1914-03-19

REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Commission of Conservation upon the Trent Watershed Survey.- Mr. Borden.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 114, to amend the Indian Act.
He said: The object of this Bill is to amend the Indian Act in several particulars. At the present time Indian children can only be sent to industrial schools. We wish to amend .the Act to give us authority to declare a school an industrial school in provinces where there are no industrial schools. Another amendment is in reference to securing sites for schools and enlarging the present sites. There has been some difficulty in the past in securing sites and in enlarging the present grounds. This amendment will give us power to secure a certain portion of the reserves for school sites, and will decide how compensation shall be made. Another amendment provides for the administration of the estates of deceased Indians. It extends the Act's application to cases where no widow or minor children are left. We are also amending the Act of 1911, which gave the -Government power to expropriate Indian reserves adjacent to towns of 8,000 population or over, when such lands were required -for public purposes, and the Indians Tefused to surrender them. These cases are disposed of by the Exchequer -Court. This amendment extends the application of that Act to lands which are not necessarily adjacent to a town of 8,000 population. Another amendment is in reference to sanitary regulations on the reserves, to prevent outbreaks of contagious and infectious diseases. Another amendment is to prevent Indians selling immature thoroughbred cattle supplied to them by the department. At present some of the Indians sell these animals without the knowledge of the Indian agent. The purchasers, however, are liable to have the animals confiscated.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: They cannot sell without the consent of the agent?


Mr. ROCHE:: They do sell without the consent of the agent, and this is to make selling prohibitive except with the agent's consent. Another amendment is to prevent the participation of Indians in dances or stampedes outside their own reserve without the consent of the Indian agent. This privilege has been abused in the past, and we find it advisable to restrict it. The last amendment is in reference to a half-breed withdrawing from a treaty. At present a separate application is required for a wife to withdraw, but under this amendment the wife withdraws without separate application.
Motion agreed -to, and Bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Was there a Trent canal investigation held in 1912?
2.	If so, by whom?
3.	If a report was made, will the acting Minister of Railways and Canals lay a copy of the said report on the table of the House?


Mr. REID:: 1.	No general investigation. Charges of political partisanship -against Overseer Sam. Clegg and Storekeeper Frank Fairen were investigated.
2.	W. H. Moore, Peterborough, Ont.
3.	No report was made. The evidence, however, was -submitted -to the minister, but no action was taken. Copy of the evidence will be laid on the table.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-QUEBEC SHOPS.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Are the shops being erected by the Transcontinental Railway Commission at Quebec, located on the line of the National Transcontinental railway?
2.	If not, on what line or lines of railway are they located, and at what distance from the National Transcontinental railway?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes, when completed.
2.	Answered by No. I.


MUSQUODOBOIT MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who has the contract for carrying mails from Shubenacadie to Deans, Musquodoboit?
2.	When was this contract let?
3.	When did it expire?

4.	Was it renewed or extended and when?
5.	Was it advertised for tender? If not, why not?
6. If renewed or extended without tender, was it at an advanced price, and how much increase and why was increased price paid?
7. At whose request	was it	renewed	and
advanced?			
8. Who recommended	the	renewal	and
advance?


Mr. PELLETIER:: The	contract	of
Thomas Cox at $1,100 per annum expired on 31st December, 1913. The post office inspector at 'Halifax reported that a railway is in course of construction which will, when *completed in a few months, take the place of this service. It became necessary, therefore, to make a temporary arrangement from 1st January, 1914, instead of a permanent contract for four years. The inspector reported the best arrangement he was able to make was with Thomas Cox, the former contractor, at $1,800 per annum, and as this price was considered fair for a temporary service of seventy-two miles per day, the action of the inspector was approved of by the department.


LUMLEY POST OFFICE.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Who is the postmaster at Lumley post office, Ontario?
2.	How many families are served by the Lumley post office?
3.	Is it situated on any rural mail delivery route?
4.	How many offices have been closed lately on said route?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Miss Ellen Horton.
2.	Three families. All others previously served by that office now accommodated by rural mail delivery. Instructions are being issued to close this office.
,3. Yes, Hensall rural route No. 1.
4.	One, viz, Hurondale post office.


CARLETON CENTRE MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. C. MARCIL:: 1.	When is the contract for the carrying of the mails between Carleton Centre, Quebec, and the railway station to end?
2.	Will tenders be called for the new contract?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	The service has been performed since 1st April, 1913, by Clovis Leclerc, who has asked to be released on 31st instant.
2.	The department is now considering this question.


PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT BUREAUS.
Mr. VERVILLE:: Has the Government any jurisdiction over private employment bureaus in Montreal? If so, of what nature?


William Roche: Each employment bureau in Montreal and elsewhere in Canada having business dealings with immigrants is required to secure from the Immigration Branch a license issued under the authority of Order in Council, 1028, which license is revocable for cause and which is issued only if the applicant for same can produce a written recommendation from the chief of police and local immigration officer, setting forth that in their opinions the applicant is a fit and proper party to be granted a license. An inspector for the province of Quebec resides in Montreal and weekly inspects all licensed agencies there, and in so far as is in his power prevents immigrants from being swindled. The Government has no jurisdiction over private employment bureaus in so far as their dealings with non-immigrants are concerned.


INVERNESS HARBOUR.
Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: 1.	What amounts have been paid by this Government to date for lands expropriated at Inverness for a harbour there?
2.	What amounts were paid for expropriation proceedings in these cases?
3.	What amounts were spent to date by the Government on construction on this harbour?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	$4,233.51.
2.	$585.74.
3.	$18,109.72 in addition to the above amounts.


WILFRID LAROSE, TRANSLATOR.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Has Wilfrid Larose, chief of the staff of the translators of the debates of the House of Commons, been dismissed or suspended from office? If so, when and for what reasons?
2.	Has such dismissal or suspension from office been investigated? If so, what is the conclusion of the report of this investigation?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to reinstate Mr. Larose, or merely to keep him on the staff of the translators of the debates? If so, at what salary in either case?
4.	Does Mr. Larose draw the same salary as the other translators of the debates, and what is the amount of that salary?
5.	If Mr. Larose has been dismissed, what salary does his successor receive?


Mr. BORDEN:: 1.	Mr. W. Larose, chief of the staff of Debates translators, was temporarily sus-
pended on February 11, on account of complaints against his efficiency as chief of the division referred to.
2.	The matter was immediately investigated and the conclusion arrived at was that Mr. Larose was not an efficient chief of the staff, but that he was quite satisfactory as a translator.
3.	The Government has not acted at all in this matter, as it pertains solely to the authorities of the House of Commons.
4.	Mr. Larose draws substantially the same salary as the other translators of Debates. His present salary is $2,650, to be increased from time to time as provided by the Civil Service Act.
5.	No successor to Mr. Larose as chief of the staff has yet been appointed.
CARRIER MACHINE SHOPS AT LEVIS. Mr. BOURASSA:
1.	Have the machine shops of Carrier at L6vis, situated near the Intercolonial station and the property of the Canadian Government, been rented to anybody or any company?
2.	If so, to whom have they been rented, for what length of time and what is the annual rent?


Mr. ROGERS:: No.


BAIE ST. PAUL-MALBAIE MAIL SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
'Mr. LEMIEUX:
1.	Has a mail contract been recently advertised between Baie St. Paul and Malbaie, county of Charlevoix, Quebec?
2.	If so, how many tenders were received?
3.	What are the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender ?
4.	Who obtained the contract?
Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes.	[DOT]
2.	Eighty-two; but on inquiry the post office inspector found that a number of the tenderers were not in a position to perform the service.
3	and 4. The list of the tenderers will be given when contract has been executed.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: My hon. friend has not answered the fourth question. Has the contract been completed?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No. We hope the
lowest tenderer will obtain it, but it is not complete.


PICTOU COUNTY MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has any petition been received from the
residents of Dalhousie Mountain, Pictou county, asking for change of time in the carrying of the mail from Millsville tc Dalhousie Mountain?	.
2.	If so, when was such petition received?
3.	Was any petition received objecting to such change?
4.	If so, what was the date of the receipt of said petition?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: A petition was received at the department on September 26, 1913, asking for a change in the hours of service, and it was referred to the post office inspector for report. He stated that the change asked for would involve an additional expenditure of seventy-five cents per trip or $117 per annum. Owing to the limited amount of postal business transacted at Dalhousie Settlement, the department was unable to authorize the increased expenditure. No petition was received objecting to the proposed change.


Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has any petition been received by the Post Office Department, asking for a rural mail delivery route from Scotsburn Station, via Campbell's to John W. Graham's, county of Pictou?
2.	If so, has the application been reported upon by the inspector?
3.	What has been his report?
4.	Has the post office at Plainfield, Pictou county, been closed?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The inspector states he finds considerable opposition to the proposed route, and the matter is still under inquiry by him.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	No.


' UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a return showing how many mail contracts have been cancelled in the county of Inverness from September, 1911, up to date; the route of each contract, the name of. the contractor, and the amount of each contract; and for what reasons the several contracts were cancelled?
Mr. Douglas.-For a return showing how many pure bred stallions have been purchased by the Department of Agriculture for the use of settlers in the province of Manitoba, since the first of January, 1912, to date; where these stallions were purchased and from whom; and what was paid for these animals respectively.
Mr. Douglas.-For a return showing how many pure bred stallions and bulls have been purchased by the Department of Agriculture for the use of settlers in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, since the first of January, 1912, to date; where these animals were purchased, and from whom; and also the price paid for them respectively.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Hazen (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), Bill No. 21, to amend the law relating to Merchant
[Stage Direction]
Shipping, with a view to enabling certain conventions to be carried into effect, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Hazen, Bill No. 104, respecting the Harbour of North Sydney, in Nova Scotia, was read the third time nnd passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 71, to consolidate and amend the Act respecting Fisheries and Fishing.-Mr. Hazen. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 15:
No one shall drift for salmon in the provinces of New Brunswick and British Columbia, except when under license.
Mr. McKENZIE:: Why are those two
provinces especially mentioned?


Mr. HAZEN:: These are the only provinces where drifting for salmon is practised; in the other provinces, salmon are caught in fixed nets. In the bay of Fundy, because of the great rise and fall of the tide, it is impossible to set nets, and so salmon are caught by drifting.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17:
No salmon shall be fished for, caught or killed, within 200 yards of the mouth of any tributary of any creek or stream which salmon frequent to spawn.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister ought to provide in this section how the measurement should be taken. If you measure in one way, it may be half a mile from the mouth of the stream, and by another measurement it may be only 100 yards I think the proper way to measure would be along the contour of the shore. I believe the English decisions are that you should follow the contour of the shor-', and it would be well for the minister to state that in this section.


John Douglas Hazen: The provision has been in the Act for many years, and I do not think any trouble has been found in its practical working. My idea is that of the hon. gentleman, that the measurement should follow the contour of the shore, but I am not certain as to that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I once defended an
action where the point was involved.


John Douglas Hazen: What was held?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The judge held that
the measurement could be taken across the headland, and in that way my client's property was confiscated at considerable loss to'him. I contended very strenuously that the measurement should have followed the English decisions, by taking the sinuosities of the shore, but the judge decided against me. My client was too poor to appeal.


John Douglas Hazen: If the hon. gentleman
thinks the matter is of sufficient importance, I will let the clause stand for further consideration.
Section stands.
On section 20:
No one shall, at any time, can or cure lobsters, except under license from the minister.


Mr. KYTE:: Two years ago a committee reported certain new regulations in reference to fishing for lobsters. Have these regulations been put into force?


John Douglas Hazen: My report has gone to
Council recommending the adoption of these regulations, but I do not think the Order in Council has actually been passed. When it is, I will send a copy to my hon. friend.


George William Kyte: Have any considerable
changes been made in the regulations that have heretofore existed?


John Douglas Hazen: Not in the district in which my hon. friend is interested.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: As respects the particular form of the trap?


John Douglas Hazen: I have not the details in my mind, but there will be no radical change.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 31-fishways to be made as fishery officer directs:
Mr. MACDONALD:: I wish to call to the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries a matter pertinent to this section. I am very much interested in the preservation of the statutory rights which will ensure, by the use of fishways or other means, the passage of fish up our rivers. But conditions are sometimes found on small rivers where for a great number of years there have been small mills with dams, and where there never have been fishways, and I think the minister should exercise his powers rather carefully in such cases.
A case of that kind exists in my own county on the river John, which empties into the strait of Northumberland. At some distance up the river there has been, so long as I can remember-and I have very often, in my younger days, fished below the dam-a mill known as Weir's mill, where a dam has existed for forty or fifty years. This mill is only a small one, but it has been a convenience for the farmers in that locality. It is now proposed in some quarter or other that a fishway should be placed in the dam. In the first place, I do not think there is any great demand for it from anybody who is interested.


John Douglas Hazen: What fish are in the river now?


William John Macdonald: Trout.


John Douglas Hazen: No salmon?


William John Macdonald: Mr. Hockin the inspector of fisheries in the district, has impressed upon the proprietor the fact that he must put in a fishway. It will be a great expense to do so, because on one side of the river there is a very precipitous rocky bank and on the other bank, closely adjacent to the dam, is the mill itself. I have a petition addressed to the minister, which I will send to him, signed by fifty farmers in the district who patronize this mill. A number of heirs have titles to the land, and a person is operating the mill. If any advantage from a fishing standpoint would ensue, I would urge the minister to exercise his authority and have a fishway put in, because I often go fishing below the dam when I have the opportunity. I have no fault to find with the provisions of the statute, but I call the attention of the minister to this particular case, and ask him to exercise his discretion and say that in this case there is no necessity for a fishway. My reasons are that no salmon have ever been known to go up the river John; that the mill has been there for so long, and that conditions generally are such that it seems that at this late date it would impose a very great cost on the owner of the mill with no great benefit to the public.


John Douglas Hazen: The provisions of a statute of this kind should be enforced with discretion and good judgment. Unless it were in the public interest that this fishway should be put in, there would be no reason for causing expense and annoyance to any owner of a dam on the river. I will give every attention to the petition which my hon. friend is going to send to me, and
have this matter carefully investigated before any action is taken. Subsection 4 of this section reads as follows:
The minister may authorize the payment of one-half of the expenses incurred by such owner or occupier in constructing: and maintaining any fish-way or canal.
If it be found necessary to put in a fishway here in the interest of the preservation of fish, it seems to be a place where the department ought to pay a share of the cost, because that dam has existed for so many years without hindrance. There is another paragraph in the section which provides:
After a fishway or canal, which has been virtually approved by the department, has been changed at the cost of the. owner or occupier, or after he has paid one-half of the cost, if it is found that it does not prove effective, then the total cost of any change in such fishway, in order to make it effective, will be paid by His Majesty.
That is only right and proper. That provision did not exist before because fishways which had been put in and approved by officials of the department and had later been found to be ineffective were ordered to be changed and the owner of the dam had to pay the cost. This provides that if these fishways are approved by the department and afterwards, on being found to be ineffective, are changed, then the department has to pay the cost.


William John Macdonald: I am very much
obliged for the promise of the minister to look into the matter. No .salmon have gone up the river John within my recollection.
Perhaps I might venture to take the opportunity of calling to the attention of the minister the conditions existing in our county with reference to the poaching carried on in the larger rivers where there are no dams to prevent the salmon from going up. The salmon industry along Northumberland strait from Pictou harbour extending to Arisaig is a very profitable one in the summer season for a large number of people. Great complaints are being made by them on account of the uncertainty rf the industry and the danger of the salmon being depleted, which they attribute largely to the fact that poaching has been carried on to an indiscriminate extent in the rivers that flow into Northumberland strait at these points. I would ask the .minister to take up the question seriously as to whether some more rigid method * can not be devised to prevent this poaching from going on. Some people of the greatest respectability, who, one would

think, would he the last persons in the world to poach, regularly make it their business in the months of October and November to lay in a supply of salmon when the salmon are going up the river to spawn. The result is that in these rivers, whereas a few years ago we were able to catch salmon in the season, we are now unable to catch them at all. It is having an effect upon the industries lying near the mouths of these rivers owing to the theory that the salmon returns to its particular river to spawn. We have been appointing guardians for years, but their operations do not seem to be effective. Whether better results would be obtained if the people who were so employed did not live in the particular districts along the river, I do not know. I am quite sure the minister is seized of the condition of affairs to which I refer; I speak on behalf of those whose earnings are very seriously affected by the depletion or increase of salmon. I would suggest that the minister give his serious attention to this matter with a view of adopting the most stringent methods to stop poaching, not only in the interests of those who make their living out of the industry, but in the interests of those who love the sport of fishing, and also find that salmon fishing has almost become a thing of the past.


John Douglas Hazen: The report made to me by the Superintendent of Fisheries is that year by year the fishery protection is becoming better in all the districts in the Maritime provinces, with the exception of one district, which I need not mention, but which we are taking steps to improve. In the bay of Fundy the salmon are increasing to such an extent that it is being represented to us that the salmon go up a number of the rivers discharging into the bay until they come to dams or other obstructions, and can go no further. This is taking place now to a much greater extent than it did a few years ago. There is no doubt that the waters of the bay of Fundy contain a large supply of salmon; such a thing as a failure of catch has not been known for a number of years. I attribute that very largely to the fact that year by year the fishery regulations are being better enforced, and that artificial propagation is having a very beneficial effect. I do not know whether or not the rivers mentioned by the hon. member for Pictou are being replenished by artificial propagation; if they are not, it seems to me that steps should be taken not only to afford better protection but also to see that every year some salmon

fry are placed in those waters, so that there will be an increase in the supply of salmon in the future. If these salmon resort to the rivers mentioned by my hon. friend to spawn, then it is important that any obstructions which prevent them from getting to a natural spawning bed should be removed. I shall have very great pleasure in referring the matter mentioned by my hon. friend to the fishery officers of the department, and in asking them to give it their serious attention with a view to trying to improve existing conditions.


Mr. CARROLL:: What is the amendment to this section?


John Douglas Hazen: Subsection 5 was amended by inserting the word ' unused ' before the word ' slides.' This was done to cover cases where the dams of disused saw-mills have been left in the river, and where it is impossible to place the responsibility or to find out who the title is vested in. In such cases the department will remove the obstruction.


Mr. A. D. FOSTER:: Does this section cover sawdust which is left in the streams?


John Douglas Hazen: No, the provisions with regard to the placing of sawdusi in rivers is contained in a different Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 43-permit required to catch, trade in or export fish for manure:
William F. Carroll: I am glad the minister has introduced an excepting clause in this case, because along the coast of Cape Breton dogfish are largely used for the purpose referred to.


John Douglas Hazen: I would, of course, except dogfish, because the more of those fish that are killed the better it is for the rest of the fish. It would be desirable to have dogfish killed no matter by what process.


William John Macdonald: This would not extend to lobster offal, which is taken from the canneries in large quantities and used for manure?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think that would apply, to the offal. In that case
4	p.m. it could not be said that the fish had been caught for the purpose of converting them into manure.
Section ^agreed to.
On section 46-fishery officer may convict on view:


William F. Carroll: I presume that is an old section. I would have the same objection to a fishery officer convicting a person for contravention of this Act or the regulations under this Act, especially on sight.


John Douglas Hazen: The same objection would apply.


William F. Carroll: It is the same principle but it is even more vicious legislation in this case; to empower an officer to convict on sight without the option of a trial would be a very serious matter.


John Douglas Hazen: It is the old provision, not altered in any way.


William F. Carroll: I think the minister
should take section 46 into his consideration.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Such a provision, giving power to an officer to arrest and convict on view, seems particularly harsh and arbitrary. The publicity given to the regulations under the provisions of section 45 is very slight. They are to be published in the Canada Gazette, which probably reaches only one per cent of the population of Canada. The fishermen never sees it, the officer does; and so the fishermen, without having knowledge of the regulations, may be arrested on the spot and convicted.


John Douglas Hazen: We will allow that to stand for further consideration.
Mr. A. De W. FOSTER: Might I suggest that copies of the fishery regulations be printed and distributed among the fishermen by the fishery officers when they come to apply for the bounty under the Bounty Act. This might' bring about a better observance of the law.


John Douglas Hazen: That practice has been
carried out in the department for -many years and will be continued.


William John Macdonald: What does fishery
officer mean in this Act? [DOT]


John Douglas Hazen: Either an inspector or an overseer. A guardian is not a fishery officer.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	.
On section 56-certain officer to have powers of a justice of the peace:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This resembles subsection 2 of section 5, to which objection has been taken.


John Douglas Hazen: This section refers to
officers on vessels of the Canadian navy
employed in protecting the fisheries. I do not think there has ever been any complaint about the operation of that section. These are a superior class of men.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 57-property seized, how dealt with:
William F. Carroll: In connection with nets and other apparatus confiscated for being used in illegal fishing operations, is it the duty of the Government officer to sell them at public auction?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, if they are of any value; otherwise he destroys them.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 58-powers of officers, etc., as to detention of prisoners:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Can the minister give us some idea of the offences which would subject a man to this very harsh treatment?


John Douglas Hazen: Suppose the officer in
command of one of our fisheries protection vessels arrests some one for fishing within the three-mile limit, he will try to get this man into the nearest jail.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have lived on the
seacoast all my life and am, perhaps, as familiar with these matters as my hon. friend, but I never heard of a man being arrested for fishing inside the three-mile limit. Vessels are arrested and the crews dealt with as the regulations direct.


John Douglas Hazen: There is power to arrest.
For instance, in British Columbia there are many cases of men fishing within the three-mile limit in dories.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: When this Bill was before the Standing Committee and the penalty clauses were under consideration, the suggestion was made that the same penalty should be provided for the officers.


John Douglas Hazen: A very severe penalty has
been very properly provided in the revised Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 63-boats to be provided with necessaries for their crew, when on fishing cruises:
George William Kyte: Who enforces this particular section of the Act? It is desirable, I think, that some sort of inspection should be made when vessels are preparing to go to sea. It

is too late when the vessel returns and these men have suffered from the privations this section is intended to guard against.


John Douglas Hazen: As a matter of fact, I do
not think it has been anybody's business up to the present time to enforce this section. The provision has been more or less of a dead letter. The superintendent of fisheries, who has been considering the matter, tells me that he thinks the customs officials at the different ports are the proper persons.


George William Kyte: A vessel has to, what is
called, clear, before she can go to sea. I think it should be the duty of the collector of customs to see that these requirements are fulfilled.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 72-fishing within limits leased to another:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Who grants these
licenses? The law appears to be rather unsettled as to whether this Government has the right to grant licenses for angling on a river like the St. John, for instance. I understand it has been held that you cannot grant licenses on any part of that river.


John Douglas Hazen: I think it has been clearly settled that we have the right to grant licenses in all tidal waters. We grant licenses on the St. John river up to tide head. I think the limit on the St. John river is fixed at a place called Crock's point, nine miles from the city of Fredericton.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But you do not give
licenses on non-tidal waters.


John Douglas Hazen: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 73-use of rockets or explosives :
John Douglas Hazen: This is a pretty severe penalty. There is no more destructive method than the using of dynamite, it is a most pernicious practice and it is only right to provide a severe penalty for it.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: Is this applicable to the lakes, rivers and streams throughout Canada?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, applicable to all
waters in which fish are caught in Canada.


William Foster Cockshutt: No matter what the size of the stream is?


John Douglas Hazen: No, applicable to all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 84-fishery officer or guardian who violates, or connives at any violation of the Act, liable to penalty:
George William Kyte: How will this be applied?
There is a general clause providing that half the penalty shall go to the informer.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, but that has been
amended by providing that it goes only to the informer who is not a fishery officer.


George William Kyte: In this case, if the informant is not a fishery officer, he will get half the fine?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


William Foster Cockshutt: Are the inspectors
appointed under the Dominion Act or do the local inspectors who, I believe in the province of Ontario, are all officers of the provincial Government, come under this Act? Is it the intention of the Government to extend the fisheries inspection so as to appoint special officers under the Act?


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman knows that while the proprietary interest in the fish in the non-tidal waters belongs to the province under the judgment of the Privy Council, the power to make regulations for the control and protection of the fisheries is vested in this Parliament. Therefore, in Ontario, where the province has taken over the administration of its own fisheries, these fisheries are subject to the regulations which are made by this Parliament. The inspectors are appointed by the local government. They carry out the provisions of this Act passed by this Parliament. Although the proprietary interest in the fish belongs to the provinces yet they are bound to observe the laws and regulations which are passed by the Federal Parliament.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Does this Government
regulate the size at which fish may be placed upon the market?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, that would be a
matter of regulation for this Parliament.


William Cameron Edwards: Have any representations been made to the Government in regard to allowing the marketing of whitefish ox a smaller size than those that have been marketed in the past?


John Douglas Hazen: The licenses which are
issued by the Ontario Government restrict the size of the whitefish that can be taken to two pounds, but the superintendent of fisheries has been urging upon the Govern^
merit of Ontario a revision of these regulations and of the provision inserted in their licenses to fish in their lakes and rivers.


William Cameron Edwards: Some representations
have been made to me in regard to this matter which appeal to me quite strongly.
I can understand having regulations stating, for instance, that whitefish less than two pounds in weight should not be exported. But some people have been urging that the .law should be a little freer in regard to the marketing of whitefish within the bounds of the respective provinces. It is urged that where whitefish are caught in Ontario, or in Quebec, the people should have the right to market fish of a smaller size within the bounds of the province than they would be permitted to export. If the regulation was that they should not export any whitefish under two pounds in weight the .suggestion is that they might be allowed to sell within the bounds of the province wherein the fish were caught, whitefish of less than two pounds in weight. That appeals very strongly to me as being quite a reasonable proposition. I know of some places where there are thousands of fish that will go a pound and a half in weight but do not seem to put on the other half pound for some reason or other. I know of one firm that obtained fishing rights on lake Manitou who spent thousands of dollars in putting in their appliances for carrying on the industry, fish hatchery, boats and nets, and they are unable to make anything out of their fish because they seem to run at a weight of about a pound and a half. They cannot get them in sufficient numbers weighing two pounds, as called for by the regulations, to make it profitable. If the regulation permitted them to market these fish in the province in which they were caught and did not insist upon a weight of two pounds, they might be able to carry on a more profitable business.


John Douglas Hazen: The size of the fish that
may be sold is governed by the regulation with regard to the .size of the mesh which can be used for catching fish of this sort. I understand the point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards), but I would point out that there are interior lakes in the province in which the fish are not so large as in the Great Lakes; and, while the two-pound limit for the Great Lakes might be proper, it would not suit those other waters. The policy we have been pursuing for the ilast few years is always to consult the
Ontario Government before making regulations in connection with the fisheries over which they are the proprietary owners. The matter mentioned by my hon. friend is worthy of consideration, and we will take it up in the department with the view of providing some reasonable regulation.


William Cameron Edwards: Is there not an international understanding with regard to the weight or size of fish which may be caught?


John Douglas Hazen: Not yet. Under the provisions of the treaty between the two countries *a commission was appointed -by the United States and by Canada to frame regulations for the control of the fisheries in waters contiguous to the international boundary line. That commission framed regulations, and in 1910, under the provisions of the treaty, this Parliament passed the necessary legislation making then effective. The United States has not yet passed concurrent legislation. The matter is now before the Congress and we will know in a few days whether that legislation will be passed or not. We gave notice to the United States some time ago, that unless their legislation was passed by the first of March of this year, we would resume our liberty of action, as we felt we had waited- long enough. About the first of March, the United States Senate passed the legislation necessary, and it was sent to the House of Representatives. We were asked if under those circumstances, we would stick literally to the first of March, and we answered that we were prepared to wait a reasonable time, if the matter were seriously taken up.


Mr. NESBITT:: Does this Bill regulate the size of fish to be caught in Ontario?


John Douglas Hazen: We have full power here to pass regulations controlling the fisheries, but as Ontario has taken over the administration of its fisheries, it has a proprietary right in them. Before promulgating regulations under this Act we consult with the provincial department of fisheries.


William Cameron Edwards: The different states in the United States, seem to have power to make fishery regulations?


John Douglas Hazen: They have, and that is why a treaty was necessary.


William Cameron Edwards: I am personally cognizant of the fact that Michigan, New York, and Illinois, each has its regulations, and these regulations differ in each state as to the catching and marketing of white-fish.


John Douglas Hazen: That is right.


William Foster Cockshutt: Fish will lose about twenty-five per cent of their weight between the time they are taken from the water and the time they are placed on the market; does the two-pound 'limit apply to freshly caught fish, or, to fish when offered for sale?	i


John Douglas Hazen: The provision in the license issued by the Government of Ontario is, that the fish when taken from the water should weigh not less than two pounds.


Mr. LALOR:: If these international
fishery regulations come into effect, would they regulate the size of the fish and the size of the mesh, or would that still be under the jurisdiction of this Parliament?


John Douglas Hazen: The regulations, if they do come into effect, provide for the size of the mesh, and they will abolish a certain description of traps which are largely used on the American side of lake Erie. The necessity for a treaty is, that in the United States each state controls its own fisheries, and the states along the Great Lakes have different regulations, so that when we endeavoured to have uniform regulations on both sides of the boundary, we found it impossible to deal with each state separately. Consequently, a treaty was entered into in 1908, under which the matter can be dealt with from the standpoint of the United States as a whole. It was set out in the treaty to be the duty of each government to pass the necessary legislation to make the regulations effective. This Parliament, in 1910, took the view that it was not for it to criticise the regulations decided upon by the International Commission, and without any discussion on their merits, Parliament, acting as I think it was in honour bound to act under the treaty, passed the required legislation. Up to the present time, the United States has not done so. When President Taft sent his message to Congress, it went to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and lobbyists came to Washington, representing fishery interests on the Pacific coast, on lake Michigan, and other parts of the country, protesting against the passing of the legislation to make this treaty effective, on the ground that it prejudicially affected their interests. In my opinion that was a most improper course, but it was a course that probably could not be prevented, because under the constitution of the United States the President has no means, even after a treaty has been entered into, of

forcing the Congress to pass legislation to make it effective. The Government of Canada agreed to certain modifications as to the size of the nets to be used on lake Michigan. I saw President Wilson with regard to the matter, and he told me that as the last session of the Congress was a tariff session, called for the special purpose of dealing with the tariff, it was impossible to take a question of this kind up for consideration, thoueb he expressed his entire sympathy with the treaty and his desire to have it made effective. Therefore we passed an Order in Council, which was communicated to the Government of the United States, stating distinctly that, unless the United States -by the 1st of March of the present year passed the necessary legislation in order to make the treaty effective, we would be compelled to resume our liberty of action. We felt that, four years having elapsed from the time those resolutions were promulgated, we should not wait any longer for the action of the .United States. The matter came before the Senate committee again at this session, and legislation was passed there. A Bill was also introduced into the House of Representatives; but representatives of people interested in the fisheries of lake Erie on the United States side protested against the passing of the regulations on the ground that these regulations did an injury to fishermen on the American side of the line. We were asked if we would agree to a modification of the regulations, and we distinctly but respectfully declined to do so. We said that we felt we should stand by the treaty; but if, after legislation to make the treaty effective was passed in the United States, it was found that these regulations were not in the interest of the fisheries, we were willing to have the matter further considered by the commission, and any injustice that might result might be removed by consent of the commissioners and of both countries. The matter is still before the House of Representatives. Although we had stated that we would resume our liberty of action on the 1st of March, we were asked if we would literally stand by that; and, in view of the fact that the matter was actually under consideration by the Congress of the United States, we said that, as the matter was now being considered in good faith, we would not stand literally by that statement, and no doubt in a few days it will be determined
whether the Congress of the United States is going to pass legislation to make this treaty effective ot not. If it does not do so, the treaty is at an end.
It is most unfortunate that different regulations should exist on the two sides of the boundary line. We are enforcing strictly the laws with regard to close seasons and the kind of nets to be used in catching fish, and our fishermen see the American fishermen come up to the international boundary line and fish without let or hindrance during the whole year. It rather enrages our fishermen to think that while we in Canada are spending money for the artificial propagation of fish in the Great Lakes, increasing the number of the fish and protecting the fish by regulations, a protection which inures equally to the advantage of the fishermen on the American side of the boundary line, the fishermen on the other side are allowed to fish without the control which exists on the Canadian side. If the treaty is not confirmed by the United States, the question will arise as to whether we shall continue to enforce on the -uanadian side of the line the regulations we are now enforcing, or whether we shall follow the example of the United States, which, in the opinion of our fishery officers, is detrimental to the fish in those lakes. I thought well to give this explanation to the House in view of what my hon. friend said. I presume it will be only a matter of a day or two until we shall know whether the regulations will be made effective or not.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Will my hon. friend be good enough to consider the question which concerns us in northern central Ontario? We are not vitally interested in this boundary question or in the Great Lakes question, but we are very deeply concerned in what one might call the fisheries of the minor inland waters. All through the Trent and Muskoka districts are a large number of small lakes ranging from
3,000	to 15,000 acres in extent. They usually run one into the other and are a perfect paradise for the angler. A great many American and Canadian tourists visit these districts and are directly or indirectly interested in these inland fisheries, and the people there are constantly making inquiries as to where they .shall apply to have these waters replenished. At various times I have endeavoured to find out what I might call a settled and regular way of having this question answered. Thanks to the courtesy of the Department
of Marine and Fisheries I have found out a good deal, but not enough to satisfy the_ people living beside these waters. For example, they do not understand the difference between the provincial jurisdiction and the Dominion jurisdiction. When they ask a question and are told to apply to the province for an answer, they write to the province and are told to apply to the Dominion. That happens in very many cases. The consequence is that they are in an unsettled state, which they feel is greatly to their prejudice. This is a matter the importance of which is out of all proportion to the intrinsic value of the fish. As the people connected with this pursuit are usually wealthy, it is an important industry for the people in these districts. In regard to the fish hatcheries, they want to know who will establish them. I tell them that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries attends to commercial fish, but not to game fish. Then they ask me to find out what fish are commercial fish and what are game fish. I cannot tell them, because it would take six months for me to get that question settled. Then they write to the provincial Government. If the minister will say how far he will interfere in seeing that the waters are replenished and with what fish, and what he will do in the way of fish hatcheries for us, he will confer a great favour not only on me but on a large number of people in those districts.


John Douglas Hazen: The Government of Canada, as far as fish hatcheries are concerned in the province of Ontario, confine itself to the propagation of commercial fish. Sporting fish are looked after by the province. From what my hon. friend says, I judge that in the lakes to which he refers, the fish that the tourists want are trout and other sporting fish. If that is so, my hon. friend and his friends will have to take the matter up with the Government of Ontario, who have taken over the administration of the fish in that province as they have a perfect right to do. As they have done that, the agreement has been come to that we shall simply look after the propagation of commercial fish. The confusion that my hon. friend refers to as having occurred is quite natural in view of the dual control of the fish, which, under the decision of the courts, unfortunately exists.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I hope that the minister
will give very serious consideration to the question of this international fish treaty with the United States, especially as to making any modification or change in it. I recognize that the Government of this coun-

try are committed by their representative on the commission to a treaty with the United States.
I had the pleasure a few days ago of taking a large delegation from my county to Toronto to meet the Minister of Marine and Fisheries regarding certain regulations. We were informed by the minister that those regulations were made by the Dominion, and that the provincial Government carried them out. On lake Erie, under the new treaty, there will be a uniform size of mesh on both sides of the lake; but it is a fact, as stated by this delegation of fishermen, that certain different families of fish seem to locate in different sections of the lake. For instance, at Port Maitland, in my county, the whitefish they catch are entirely different from the whitefish caught at Port Dover, twenty miles to the west. There they catch a much smaller white-fish than we do, and the mesh they use would be entirely too small to catch white-fish at Port Maitland. The opposite applies to herring; at Port Maitland they are very much smaller than they are twenty miles west. The meshes used to catch herring in those districts could not be used near Port Maitland; the fish would simply go through them. It has been represented by our fishermen to me and to the Ontario Government, through the delegate to which I have referred, that if these proposed regulations go into effect and a mesh of the size prescribed is used, the fishermen along the shore of lake Erie will practically have to go out of business. My opinion is that any provision for the use of meshes of a uniform size on lake Erie is not practicable, because of the different families of fish, of different sizes, which apparently abound in various parts of the lake. From the representations which have been made to me, I doubt very much whether this International Fisheries Treaty is in the interests of Canada, and I hope the Government will go very slowly in carrying its regulations into effect unless they believe they will accrue to the advantage of cur Canadian fishermen.


John Douglas Hazen: This, treaty was entered into in 1908; the regulations were promulgated by the commissioners in 1910, and this Parliament passed legislation to make them effective. If the United States passes similar legislation, there is no course open to the Government but to carry those regulations into effect. I understand that the treaty provides that its terms shall continue in force for a period of four years from the time they come into effect, and

that upon one year's notice they can be abrogated. If the United States agrees to these regulations the Government of Canada will have to carry out in good faith the regulations drawn up by Professor Prince on behalf of Canada and by Professor Starr Jordan on behalf of the United States. I presume that these commissioners, being experts, have considered very carefully the effect of the regulations. There may be cases in which the new regulations may be against the interests of the United States; there may be otner cases where they are unfavourable to Canada, but, taken as a whole, it is believed that the regulations will be in the interests of the preservation of fish and, in the end, very much in the interests of the fisherrden, whose welfare depends so largely upon an abundant supply of fish every year.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I fully recognize that if the regulations are accepted by the United States, the Canadian Government is committed to the terms of the treaty, but I merely want to draw the attention of the minister to some of the objectionable features of it, in order that he may keep them in view in case the treaty is not accepted by the United States in its present form. Does the treaty provide that whitefish may not be caught in lake Erie after November 15 ?


John Douglas Hazen: No.


James Joseph Hughes: Has the hon. minister in mind any method by which he can ascertain whether or not the fishery officers are performing their duties fairly and impartially?


John Douglas Hazen: We get reports from the inspector of fisheries for the district; if we want further information about any individual we communicate with that official.


James Joseph Hughes: In the case of a report coming to the department that an officer is not properly carrying out his duties, would the minister consider it advisable to send into the district in question some person "who is not connected with the department, and whose purpose would be to inquire as to the truth of the report? I would point out that when a person who is known to be an officer of the department puts in an appearance, everybody is on his good behaviour.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman would suggest the employment of a detective to visit the different districts.


MAKCH19,1914
James Joseph Hughes: Yes, practically so-a
man in plain clothes.


John Douglas Hazen: It has been necessary in some eases to send special officers to the district to investigate charges that have been made; the whole matter is one of policy, as to what is the right thing to do in a particular case under consideration. Complaints have been made to the department at different times, and officers have been sent out without the officials in the district being aware that they were being sent to investigate and report. I presume the same policy will continue in the future. As to employing a sort of Pinkerton man to go round among the fishery officers and lay complaints against them, I think the ease would have to be a rather strong one before we would be Justified in taking any such course as that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it desirable
that fishery officers should be located as near the scene of their duties as possible.
I know of certain districts in and around the Island of Cape Breton the officers in charge of which live quite a distance away, and are, perhaps, not seen in the district in question more than two or three times a week. I am particularly interested in angle fishing; I love the sport very much. There are many beautiful streams for trout fishing in the counties of Victoria and Inverness, and people come there with nets at all hours of the night and sometimes during the day, while the guardians who are appointed to look after the streams are miles away, and never come near the place at all. I hope the minister will see that the persons who are appointed to carry out these duties are capable and competent persons, and that they shall live within a reasonable distance of the place in which their duties are to be discharged.
I wish to avoid troubling the minister when the Bill comes up for a third reading. Section 85 presents the same difficulty that I spoke of yesterday, that is, the appointment of a fishery officer as a justice of the peace. Yesterday, I, with other hon. gentlemen, protested against this as strongly as we could, and I wish to say a little more about it to-day. I wish to put the responsibility entirely upon the shoulders of the minister. I shall not lay down any positive idea or opinion of what our powers are in respect to the making of appointments of this kind, that is, the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate or a justice of the peace, but it would appear to me that the appointment of magistrates and the creation of courts of a 1 kinds with few exceptions, are vested in the UC
provincial legislatures, and we should keep as far from trenching upon their jurisdiction as possible. Sub-section 27 of section 91 of our constitution says:
The criminal law, except the constitution of the courts of criminal jurisdiction, but including the procedure in criminal matters-
-shall be within the powers of this Parliament. That is, the constitution or creation of courts with criminal jurisdiction is not within our power at all; yet, here, in this very Act, section 85, we are creating a court that has criminal jurisdiction, because we are providing for the punishment of certain offences, and we create a court to try them. Section 92 says:
The administration of justice in the province, including the constitution, maintenance and organization of provincial courts, both of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and including procedure in civil matters in those courts-
-shall be absolutely within the powers of the provinces. That is our constitution, that the creation of courts, both civil and criminal, shall be within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and only when necessity arises, should we depart from that principle and try to get power to create those courts.
I think it would be well to stand by the constitution.
I submit further to the minister that at common law any decision given by such a court as he is creating would not stand the test for one minute. This officer cannot possibly be regarded as free from suspicion of bias. All that the common law requires to set aside a conviction made by any inferior court is that the possibility of bias shall be present. How can the minister say that an overseer, who lias a staff of officers under him in the shape of guardians to set aside a conviction made by any inferior court, and whose duty it is to see that these guardians do their duty, that duty being to catch and punish poachers, can be regarded as free from the possibility of bias in trying a person brought in by one of his subordinates on a charge of having violated the regulations which it is the duty of the fishery overseer to enforce? Not only does the law require that there shall be proof of bias,
5	p.m. but if the possibility of bias is present the conviction would not stand for a minute. I wish to quote a few sentences from Tremeear's Criminal Law, volume 11, page 125:
To invalidate the conviction on the ground of bias in the convicting magistrate, it is not necessary that actual bias should be proved, and



a conviction will be quashed if the facts justify a reasonable apprehension of bias.
That is all that is necessary. If my hon. friend were sitting as a judge, hearing an application to quash a conviction, and the facts were that an officer of the department, whose duty it was to suppress poaching, had sent out a subordinate, and that subordinate had brought in a man caught poaching, and the fishery officer was immediately called upon to try the prisoner, would my hon. friend say that there was not the possibility of bias? This writer goes on:
If the accused is aware of the disqualifying circumstances at the time of the hearing before the magistrate, he should take objection then to the magistrate acting.
Where the prosecutor in summary proceedings is the magistrate's father, and the statute under which the prosecutor is brought entitles the prosecutor to a share of any fine imposed, the justice is disqualified from adjudicating upon the case.
A conviction made under oucii circumstances will be quashed, although there was no conflicting evidence on the summary trial.
A magistrate is disqualified from trying an information for an offence punishable on summary conviction where there is a bona fide action pending against him brought by the husband of the accused for alleged malicious conduct as a judicial officer and for assault. If the action against the justice is not bona fide but a mere sham to attempt to disqualify him, its pendency will not operate as a disqualification. The principles which govern the the challenge of a juryman for favour are applicable to the disqualification of a justice on the ground of bias.
That is, if a man is disqualified from being a juror, he is also disqualified from trying the case as a court himself. I am sure my hon. friend will at once agree that if a man should be brought up to be tried by a jury, one of those guardians who arrested him would not be regarded as a qualified juror, nqr would the overseer who sent out the guardian to make the arrest. On the same ground I submit that the overseer should not be created a court by the minister or by this House. (Reading):
A magistrate who is engaged in the same kind of business as a trader prosecuted under a transient trader's license law is hereby disqualified from adjudicating upon the charge.
For instance, a grocer would not be permitted to sit upon the trial of another man charged with selling groceries as a transient trader without a license, 'because there might me some possibility that he would be prejudiced against the prisoner. (Reading):
Justices of the peace, who belong to an association (a temperance alliance) of which [Mr. McKenzie 1
the president is the party prosecuting, and to which association any fine to be imposed upon the accused for the offence against the liquor law with which he is charged would be paid under resolution of the municipal council, are disqualified from trying the charge, and will be prevented by a writ of prohibition from so doing. The fact that between the time when the information was received by such justices and the hearing of the charge, the justices had withdrawn from the association does not validate the proceedings.
This shows the extreme sensitiveness with which the highest authorities view cases of this kind. Here is a case of a man who was simply a member of a temperance society. Before he tried the case he resigned, but the mere fact that he took information before he resigned rendered his decision invalid, and it was set aside by the higher court. These cases-and they are backed up by English decisions by the score-show that if there is the slightest possibility of a biased decision, that decision goes by the board.
I therefore submit that it is an impossibility for the minister, by any legislation in this House, to take away the powers of the courts to set aside the decisions that might be rendered by any of his officials acting as judges. And now that the matter has been brought to his attention, I submit that it would be unwise legislation, and flying in the face of decisions of our highest courts, to try to create a court by any enactment of this House that would not be in harmony with our ideas of the administration of justice, particularly of criminal justice. These are matters which I intended at a later date to bring to the notice of the minister and the House. But I took the opportunity of submitting the facts on this section, and I leave the responsibility entirely with the minister to decide whether it is wise, in view of the authorities I have quoted, and in view of what was said in his presence yesterday, still to persist in making those officials, who must necessarily be interested in their own prosecutions, judges, with power to fine and imprison people because they do something which these so-called judges are paid for preventing.


John Douglas Hazen: I have listened with
interest to the arguments advanced by my hon. friend. The hon. gentleman says he proposes to leave the responsibility with me; I am quite willing to take that responsibility. This section is not a new one: I am not making any new law, but am simply re-enacting what has been the law Of this country for a considerable
number of years. While I do not propose to enter into an argument on constitutional grounds, it appears to me that if this Parliament had not the power to pass that legislation, it would have been attacked long ago, and it would have been decided by- some court of competent authority that it was ultra vires of this Parliament, and any convictions that might have been made, under the provisions of this Act to which my hon. friend objects, would have been set aside. As I pointed out to this House yesterday, there are places in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and certain out-of-the-way parts of Canada, where it would be impossible to enforce the law at all, were it not for these provisions; or we should have to pay the expenses of those who were found violating this law for travelling perhaps a hundred, miles, in order to find a justice of the peace who had the 'authority to try the offences laid against them. Under these circumstances I am prepared to take the full responsibility of having this legislation passed by this Parliament. If it is ultra vires of this Parliament, it is open to anybody Who is accused of an offence under the provisions of any of these sections to appeal from that decision and to get a judgment as to whether or not we have that authority. But I am not prepared to agree to the doctrine that we have not authority to pass a law which has been for many year9 the law of the land, until a decision to the contrary has been given by some court having jurisdiction in this matter.


William F. Carroll: I do not feel strongly as to whether or not this Parliament has the power to appoint a person in the capacity of a justice of the peace to try summarily offences under the provisions of this Act. I am rather of the opinion, however, that this Parliament has that power. Undoubtedly, as the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) has argued, if any conviction made. by a fisheries officer, acting in the capacity of a justice of the peace, were attacked on the ground of bias, the offender could have the decision tested in a higher court. I would like to point out to the minister that in connection with subsection 2 of section 5, it is necessary to have the authority of the Governor in Council to make an official a justice of the peace. The minister will, of course, exercise, great discretion when considering upon whom he will confer this power. If I am right with 116}
reference to subsection 2 of section 5, I think there should also be an amendment to section 87, adding the words, 'who is so authorized by the Governor in Council.'


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman is quite right, and I accept that at once.


William F. Carroll: I think there 13 a good deal in what the minister has said in reference to the length of time the law has been in force. I think, however, that the minister should be very cautious in conferring the powers of a justice of the peace on fishery officers generally.


John Douglas Hazen: I think the point is correctly taken by my hon. friend, and . I would like to amend this section by adding after the words 'fishery officer,' at the end of the third line, the following words: 'who is authorized by the Governor in Council to exercise the powers of a justice of the peace.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 93-appeal in case of grievance by conviction:
William F. Carroll: I would like to ask the minister if, under the old Act, the right of appeal was taken away?


John Douglas Hazen: There was no right of appeal under the old Act to a judge of the county court; the only right of appeal was to the minister.


William F. Carroll: Was the question
brought up by any member of the committee as to whether or not this language is strong enough to allow an appeal? It says:
Nothing in this section contained shall prevent any person who thinks himself aggrieved by any such conviction or order or dismissal, the prosecutor or complainant, as well as the defendant, from any right of appeal that he may have under the provisions of Part XV of the Criminal Code.
I am not very well versed in the law with regard to this particular question, but it struck me that the language was not sufficiently explicit.


John Douglas Hazen: The section was drafted
by. the Parliamentary counsel, Mr. Gisborne, and I presume he considered it sufficient.


William F. Carroll: I forget whether the
statute requires that the appeal shall be granted by direct assumption or whether it

shall be granted by imputation as it is here.


John Douglas Hazen: I think the right of appeal must have been taken away by the old section.


William F. Carroll: I would infer that the'
right of appeal must be given in the statute. There was no appeal, I know, under the old statute.


William John Macdonald: The proceedings aTe under the Summary Convictions Act.


William F. Carroll: My hon. friend from
North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) states that there is a right of appeal unless it is expressly taken away.


John Douglas Hazen: Well, that makes it all
right.


William John Macdonald: The appeal was taken away by the Fisheries Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 46 -fishery officer may convict on view:
William F. Carroll: This gives the right to a fishery officer, acting as a justice of the peace, to convict ' on view.' I think it is a most unheard of thing. I do not know that it has ever been exercised.


John Douglas Hazen: This has been the law for many years and I have never heard of any complaint under it.


William F. Carroll: I have never heard of
it being exercised.


John Douglas Hazen: Probably it never has been.
I think it would be better to allow it to pass now and if the hon. gentleman wants to take it up again he may do so on the third reading.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-as to spawning rivers:
John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend from Cape Breton North (Mr. McKenzie) raised a point in regard to section 17 and we left it over for consideration. It provides for:
No salmon shall be fished for, caught or killed otherwise than by angling with hook and line within two hundred yards of the mouth of any tributary, of any ereek or stream which salmon frequent to spawn.
Upon thinking the matter over, it seems to me that if, in the absence of authority,
I were asked to give a judgment as to what that meant, I should say that it meant two hundred yards in any direction

two hundred yards along the shore to the right, two hundred yards along the shore to the left, or two hundred yards right out in front. It seems to me that that is the plain meaning of it. My hon. friend asked what the rule was-whether it was two hundred yards to the right or to the left, or whether you had to draw a line across the front of the stream, from headland to headland, as it were, and measure two hundred yards out from that. I should think that it meant two hundred yards in every direction.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend does
not seem quite to understand the difficulty. Supposing a river flows out between two narrow sand beaches, what may be called the mouth of the river will perhaps be three hundred or four hundred yards in from the body of water into which it empties. If a person is found fishing inside of the mouth of the river, how will this section apply? There is no definition of what the mouth of a river is.


John Douglas Hazen: He must not fish within
two hundred yards of the mouth of the river. That is, within two hundred yards of the mouth of any tributary or of any creek or stream. I believe that is especially applicable to the Fraser river, because the salmon come up and then turn and go up the tributaries.
Mr. CARVELL * Would not that apply to any river in Canada?


John Douglas Hazen: I suppose it would, but
it is more especially applicable to the conditions in the Fraser river. It is thought well to keep people away from fishing within two hundred yards of the mouth of the stream, because the salmon congregate near the mouth of a river and there may be very great slaughter. It is not so much applicable to the case of a river running into the sea as it is to a creek or stream.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then, I must ask the Department of Marine and Fisheries to pay this man, to whose case I have particular reference, his money back, because that was the very point involved in the decision against him. The river in question is the Clyburn river, which empties into the gulf of- St. Lawrence, and his man was held to be fishing within two hundred yards of the mouth of a river which empties into tidal waters. If the law did not apply to that river, or to a river of that kind, the man should be
given back his money and the nets that were taken from him.


William F. Carroll: It has been brought to
my attention by a gentleman who goes to the eastern section of Cape Breton island for the summer months for the purpose of catching salmon that the rivers in that part of the country are not properly guarded. This particular criticism is not directed at the present Government especially, because it applied in the same way during the incumbency of the past Government. People leave a lot of money in the various districts along the rivers where the salmon are caught by angling. These rivers will never be properly protected until you pay the guardians a decent living wage. It is ridiculous to think that men employed from June to October at twelve and a half dollars a month, or about fifty-six dollars a year, will render proper service to prevent these rivers from being poached at night.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend is quite
right. Unless you pay men properly you cannot expect good service, and I have been struggling with the question of getting a reorganization of the whole fishery protection service on the lakes and rivers. I trust that next season the system will be ,so reorganized as to give better results. Some of these guardians are paid only twenty dollars a year, and unless a man is a great enthusiast he is not going to give much service for that.


Alexander William Chisholm: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Carroll) had in view the Mar-garee river, when he spoke of fishery protection, and while I do not wish to particularize I can tell the minister that he has appointed as guardian one poor man who is unable to get out of the house because of rheumatism.


John Douglas Hazen: What is his name?


Alexander William Chisholm: The minister can find that out from, his officers. A review of most of the appointmen'.s made by the Government in that part of the country *would not hurt the service in any way.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend from Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair) complained that a man without any legs at all has been removed from the office of fishery overseer.


Alexander William Chisholm: The poor man I refer to would probably be better off if he had no legs at all, because they are an incumbrance to him now.


James Joseph Hughes: I am glad to hear the minister is considering the Teorgani-zaton of the fishery guardians. I am afraid, however, that a Tittle more salary will not make much difference in the result.
Mr. HAZEN; I think we should have fewer guardians) and pay them better salaries.


James Joseph Hughes: That is exactly it. If you had fewer officers, with jurisdiction over larger areas, these officers would not be so well known to their neighbours who engage in illegal fishing. You would get far better results if you paid your men good salaries, because they would not be afraid, or ashamed, or look upon it as a dishonourable thing to compel their neighbours to observe the law. We want, so to speak, men as guardians who do not have any neighbours; I think the minister catches my meaning.


John Douglas Hazen: I do. Would the hon.
gentleman favour the idea that fishery guardians should be appointed entirely from outside the districts and neighbourhoods over which they have jurisdiction?


James Joseph Hughes: I would go a long way in that direction; you should have men who are not well known in the district.
Bill reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Government of the Yukon territory-salaries and expenses connected with the administration of the territory, $128,000.
['Certainly, if desired.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. Friday.\nFriday, March 20, 1914.']
Mr. GRAHAM :: The hon. member representing the Yukon is here. It would be .interesting for the rest of us to have some particulars as to the Government of the Yukon territory at the present time. We all know that the court staff and the staff in general have been somewhat reduced.


Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON:: I shall be very glad indeed to respond to the wish expressed 'by the hon. gentleman. We have in the Yukon to-day a very complete system of government, which was cast by the Government of the distinguished gentleman who leads the Opposition in this House, in 1896 or 1897. The governmental institutions of the Yukon territory have evolved, as they have in any other new country, and they suit our conditions very well. The Government of the territory is presided over by a commissioner
18.34

who represents the federal Government in practically all its functions. Assisting him in directing local affairs is a council of ten men, representing five districts, elected from among the people, for three years. This council is known as the Yukon Council. It elects its owrn speaker, passes ordinances for the good government of the Yukon territory, and passes also upon the estimates submitted to it annually by the commissioner in a budget which is prepared by his controller for that purpose. This budget covers the expenses necessary for ^ roads, bridges, hospitals and all other incidentals in connection with the internal government of the territory. Under the commissioner of the territory is the gold commissioner, who presides over a staff of clerks, and who himself administers in a very large degree the Yukon Placer Act, under which the Yukon placer mines come. The commissioner of the territory is analogous in his pow'ers to the lieutenant governor of a province, although in some respects he has more power and in others less. The gold commissioner is a very important official, with great powers in administering the Act. Under him is a staff of clerks who look after the placer mines, the quartz mines, the coal mines and the timber. I need not observe that the policing of the territory is done by the Royal Northwest Mounted Police under the direction of a commandant located in Dawson, with another station at Whitehorse in the southern end of the territory.
The items which go to make up this $128,000, the $215,000 and the $100,000, a total of 353,000, arc the usual items required for the government of the territory, for the repairs, upkeep and making of new roads and trails, for our rivers, for the care of our sick, and for the general expenses of the Yukon territory.
I might say, in passing, that the prospects of the territory are brighter than they have been for sofne time. I regret to observe that there are some doubting Thomases, but facts are facts. While a few years ago the revenues of the territory had somewhat declined and the gold output has declined very considerably, to-day,
I am glad to inform the House, the gold output is increasing. In 1912 we produced about $5,500,000, and in 1913 a little over $6,000,000. We have to-day very nearly $25,000,000 of real money invested in dredging and hydraulic works in the Yukon territory.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the mail service between the other parts of Canada and the Yukon territory been improved?


Alfred Thompson: Very much improved. For many years the people in the territory were penalized on account of the extra cost of money orders. As my hon. friend from Rouville knows, we had to pay double rates, but now the same rate prevails in the Yukon for money orders as in the rest of Canada. Our mail is carried in the winter as well as in the summer, just as in the rest of Canada. For many years there were certain restrictions. We could not get heavy articles, only certain classes of mail, in the winter time. Now the post office will accept for the Yukon anything that it accepts for any other portion of Canada. The provisions of parcel post have been extended to the territory.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What about the gold dust ? When I was Postmaster General, a petition was sent by the miners asking that gold dust be sent by mail at the usual rate.


Alfred Thompson: The great proportion of our gold dust is shipped by mail. It is not shipped as dust, but the dust is melted into bricks and the bricks are sent in small canvass bags, which, of course, are insured.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Gold bricks.


Alfred Thompson: Real gold bricks.


George Perry Graham: The minister might give us the names of the officials and the salaries they receive, also a brief synopsis of what the local council does with this money. Is there any probability of the Yukon territory becoming part of British Columbia ? In my recent reading, I think I have seen some discussion on that question. I am not sure, but I understand that there is a feeling in British Columbia against including the Yukon territory in that province; perhaps the same feeling extends to the Yukon as well. I should like to know whether any correspondence or negotiations have been had in regard to this matter. Has the Yukon Council or the British Columbia Government made any suggestions along this line ?


William Roche: So far as the Department of the Interior is concerned, I can say authoritatively that we have had no communications either with the British Columbia Government or with the Yukon council in reference to the annexing of Yukon
territory to the province of British Columbia. I would not say positively that there has been xio correspondence with any department of the Government on the subject, but there has been none to my knowledge. I saw the despatch to which the hon. gentleman refers, which was to the effect that at a meeting recently held in the Yukon a protest was made against a rumour that had gone abroad that the Yukon was about to be annexed to the province of British Columbia. I have not heard any expression of feeling, directly or indirectly, so far as British Columbia is concerned. It is a very large question, of course, and no application having been
made to the department, I would not dare to express an opinion as to the prospects of that being brought about in the near future. I may say that we have not the details of the disposition of the $125,000 which we allow as a grant to the Yukon council; these are published in the form of an annual report made each year by the council.


George Perry Graham: It is like a provincial
subsidy.


William Roche: Yes. Following is a list
of the persons occupying various Government positions in the Yukon territory:
Name.
George Black	
G. A. Jeckell	
Ed. Maddocks	
Miss Olive B. Fawcett
J. B. LeClaire	
G. P. MacKenzie. . ..
A. J. Seguin	
F. Brock	
Robt. Henderson. . . . J. A. MacKinnon. . . . F. G. Berton	
J.	P. Harris	
A. M. Blaikie	
Jean Clark	
/
Meta Miller	
K.	L. Allen	
P. M. Kelly	
Wm. Schofield	
| Living
Rank.	| Salary. [ Allow-
| ance.
I
Commissioner	1
Comptroller	i
Correspondence clerk	|
Stenographer, Comr's office.. 1 Messenger, Comr's office.. ..| Gold Corn'r & C. T. & Land|
Agent	[DOT][DOT] I
Mining Recorder and Mining
Engineer	
Accountant, Gold Comr's office
Asst. Mining Engineer	
Cashier, Gold Comr's office. . Clerk, Gold Comr's office.. .. Quartz Recorder, Gold Comr's
office	
Clerk, Gold Comr's office. . .. Stenographer, Gold Comr's
office	 [DOT]
Stenographer, Gold Comr's
office	
Timber Inspector	
Mining Recorder, Duncan district	  [DOT]
Mining Recorder, Glacier district

J. R. Fraser
Mining Recorder, Sulphur dis-
T. P. Curran. . ,
R. C. Miller. . . . Percy Reid. . . . A. D. McLennan A. E. Lamb. . . . John Black. . ..
trict	
Accountant, Whitehorse . . . * 1 Asst. Gold Com'r & C. T. &| Land Agent, Whitehorse.. | Mining Recorder, Carcross . . 1 Mining Recorder, Kluhane . . |
Registrar, Dawson	I
Legal adviser	I
1,800
2,400
2.500
1.500
1.500 3,800
1,500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1,200
I $61,100 j $22,500


Mr. PROULX:: Who succeeded Mr. Laliberte, who was dismissed some time ago?


Alfred Thompson: Mr. Albert
E. Lamb.


Edmond Proulx: Why was Mr. Laliberte
dismissed?


Alfred Thompson: For incompetency
and political partisanship.


Edmond Proulx: More for partisanship
than incompetency, I suppose.


William Roche: He was dismissed two
years ago, I think.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member for the Yukon has answered the question of the hon. member for Prescott, but the minister has not taken the responsibility for this dismissal.


William Roche: I am quite willing to take the responsibility; I believe I recall something now about the Case, and have an indistinct recollection that the dismissal was justified.
t At six o'clock the Committee took recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Dominion Lands and Parks-Salaries of the Outside Service, $465,000.


George Perry Graham: Of what does the Outside Service consist?


William Roche: The above sum is required to pay the salaries of agents and clerks in Dominion Lands offices, crown timber agencies in the West; also sub-agents, timber inspectors, forest rangers, homestead inspectors, etc. According to a statement prepared on the 31st of October, 1913, there were 441 officials employed in the Dominion Lands Outside Service. The sum of $419,758 is necessary to pay their salaries, and the balance, $45,242, is required to provide for increases in salaries and for new appointments when needed in the ensuing year.


George Perry Graham: How many new officials does my hon. friend intend to appoint? Is it true that the minister allows officials to take part in provincial elections, say in Alberta or in Saskatchewan, or in Dominion elections? It has been rumoured time and again that a great many of these officials get very busy at election time. I have heard of some of them almost getting into trouble for it. Does my hon. friend take very strong ground on that? If he finds any official taking part in elections, even provincial elections, does he do what the Minister of Customs says he would aspire to do although I am afraid he never does it warn them that they must not take part in these elections? I can understand that a warning might be quite futile if not followed up by action. Men in these positions have naturally very great power over the people, in a new part of the country particularly, and I think it is very essential that they should attend to their own business and not to the'business of any political party, I do not care to what party they belong.


William Roche: It is not the intention to appoint any new officials to our present

staff except where we consider it absolutely necessary. We have not in contemplation at present the appointment of any new officials. In regard to the matter of our officials taking part in elections, human nature is human nature, and I presume that the mere fact of a person being a Conservative official does not make him superior to a Liberal official, and I think there is a tendency for an official, no matter what his position may be, to favour the party in power. Personally I am not at all in favour of Dominion Government officials participating in elections, provincial or Dominion. I have heard charges made in this House which when followed up I found were not based upon facts. I have not had conveyed to me the fact that any officials of this department have, since I have been in the department, participated in any elections, Dominion or provincial. Most assuredly I am not in favour of our officials participating actively in elections. I have not yet had occasion to warn any of them except in the communications I have had with those against whom charges have been made upon the floor of Parliament, which were denied by these gentlemen. I am sure that the hon. gentleman took that stand when he was on this side of the House and followed it out, no doubt, to the utmost of his power. I shall endeavour to do the same.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Has the minister warned his officials in any general way as to what action would follow participation in any election ?


William Roche: We never judge any person guilty until he is at least accused.


James McCrie Douglas: Is the department's policy of a nature that will prevent these men taking part in elections ?


William Roche: If there were an election coming on in the near future I think I would feel it my duty to warn, publicly and generally, the officials not to participate in elections.


James McCrie Douglas: I would recall a glaring case in the constituency of Edmonton during the late provincial elections. A homestead inspector in the Peace river district, who was not appointed by my hon. friend, but under the late Administration, took on himself to conie out publicly and take part in the provincial contest. He addressed several meetings publicly and did everything in his power to have the Conservative candidate in that constituency elected. That is public
property, it was published in the newspapers at the time, and I think reference has also been made to it in this House.
I am not aware that the minister has ever taken any public stand in regard to the participation of his officials in elections, whether provincial or Dominion. I know that under the policy of the late Administration no official of the Department of the Interior could take part in a provincial or a Dominion election. If an official disobeyed the instructions to that effect, he did so at the peril of his office. Is the present Minister of the Interior prepared to take that stand ?


William Roche: If there were an election in sight, I think I would consider it my duty to warn the officials of my department not to take an active part in it. Such a warning may have been sent out by my predecessor, and sent out in good faith, but the hon. member knows quite well that a good deal of latitude is allowed, and the officials to my personal knowledge do not follow these instructions.


James McCrie Douglas: They disobey them?


William Roche: Certainly.


James McCrie Douglas: Is the minister prepared to punish these men? If he desires,
I will give him the name of the inspector I refer to-Joshua Fletcher, a homestead inspector of the Peace River district. I have it in black and white. Mr. Fletcher addressed a letter to me in which he stated his reasons for supporting the Conservative candidate. There is no question at all that this man took part in the provincial election. This is rather a glaring ease of partisanship, and I think the committee is entitled to some statement from the minister as to what he would do in a case of that kind. I am prepared to make the assertion that this man took part in an election in a partisan way.


William Roche: When was it?


James McCrie Douglas: In the provincial
election in Alberta last year.


William Roche: I do not think charges have been made against Mr. Fletcher; at least, I have no note of any.


James McCrie Douglas: I think the statement has been previously made on the floor of this House that Mr. Fletcher participated in the Alberta provincial election. I am not so anxious to get after this man as to know what the policy of the Government
is in regard to this matter. Another case came under my observation. Shortly after the change of Government in 1911 a homestead inspector in the district of Wetaski-win took part in an election. He left his work, put another man in his.place, and participated in a provincial election for something over two weeks, and yet nothing has been done by the department, as I understand. The man was allowed to draw his money, although he went on the stump and solicited votes for his candidate.
I am bringing these cases to the attention of the minister merely to know what .he . would do should a similar case arise.


William Roche: I remember now that the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) brought Mr. Fletcher's case to my attention. I have communicated with that gentleman and sent him a copy of 'Hansard,' but I have not heard from him yet.


Mr. W. H. WHITE (Victoria, Alberta):: I was surprised to hear the minister say that no case of a homestead inspector taking part in an election had been brought to his attention. If the minister will look up the records in his own department, he will find that a homestead inspector _ resigned on the first of April, ivent campaigning for two weeks, was put up as a candidate on the 17th of the month, was defeated, and was reappointed to his old position at the beginning of the next month. The minister must know that that man was reappointed. I refer to Ambrose Grey, a man who, I think, had no right to the position in the first place who had been convicted of breaking the law, and who, report says, had never been known to earn an honest living in his life till he took the position with the Government. That the minister reappointed him is not so bad as to put him in the same district where he ran as candidate. I have had several letters from homesteaders complaining that whenever there was a dispute they got a little the worst of it, because they did not support the inspector at the last election. I do not think the minister or any member of the Government can hand this-back and say, you did the same. I de:y them to produce any case under the previous Government of a man being a political candidate, failing as such, and then being allowed to go back to his old position. It is true that some men who were homestead inspectors at one time now represent constituencies in the provincial legis-

latures but they resigned a year or perhaps two years before they ran as candidates. I would like to Tecall one case to the minister, that of a man named Harry Bow-tell. The man claimed that his name had been put up at the party nomination without his knowledge. It came to the ears of the late Minister of the Interior. He would take no excuse, but dismissed the man from office. Is it the policy of the present minister to appoint a man, get him well acquainted with his district, train him for a candidate, let him be put up at an election, and then, if he fails, give him back his old position?


William Roche: The hon, member has
brought forward a case that I have no personal cognizance of. I do not know when that homestead inspector resigned.


William Henry White: On the first of April, 1913; he was reappointed on the 1st of May, and the election was on the 17th of April.


William Roche: As the hon. member says, it might be difficult to cite a parallel case. I do not wish to hark back to find an excuse, but I think a parallel case occurred in- my own constituency. What brought it more forcibly to my mind was that in this particular instance my opponent was a homestead inspector who resigned after he received his nomination. It is true, he was not reappointed in that district, but a gentleman of the name of Thomas Young, who was a homestead inspector in the Dauphin district, and who did not resign until a long time after his nomination, was reappointed to his position after the general election in which he was defeated.


James McCrie Douglas: You can never excuse that kind of thing.


William Roche: No, I am not quoting it as an excuse.


William Henry White: Was the gentleman put back in the district where he was a candidate?


William Roche: That is my recollection.


William Henry White: I have been getting a great deal of correspondence on this subject. People are complaining and justly so. You can understand that if certain people had worked and voted against a man in an election, if a dispute arose about land and there were two contestants for that land, one of whom was a supporter of the homestead inspector and the other a supporter 
of his opponent, the latter would naturally get the worst of it. I would like the minister to look into this matter, and if he finds that I am correct in this statement, I think it is only fair that he should remove this main from the district. If the department simply cannot get along without the services of this gentleman, they should iat least take him away from the district where he was a candidate and where he suffered defeat.


George Perry Graham: This is a somewhat
serious case. I am glad that the minister does not make the excuse that somebody else -did it. My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) is not here, but I will call his attention to the remarks of -my hon. friend when he -comes in. If I understand the situation aright, this man- is an inspector. He gets acquainted with the people, of course. He resigns his position in April and becomes a candidate. He is defeated on the 1st of May, and he is reappointed amongst the very people whose votes he was soliciting a week before. It might not be so serious under some other conditions, but the seriousness of the matter in this case is that the men whose votes he was soliciting knew that, with the prospect of another election coming on, the decision as to whether they would get the patents for their lands depended on him. Giving a man the power to bribe, threaten or frighten people in this way is, I think, without excuse under any conditions whatever.
I cannot believe that the Minister of the Interior, with his usual fairness in dealing with these matters, has had this circumstance brought to his attention in this way before. It places the men who are looking for the patents for their land in the position that it is possible that they will be discriminated against if they do not agree in the future to support this gentleman if he wants to be a 'Candidate, or if they -have not supported him in the past. With respect to an ordinary official of the Customs, or some other department, it would be an improper thing to do, but it would not have nearly the same consequences if he were appointed under similar conditions as those which would attend the Teappointment of an office holder of this kind. I understand that this gentleman was in trouble at one time himself; but I am not going to dwell upon that because we are all more or less human. Any of us may get into trouble at some time in our lives. The seriousness of this matter is that this man has been reappointed where he has been a candidate
and where he may be a candidate again, placing in his power the people with whom he-is dealing officially, and whose support he may solicit again.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not want to indulge in the tu quoque argument that we have been hearing iso much about, but I would like to call the attention of my hon. friend, who is so much shocked by this transaction, to a certain transaction in the province of New Brunswick. In 1899 I was a candidate for the House of Assembly in Sunbury, and the gentleman who opposed me was a gentleman of the name of Harrison. Soon after the election Mr. Harrison was appointed inspector of fisheries for the district. Another election came on in 1903, where I was again a candidate, and Mr. Harrison resigned his position as inspector of fisheries, again ran in the election, and two weeks after the election was reappointed to the same office. I may tell my hon. friend that this transaction occurred under a government of which he was a member.


James McCrie Douglas: But we are not accustomed to that sort of thing in the West.


George Perry Graham: I rather answered my
hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) before he made his remarks: I said that the conditions would not be the same with any other officer.


William Henry White: I would like to ask the minister whether he will consider this request that I have put to him; that is, that if he finds this complaint well-founded, he will remove this man from the district in which he is now employed. That is what the people want. Everybody is complaining about it.


William Roche: As I have already intimated, this is the first mention I have heard about this case. It has not been brought to my attention. While I recognize that I am responsible for everything that is done in the Interior Department, as a matter of fact, I was absent when this occurred. I have not received any protests or complaints against this Government in the line indicated by the hon. gentleman. None oi those homesteaders has sent in any complaints to the department; if so, they have not been brought to my attention, and certainly if they do, the official will have to account for anything that he may do, because I will thoroughly investigate the matter.


George Perry Graham: They surely would not
get their patents if they complained against him.


William Roche: Yes, they know that there is a very fair man at the head of the Interior Department. I would not allow the matter to go by default if accusations of that nature were made against any official of the department.


William Henry White: I will not charge the minister with having any knowledge of this matter, but I have received several letters and complaints with regard to it. If the minister states that in the event of complaints being made to him he will remove this officer from that district, I will refer these complaints to him.


William Roche: I will investigate the complaints before removing him.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: I think we have a right to some statement of policy from the minister. Many charges have been brought to the attention of the minister of people not only indulging in politics, but of having been guilty of criminal offences and still being retained in the employ of the department. Last year I had a question -on the Order Paper in regard to J. K. Smith of Moosejaw. I asked whether he was still in the employ of the Government. The answer was in the affirmative. I asked if the minister w7as aware that he had been convicted of perjury, and the answer was in the negative. I presume that that would be sufficient notice to the minister that a charge had been made against Mr. Smith. But I am advised that he is still in the employ of the Government. I have here a statement which has been taken from the records in Regina showing that this man was convicted of perjury in 1908, three or four years before he was appointed by the present Government, and that he underwent a sentence of six months' imprisonment. Still he is appointed by the present Government. I presume that whoever recommended him must have had knowledge of this fact. Many cases of this kind have been brought to the attention of the minister, and I think that some attention should be paid to them and that we should know what his policy is in regard to retaining ex-convicts in the service of the department. We hear a good deal about the tu quoque argument; we have just heard it from the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen.)


George Perry Graham: He was only joking.


Levi Thomson: I do not know whether he was joking or not, but the cheer which he received from his followers seemed to indicate that the policy of the present Gov-

eminent and their supporters is that they shall retain in office, and that it is all right to retain in office, and put back in office, defeated candidates occupying the position that this gentleman does, because the previous Government did it. If those cheers meant anything they meant that. If those cheeTS meant anything else they were thrown away. They were an insult to the intelligence of the House if they meant anything else. I think we should know whether the policy of the Government is that they are to retain in office men who have been defeated candidate.
Tell us what you like about what the late Government did, but that is no answer. The argument of hon. gentlemen opposite, if it means anything, means that they approve of the policy of the present Government in doing such work as the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. W. H. White) claims has been done. We have a right to know from the Minister of the Interior, in the first place, whether he approves of ex-convicts being employed by his department, and, in the second place, whether he purposes retaining homestead inspectors in their positions, when they have been candidates in elections. There may be peculiar circumstances in the case of J. K. Smith, which would make it quite fair for the minister to retain him in the service, but it is high time we should have a statement of the policy of the department as to this matter.


William Cameron Edwards: Does not the hon.
gentleman think it would be a good idea for him, instead of asking the minister to pronounce on a suppositious case, to propound a policy for himself?


James McCrie Douglas: We are not in power.


William Cameron Edwards: I am well aware you are not in power, and I do not think there is any likelihood that you will be in power during your lifetime or mine.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Cameron Edwards: When the hon. member (Air. Levi Thomson) speaks about exconvicts being retained in office, I think I am justified in asking him if he objects to that, and, if so, when he changed his mind. It is not so very long since hon. gentlemen opposite followed the policy of taking a man out of prison and rewarding him with a position at three times the salary he had before he went into prison. When we remind them of this, they accuse us of using the tu quoque

argument; but I think we have a perfect right to remind them of what they have done in the past until they give some tangible evidence that they have repented. Talk about appointing ex-convicts to office -let me remind hon. gentlemen opposite that when they were in power they actually appointed to an office in the Kingston penitentiary a man who had served one term in the Central prison, another term in Belleville jail, who had twenty-three convictions against him in the Kingston police court, and who was out on suspended sentence at the time he was recommended for the appointment. And, up to date, I have never heard a supporter of the Laurier Government make any objection for that conduct.


Mr. LAW:: Is he still there?


William Cameron Edwards: He is not. When we
look at the record of the Laurier Government and find that men like Wagner were appointed to office and rewarded-


An hon. MEMBER:: He is dead.


Mr. BOYCE:: He died in office.


William Cameron Edwards: When we find that
such men were rewarded to the extent of being given positions at three times the salary they formerly held; when we find that men like W. T. R. Preston, better known as ' hug-the-machine ' Preston, and men like Jackson, were rewarded with the best positions in the gift of the Liberal Government, and when we find that no member of the Liberal party ever indicated by a word that he was not in full accord with such a policy, we have the right to take with a very generous supply of salt their professions at the present time. When they take exception now to the alleged appointment of an ex-convict, they should remember the very general practice of their own party when in power, of rewarding men of such a stamp, for party services rendered.


Levi Thomson: In referring to the case of Smith, I said that there might be cases in which it would be quite proper to retain ex-convicts in office.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Wagner was one.


Levi Thomson: I do not know anything about the Wagner case.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. member was not here in those grand old days.


Levi Thomson: If the hon. member will keep quiet, he will have an opportunity of
speaking after me, and then if he knows anything about Wagner he can tell us. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) gave an answer to the charges made in reference to Wagner, which nobody on the other side has ever attempted to controvert. As I say, I do not know anything about the Wagner case.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I will tell you in a
moment.


Levi Thomson: Will the hon. gentleman be civil enough to keep quiet without interrupting me? If there has been any case in which the late ministry gave office to, or retained in office ex-convicts, without the very best possible excuse, I shall have no hesitation in joining with the hon. member for Frontenace (Mr. Edwards), in its condemnation; but he does not seem to be ready to condemn anything that the present Government has done.


George Perry Graham: Except the Kingston
Penitentiary Commission.


Levi Thomson: I know that my hon.
trend from Frontenac is not the most moderate man in the world, and he may possibly be extreme in the present instance; but I ask him if he will not agree with me that there must be extremely good reasons to justify appointing an exconvict, and that if there are not such reasons, the action of any government who would do such a thing should be condemned. Will my hon. friend join me in that?


William Cameron Edwards: Since the hon. member answers my question by asking another, I may say to him that his answer is not satisfactory, because of the qualification he has added to it.


Levi Thomson: Will the hon. gentleman endorse my view without the qualification?


William Cameron Edwards: I do not know that 1
will. The hon. gentleman said that he would condemn the appointment of exconvicts to office, except for very extreme reasons, and that qualification enables him to say that when his party were in power they only appointed ex-convicts when such extreme reasons were present, and he would, on the other hand, say that if the present Government did such a thing, they had not these extreme reasons to justify [DOT]them. The hon. gentleman, with his legal knowledge, is able, of course, to arrange his words so that you can drive a coach
and four through them, and in the qualification he has added to his statement he leaves himself a loophole out of which to crawl, if he thinks it convenient to do so in the interests of his party.


Levi Thomson: Will the hon. member go one better than I and say that he will condemn altogether the policy of appointing ex-convicts? I do not think he has any right to condemn me for not going far enough unless he himself is prepared to go farther.


Mr. MICHAUD:: The Minister of Marine has referred to the province of New Brunswick, and that reminds me that I can go back to that province for a case similar to this, while the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hazen) was Premier of New Brunswick. I do not know that my hon. friend was happier as Premier of New Brunswick than he is now as Minister of Marine, but at any rate he wanted a candidate to oppose me in my constituency in the last elections, and he secured a man who held seven or eight offices, all of which he resigned to become a candidate. But the moment he was defeated he got back all these offices. Some time afterwards the provincial elections came on and the same Conservative candidate was chosen, and he had to resign all his offices again.
He was defeated, and a week or two after his defeat he again got back all the offices he had resigned.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I am not the chairman, but I have a hazy idea in my head that on the question of voting certain sums of money to the Minister of the Interior the hon. member for Frontenac 'Mr. Edwards) should have said something more letevant to the subject than he did. J1 J *. ere the Minister of the Interior 1 wouiJ send a note to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries asking him to be quiet about politics in New Brunswick. Surely he is not bubbling over so much with lore about the politics of New Brunswick that he cannot let us get along with these Estimates. If the Estimates of the Department of the Interior are not passed to-night the Minister of the Interior may take his colleague from New Brunswick by the sleeve, after this sederunt is over, and tell him that if next time he will just stop trying to quarrel with us and raising matters that have nothing to do with the dis-. cussion, the Minister of the Interior will get on better with his Estimates. If my hon. friend from Frontenac and the hon.

Minister of Marine and Fisheries are so anxious to obstruct Estimates, in order to discuss everything from Dan to Beersheba, we are their men. The Chairman did not call them to order. If they were in order, my knowledge of the rules of the House is imperfect and I was wrong in my former belief that such stuff should be ruled out of order. Coming -from my hon. friend from Frontenac and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, it apparently was quite in order. Therefore I am of the opinion that the same kind of dope from this side of the House will be in order. I presume they thought that, by discussing every question in the Dominion of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, they would waste a considerable amount of time until a reasonable hour for adjournment should arrive.
Philip Wagner, I understand, and I think my hon. friend from Frontenac will not deny it, is not here to defend himself, but has gone to the other world. My hon. friend can attack him as much as he likes: Philip will not care. Either he is in such happiness, or he has gone to a place where he has such serious troubles that he does not care a rap what the hon. member for Frontenac has thought of him, thinks of him, or ever will think of him.


William Cameron Edwards: Will my hon. friend
allow me to say that I did not attack Philip Wagner?


William Erskine Knowles: Yes, I will allow my
hon. friend to say that. I will not, however, agree with him, because I wish to remain nearer to the mark. '
I wish to make a few serious observations regarding the conduct of the homestead inspector in the electoral riding of Moosejaw in the last provincial election. Without fear of contradiction, I make the statement to the Minister of the Interior that since the Conservatives have taken over the administration of the Moosejaw lands, the administration of these lands has come to be a scandal. A year ago I made in this House an assertion to the minister who is now Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), to the effect that I would cite a case where a man had held a homestead and it had been taken from him and given to a Conservative for no other reason than that the man who received it was a Conservative. I could tell of cases of Conservatives who, for no other reason than they were Conservatives, had been restored to homesteads

of which they had been properly deprived. One case regarding a homestead , close to the village of Gravelbourg has already been before the House. My hon. friend: the Minister of the. Interior cannot take refuge in this case by saying that he was not Minister of the Interior then, because he was. It is the case of the Beaubien homestead. Mr. Beaubien lives in the incorporated, village of Gravelbourg. He is a butcher. He was an alleged Liberal up to the evening of the 21st day of September, 1911. He was always seeking something and knocking at the door, and he right-about-faced when the Government went out of power. He held a homestead close to the village of Gravelbourg. His family lived at Gravelbourg all the time, and any sleeping he ever did on the homestead was less than a week and was not legal residence, because it was without the presence of his wife and family. The minister knows that, if a man's business is in town, his wife and family must reside on the homestead in order that he may have legal residence there.


John Hampden Burnham: If he has not a, wife, what then?


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend will
have to get his information elsewhere. I am busy. The homestead was held by Mr. Beaubien for three or four years. Mr. Beaubien's rights were cancelled and another man was given entry. I forget his name; I would know it if I heard it; it is a French name also. This man had put in all his crop. Mr. Beaubien went through the countryside saying that he had a pull with the department, and that he would get this entrant put out, although he himself had not a shadow of a claim to the homestead. This new entrant put in his crop and reaped it, and then the agent of the Dominion lands at Gravelbourg, who was a friend of Beaubien's, was charged with setting fire to the crop. Without any cause, without any reason or rhyme, the department, while that crop was on the ground and not threshed, sent a wire saying that Beaubien was restored. That was on the 16th day of September, and on the same day I sent to the minister a long telegram, which I paid for out of my own pocket with my own hard-earned money; I did not send it collect. The telegram is as follows:
Moosejaw, Sask., September, 16, 1913. Minister of the Interior,
Ottawa.
Please refer, file northeast 22-11-5 west third and investigate. False reports of home-
stead inspectors and false statements of Beaubien have caused universal public indignation in the district. I am advised that department has lately reinstated Beaubien. Citizens in vicinity of Gravelbourg are in furore because of this report. The conduct of this matter : seems to constitute a disgrace and shame. Will you authorize full investigation and give me opportunity to submit evidence and call witnesses and withdraw reinstatement of Beaubien in meantime?
(Sgd) W. E. Knowles.
That telegram went to the minister. I followed it with a letter on the 17th, the next day. That same day I received a wire from the minister's office at Ottawa saying that the minister was in Winnipeg and that the telegram was being forwarded. From that day to this, in spite of my urgent telegram and letter stating that false reports and false statements ' had been made respecting the homestead, I have never had one iota or scrap of information from the hon. minister who wants to conduct such an honest department and who says that the people of the West know that there is an honest man at the head of the Department of the Interior. I have sat in this Parliament for nine sessions, and this is the only telegram I have ever sent the minister. To this telegram, informing the minister of a public scandal and asking for an investigation, I received in_ reply a wire saying that the minister was in Winnipeg, and that the matter would be placed before him on his return. From that time until this day, I have never heard a whisper about it. Does the minister think that treatment of that kind will in any way mitigate the feeling that is sweeping through the Moosejaw district, that the administration of lands in the West is not a straight, honest and nonpartisan administration? I do not say that personally the minister had anything to do with it, but whom else can we talk to about the matter? We cannot talk to
9	p.m. the homestead inspectors, every one of whom worked during the provincial elections of 1912 as if their lives depended upon the result of their efforts. I have here the diaries of four homestead inspectors which will throw some light on that part of the matter. But what I wish to ask the minister now is why he did , not have the courtesy to send some acknowledgment of the information which I gave him in this telegram and letter, further than the brief wire which was sent by his officials, saying that he was in Winnipeg?


William Roche: The hon. gentleman, with his usual vehemence, rather exaggerates the circumstances connected with this
matter. The first I heard of it was when I was on not a holiday trip, but a very strenuous official trip, in western Canada last summer. I was waited upon by a deputation, I think at Moosejaw, and this case was then brought to my attention for the first time. The deputation stated, not that there was an overwhelming sentiment in favour of this gentleman, Mr. Arguin, but that the feeling was quite the other way. They claimed that Mr. Beaubien was entitled to the homestead,


William Erskine Knowles: Who were the gentlemen composing the delegation?


William Roche: I cannot recall the names. I have here a memorandum which sets forth a summary of this case as shown by the files in the department. It is as follows :
J. N. Beaubien, made homestead entry for the northeast J 22-11-5 west 3rd and preemption entry for the southeast 1 of section 27, adjoining, on the 20th of October, 1903.
In February, 1910, he was permitted to interchange his homestead and pre-emption entries.
On the 21st of November, 1911, J. W. Arguin instituted cancellation proceedings; in defence, Mr. Beaubien claimed almost continuous residence from May 1907 to date of declaration. 180 acres in crop and other good improvements.
Mr. Arguin being informed to this effect, he submitted declarations stating that Mr. Beaubien was, living in Gravelbourg, being engaged in business there.
Homestead inspector reported Mr. Beaubien in residence and corroborated other claims in declaration of defence.


William Erskine Knowles: At what date?


William Roche: This was after Mr. Arguin had applied for cancellation, and before Mr. Beaubien was allowed the usual sixty days within which to make his defence. The memorandum goes on:
It was decided to hold over the cancellation proceedings until the 1st of April, 1912.
As the hon. gentleman is aware, during the last few years a general order has been issued in November or December of each year protecting all homestead entries against cancellation until about the first of the following April. This is done for the purpose of giving a large number of poor homesteaders an opportunity of going away to engage in work to keep them during the winter, without running the risk of having their entries cancelled during their absence. (Reading):
It was decided to hold over the cancellation proceedings until the first day of April, 1912, at which date Mr. Beaubien was to furnish evidence that he was still in residence.

He failed to furnish the agent with evidence to this effect and his entry was cancelled on the 11th of April, 1913.
Upon being advised, he submitted declarations that on the 1st of April he was in Winnipeg with his wife, who was undergoing a serious operation, and on this account failed to furnish the agent with the necessary declarations.
The homestead inspector again reported and corroborated Mr. Beaubien's statements.
In the meantime, Mr. Arguin received entry and went into occupation.
He was instructed not to go into occupation until further advised and the inspector of Dominion land agencies was detailed to make an investigation.
Evidence gathered by chief homestead inspector corroborated previous reports and Mr. Cuttle recommended in June, 1913, that Beau-bien be reinstated.
Instructions given 11th September to reinstate Mr. Beaubien.
Mr. Arguin furnished further evidence in support of his claims and Mr. Cuttle was instructed to make an investigation under oath, in January last.
Mr. Arguin remained in residence and refused to vacate.
Investigation delayed on account of the court case.
The delay was on account of the court case to which the hon. gentleman has referred. I was in the West when the hon. gentleman's telegram was received. Upon its receipt the proceedings were held in abeyance for further investigation, and my hon. friend was advised that I was in the West and that the matter would receive attention upon my return. When I came back I did take it up, and, as this memorandum states, the matter was referred for investigation under oath. I have not the file at hand, as it was sent to the Inspector of Dominion Lands Agencies for the purpose of conducting the investigation. Owing, however, to a question or a motion that was placed on the Order Paper for information in connection with the case, the file was sent for and was returned to the department during the past week. Certainly no discourtesy was shown to the hon. gentleman; as a matter of fact, I think that he has discussed this matter with departmental officials, and that he was cognizant of the fact that the case had been referred for investigation. It was because of his protest and because of fresli evidence submitted by Mr. Arguin that the matter was referred for investigation, evidence to be taken under oath.


William Erskine Knowles: I understood the minister to say that Mr. Beaubien was to give the necessary reasons by April 1, 1912, and that his entry was cancelled in April, 1913.


William Roche: He was protected until
April, 1913; he was instructed that he would have to be upon his homestead on the first day of that month. It was during his absence in Winnipeg with his wife, because of this operation, that the gentleman was unable to comply with the departmental instructions and, he, having submitted evidence to that effect which was backed up toy other evidence, it was only humane, I think, on the part of the officers in the department to reinstate him, and not cancel his entry, especially in view of the fact that he had 180 acres under crop. It would have been a serious matter to have taken his farm from him when he had given evidence of good faith, undertaken cultivation to this extent, and especially when advantage was taken of his absence in Winnipeg; and the department considered it only right and proper and what any minister or official should do under the circumstances to reinstate him in his entry. I do not see anything about that which should raise a whirlwind of indignation in my hon. friend's constituency. I think he is endeavouring to make a mountain out of a molehill when he tries to show that there was something crooked or dishonest, something that would not stand the light of day, in that transaction. The file is open to inspection, the papers will be brought down in a few days, and everything I have stated will be found to be 'borne out by the file. [DOT]


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend knows that I did not intend any charge against him other than that he did not give personal attention to these matters. The case is one of the most dirty political cases I have ever known. Beaubien has had the place for six years and has never done a week's residence on it. His entry had been cancelled, rightly cancelled, the homestead taken away from him, and in April, 1912, he was told to get his defence in. By some hook or crook between the officers and homestead inspectors, they let the matter drift on for over a year, and then they were compelled to move, and they" cancelled his entry. Then hn comes in with a cock-and-bull story about being in Winnipeg. The minister has entirely the advantage of me, because he has the papers before him and I have never seen the file; but he has not said a word about a single bit of residence duty that this man has (done in six years; I can tell of Grits in good standing whose entries his department has cancelled; tout because this gentle-
man was a Tory, he has been protected out of all reason. He is a man who does the low kind of work that is required sometimes. That fellow, the tool of the Tory party, has sot such favours and concessions that my hon. friend, if he knew the ins and outs of them, would beashamed of hisde-partment. The hon. minister says that the homestead inspector says this and that. That is what I am complaining of; the homestead inspectors make false reports, as I said in my telegram. In that telegram I asked:
Will you authorize full investigation and give me opportunity to submit evidence?
He says that he sent Mr. Cuttle there, but he never told me a word about it. I do not accuse him of any discourtesy, but he did not give a rap whether I heard of it or not, he was so busy with other things. If the minister has not officials whom he can trust to do things right, he ought to do them himself, and the only circumstance under which he could ignore a telegram of this kind would be when he had officials around him who could be trusted to deal with such matters courteously and fairly. He has not such officials in his homestead inspectors and some others, and he cannot say a word about one day's honest homestead duty that this man ever did. I wish to say a word about these homestead inspectors. I have here the sworn diaries of a few of them during the provincial elections, and they certainly were busy boys.
I have here the diary of a homestead inspector named W. H. Erratt, a brother or nephew of the man from whom my hon. friend bought the site for the examining warehouse in Moosejaw, Mr. J. Erratt, a personal friend of mine, who came down here and got 860,000 for a piece of ground that a few months before was sworn to be worth within $1,000 or $2,000 of $40,000. The Minister of the Interior knows Mr. Jake Erratt quite well. He is president of the Saskatchewan Conservative Association. This is W. H. Erratt, who no doubt secured his appointment because of his blood relationship to the real Mr. Erratt. Erratt got a job. I read from the copy of Erratt's diary as brought down by the minister. The inspectors swear to the correctness of these diaries. From June 11 to June 17, that is seven days, it is a remarkable thing that he was at * H.Q.'-that is at headquarters. It is wonderful how many of these boys hang around the town at * H.Q.' at election times, in the committee rooms and thereabouts at ' H.Q.' The fact is, he was 117
working in the elections. He was a Moose-jaw man. He was not out looking after the homesteaders, but he was attending to political matters in that town. During those seven precious days he made no inspections. Let us take his diary from June 29 to July 17, nineteen days. He made two inspections and took two applications. That would be practically five days each, if you count an application as equal to inspection, one in each five days. What use is it to say that that man was not working the elections ? His expense account is here,-supper, bed and breakfast, charged up as regularly as clockwork. Busy as he was trying to defeat the Scott Government, he could go to bed, rise and partake of a little refreshment, and charge it to the Government. His team also was stall-fed during that time, and his expense account went on there as usual. The minister, with a diary like that before him, and with men under him to check these things up, knows that this was winked at by this man's superiors. Only during an election would such an account as this be passed by the department.
I will take up next the diary of a man named P. E. Miller. .1 will say to the present Minister of the Interior that I do not think he would ever have appointed these men; the high honour of having appointed them must go to the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers;. Let me just read what Mr. Miller was doing1 from June 7 to July 3, in all 26 days. He did not accomplish any inspection, that is sure; from June 7 to June 20 inclusive he was in the office. It is a funny thing how these men stick to their offices, and nobody jacks them up for it. That is what it means to work for the Conservative party. The rest of the 26 days were spent in Morse. From July 9th to the 16th, inclusive, he was at the head office, Moosejaw. This was the very time the election was taking place. Did it just happen that they were around the town at the time the election was taking place? Is there any other explanation than that they were working for the Conservative party during that election?
Take the case of Mr. McLaren. I have his sworn diary also. This is what he did from June 1 to June 12, inclusive. Saturday, June 1, at land office; Monday, headquarters; Tuesday, land office; Wednesday, land office; Thursday, land office; Friday, drove 40 miles, inspected none and patented none-he must



have been canvassing; Saturday, June 8, inspected none and patented none; Monday, ditto; Tuesday, headquarters; Wednesday, drove 40 miles, inspected none, patented none. That is, in the lirst twelve days of June the inspector did not inspect a single homestead nor take an application for a patent, and that country is just swarming with homesteaders waiting for the inspector and anxious to know how they stand in regard to their applications for patents. I just want to figure out the driving MacLaren did. On page 6 of this return MacLaren says he drove 25 miles. On the day before-Wednesday, July 3-he had inspected the southeast of 13, 2, 21, W. 3, and on Thursday he drove 25 miles and inspected the southwest of 15, 2, 21, W. 3. That is exactly 2 miles from the other place, but he drove 25 miles to get there. The minister ought to show some recognition of the energy of a man who drives twelve and a half times as far as he needs. On Saturday, July 6, he inspected the southeast of 12, 4, 22, W. 3, and his diary shows that he drove 65 miles, whereas the distance is only 18 miles from the last-mentioned homestead. I wonder who checks these figures up.
The last man that I knew of is Shields. On Saturday, June 1, he took the railroad to Maple Creek, hired a rig, drove 24 miles, inspected none and patented none. Talk about a man fishing and not getting anything-I think these inspectors beat that hollow. Sunday he inspected none, patented none and ' D ' none-that means drove none; Monday, July 3, at headquarters, inspected none, patented none, drove none; Tuesday, headquarters, ' shorthanded '-I guess the men did not come to the committee room very brisk that morning; Wednesday, drove 100 miles, inspected none, patented one. That was a better proportion than to drive 45 miles and do nothing. Thursday, drove 60 miles and inspected one. On June 5 and 6, according to his statement, he drove 160 miles. Without the slightest doubt he had a Conservative automobile. On Sunday, June 9, he says in his report that he drove 90 miles in an automobile. The minister knows that he had an automobile and that an election was on. He was driving around in a Conservative automobile and making a good fellow of himself by doing a little inspection work. It was a Conservative automobile, no charge for it; it did not come through the Auditor General's Report. Can any one say that that was not connived at? On Monday, June 10,

and on the three following days he did rio inspection at all.
He was in Regina visiting Mr. Cuttle for two days, and then at headquarters for two more days, and all the time there was an outcry for patents and inspection work to be done. From Tuesday, June 18, to Saturday, the 22nd, he made no inspections. Then we come to June 24. They took long drives of 100 miles and of 90 miles in the automobile and again they drove in the automobile 90 miles two w'eeks before the election. There is only one conclusion at which we can arrive, and it is that they were out on Conservative election business. Further I state that they went hither and thither trying to coerce and intimidate the homesteaders. I make the statement that every one of these men was out working actively for the Conservative candidate in the provincial elections of 1912. I am glad to say that the homesteaders were too independent to be influenced, and by their votes they practically told the inspectors to mind their own business.


Robert Rogers: Mr. Chairman, in view
of the fact that I happened to be Minister of the Interior at the time to which the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) refers in his statement with respect to the actions of certain homestead inspectors whom he has been good enough to name, during the local election that took place in the year 1912, I may be permitted to take a few moments of the time of the House to give an answer to what the hon. member has said. Most of the time prior to the election of 1912, the gentlemen named by my hon. friend from Moosejaw-Mr. Shields, Mr. McLaren and Mr. Miller-were under arrest by the Scott Government on the charge of taking part in the political affairs of the province of Saskatchewan. Now, let us take Mr. Shields' case. My hon. friend has referred to Mr. Shields as being a homestead inspector, and I want the committee to know and to understand the treatment that these homestead inspectors were subjected to by the Scott Government, if it can be called a government; because I stand in this House to say that the Scott Government is not a representative government under British law or British institutions. I will prove it by the very case which my hon. friend has brought forth. He has accused Mr. Shields of taking part in politics. If Mr. Shields had been guilty of one improper act as a homestead inspector, surely some evidence would have been produced against him when he was arrested by the Scott Government.


William Erskine Knowles: It was long after the
election that he was arrested.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend does not
seem to know what he is talking about. I shall have to take up the time of the Committee to present a statement of the facts in connection with this case. It was no such thing as long after the elections that he was arrested. He was arrested long before the elections. He was tried on more occasions than one by a strong Liberal magistrate in the city of Regina, who exonerated him from the accusation of misconduct as homestead inspector. Mr. Shields was arrested at Swift Current at 10 p.m. on July 2. My hon. friend knows when the election was in 1912.


William Erskine Knowles: July 11.


Robert Rogers: He was arrested on July 2.


William Erskine Knowles: His diary shows the
16th.


Robert Rogers: Let me tell my hon. friend what happened to Mr. Shields after he was arrested:
Mr. Shields was arrested at Swift Current at ten o'clock p.m. on July 2, 1912, charged with the following offence: that he, on the first day of July, 1912, exercised undue influence contrary to the provisions ot section 228 of the Elections Act, by threatening to inflict injury, damage, harm or loss upon voters of the electoral district of Swift Current in anticipation of the impending election for the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan.
He was arrested by one Sullivan who purported to be a provincial constable. Sullivan is an American detective brought here for election work. A copy of the warrant was not shown to Shields and he was left in ignorance of the charge against him and was thrown into the lock-up at Swift Current. Mr. J. O. Begg, solicitor, tried to see the constable the same evening at the Empress hotel, and was informed by the messenger, who was sent up to Sullivan's room, that he was in bed and could not be seen. Before going to bed Sullivan put an officer, one of the town police, in charge of Shields and told him not to let his lawyer see him that night.
Shields was brought up in the morning at ten o'clock before Robert R. Anderson, a justice of the peace at Swift Current. Anderson is secretary of the Liberal Association at Swift Current and had been chairman of a political meeting held in the interests of Premier Scott. A copy of the warrant was first seen next morning by Mr. Begg when he went to Anderson to see what the charge was. The Election Act requires that two justices of the peace should sit on any case of this kind, but Anderson persisted in sitting on the case alone, and notwithstanding the fact that his connection with the Liberal Association was prominently brought to his attention.
The prosecution was not ready to proceed and the matter was adjourned for a week, un-
117*
til Monday, July 8, at ten o'clock a.m. Shields was committed to be tr.el at Regina; Mr. Begg, solicitor for the accused, applying for bail and offering anything in the nature of bail up to $50,000. It may be noted that prisoners when committed to trial from Swift Current are invariably sent to Maple Creek, but in this case the usual custom was not followed and he was sent to the jail at Regina, and the justice of the peace refused to keep Shields at Swift Current for a few hours until application could be made to a' judge for bafi.


William Erskine Knowles: What is the hon. gentV man reading from?


Robert Rogers: I am reading from a memorandum of the case that I have had prepared for myself:
Suiiivan took Shields down the street in handcuffs, and kept him in uns condition for two hours on the station platform before the train arrived. Shields was taken to Regina, and Mr. Bigelow, solicitor of that city, applied to the Crown prosecutor lor his consent to bail, offering to furnish the same in any amount, but the Crown prosecutor refused to consider any offer of bail. He also applied to the police magistrate in the city of Regina, who refused bail. Mr. Bigelow then took proceedings before the Supreme Court in Regina on the 6th day of July. The case came before Mr. Justice Johnson, at Regina, when it was argued at some length, the solicitor for the prosecution opposing as strenuously as possible the granting of bail. Shields was still in custody and had been so since the 2nd of July. Mr. Justice Johnson granted an order for bail in the sum of $1,000, characterized the proceedings as preposterous, and stated that he would not have believed such a thing could have happened even in Russia.
Shields then returned to Swift Current, and on the 8th of July came again before two justices of the peace at Swift Current, namely, Robt. R. Anderson, secretary, Liberal Association, and Roy T. Graham, the returning officer in the election that was then pending. Mr. Smyth, of Swift Current, appeared for Shields and objected to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that Anderson, J.P., was secretary of the Liberal Association, and that Graham was returning officer appointed by the Liberal Government, and that they were both active party politicians. The solicitor representing the Attorney General's Department stated that the prosecution was not ready to proceed and asked for an adjournment. Mr. Smyth pointed out that the whole case was an election dodge for the purpose of throwing discredit on the Conservative party and influencing votes. The justices of the peace decided to adjourn the matter to Regina to be tried by Magistrate Trant there, and although Shields had been admitted to bail by the order of Judge Johnson of the Supreme Court, who had characterized the proceedings as preposterous and unworthy even of Russia, the magistrates again, at the request of the solicitor representing the Attorney General, absolutely refused bail in any amount. Shields was for the second time taken on the train to Regina and subjected to the same indignities en route. He remained in Regina jail until the 10th of July before an order for bail could be procured-the police

magistrate at Regina granting the order after his previous experience with Judge Johnson. The police magistrate remanded the case until the 17th of July.
So determined were the Liberals to keep Mr. Shields locked up without any cause, that when he was passing out of the police court after having furnished bail on this occasion, three or four heelers made an attempt to arrest him again, although he had already been bailed twice. This was persecution which the public would stand for no longer, and Mr. Shield's friends insisted on seeing a warrant, which the parties to the arrest could not produce. Mr. Shield's friends threw the special constable aside and rescued him from their illegal custody and took him away where he would avoid any further humiliation.
Thus it was that the good citizens of Saskatchewan had to uphold law, and order, and British justice in that province by bodily force.
On the 17th of July Shields again appeared in pursuance to the remand before the police magistrate at Regina, going all the way from Swift Current for that purpose. No evidence was offered by the prosecution whatever and no witnesses were produced, so the case was dismissed. Attached hereto is exhibit ' C,' a copy of the certificate of dismissal.
On the same day, July 17, a new information was sworn out by F. B. Bagshaw, a law student at Regina, setting up that Shields on the 10th of May, 1912 (two months previously) did unlawfully threaten to inflict harm upon a voter in the electoral division of Swift Current in order to induce him to vote at the provincial election on the 11th day of July, the said threat consisting of Shields saying to one Pritchard Borland that if he did not vote for the Conservative candidate he, Shields, would hold up the grant to Borland for his patent, all of which is contrary to section 228 of the Saskatchewan Election Act. The trial was postponed until the 22nd of July before Magistrate Trant, when the trial was held. After examining witnesses, the statement made by one witness for the prosecution was denied by three other witnesses who were present. The police magistrate dismissed the case. (The police magistrate at Regina is a Liberal.) Exhibit ' D ' is a copy of the certificate of dismissal.
Here is the certificate signed by Mr. Anderson, who committed Mr. Shields to be tried at Regina on the date named, and he was so tried; and here is the certificate of the police magistrate at Regina, who tried the case:
Exhibit C.	[DOT]
Canada,
Province of Saskatchewan,
To wit:
I hereby certify that an information and complaint preferred by John McConnell of Swift Current, against William Shields, of Swift Current, for that he did on the first day of July, 1912, at Swift Current, exercise undue influence contrary to the provisions of section 22S of the Saskatchewan Elections Act by threatening to inflict injury, damage, harm,
LMr. Rogers. J
or loss upon voters of the electoral district of Swift Current in anticipation of the impending election for the Legislative Assembly of Sas-katchewa n.
Was this day dismissed by me William Trant, a Police Magistrate in and for the city of Regina, no evidence being offered by or on behalf of the informant.
Dated at Regina this 17 th day of July, 1912.
(Sgd) Wm. Trant,
Police Magistrate,
In and for the City of Regina.
In face of this, we have this homestead inspector charged in this House with not fulfilling his duty of making examinations with respect to the issue of patents, for a period betweeen the 1st day of July and the 17th of July, when during all that time that inspector was under arrest by the Liberal party in the province of Saskatchewan. And we have the fact that when, on the 17th of July, five days after that election, he was tried, they were unable "o come forward with one particle of evidence on which to convict him. of any wrongdoing. Having failed in that, they trumped up the charge made by this young lawyer in an office in Regina, and they again brought him to trial on that charge before the same magistrate, and here is the result:
Canada,
Province of Saskatchewan',
To wit:
I,	William Trant, Police Magistrate of the city of Regina hereby certify that an information preferred by F. B. Bagshaw, of Regina, against William Shields, of Swift Current, for that he the said William Shields on or about the 10th day of May, 1912, at or near the northeast quarter of section 32-15-16 west 3 meridian in the province of. Saskatchewan, did unlawfully threaten to inflict harm upon a voter in the electoral division of Swift Current in the said province, viz., Gideon Pritchard Borland in order to induce him to vote at the provincial election on the 11th day of July, 1912, the said threat to inflict harm consisting in the said Shields saying to the said Borland that if he did not vote for the Conservative candidate he Shields would hold up the grant to Borland of his latent fo^ the northeast quarter of section number 32 aforesaid all of which was alleged to be contrary to section 228 of the Saskatchewan Election Act,
Was this day considered by me and was by me dismissed with costs.
Dated at Regina this 22nd day of July, 1912.
(Sgd) Wm. Trant,
Police Magistrate,
In and for the City of Regina.
I ask, how could these officers of the Interior Department perform their duties as homestead inspectors, when they were interrupted, and overpowered, and dealt with as Mr. Shields was dealt with, under the pretence of law, arrested twice, handcuffed, taken by train from Swift Current to
Regina, refused bail for days until the Supreme Court had to be appealed to, and gave the man his liberty. And when that man faced his accusers on the 17th and the 22nd of July, at the trial before a Liberal police magistrate, the accusers were unable to furnish one particle of evidence, and the case was dismissed with costs. Is the business of this Parliament to be delayed by bon. gentlemen opposite misrepresenting the conditions which exist in western Canada in respect of these cases ? Practically the same observations will apply to the other homestead inspectors to whom the hon. member has referred. He has spoken about Mr. Miller, homestead inspector. Mr. Miller also was arrested and he had a somewhat similar experience to Mr. Shields. He was arrested at the town of Morris, some considerable distance from the city of Moosejaw, where my hon. friend (Mr. Knowles) comes from, and he was handcuffed and taken on the train, and when the train arrived at Moosejaw, which is a divisional point, there was no connecting train to take him to Regina, and the man who had him in charge paraded him up and down the platform, and up and down the streets of the town as a horrible example of how Conservative homestead inspectors would be treated by the Liberal Administration in that province. Mr. Miller was paraded in this manner up and down the street oy this constable and some Conservatives ventured to ask Mr. Miller what he was charged with, and the answer was: ' I do not know; the officer in charge has refused to show any warrant or to make known the charge.' And the citizens of Moosejaw, loyal subjects of this country-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Rogers: Yes; the citizens of Moosejaw, loyal subjects of this country, refused to recognize such an outrage on British law and British justice, and they demanded from the officer, if he was an officer at all, to show Ms authority for the arrest of this man, and, what do you think P The officer was forced to acknowledge that he had no authority to make the arrest save and except a telegram which he had received from Regina.
When the crowd of hundreds of good, loyal citizens, Liberals and Conservatives, of the town of Moosejaw realized the condition, they took the law into their own hands and liberated Mr. Miller without any trial, and he went back to his work as homestead inspector. Yet we are told that he is blam-able in that; his diary does not show that
he was going about the country doing his duty and accepting applications for -patents as it is his duty to do at all times. These were the reasons why the diaries of these men show that they were not busy on the dates named.
The same applies to Mr. McLaren, the gentleman named by my hon. friend. He too was arrested. 'He was in the same position a3 the others. The Liberals were unable to offer and did not offer any evidence. He had no difficulty in proving his innocence, and he was cleared. Not only that, but he applied to the magistrate before whom the evidence was taken to give him a copy of the evidence. He has been unable to get that copy from that day until this, simply because the Liberals were ashamed of themselves and did not want the facts of the case known.
I do not know whether my hon. friend mentioned another homestead inspector who went through a similar experience, a Mr. Smyth, but I know tnat he was named here on some formeT occasion. Mr. Smyth was arrested, like all the other homestead inspectors to whom I have referred. It is true that in this particular case, after two or three attempts, a trumped-up charge was made, and Mr. Smyth was fined by a Liberal organizer the sum of fifty dollars. He was the only Conservative homestead inspector that had any fine imposed upon him. This is Mr. Smyth's declaration in respect to the manner in which he was treated by the officers of the supposed law that we have in the province of Saskatchewan :
I, Arthur Smyth, of the town of Humboldt, in the province of Saskatchewan, homestead inspector, solemnly declare as follows:
1.	That on Friday, the 12th day of July, 1912, at the town of Wadena in the province of Saskatchewan, William R. Gardiner of Quill lake in the province aforesaid came up to me and said, 'I have a warrant for your arrest,' and at the same time he pulled a paper from his pocket but did not read the same or give me a chance to read it. There were two men with the said William R. Gardiner and they caught hold of me and endeavoured to hustle me over to the railway station. The mounted policeman interfered and the said William R. Gardiner and his assistants did not succeed in getting aboard the west bound passenger train which left Wadena aforesaid at twelve o'clock noon. I was arrested at eleven-fifteen a.m. The said William R. Gardiner and his assistants refused to tell me on what charge I was arrested, although I repeatedly asked them to do so.
2.	I was retained in custody and taken aboard another west bound train at four p.m., on the same day.
3.	When this train arrived at Quill lake aforesaid, Gaetz, who represented himself to be the deputy chief of provincial police in the province of Saskatchewan, boarded the

train and said to me, 'If you will swear when you get to Regina that the Hon. Mr. Rogers instructed you to work for the election of the Conservative candidates at the elections just held in this province, you will be given your freedom', or words to that effect. He further said, that if I gave this evidence above referred to, I would not be taken off the train at Quill lake aforesaid, where I had lived so long and where my appearance in the custody of an officer of the law would be very humiliating to me.
4.	Upon my refusal to do so, I was taken off the train and taken to the gaol or lockup.
5.	At the gaol or lockup I was searched and all papers on my person taken from me. These papers included some ten reports on the investigation I had made as homestead inspector, and at the request of the Dominion lands agent at Humboldt aforesaid, into the performance of the required statutory duties of the homesteaders residing in the Humboldt land district. None of these papers taken from me was ever returned to me.
6.	The said Gaetz then renewed his efforts to induce me to swear that Rogers the then Minister of the Interior had induced me to work for the elections of Conservative candidates in the Saskatchewan elections. He said it was not necessary for me to show direct authorization from the minister, but that it would be enough If I said that Mr. Hearn of Wadena, Conservative candidate for the constituency in the said elections, or the Dominion land agent at Hum-bolt aforesaid had so instructed me.
- 7. He, the said Gaetz, further said that if I gave this evidence against the said Rogers, I would be let off with a small fine, but if I did not they would lay another charge against me the only punishment for which was a term in prison and convict me of it, and that I would be sentenced to two years in gaol.
8.	I asked to be taken before a justice of the peace and be given a trial on the charge against me, or be admitted to bail until such time as they were ready to proceed with the case, but this was refused me.
9.	I was locked up in the gaol or lock-up until the following day, when I was taken aboard a west bound train which left Quill lake at 12.46 p.m., and conveyed to Regina Sask.
10.	I arrived in Regina Sunday morning, July 14, 1912 ; and during the afternoon of the same day I was handed by the said Gaetz into the custody of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. I was then locked up In the gaol or lock-up of the said Mounted Police in the city of Regina.
11.	On Monday morning, July 15, 1912, I was taken before Magistrate Trant and he said he would not hear the charge against me, and that I must be taken back to Quill lake aforesaid.
12. I was then taken in custody to Quill lake aforesaid, but when the train arrived there we learned that both justices of the peace who live there were away from home, and I was taken to Wadena aforesaid.
13.	I was taken before a justice of the peace at Wadena and admitted to bail upon furnishing a bond, myself in the sum of $1,000 and two sureties in the sum of $500 each. The recognizance entered into required my appearance at Regina aforesaid for trial on Monday, July 22, 1912.
14.	After I was admitted bail I met the said Gaetz at Quill lake aforesaid, and he said to me: * I have no evidence against you yet, and

unless I can get some, there will be be no trial. But I have men up north of here now looking for evidence against you and if they are successful you will be tried.'
15.	I was tried before Magistrate Trant not on the charge first laid against me, but on the charge of inducing an elector not to vote, by threatening to withhold the patent for his homestead from him if he did so.
16.	I was convicted and fined fifty dollars, and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
(Signed) Arthur Smyth.
Declared before me:
A. D. McIntosh,
Commissioner of oaths in and for the province of Saskatchewan.
We have here the clear and distinct evidence why it was impossible for these homestead inspectors to show that they could be fulfilling their duties and the work for which they were appointed, that of taking the applications of the homesteaders in the various parts of Saskatchewan, by reason of the fact-and I repeat it-that we have in the province of Saskatchewan neither law nor justice in any form whatever. I think that will be sufficient to convince my hon. friend of the error into which he has fallen and of the unfairness of presenting to this House and to this country statements that are not borne out by the facts, as is evidenced by the sworn declarations which I have read respecting men who were arrested in the wrongful manner which I have just described.


William Erskine Knowles: I presume the minister will lay the papers on the table of the House?


Robert Rogers: I will lay the affidavits on the Table.


William Erskine Knowles: I think that even the Minister of Public Works should observe the rule that any documents which have been read in the House should be laid upon the table.


Robert Rogers: There is nothing here
which I will not lay on the table of the House.


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend has
said that his observations with regard to the manouverings up and down the country of these men against whom criminal accusations have been made is an answer to the charges which I have brought against them and, therefore, against the department. The minister is only joking with hon. gentlemen of the committee when he says that. I read the personal notation of every homestead inspector in question
as to wheie he was that day and what he was doing. The minister talks about statutory declarations; I may tell him that these diaries were sworn to not for the purpose of pleasing the Minister of Public Works, but in the ordinary course of business, and it cannot be said that they were politically manufactured for the purpose of trying to rid the Conservative party of some of the dirt that got on it in the election in Saskatchewan in 1912. The hon. minister took part in that election; he went to Saskatchewan for the purpose of making a great speech.


Robert Rogers: I deny that, the hon. gentleman has been told several times that that is not so and he should accept that statement.


William Erskine Knowles: I do accept the statement, but the hon. minister was there two or three weeks before the election.


Robert Rogers: I did not know that the election was coming on.


William Erskine Knowles: I accept my hon. friend's assertion; I did not accuse him of knowing it. What the hon. gentleman was there for was to make a good speech in connection with the coming election, and to make a good many promises, to which I have already referred. We need not wonder that the gentleman who manufactured 10 p.m. that last statutory declaration should say: They tried to make me say that the Minister of Public Works was really the man who was running the election. It would be a foolish thing to ask a man to swear to that; we all knew that his was the clever hand which held the throttle of the engine which was operated in the election of 1912. What were all these promises made for in Regina- promises of pre-emptions, Hudson bay railway, terminal elevators before the snow should fall, homestead patents without the applicant turning a furrow of the land, the knocking off of interest, and all kinds of promises? It is told of the hon. minister that the morning he was leaving Regina after his meeting, a Conservative who was standing beside him on the platform turned to the large crowd and said:	If
there is any man, woman or child in Regina who can think of anything which has not been promised by the Minister of Public Works, let him say it now, or forever after hold his peace. My hon. friend Has contradicted me two or three times to-day, and I shall say nothing further about this incident than that if this challenge was thrown
out, there was absolutely no danger of any one accepting it; the minister had overlooked nothing.
My hon. friend says in effect that these men had a right to neglect their work during the month of June because of something which happened later. Let us take the first one referred to, the case of Mr. Shields. I told the minister that the date connected with this gentleman was July 16; I was mistaken in that, I should have said the 2nd. However, in my accusations I read Mr. Shields' diary for the month of June only. Surely, the fact of his being arrested in July was no reason why he should neglect his duties, take automobile trips and work for the Conservative party during the month of June. He had no right to neglect his work, and my hon. friend is quite beside the question in making an argument of that nature. The fact that Mr. MacLaren was in trouble on July 16, five days after the elections, is no answer to the charges I have made. The minister has read a lot of rigmarole; I do not know who prepared it for him. Sometimes these things are prepared for the minister in connection with charges of which he is, of course, entirely innocent. For instance, some person may write a letter-quite accidentally, of course, previous to an election in Antigonish-saying	to the
people:	You will get such and such
mansions in the skies if you vote Conservative. I do not know who prepared that file of twiddle-twaddle; in any case it is absolutely wrong from start to finish. They speak of Anderson the J.P. refusing to give bail to one of these inspectors in Swift Current. Every one knows that once a man is committed to trial no power on earth can give him bail except the district or Supreme Court judges. What is the good of all that drivel the minister has given us, which is nothing more or less than a lot of stuff made up and padded with election clap-trap? It is a great deal like the monthly newspaper of the Minister of Public Works, which is circulating through the country a great deal of rubbish similar to this. The charge I make on behalf of my constituents is that the inspectors, instead of attending to their work and looking after the interests of the homesteaders, during the election of 1912, committed acts of political partisanship, and my belief is that they took the cue from their superiors.


Mr. NEELY:: A short time ago I moved for a couple of returns in connection with

certain Dominion Lands agents who had been degraded, if I may use the word, from the position which they held. One of these was the case of T. J. Oliver, of the Humboldt Lands Office. Mr. Oliver, who has been a Conservative organizer for several provincial and Dominion elections in the district of	Humboldt, was appointed by the	present Government.
So I am not speaking on behalf of any Liberal politician or official when I speak of this case. I moved for the following return, which was ordered by the House on the 9th of February of this year:
Order of the House for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents relating to the removal of T. J. Oliver, as Dominion Lands agent at Humboldt, Saskatchewan, his appointment to his present position, and the appointment of his successor at Humboldt.
I moved for a similar return in connection with the removal from office of W. S. MeKechnie, of Prince Albert, who was appointed by the present Government. In looking over the files I cannot find one single letter or document of any kind that in any way gives any reason why these gentlemen were taken from the position of *land agent, the head position in a land office, and degraded to a minor position. I am informed that MeKechnie refused the position. I believe it was then offered to Oliver and he was ordered by the department, I think by telegram, to report as senior assistant to the land office at Medicine Hat. Every one knows that men are not degraded in these positions without some justification; but I will defy anybody to take these returns and find one reason given why these men are deliberately ordered by the officials at headquarters in Ottawa to accept inferior and minor positions as compared with the positions they had enjoyed in the public service. That is a state of affairs on which the minister might throw some light-why, when an order of this House is given for all documents, papers, telegrams, etc., in connection with this matter, we get a file which does not comply with the terms of the order of the House. The minister knows that a return such as I have here in reference to T. J. Oliver is not a proper return. Does the minister tell me that Oliver was removed from the position of land agent at Humboldt and ordered to Swift Current as senior assistant absolutely without any other reason or justification than the whim of the department that that should be done? And yet, so far as the file is concerned, there is not a tittle of 
evidence as to the real reason. I believe that MeKechnie refused to obey the orders; and, following his refusal to accept the minor position, Oliver, who is not a man of means, who required the position and the salary attached to it, did obey the order and accept the minor position. The general suspicion is that in one case the homestead inspector referred to by the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Smyth, wanted to cancel the entry of a gentleman supposed to be of the Liberal persuasion who held title by virtue of his entry to a homestead in the Humboldt district. After hearing all the evidence in the case, so rumour goes, Oliver, who was appointed by this Government, refused to be a party to the transaction. Trouble arose between Oliver and Smyth, and shortly afterwards-this may just be a synchronism-Mr. Oliver received his orders from Ottawa to accept an inferior position in the land office at Moosejaw. Whatever the reason for Mr. Oliver's removal was, this return ought to have it. When an order of the House is given for a proper return of documents, we do not want stripped files, and I am satisfied that with reference to both these returns, the files of the department were stripped before the returns were brought down to the House. They must have been; certainly all the evidence is not on these files, certainly all the correspondence that passed between the land office at Humboldt and the agent there and this department is not on file. Surely the minister would not tell us that it is, and he would not tell us that Mr. Oliver was peremptorily told to accept an inferior position, a position which degraded him officially, without any more justification than is found on this file.


William Roche: The hon. gentleman has in the past, in this House, given voice to certain very strong accusations against officials of this Government, that I found, on investigation, to be absolutely devoid of foundation-[DOT]


David Bradley Neely: I would be glad to hear the minister prove that.


William Roche: -and therefore I am somewhat skeptical about anything he may say along the same lines again. I absolutely deny his accusation that the files of the department have been stripped. That is a very serious accusation to make against the officials of the department, officials who have not been appointed by this Government; and none of these officials will claim that they ever received, directly or in-
directly, instructions not to produce everything the motion called for. The hon. gentleman got what his motion called for, in so far as the files of the department go. It is true that Oliver was land agent at Humboldt. Humboldt is not a very important land office; it is considerably less important than the office to which Oliver was transferred. I have had two personal interviews with Oliver, one in my office at Ottawa and one in Saskatoon. I could sec that there was considerable friction between the friends of the hon. gentleman and my own friends in that district, and Mr. Oliver was not running the office as smoothly as I would have liked to have seen it go in the interests of the public and the department. Representations had been made to me on my western trip as to the manner in which the office was being conducted, and I thought it would be an improvement, and in fact it was recommended by the inspector of land agencies, that Oliver be transferred to the Medicine Hat office, not to Moosejaw, as the hon. gentleman states. It is true that Oliver has been appointed senior assistant at Medicine Hat. In that respect, if you term it a degradation, the hon. gentleman is correct. As a matter of fact, his salary, which the hon. gentleman says he was so much in need of, is exactly the same; so that he has been transferred to a more important office, as senior assistant, drawing the same salary as at Humboldt, and I do not think that, under the circumstances, considering that his transfer was ordered altogether in the public interest and for the bettering of the public service in Humboldt, the files of the department should have been loaded with all that evidence. Mr. Oliver has not, to my knowledge, objected to his transfer in any letter received by myself or by the department. I do not think he has entrusted his defence to my hon. friend even. No degradation at all was intended; he was simply transferred to a more important office at the same salary. As regards McKechnie, he was agent at Prince Albert, and was asked to go as assistant to the Edmonton office, a more important office, or to Medicine Hat, but he absolutely refused to go to either place. I think the hon. gentleman would have taken me to task if, when an official in the public service had deliberately refused to be transferred, we had not dismissed him for insubordination. As a matter of fact, he resigned his position rather than accept the transfer. We gave
him two months' leave of absence with salary. That is the whole story.


David Bradley Neely: The minister will have to excuse me, but that is not the whole story. That is an answer which is not an answer. It is all very well for the minister to say that these men were offered positions at the same salary, but the minister knows perfectly well that both these men were degraded in their own eyes, and in the eyes of those who knew the relative importance of the positions which they held and those which were offered to them. The minister seems to know all about why Oliver was removed from the Humboldt office. He has toured the West; he has heard this and that; but why is there not something on the files of the department? The minister recommended to the Governor in Council that Mr. Oliver be removed. He must have some data. Where is that data? The minister is right-I do not hold a brief for Mr. Oliver, nor does anybody else. That is not the point. The point is Mr. Oliver was degraded from the position given him by this Government and sent to a strange city, where, I presume, the cost of living is a good deal higher than in a small place like Humboldt; so that he was financially and officially in a much worse position than before. As to McKechnie, the minister in his memorandum recommending two months' leave of absence, states that he has no fault to find with him, that his work was satisfactory, and yet the minister insisted on McKechnie leaving Prince Albert, his home town and the place where, as the minister says, he was doing good work.
The minister made a statement just now that I want him to make good, and there is no time nxe the present. He said *that I have been in the habit of making accusations against public officials which he, upon inquiry, has found to be not justified. I suppose my hon. friend refers *to the statement I made in the House some time ago with reference to Mr. Glen Campbell, superintendent of Indian agents. If the minister has proof of Campbell's innocence of the charge laid against , him, I submit that, in the interest of the public service, he might give that evidence to me. The _ charge was not laid against Campbell by myself, but in an affidavit presented to this House by me, and sworn to before a justice of the peace in and for the province of Saskatchewan. If the minister could give me evidence that Campbell was innocent of the charge laid

against him, I would have withdrawn the accusation, so far as I was concerned, presented in that affidavit. Let me tell the minister something. Campbell is reported to have said, in an interview, that he was not guilty of this charge. If that be the case, the man who signed the affidavit is guilty of perjury, and I think in Mr. Campbell's interest and in the public interest he should be prosecuted for perjury.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: He is in your province; your Government should prosecute him.


David Bradley Neely: My hon. friend the
Solicitor General knows the case has not been proved. We have the affidavit of Poitras, and we have the denial of Campbell. I do not know what evidence the minister has; he has never given it to the House or to me. I do not like the minister's insinuation that the chaTge 1 brought against Mr. Campbell was a personal affair. It was nothing of the sort. I do not use this Chamber to settle personal differences with Campbell or anybody else. I am perfectly willing to meet the individual concerned, in the proper place and in the proper way. Surely it was my right and my duty to bring to the attention of the minister the serious accusation that was sent to me in reference to this official. The minister made light of it at the time. He makes light oi everything concerning any of the officials of his department. None of them can do any wrong. But I think I can show him where some of them have done wrong, and before we are through with this item I may be able to convince him in one or two cases. I would be very sorry to do an injustice to any official of any department. A man earning bis salary in the public service ought to be protected, and so far as this particular case is concerned, I would do anything in my power, if Mr. Campbell is innocent of the charge, not only to vindicate him, but to see that the halfbreed who made the charge against him is brought to justice if he has perjured himself. I do not want any insinuations from the minister of unfair dealing so far as this official is concerned. If there was any unfair dealing it was in the way in which the minister received the statement I presented to the House. But the minister is noted for that. I have never heard him make a non-partisan statement in this House, and I have heard him make a few.
[Mr. Neely. 1
Such a strong partisan as he can hardly be expected to be fair.
The Minister of Public Works referred to a case in connection with a homestead inspector in one of the provincial elections -that case of Arthur Smyth, who operates in the Humboldt district. That was a very sorry affidavit that the minister read to the committee. Why? Because it concluded with Mr. Smyth's admission that he was convicted of an offence against the election laws of Saskatchewan, that he was fined $50 and costs, and that he paid that fine and never protested. An appeal was entered, but the appeal was never prosecuted; and I can tell the Minister of Public Works that he is still in the public service, and is doing the very same kind of work to-day that he was fined $50 and costs for doing in the Saskatchewan election of 1912. It was scandalous work that these men did in that election. The minister must know it because one of the minister's very close friends was working in conjunction with Smyth in that election. Everybody in the West has heard of the famous Marsh Jackson, of the city of Winnipeg, who goes about the country professing to be the chief of the Dominion Secret Service. Marsh Jackson, during the provincial election of 1912, came to the constituency of Wadena, in the province of Saskatchewan. He there got acquainted with the land agent, Mr. Oliver, and Mr. Oliver gave him a letter of introduction to Mr. Smyth, the homestead inspector. Thereafter, during the term of their joint liberty, Marsh Jackson and Smyth paraded around the constituency of Wadena holding meetings, in secret largely, and attempting to intimidate the Galicians and other foreign voters in the constituency until ultimately Jackson was arrested and a little later Smyth was arrested. That is the history of these two gentlemen. Jackson came to the constituency, wearing, on the inside of his coat lapel, a badge on which was inscribed ' Chief of the Dominion Secret Service.' That badge is still in the possession of the provincial authorities at Regina. Mr. Jackson not only carried a badge, but he carried personal cards on which was inscribed the very same thing. If the minister wants to look up the record of this pet friend of his, he can go down to the Commissioner of Police and ask Colonel Sherwood what he knows about him, because a sample of one of these cards was sent to Colonel Sherwood, and he wrote back saying that Jackson had never. had anything to do with the Secret Service of the Dominion of Canada. But
everybody knows that Jackson is the handy man of the Minister of Public Works in the city of Winnipeg, everybody knew who sent him to Saskatchewan, and everybody likewise knew that when Jackson arrived the first person that he looked up was the Dominion Lands agent. Why did he look up the Domioion Lands agent? He was introduced by the Dominion Lands agent to the homestead inspector for the Humboldt district, and, following that introduction, these two gentlemen, Mr. Marsh Jackson with his badge, ' Chief of the Secret Service of Canada,' and Mr. Smyth, went around holding meetings among the foreigners with a young Galician girl to act as interpreter. They told a number of Galicians that the Conservative Government were going to take certain vacant railway lands in the district away from the railways and give them to settlers if they would only vote right. These Galicians, being far-sighted people along practical lines, said, ' We had better get these lands before the election,' and one day twenty-five of them started upon a pilgrimage to the land office at Humboldt. Mr. Smyth had to go and head them off and tell them that they would have to wait until the election was over. This was the sort of work that Smyth and Jackson were doing. Jackson, as well as Smyth, was taken to Regina. Jackson was released. The Minister of Public Works knows why Jackson was released; he was released because he turned King's evidence, and gave the authorities at Regina a list of the official and other political agents who had been sent out from Manitoba, by my hon. friend knows whom, to different parts of Saskatchewan to work in that election. That is why Jackson got off, but he did not take his badge with him, because he writes to the chief of the provincial police at Regina, under date of July 19, 1912, after he had got 'back to Winnipeg safely with a whole skin:
Dear Sir,
I wish you would forward my badge at once, and oblige most respectfully,
(Sgd) Marsh Jackson.
I have brought up in this House before the case of Arthur Smyth. I mention it again, and I mention it in view of the affidavits which Smyth, through the Minister of Public Works, has made the property of this House, that Smyth was convicted on a charge of intimidation at the election and fined $50 and costs; and yet the Auditor General's Report will show that Smyth has never lost a day's salary
as a result of that whole transaction. What does this mean in so far as the Minister of the Interior is concerned? The Minister of the Interior is now the responsible person. He knows that these statements are true. If he did not know it before, he knows for what offence Smyth was convicted. Is Smyth to retain his office in view of these facts? Whether the police magistrate who fined him gave a just sentence or not, Smyth had the option- and if he did not have any money himself, his political friends had-of appealing his case so that it would have been tried before a district or a Supreme Court judge in the province of Saskatchewan. Surely he would have got fair play there. The case of Mr. Shields and his treatment by Judge Johnston is evidence of the fact that at least the judges who tried these election cases dealt fairly with the men who came before them. As far as Smyth was concerned, he would have got fair treatment.


Arthur Meighen: Was Smyth's conviction a summary conviction?


David Bradley Neely: I believe so.


Arthur Meighen: If so, where does the hon. gentleman get authority for saying that there could have been an appeal


Levi Thomson: Does the Solicitor General mean to tell us that there is no appeal from a summary conviction?


Arthur Meighen: If a man elects for a summary trial and is convicted, there is no appeal under the Code. Under this particular summary conviction clause of the Code there is no appeal.


Levi Thomson: My hon. friend surely knows that he has an appeal.


Arthur Meighen: I said a summary trial.


Levi Thomson: We are not talking about a summary trial it is a summary conviction.


Arthur Meighen: Is it not a summary trial in the first place. The hon. gentleman says that it was a summary trial and conviction. If so, there is no appeal. Does the hon. gentleman know that he actually was tried under the Summary Trials Act?


Levi Thomson: It has been stated repeatedly, and never denied, that he had the right to appeal. No one on the other side has ever suggested that he had not the right to appeal.


Arthur Meighen: If lie was tried under the Summary Trials Act, he had no right to appeal.


David Bradley Neely: I am not a lawyer, thank goodness, and I do not know anything about this hair-splitting, but I have in my hands the Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan for the session of 1912-13, and there is a return with reference to all the arrests and convictions during the Saskatchewan elections of 1912, and I see the name:
Arthur Smyth, convicted, case tried before Magistrate Trant, Regina; fine, $50; appeal; appeal was withdrawn later and fine was paid.
I do not know anything about the Solicitor General's summary trials, but I know this gentleman had the right to appeal, because he did appeal.


Arthur Meighen: It did not follow that because he did appeal he had the right to appeal. He would not succeed in his appeal if his appeal was not well founded, and perhaps he saw that. I do not know anything about it, except that I understand he accepted summary trial.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Surely the Solicitor
General does not suggest that a man who is tried summarily has no appeal. I think I understand, however, what the Solicitor General means. If a man is charged with an indictable offence-I do not understand that this was an indictable offence-and he comes before the stipendiary magistrate, and he volunteers to be tried summarily for an indictable offence, then there would be no appeal. But so far as we know in this case it was an offence that was tryable summarily, and was so tried, and there was an appeal.


David Bradley Neely: The Solicitor General has
had his legal experience in the province of Manitoba, and I understand that in that province there is no appeal.


Arthur Meighen: Has the hon. gentleman also lost confidence in the Court of Appeal of Manitoba?


David Bradley Neely: I am not speaking of the
Court of Appeal. I am speaking of those courts from which there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal; I am referring to the courts of justice of the peace. However, with reference to the case of homestead inspectors taking part in the Saskatche wan elections, I believe the Minister of Public Works has promised to give us some further information during the Budget debate. I can tell the Minister of Public Works that the sooner he brings on

his battery, the better we will like it, because the more the conduct of the homestead inspectors and other officials appointed by this Government, in the last provincial elections in Saskatchewan, is brought to light, the less glory it will reflect on the hon. gentleman who was responsible for these appointments.
In connection with the item now before us, I moved, many weeks ago, for a return asking for the names of the outside employees in the Interior Department, with the official position held by each and the salary paid to each, and the minister has never yet seen fit to bring that return down, although it ought to be an easy return to prepare. I have, however, certain general information in answer to some questions, which is to the effect that since the 1st of October, 1911, there has been a very large increase in the number of outside officials of this department. The homestead inspectors have been increased from forty to sixty, and the regular staffs of the land offices have been increased from 332 to 377. The minister gives a very ingenious explanation, by saying that the homestead inspectors have been instructed to take applications for patents at the residence of the homesteaders. Is that *what I am to understand?


William Roche: Yes, in districts where they are not close to 'land agents or sub-land agents.
Mr. NEELY; Does the minister mean to tell me that there is a new practice?


William Roche: It is a practice which is now very much more resorted to than heretofore.


David Bradley Neely: I am perfectly sure that in days gone by homestead inspectors took applications for patents from the homesteaders direct. If the minister has told some of them to do more of it, that will not explain the fifty per cent increase in the number of inspectors; nor do the number of patents issued justify it. But what about the staffs in the land offices? How does he explain that notwithstanding a decrease of over 7,000 applications for homesteads, there has been a very large increase in the number of employees? The actual fact, I believe, is that the outside service of the Interior Department has been very largely increased, so that work that was done three or four .years ago by one man is done now by three or four. Timber inspectors, ranch inspectors, school lands inspectors, have all been increased in number, notwithstanding that
.MARCH 19,1914
the work in many of these branches has decreased. If the return I asked for had been, brought down, I could compare the number of officials doing certain work today with the .number of officials that did the same work three or four years ago, and the minister might very fairly allow this item to stand until that inf rmation is before us.


William Roche: The preparation of the
return referred to by my non. friend is, I understand, well under way; but it will take some time to prepare the details, and I expect to be able to lav it on the table in a few days. It is true we have increased our staff, as I have before explained. There liaa been a great clamour throughout the country, from the hon. gentleman's own political friends as well as from mine, that the inspections were not being made and the patents not issued rapidly enough.
It is natural that there should be a larger number of homestead inspectors. We have been asked on many occasions by many districts to increase the number of land agencies in order to cater to the incoming population. The number of our subagencies also has been increased. All of this is meant and designed to keep abreast of the work, to meet the requirements of the homesteaders. Away up in the north country, as my hon. friend knows, a large population has been going in during the last few years. We have to provide them with additional facilities by way of sub-land agencies and homestead inspectors. In districts wffiere homestead entries were made in thousands some years ago, the homesteaders are now applying *for their patents and are desirous of getting them. They complain bitterly if we do not afford them facilities in order to prevent them from incurring undue expense and from taking long trips by rail, and sometimes otherwise, in order to reach our present land agencies and subland agencies. It is only right and fair to the official whom the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) assailed in the House a few weeks ago, that I should place upon 'Hansard' a refutation of the statement that the hon. member made against him. I presented the evidence to that official and asked him for his presentation of the case. He has furnished me with the same, and I think my hon. friend has no grievance against me that I have not gone privately to him and handed him whatever refutation I have received from Mr. Glen Campbell, because, when I asked the hon.
member to submit his data to me before bringing it up in the House, he refused to do so, or at least he did not consent- to do so, and I knew nothing about what he was going to bring up until he rose to make his accusation. If the hon. gentleman had been a little more careful of his facts before making those serious accusations against an official of the Government, he would not be called upon to retract them.


David Bradley Neely: Is not an affidavit fact enough?


William Roche: The hon. gentleman and also the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) have accused the Minister of Public Works of reading to the House manufactured affidavits. My hon. friend must not imagine that, because an affidavit is supplied by a minister of the Crown, it is of necessity a manufactured affidavit, while every affidavit placed in the hands of my hon. friend is a genuine one. I was not dealing in insinuations when I made the remark that the hon. gentleman should be more careful in regard to statements that he makes, especially when they reflect so seriously upon a man's character. Many people who have read those accusations may not have the opportunity of reading the refutation of the same. I have the following letter from Mr. Glen Campbell himself dealing with those accusations:
My Dear Dr,-I hare your lctt.r of llt'i February and the 'Hansard' with regard to Neely's charges against me. In reply I beg to say that since I have been a public servant I have not in any way taken part in a partisan manner in any political meeting or gathering. I avoid even going to meetings as a private individual knowing that were I to do so, adverse criticism might be made against the department and the minister.
With regard to the Swan River meeting I have to say that I have not been in that district since previous to the election in 1911, and until I saw in the papers that Neely had attacked me personally, I did not know that some over zealous friend had advertised me to speak at the convention in Swan River. That this was done without my knowledge cannot surely react either on myself or on the department.
With regard to the other charge 1 think it is the most cruel, cowardly display of vicious meanness that I ever heard of. As you personally know I have not for nearly eleven years stood up to a bar in any part of Canada, and when I tell you that I had not been in North Qu'Appelle since July and had not even seen my brother-in-law since September until yesterday, and have no knowledge whatever of the incident referred to in the charge, you will realize how badly I feel with regard to this matter. My brother-in-law, Mr. McDonald, came

taken, with the remark that it was too good a watch for a homestead inspector, and that I had no doubt stolen it. Even my shoes were taken off my feet. My private correspondence from my wife was read aloud by the three constables in charge, who constantly made vulgar and disgusting remarks, and I was subjected to every indignity one could possibly imagine. When I protested at the treatment I was receiving I was told by the constables that they were getting even for the arrests in Manitoba. I again demanded a hearing before a justice of the peace, but was refused. I was then approached by one Gaetz who claimed to be Deputy Chief of Police of the province of Saskatchewan, who made the following suggestion: that if I would sign an affidavit to the effect that I had received instructions directly or indirectly and also money with which to bribe electors from the Hon. Robert Rogers, then Minister of the Interior, I would be allowed to go and no charges preferred against me. This I refused to do and was put on the train and taken to Regina, Saskatchewan, where the said Gaetz held a consultation with the Hon. Mr. Calder and Mr. Anderson of the Attorney General's department, after which Gaetz again approached me and again suggested that the easiest way out of my trouble was to sign an affidavit which contained charges against the Hon. Robert Rogers. W hen I refused, the man Gaetz informed me that I would be sent down for two years; that I had nothing to lose and everything to gain by making the affidavit; that since I was arrested I would lose my position anyway and if I would make this affidavit he would use his Influence to secure me a provincial appointment. I refused to do as he requested and he then took me to the Mounted Police office where 1 was placed in a steel cage, such as is used for the most desperate criminals. The next morning I was taken before Magistrate Trant, who remanded the case for a week, in the meantime, provincial constables were scouring the country trying to get evidence to substantiate the charge that I was arrested on, which they failed to do, and when I came up for trial the charge on which I was arrested was dropped entirely. I was then told that they had another charge against me, that of telling a Galician not to vote.
Regarding this second charge the facts are as follows: I was making inspections in a Galician settlement, and about six o'clock one evening I drove to a house and asked to stay over night. I stayed there over night but did not discuss politics in any way. The next morning the daughter of this farmer, who, although a Galician girl, spoke good English, asked me which way I was going. I informed her that I was going north and she asked permission to ride two miles to a neighbour's whose place I was passing. When we had driven a mile on the way we met two Galicians on foot. The girl asked me to stop, as she wished to speak to her countrymen, and a short conversation took place in the Galician language. I had no idea what was being said but the conversation did not last a minute. A mile further on the girl got out of the rig at the neighbour's she was going to, and I drove on to make my inspections. The two Galicians we met were entire strangers to. me. I had never seen them before and I did not see them again until this second charge was brought against me when I came up for my hearing at Regina. They were given money and taken up there to swear that the Galician girl had told them

that they had better not vote for the Liberal candidate as I was a Conservative homestead inspector. At the trial the Galician girl swore on oath that we had never discussed politics and she denied on oath that she had told these men to vote, either on her own account or at my suggestion.
The magistrate, a rabid partisan, claimed that I must be responsible for what the girl said. I was convicted on what the Galician girl was supposed to have said and not on anything I had said or done myself.
I might mention that I have since learned that these two Galicians whose evidenec was taken are known in the settlement as being absolutely unscrupulous, and will do anything for money.
I was fined fifty dollars and costs. The reason I did not appeal the case I had been to great expense taking five witnesses to Regina to testify in the charge I was arrested on. On the second charge these witnesses were useless as they knew nothing about it. This case had already swallowed up my small savings, amounting to about five hundred dollars, and I could not go to the expense of a new trial and I concluded that the best way out of the difficulty was to suffer in silence. I feel sure that Dr. Neely was one of the instigators of my arrest on a false charge in the first place, as my arrest was concocted with the object of me losing my position, as previous to my appointment I had for years been one of Mr. Neely's strongest political oppbnents and on several occasions had openly accused him of accepting a bribe of one thousand dollars from the business men of the city of Saskatoon. Since my appointment as homestead inspector I have worked hard and faithfully and deny showing partisanship in any case. And I can secure fifty affidavits from prominent Liberals in this constituency denying that I have ever shown partisanship and that I have done my best to help every one regardless of their political opinions since my appointment to this position.
I have done at least three times the amount of work that my predecessor in this position done as the records of the department will prove.
I felt it my duty to lay before you the whole facts of the case regarding my arrest and conviction in July, 1912, through which I have suffered a great deal. Trusting this explanation will be satisfactory.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
(Sgd) Arthur Smyth, Homestead Inspector for Humboldt district. Hon. Dr. Roche,
Minister of the Interior,
Ottawa, Ont.
This gentleman in his indignation uses some pretty strong expressions. I have read all his letter, as I did not wish to be accused of garbling it. The ho-n. member has made insinuations, not supported by any evidence, that this- man was fined $50 and did not appeal, holding that this was prima facie evidence that he was guilty of the charge placed against him. I think that, the elections being over and this gentleman being out of pocket $500 in connec-
1S61
tion with the defence of the charge on which he was arrested, his witnesses being of no use to him when the charge was dropped and a new charge substituted, he may be pardoned for not proceeding with an appeal under all the circumstances, and with such men administering justice as they have in the province of Saskatchewan.


David Bradley Neely: There is one thing that
Arthur Smyth is evidently well posted in, that is, the matter of giving affidavits. We had one from the Minister of Public Works, and now we have another from the Minister of the Interior, in extenso.


George Perry Graham: That is not an affidavit.


David Bradley Neely: Is it only a statement? I
understood the minister to say that it was an affidavit.


William Roche: No, it is a letter.


David Bradley Neely: That is not so autlioratitive as the statement read by the Minister of Public Works. Mr. Smyth says in this letter that my opposition to him is because he was always a political opponent. I remember an occasion when this very same Smyth came to me before the present Government came into office and said that if I would appoint him postmaster at a certain point he would be a very active supporter of mine. So far as his significance as an opponent is concerned, I do not think there is another vote outside of his own that he controls in Humboldt. He is a man absolutely without influence and without standing, even in the community where lie lives. If Smyth had ever appeared in the constituency of Humboldt, as he suggests in the letter, and made the insinuation that he there makes about myself as a member of the Legislature of the province of Saskatchewan, he would have been in jail before this Government ever had the opportunity to appoint him a homestead inspector. That is where Smyth would be, or anybody else, in this House or out of it, if they made that statement outside the protection of this House. So much for that matter.
The minister knows what Smyth was doing in that election, or if he does not he ought to, because the minister, if I am not mistaken, is personally acquainted with Mr. Marsh Jackson of the city of Winnipeg, jreputed chief of the Secret Service of Canada, and I can get the minister fifty witnesses who will declare that Arthur Smyth travelled around in the same rig with Mr. Alarsh Jackson holding meetings among the foreigners in my constituency in the provincial elections of 1912, and actively canvassed from house to house, intimidating. For the minister to give as has defence for retaining this officer not even an affidavit, but a tetter made up of all sorts of fabrications and imaginings, anything that Smyth could put in to make a defence for himself, shows that the minister has little to say in defence of his position.
I noticed that in the defence the minister made, so far as Mr. Glen Campbell is concerned, he referred to a certain day, the 27th sE December. It is a funny thing if that is the correct date on which this occurred because in that case Mike must have had two drunks instead of one.


Air. W. H. BENNETT:: Lots of people
have those.


David Bradley Neely: 

Mr. Campbell was here for two weeks last session, so why cannot the minister bring him down again.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman accepts Mr. Campbell's statement-and no one can understand anybody not accepting it-is he not bound on his own undertaking to make his apology now?


David Bradley Neely: I will say what I have to say Without any aid from the Solicitor General. I will make my statement in my own way. Before I am through I shall probably have made it clear to the House that I am just as quick to make reparation where an injustice has been done as ever the Solicitor General was.


Arthur Meighen: You have admitted the injustice.


David Bradley Neely: These affidavits refer to the 27th day of December. The affidavit that I hold in my hand from Poitras is dated the 3rd of January.


William Roche: Some of the affidavits I
read referred to both December and January. Mr. Campbell denies that he has been in Fort Qu'Appelle since last July.


David Bradley Neely: This affidavit is dated the 3rd of January. I have here a letter, addressed to myself, reading as follows:
Balcarres, Sask., Jan. 29, 1914. Dear Sir,-I have the honour to enclose herewith affidavit of Michael Poitras, a halfbreed, living near Fort Qu'Apelle, Saskatchewan. This man is in destitute circumstances, as a result of becoming intoxicated and lying outside on the frozen ground without any protection from the weather, all night. He has a wife and a family of young children depending on him for their support.
My object in bringing this matter to your attention is with the idea that you may persuade the Dominion Government authorities to render this unfortunate family some aid in their dire distress, which, as you will note in the affidavit was the result of liquor supplied him by one Glen Campbell, inspector of Indian agencies. I understand that Campbell resides in Dauphin, Manitoba, and is a brother-in-law of John Archie McDonald, former M.D.A for North Qu'Apelle, who resigned recently, when charges of corruption in connection with his election were coming before the court.
Trusting that you may be successful in your worthy endeavour to secure aid for this unhappy family.
I remain,
Tour obedient servant,
Wm. Penny,
A justice of the peace in and for the province of Saskatchewan.
The minister says I ought to be careful. Surely when a justice of the peace of the province of Saskatchewan-a man whom I 
have never met, but whom I understand to be an estimable citizen and a man cf honour-writes me such a letter and attaches thereto an affidavit, would not the minister himself think that sufficient evidence upon which to lay a complaint against a public official? What more evidence could be required of me than the evidence I had when I made the statement to the House? Let the minister tell me that.


William Roche: The justice of the peace
does not write this of his own knowledge. His letter to the member for Humboldt is based on the strength of the affidavit.


David Bradley Neely: There is no doubt that the justice of the peace believes that Campbell was the man responsible for Poitras' condition. That much is clear from his letter. If a responsible citizen like a justice of the peace residing in the same community as Poitras, who made the affidavit, were to write such a letter to the minister would he not think that sufficient grounds on which to lay a complaint? If Campbell was not the person responsible for Poitras' condition, I very much regret having brought the matter before the House. If that be true, I think the minister or Mr. Campbell or somebody else ought to go further into this matter. If Mr. Campbell is innocent steps should be taken against the man who made the affidavit. Of course I have seen comeback affidavits before, they are not a new thing. If Mr. Campbell was unjustly accused his vindication is not complete until Poitras explains before a court of law why he made such a declaration before a justice of the peace, leading that justice to make a plea on his behalf to this Government.


Arthur Meighen: You said you would see to that.


David Bradley Neely: Oh, no, I did not. I said I would be glad to lend any assistance I could, and so I would.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
who has just taken his seat has made what the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) would call a hypothetical apology. Some weeks ago the hon. member brought forward in this House, in a somewhat sensational manner, the affidavit of a halfbreed reflecting very seriously on the character of an ex-member of this House, and now a Government official.


David Bradley Neely: What has ex-member to
do with it?
I? 63


Arthur Meighen: I did not say it had anything to do with it. We had an affidavit and absolutely nothing else in support of the allegations thrown at an ex-member ol this House. The hon. gentleman took the responsibility of making the charge in this House uttered through the mouth of the half-breed. If the charge had turned out to be correct, the hon. member would have had his justification. If the charge turns out to be incorrect, the hon. member has done a grave injustice to Mr. Glen Campbell. There is no escaping that conclusion.


David Bradley Neely: Oh, not at all.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
says that if the charge made against Campbell proves to have been false, he has not done an injustice.


David Bradley Neely: Mr. Poitras may have done so.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
echoed Mr. Poitras' words in this House. Roes the hon. gentleman want to say that he can always shield himself behind an affidavit and make any charge so long as he simply produces an affidavit, whether the man is a half-breed or anything else? If it is correct, he has his justification in the facts; if it is incorrect, he has done an injustice for which he must, if he is a gentleman, make reparation. When he was on his feet he promised to apologize for his part in the affair, if the charge turned out to be false. The hon. gentleman now contends that the justification of his position does not depend on the affidavit at all. If so, why was he talking about apologizing? Would the hon. gentleman have had anything to apologize for, if the affidavit was right? The affidavit turns out to have been false, as the hon. gentleman knows and has admitted; it turns out to have been a lying affidavit from the commencement to the finish. The hon. gentleman cannot stand up and say that that statement is not true.


David Bradley Neely: I do not admit anything of the kind.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman admits the correctness of Mr. Glen Campbell's statement, and Mr. Glen Campbell's statement is contrary to the affidavit.


David Bradley Neely: This affidavit was made in consequence of the party who made it believing the man to be Glen Campbell.


Arthur Meighen: Does that make the affidavit true?	_
1184	_ :	JKi


David Bradley Neely: True in intent.


Arthur Meighen: What matters the intention if the affidavit turns out to have been false, and every word of it false, from beginning to end? Now the hon. gentleman, by his adtaission would like to go back to Mr. Glen Campbell's statement (supported by the affidavit of the man himself who knows now that what he said was false, supported by the affidavit of the physician, of Mr. Macdonald, the hotelkeeper, by the bartender, and two other affidavits by men in Qu'Appelle. No man-in his senses would dream of disputing the correctness of Mr. Glen Campbell's statement. It is admitted to be true by the hon. member himself. Under what circumstances did he promise to apologize? He pledged himself in, this House that if the affidavit should turn out to be false he would apologize and now that it has turned out to be false, and emphatically so, he refuses to apologise.


David Bradley Neely: I do not admit anything of the kind.


Arthur Meighen: What?


David Bradley Neely: I do not admit that this affidavit has been dispTOven in any *particular.


Arthur Meighen: The affidavit is not dis-proven but Mr. Glen Campbell's statement is correct.


David Bradley Neely: I said that I accept Mr. Glen CampbeiTs statement, that I prefer to accept the statement of a man I know rather than the statement of one I do not know


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman accept it as true or false?


David Bradley Neely: I accept it for what it is worth.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
does that because he knows Mr. Glen Campbell better than he knows this halfbreed and he will accept Mr. Glen Campbell's statement for what it is worth. That is a fine position. Would he not accept the statement of the half-breed for what it is worth?


David Bradley Neely: I do not know him.


Arthur Meighen: He would not accept
the statement of the half-breed for what it is worth because he does not know him. The hon. gentleman's reasoning powers seem to be about as accurate as his sense of justice. He has done a grave injury for

Avhich he ought to feel keen pangs of regret if he is the gentleman that I have always thought him to be. He has done a grave injury for which he owes an apology in a manly way to Mr. Glen Campbell. He has admitted that he owes him an apology 'but he has not the manliness to make it.


William Erskine Knowles: Order, order.


Arthur Meighen: And he will not make it yet. If it turned out to be false he would make it. It has turned out to be false; *why does he not make it? He has ceased to interrupt now. The hon. gentleman got very nervous when I tried to interrupt him. He thought I was doing him a very serious injustice to interrupt him. I invite him now to interrupt me.-


David Bradley Neely: I will speak when the hon. gentleman is through.


Arthur Meighen: No, he is cornered. Let the hon .gentleman rise to the occasion, I will give him the chance in a moment, let him make the apology he owes to Mr. Glen Campbell and it will be all over.


David Bradley Neely: I do not think the House has ever seen such an exhibition of temerity as that which the hon. Solicitor General has shown in the last few minutes. One would think he was the father of this assembly to hear him lecture us as he has been doing. I am willing to accept Mr. Glen Campbell's statement, but I think Mr. Glen Campbell ought to go one better. There is a committee of this House, we can hear evidence, and Mr. Campbell ought to demonstrate absolutely that he is guiltless of this charge. He denies it. As far as that is concerned, I will accept Mr. Campbell's word,- because I know Mr. Campbell, but I am just as much convinced as ever that I was absolutely justified in the course I took in making the complaint I made against Mr. Campbell. While accepting Mr. Campbell's statement, and regretting that an injustice has been done him, 1 say that the authority on which I made that complaint was an authority which would justify any member of the House in making a similar complaint. Will the Solicitor General tell me on what point it was not so?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I will tell the
hon. gentleman.


David Bradley Neely: Well, you had the floor,
you can have the floor again.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
has said a great deal, but he has not made the apology.
{Mr. Meighen.]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Glen Campbell is
now put in this position, that he has the hon. gentleman's I.O.U. for an apology, which he cannot pay. He wants to know what his justification was. His justification would be good if the affidavit had proven to be true. If he had read an affidavit of the Erime Minister of Great Britain and it turned out to be false he would have done an injury for which he owed reparation, but there is a wide margin between a poor half-breed and the Prime Minister of Britain, and this was a half-breed that he did not know at all. The hon. gentleman says that Mr. Glen Campbell has not gone far enough and that he ought to prosecute. Five minutes ago he said that this half-breed had perjured himself. He has it in his power to prosecute him and lay an information against this half-breed. Will he do it? It is in his power; the Scott Government is in power.


William Erskine Knowles: Order.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for
Moosejaw would like to do that, would he?


William Erskine Knowles: What is the question?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
seems to object to my asking the hon. member for Humboldt to lay an information. Perhaps he wants to do it himself?


William Erskine Knowles: You misrepresent me.
The hon. member for Humboldt asked you if you did not have a justification for what he had done, and now you are going on to say what he should do in the future, which is a different thing altogether. Why do you not answer the question and sit down?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman's
justification is not a good one.


William Erskine Knowles: That is what you say, but you have not shown that to be the case.


Arthur Meighen: I have shown it several times and he has admitted it. His justification has fallen to the ground. Nothing but the truth of the case would have justified it. Now he wants Mr. Glen Campbell to prosecute the half-breed who, on his knees, bended before the hon. member for Humboldt and asked for alms; the half-breed who could not keep his family; who had his foot frozen off a while ago-now only nipped-this is the halfbreed that the hon. gentleman thinks Mr. Glen Campbell should prosecute. The hon. gentleman's friends are in power in Sas-
136ft
katchewan. The provincial Government alone have the administration of the Criminal Code. The prosecution of the halfbreed is under the control of the Scott Government of Saskatchewan. The hon. gentleman can assist them by producing the affidavits and by saying what he has said in the House, that he does not believe [DOT] it is true, that he believes Mr. Glen Campbell instead. If he does that he will be rendering material aid. I do not think he has the slightest intention of carrying out that promise any more than he has of carrying out his promise to apologize. But perhaps the events of the evening will at least show him that he must be more careful and that he is not justified in reading the affidavit of a man he does not know, whether he be a half-breed or not, and whom he has no special reason to believe, when he admits the contents of that am-davit seriously damaged the reputation of a man whom he was bound to have held to he an honourable man.


Mr. OLIVER:: AVe certainly have had a lesson to-night on our responsibility as members of this House; we have been taught by the Solicitor General in good set terms that employees of this Government must not be challenged by members on this side of the House, no matter what their offence may be, or how solemnly the accusation may have been made against them.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend did not say that, but that was the logical sequence of his argument.


Arthur Meighen: Permit me to say-


Frank Oliver: If the Solicitor General, who is good at interrupting, will be good enough to take back the suggestion he made, we will understand where we are.


Arthur Meighen: I have made-


Frank Oliver: In the meantime, will he be good enough to permit me to proceed with my remarks ?


Arthur Meighen: I rise to a point of order.


Frank Oliver: I have the floor. I ask your protection, Mr. Chairman.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member (Mr. Meighen) rises to a point of order.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Oliver) ascribes to me the statement that the conduct of a Government official is not to be challenged no matter what a
the charge against him may be; I made no such statement.


Frank Oliver: There is no point of order in that.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman say that he can ascribe to me language I never used, and then contend that I cannot rise to a point of order to contradict it ?


Frank Oliver: I did not say the hon. gentleman made that statement. ,


Arthur Meighen: Oh, all right, then.


Frank Oliver: The Solicitor General did not take his point of order well. I said that we had understood from his remarks that we had received a lesson on this side of the House as to what our conduct must be towards the high and mighty officials of this Government; that we must not challenge their conduct, no matter what they do, nor upon what_ authority we have warrant for challenging their conduct. I want to say to the Solicitor General and to the members of the Government, that in my humble judgment, when an affidavit making a serious charge against an official of this Government is placed in the hands of a member of the Opposition, that member of the Opposition is doing much less than his duty if he does not bring to the attention of the Government in parliamentary form, the charge that has been made under affidavit. AVho is the Solicitor General, who declares so roundly and so loudly against charges being made against officials of this Government, even on affidavit ? He is the colleague of the Minister of the Interior, who to-night read, not an affidavit, but a letter from a convicted criminal, making a charge against my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely), a scoundrelly charge, which he dare not make under any other circumstance. What has the Solicitor General to say to that ?


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman tell me what crime this man was convicted of ?


Frank Oliver: Yes, I will. He was convicted of the crime of intimidation in an election. He was punished for that crime, and he deserved his punishment.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman show me in the Criminal Code where that is made a crime?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend may have dictionary meaning, which does not cor-

respond with the word I used, but I take the ordinary commonsense meaning, that a man who pays a fine of $50 has been convicted of a crime. The Solicitor General may call it an offence instead of a crime; I care not what he calls it; the point is, that an official of this Government infringed the laws of this country, and was punished for doing it, and to-night he has been upheld in so doing by a responsible minister, and by the party on that side of the House.


David Bradley Neely: And then he read a dirty slander in a letter.


Frank Oliver: And in defence of this man, the Minister of the Interior makes himself a party to this scoundrelly slander, not against an ex-member of this House, but against a member, sitting in his place in the House. I claim, Mr. Chairman, that the members on this side of the House are entitled to protection at your hands, and that they have not received it to-night. And if we do not get protection from the Chair, I want to say that we are not like people who cannot protect ourselves.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: The hon. member has no right to attack the Chair in that manner. When both sides are going too far, it is very hard for the Chairman to interfere, unless he is called upon to do so.


William Erskine Knowles: I called ' Order ' when the hon. member was reading that slanderous, cowardly statement, and I think he should have been stopped.


Frank Oliver: I do not want to detract from the dignity of your office, Mr. Chairman, or to find fault with your conduct, because I think your intention is to discharge the duties of your responsible position with due consideration; but I have stated the position as it has appeared to me. I want to say that the minister, in my hearing to-night, gave to the House the reason why Smyth was appointed, and the reason was because he had been an active partisan against the member for Humboldt. The evidence is, in this and other cases, that when this Government came to power, one of their first acts was to discharge practically en masse the land officials in the employ of the late Government, and to appoint in their places avowed, well-recognized political partisans, for the purpose of doing exactly what Smyth was fined for doing, that is, paralyzing the franchise of the homesteaders of the prairie West, depriving them of their right to vote

as their consciences dictated, or depriving them of their homesteads in the alterna" tive. I have said before, and I repeat tonight, that that policy and that action on the part of the Government of the day has had more than a little to do with the shrinkage of homestead entries that has taken place since the Government has attained office.
I have not been in the House during the whole of this discussion, and the cases to which I will allude may possibly have been already discussed. In the Peace River country, in the Grand Prairie district, where at the time of the last provincial elections not more than half a dozen homestead patents had been received, but where there were hundreds of settlers, the homestead inspector took the platform on behalf of the local Conservative candidate, and declared to the people in good set terms the necessity under which they were of supporting the local Conservative candidate, because he was a supporter of this Dominion Government, for whom Mr. Fletcher was working. Mr. Fletcher had been appointed by myself as Minister of the Interior. I verily believe that he did as he did on that occasion under stress and threat from this Government that if he did not get out and hustle for the Conservative candidate in that election he would lose his position. Put yourself in the position of those homestead settlers on the prairie, 350 miles from railroad communication-men who have put their money, their time and their energy into their homesteads-and up against the proposition that they Shall vote Tory or shall take chances on losing their homestead, and you must admit that we have not a free country or an administration that ought to have the support of the people of Canada. You cannot have proper encouragement to settlement under those cir-(cumstances. That is not an isolated ease. One of these political partisans, a man who spent his life in party politics, was appointed a homestead inspector, not in my constituency but immediately across the line in the adjoining constituency, a man whose business at elections was to take care of the half-breed vote. A provincial election came along and Mr. Ambroise Grey was the Conservative candidate. He is also the man who has the say as to whether a homesteader is to get his patent or not, as to whether a dispute is to be decided in favour of this or that man. Is that a fair deal to the homestead electors in that district? Mr. Ambroise Grey was defeated. I asked the question whether he was a home-
1S67
stead inspector or not, and I was told that he had resigned. As soon as the election was over, he was back again as homestead inspector. Just before I came down to Parliament, this same Mr. Grey and a Mr. Frank Fane, who is also in the employ of this Government, accompanied by a Mr. H.
A Mackie, a lawyer, and an ex-detective named Hoyle, were travelling in the district of Beaver river in an automobile, in order to secure evidence against the successful candidate in- the provincial election. Give this man Grey the authority of homestead inspector; give him the prestige that attaches to that position, and send him out looking for information against the elected candidate, and he surely is in a good position to secure such information. Again, it is a case of the homesteader's time, his money, his energy, everything that he has, on the one side, or support of the Tory party in the provincial legislature on the other. Such a condition never before existed in Canada; it is detrimental to the welfare of the country; it is discreditable to the Government of the day. It is true that they have not won out on it so far. I do not think they will win out on it; I think they will find that they will lose out on it; because they have already aroused an antagonism amongst the fair-minded people of the country that they will feel the force of, whenever the opportunity comes at the polls. But the point is that they have done it, and they have dared to attempt to justify it in this House, and they have been supported by their supporters in that attempt.


Mr. MOLLOY:: I do not rise for the purpose of delaying the Estimates. I would like to bring one matter to the attention of the minister. At a convention held at Emerson a short time ago, Dr. McFadden was nominated as the Conservative candidate, I understand, against the will of the people. Whether that is the case or not, I do not know and do not care. In the report of the convention, I noticed that a fight took place in which a gentleman of the name of J. E. Canham took part, who by the way is a Canadian Northern railway agent and also sub-land agent at Sprague. I bring this to the attention of the minister as a case of a Government official interfering in politics. Mr. Canham has a great deal of homestead land in his district. I am also informed,-and I believe that it is true,- that the same Mr. J. E. Canham, since becoming sub-land agent, has received patent of n.w. j 12-1-4, east of the first, on which he has never lived an hour
or done one day's work in homesteading. That is contrary to the regulations. The gentleman who gave the information I know well, and he has lived in that district for a great many years. Mr. Canham is using as campaign stuff, so to speak, that if you are a Conservative you can get patents through very easily; you do not have to put in any residence or do any homestead duties. I think it is the duty of the minister to investigate this matter. So far as Mr. J. E. Canham's taking part in an election is concerned, I do not ask the minister even to reprimand him. If I am again a candidate in the county of Provencher and Mr. Canham interferes in his official capacity, I will slap his face. In the meantime the other matter is more serious. Has Mr. J. E. Canham received patent on n.w. r section 12-1-4 wit'hout putting in any residence or homestead duties ? That is the matter which I Would like the minister to investigate.


William Roche: The hon. member for Provencher knows quite well that I cannot answer him offhand, but I will make inquiries.


David Bradley Neely: It is on this item thatjustly and fairly I would be able to discuss what I want to discuss, that is, the number of appointments made in the outside service of the Department of the Interior in the last year or two. The return I asked for would give me the necessary information to discuss intelligently this question, and I have not that return. This is the first item, and I presume the minister wants to get on with his programme; but if this item passes, I would like to know if the minister would consent, on the next item, after I get the return that I hope will be brought down very shortly, I *trust before he goes into Supply again, that I shall have the opportunity of discussing the increase in the number of appointments in the outside service.


William Roche: I am quite agreeable that the hon. member should discuss what he desires to discuss on any item.


David Bradley Neely: Will the minister assure
me that that return will be brought down before he goes again into Supply, so that I can make use of it?


William Roche: Yes.


William Erskine Knowles: Can the hon. minister
give me any information in regard to the homestead inspectors of whom I spoke?

How could it be that in a period of nineteen days there would be only fourteen inspections made and no trouble about the matter? What business has a man to ride around in an automobiie? Why should he be at headquarters for ten days running? How did all these matters escape detection in the department at the hands of those whose duty I presume it is to check these men up?-because there is no doubt some such system.


William Roche: The hon. member for Moosejaw probably is not aware of the fact that theise diaries are not kept in the department; they are filed in the local offices. The inspections are checked up by the Dominion lands agent of the district in which the homestead inspector makes his inspections. It is true that at times the inspectors spend a few days at the head office making up reports. The diaries are only sent to the department here on special occasions.


William Erskine Knowles: Does the minister say that he has no information in his department as to the inspections made by each homestead inspector?


William Roche: No, I did not say that.


William Erskine Knowles: What about the case in which there were only four inspections in nineteen days? Why were those inspections not checked up?


William Roche: I can quite readily understand that. The hon. gentleman knows that there are districts adjacent to Moose-jaw in which no inspections may be made, but inspections may be necessary in districts ninety miles from Moosejaw, and it takes quite a while to cover that ground. The hon. gentleman pointed out that a certain official travelled in a Conservative automobile, as he called it, but he had to admit that the inspector did not charge the .automobile up to the department?


William Erskine Knowles: I claimed he did not.


William Roche: The hon. gentleman found fault with the inspectors because they spent so much time at the head offices, and he said they were engaged in political work. Be is determined to find fault with these officials; whether they travel around the country in automobiles or stay at the head offices, they are, according to the view of my hon. friend, engaged in political work.


Frank Oliver: That is what they were appointed for.


William Roche: The hon. gentleman imputes the most improper motives to these homestead inspectors; he seems to be under the impression that every time they spend a few days at the head offices of the districts they are acting upon some design to help their party. I should imagine that if these gentlemen were really terrorizing the people of the province they would be doing so while making their inspections, thus endeavouring to bring all the pressure they could to bear upon the farmers. They could not meet the farmers by staying in the office at Moosejaw; the hon. gentleman is not very consistent in his arguments.


William Erskine Knowles: I never heard anything more lame than the arguments of the minister. If a man steals chickens in Ottawa and sheep in Montreal, iand is found guilty of both offences, would the minister say: how on earth could he steal sheep in Montreal-he has stolen chickens in Ottawa? When these inspectors were at headquarters they were in the committee rooms getting instructions and working on the lists. The minister's explanation of this matter is only a joke. The fact that the country does not pay for the [DOT]automobile in question is the serious part of my charge. If the Government paid for it, that would be the minister's business, but the evidence that has been produced shows conclusively that it was a Conservative automobile. If the minister will go through the diaries, he will find that nobody drove all over the country in an automobile except at election time.
I have no quarrel with the inspectors for travelling expeditiously; I approve of it if the object is to serve the people, but I do say that this is a case where homesteaders, that this is a case where homesteaders, hard up and in great need, were waiting to have their titles straightened out while these gentlemen spent ten or twelve days at a time at headquarters, travelled ninety and a hundred miles at a time, making only four inspections in nineteen days. With this evidence and the other statements I have made, the minister ought to be convinced that these men were engaged in political work at that time. The minister has not given a satisfactory explanation of the matter by any means.
I want to ask the minister whether there is any new regulation of the department which applies to valuable pieces of land adjacent. to towns or cities?


William Roche: The inspectors have been instructed to make reports upon particularly
valuable quarter-sections adjacent to towns or cities in order that tnese lands may not be thrown open to homestead entry, but may be disposed of by sale, with settlement conditions, or in some other way.


William Erskine Knowles: Are there any new regulations with regal'd to valuable quarter sections which were thrown open in 1908?


Mr ROCHE:: This regulation applies to all lands that are particularly valuable.


William Erskine Knowles: The minister has given instructions, then, that valuable lands adjacent to new towns that may have arisen on a railway line, shall not be available for homestead purposes.


William Roche: Lands close to towns and cities, which are too valuable to be thrown open to entry, will be disposed of by sale with or without settlement conditions; they will not be open for homestead entry.


Frank Oliver: Does that mean that there *is to be a system of irregular reservation of homestead entries? If so, who makes the decision as to what reservations shall be made?


William Roche: For that we have to depend upon our land agents and our inspectors. Certainly in the department we cannot identify a particular parcel of land by the description unless it is brought to out attention that a particular section is sufficiently near a city to render it of special value. This is not a system of irregular reservation; on the contrary, if we were to allow these valuable lands to be thrown open for homestead entry, the hon. member for [DOT]Edmonton would be the first one to make capital against the Government for allowing the free entry of lands that should be reserved to the Crown to be disposed of for purposes of revenue.


Frank Oliver: 
William Erskine Knowles: The minister has reserved a half section near the town called Goldburg. I presume that has been withdrawn from entry in the way the minister says, that the Dominion land agent in that district has recommended it to him. Has he not had some Dominion land agents whom he has had to get rid of?


William Roche: Certainly, I have discharged some.	.


William Erskine Knowles: I think the minister's
system is one that courts trouble. If he is going to trust some of these land agents such as he has had right in my riding and in other places, and thinks that when such an agent sees a piece of ground that should be reserved he is going to tell the minister instead of his own pal, he is mistaken. The minister was very careful to say that he had not been discourteous to me in connection with the Beaubien investigation. My telegram asked him to advise me when the sittings were to be held and that ^ J might have permission to attend with witnesses. To-night he says he has ordered the investigation and for all I know it may be over. I have not been informed of it and have not had an opportunity of presenting evidence. The Minister has told me that he has not desired to be discourteous. The discussion will be on ' Hansard ' and my constituents will have to judge as to the extent of which he desires to satisfy public opinion as reported to him by their representative. Of course he is the minister, but, after all, I am the representative. The sub land agency at Gravelbourg, one of the busiest in Saskatchewan, was closed up without any reason or explanation being made public. What is the reason for its being closed? Is it because it is a Liberal district and always votes Liberal or is it because my late opponent recommends that it be closed and gives no reason? Is it to punish the people for exercising their franchise? No reason is given on the official file.
Mr. ROCHE The hon. gentleman referred to the fact earlier in the evening that the sub land agent at this point had certain accusations hanging over him in regard to the destruction of the crop of a homesteader. The inspector of land agencies had the sub-agent suspended and reported to tire head office until the charges were cleared up. The office has not as yet been re-

opened. I have had no representations from anybody that I remember for the re-opening of the office. There aTe a number of applications for the opening of new sub land agencies and the re-opening of some that have been closed. They are under consideration. The hon. member's opponent has not recommended the closing of the office and there is no political significance in its closing.


William Erskine Knowles: The minister may think so, but he is absolutely wrong. Let him take my word, the office was closed
because this was a Liberal place and the threat was made right and left by prominent Conservatives that it would be closed.


William Roche: The prominent Conservatives made no such representations to the Minister of the Interior, who is the authority for the closing.


William Erskine Knowles: I am making the representation now and people will take it for what it is worth. Has not the office been transferred to another place?


William Roche: No.


William Erskine Knowles: Where are the. files?
ROCHE: There may have been another sub-agency opened some miles away.


William Erskine Knowles: Will the minister reopen the office in Gravelbourg if he can hnd a suitable sub-agent?


William Roche: That depends on the
amount of land in the vicinity to be taken up and the public requirements.


William Erskine Knowles: Will the minister tell me if I can call witnesses in the case we discussed?


William Roche: The file was sent out West to the inspector of land agencies, so that he may take evidence under oath; but the investigation is not being prosecuted at the present time. The file had to be brought back to this city in order to respond to the hon. gentleman's motion and it is here now; so it is not likely that any investigation will be carried on in the immediate future. If the hon. gentleman desires to be present at the investigation I have not the slightest objection.


William Erskine Knowles: Will you see that I am notified when it is to be held?


William Roche: Yes.


William Erskine Knowles: Will you give instructions that I may call witnesses?


William Roche: Certainly, if desired.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. Friday.
Friday, March 20, 1914.