. The company are entitled to these townships, not to any others. They are entitled to them on certain conditions. If they fulfil the conditions, they get the land. If they do not fulfil the conditions, to put it in the most favourable light, it is at our discretion whether they get the land or not. As the question is now at issue between the government and the company, I think it would hardly be advisable on my part to state in detail to the House the attitude and the intention of the government. I think it would be better to leave the elaboration of these particulars till after the matter has reached a conclusion. As I have already stated, our attitude is that the company have not fulfilled their agreement. It may be that they will be able to show that they have made a reasonable attempt to fulfil it, and are entitled to some consideration or leniency on that account. That is a matter to be considered. I can hardly be called upon to say what conclusion we may reach upon evidence which has not yet been furnished to us.


Herbert Brown Ames: The government, as I understand from a return which was brought down a few days ago, on January 4, 1908, notified the president of the company that' they would be given thirty days in 'which to produce satisfactory evidence of their intention to carry out the agreement. That thirty days expired long ago, and seems to have been extended from time to time. Perhaps the minister will tell us how long he intends to extend the time, and when he expects to come to a definite conclusion in regard to this matter.


Frank Oliver: The facts that have been placed before the public indicate that these


Herbert Brown Ames: people have gone to a considerable amount of expense in an attempt at any rate to virtually live up to the conditions of their agreement. I do not know that it is sound administrative policy to ignore that fact when the question is one of the settlement of the country, especially a remote part of it such as that-to consider only the fulfilment of the letter of the agreement if there has been a reasonable attempt to fulfil it. It is, as I have said, a matter for consideration as to what discretion the government will exercise. That is, I think, as far as I can go in the matter. We have not pressed these people unduly. We may have been, in the estimate of my hon. friend, perhaps more lenient than we should have been in bringing the matter to an issue. While I am desirous of seeing that the agreement shall be fulfilled, I am also desirous that people who have made considerable expenditure, as these people have, and have had considerable expectations of benefit to themselves as we have had of benefit to the country, should not be unduly or harshly closed out. However, I can assure my hon. friend that the matter will be brought to an issue,-and that the rights of the government will be maintained.


Herbert Brown Ames: The point I particularly wish to bring to the attention of the minister is this, that the order in council of July 27, 1901, bears upon its face the evidence as to what was the motive which actuated the granting of this concession. The motive was to induce certain classes of people who had moved out of Canada to come into Canada again, and also to induce certain people who apparently had the intention of moving a way from Canada to come up into that country instead. As this company apparently originated in the province of Quebec, I think there is little doubt that it was the original intention of the promoters to endeavour to induce some people from our province to go into the Peace River section. As far as that was the object, every member of this House will agree that it was a creditable and desirable object; but it would seem as though these people were not living up to that intention, but were farming out their concession-to the Kent RealtJ Company who, as the hon. gentleman knows, were largely interested in selling Davidson and McRae's land in the centrat part of Saskatchewan, and the lands of the Canadian Northern Railway

for the purpose of colonization of an entirely different character and class, which seems to me alters to some extent the attitude of the government towards this company. I would like to ask the minister in taking this matter into consideration, to endeavour to impress on the original concessionaires that the original intention should be carried out as far as possible.


Richard Stuart Lake: What are the terms of the concession ?


Herbert Brown Ames: They get the land for a dollar an acre on condition that they put in fifty settlers prior to October 1, 1907, and within five years one hundred more settlers. Then they can buy a certain portion at a dollar an acre, and ultimately a considerable tract at that price. They can begin by buying one-third of the total area, one-third five years later, and the remainder within ten years at six per cent. I think they can eventually acquire the whole sixteen townships by bringing in the settlers as they agreed to do.


Richard Stuart Lake: The remarks made by my hon. friend from St. Antoine division (Mr. Ames) are certainly worthy of the minister's most serious consideration. It seems to be a very valuable concession, and while the original object is a worthy one, and would be still worthy if carried out, still it will not do to allow this very valuable property to fall into the hands of speculators. I understand the minister to say that he is having five survey parties subdividing in the Peace River country. In what part is he having this subdivision made?


Frank Oliver: I said one party for the survey of the fifth meridian to Peace river. That is not on Peace river, but going to it. And one party for surveying a block of 3,500,000 acres in the Peace River district. That is to survey and outline this block of land in British Columbia outside of Alberta, but in the Peace River country. These are all the survey parties I have on this list as being provided for Peace river. We find this year that the demands for surveys to accommodate the new settlers are so immediate and pressing that we cannot spare surveyors to do subdivision surveys in the Peace River district this year.


Richard Stuart Lake: I must have misunderstood the hon. minister, because I took him down as saying that five parties were doing subdivision work in Peace river and was very much astonished to hear it, knowing the difficulties.


Frank Oliver: I have that here, five parties for subdivision surveys in Peace River district, but that is an error. This list was made up at an early date, and our later information is that we cannot afford to send all those parties to Peace river because we need them in the country adjacent to the presently surveyed and settled country.


Richard Stuart Lake: The minister made some remarks about the surveyors not being required to furnish accurate reports of the country they were surveying. Would he tell us what is the nature of the compact made with those survey parties? I should think that one of the conditions should be that they would give a comparatively accurate account of the character of the country through which they strike their lines.


Frank Oliver: The contract surveyor runs the line subdividing the townships into sections. He is paid per mile of line run at certain rates which vary from prairie to scrub and timber. The notes he takes are an indication of the character of the country, so far as they affect the prices he receives for the work. That is information in which he is interested, a contract requiring that he shall report on the general character of the country could not be made-effectively because that would be a matter of opinion. As I have said on previous occasions, we consider ourselves well off when we can secure surveyors, whom we can bind down by contract, to run lines as we want them run and give us a fair account of the nature of the work they do. We have sufficient difficulties in securing the surveyors we require for that class of work without insisting on placing further responsibility upon them which we would not have an equal means of enforcing. That is so far as the contract surveyors are concerned. The surveyors running base and meridian lines, who are employed on daily pay, do give some attention to the country through which they run, but their work is so strictly confined to the line off their survey that it has not any very serious value. To overcome that, however, we have now entered upon a system of attaching to the parties running meridian and base lines what might be called explorers, who have special knowledge of the land and its capabilities. Each explorer uses the survey camp as his headquarters, but occupies his time in ranging over the country. His travels radiate from the camp and he turns in his notes every night to the surveyor. In such cases we expect a reliable and fairly full account of the country through which those lines run. Until recently we have not adopted that system. Now that we have adopted it, I think we shall be able to give the information which is so valuable and so much desired.
Mr. LjAKE. I suppose that the notes which appear in the Surveyor General's reports must be taken from the reports given by the contract surveyors. It would seem to me that these men, who are digging holes for their surveys and so on, ought to be able to give a very fair statement as to the nature of the soil they go through. All that the minister means is that he does not hold them responsible for an absolutely correct statement of the land through which they pass. But the Surveyor General's reports are based upon the reports of the contract surveyors' reports as to the kind of land they pass through. How much land is under contract to be subdivided during the present season?


Frank Oliver: We have under contract survey this year about 250 townships. That is only an estimate.


Richard Stuart Lake: How many acres would that comprise, about?


Frank Oliver: About 600,000 acres.


Richard Stuart Lake: And what amount of land has been subdivided already up there?


Frank Oliver: About 120,000,000 acres.


Herbert Brown Ames: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) speaking with reference to the Peace River Colonization Company, I think, misunderstood one point that I was making. He said that if the strict letter of the law was not absolutely fulfilled, it might not affect the settlement. I do not think it is so much the letter as the spirit of the bargain that we are interested in in the case of these concessions. The spirit of the concession was to bring to that north country repatriated Canadians and Canadians from other parts of the country. Taking up this Edmonton paper, the ' Clairion,' I see an article in the January and February number headed, ' Audacious attempt of American Land Corporation to capture a concession.' If the minister finds, on investigation, that this concession, granted for one object, is in danger of being captured by an American land corporation to be used for another purpose altogether, it seems to me it should have a very considerable bearing on the settlement of the case. This is a very valuable concession, when you come to look at it. The grant of 576 square miles means a grant of about 368,640 acres. Now, the condition upon which about half of this, or 176,620 acres could be purchased for $1 an acre on very long terms was that the company should put in, all told, 1,200 settlers as homestead; ers. If they can purchase this quantity of land for $1 an acre and sell it for $6 or $7 an acre, that means a million dollars of profit. We do not object to the company acquiring this million dollars of profit, if, in return for it, they fulfil the original idea of the company

viz., placing repatriated Canadians and Canadians from other provinces in that western country. But, if there is to be sold to an American syndicate a concession out of which a million dollars can be made, it seems to me it is about time that that sort of thing was brought to an end. So, I want to call the minister's attention to the fact that the spirit of the bargain which underlies this concession is quite as important as the letter.


Frank Oliver: I agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ames), and am glad to find that he agrees with me, that the spirit is really more important than the letter. But I do not agree with him as to the importance of what he seems to consider the spirit of this transaction. In the first place, let me say that this transaction is not in line with the policy of the government at the present time.


Frank Oliver: 


Herbert Brown Ames: It is a relic of the past.


Frank Oliver: It is a transaction that was entered into a considerable number of years ago, when conditions were not at all as they are to-day. I agree with my hon. friend that it is a laudable purpose to try to secure the settlement of even distant parts of the country, and I suppose he will agree with me when I say that it may well be necessary, and, being necessary, it may very well be proper, that special arrangements should be entered into in order to secure the settlement of these distant tracts. On that principle, many years ago, Special arrangements were entered into to secure settlement under the late government and under this government-under this government very few and under the late government very many. This is one of the very few instances under this government. My own impression is that, in the present circumstances of the country and under present conditions, it is not the best policy, in promoting the general settlement of the country, to enter into a special agreement with a special organization for any special class of people to be settled in any special place. I find no fault with the policy that prevailed years ago under different conditions. As conditions change, it is right and proper that our policy should change. My idea is that, under present conditions, our best policy is the principle of the land for the first comer and first come first served. On that principle, I should be inclined to take a somewhat unfavourable view of the claims of this company even on the lines suggested by my hon. friend in as much as it means a special effort on behalf of special people if I understood him correctly.


Herbert Brown Ames: In this case our own people.


Frank Oliver: Well, even our own people. My idea is that the value of these concessions lay in securing a nucleus of settlement in the then far-distant, and still distant, Peace River country ; a settlement which could demonstrate by the labour and enterprise of the settlers, the agricultural and other possibilities of that vast region. Now, it seems to me that if this company can arrive at that end, whether they arrive at it or not absolutely and strictly within the letter of their agreement, I do not say that we would, but I say that we might, be justified in overlooking their failure to actually live up to the letter of their agreement, without regard to whether they were securing the settlement of repatriated citizens of Canada or the settlement of even a Canadian colony there. I would be inclined to consider them as having fulfilled the spirit of their agreement if they were successful in placing upon their land a colony of a reasonable number, that would achieve a reasonable measure of agricul-

tural success. However, I would much rather have the privilege of dealing with this question of the Peace River colonization according to the practice of the government as well understood, and place the result before the House ; otherwise our dealings may be somewhat hampered, to the disadvantage of the public interest.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the policy of the government at the present time with reference to granting timber and coal in areas that are not surveyed ? Does the government intend to continue that policy, and what steps are taken to ensure the exact location of berths ? For example, in this same section we are discussing, this Peace River section, the government have seen fit to give, I think, 350 square miles of timber for a mere bagatelle, to J. W. Stewart, who is connected with the firm of Larkin Brothers and Foley. Now what steps are being taken to secure a delimitation of that immense area of timber that has fallen into the hands of Mr. Stewart ? Who does the surveying ? Has the surveying been commenced ? How long has Mr. Stewart been allowed by the department to locate these tracts ? He has secured a practical monopoly of the best timber that supplies this Peace River section, and it will be needed as soon as settlement goes in there. Is it still the policy of the government to grant timber areas in sections which are remote from settlement, and in sections which are unsurveyed ? How does the government deal with timber limits in sections like that, and what is the present policy of the government in granting such areas ?


Frank Oliver: With regard to the timber limits secured by Mr. Stewart, my information is that the surveys have been completed by Mr. Stewart, as in all cases, under the former regulations, surveys are made by the persons who acquire the limits.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the character of that survey ? Does it include township lines and subdivisions ?


Frank Oliver: Certainly not. He runs a line, he defines the timber that he has purchased by metes and bounds.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does he lay it down in townships ?


Frank Oliver: No, because the townships are not surveyed. But he makes a survey which is a legal survey, and which can be mapped, and is just as definite as if it was made by a township survey.


Herbert Brown Ames: How can you lay it on the map of the department ?


Frank Oliver: I am not a map maker, but as a matter of fact the limits to which my hon. friend alludes are shown on the more recent maps issued by the department. I am sure he will absolve me from
the necessity of explaining how it is done. But I know that the limits are surveyed and appear on those maps.


Herbert Brown Ames: Do you describe the limits with any reference whatever to the townships in which they lie, or do you describe them simply by certain points representing bluffs or hills ?


Frank Oliver: By the survey lines, the lines run by the surveyor. The stakes set by the surveyor are the boundaries of the limits, and they are definable on the map, the same as section and township lines are definable.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it now the policy of the government to survey their own timber limits that they may henceforth grant ?


Frank Oliver: Yes, under our present regulations. They provide that when application is made for a timber berth, or when the government thinks the time has arrived that a certain body of timber should be offered for sale, the regulations provide that it shall first be surveyed by the government.	.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is that a township survey ?


Frank Oliver: No, that is a survey just the same as the survey that is now being made, the only kind of survey that can be made where the township and range have not been defined by running meridian and base lines.


Herbert Brown Ames: Now will the minister tell us what is done in the matter of getting accurate location for ceal areas that are today under grant in the Rocky Mountains, for example in the territory at the head of the Brazeau waters ? How are those coal areas located ?


Frank Oliver: The system is laid down in the regulations that where there are no surveys coal claims are located by stakes, just as quartz and placer mining claims are located in unsurveyed territory. Two stakes are planted in the ground which define the claim, the claim extends from stake to stake, and for a certain distance on each side. That is the universal system the world over, and answers the purpose for the time being, until a survey such as I have spoken of in regard to timber limits can be made, or until a survey of the section, township and range is made. I would like to change the wording of this item. It now reads :
Surveys, examination of,survey returns, printing of plans, including $18,000 for irrigation surveys.
I would like to move that $18,000 read $21,000. It does not alter the total vote, it merely takes $3,000 more out of it for irrigation purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Am I correct in the impression that about two years ago a part of Turtle Mountain was resurveyed, that is, township 2 in range 20 and 21 west of the first meridian? It is very desirable that this work should be completed?


Frank Oliver: I would have to inquire at the Surveyor General's office, but I shall give the information next day.


Richard Stuart Lake: When Dominion Lands are up I wish the minister would give us some information with reference to irrigation projects, the Robbins Irrigation Company's application and several large projects which have been mentioned.


Herbert Brown Ames: Would the minister also take notice that when this matter comes up again we will ask for information about the coal lands purchase of John Howie, the northwest quarter of section 8, township 53, range 8 west of the 5th.


George Perry Graham: I am very anxious personally to stay very late if possible to get some few items of my estimates through. The condition is somewhat serious with men on the canals and with employees of the Intercolonial Railway. The idea seems to have got abroad among the merchants with whom some of these people deal in purchasing their daily bread that these estimates may not go through for quite a while and it is becoming awkward for some of these men. I would like to get these items through so that if the Supply Bill is put through I shall be sure to have them in for these employees. The Intercolonial estimates, so far as the revenue is concerned, are in a different position from any other estimates. The vote of this House simply means that wre are allowed to use our own money. The income derived from the road has to be paid into the Receiver General and we cannot use it without a vote. It is merely asking for a release of the money the road has earned in order to hand it back to the employees. I want to be away on Monday, as some of my friends do

and I intend to be away.


George Taylor: I might easily get a pair for your vote and allow you to stay here.


William Stevens Fielding: Could you not arrange to put it through to-night in the next 15 minutes?


George Taylor: There is a difficulty. The committee in charge of railway matters, Messrs. Barker and Haggart, are not present. I was told to-day that the minister could use money if it is there.


George Perry Graham: The Auditor General will not allow it.


William Stevens Fielding: He must not lay down such a rule ; the committee should bd here to attend to business.
Some resolutions reported.


Frank Oliver: Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


George Taylor: What business will be taken up on Monday?


William Stevens Fielding: We will proceed with the estimates of the Minister of the Interior. No doubt they will be passed very rapidly, and then probably the Minister of Public Works will follow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12 o'clock, midnight.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 8, 1908.