1914-05-06

QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. MORRIS:: 1.	Is the Government aware that some dams are said to have been recently made on the St. Lawrence river between the lie du Large, or
lie Dondaine, and the Grande lie, opposite the Coteau rapids for a water-power?
2.	Has the Government given any rights to any person to build these dams?
3.	By whom was the building of these dams authorized?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Zeph. Boyer of Valleyeld has built a cofferdam between Grande lie and the head of lie du Large.
2.	No.
3.	Not authorized.


THE ROYAL CANADIAN REGIMENT BAND.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has permission to be granted under the regulations to..the band of the Royal Canadian Regiment before they take part in demonstrations of a political nature?
2.	Was any permission given to the Royal Canadian Regiment band to attend a demonstration of this nature in Halifax on the evening of April 20?
3.	Who asked for such permission to be granted on this occasion?
4.	Was the band paid for its services on said date? If so, how much and by whom?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	Paragraph 875, K.R. and O. for the militia, 1910, as amended by general order 34, 1914, relating to bands playing in processions unconnected with the militia is as follows:
(a)	Subject to the approval of its commanding officer, any militia band may appear in uniform and play in any procession unconnected with the militia, or at any meeting or demonstration unconnected with the militia, provided there be carried with it, in such procession or at such meeting or demonstration, a Union Jack of not less than three feet by four feet in dimensions.
(b)	Should a commanding officer at any time refuse to permit a band of his corps to take part in any procession, meeting or demonstration unconnected with the militia, he must immediately notify headquarters, through the proper channel, his reasons for such refusal.
2.	The band was not out on the 20th.
3 and 4. Answered by No. 2.


SHERBROOKE LEASED PROPERTIES.
Mr. McCREA:: 1.	Has the Government leased or purchased a property from Mrs. Norris Worthington, in the city of Sherbrooke, Quebec?
2.	If so, what is the price of the lease or of the purchase?
3.	For what purpose was the property leased or purchased?


Mr. HUGHES:: The following properties are rented from Mrs. N. W. Worthington

in the city of Sherbrooke:-The second floor and one store on the first floor of the ' Brooks Block to be used as temporary quarters for the N.C.O.'s, the band and the stretcher section of the 53rd regiment; rental, $75 per month. House to be used as temporary quarters for the accommodation of the officers of the 53rd regiment; rental, $100 per month.


CUSTOMS CLAIMS FOR UNDERVALUATION.
Mr. TRUAX:: 1.	Has the Customs Department a claim against Hannan's Store, Limited, Montreal, for $315, or any amount, for goods said to have been falsely entered under valuation?
2.	If so, why has the Customs Department not collected same?
3.	How long has the claim been outstanding?


Mr. REID:: .	[DOT]
1.	Yes.
2.	The claim is disputed.
3.	The claim covers charges for petty
amounts on importations since March 1, 1911.	.


QUEBEC ASSISTANT INSPECTOR OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
Mr. MARCIL:: Is John Theodore Dagneau of Robitaille, Quebec, still in the employ of the Department of Inland Revenue as assistant inspector of weights and measures, district of Quebec?


Mr. NANTEL:: Yes.


DARTMOUTH TO DEAN SETTLEMENT BRANCH RAILWAY.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Who was the original contractor or contractors for the building of the branch railway from Dartmouth to Dean Settlement, Nova Scotia?
2.	What is the date of the contract?
3.	What is the mileage and the estimated gross expenditure under the said contract?
4.	If the said original contract has been sublet, what are the names of the sub-contractors and the mileage allotted to each, and the amounts payable to said sub-contractors under the contracts sublet to them, as aforesaid?


Mr. REID:: 1.	M. P. and J. T. Davis.
2.	February 16, 1914.
3.	73 miles. Schedule rates aggregating $1,740,277.98.
4.	The original contract has not been [DOT]sublet.


CARSLAKE HOTEL PROPERTY.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: Having already 15,732 feet of available land near Bonaventure station, Montreal, for postal purposes, as per answer given by the Minister of Public Works on April 27, 1914, is the

Government still negotiating for the purchase of the Carslake hotel property?


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Public
Works never stated that we had 15,732 feet of available land near Bonaventure Station. In 1907, the superficial area of 15,732 feet was taken in exchange by the Government for property on Cathedral street. The available area has been reduced by the city's homologated line, which leaves only 10,984 feet of property of an irregular shape. Expropriation proceedings for Carslake hotel property are now pending.


PORT DANIEL LOBSTER HATCHERY.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Who were the tenderers for the gasoline launch service of the Port Daniel lobster hatchery this year and what were the figures of their tenders?
2.	(a) To whom was the contract awarded,
(b)	was he the lowest tenderer and (c) what was the amount of his tender?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Robert Sullivan, Port Daniel Centre, P.Q., $12.50 per day; Edmund Dea, Port Daniel West, P.Q., $12.70 per day.
2.	(a) Robert SulliYan; (b) Yes; (c) $12.50 per day.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-BLOCK SIGNAL SYSTEM.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Is a block signal system being installed on the Intercolonial railway from Halifax to Windsor junction?
2.	If so, who has the contract for the same and for what amount?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Union Switch and Signal Company. $85,000 lump sum for block signalling St. John to Hampton, Moncton to Painsec Junction, and Halifax to Windsor Junction.


ROCKY POINT WHARF.
Air. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	Who recommended the purchase of a site and a right of way for a wharf at Rocky Point, near Charlottetown, * P.E.I from Malcolm McKinnon?
2.	Who recommended that the said site and right of way be not used, after the same had been bought and paid for?


Mr. REID:: 1.	The district engineer.
2.	By petition of the inhabitants.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTION.
Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE:: For a return showing: Whether the Government has paid Newton Wesley Rowell, K.C.,

any sums of money for legal services during the past fifteen years; if so, what amounts and when; whether the Government has paid the firm of which Mr. Rowell is the senior partner any sums of money for legal services; if so, what amounts and in what years.


MORNING SITTINGS.
Mr. BORDEN moved:: That on and from Monday next, the 11th instant, and until the end of the session, the House shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning, and that in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock p.m., there shall be an intermission from one to three o'clock p.m.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: My right hon. friend the other day gave me a list of fourteen measures which have still to be introduced by the Government during the present session. I observe that in the Votes and Proceedings of'yesterday notice is given of five of these Bills, leaving nine still to be introduced. I will rely upon my right hon. friend, if these measures are to be introduced this session, to have them brought down this week; if they are not brought down this week, I would ask that they stand over until next session. Many of them are. not of an important character, although they have their usefulness, and I think that at this time we^should expedite business as much as possible. 1 would suggest that the first morning sitting be held not on Monday but on Wednesday, because many of the members cannot be hete on Monday.


Robert Laird Borden: If it does not make a
great deal of difference to my right hon. friend, I would rather begin on Monday. We can arrange, if he so desires, to take up on that day business that is not of a controversial character. I think we had better make a beginning, or we shall never reach the end of the session. So far as my right hon. friend's suggestion with regard to bringing down certain measures this week is concerned, without fully committing myself to the proposition, I think there is a great deal to commend it. I can assure him that exhortations of mine to that end have not been wanting in the past, and shall not be wanting in the future.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exhortations do not seem to be sufficient. Is the Cooperative Bank Bill to be introduced this session?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not quite sure that it will be introduced.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. OLIVER:: I wish to place before the Prime Minister a number of inquiries with a view to facilitating discussion on the Canadian Northern aid. I shall simply place them on ' Hansard ' in order that the Prime Minister may procure the information. They are as follows:
Is any part of the money to be raised under the guarantee to be used in the completion, betterment or extension of the Canadian Northern lines in Alberta and Saskatchewan; or for the completion, betterment or extension of the Canadian Northern Alberta, or Canadian Northern Western lines in Alberta, or of the Canadian Northern Saskatchewan lines in Saskatchewan? If so, on what lines is such expenditure to be made, and how much is to be expended on each line in
(a)	Payment of existing liabilities,
(b)	Completion of construction now hi progress,
(c)	Betterment of completed lines,
(d)	Extension of existing system?
In case of default of the Canadian Northern and foreclosure by the Government, to what extent are the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan protected by the terms of the resolution in respect of their guarantees to the Canadian Northern and constituent companies by provision for the completion and operation of lines the subject of such guarantees and payment of the interest guaranteed?
Can the terms of section 10 be construed to override in any degree or alter the effect of any agreements made between the provinces of Alberta or Saskatchewan and the Canadian Northern regarding their lines in these provinces?


Robert Laird Borden: I am very much obliged to my hon. friend for his courtesy in notifying me in advance of the proposed inquiries. If there are any other hon. gentlemen on either side of the House who can give us suggestions as to information which they desire, I would deem it a favour if they would make us acquainted with them.
I beg to lay upon the table of the House a statement of capital stock authorized and issued of the companies set forth in the first schedule. I may say to my Tight hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that I expected to lay upon the table of the House to-day a considerable number of documents, which included a great many of those that have been asked for; but, in the anxiety to secure copies of these documents, as well as the originals themselves, they are not quite ready at the moment. Since I became aware that the delay had occurred on account of an insufficient number of copies having been provided, I sent word to have

the originals brought in at once, so that they at least may be laid upon the table of the House to-day, and the copies to which I allude will be laid on the table either tonight or to-morrow. I am not sure that the papers alluded to include everything mentioned im the letter I received from my right hon. friend to-day, but I have asked that every effort be made to secure that information also.


Mr. GERMAN:: Will the Prime Minister lay on the table of the House the amount of capital stock that all these various companies are authorized to issue. For instance, clause 2, subsection a of the agreement says:
Grant a first, fixed, and specific mortgage" or charge upon the shares mentioned in the first part of the second schedule thereto.
Certain shares are mentioned, stock to he transferred free from prior charges. Will the Government lay on the table of the House the amount of capital stock authorized to be issued by all the companies mentioned in the first part of the second schedule?


Robert Laird Borden: A statement has just been laid upon the table of the House which sets forth the authorized capital and the issued capital of all these companies. So far as I understand this covers my hon. friend's inquiry. If it does not, I shall be glad to give any further information.
Some of the documents to which I alluded a moment ago have now arrived. I desire to lay on the table of the House correspondence including official applications for assistance and detailed statements asked for thereon by the Government showing particulars of capitalization, earnings, cost to complete, etc.
I also desire to lay on the table several corrected copies of the estimated cost of betterments. In reply to the hon. member for South Renfrew yesterday I mentioned that the item of $5,595,754 for Montreal terminals had been omitted from that statement, although it was included in the addition. The copies now laid upon the table have that correction.
I also desire to lay upon the table of the House the report of the first inspection and examination of the company's affairs made by auditors appointed by the Government. There was another, and I think a more thorough investigation, made afterwards, resulting in a more elaborate report. That will be laid upon the table of the House to-morrow. .


DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 136, to amend the Dominion Lands Act-Mr. Roche. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):: The minister explained the object of his amendments when the Bill was before the House the other evening. I might go a little more fully into the matter, because I represent a district largely affected by this measure. Those who have taken up homesteads and pre-emptions in the pre-emption district in Southern Alberta find conditions very unsatisfactory; and that is one of the reasons for the demand which has been made upon the minister and the Government for a change in the Act. The crops have been unsatisfactory, and farmers have not been in a position to meet their payments. In my district, the almost general demand is that the payment shall be cancelled altogether, and petitions have been placed in my hand, and no doubt in the hands of the minister to that effect. I know that the proposed amendments are not satisfactory to a great majority of the homesteaders. The petition which has been most largely signed \yas prepared by the Farmers' Union at Foremost, Alberta, and it is known as the Foremost Plan. I might read it to give the House an idea of how the homesteaders feel and what they actually want:
To the Minister of the Interior, Ottawa, Ontario:	.
We, the undersigned pre-emption holders humbly petition the Minister of the Interior to allow proof to be made for a pre-emption at the same time as a homestead or any time thereafter, providing the necessary improvements have been made, and without payment at the time of making such proof or obtaining such patent.
The Government refunding the payments of interest and principal to the original payee that have already been made on pre-empted lands, over and above the average hereinafter men* tioned.
The average to be struck from the total amount already paid on all pre-emptions.
Such average amount to be filed against every existing pre-emption in the shape of a lien against the land, hearing interest at 5 per cent, and no further charges to be made for such pre-emptions by the Government.
I think that is the view of the majority of the homesteaders. They have been very much discouraged, and I myself know that they are not actually in a position to make any payments. I have had some letters endorsing the proposals of the minister, and some claiming that more liberal

action should be taken in regard to the provisions of this Act. One objection offered is that it enables the man with money, and who is anxious to get a patent for his land, to pay for it and get out of the country, leaving the land to lie idle. One trouble in many sections of my district is what is known as the professional homesteader who proves up and goes away, leaving the land to lie idle. Consequently, the land is not made productive and settlement is interfered with. The argument has been advanced that if the minister had made provisions whereby settlement would have been guaranteed-if, for instance, he had provided for a reduction in the cost of homesteads and pre-emptions in case of further improvements-it would have been more in the interests of the country and permanent settlement; that if more were required in regard to fencing, and the amount of cultivation, or provision made that a certain number of stock should be kept, the preemption fee might be reduced or abolished altogether, thereby encouraging settlement. Knowing as I do, and as most of the western members in the House do, the effect of abandoned homesteads, I believe that assistance along that line would have been of greater benefit to the country than the proposed amendments. The minister has provided for the removal of a portion of the interest. My own view is he should have gone all the way and abolished the interest for every year. If it is wise to remove the interest for a certain period, certainly it should be wise to remove it altogether; and I want to urge upon the minister and upon the Government that the interest should be removed altogether so as to give some assistance to the homesteaders in that country. .
I would like to emphasize the fact that the proposed provision looks to me to be of more assistance to the man with money, who is taking up a homestead or preemption with the object of getting his patent in order to make a sale, and who then leaves the country, than to the man who wants to become a permanent settler. I would like to read a letter I have here giving the opinion of a homesteader who wants to remain permanently in Alberta, and who is anxious that whatever provisions are made by this Government shall be along the line of encouraging permanent settlers. He says:
I notice in the Lethbridge Daily Herald of March 31, an article Informing us that the Dominion Lands Act is about to be amended. I have read the proposed amendments through carefully, and have honestly concluded that a
worse thing could not possibly happen this immediate locality than to allow those amendments to become law. The Government thought -and, I persume, honestly, that it was doing a great thing for the homesteader when it exempted him from building a $300 house and allowed him to perfect his proof with any kind of a 'shack' or 'hovel'. Whom did this benefit, and what is the result? It surely did not benefit the actual bona fide settler who wishes to make his home here, raise a family, build schools, churches, roads, - bridges, and other evidences of progress and civilization, and who could not possibly live in a house that cost less than $300. The only one it could possibly help is the man that takes up a homestead on a gamble, living on it just long enough to make necessary improvements to comply with the law, and who then returns to the cities or states whence he came, leaving the homestead and 'shack' a breeding place for noxious weeds and gophers, and an eye sore to the actual settler who remained hoping to build up the country, and whose efforts will naturally enhance the value of the absentee's land. Now regarding those amendments, of what benefit are they to the locality as a whole? They will enable a number of those fellows to prove up on their pre-emptions at once, and return to the States with a title to 320 acres of land In their pockets; but the actual settler who wishes to make his permanent home here, what difference does it make to him whether he proves up on his land this year or three years hence? Regarding the amendment allowing a homesteader to have stock instead of breaking, I will say in all sincerity that 320 acres of this land will not support 24 head of cattle all the year, unless the homesteader raises grain and tame grasses; and in order to do so he has to do the break-mg, anyhow. So of what use is this 'concession' ?
I merely read this letter to give yon the opinion of a very intelligent and representative homesteader in my district offering objections to provisions, which, in a way, will help the homesteader who is a speculator to get his land very readily, and. if he so desires, to leave the country. I want, particularly to urge upon the minister that the interest should be removed entirely. If it was wise to remove it for a part of the period, it ought to be wise also to remove it altogether, and that would be of some practical assistance to the farmer. In my district, as I said before, the sentiment is that the amendment should be even more liberal, and, in order to en-. courage permanent settlement, if some amendments had been made to encourage improvements, and the investment of the money in the actual improvement of the land, to offset the payment made to the Government, it would have gone a long way towards encouraging settlers and homesteaders.


Mr. J. A. M. AIKINS (Brandon):: Mr. Chairman, I am indebted to my hon.

friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Koche) for having incorporated in this Bill some provisions of the Bill which, in the earlier part of the session, I introduced. Unfortunately, being introduced by a private member, that Bill did not receive the consideration of the House. I would like the Government to take up the question of giving greater opportunities to private members to introduce Bills and carry them through regarding matters of public importance. The Government of Canada is supposed to be a Government for the benefit of the people, and, in the administration of the public domain and property, it is also supposed that it is acting for the benefit of the many and not of the few. It has not always so resulted, sometimes by design, but mainly by reason of a lack of knowledge of the present and prospective values of the lands and natural resources and a lack of foresight.. The result of the policy of homesteading and pre-emption shows it has not been entirely successful. I do not mean to say that -that policy should be discontinued, but it should be so carefully put into operation that it would accomplish its purpose, namely, to give land to the actual settler, who will make full use of the property and fully develop it as it should be developed. This would mean not only prosperity for the man himself, but prosperity for the country.
The total area granted in homesteads, up to the present day, according to the records of the department, is 50,100,000 acres, and for pre-emptions and purchased homesteads it i's 8,400,000 acres, making a total of 58,500,000 acres granted for homesteads, pre-emptions and purchased homesteads under the Act which is being amended. The following statement will show the area under crop, according to the records of the Department of the Interior, in the year 1913, in the three prairie provinces :
Crops.	Acres.
Wheat	 10,036,000
Oats	   5,792,000
Barley	 1,025,000
Flax	 1,545,000
Other products	 565,200
Total	 18,963,000
If you allow one-third more for resting the land each year or for fallow, it would give a total area under cultivation of
25,284,000	acres. If to that was added one-third more of the last mentioned area for the purpose of pasture, namely, 8,428,000 acres, it gives a total area which should be properly farmed of 33,712,000 acres, or a 
little more than one-half of the total area granted for homesteads, pre-emptions and purchased homesteads. It falls short of that area by 24,788,000 acres, or by about two-fifths. This/ shows one thing very clearly, that the homesteading provisions of the Dominion Lands Act, and the regulations under it, have not accomplished the purpose for which they were intended. If we attribute the whole of the cultivated lands in these three provinces to homesteads, we find that there is about two-fifths of the homestead area not being fully used.
The intention in giving this land to the homesteader was that he would receive it and properly and continuously use and cultivate it. That is not being done. One reason why it is not being done was mentioned by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Buchanan) when he said that there are a large number of professional homesteaders. Under the provisions of the Act, the Government has allowed a great many people to take up homesteads who are not qualified to be homesteaders because they do not know how to properly cultivate the farm. In the earlier years of the West there was a large number of remittance men, who took up homesteads with the view of getting a patent. When they received the patent they sold the property to the speculator or to a loan company by means of a mortgage and then left it. In addition, there was at one time a provision relating to second homesteading, but that has now been dropped. The result has been a comparative failure of the homestead law to accomplish the purpose for which it was intended. That failure becomes more apparent if you consider the fact that there are millions of acres outside of the land which was actually homesteaded not under cultivation. Therefore, I think that the greatest possible care should be taken respecting the provisions of the Land Act concerning homesteading, and that instead of relaxing these provisions there ought to be watchfulness to see that all the homestead conditions are complied with. I have the impression that in times past governments have been too lax in granting the lands in the Northwest, not only to settlers, but to private persons, railway companies, colonization companies, and other organizations at a nominal, or certainly inadequate, consideration. We find from the records of the department that the following grants have been made:

Acres.
To railways	 31,864,074
Sales, special grants and halfbreeds	 7,647,100
River lots	 687,600
Sales of Indian reserves surrendered	 664,600
Irrigation sales	 1,052,100
University of	Manitoba ..	. .	150,000
Total	 42,065,474
Let us say, roughly, 42,000,000 acres.
This does not include in the surveyed area and the Hudson Bay Company land, 6,779,900 acres; the school land endowment, 8,616,900 acres; Manitoba swamp lands, 1,010,000 acres; grazing leases, 3,876,800 acres. Exclusive of these there has been granted in round figures 42,000,000 acres.
We who have lived in the West know that the Government could have easily commuted in the earlier years almost all of these lands at $1 an acre; and later on at $2 an acre. But, say for $3 an acre; and if we take $3 an acre for 42,000,000 .acres, it would mean $126,000,000. Calculating interest on this for a term of twenty years at three and a half per cent compounded the total cost to date to the Government if they had commuted, would be $249,813,540. I venture to say-and those who .live in the West will understand that I .am quite within the mark-that all that land could now easily be sold for an average of $15 an acre. There are large tracts which cannot be had now for $40 or $50 an acre. But take it at an average of $15 an acre, the total value of the .land to-day would be $630,000,000. If we deduct from that $630,000,000 what it would have cost the Government to have repurchased that land or commuted for $3 an acre, and interest, namely, $249,813,540, it means a loss to Canada of $340,186,460. What could not Canada have done with that $340,000,000.. But, instead of the Dominion of Canada and the people of Canada having now the benefit of that large sum the land is held by speculators or by private companies who expect to get the increased value of that land which results from the intelligence and industry of those who are holding adjoining lands.
The very same policy of lavish grants has been pursued in respect to other natural resources such as our great coal areas, gas lands, and coal oil lands. The policy that should have been adopted by the Government is the policy which is adopted by individuals who own property,
to know the value of that property. Only when it knows the value of the property can it deal with it intelligently. The result of not knowing the quality and value has been that those people who do know the natural resources and their value, better than the Government officials, harm speculated in these natural resources and have made millions of dollars out of them of which the people might have received the benefit. It seems to me that the policy should be adopted by the Department of the Interior and by the Government of spending some money in order to ascertain the real value of the property the Crown possesses. That policy will pay the public in the long run. If we do not do this, then individuals and corporations will reap the benefit of superior knowledge, and the people of Canada be deprived of that advantage which is their natural right.
The same may be said of our water-powers. We have in the Winnipeg river one of the greatest assets any country ever possessed. That river drains an area of 55,000 square miles. In that area is the lake
4 p.m. of the Woods, of 1,500 square miles, and Rainy lake of 330 square miles. Into the Winnipeg river flows the English river, and that river has a minimum flow of 12,000 feet per second. If it were properly regulated at the lake of the Woods and at the>
English river it would have a flow of 22,000 second feet. It is not, however, at present regulated. I wish to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior to the necessity of properly regulating the flow. As it is now, even without proper regulation, it may be made to develop
500.000	horse-power. Why has not that- been done? There is in that river a fall of 371 feet from the lake of the Woods to lake Winnipeg, 240 feet of which fall is within the province of Manitoba and about 70 feet in the province of Ontario. There are a number of natural falls and cup basins which make it easy to develop electrical power. One . of these powers on the Winnipeg river is at Point du Bois on the eastern boundary of Manitoba, and has head of 47 feet. That fall has been developed by the city of Winnipeg. The present installation is
28.000	horse-power, and the capacity of the present building is about 50,000 horsepower. The ultimate installation will be
100.000	horse-power. It has cost the city of Winnipeg to develop that power without distribution $3,780,000, and with distribution $6,000,000. Prior to the development by the city of this electrical power and the

transmission of it to the. city of Winnipeg, the citizens were paying for electrical energy from steam plant 20 cents per kilowatt hour. The Winnipeg Electric Company built its hydro plant in the Pinawa channel, but maintained these high rates. The city of Winnipeg thought it proper that they should ask for offers to develop power on the Winnipeg river and transmit it to the city of Winnipeg. The result of such offers was that the Winnipeg Electric Railway Company reduced the cost of electric power from 20 cents per kilo-watt hour to about 10 cents. As another company had offered to supply the city 3,000 horse-power at $50 per horse-power per year, but demanded a monopoly of the city's streets for distribution for fifty years, that offer was refused. The city of Winnipeg thereupon built the plant at Point du Bois at a cost of $6,000,000, and it has reduced the cost of electrical power to the people of the city to about three cents per kilo-watt hour, thus saving annually to the people using power and light in Winnipeg about $500,000. The cost of that power delivered at Winnipeg is $12 per horsepower. When the full installation is made by the city it will be reduced to $10 per horse-power. The city of Winnipeg own the transformers, the right of way to Point du Bois, about 77 miles out, and over 100 miles of distributing system. All this shows what can be done with .the natural resources of our country for the benefit of the people, if they are properly developed. The city of Winnipeg was able to develop that power, because it is a large community and had facilities for raising the money. If the other towns and cities in the province of Manitoba were able to raise the money as the city of Winnipeg did, and procure power cheaply, they, too, would become industrial centres. My hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe) knows well that if they could only get cheap power in Manitou, his city would grow rapidly; and the same thing may be said of Brandon, of Souris, of Portage la Prairie, and of other centres in Manitoba.
These water-power3 belong to the Dominion of Canada, and the Dominion receives abundant funds from the West by the payment of duties by the people. Some of that large revenue ought to be expended by the Dominion for the development of the water-powers in the West, the creation of electric energy and its transmission to the cities and towns. If industrial centres were thus established in the west of Canada, the result would
[Mr. Aikins.l
be a benefit to the farmers also. In their interest I suggest to the Minister of the Interior the propriety of developing these water-powers on the Winnipeg river. It is true that the late Government, through a lack of foresight, gave concessions and grants of a large number of the falls on the Winnipeg river. For instance, in 1906 the late Administration made a grant to the Mackenzie and Mann interests of a waterpower on the Pinawa channel, which channel practically parallels the main channel of the Winnipeg river for about twenty-five miles. By the development of the power on the Pinawa channel-and I wish to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior to this-two other falls on the main channel have been rendered inefficient for development, because so much water is required for the use of the Mackenzie and Mann power plant in the Pinawa channel, namely, a flow of about 8,000 feet per second. The total flow is about 12,000 feet per second; so that there is a flow of only about 4,000 feet per second along the main channel of the river. Thus have been injured the two falls called the Seven Sisters falls, which cannot now be developed efficiently, unless the flow is regulated on the English river and on the lake of the Woods, so as to make it about 20,000 feet per second. Of the Seven Sisters falls, the first has a head of 34 feet, the second a head of 37 feet. If these falls had not been rendered inefficient and were properly developed, there could be produced 34,800 horse-power at the first falls, and 37,800 horse-power at the second falls.
The next fall, that on the Winnipeg river, is the Slave fall. It has a head of 26 feet, including a fall of 8 feet, on a basis of 75 per cent efficiency at an 8/10 gate, it will produce 26,600 horse-power, with a natural flow of 12,000 feet per second, and at a construction cost of $94 per horse-power. If the flow of the river is regulated on English river and the lake of the Woods, it can be made to produce 44,000 horse-power at a cost of about $84 per horse-power.
The next fall is the McArthur fall which has a head of 18 feet. On a basis of 75 per cent efficiency at an 8/10 gate, this will produce 18,400 horse-power at a cost of $123 per horse-power. If the flow is regulated, it will produce 30,700 horse-power at a cost of $97.50 per horse-power.
The next falls are the Grand du Bonnet, Little du Bonnet and Whitemud, a concession of which was made in 1910 by the last Administration to R. R. Muir. This fall has a head of 56 feet, and on a basis of

75 per cent efficiency at an 8/10 gate, it will produce 78,700 horse-power at a cost of $69 per horse-power. As a concession, however, was made to R. R. Muir, this fall has eventually got into the hands of the Winnipeg Electric Railway Company, which can develop that power now in almost any way it thinks proper under regulations which are not adequate for the protection of the public interest.
The other falls granted in 1906 are Silver falls, which with the Pine falls have a total head of 37 feet. On a basis of 75 per cent efficiency, at an 8/10 rate, they will produce 38,000 horse-power at a cost **[DOT]i $70 per horse-power. One fall cannot be efficiently developed without the other. In 1906 there was an agreement of sale made by the last Administration with one J. S. Cummins, of Chicago, of land where the Silver falls are located-river lot 1 and fractional west half of section 1, township 18, range 10,. east 271 acres, at $250 per acre, or a total of $67,750, payable in ten annual instalments. This was made without any regulations at all respecting the development or the use of the power. The effect will be, if the agreement remains outstanding-and I wish to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior to this- that it will render inefficient the Pine falls. There therefore are left for development on the Winnipeg river only two main falls -the Slave falls and the McArthur falls. It will be to the interest of the people of the West if the Government will repossess itself of those powers which are not developed, and will develop them for the benefit of the people of the West, of the cities and towns of the West and of the farming community generally.
I wish now to refer to the regulations which are existing, in order to show that they are entirely inadequate when compared with the regulations of other countries, or with the regulations of the province of Ontario. Under the Act respecting water-powers in Ontario, it is required by paragraph 4, sub-paragraph (d):
That the applicant 'shall furnish proof satisfactory to the minister that the said water privilege is required for the applicant's own mechanical or industrial purposes or to supply an actual or anticipated demand for power in the neighbourhood of the privilege,' and may require a deposit for the proposed development.
There are no such requirements in our Dominion regulations. Paragraph 9 of the Ontario regulations says:
No such lease shall be granted for a longer term than twenty years, but the lessee shall have the right of renewal of such lease for two further and successive terms of ten years 210
each upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon or may be fixed by the minister.
Paragraph 13 provides:
The Lieutenant Governor may cancel, if the lessee does not comply with the requirements of the regulations.
Compare that with the Dominion regula-lations. Paragraph 8, sub-paragraph (a) says:
The term of the license shall be twenty-one years, renewable for three further consecutive terms of twenty-one years each, at a fixed fee payable annually, and to be readjusted at the beginning of each term, as hereunder provided.
In other words, those powers are tied up for a period of eighty-four years under the Dominion regulations. Paragraph 8, subparagraph (c) provides:
At the expiry of each term of twenty-one years the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the minister, order and direct that the license and any lease granted in connection therewith be cancelled:	Provided that the minister shall have given at least one year's notice to the licensee of intention so to cancel.


Mr. NEELY:: Will the hon. gentleman
be good enough to tell me which particular part of the Bill he is discussing at the present time?


James Albert Manning Aikins: Paragraph 1 relates to
water-powers.


David Bradley Neely: Land, I think.


James Albert Manning Aikins: Land and water-powers.
The Dominion regulations provide for cancellation in certain cases, but not to the extent provided by the Ontario regulations. Paragraph 8, sub-paragraph (e) provides:
That on the termination of the third renewal-that is at the end of 63 years-compensation shall be paid for the works to the amount fixed by arbitration.
The Ontario regulations provide, in paragraph 12, subsection 1:
That at the expiry or sooner determination of the lease the water privilege shall revert to and become . the property of the Crown together with all dams, weirs, tunnels, races, etc., and all buildings erected on land covered by the lease; but the lessee may remove all machinery, but if the buildings are of a suitable character for utilizing the water privilege the Hydro-Electric Commission may fix compensation.
They provide further-paragraph 12, subsection (m):
The lease shall at all times be subject to any general regulations thereafter made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council affecting the construction and operation of works for the development of water privileges or the supply of power therefrom.

There appears to be no similar provision in the Dominion regulations.
The Ontario regulations, paragraph 12, subsection (b), may require the lessee to develop to the full capacity, and makes provision for the use by other parties than the lessee of the surplus or unused water not required by him for the purposes of his business on such terms as may he agreed upon. No such salutary provision occurs in the Dominion regulations.
The Ontario regulations, paragraph 12, subsection (d) provides that if a person desires to have power from the lessee and they cannot agree, on report by the Power Commission, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may fix the rates to be paid by the person desiring such power, and, in fixing the compensation, the commission may demand the production of books, records, verifications, etc. No such provision exists in the Dominion Regulations, nor in those regulations is there any provision that the lessee shall be obliged to furnish power to other persons or public bodies.
The Dominion regulations provide that-a schedule of rates and prices to be charged to the public for the use of power shall be submitted by the licensee to the Board of Railway Commissioners for adjustment and approval before being put into effect, and that the schedule shall be readjusted and approved every seven years; but, as was pointed out, the licensee is not obliged to sell to the public that power nor is there any body provided for fixing rates for power from time to time required by the users of power.
Compare the two sets of regulations, and one can easily see which is more for the interest of the public. We know that under the Ontario regulations the Hydro-Electric Commission has done much to develop the industries of our country by procuring for it cheap power.
The only reason why this amending clause was introduced in the Act was that there should be no homesteading of any lands upon which there are water-powers or which are adjacent to water-powers and are required for their development. I think that this provision is a thoroughly suitable one.
I wish again to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior to the necessity of developing those water-powers which belong to the Dominion Government, so that industries may be established in the West and so that the people of the western country may be placed in a similar position to that of the farmers of the western part of

Ontario who have the benefit of home markets and established industrial centres.


Frank Oliver: I do not altogether agree with-my hon. friend when he counsels the Government against any relaxation of homestead regulations. The duties and responsibilities of Government vary with changing conditions. While there is much to be said in favour of the general principle laid down by my hon. friend-much to be said in support of the facts as he stated them, namely, that there is a tendency on the part of the homesteaders in some cases to evade the requirements of the regulations-on the other hand, there is a necessity, under certain conditions, that the regulations should be made more reasonable. It appears to me that in this country either we must face a diminution in our rate of progress or we must make some change in the conditions relating to homesteading. I do not need to airgue that notwithstanding, as my hon. friend has sadd, that only a small proportioai of the land alienated is actually cultivated, the fact remains that it is the bringing under cultivation of that comparatively small percentage that has given Canada the progress that she has niade during recent years. If there i3 a diminution in the rate of increase of homesteading, there must necessarily be a corresponding diminution of the rate of progress of Canada at large- industrially, commercially, financially and in the way of transportation. So, when the minister is face to face with a condition which shows a rapid and steady decrease in the number of homestead entries in our western country and a startling decrease in the number of preemption entries, it is his business to look around and see what he can do to meet the conditions and to recover the rate of progress that is not only desirable but absolutely necessary to the prosperity of Canada. In the answer to a question asked by myself on February 2, it was stated that in the calendar year 1911 the homestead entries were 38,585, in 1912, 35,226, and in 1913, 29,640, not including the returns from Peace River -and Grand Prairie for the week ending December 31. Our pre-emption entries were 10,583 in 1911, 8,947 in 1912, and 6,483 in 1913. Our homestead entries have gone down 10,000 in two years, and our pre-emption entries have gone down very nearly 50 per cent in that time. These being the facts, I think the minister is *well warranted in consider-

ing in what way he may, by relaxation of the requirements of homestead and preemption duties, stimulate further occupation of western lands. There is no denying that the condition exists, and that it has a very important bearing upon our progress. I have already given the figures to the House, but I take the liberty of repeating that sales of land, which amounted in 1911 to 1,496,000 acres, bringing a total of $19,122,937, have fallen to 707,149 acres, bringing $9,367,155 in the fiscal year 19f3. There has been a decrease in the demand for land all along the line.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: Would not the fact that there are fewer homesteads and preemptions accessible now than there were a few years ago have some bearing upon what my hon. friend has said?


Frank Oliver: There are certainly fewer homesteads and pre-emptions available to-day than there -were three years ago; that, of course, goes without saying.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I mean near the railways; they are nearly all taken up.


Frank Oliver: The construction of railways has largely rendered accessible land that a few years was not accessible because of the lack of railways. There were less lands available for either homestead or pre-emption entry in 1911 than there -were in 1908, but there were a great many more homestead and pre-emptions taken up in 1911 than were taken up in 1908. There is a vast country in the Northwest that is almost untouched by settlement, but to which settlement is going. The great Peace River country is available for settlement; its land is surveyed, and people are going there in thousands. I do not think, therefore, that there is any argument in the suggestion that there is not now plenty of land for people to take if they want to take it. I am prepared to maintain that the people do not want the land in the year 1914, under present conditions, as they did in the year 1911.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What are the conditions?


Frank Oliver: In the first place-and I
make no apology for dealing with the matter from this point of view-I think I have already established in the minds of the members of this House the fundamental importance of the question of homesteading to the welfare and progress of the whole Dominion of Canada; and, when we find that homestead and pre-emption entries 2101
are on the rapid decrease, that is a time when we can surely impress upoln the House and upon the country the reason for that decrease that is so detrimental to the welfare of our country.


Mr. McKAY:: When the hon. member
speaks of homestead entries that were made, does .he include the purchased homesteads?


Frank Oliver: I am just giving the return ; I think they are included. At any rate, the purchased homsteads are not so numerous as to make any serious difference in the total count.
There is no doubt that first and foremost, in the years of rapid increase from 1905 to 1911 there were favourable conditions in regard to crop prices which stimulated homesteading. There was a further belief in the minds of settlers of that day that the Government of the day, in its policy and administration, had the interests of homesteaders and homesteading, the interests of the residents and cultivators of the western country, at heart, and that in the efforts they were making they could depend upon it that the Government was behind them. It need not be emphasized, as the facts have been brought forward in this House time and time again, that since our friends took office, since their views in regard to public policy have had sway, that condition has been absolutely reversed, and that to-day the homesteader of the West- the resident, the farmer

feels that he has not the sympathy arid support of the Government, that he has not the advantage of a Government policy that is favourable to the success of his endeavours.


Mr. CURRIE:: That is what the hon.
gentleman and his followers are trying to make them think; they are discouraging them.


Frank Oliver: I am placing before the
House a certain condition of facts which is shown in the blue book issued by the Minister of the Interior. It is for the House and the country either to take cognizance of these facts or not as they please; but the facts are there and it is not what I say or what anybody else says, it is the fact that homestead entries are decreasing and showing a continued decrease showing that people do not want the land of the western country as they did under former circumstances. That is not a matter of argument; it is a matter of fact, and I am taking the opportunity to place before the House and the country and the Government the tremendous responsibility that rests upon the Government in adherence to the policy

which they have enunciated in this House from time to time since they took office.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: In what way has this Government reversed the policy against the farmer of western Canada?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend knows
that in the elections of 1911


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: But you carried on the
Government before that.


Frank Oliver: The Government of the
day administered the affairs of the West to the satisfaction of the people of the West.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How have we changed
that?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend has changed it in this way, that he has not changed his policy or his administration to meet the change of conditions. As long as prices were high and were going up, a condition of facts existed that called for a certain administration; tout when prices were going down a different administration was required, and that is where there is a lack of confidence to-day. When there is a falling of prices in the West, instead of means being taken by this Government, as were taken by their predecessors, to improve conditions, the demand for an open market has been turned down specifically and repeatedly in this House by the Government and its supporters, including my hon. friend.


James Albert Manning Aikins: Wherein is there any difference between the policy of the late Administration prior to 1911 and the policy of the present Administration relating to homesteading?


Frank Oliver: I will deal with the homesteads later. I am dealing now with the trade question, with the general question of the prosperity and welfare of the country; and I say that this Government has taken a stand, ever .since it has been in office, which has created a distrust and dissatisfaction in the minds of the people who are on the land in the western country that is reflected in the conditions of homesteading as shown by the return from the Government itself. I say therefore that the Government must accept on behalf of its policy the results which are shown there and be responsible for the necessary consequences and results of that policy to the country.
Now, as to the administration of

the land. I shall not weary the House or burden it with details, but the first act of this Government when it took office was to practically make a clean sweep of the land administration throughout those western provinces and establish, from beginning to end, an absolutely political administration, a political organization absolutely for political purposes. The facts have been placed before the House repeatedly. It is not necessary, at least at this late date in the session, to go into details. We have the facts, homestead inspectors canvassing for votes along with candidates of the Conservative party, homestead inspectors tried for intimidating voters in their positions as homestead inspectors.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Is that anything
new?


Frank Oliver: I am apoligizing for repeating it, but to round out the argument I wish to do so. It is a fact that a homestead inspector named Ambrose Grey was himself a candidate in the Alberta elections. He is to-day homestead inspector. I need not multiply instances; there are plenty of them. From Winnipeg to the Rocky mountains they have established a political organization in control of the heritage of the people of this country. They have established a reign of terror among the homesteaders on the prairie, and the result is reflected in the returns as you see them here. I am not young in that country; I have been [DOT] there a long time. I have seen several changes of Government, and the very model of the administration that has .taken place since this Government came into power is the Administration! that pre-\ ailed from 1878 to 1896, with the result that in 1896 there were a few less homesteads taken up than in 1878. We had twenty years of absolute stagnation in that country as a result of the methods that our hon. friends opposite installed the moment they took office, and which they have carried on consistently ever since. They cannot hlame Providence; they cannot blame circumstances for conditions that they themselves have absolutely created, and for which they are immediately .and directly responsible. If this country, today, is suffering from a condition, of stagnation so fair as western progress is con* cerned-and western progress means eastern progress as every man in this House knows,

and as most men in eastern Canada are beginning to thoroughly understand-it has resulted from the policy of the Government, and the Government must take full responsibility for it. The stagnation of western Canada means the stagnation of the whole of Canada.


Mr. WRIGHT:: My horn, friend is criticising the homestead inspectors and the officials. I would ask him if he can name a single inspector who was removed from office by the present Government who had not been proved to be a violent partisan under the late Administration.


Frank Oliver: Most undoubtedly. Some time ago I asked for a return in regard to officials removed in my district, and the return showed that there was not even a suggestion of partisanship against the dismissed officials.


William Wright: Have you the. names?


Frank Oliver: Yes:	Gordon Macdonald
is one; Peter Tompkin is another. They made a general accusation against the latter, but there was absolutely no evidence of partisanship, and no investigation was held. In the other cases there was no pretense of removal because of political partisanship. These removals were made for the purpose of appointing political partisans in order to establish a party organization in the prairie provinces at the cost of the people of Canada. That party organization is at work to-day. It has established a reign of terror amongst the homesteaders with the result that homestead and pre-emption entries have decreased, and the minister has to come forward and suggest relaxation of the conditions in order, as he hopes, to stimulate further interest. I hope he will be successful.


William Wright: I would like to say that travelling through that northwestern country I met man after man who told me, when I asked which party he supported, that he was supporting the Liberal party simply because he could never hope to get a patent without supporting that party.


Frank Oliver: I am sorry for my hon. friend in the kind of people he associated with when in the West. I do not believe they were a fair sample of the people of that country. The number of patents that were issued during the time that the Liberal Government was in power is evidence that the suggestions of my hon. friend are not in accordance with the facts.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to tell my hon. friend that grave complaint has been made to me many times during the past few years, that in large sections of the prairie provinces the people are still under the impression that the hon. member for Edmonton is Minister of the Interior.


Frank Oliver: I have the same complaint to make myself, I regret to say. I receive many appeals for consideration from one man and another.


Robert Laird Borden: If they imagine that there is a reign of terror, they must be attributing it to my hon. friend.


Frank Oliver: Some of them, no doubt, do. Judging by the letters I receive, there are people who fully believe that the Government with which I was associated is responsible for the conditions they complain of; but that is not my fault, nor does it vitiate the argument I make. In the majority of cases the homesteaders are well aware of the change. Whether one Government is in their minds or another, the fact remains that they do not want land to-day as they did three years ago; and one of the reasons is that they believe they do not get a square deal from the Department of the Interior to-day. That is the essential point. My point is that the yearly increase in the number of homestead and preemption entries under the stringent conditions that were imposed by the late Government-purposely stringent-is good evidence that the- people were satisfied with the administration of the Department of the Interior, just as the fact that the demands for land are on the decrease Is evidence that, to-day, they are not satisfied with the conditions that cause them to dispose of the land, or with the conditions under which they can obtain land.
Mr. GEORGE E. FOSTER: How does my hon. friend explain that from 1906 to 1908 there was an almost exactly similar decrease in homestead entries? Are the reasons that he gives to-day good reasons for that decrease, or what is the reason?


Frank Oliver: That is a matter that may very well call for explanation. The reason is this: before I became minister, my predecessor was doing just exactly as my hon. friend proposes to do now. He was administering under very lax regulations in order to stimulate entries, and one of those regulations was the right of proxy entry. Any person might make entry on behalf of a number of people in Ontario, or the Mari-

time provinces, or the States, so that when these people came out t-o the West their land would be already selected. That was a perfectly good proposal so long as there was not an abnormal demand for land. But as soon as speculative conditions entered into it the privilege was seriously abused, and the practice of blanketing homesteads took place. One man would come in and blanket a whole township with entries, and dispose of those entries to his friends at an advantage. We found that privilege so much abused that we were compelled to cut it out, and while I was Minister of the Interior I had to turn loose the whole homestead inspection staff, all over the West, in order to wipe out the blanket entries that had been made for speculative purposes rather than for settlement. The large number of entries in 1906, or whatever year it was, was when the blanketing had reached its maximum. The lion. Minister will remember that the matter was discussed in the House. The cutting out of that practice accounts for the tremendous drop that took place in the number of entries immediately afterwards. Entries shortly afterwards began to steadily increase, as the returns show. If we are to maintain the rate of progress that we have had in the past, I say that the conditions certainly call for a change in some way.
I find no fault with the minister for making the changes along the lines that he has suggested. I do not agree with him altogether in the details of the -Changes, but I find no fault with him for making them. Under the present conditions it is necessary to do something and this is possibly one of the things that may be done. But the trouble is wider and deeper than that; it is the political administration of the Lands Department and the Government's fiscal and trade policy that retards the progress and welfare of the people of that western country.


Mr. KNOWLES:: The present Minister
of the Inte-iior (Mr. Roche) has now been in office, I think, a year. It has been of great interest to those of us who represent thousands and scores of thousands living on the prairies to make a study of the policy which he proposed to adopt and the line of action which he proposed to direct his employees to follow. My first expectation and belief in regard to what the minister would set himself out to do was that he would endeavour to give the people a square deal. I have taken the trouble, in two or three instances, to test the minister and as far as the cases have enabled

me to succeed, I have been disappointed in what I have learned in regard to the minister's control of his officials. About a month ago, in this Chamber, I called attention to the way in which homestead inspectors spent their time during the provincial elections of 1912 and I showed the minister that homestead inspectors were going out for as long as ten days at a time without making any inspections at all. I also showed that this was connived at and that such actions were never rebuked. They did not seem to phase the minister in the slightest. He seemed to be of the opinion that officials at election time were perfectly at liberty to spend week after week doing nothing for their salaries except running up .their expenses. If there was nothing else to convince me that the minister was failing to take that personal interest in the administration of his department in the West that his duty would require him to take this one circumstance would be sufficient.
The minister is, in the last resort, the hope and confidence of the homesteader on the prairie. The minister is bound, amongst his lower officials, unless he weeds them out carefully to have in his service a great many people who have not honesty enough to give the homesteader a square deal. There are a number of party heelers in every party. There are undercurrents and motives, even of the smallest kind, which affect the administration of the law, and unless at the top of the department there is a man whom the under officials fear, some of these officials will be corrupt and will persecute the poor homesteaders on the land. In the last resort, while I do not think that, even unfortunate as has been my experience, the minister personally would initiate anything that was wrong, yet it is the duty of the minister not only to be straight himself but in a stringent way to compel straightness and honesty in the people who serve under him. Unless the minister asserts his authority over his subordinates and sees that right is done he is derelict in regard to the trust that is reposed in him.
It is a very serious thing for the minister to sit calmly in his office and say: Well, Mr. Cuttle, my man out West, says so and so should get the homestead, then put his O.K. on the file and let it go. The homestead, after all, is the most precious thing that the man on the prairie has. It is the one hope that the man, his wife and children have in their lives, and it is as precious to that constituent of mine as the home of the Prime Minister in the city of Ottawa.

It is just as hard a thing for that homesteader, his wife and his children, to be turned out on the concession line in Saskatchewan as it would be for the Prime Minister to be turned out of his hoir^e in Ottawa, There is no difference in principle and it is just as unjust to turn the homesteader out of his homestead on the prairie as it would be to turn the rich man or the professional man out of his home in the city. Until the minister realizes that he is the custodian and guardian of the rights and hearths of these people the minister will fail to realize the responsibility that is placed upon him.
I called the minister's attention by a long telegram last fall to a case which called for investigation on his part. I wired him, stating the case and telling him that a great wrong was being done. I got an answer from his secretary, or some employee of the department, saying that the minister was in Winnipeg and that the wire would be forwarded to him. I never heard another word about it, directly or indirectly, until I brought it up in this House. I moved for the papers when I got down here although it was early in September that the telegram had been sent. I followed the case up and insisted that an investigation be held. The minister directed that an investigation should take place. The evidence was taken and the facts that I am going to show are established not only by the evidence but by the return which the minister has brought down. I shall try to show that in that case the minister, speaking of him as a minister of the Crown, is just as responsible for the injustice done to that man as if he were the man who had initiated the wrong. I asked for the papers. I found that a man by the name of J. N. Beaubien had heid the homestead to which I refer, six miles from Gravelbourg, ever since 1907 and that there is no evidence of one day's residence during that time. This return to which I refer, No. 110H, was brought down on March 19, 1914, and theTe are affidavits of some six or seven persons showing that this man, Beaubien, had, during all these years, lived with his family over his butcher shop, in the town, or village, of Gravelbourg. On the same file there is the affidavit of Beaubien himself saying, on two different occasions, that all the time he had lived on the homestead with his family. Beaubien I neither know nor know not in the way of desiring to say anything about him. He is a mere pawn upon the chess board to-day. I have met him. He was a Liberal

a fawning, sycophantic, favour-asking Liberal, such an uninfluential fellow that no man would consider it worth while to refer to him with the slightest personal feeling. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior has him now, but he will find that his support is net worth having. He was a supporter of mine iip to the last election; at the present time he is a supporter of the Prime Minister. As far as 1 know, he and creatures like him, are of no use to any party and we are fortunate in having lost him. He always should have been a Tory. The declaration of Beaubien is held to be false by the finding and the report of Mr. Cuttle -himself who held the investigation. In the return which the minister brought down, page 7, Beaubien makes the following false statement:
For what period did your wife and family reside with you during such residence? If not with you, where have they resided?
The answer is as follows:
On the homestead all the time, always with me.
I shall show before I am through that in this investigation Beaubien himself said that his wife had not lived with him but had been keeping a boarding house over his butcher shop in the town of Gravelbourg.
He is askeed at page 77 of this return:
Q. What actual residence have you since performed-(if the period of residence is not continuous state the months or portions of months in each year)?
A. From May 29, 1907 to May 31, 1910, except during December, 1908, and from May 31, 1910, practically to date.
That is shown later to be an absolute falsehood. At page 47 of the return, Beaii-bien repeats this false evidence. He is asked:
Q. What actual residence have you since performed?
A. Practically the whole time since.
Q For what period have your wife and family resided with you during such residence?
A. All the time.
If the minister looked into this as it was his duty to do when I called his attention to it, he would have found that this was an absolute falsehood. To start with, he has given that homestead to a perjurer and the minister will not dare to say that there ;s the slightest evidence of truthfulness in that statement, and Mr. Cuttle who was the tool of the heelers in that district says he was not in good standing when the man Arguin got the entry. There is no debating whatever about it, the minister will not
333a

say that there is the slightest element of truth in it.


Mr. MORPHY:: Do you contend that
perjury having been proven the minister should not cancel?


William Erskine Knowles: Under the late Government it was the custom when men made false statements about their homesteads to call them to account very sharply. There were quite a number of prosecutions for perjury. It is the only way in which the public could be protected. I fancy that under this Government there have been some prosecutions also, but the minister will know about that better than I. If a person deliberately makes a false statement as to his residence duty I would have no hesitation in answering that his entry should be cancelled. On pages 62, 63, 70 and 73 of this same return there are statements of people who say that all the time Beaubien with his family had been residing in the village of Gravelbourg.
The department, on the 22nd of February, 1912 (page 67 of this return), ordered that the homestead inspector's report be received in this matter. Arguin's application for cancellation proceedings was first taken on the 10th of November, 1911. The inspector's report was ordered the 22nd of February, 1912, and this report was not made until September 14, seven months later. Everything was done to protect this man to the very fullest extent, the seven months' delay proving the same as an interim protection for him. The provincial elections were on, and the inspectors no doubt were busy at other places, although there is evidence that the inspector was on several occasions in the vicinity of this homestead. On page 59 of the return we have the homestead inspector's report, which is false as false can be, and it is simply an indication to the minister of the kind of homestead inspectors he has landed on him. He is asked:
Q. What residence has been performed?
And he says:
From May 29, 1910 to November 30, 1911, and is now in residence.
The statement that he was
5 p.m. then in residence, the evidence shows to be false. Arguin, the applicant for cancellation, continued seeking redress from the minister and he wrote to the minister personally on different occasions, as will be found by the return, pages 54 and 40. There were almost supplicating letters from Arguin 
for a square deal. Things dragged on throughout all that year, and the man Beaubien was protected until December, 1912. Then, for over a year * cancellation proceedings had been hanging fire. He then, without any reason at all so far as the file shows, had been given further gratuitous protection until April 1, and here we come to the important part of it. On December 28, the department wrote to Arguin the following letter:
Ottawa, December 28, 1912.
N.E. \ 22-11-5 W. 3rd M.
sir,-I beg- to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated the 10th instant, in reference to -the cancellation proceedings instituted on your behalf against the pre-emption entry of Jos. N. Beaubien for the above land, and in reply to say that under the general rule of the department cancellations are deferred until the 1st April, 1913.
However, it will be necessary for Mr. Beaubien, by the date mentioned, to satisfy the local agent at Moosejaw that he is in residence with the intention of remaining there and completing the duties; otherwise the agent will cancel his entry without further notice and you will be given an opportunity to re-enter for the land.
Your obedient servant,
F. Nelson,
for Assistant Secretary. Joseph W. Arguin, Esq.,
Gravelbourg, Sask.
The same kind of letter was sent to Beaubien, and the same kind of letter was sent to the agent. The 1st of April, 1913, came around and it was practically a year and a half after cancellation proceedings had been under way. Arguin then sought on the 1st of April, 1913, to make his entry. Beaubien was not in residence. He did not comply with his requirement to satisfy the agent, as he was told that he was in residence, and according to the letter that was written from Ottawa his entry should have been ipso facto cancelled. I want to call the attention of the minister to another part of the political influence in this. Did the agent cancel it as he was instructed in the letter of the 28th of December? When Arguin sought to get his entry on the 1st of April as he was promised it would be cancelled, they refused it and the agent instead wrote back to Ottawa for instructions. That was a subterfuge, it was playing the game of Beaubien. The department wrote back and said: You are to follow the instructions of the letter of the 28th December, 1912, and cancel the entry. And then, unwillingly and reluctantly, the agent cancelled the entry and Arguin got entry for the land. That was what he had been seeking, and that was the proper thing to do but even if it rested there, there would still be

complaint on Arguin's part because he had been kept a year and a half out of the homestead. But Beaubien got busy. The file does not tell what he did. Rumour said he saw the minister himself, personally, when in Moosejaw; rumour has it that in an upper room apart by themselves, secretly by night, Beaubien and his friends gathered to see the minister and that they were told it would be all right and that Beaubien would get the homestead back. I do not know about that rumour, but I know they saw the minister; and I know they placed* it before him, and I know the result, namely, that he gave Beaubien back the entry.


Mr. ROCHE:: Where was this supposed
to have taken place?


William Erskine Knowles: The geographical location of it is a matter of indifference. Beaubien did not tell me the location of it, but he boasted everywhere in Gravelbourg that he had such a pull with the Government that the minister would be compelled to give the homestead back to him. I know that the minister, while in the West, was seen on behalf of Beaubien and I know further that he gave Beaubien back the homestead. There is not the slightest scintilla of evidence to show that the entry of Beaubien was wrongfully cancelled. It was the proper thing to cancel Beaubien's entry it would have been the proper thing to cancel it a year before it was cancelled. Just because Beaubien comes along with his political heelers and gets after the homestead inspector, after Mr. Cuttle, after the land agent, after the minister himself, the entry of Arguin is cancelled and the homestead is given back to Beaubien. There was absolutely no justification for doing so. I do not know of another case where a man has rightfully obtained entry, as Arguin obtained his entry, and then has had his homestead taken away from him just because of political influence. Mr. Beaubien was in default and his homestead entry was rightfully cancelled; but the excuse was made that he was in Winnipeg-he had not told the land agent that he was going-with his wife who had to undergo a slight operation on her throat in the Winnipeg hospital, and the minister drove Arguin and his wife and children off the homestead and gave it back to Beaubien, although Arguin was rightfully in possession of the land. An investigation was held, but everybody in Gravelbourg believed and said that it was a cut-and-dried matter that Beaubien would get back his homestead. I was West when the investigation was held and I told the investigators to stay their judgment because I had some doubts as to whether the Minister of the Interior would after all permit his political heelers to do a wrong like that to Arguin.
Evidence was taken at the investigation.
I do not intend to weary the House by reading it, but I am going to refer to a few pages of it. Mr. Cuttle held the investigation in Gravelbourg. I do not know him, but I know that he has done a raw and heartless thing that the so-called thin-red-line Leach would never have done. Under the circumstances I think we had better nickname this man cut-throat Cuttle. If the present Minister of Public Works had been in charge of the Department of the Interior, then I believe this would never have happened, because he has a kind heart and does not believe in seeing men with their wives and children turned out on the road and deprived of their homes wrongfully; and I believe he would have looked into the matter a little more carefully than the Minister of the Interior has done. Cuttle has shown the spirit of a cut-throat in the wrong he has done. When the investigation was held, Mr. Cuttle made Arguin's lawyer prove his case; he made him start with every witness, and Beau-bien's law'yer would not allow him to lead the witnesses, although in this case it was surely up to Beaubien to show why he should .be restored. Arguin had got rightful entry, and Beaubien had been cancelled rightfully, but from start to finish Arguin's lawyer had to examine every witness first. There is the evidence of twelve witnesses, every one of whom says that Mr. Beaubien was living, as far as the witness knew, in the town of Gravelbourg. Two of these witnesses were bank managers, who for two or three years had lived right opposite Beaubien in the town of Gravelbourg, and who swore that, as far as they knew, Beaubien was living with his family at his butchershop and his boarding-house in the town. The minister knows that, if a man is going to carry on business in a town, he must have his wife and children living on the homestead. Beaubien did not even sleep on his homestead; but, even if he had done so, it would not have been putting in residence, because a man carrying on business in a town must have his family on the homestead. Under that rule a single man cannot earn his homestead if he is carrying on business in a town.
I wish to refer especially to the following witnesses: Mr. Dureault, at page 16

of the evidence; Mr. Gray, manager of the Union Bank of Canada in Gravelbourg, page 22; Mr. Magee, manager of the Bank of Toronto in Gravelbourg, page 30; Mr. Hamlin, telegraph operator, who has been in Gravelbourg for three years, page 33; Mr. Dubinsson, one of the witnesses and friends of Mr. Beaubien himself, page 51. All the evidence was to the effect that Mr. Beaubien had not put in any residence duties at all. Long after Arguin had been placed in possession of the land, some affidavits were put in by certain friends of Beaubien to cover his entry to the effect that the residence duties had been performed. They were merely general statements, nobody daring to give the' dates or to say that Beaubien's wife had ever lived anywhere except in the town of Gravelbourg. In fact it was regarded as a joke in the town, to say that Beaubien's family were living on the homestead, because they were not doing so. There is nothing at all in these affidavits except general statements to make a sort of cushion on which Beaubien might be let down.
After the evidence was taken, Mr. Cuttle made the only report he could, namely that Beaubien was in default. The first part of his letter to the department states who appeared as counsel and so on. Mr. Cuttle further says:
While I am of the opinion that Mr. Beaubien has not performed bona fide residence duties for his pre-emption entry, I feel that, as Mr. Beaubien was protected until April * 1 to go into residence, it should be taken into account the serious illness of his wife. The evidence is quite clear that Mr. Beaubien left with his wife for the Winnipeg hospital about March 24, and did not return to Gravelbourg until April 5, and while he was absent his land was cancelled. I am not prepared to say that Mr. Beaubien would have been in residence if his wife had not taken sick, hut I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt.
If you are going to cancel a man's homestead in the West just because a former entrant who has held it for four years and has not done anything on it, happens to be in Winnipeg because his wife is undergoing an operation at the time that his last extension runs out, no man in the West will be able to feel sure of his entry. Mr. Beaubien swore in the evidence that he did not want the land himself, because he had lots of land. In his evidence on page 116 he said that he wanted it only for his son. Mr. Beaubien is a rich man. Mr. Cuttle, in a letter of his to the department trying to get the thing straightened out at an earlier stage of the game, said 
that Beaubien was a very influential man in the town of Gravelbourg. In another letter he says that the witnesses of Mr. Beaubien, are very influential. If that be true, it demonstrates the necessity of the minister protecting the poor man as against the rich man. If he be a butcher, a storekeeper or a man in any business-not the kind of person who would likely be a bona fide settler-the duty of the minister is all the more apparent. This reference of Mr. Cuttle to Mr. Beaubien being an influential .man 'may be found on pages 29 and 30 of the return brought down by the minister.
The lawyer who defended Beaubien is a prominent Conservative. In the same rig they drove twenty-eight or thirty miles from Gravelbourg after the hearing was over. I wish to make no reflection upon my brother lawyer of the city of Moosejaw who acted as cousel, but I do say that the gentleman who acted as judge should Jhave kept more to himself if he were desirous of listening only to the evidence. Mr, Cuttle's report was sent to the department and came before Mr. Cory, the deputy minister. I will say this for Mr. Cory: he recommended the confirming of Beaubien's entry only because Mr. Cuttle himself recommended it. He says in his memorandum:
As Mr. Cuttle inquired personally Into this matter, I think that he should be considered as being in a better position than any one else to judge of the respective merits of each claim and I beg, therefore to recommend that Beaubien's entry be confirmed.
The matter comes before the minister, and the minister, by putting ' O.K., W.J.R.' upon the flies, drives Arguin off his quarter-section and gives the land to this Tory heeler Beaubien. That was a fatal thing for the minister to do; it was a great wrong. Mr. Cuttle himself says that Beaubien was not in good standing. Well, says the minister, if he is not in>
good standing, give the entry to his son. For nine years I have been giving most of my time to the service of my constituents, and I know something about homesteads.
I know that a father cannot transfer his homestead to his son while there is application for cancellation against him; his entry must be in good standing before he can do so. If it were determined that this outlandish wrong should be done, the minister should have said to Beaubien: get into residence for thirty days; put yourself in good standing, and you can

abandon the pre-emption in favour of your son. According to the evidence, Beau-bien had not been in residence for many years; yet, with cancellation proceedings against him, he was allowed to abandon the quarter-section in favour of his son. If I had no other ground for argument, I would rest my case upon that point. In view of the fact that the man was in bad standing, if the minister would not give the land to the applicant for cancellation, the least he could do would be to protect the man until he got his land in good standing. The rules were absolutely violated when Mr. Arguin's application for cancellation was brushed aside and Mr. Beaubien's son given the homestead.
Either the minister has read this file and knows that what I say is true, or he has not. I do not believe the minister could read this evidence and come to the conclusion that the department was justified in cancelling Arguin's entry and putting Beaubien back on the land; I rather think that he never studied the files. But even though I take that charitable view of the matter, in view of the actions of the crowd of Tory heelers who are operating out West, I will have to give to the thousands of homesteaders whom I represent the message that no man is safe on his home on the prairie uness he appeases the desires of the Tory wolves who are trying to get	his	land.	That statement I
make on my responsibility as a member of this House. The only source of protection for the homesteader is the hon. minister, and if the minister fails to do his duty the homesteader will be left at the mercy of the unprincipled men who do such wrongs as those to which I have referred.


William Roche: I have not before me the original file of the department in connection with this case; I got a copy of it as soon as the hon. member started to speak, and I have not, therefore, summed up the evidence. I did not think that a discussion of this kind would arise on a Bill to amend the Dominion Lands Act. This whole matter was gone into when the Estimates were up, and no doubt it will be taken up a third time when the Estimates are up again. I may say that I have had no reason to change the views which I expressed in my statement of the case when the hon. gentleman brought the matter up the first time.


William Erskine Knowles: The investigation was held since.


William Roche: Nothing that took place
in connection with the investigation has changed my mind with regard to the recommendation originally made by the inspector of land agencies, which was confirmed by him after the holding of this sworn investigation.
Mr. Beaubien was in possession of this land for some years; he had a homestead and a pre-emption. He had his residence on the' homestead and he discharged his duties, so far as cultivation is concerned, beyond question. The hon. gentleman him-, self does not deny that he more than carried out the provisions of the law, in order to prove up his patent. As a matter of fact he has brought into cultivation 115 acres, almost the entire quarter-section. There is a question as to whether he has lived up to the residential part of his duties, but one would imagine from the remarks of the hon. gentleman this afternoon that this case has no parallel in the history of the West. To my personal knowledge, in years gone by Liberals in my home town conducted their business and went out to their homesteads three or four nights a week [DOT]in order to qualify for their patent. This kind of residence was passed upon and approved in countless instances by Liberal Ministers of the Interior.


William Erskine Knowles: Was that under the
present regulations, or under regulations which permitted it?


William Roche: The regulations did not
permit it at that time; it was not a question of the regulations being different from what they are to-day. In the West the manner in which Liberals were enabled to secure patents with practically no residence upon the land was a by-word among the people. Yet the hon. gentleman gets up and endeavours to make political capital against the minister and the Government because the gentleman in question conducted a business in the town, where a portion of his family resided, notwithstanding the fact that he performed his other homestead duties in a satisfactory manner. Were the Liberals in power I am sure that, having regard to the homestead duties which this man performed, he would, if of the required political faith, have at once been granted the patent. As a matter of fact, this gentleman had protection to the first day of April, in accordance with a general order which was issued last December. A great many bachelors who reside on their pre-emptions are desirou; of going -out during the cold winter months and earning something in the woods, and the

greatest leniency has been extended to them by this Government during the last two or three years with a view to giving them an opportunity to go out during the winter to earn money which they may expend upon their lands when the period of protection has closed.
All homesteads were protected by order of the department up to the 1st of April. It is true that before the 1st of April this gentleman had to go to a Winnipeg hospital with his wife and during his absence overlooked the fact that he should have notified the land agent of the district that he was going to be absent. But, as a matter of fact, his own evidence shows that when he went to Winnipeg he expected to be back before the 1st of April.


William Erskine Knowles: Where does the minister find that he was required to tell the agent that he was going away? The edict of the department was that he must be there in residence.


William Roche: An order of protection is
issued and if the homesteader is not able to go in residence at the time that the protection ceases he is supposed to give to the land agent the reasons why he could not go on the land, and if these reasons are looked upon by the agent as sufficient he is further protected. This gentleman was advised by his wife's physician in Winnipeg that if he stayed a few days longer his wife could return with him. He did so. During his absence this man Arguin stepped in and cancelled his homestead entry.


William Erskine Knowles: No, he cancelled it a
year and a half before, and in September all parties were told that it would be permanently cancelled on the 1st of April unless the man proved his residence. But your agent would not cancel it; he flim-flammed around and sent it to Ottawa again.


William Roche: There is no flim-flamming about it. The hon. gentleman is carried away by his political bias and cannot lay the true facts before the House.


William Erskine Knowles: That is not it; I have a little humanity.


William Roche: This man returned and
when he returned his place had been entered for during his absence. He therefore made application to have his entry reinstated and there was an investigation, not under oath, not a court case, held by Mr. Cuttle, who reported that as Beaubien had done so much and showed such evi-

deuce of being a bona fide homesteader by cultivating so much land, Beaubien should be reinstated under the circumstances, and accordingly his entry was reinstated. The hon. member for Moosejaw speaks about rumour stating that in some dark room in some place in the West this man Beaubien had a secret conference with myself and that I there pledged myself to restore his entry and that he had such a pull, to use the hon. member's own words, with the minister that no matter what defence was put in by Arguin he was going to get the land.


William Erskine Knowles: I did not say rumour. I made the statement that this man or his friends saw the minister and interfered on behalf of Beaubien.


William Roche: The hon. member said, at night time, in some room, in secret. All of that is absolutely untrue because it was in Moosejaw that I saw the man. I went into Moosejaw early and left at two o'clock in the afternoon. I met many friends while I was there, a luncheon was tendered to me and after the luncheon, -when I had only a few minutes to catch the train, Beaubien, with a deputation, saw me. I did not have five minutes conversation with them and I promised investigation; and on the strength of the telegram that the hon. gentleman himself sent here in my absence I asked that this entry should he held up until the investigation was made. Still the hon. member accuses me of political bias and says I would not extend him the ordinary courtesy of a reply. I held up Beau-bien's entry and got some very severe letters in regard to it from Beaubien's friends because he fully expected that he was going to get his land, that he was justified after the report of the inspector of land agencies. The investigation has now been held at the instance of the hon. gentleman. I have not had time to go over all' the evidence since coming into the House, although I have read it before. The hon. gentleman says there is not one tittle of evidence to show that a day's residence was performed.


William Erskine Knowles: Bona fide residence, I
make that statement.


William Roche: And Arguin himself in his evidence, at page 35, when cross-questioned by the lawyer was asked:
Would you say under oath that Beaubien never put In more than six or seven weeks on his homestead?
A. Never had any knowledge that he done more.

This is the man who wanted the land, And in the face of that the hon. member gets up and says that there is not a tittle of evidence to show that Beaubien ever put in a single day of residence and Arguin himself says that not to his knowledge did he ever put in more than seven weeks.
Mr. KNOWLES. Would the minister hang a cat on that? In the first place, Arguin does not know what official residence is, he must have had his family there.


William Roche: The hon. gentleman is
speaking about the evidence.


William Erskine Knowles: That is not evidence.
Arguin does not know what residence is and it is only a negative statement. He says:	I do not know. He does not say
that he stayed there seven weeks.


William Roche: If the hon. gentleman is
going to exclude a portion of this evidence that is not in accordance with his own views and state that is no evidence, it is no use arguing with a gentleman of that bias.
Mr. KNOWLES. The minister must not say that. I say that Arguin does not say that the man had stayed seven weeks. He said he did not stay more.


William Roche: I think it is unworthy of the hon. member to try to hang his hat on such a peg. All of these parties, more than twelve of them, gave evidence to the effect that this gentleman bad not put in any bona fide residence whatever, says the member for Moosejaw.


William Erskine Knowles: I did not say that. I said that as far as I knew his home had been in Gravelbourg.


William Roche: He is taking back now a good deal of what he stated. In fact I am afraid that when on his feet the hon. member really states' things that in his calmer moments he would regret. Some of these witnesses, when cross questioned, admitted that they could not swear whether this man had been on his farm or not. One of the gentlemen referred is Levasseur. This was his total examination:
Q. You are living on a farm, Mr. Levasseur?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How far from Beaubien's place?
A. Two miles.
Q. Do you remember Mr. Beaubien being in residence there since 1910?
A. X used to stay home and he lived two miles from me.
Q. Had you occasion to go by the place?
A. No.
Q. Then you could not tell me whether he lived there or not?
A. No.
That is the total examination of one of the witnesses for Arguin and still the hon. member quotes this man as one of the witnesses to bear out the statement of Arguin in regard to Beaubien's residence. From the evidence of other witnesses I could quote much the same all the way through if I wanted to take up the time of the House, but I think I have quoted sufficient to impress at least the fair minded members that the hon. gentleman exceeded his duties entirely in drawing upon his imagination rather than relying on the facts as stated in this report of the investigation. He states that the deputy minister really approved of this and recommended it because it was recommended by Cuttle, the inspector of agencies, who conducted the investigation, was on the ground and was in a better position to judge than we are here. 1 do not desire to screen myself behind any officials of the department. I realize my responsibility as head of the department; but, at the same time not knowing the details myself, having had an investigation conducted by a gentleman in whose impartiality honour and integrity I have every confidence, notwithstanding the scurrilous names applied to him by the hon. member for Moosejaw to-day in a manner that was unworthy of the hon. gentleman, when the deputy minister coincided in the view of the commissioner that no matter what doubt there might be as to the completeness of Beaubien's residence under the circumstances it would be a shame- that in effect is their report-to drive Beaubien from the land, I concurred in that decision.
I notice that he tried to make a point by stating that this cold-hearted man had driven Arguin, with his wife and family, out on the concession lines. Now, Arguin's own residence, where he had been living all the time previous to going over to Beaubien's farm, was only on the adjoining^ quarter-section, so he had not far to go to reach his home. As soon as Beaubien went away Arguin seized the opportunity, left his own home on the adjoining quarter-section, and moved over to Beaubien's, though the land laws did not require him to do so. Residence on the adjoining quarter-section was all that was necessary in order to secure a patent for this pre-emption, but in order to qualify a little more strongly, he moved over to Beaubien's pre-emption. When Arguin was turned out, as the hon. member states he was, he was at perfect liberty to go into residence on his own farm as heretofore. Mr. Beaubien had upwards of 115

acres under cultivation, and, having given the evidence he had as to the reasons for his absence, the department considered that sufficient to reinstate him in his entry, which they accordingly did; and I do not think any impartial member in this House or anybody in the country would condemn the Government for restoring that entry after all that cultivation had been done, and after he had performed his duties as to fencing and residence-although perhaps he did not live on the homestead all the time with his family; he did not say he did so. Although the hon. gentleman stated that there was not a tittle of evidence as to this man's bona fide residence, he afterwards referred to the fact that Beaubien had sworn that he was in residence, and the hon. member said that Beaubien's evidence was false; in other words, that it meant nothing at all. There were other affidavits sent in, prior to this investigation, by friends of Beaubien-gentlemen of repute in Gravelbourg who went to prove that Beaubien was in actual residence on his land. The hon. gentleman ignores that, but the department cannot afford to ignore it. Certainly somebody has been telling an untruth, but at any rate a great many of those witnesses on whom the hon. gentleman is relying, when cross-examined, could not swear that Beaubien did not reside on his farm, and in view of that we thought -and thought justly-that Beaubien's entry should be restored. I do not think our action has created any irritation in that part of the country except perhaps amongst some hard-headed Liberal friends of hon. gentlemen opposite. The general public, so far as my knowledge goes, believe that the man who should be in possession of the land is now in possession of it. The hon. member also made a point about Beaubien's handing the land over to his son. That is not at all contrary to the land laws. When Beaubien's entry was restored, the effect of that was to terminate the cancellation proceedings. His entry was in good standing, and he had a perfect right to transfer it to his son who was about to leave for Montana to take up land. He naturally desired to keep his son in the neighbourhood, and therefore transferred his land to him. That is a matter of almost every-day occurrence, and is quite in accordance with the regulations of the department. It is something that I think should be encouraged. When a father has sufficient land of his own to set up his sons, I do not see any harm 
in his doing that. I do not wish to take up the time of the House in dealing with this matter any further because, after all, I realize that it is not a case that should be discussed here on amendments to the Land Act. Grievances like this should be brought up when we are in Supply. This grievance was aired on one occasion when my Estimates were before the House, and I think the hon. gentleman might have waited till the Estimates came up again, and not have blocked the passing of legislation that is bound to be-at least I think so-in the interests of the western farmers. Other statements have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. member for Medicine Hat spoke about receiving petitions to the effect that the holders of preemptions desired to get their land absolutely free like their homesteads. A number of those petitions came into the department, also petitions of quite a different character. As I stated when I moved the second reading of this Bill the other evening, representations of various kinds have been made to me. One proposal was to refund the interest that had been paid. It is an involved question and a very important one, and after giving it my very best consideration, I came to the conclusion that the Government could not come down to Parliament and ask for the refunding of this money, paid in whole or in part, which would run up to over $2,000,000. I thought that was an unreasonable request, and, under the circumstances, I thought the best I could do would	be to	recommend that thethree	years'	interest should	for
the future be thrown off. That was the first request made to me by the holders Of pre-emptions when I was out in the West last summer; but their requests have gradually become more drastic ini character, I came to the conclusion that inasmuch as a man could qualify for his homestead at the end of three years, and while the present law provides that he shall be charged interest on his pre-emption for the first three yeaTS-though he is not allowed to pay any portion of interest or principal-that it was only right that the farmers should be relieved of interest during those thiree years. The member for Medicine Hat, I understand, was in favour of shortening up the time within which pre-emption patents could be secured. That is another request that has been made to the department, and I have endeavoured to meet the wishes of those who were desirous

of getting their pre-emption patents at the same time as the homestead patents. I know the hardships they .are labouring under out there. It may have been a questionable proceeding to have ever instituted this pre-emptioni area; in fact, a great many people now resident in the West say that it was a mistake to have ever allowed pre emptions. Much of that land is not fit for cultivation. In some portions-perhaps a limited area.-once the sod is turned up you cannot get even grass to grow. It is only fit for ranching, and I think that land like that should never have been thrown open for pre-emptions. I agree with the farmers who take exception to the large pre-emption area which has been created, by reason of the fact that much of that land has been represented to me as not fit for cultivation at all, and as only suitable for grazing. It would be no use imposing additional cultivation on those farmers, as the hon. member for Medicine Hat suggested. Before they get the preemption patent they have to cultivate fifty acres more than in the case of a homestead. This Bill provides that they may prove up for their pre-emptions at the end of three years, or as soon thereafter as they can pay for the pre-emption (less the interest, for the three years), and have done the necessary residential and cultivation duties. I think that is as long a step as we can take at the present time. The hon. gentleman also quoted from a letter which he received from a gentleman who took exception to shortening up the time in which they could prove up. This gentleman insisted on a longer residence as otherwise the land holders were .likely to return to the United States. I do not think there is any likelihood of that. We have to compete just now with the United States land laws, which have recently been considerably relaxed. They are striving to get our people over there by allowing them what they call ' enlarged ' homesteads of 320 acres, whereas formerly only 160 acres were allowed. They are also stipulating for three years' residence instead of five, as formerly. 1 think I am therefore justified in bringing in this Bill to relax the existing regulations in our pre-emption area. Far from having received complaints in regard to this Bill, I have received numerous letters quite to the contrary. Far from complaints coming to the department regarding this proposed Bill, I have
received numerous letters to the contrary. One enthusiastic pre-emption holder has written to me that after perusing the provisions of the Bill he would not want one word changed. He said -that it was suitable to the holders of pre-emptions in the West. There may be differences of opinion and there may be petitions as the hon. gentleman states, but on the whole I think that the Bill will give fairly general satisfaction.
In Tegard to what the hon. member from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has stated about the desirability of changing our land laws to meet the changed conditions, all I have to say is that I agree with him and that is the reason I am introducing this Bill, but when he answered the very cogent question put to him by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) as to how he explained the falling off in the number of homestead entries from 1906 to 1908, I did not take very much stock in the explanation that he gave, namely, that it was by reason of the fact of one man being allowed to blanket a number of entries. From 1902 to 1903 the entries dropped by 5,000. I am sure that my hon. friend from Edmonton would be the last to claim that this decline was due to the actions of the Government of those days. In two years' time, between 1906 and 1908 the number of homestead entries fell off more than they have fallen off in the last two year-. They fell off to the extent of 11,450. I do not attribute it to the blanketing process which my hon. friend states was in existence for some years. But I rather attribute it, and I am charitable- enough to give the late Government the benefit of this opinion, to the very same considerations that have caused the homestead entries to fall off in the last two years. In times of financial stringency, we have a lessening of business credit and activity, of necessity agricultural developments will be held in check, just the same as industrial development, -and during those two years there were some 10,000 less homestead entries than there were in 1911. History is repeating itself. How do those ' conditions differ from those of 1906 to 1908? At that time there was, as I have said, a considerable falling off in the number of homestead entries. The falling off in the last two years is not due to any inherent policy on the part of the present Government because there has not been any departure with regard to the land laws up to the present time. The people of Europe, the British Isles and on the American side of the boundary are not aware of any terrorizing process that may have been going on

here before they have come to the country to make their homestead entries. It is useless to attribute to the homestead inspectors or to any officials of the Department of the Interior the falling off in the number of homestead entries.
I am not going to enter into any acrimonious political discussion in Tegard to the various actions of the homestead and other inspectors of the Government in connection with elections, but I desire to give my personal experience of the officials of the late Government and I do not know that conditions differed from those which were found in my own constituency. Well do I remember that I was contesting my seat against the Liberal homestead inspector who had resigned his position shortly before nomination day in order to contest the seat against me and he used his position in the interval to secure the political support at a certain poll of a large section of foreigners who did not know the law of the land and who w'ere terrorized into casting their votes in favour of my opponent. A (homestead inspector was there and he herded these foreigners in a room where a supporter of mine heard everything that took place and this inspector told them that if they desired to get their patents for their homesteads they would have to vote for my political opponent. They lined up next day under the auspices of this homestead inspector who was at the poll, assisted hy a gentleman sent out by the Immigration Department from Winnipeg. This latter gentleman was not allowed at the poll because he went out on the train on Saturday. A warrant was out for his arrest for bribery in another constituency and a policeman was sent to escort him back to the city of Winnipeg.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.


William Roche: 
Frank Oliver: Was he terrorizing them with two-dollar bills?


William Roche: He did not get a chance, because the officers took the money from him and kept it under lock and key until after election day. He did not have time to get it in circulation.


Frank Oliver: Was he scaring them
badly?


William Roche: No, they were not scared by that. But it showed the estimate placed on the purchasable vote when they divided this money up into two-dollar bills. There was another gentleman, a mounted policeman, sent out from, the city of Regina. I am sorry that the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is not in his place. That right hon. gentleman, when the fact was brought to his attention, denied that there were any mounted policemen in connection with the Department of the Interior, but I proved to his own satisfaction that there were certain mounted policemen associated with the forestry branch of the Department of the Interior. This gentleman, who was sent out iby the then Minister of the Interior, took his position at the door of the polling booth, wearing his side arms in order to terrorize *the people who had come from countries where compulsory military service was in vogue, and to convince them that if they did not vote against myself there would be military conscription in this country.
After the arrest on Sunday in Winnipeg of the gentleman to whom I have referred, a telegram was sent on Monday to the Yorkton-office and another interpreter came down to take the place of the man who had been taken into custody. He stood at the door of the poll with two other officials of the Government, and by reason of the efforts of these Government officials the result of the vote cast in that one'poll was 112 for my opponent and eight for your humble servant. I give this as an instance, not to justify anything that might Ibe wrong in connection with the officials of the present Government, but to show how badly it comes from a member of the late Government to accuse the homestead inspectors and officials of the Government of terrorizing the people in the West. Terrorism-they do not know the meaning of the term.


William Erskine Knowles: They are learning it.


William Roche: I hope they do learn it in some respects, at any rate, not that I admit that there is any terrorizing done. The gentlemen who have been accused oif terrorizing have no reason to claim that

they have not been informed as to what their duties are. I have pointed out to them their duties, and I have told them that the department will not tolerate any activity in elections. At the same time, I think St is only fair to say, that the charges which have been made on the floor of this House have been refuted by these men.
I do not mean to take up the time of the House in order to go any more lengthily into that phase of the question, but I just wish to say a word in regard to the charges which are being made about the departure from the past policy. There is a departure from the past policy tout it is a departure for the better. The homestead inspectors are doing their duty and they are making thousands and thousands more inspections [DOT] than were made by the homestead inspectors when the Liberals were in power.


William Erskine Knowles: Not at election times.


William Roche: Yes, at all times.


William Erskine Knowles: Does the minister ever read their diaries?


William Roche: No, I have not read their diaries, but I have read the reports of their inspections. They state that there are so many demands in connection with proving on homesteads that there are not sufficient homestead inspectors to keep up with the work.
In reply to the remarks of my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Ailcins) about water-powers, I may tell him that I realize the importance of that branch of the department. There is a very great deal of force indeed in what the hon. gentleman has stated. The Winnipeg river is a river of vast water-powers, and it is the intention of the Government to conserve them. The hon. gentleman may have been a little misled in regard to the water-powers that still remain vested in the Crown. My information from the head official of that branch is that at least fifty per cent of the available water-powers on that river are still vested in the Crown, and those that were alienated were not alienated by this Government, but by the preceding Government. It is a question as to whether we are prepared to go in for Government ownership and operation of water-powers. I do not know whether we are that far advanced; I do not think we are at the present time, but I can see the propriety and the wisdom of conserving these powers and not allowing them to get into private hands for exploitation. I can assure hon. gentlemen that at the present time all the powers on the Winnipeg river-are reserved and will not be disposed of. There have 211
of course been applications from private capitalists for these water-powers, with stipulations that they would erect pulp mills of large capacity on that river. But, after consulting Judge Robson, the Utility Commissioner for Manitoba appointed by the provincial Government, who is opposed to the alienation of any of these water-powers, I thought it wise to carry out his recommendation.
I trust that this Bill shall receive the sympathetic consideration of hon. gentlemen. I do not wish to encourage any debate that would lead us away from the due consideration of its various provisions, but I felt called upon to defend myself when such serious accusations were made against the management of the department as were made this afternoon.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Blain in the Chair.


William Erskine Knowles: Before the House rose at six o'clock my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior had replied to some extent to the arguments which I had made with regard to the Gravelbourg homestead. The minister then proceeded to discuss the general merits of his Bill, and I had not an opportunity to reply before these other remarks had intervened. I had purposely refrained from taking up the time of the committee in the way of quoting evidence; but my hon. friend the minister went out of his way to quote some of the evidence, and I do not propose to allow it to stand as he has put it, namely: that the evidence has failed to establish what I have stated. Therefore I purpose putting on ' Hansard ' a few references and exact quotations from the evidence to show that what I have said is correct.
My hon. friend in the first place referred to the witness who said that he could not swear that Mr. Beaubien was not on his homestead at any certain date. The weakness of my hon. friend's case is manifest in such an argument because it is impossible to establish a negative of this kind. The witness in question, whose name is Levasseur, was able to say only that he had lived in Gravelbourg, and that Mr. Beaubien lived there also. On crossexamination he, of course, could not state any certain date on which he was in Gravelbourg, and he could not swear to any certain date on which Beaubien was not on the homestead. All that he could do, and all that any of these witnesses could



do, was to establish that the home of Mr. Beaubien and his family was in Gravel-bourg during the years to which I have referred. On page 4 of the evidence, in the examination of this same witness, there appear the following question and answer:
Q. As far as you know, he lived there?
A. Yes sir, in the village.
No man living can prove that any one is in default in his homestead duties if he has to give the day and the date; but reputable citizens swore that Mr. Beaubien, to their certain knowledge, had his permanent home in the town.


Mr. HENDERSON:: I submit that the
hen. gentleman is not speaking to the question before the House. He is entirely out of order, and we may as well proceed to discuss this Bill. We might keep on all night discussing matters that are not relevant, and I think it would be just as well if you, Sir, would hold the hon. gentleman down to the question before the House.


The CHAIRMAN:: I hope the hon. member for Moosejaw will confine his remarks as much as possible to the Bill.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: The point of
order is very badly taken at this moment. Possibly it would have been a good time to take it when my hon. friend originally introduced the question; but, the question having been introduced and discussed very fully by my hon. friend from Moosejaw, and having been replied to equally fully by the Minister of the Interior, it seems to me that the point of order is taken a little tardily, to say the least. My hon. friend is a little slow in his movements.


David Henderson: The hon. member
from Moosejaw having discussed the question so fully and the minister having replied, our duty is to proceed with the discussion of the Bill. I am not asking that any privileges be taken away from the hon. member for Moosejaw or from the hon. Minister of the Interior. They have both had their say. I rather think the point raised by my hon. friend from Red Deer is not well taken.


Michael Clark: I am perfectly sure my hon. friend from Hal-ton will be as dispassionate as myself in a desire to arrive at correct conclusions. I wish to submit to his extremely lucid and impartial intellect the statement that the hon. member from Moosejaw is at present engaged in
[Mr. Knowles. 1
stating that the hon. Minister of the Interior has quoted parts of certain evidence. The hon. member for Moosejaw goes on to state that other parts of the evidence, not quoted iby the Minister of the Interior, go to contradict the parts of the evidence that have been quoted by the Minister of the Interior. I submit to my hon. friend from Halton the consideration that he and I, having this desire to bring a lucid and dispassionate consideration to the full evidence, are bound to allow my hon. friend from Moosejaw to quote the evidence which he says absolutely refutes and disproves the evidence already quoted by the Minister of the Interior.


David Henderson: And neither had anything to do with the question.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Is it possible to discuss the point of order without permission from the Chair?


Michael Clark: Always in
order, I understand.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think it is always in order for any member to rise to a point of order, and discussion is allowed.


William Erskine Knowles: When I first rose, I intended to refer to a few portions of the evidence, but now I intend to refer to more of it. If my hon. friend from Halton wastes much more of my time, I will perhaps read the whole business.


David Henderson: I rise to a point of order. I certainly was not wasting the time of the hon. member for Moosejaw. I rose to a question that I had a perfect right to rise to, and my hon. friend has no right to charge me with interfering with his time. The fact of the matter is that he is interfering with the time of the House.


William Erskine Knowles: I rise to a point of
order. There is no point of order before the House. I have the floor.
Mr, HENDERSON: I rose to a point of order on account of the reference that the hon. member for Moosejaw made to myself. When I get through with that, then the hon. member will have the floor. I did not understand, Mr. Chairman, that you had decided that the hon. member for Moosejaw could discuss whether the moon was made of green cheese or any other question outside of that before the House. I submit that the hon. member should confine himself to the question and that you, Sir, should ask him to do so.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have already asked the hon. member for Moosejaw to confine his remarks to the Bill. I hope that the hon. gentlemen taking part in this discussion will assist the Chair in keeping order and expediting business.


William Erskine Knowles: I take your request in all kindness, Mr. Chairman, but I do not think it is needed. The first reference which I wish to make is to page 15 of the evidence, where Mr. Dureault distinctly says that Mr. Beaubien's residence was in Gravelbourg. I quote the following from Mr. Dureault's evidence:
Q. Tou are acquainted with Mr. J. N. Beau-bien?-A. Yes.
Q. Where does he live?-A. In town.
Q. The town of Gravelbourg?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does he live in the town of Gravelbourg with his family?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many years have you been carrying on a business in the town of Gravelbourg? A. Two years in May.
<4. During the time you have carried on your business in Gravelbourg was Mr. Beau-bien also carrying on business?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. During all the time?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. His family resided with him in town ?- A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you see from your own place the house or place of business of Mr. Beaubien? -A. Yes, sir.
This merchant, who lived just across the street, testified that Mr. Beaubien carried on business in Gravelbourg and that he lived there with his family. On page 20 the following evidence is given by Mr. Gray manager of the Union Bank of Canada at Gravelbourg:
Q. You are manager of the Union bank in Gravelbourg?-A. Yes.
Q. How long have you been there?-A. Three years-going on three years.
Turning to page 22 we find the following:
Q. She has been residing there ever since you have been in Gravelbourg?-A. That I cannot say. To the best of my knowledge and belief they have.
In a small place like Gravelbourg everybody knows where everybody else lives, and this evidence that to the best of the witness's knowledge and belief Mrs. Beaubien had been doing business there is sufficiently conclusive.
On page 30 Mr. McKay, manager of the Bank of Toronto, gives the following evidence :
Q. You know Mrs. Beaubien and the children?.-A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you lived just across the street?- A Yes, sir.
Q. And you are in a position to say that while you were in Gravelbourg Mr. Beaubien 211*
and his family lived just across the street?_
Yes, sir.
The evidence of Mr. Hamlin, Government telegraph operator, employed by the Department of Public Works, may be found on page 33. I quote the following:
Q. How long have you been here?-A. I have been here three years at the end of this month or at the end of May.
Q. During that time he kept a boarding house in Gravelbourg-any other business?- A. A store and a butcher shop.
Q. During all that time were you boarding at his place?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was the housekeeper and who looked after the table?-A. Mr. Beaubien's daughters and Mrs. Beaubien, as far as I know.
Q. Mr. Beaubien and his family lived in the village at the boarding house?-A. As far as I know, yes sir. -
This is the evidence of a telegraph operator who boarded at that very house, and had been in Gravelbourg' for three years. My hon. friend endeavoured to produce as evidence of Mr. Beaubien's having been in residence the fact that one of his witnesses would not swear that for three years he had not resided seven weeks each year on his homestead. The minister can produce no other case where such residence has been regarded as sufficient. I did not say that there was evidence that Beaubien had never lived on his homestead; I did say that there was no evidence of his bona fide residence upon it. A bona fide homesteader is one who lives on the homestead with his wife and children. The facts are so indisputably uncontradicted that the efforts of Beaubien to prove that he did live upon the land with his wife and family show that he is a falsifier. I repeat what I have already said: that the minister gave the homestead to a man who could not show that he was entitled to it, and in so doing he committed a great injustice.
The minister dwelt upon the fact that Arguin resided on the quarter:section. He went there because he had so little faith in the minister's officers that he wanted to establish his position beyond peradventure and to get into residence on the quarter-section. Time after time, in writing to the minister, Arguin said that it was doubtful whether he would be able to secure a square deal, and that he was afraid that there would be false reports. Such a report was made by a man named Erratt. Let me say, in passing, that Mr. Cuttle never called on Beaubien to give a single bit of evidence; Beaubien himself had to be called by Arguin. The whole burden of proving the negative was put upon Arguin,
[DOT]3344

and, even with that burden, the merits of the ease are entirely on his side. At page 102 -Mr. Beaubien is asked:
Q. Do you know Mr. W. H. Erratt who used [DOT]to be homestead inspector?
A. Yes, I know him, I remember him.
Q. Did you go to your land with him.
A. Yes, X came up from Moosejaw with him.
The fact is that he went to Moosejaw, got the homestead inspector and brought him to the homestead to make this partisan report. The inspector who, at the beck and call of political tools, drives 80 miles to a homestead for the purpose of doing special inspection work, and then reports, the evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, that the man has been in residence; that inspector is neglecting his legitimate duties and subjecting himself to the undue influence of the person for whom he makes such a report. This condition of affairs, on the face of it, is indicative of improper relationship between this politcal tool and the homestead inspector. If the former Minister of the Interior, the hon. member for Edmonton, had been in office and this matter had come to his knowledge, the homestead inspector would have had a very short shrift for his position.


James McKay: At the time of the taking of the evidence from which my horn friend is quoting, who was in possession?


William Erskine Knowles: Arguin.


John Allister Currie: Beaubien owned the land in the first place, as I understand it, and this man Arguin was what they call a claim jumper. I have been in camps where he would have been shot on sight for jumping another man's property.


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend has yet a great deal to learn. What he calls claim jumpers are among our best citizens.


John Allister Currie: I have no doubt about that.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not think the
minister will contradict me when I say that one-half of our homesteaders are claim jumpers. I think that is correct that they have entered for homestead which they have secured in the same way as Arguin has secured this by applying to have cancellation proceedings commenced. Tens of thousands of the best citizens we have, and my hon. friend, without knowing anything about it, goes out of his way to cast a slur on them.


John Allister Currie: The only case of this kind that came to my notice was that of a gentleman who was taken ill with typhoid and his wife took him to the hospital. The time expired while he was in the hospital, and they lost the house and farm and the labour of years. I consider that if such a law is relaxed a little in case of sickness or disability to be on the land, there is nothing wrong with it; but I have not much use for a man who has lots of property for himself and a homestead of his own who tries to jump another man's claim.


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend should not be so harsh on this man, because he does not know much about it. My hon. friend is quite at sea in the matter.


John Allister Currie: I am looking at the
ethical side of it.


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend will take my word for it that he is wrong. In conclusion, I would call attention to the fact that there was an improper relationship between Erratt and Beaubien. I think the minister will agree that when we were able to establish out of the mouth of Beaubien himself that he went in to Moosejaw and brought out the homestead inspector, we have established a prima facie case for suspicion. The minister argues that because Beaubien was cancelled and Arguin entered and then Arguin cancelled and Beaubien restored, that wiped out and abandoned the cancellation proceedings. The minister should be careful in what he says. Will he lay it down as a departmental ruling that an application for cancellation is to be removed because it has been successful and then its success has been taken away from the man? Will he lay it down as a departmental ruling that I can get my homestead in good standing by allowing cancellation to go through and then have the cancellation withdrawn, and that I will then be better off than I was before? The minister cannot mean that. If there was a new entry and another flO paid, it might be a different matter. Surely all that was done was that Arguin was cancelled and there was a restoration to the original condition of affairs. I cannot believe the minister is serious in saying that in restoring Beaubien there was, ipso facto, an abandonment of the cancellation proceedings. If that is so, if things were restored to their former conditions, then the cancellation proceedings were outstanding

against Beaubien until he put himself in good standing by doing at least thirty days residence, and according to the law of Canada he could not be allowed to abandon in favour of his son. There is no need to labour that point, it is too clear. Somebody has slipped there in his anxiety to help out Beaubien the better and put this poor fellow on the street, and has overlooked the fact that all the restoration did was to restore things to their former position. The Postmaster General was not here when I stated that Beaubien said he.saw him about this matter in Moosejaw last summer. Does the minister remember seeing a man named Beaubien who spoke about a homestead this summer?


Mr. PELLETIER:: Put your question in writing and I will think over it.


William Erskine Knowles: I dare say he did see the minister. I do not know whether he came to Ottawa and saw the Prime Minister or not, but he seems to have looked after the Cabinet pretty well. I do not say it is because of that fact, but the result is that the man has the land. Let me tell the minister that his administration has become in very bad odour out there. I have not said anything against Cuttle other than what I find in this file. The minister has brought out a great many general charges about Liberals. In the first place that has nothing to do with this matter and he has not the record. I have the record here for what I have to say and it is this we are concerned with. The minister is asking us to change his Dominion Lands Act and we want, before we entrust him with other powers and a new condition of affairs, to tell him what we think of his management of western lands under the present law. There is a growing want of confidence in the honesty and integrity of the administration of the lands in the West. The minister has had homestead inspectors who were a disgrace to the department. He has had to fire many of them. He has had land agents whom he has had to fire because they played the game too coarsely. Do not let him think that I am talking about something that does not exist. I have 130,000 or 140,000 constituents. I say that I believe on my soul their ownership of their homesteads is not safe and that they are not getting a square deal in the homestead office at Moosejaw. I made my charge against Beaubien and I proved it and I may have more definite charges to make about officials in the land office and how good money looks to them before I
am through. If the minister thinks that everything is going on well in the West he is in a fool's paradise. The people do not think it. The homestead inspectors are not doing their work. We have one man there who was appointed homestead inspector. He hung around for a while and then they wanted him to do some work. He said: why, I worked before the elections, you do not expect me to work now do you? By and by he quit because they insisted on his doing some work. The people are not getting any service ait all. When I read to the minister the diaries of men who go for ten days without doing anything^ he must know that they are not doing their work. I have here a letter from a poor fellow who has been trying to get $160 refunded on his improvements. Such a refund would be everything to him, more than $50,000 to the minister. He has applied for an order to get the money, the minister's instructions have been out for nearly a year to get the homestead inspector to make a report on these improvements so that the man could get the money. I put the question on the Order Paper: When was an inspection ordered? The answer was that it was ordered on the 5th of April, 1913, and on the 23rd of April of this year there had been no inspection. Question No. 5 was: Has the homestead inspector's report been received? The minister's answer was:
A. No. The land is situated north of the south Saskatchewan river and the homestead inspector recently explained that on account of weather and the state of the roads it has been practically impossible to do any work in that country for some time, but that he would make his report as soon after first of the month as weather and roads would permit.
On the* same file in regard to the same man there are three letters signed by the minister. Here is one last summer saying: I am writing to have the inspector make a report. The inspectors treat the minister like a nonentity, saying that the weather is bad and the roads are bad. They reply to the minister: when we get good roads we will go and inspect. The man wrote finally to the minister and got a reply on the 27th of October. He was honoured with an autograph signature of the minister.
My dear Sir,-I am in receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, with regard to the improvements placed by you on the S.W. \ of 3,23,12, W. 3rd meridian, when you held entry for the same.
In reply I beg to say that instructions were given on the 3rd instant, to have a homestead inspector make a careful valuation of the improvements placed on this land by you, and in view of your recent communication, further instructions have now been given to have

this valuation made at the earliest possible date. As soon as the inspector's report is received you will be further advised.
Tours faithfully,


W. J. ROCHE.
[Stage Direction]
I must say to the credit of the minister that his mistake as to the date mentioned in this letter was unintentional. The minister states that instructions were given on the 3rd inst. What he should have said was that instructions were given several months ago; they were given away back in May, nearly six months before he wrote this letter. I come to another letter dated January 23, 1914-no homestead inspector's report yet.
My dear Sir,-I am in receipt of your lettei of the .15th instant, with regard to the south west J of section 3, township 23, range 12,, west of the 3rd meridian.
In reply, I regret very much that you have suffered any inconvenience on account of the delay in the department in dealing with this case, but I may assure you that most explicit instructions have been given to have the homestead inspector make the required report at once, and also that the report is to be forwarded here as soon as made. When this report is received in the department your request will be dealt with as promptly as possible, and you will be fully advised as to what action the department can take.
Tours faithfully,
W. J. Roche.
H. R. McVeigh, Esq.,
Outlook, Sask.
Is it not remarkable that any member of the Government can ivait as calmly in his office at Ottawa as the minister did from October till the 23rd of January of the following year, after having given explicit instructions for a report to be made at once? But that was not all. This man wrote and re-wrote, and on February 10 the minister sent him the following letter:
My dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 3rd instant, in which you point out that you have not been advised of the decision of the department in regard to the south west \ of section 3, township 3 range 12, west of the 3rd Meridian.
In reply, I beg to inform you that the homestead inspector's report has not as yet been received. I am wiring the agent to have the matter attended to at once.
Tours faithfully,
W. J. Roche. .
Is not that a funny way to serve the people of Canada? After reading all the pathetic letters this man wrote, the minister s heart was touched, and he sent him $50 to keep him from starving, although the man was entitled to $145 or $165, I forget which. Fancy a minister of the Crown taking such disobedience from his Homestead Inspector, and writing such
£Mr. Knowles.]
letters saying ' I assure you I have given explicit instructions,' etc. The minister might just as well have written: I am doing the best I can, but the homestead inspector tells me to go plumb to the mischief; for that is what it amounts to. Imagine a homestead inspector saying to the minister: When the weather is pleasant and the roads are nice I will go out and make the report, but till then you can hold your horses. It is time the minister put his foot down and let his homestead inspectors know he is boss; let them realize that they are there to do their work honestly and not for political purposes; that their duty is to serve the men that are making that country and Canada -not the men on the patronage list or friends of the Government, but the man behind the pair of oxen breaking up the sod on the homestead; and that they are not appointed to send back silly answers to the minister, after a year has gone by, that when the weather is pleasant and the roads are nice they will make a report. I care not how honest the minister may be in his own mind, he must take the responsibility, and my message to my constituents is that they have very little to hope for from the minister and the Government of Canada, and from the lazy political heelers landed in those Government jobs in Saskatchewan.
Frank Oliver: I just want to speak for a minute or two along the line my hon. friend from Moosejaw has taken. I have made the statement that the administration of the Department of the Interior is not conducive to the development of the country, and I just want to give one instance. Hitherto the practice has been to sell land which has been withdrawn from reservation by auction after public notice. This case relates to the southeast quarter of 16-25-5-W., 5th meridian, which is just a little west of Calgary. I will give a brief sketch of the return which was brought down relating to that piece of land. On April 21, 1902, C. E. Sibbald applied to enter for this land. He was informed that the land was under reservation as a water reserve. Some years passed, and finally the country around was fairly well settled. During the late Administration there were several applications for entry for this particular section. On January 15, 1908. Mr. J. A. W. Fraser was informed by myself, when he applied for homestead rights, that the land would have to be sold by auction. On January 24, 1908, Mr. MAY 6, 1914
Pereira wrote another applicant, called McDougal, that the land when withdrawn would be sold by auction. On July 15, 1911, an order was issued by the department to have the land inspected for withdrawal. Apparently the inspector did not make the inspection, and on April 9, 1912- when this Government was in power-Mr. Pereira repeated the order for inspection, and said that Fraser was pressing for an 'answer. On April 15, 1912, Charles Grayson, a homestead inspector, recommended withdrawal; and on May 10, 1912, Pereira writes Fraser, the latest applicant, that the land when withdrawn would be sold 'by .auction. On November 16, 1912, F. Nelson, for the department, writes the Dominion Lands agent at 'Calgary ordering an inspection for valuation. On December 26, 1912, Inspector W. Tempany reports that the land is worth $5 an acre. On February 19, 1913, Mr. N. 0. Cote writes Fraser giving authority to purchase at $5 an acre; one-tquarter down, balance in three equal annual instalments. That is a case, if the value of the land were the same, on all fours with the Donaldson homestead. The land was under reservation. The practice of the department, and the regulations, require that whenever land is withdrawn from the reservation it should be offered for sale at public auction the reason being obvious. If the land is under reservation nobody has the opportunity to acquire it; when it is withdrawn, everybody should have an equal opportunity to acquire it. However, Fraser was able to make interest with the department just as Mr. Donaldson was, and the land was withdrawn and sold to him at a valuation. His neighbours were just as much entitled to the opportunity of acquiring this land as he was, but they were cut out from that opportunity, and, as I say, that is altogether contrary to the former practice of the department and is an entirely improper practice. A similar instance occurred in the town of GCmli on lake Winnipeg. A piece of land was under reservation there for many years, and finally-I think it was within the past year-it was withdrawn .and sold at a valuation to the then mayor of the town. It is useless to suggest that this is done in a fair spirit, or that it is giving every one a fait chance. It is just a matter of political favouritism. When the idea of political favouritism dominates the administration of the department a condition is created that is detrimental to the well-being of the settler of the western country and of all Canada.


William Roche: The hon. gentleman, who has been a Minister of the Crown himself, knows how unusual it is to bring up oases of this nature when a Bill is before the House. It is impossible for any minister to have his memory charged with all the Information in reference to these cases of which he gets no notice whatever. He knows that it has been the practice, when Estimates are up, to bring up anything of this nature and discuss it and he also knows that it has not been the practice to bring up these matters on a public Bill which is engaging the attention of the House. I am quite well aware of the fact that stock-watering reserves, when they are withdrawn, when they are no longer required for stock-watering purposes, are offered for sale at auction. There is no regulation to that effect but that has been the practice and, I may say, a practice which was departed from by the hon. gentleman himself when he was the minister. One or two oases were presented to me during the hon. gentleman's administration in which he departed from that practice. I do not know -about these cases to which he has called my attention. 1 could not say from recollection whether they have been brought to my notice or not. Very likely they were disposed of by the department, as other cases are disposed of. I do not know whether they occurred while I was minister, but I cannot be expected to have my memory charged with the details of everything that has taken place in a vast department like the Department of the Interior. I shall be glad to inform myself on this subject and give all the information possible at the proper time.


Frank Oliver: I was not bringing the question before the House for the purpose of obtaining a reconsideration of the matter. I made a broad, general statement in regard to the administration of the Act and I thought it due to the House and to the minister that I should give absolute evidence of the facts as I stated them. I am not bringing it up for the purpose of getting a readjustment. I am bringing it up to establish the point that the administration is an administration of political favouritism and not an administration in the interests of the settler or the people.


Mr. BRADBURY:: If the hon. gentleman has been so guilty himself such a statement surely comes with bad grace from him.


Frank Oliver: I was minister for a number of years. My hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) was in opposition during those years, and any transgressions of -mine were sure-ly open for the consideration of the House at that time and are open yet if it is thought worth while to take up the time of the House in considering them. I laid down a definite principle when I was administering the affairs of the department, and I laid it down in print, made it absolutely public, and if I transgress from that I will have to take the responsibility and discredit of it. When I was administering the affairs of the department, and until I ceased to administer the affairs of the department, the records and results show that the people concerned were satisfied. They must have been satisfied or there would not have been the enormous amount of settlement which took place. Just as soon as the Government and system of administration changed the progress of settlement was checked. It is not an act of Providence, it is not a matter of chance, it is an actual and necessary result* of the change in method of administration.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall section 1 be
adopted?


Frank Oliver: I wish to point out to the minister that section I as it is now drawn, is not in a shape that conveys to the ordinary man its intent and meaning. Instead of setting out on the face of the section what it is intended to mean, reference is made to two other sections further on in the Act. That confuses the mind of the ordinary individual and if it is desirable to amend the section, I wouid certainly urge that the amendment be made on the face of the section so that when a person who is interested in homesteading took up the law and read the section he would know everything that it was intended to convey, and he would not be obliged to refer to some other part of the Act and read some other sections to find out exactly what his rights were.


William Roche: This section is intended to make the provision more clear in regard to the lands that will >be open for homesteading and the lands that will not be open. The references are to section 35 and 36. Section 35, which is a portion of the Act, refers to land adjacent to water-powers. Section 36 refers to land reserved for purposes of a harbour, landing, bridges, railway terminus, station or town site. It extends as well to all lands that are on the reserve list for any

purpose whatever. The Bill has been drafted by the law clerk of the House of Commons. I am not a lawyer myself, and not accustomed to the drafting of statutes, but I cannot see anything in the drafting of this Bill that would create any complication such as the hon. gentleman refers to.


Frank Oliver: I am not at all saying that the section as drafted is not perfectly good law, and I am not saying that a, member of the legal fraternity will not thoroughly understand it, but I do say that the ordinary citizen will not understand it as well as if the whole case were stated in the body of the section. That seems elementary.


John Allister Currie: Would not the whole
statute have to be re-enacted in order to do that?


Frank Oliver: No.


John Allister Currie: It would have to be consolidated and the whole reprinted and reenacted.


Frank Oliver: If it is desired to exempt from homestead entry lands adjacent to water-powers and lands reserved for other purposes you might as well state that in so many words in the section instead of having to refer to two other sections.


John Allister Currie: Where there is an addition to the law by the passage of a new Bill it is not customary to repeat what is contained in the original statute.


James Albert Manning Aikins: The section was drafted in order that it might be concise and at the same time explicit. It is a part of the one Act and all a person has to do, after he reads the first section, is to turn to sections 35 and 36 and they will show clearly the land to which homesteading is not applicable. It would mean the repetition of these very same sections in this section if it were drawn otherwise.


Frank Oliver: It is not for me to take the responsibility of drafting the section, but I did not think it right to let it pass without giving my opinion as a layman desiring to pass legislation which can be understood by other laymen.	-
Another point is that when we are declaring that lands contiguous to water-powers, and to certain other waters are reserved from settlement, who is to tell the prospective settler that this land is so reserved. Is he to be the judge of whether there is a possible water privilege at that place or not, or is it intended that if a man settles on such property his homestead

rights shall cease to exist because it is afterwards discovered that land is appurtenant to a water-power.


John Allister Currie: It would be only sensible to suppose that under such conditions he would have the privilege of locating somewhere else, and that has been the custom in the past.


Frank Oliver: But as the legislation is
now worded, that man is left without security for his outlay and the time he has expended.


James Albert Manning Aikins: It is assumed that the
Government will know what water-powers there are and that the Government will reserve whatever land they think proper in connection with that water-power, so that it will not be available for homestead entry.


Frank Oliver: If that were so stated in the Bill it would be all right, because the man would not get entry, but as it stands he is liable to get entry upon land which this Bill says he shall not hold.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman knows that cases have arisen during his administration where settlers had to be removed from certain tracts that were reserved, and without any specific law these settlers were allowed to pick out the best land they could find elsewhere and all their homestead duties were allowed. That has been the custom from time immemorial, and the hon. gentleman himself has given effect to it when he was minister.


Frank Oliver: And I know how unfortunate it was to have to do it in some cases.


John Allister Currie: It did not hurt any one; they were as a rule better off.


Frank Oliver: In certain conditions a
very difficult situation has existed, and it is unfortunate that in amend-9 p.m. ment to the Act we should create such a condition as that of a settler who has located inside of a forest reserve.


William Roche: In the case of the Winnipeg river we have made such a reservation as the hon. gentleman suggests. Any person who goes on land can see a waterpower, and he makes his entry at his own risk.


Frank Oliver: I am putting in my protest, and I do not wish to press the point. There are cases in which power can be created by a moderate expenditure of money, where there is no evidence to the
ordinary man in the natural condition that water-power exists. On the Bow river, application has been made to create a water-power at a certain place where there is a swift current, ibut no waterfall, and an ordinary settler would not be warned that a water-power existed there.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: The point which my
hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) has raised exists in connection with timber reserves. I know a case in my own constituency in which a man has made entry for a homestead on land which was formerly a timber reserve, and having performed the work of clearing and expended nearly $5,000, he is now notified that he cannot get entry. This man thought he was in a district which was not of commercial value as a timber reserve.


John Allister Currie: How much timber did he take?


James McCrie Douglas: He took none; the timber was not of any commercial value, and he was preparing to burn it to get the land cleared.


George Henry Bradbury: What authority had
be to go on the land?


James McCrie Douglas: Other people had been getting entry in the same district. I must say in fairness to the minister that I have taken the matter up with him and he is prepared to deal with the case in a fair and equitable manner, but there is something wrong in a regulation which allows such a thing to occur. If we can remedy it in this case we should do so now when we are passing the legislation. We have in northern Alberta a lot of timber which is not of a merchantable character, and yet there may be more than the necessary twenty-five acres on a quarter-section to render it not available for settlement. The timber may be only fit for firewood, and on account of the distance from a railway it is of no value even as firewood, and the entrant would be delighted if a prairie fire swept it away, but yet this land is not eligible for entry. This regulation has had the effect of keeping a very considerable quantity of valuable land from being settled. I do not know that this particular case comes under section 2 of this Bill, but the question is worthy of consideration if in many cases timber lands, which have been reserved for timber purposes and which now prove to be of no value for merchantable timber, should not be thrown open and

the privilege given to settlers to make entry-on these lands without any drawbacks by the department.


William Roche: The difficulty in the case to which my hon. Mend refers is that the man who made his entry swore that there was not more than twenty-five acres of timber.


James McCrie Douglas: Of merchantable timber.


William Roche: If a man wilfully does that, you can see the difficulty which the department would experience in granting] entry. I believe, however, it is the practice of the department not to dispossess a man who has gone in and taken up land on which there is moire than twenty-five acres of timber; but he is asked to map out the twenty-five acres, and then the department issues permits to the settlers to cut on the balance of the land.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-proviso as to residence of entrant.
William Erskine Knowles: The whole question of [DOT] pre-emptions is re-opened in. this section. In the session of 1906-07, a Bill providing for pre-emptions was introduced by the present member far Edmonton, them Minister of the Interior of the late Government. His Bill was opposed partly by the late Hon. Thomas Greenway; and long speeches of criticism were made by hon. gentlemen opposite, notably by my hon. friend the present Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche) and by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mir. Foster). The present Minister of the Interior by no means supported that legislation at that time and he allied himself with the late Mr. Greenway. If the minister desires a reference for that, I can give the same to him, although I suppose he recalls the statements he made at that time. He made certain objections to the way in which the regulation would work out, and on the whole he threw cold water on the scheme. The hon. member for North Toronto discouraged the proposition as much as possible, and said that the giving of this land was like the giving of money. On March 14, 1907, he spoke in this House as follows:
Your agriculturist is just as good a unit of the population and just as good a citizen of Canada, in Ontario, as he is in Saskatchewan or Manitoba. And one of his assets is his

share in the public franchises and the public property of this country. Yet, you propose to go to the treasury, and to take out of it millions of dollars, out of which you give him no benefit at all and you give it only to a section of. his class, a favoured few (so far as this goes) who reside within a certain area in the country. If those lands that you propose to give as largess, as bonus, to people who are outside of the area of need, not weighed down by poverty, not encountering difficulties, but so peaceful and happy and prosperous in the enjoyment of a princely gift of 160 acres of good land-if those lands which you propose to give them were transmuted into money, and that money were put into the treasury of this Dominion, it would he just exactly what it is now, though in a transmuted form. The transmutation of it - does not change its essential character, does not make it any less an asset of this country, in which every citizen has his share; and what do you propose to do? You propose to legislate out of the grand treasury of this country, for a few people in one section of it, millions of dollars of value, making them a present of that, and giving to none of the rest of the people of this country any share in the usufruct.
It was impossible to get the Bill through during that session on account of the opposition it met, and accordingly the Bill was introduced the following session in a slightly modified form and became law. The pre-emptions were very popular. My own district is the one in which by far the most pre-emptions have been taken up. On the first ^ of September, 1908, the pre-emption privilege was extended, .and everybody knows that it was the most popular thing in Canada at that time. Wherever preemptions and purchase homesteads were available, there was the greatest activity on the part of the people concerned to get the quarter-sections of their choice. The people were then satisfied-indeed they were grateful for the terms which the present member for Edmonton, then Minister of the Interior, granted to them. At that time there was prosperity throughout the West and there was no need for reducing the requirements and asking the people to dispense with the payment of the interest or with the residence duties. Unfortunately for our country that condition of prosperity has ceased. My bony friend to-day is graippling with a condition of affairs, which his own Government has created, in which the people require some relief. My hon. friend and his friends did what they could to keep from the people the relief offered to them in 1911 in the way of wider markets, and now it is necesisary for them to come to the people, in this condition that is more or less desperate with some measure of relief. The relief is brought in this form and I support it. In fact, there is no relief which I will not support in the

present condition of the people. The last tariff changes brought down have convinced me more than , ever that it is my duty to grasp and to encourage any measure of relief that this Government will give. For my part I will support the waiving of the payment altogether in order to give the people an opportunity, in the untoward circumstances and unfavourable environment in which they are now situated, to make a success. The minister is to be pitied more or less on account of the depression which has followed the existence of this Government just as surely as the night the day; but he must realize in his heart that, if the people who grow their wheat and other cereals on their homesteads and pre-emptions had the open market at their door, the three years' interest of $72 would be a mere bagatelle to them, and the minister would not have had this cry from them.
The minister in one way is inconsistent in this Bill. If I understand him correctly-I am speaking not of the interest part, but of the residence part-it is his intention that, after a man has completed his residence duties, if he has $480, Tie can get patent for his pre-emption if he has fifty acres of breaking done; but if he has not $480 that year but has it the next year, then when he conies a year or two years later, as the case may be, he is not forgiven his residence duties in the interval.
Am I right in saying that a man who has spent two years after the protection time commences in working and slaving under unfavourable circumstances to get the $480, is charged up, after he gets that amount, with eighteen months' residence?


William Roche: That is right.


William Erskine Knowles: I want to protest
against that. It seems that even in respect of this small amount the Government is discriminating in favour of the man who has the ready money as against the man who has to worir hard to raise the amount. It seems 'to me that that is unjust discrimination. I have constituents who can pay the $480 at once, but I have a great many more who cannot. Unfortunately, under the present Government, the latter class is becoming larger and the former class is becoming smaller. I protest against making these people comply with the residence required because ' they are compelled to wait a little while to earn the money. I cannot conceive why the richer man should be forgiven; why he should be relieved of his residence duties for six months,, in the year while the poor man has
to work and slave for it, perhaps keeping a wife and family at the same time. I ask the minister to adjust this matter; I ask him to do what is right by the man in poorer circumstances. I ask in the name of many thousands of my constituents that he afford to the poorer man the same relief from residence duties that he grants to the richer man.


William Roche: If the homesteader chooses to avail himself of the provisions of the present Act as it is now upon the statute books he will he in no worse position in the future than he is at the present time, and he will be in a better position in that he will have to pay no interest during the first three years. He has the option of taking the time provided by the present statute in order to get the patent for his pre-emption, or of taking advantage of one of the provisions of this Bill: that at the end of three years, when he secures the patent for his homestead, he may, by paying his pre-emption money, secure a patent for his pre-emption. He is thus relieved of his homestead duties in the future, provided he has put in the necessary residence up to that time and performed the necessary cultivation duties. It is not a question of discrimination as between the rich man and the poor man; many poor men have asked for a provision of this kind. If a man has the ready money, he can cultivate or improve his preemption, if he so desires. This provision is intended to give all the option of continuing under the present Act and to improve their position to the extent of forgiving them their interest. Or, if they deBire, by raising money on their homestead, to get a patent, at the end of the time they qualify for homestead they may qualify for patent for pre-emption by making the necessary payment. The hon. gentleman has placed a rather strained interpretation upon this Act as at present drafted, it is not designed at all to discriminate in favour of the rich man.


James McKay: I would remind the committee that the area of land that this section refers to is that portion which, roughly speaking, begins east of the centre of the southern boundary of the province, runs north westerly and northerly along the third meridian up to the forty-fourth township and thence westerly and southerly and easterly to the place of commencement. The inhabitants of that area were given the special privilege of taking up homestead and purchasing pre-emption


William Erskine Knowles: I am sorry the minister cannot accede to my request in the matter of residence duties. His answer, however, must be final.


David Bradley Neely: The minister must recognize that he is making a very important departure in our land regulations by his amendment in section 2. I have always

understood that the purpose of having this duty demanded from entrants for homesteads and for purchase homesteads was to have the land actually brought under cultivation, and not to give our land a speculative value that might be given to it by the spending of a few dollars in cultivation without having the entrants perform a certain amount of residence on the land.
I am hot going to say whether the minister is right or wrong, the hon. member for Moosejaw has given reasons why conditions could be made more lenient in these days than they have been in days gone by, but I would say to the minister, notwithstanding his explanations, and I tried to follow them as closely as possible, that I am still afraid he is doing an injustice to a great many entrants for pre-emptions throughout the West. He makes the statement that by giving the privilege of paying $480, the price of a pre-emption homestead, he is actually lessening the onerous conditions of the pre-emption. I fail to see that. The real effect is that the minister is compelling the man who cannot furnish the money to go on and perform residence duty; and he cannot fail to see that he is putting a premium on the case where a man can take out from his bank account $480 and free himself from all future responsibility. It may be urged that the man who has not the means can go to the bank when the bank knows that he is going to get his patent for pre-emption shortly, and get the money to pay off the Government. But what kind of bargain would that be for the man who has not the means to make the payment? The Government charge him five per cent, but the bank would probably charge him ten per cent or twelve per cent. I should assume the minister is penalizing that man who wants to get his patent by going to the bank or the trust company or the mortgage or loan company from five per cent to seven per cent, if he wants to have the same privilege as the man who has the money in the bank and who can make the payment to the Government. The minister cannot get away from that. The minister is taking the responsibility of making the conditions of life less onerous for certain of the settlers who have had the privilege of taking purchase homesteads or pre-empted homesteads. If he is going to change those conditions, he ought to make the conditions equal to all parties concerned. Why should the minister penalize this man? Here are both cases, the man who can pay up at the end of three years from the date of his
homestead entry, and the man who cannot. Both of these parties, under the legislation now proposed, will be exempted from three years interest. After three years from the time at which the entry was made for the homestead you find the conditions exactly the same so far as these men are concerned, they both have three years' exemption from interest.
The conditions are absolutely even up to that point, but then they become absolutely different. The man who can pay down $480 jash is to be relieved of all further responsibility as to residing on his pre-empted homestead, while the man who cannot afford to pay the $480-unless he borrows it and pays 10 per cent or 12 per cent interesG-is to be penalized by having to perform still further residence duties. I do not think that is a square deal. If the minister wants to do something to make himself popular with the homesteaders,-and Lord knows he needs it, at any rate this Government at Ottawa do-if he is going to make conditions of life less onerous for the men who have purchased pre-emptions in that particular area he should make the conditions absolutely even, and no amount of argument can persuade me that conditions contained in section 2 of this Bill are in any way just and right as between the man who has means and the man who has not.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-price:
William Erskine Knowles: The minister seems unwilling to assist us in the matter of readjusting the residence duties on pre-emptions, but perhaps he will meet us on this. The minister lays it down as correct-and I think it is wise legislation at this juncture -that the entrant shall not pay interest on his $480 for the first three years after he enters on his pre-emption. He must pay it after the pre-emption time, so to call it, commences to run. I am not quite sure how the minister is going to ruin this thing. His Bill looks to me to be a very strange one. We have just passed clause 2, and I am quite sure no man in the House can tell us just what it means. For instance, it says you will have to do the residence duties for the fraction of time during which you are rustling for the $480. But if it takes a man fifteen months to get that amount, how much residence duties would he have to do? But the minister, following his practice of doing no wrong, will no doubt see that it is carried out correctly. The department will have some trouble over that; it is ill-digested. The responsibility, however, is

on the minister who does not seem to care to discuss it with us. Perhaps he will tell us later how much residence duty the man will have to do who has to go out and rustle fifteen months to get the $480. With regard to section 3 a strange principle is involved. For the first three years the man is charged no rent and no interest. At the end of the third year, or whenever his pre-emption time commences, he pays down a dollar an acre and commences to pay interest on the $320. Why should he pay interest on the $320 more than on the $480? It cannot be for rent, because he has had the use of the land all the time, and it cannot be to show the earnestness of his bargain, because he has already paid $160. If he should be forgiven his interest for the first three years, he should be forgiven every cent the Government can take off his back; he should be forgiven all the interest. If he is not to be charged interest on the $480, he should not be charged interest on the balance of $320. The minister says he will commence to use the land more after the third year; but he has had the use of the land from the start and can grow as good a crop in the second year as in the fifth or sixth. I think the minister should make this interest-waiving apply to the whole amount. I wish to move the following amendment:
That section 3 be amended by striking out all the words between the word ' instalments ' in the eighth line of said section and the word ' provided ' in the fourteenth line thereof and substituting the following:
Any instalment or instalments not paid on the due date'thereof shall bear interest at the rate of five per centum per annum from such due date until the date of payment, but no Instalment shall bear interest prior to the due date thereof.
I hope the minister will agree to that.


William Roche: I think the hon. member for Moosejaw is using the wrong term when he states that the man is being penalized because he has to pay interest after the expiration of the first three years. Is he penalized at the present day. The only way he is being penalized under this Act is that he is being forgiven the first three years' interest, and if that is penalizing, I think the pre-emptor will be very glad to be penalized in that manner. The interest starts under this Act at the end of the first three years on the $480. If the pre-emptor should pay an instalment of $100, or Whatever it may be, he will have to pay interest on just that much less; so he is not being

penalized at all. I do not think there is any necessity for the hon. gentleman's amendment, though I am quite willing that the section should stand for further consideration and amendment. Both the hon. member for Moosejaw and the hon. member for Humboldt have said that we are penalizing the poor man.


William Erskine Knowles: We will cut out the
word penalizing, and say charging. Penalizing may be a little strong, but I feel very keenly about this matter.


William Roche: It is an impossibility not
to have inequalities so long as there is an unequal distribution of wealth. I do not think it is necessary to charge the present Act with undue discrimination against the poor man, for I have brought this amendment in largely at the instance of the poor pre-emptor who desires to secure his homestead patent in order that he may raise the money, to pay for his pre-emption at the same time. I am sure that they will not feel they are being discriminated against simply because the rich man may be able to pay at the end of the three years. The poor man has exactly the same option. He an pay at the end of the three years, or go on paying exactly as under the present Act. The hon. gentleman's argument, as I understand it, is that the poor homesteader is being discriminated against. I am lightening his burdens by taking off three years' interest, and he has the option of getting his homestead patent and raising the money to pay for his pre-emption at the same time, or he can go on paying for it as the present Act provides.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not think the minister quite understands me. I do not say that John Smith is any worse off because you are good to George Brown; but it is not fair to be good to George Brown and not apply the same principle to John Smith. John Smith may have to wait two years before he gets his money and he has to do twelve months' residence duties. Suppose the minister made a law that he would not charge $3 an acre to men whose names commence with the letters A to M, and that he would charge the full price to the other fellows whose names start with the letters N to Z; to the men whose names begin with the letters from N to Z the minister says:	Although I have
not charged these other people, I shall charge you, but you are not hurt as you are the same as you were. Perhaps penalizing would not be the word to use, but there

would be discrimination. The minister has not answered the point that there is an unfair discrimination in his proposed legislation against a man who has to wait a year before he gets his $420 gathered together as compared with the man who happens to have the money in the bank.


David Bradley Neely: Do I understand the minister to say that he is going to let that section stand?


William Roche: I would not like to accept the amendment without giving it further consideration.


David Bradley Neely: Have there been any preemptions granted under the Act of 1908?


William Roche: Yes.


David Bradley Neely: I notice that the minister, according to his footnote, is going to make this measure retroactive as far as present entrants for pre-emption are concerned? Is that not the purport of the measure?


William Roche: We are going to allow any person who has not qualified, that is, who has not obtained his patent up to the present time, to come under the provisions of the Act.


David Bradley Neely: The man who may have
held his entry for five or six years, but who has not complied with these regulations and has not obtained his patent, is going to get the benefit of a certain number of years' interest. What about the man who has in the last year or so applied for and obtained his patent, should the minister not give his case consideration? He has his patent, it is true, but he has obtained it under the conditions that he had to pay and perform the residence duties. Surely, because one man has been a little slower than another in applying for his patent, the minister is not going to penalize the man who has been good enough to promptly pay the Government what is due and to fulfil his residence and other duties?


William Roche: Now the hon. gentleman is putting up an argument for the man who has money and has been fortunate and wealthy enough to pay for his pre-emption. There were 879 patents issued for preemption. What would this amount to? If we were to refund to these 879 people it would amount to a little over $2,000,000. If I were to bring down a Supplementary Estimate for $2,000,000 to refund to those who have paid for the right of pre-emption, would the hon. gentleman support such a proposition as that?


David Bradley Neely: Has the minister actually figured up that the interest charges on patents already granted would amount to over $2,000,000?	.


William Roche: No, not the interest
charges.


David Bradley Neely: I am speaking of the interest charges. The minister is not proposing to pay back the principal?


William Roche: I was referring to principal and interest.
Section stands.
On section 4-entrant not required to erect house on purchased homestead:


James McCrie Douglas: Under clause 4 a question may arise which .affects particularly the northern part of the province of Alberta. We are exempted from the provisions of this pre-emption act inasmuch as no pre-emptions are allowed north of the 44th township. I think this is working a hardship because the northern section of Alberta is. largely a brush country and a homesteader m.ay not have arable land enough on his quarter-section of 160 acres to permit him to earn a livelihood. This makes it necessary that he should be enabled to secure more land. I think that the minister should grant, in lieu of pre-emption privileges being allowed in the northern part of Alberta, the Tight to homesteaders or entrants to take up purchased homesteads ini that section of the province. We have in the Peace river country a tremendous amount of arable land and we also have a large number of people who have acquired homesteads possibly in other provinces or who have exhausted their homestead rights either by abandonment or in some other manner and I think it .should be the policy of the department to allow these people to have the privilege of acquiring a purchased homestead such as is granted in the province of Saskatchewan, and in the southern part of Alberta, under the purchased homestead provisions. In the northern section of Alberta the purchased homestead area should be extended so as to permit entrants to obtain purchased homesteads. If the minister will not acquiesce in this suggestion I would like to move	-
That section 28 he amended by striking out the words 'open for entry in the manner set forth in this section ' when they occur in lines 22 and 23 thereof, and by further striking out

all the words contained in lines 36 to 53 thereof, both inclusive.
This is to permit of purchased homesteads being acquired north of township 44.


William Roche: Purchased homesteads
were allowed, as the hon. gentleman states, to those who had exhausted their rights to take up another homestead. There was a time when a person was entitled to take up .a second homestead. That privilege has been cancelled and in order to allow per>3ons coming within this class to obtain more land within) a certain area, much the same area as the pre-emption area, they are allowed to take up purchased homesteads on much the same conditions as people may take up pre-emptions. As this area is largely the same area as the pre-emption area, it was considered at the time that it would not be wise to extend it farther north or into other portions of the same province that had not this particular character of land. I would make the same answer to the hon. gentleman that I wonid have made had I replied to my hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr, McKay) in regard to the extension of the pTe-emption area. It was designed originally because it was considered that 320 acres in that area would maintain a farmer and hils family no better than 160 acres in a more productive part of the country. In view of so many people being of the opinion that it was very doubtful wisdom to have established the original pre-emption area, I do not feel now like recommending an extension of it, or of the purchased homestead area. The northern part of the province is more adapted for mixed farming. The conditions referred to by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. McKay), where there is too much water, makes a difference from the semi-arid district, hut as drainage propositions are put into effect, much of the land now under water will be drained and made arable. I think it is better to encourage mixed farming in the northern district, and I think a farmer in that part of the country which i's wooded and well watered will thrive much better under mixed farming than mere grain growing. I do not think it would be wise to accede at present to the requests of the hon. member for Prince Albert and the hon. member for Strathcona to enlarge the area either for pre-emption or purchased homesteads.
[Mr. Douglas. [


Frank Oliver: I do not think the minister's reasons are apt as applied to the purchased homesteads. The results have shown that the pre-emption provision was a wise one, and that it brought in a large population to a vast area of country that up to the time of its adoption had not been occupied. The purchased homestead has nothing to do with giving the settler a greater area than a quarter-section. The purchased homestead merely allows the man who has exhausted his homestead ri'ght, and who, if he is looking for land again, must go across the line for it, to take up another homestead on certain specified"conditions. He pays $3 an acre for it; he does a larger measure of cultivation than on the first homestead, and m every way the interests of the country are guaranteed under the purchased homestead provision. Every old-timer in the West knows of hundreds of cases where people have exhausted their homestead rights under difficult circumstances, and to whom it would be of great advantage to be allowed to take up homesteads and be pioneers once more. The only reason purchased homesteads were restricted to the pre-emption area was because at the time there was a general objection to allowing a purchased homestead at all. I felt convinced that it was desirable from every point of view that there should be such a privilege accorded, and I was able to get the consent of the House to that, if restricted to the pre-emption area, when I was not able to get that consent when I had asked for it to be applied to the whole country. Experience has shown that the danger which was feared at that time from the granting of this privilege-the fear of 10 p.m. a transfer of whole bodies of people as a result of the privilege-does not now exist. To-day, in the light of our experience, I am sure that the Government would be well advised, and would be acting strictly in the public interest as well .as in the interest of many hundreds of pioneers who have exhausted their rights and who now are not in a position to give the best service of which they are capable to their country, because they are not able to take up another homestead, as they would if granted this privilege. I would urge very strongly on the minister that he assent to the proposal. Or possibly he might allow the matter to stand to consider it at a later date.


Mr. W. H. WHITE:: I am sorry the minister does not look with favour on the proposed amendment of the hon. member for

Stiathcona (Mr. Douglas). The minister states that in his opinion a quarter-section of land in the north country would produce as much as a half-section further south. That may be true of some sections but it is not true generally. I know that from possibly township 44 to township 54, which is "considered the best district in the province of Alberta, it might be true, but taking it from township 54 north, the country is very much broken and I question whether the average quarter-section would contain over 80 acres of arable land, I thought it was a great mistake that the pre-emption regulation, when first introduced, did not extend over the whole province. It is misleading to new settlers; people come here from other countries with the expectation of being able to take up half a section, and they are disappointed. In the semi-arid or dry belt it may be that the land does not yield as much as in the north, but there is a great deal of land south of 44 that is just as productive as any land north of i4, so that you cannot make any general application of a law in that respect. It would, in my opinion, be better if the homestead regulations were made general so that every one would understand. North of 54 there is a good deal of timber and a good deal of water. I know quarter-sections not far from railways which on account of the water and the wood on them are not fit to cultivate. There are in some places side hills that would make grazing land, but there may be 50 or 60 acres of water, and a man could not make a livelihood with the number of cattle he could keep on 70 or 80 acres. There are other places where the water floods in the spring, which makes it impossible to farm, but still stock could be raised on that land. If a man be confined to a quarter-section he cannot Taise more than 35 or 40 head of cattle, which would hardly sustain a family. The man in the north, considering the nature of the country, has just as much need of a half section as has the settler in the south. The minister is an old settler; he has lived in the West for a long time and he knows that years ago, before we had the advantage of the railways, many of the first settlers who located in the northern part of the country found themselves in difficulty after some years. There were no markets and they were forced off the land. Many of them lost their land altogether, and some sold it for four or five hundred dollars. Afterwards when they had advantages that they did not have at that time, they found 212
themselves without land and without means to secure land. I cannot see any good reason why any man, if he is willing to go on the land, to live on it for a few years, to fulfill the homestead requirements and to pay for it, should not have an opportunity, now that conditions are more favourable, to make good on the land. Many of these settlers wasted the land when it was of no value; they gave it away for nothing because they could not exist on it, and by so doing they lost the opportunity of making a living on it as they could now do.


James McCrie Douglas: In emphasizing the
point which I raised a few moments^ ago, I wish to inform the minister that within a radius of fifteen miles of the city of Edmonton, a city of 70,000 inhabitants, there are homestead lands available to-day in the Beaver hills which are not considered valuable enough to ibe taken up by homesteaders. If this concession were granted of a purchased homestead, the chances are that a great deal of this land would be taken up for the purpose of raising stock. This land is full of hollows and valleys and it is not suitable for the raising of agricultural products; but at 'the same time, if a man were permitted to secure 320 acres in this particular section, he would most likely be able to make a living in raising stock which would be of great value from a local standpoint, within that very reasonable area from a city the size of the city of Edmonton. The minister should take into consideration the facts as set forth by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. White) wiho is fully conversant with conditions in that country; and he should give every consideration to this amendment, because in many cases the land is covered with scrub-timber, which is absolutely detrimental to the settlers and which is of no value whatever from a commercial point of view. It is of no value for firewood; and fire going through that country is a God-send to the settlers. The minister should permit these people, who are prepared to go into mixed farming, but who are not permitted to do so under the present homestead regulations, to make a living and at the same time clear this land which costs twenty to twenty-five dollars an acre for clearing, purposes. If this so-called timber were of merchantable value, I could understand the minister adhering to his regulation as regards the 160 acres, but this timber is of no value commercially.


William Roche: I think the stock provision here will overcome to a considerable extent



some of the difficulties to which my hon. friend has referred. In the case of land such as my hon. friend has described that is fit for the raising of stock, there is a stock provision in this Bill which will allow people to qualify for a homestead by keeping cattle instead of cultivating land not suitable for agricultural purposes. I am aware that the hon. gentleman takes the point that 160 acres is scarcely sufficient for a man to raise stock on. Still, many farmers are craving for that privilege at the present time. They have their 160 acres, which they claim is not suitable for breaking, the 30 acres, which they have to break under the present Dominion Lands Act; and they ask for the privilege of qualifying for the patent by keeping a certain number of stock. I cannot see my way clear at the present time to recommend that 320 acres be given instead of 160.


James McCrie Douglas: Will the minister not take it into consideration?


William Roche: I am quite willing to give the matter every consideration.


James McCrie Douglas: The regulation regarding the raising of stock is absolutely under the control of the homestead inspector. His report is the only information the minister has to go by, and 'it is a very questionable recommendation.


William Roche: How would the hon. gentleman do it-give it indiscriminately?


James McCrie Douglas: It would be quite feasible to have certain areas mapped out that would be open for the qualification of stockraising. We have lots of areas large enough to permit of that.
Amendment of Mr. Douglas negatived: yeas, 26; nays, 37.


David Bradley Neely: While we are discussing these sections that relate to the money question, I want to call the minister's attention to a small point, where I think an amendment should be inserted in the present Dominion Lands Act. If the minister does not want to insert the amendment, he should alter the regulations. Section 32 of the Dominion Lands Act deals with the sale of agricultural land, and gives the minister power to sell a fractional quarter section, with or without homestead conditions, the rate not to be less than $3 per acre. In the constituency that I represent, we have neither the right of pre-emption nor .the right of purchased

homesteads; but in the northern part of the constituency we have a large number of small bodies of water and a large number of fractional quarter sections. I do not know what the practice was under the late Administration with regard to the sale of these fractional quarter sections, that is as to price, except in regard to those that came under my observation.
In all -cases that have come under my own observation I have never known a higher charge to be made than the minimum ?3 per acre, which is mentioned in section 6. In these areas we have not pre-emption or purchased homestead rights. In the purchased homestead and pre-emption district the ]60 acres can be bought for $3 an acre. A gentleman in my constituency made the complaint to me the other day that a. number of his neighbours paid for fractional quarter-sections only $3 an acre, whilst he had to pay $5. I brought the matter to the attention of the commissioner of Crown lands, and I bring it now to the attention of the minister. I understand that the valuations are made by an official of the local land office, who is allowed to say whether or not these fractional quarters are worth $3 or more an acre.- These quarter-sections, which never consist of more than 80 acres, are not sufficient to make a farm and I do not see any reason why we, who have not the right of pre-emption, should have to pay more than the minimum price in any case.


William Roche: The valuation is placed
upon these fractional quarter-sections by officials of the Government. As the hon. gentleman knows, some fractional areas are much more valuable than others. The provisions regarding fractional areas are not confined to any particular portion of the province; they apply equally to any portion of the province where there may be a fractional area. In that respect the fractional areas differ from the pre-emption and purchased homestead areas. The preference is always given to -the man who is the owner of land and who purchases a fractional area of eighty acres or less immediately adjoining. In many instances these lands have been valued at an amount considerably above the minimum valuation.


David Bradley Neely: Does the minister thi.nk
that is fair?


William Roche: I do. The department has to look after its revenue and when no discrimination is made against any part of the West I -think it is quite right that these valuations should be made.

3a59


William Erskine Knowles: I beg to move that section 4 of this Bill be amended by adding thereto the following words:
Section 28, subsection 5 of the Dominion Lands Act is amended by striking out all the wor is between the word ' instalment ' in the fourth line of said subsection and the word ' provided ' in the seventh and eighth lines thereof and substituting therefor the following : Any instalment or instalments not paid on the due date thereof shall bear interest at the rate of five per centum per annum from such due date until the date of payment, but no instalment shall bear interest prior to the due date thereof.
This amendment, would have the same effect with regard to purchased homesteads as the one which I proposed with regard to pTe-emjptions.


William Roche: I am not at all antagonistic to the object of the hon. member, but I think that his amendment had better stand, as well as the clause under discussion. I think that his amendment, which i3 net very happily worded, is subject to some improvement.
Motion withdrawn.
Section stands.
On section 5-section 31 amended:


William Erskine Knowles: Have any changes been made since this Government came into power in the regulations with regard to buildings on purchased homesteads?


William Roche: There has been a change. Homesteaders are only required to have a habitable house on their lands; the regulations previously provided that there should be upon the homestead a house of the value of $300.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-lease of school lands:
David Bradley Neely: Under this section the minister proposes to take to himself larger powers with reference to school lands, which are held in trust by the federal Government for the three prairie provinces. I would like the minister to explain the additional power which he proposes to take unto himself under this section, which says:
Notwithstanding anything in this section, oi elsewhere in this Act, school lands may be leased for any purpose whatsoever, to any person, municipality or other corporation, under and subject to terms and conditions to be provided by regulations made by the Governor in Council.
I think there is some use to which these school lands could very justifiably be put. For instance, at the present time grazing 212J
permits are given in respect of school lands. Does the minister propose to lease these lands that they may be cultivated? If he is taking that power he is taking all kinds of power in the proposed section, and I would suggest that these lands might very greatly deteriorate as salable property when they come to be sold for the benefit of the school endowment funds of the three prairie provinces.


William Roche: I quite agiree that there
are uses to which the school lands might be put, if the regulation so provided, that would not be at all justifiable. That is not the intention. It is the intention to take the power which we have not now of leasing those schools lands and thus adding to the school land endowment funds. I think it is only right and proper that we should increase that trust fund by every legitimate means at our command. At present we have not the power to lease school lands for any purpose and this section is intended to allow us to take the power of leasing them. It will not at all interfere with their sale and the leases will be subject to cancellation! at any time when the sale is made. But in the meantime we will have them as a source of revenue for the Government, not by having them cultivated but by giving grazing leases on them. At present there are permits issued for cutting hay, etc.


Mr NEELY:: If the minister gives the
assurance that these leases will be subject to immediate cancellation, that obviates one objection to the proposal. I would suggest that once the Government take power runtto themselves under this clause to lease these lands, they will have innumerable applications from persons who wish' to break up the lands and cultivate them. If that privilege wTen:e granted to good farmers, to men who farmed their land in the proper manner, cleanly and well, no great disadvantage would come to these lands; but in my judgment it would be very much better to do without the revenue that would be acquired in this way than to have the lands subjected to bad farming and thus be greatly deteriorated in value in case they are put up for sale.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-conditional assignments:
William Roche: I have a few amendments to make in this section. It has been

pointed out that the wording does not exactly cover the object intended. At the present time assignments are made, for instance, to the railway companies for rights cf way. As originally drafted an assignment was prevented unless a definite area forming a portion of a quarter-section held under entry, and the precise loeatio.ni of that entry, were defined. It will be understood that a right of way agent for a railway desiring to go through a man's farm is not in a position, when negotiating with *him, to define- offhand the exact location of the right of way and therefore I suggest to insort the word ' undefined ' instead of ' defined area so formed ' and t-o make the corresponding changes in. the other lines of the section.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 14-stock in lieu of cultivation
in case of certain quarter-sections:


James McKay: I would draw attention to the words arable land in the third line. The section begins:
Notwithstanding- anything contained in this Act, if by a report from a homestead inspector it is shown that any quarter-section does not contain arable land to the extent required to earn patent under this Act-
A good many homesteads in northern Saskatchewan are covered with brush and timber. The land is arable, but it costs a good deal to clear it. The hon. member for Strathcona states that it costs from $22 to $25 an acre to clear the land around Edmonton, and the same conditions exists in northern Saskatchewan. In some homesteads the land is very fertile, but is covered with brush and other timber, -and it costs in some cases as high as $30 to clear the land. Consequently the farmer in the northern portion of the province is handicapped to a great extent as compared with the farmer on the prairie. We have already dealt with the privilege the farmer on the prairie has of taking a free homestead and purchasing pre-emption, and, in addition to that, with the land on his homestead, the very day he lands there he can put his team of horses or his traction engine on his ploughs and start ploughing the whole 160 acres. In northern Saskatchewan-and I presume the same thing applies in northern Alberta-in many cases the farmer cannot find more than two acres clear on his 160 acres. I know that in some cases he cannot find an acre clear of brush. He first has to go to work and clear this land, spend-

ing perhaps $15, $20 and as high as $30 an acre. What is the interpretation to be put upon the words ' arable land? ' Does it mean land that is clear of brush or does it mean land that is capable of being cultivated after it is cleared? I would suggest to the minister that those words should be made plain. For instance, after the words ' arable land ' there might be added ' free of timber or brush ' because as it is at present, if it is construed that this means land that is capable of cultivation notwithstanding the fact that it has brush or timber on it, the privilege given whereby homesteaders can prove up by cattle would not apply because there would be arable land there, the only difficulty being that it would have to be cleared first. That is just what we want to obviate in northern Saskatchewan. We want to have the privilege that where a homesteader cannot find the required number of acres clear of timber and brush to prove up for his homestead he should be allowed, instead of cultivating that homestead, to prove up by the cattle. It seems to me that this section is not happily worded. I would also draw the attention of the minister to subsection 7 of section 14, which provides that the wholje .quarter1 section of land entered for shall be enclosed by a -substantial fence to the satisfaction of the minister. That is one of the conditions imposed upon the homesteader before he can get his patent. Cases may arise where a homesteader is not called upon to fence his land; for instance, in some portions there is a herd law, and the homesteader with a herd of cattle is not required to fence his land. Under this Act the homesteader, before he can secure his patent, has to fence his land although not actually necessary for practical purposes. I submit that that clause should be changed so as to make it possible for the homesteader to get his patent without necessarily having to fence his land.


William Roche: 
James McCrie Douglas: I wish to endorse what the hon. member for Prince Albert has said in regard to scrub land. In the section from which I come three-fourths of the homesteads are composed of scrub land, which costs the settler from $15 to $30 an acre to clear. I am in perfect sympathy with the regulation of the minister which permits of stock being put on land to prove up. That is a splendid idea and a good regulation, but you are putting a tremendous amount of responsibility on your homestead inspectors.


William Roche: No more than at the
present time in connection with homesteads.


James McCrie Douglas: True; but still there is a tremendous responsibility in deciding what constitutes arable land. I know many cases where homesteaders have taken up quarter-sections, 150 acres of which were
scrub land which was absolutely useless as regards the commercial value of its timber or scrub. You are leaving it to your homestead inspectors to say whether that is timber of any value or not, and whether it island which might be permitted to prove up under your stock regulation. I have no objection in regard to the question of fencing. I have never heard any objection in my section of the country. We have a herd law there which compels every man to fence his own land. As I say, you are leaving a tremendous leverage in the hands of the homestead inspectors when you give them power to decide ,what constitutes arable land. The question is a large one, and I do not know how you can regulate the matter, but I think there should be some recourse from the report of the homestead inspector in case he puts in a biased report, because I know of many cases in' which homesteaders have been discriminated against by the homestead inspector, not from political motives, but as a matter of judgment as to what constitutes arable land. What , the hon. member for Prince Albert has said with regard to the cost of clearing scrub land is absolutely true. It is a very expensive operation, and I am glad to hear that in some cases the minister requires only six acres cleared instead of thirty, because to clear six acres of scrub land represents more cash outlay than to clear thirty acres of prairie land. Many farmers are loth to enter upon scrub land, and I think the more latitude the department allows entrants on that class of land the better it will be for the settlement of the country. I reiterate that in northern Alberta three-fourths of the land available for homesteads is scrub land, which entails a tremendous expense to clear; and any alleviation the department can give to those homesteaders is absolutely in the interest of the country at large. I would strongly recommend that the minister do everything in his power, in the discretion of his department, to .allow these men to get their patents, without undue hardship or restrictions.


David Bradley Neely: I do not want this section to pass without emphasizing to some extent what has been said by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. When a homesteader applies for patent at the end of three years' residence, or four or five, as the case may be, I do not think it should be left to the homestead inspector at that stage of the proceedings-I do not care whether he has had the power in the

(past or not-to decide whether or not that homesteader has fulfilled the requirements of the Act as to keeping so many head of stock, or breaking so many acres of land. I do not know how the difficulty may be *worked out, but I do not see how any provision of that sort can fail to be abused as long as human nature is human nature. A homestead inspector should not have that authority. It gives the homestead inspector the power to make it difficult or easy for the applicant as his sympathies may dictate in each instance. The minister has increased the staff very considerably, he has spent a lot of money on that department of the public service and consequently he will not tell us that these men are overburdened with work. If the declaration of the applicant shows that the land is inclined to be rough in character, heavily wooded, and that sort of thing, the beginning of the residence of the homesteader is the proper time to have the inspection and declaration made so that this homesteader may then take his choice .as to whether he will carry out his duties by cultivation of a certain area of land or take advantage of the stock provision. That ought to be done at the commencement of the operation and not at the finish. I did not take any part in the discussion this afternoon along these lines. I did not see that I would be altogether justified in discussing what might be somewhat of a partisan question on a public measure, but I do say that no homestead inspector ought to have authority over these men or the right to say a homesteader, who is applying for his patent, has not, in the opinion of the inspector, fulfilled his duties.


William Henry White: I think the fairest way would be to put a value on cultivation. It might be worth $30 or $40 an acre to break land that is rough and scrubby whereas on the open plain it might only be worth $5. The homestead inspector would be the proper person to value the cultivation and that would be tlie fairest way. Then it would not be left to the discretion of the homestead inspector except that he would be required to make the valuation. A man would soon know pretty nearly the value of the land and he would know whether it would be worth while going on with it or not.
Progress reported.


ADULTERATION ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. B. Nantel (Minister of Inland Revenue), the House went into.

Committee on Bill No. 99, to amend the Adulteration Act, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section I-'definition:
Mr. GRAHAM:: If the minister will give us an explanation of what this Bill means, it will expedite it.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Most of the amendments to the Adulteration Act contained in .this Bill are not important. The material one is regarding maple syrup .and maple sugar. The first amendment is only a definition of agricultural fertilizers. We have decided to put in the Adulteration Act the same definition of fertilizers as that contained in the Fertilizer Act.
On section 6-standard for maple sugar:


George Perry Graham: Does that mean that
maple sugar cannot be mixed with mus-cavado or brown sugar?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The amendment contained in the sixth section is that the Governor in Council shall have the right to amend the standard according .to the desire of the analyst. If it were necessary, in the opinion of the analyst, to change the standard, this could be done by Order in Council instead of by legislation.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


VOLUNTEER BOUNTY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Sam. Hughes (Minister of Militia and Defence) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Blondin in the Chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize the payment of a grant of one hundred dollars at any time before the thirty-first day of December, 1915, to every volunteer who is living on the date of the passing of an Act based upon this resolution, who was regularly enlisted in and served with the militia called out for active service in the year 1S66 by the Governments of Canada, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, or in the year 1870, by the Government of Canada, with the exception of certain battalions or riflemen formed for service in the Northwest; and also to provide that such grant may be paid to the widow or legal representative of every volunteer who was living on the first day of April, 1912, and to whom no grant has previously been made under the authority of any Act.
James Joseph Hughes: I call the attention of the committee to the fact that the province of Prince Edward Island is not in-

chided ill this resolution. Will the minister explain why?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: There can be no objection to including Prince Edward Island. 0! course, the Prince Edward Islander will have to show that he had been called out for active service. We can insert the words 'Prince Edward Island' after New Brunswick.


James Joseph Hughes: I have prepared a short amendment to add the following words:
Or who has drilled in the province of Prince Edward Island in preparation for repelling the threatened Fenian invasions of 1866 and 1870.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: No, we will just put in the words 'Prince Edward Island.'


James Joseph Hughes: If it is made essential that the men had to be called out by .proclamation, the volunteers in Prince Edward Island may possibly be excluded, but I presume the minister will not insist upon that as it is likely a technical proof that will be required. The member for Annapolis is uttering the usual hollow laugh he utters when anybody on this side is referring to a question before the House, but that does not make any difference. If the minister is furnished with proof that in any province where preparations were made to repel the invasion threatened at that time, where men drilled and prepared, and where everything was done that could be done under the existing conditions, I presume the minister would be satisfied *with that proof. In that year the governor of the colony of Prince Edward Island, in opening the legislature, called attention to the fact that Canada was threatened with invasion, and he asked the legislature to make preparation to meet it. The legislature of Prince Edward Island did make [DOT]such provision, and it passed a special Militia Act rendering every male in the province, between the ages of II p.m. 16 and 60 years, liable for military service, excepting a few, such as clergymen and schoolmasters. The legislature then placed the whole revenue of the colony at the service of the .governor, who was commander-in-chief. The men of Prince Edward Island secured [DOT]drill sergeants from the regular army at Halifax, and, at a very great expense to themselves, they carried on drilling operations for a very considerable period of time. I do not know that anything more was done in any province, or that any
[DOT]more could be done. In proof of my statement I will read from the records of the time. In the Parliamentary Reporter for the session of 1866 of the legislature of Prince Edward Island, on April 9, I find this paragraph in the speech of the governor at the opening of Parliament:
Mr. Speaker, and gentlemen of the House of Assembly:	.
You will, I am sure, have observed, with just pride, the loyalty and the spirit which your fellow subjects in the neighbouring provinces have displayed, when threatened by piratical attacks at the hands of lawless men. I know that, should an emergency ever unfortunately occur In this island, I could rely with confidence on a like spirit in its inhabitants of every creed and station. But I must seriously urge upon you the necessity of doing all in your power towards making due preparation for such an emergency by giving your earnest consideration to the laws which at present regulate the militia and the volunteer force.
In reply to that speech the legislature said in paragraph 9:
It is with feelings of just pride that we have observed, the loyalty and the spirit evinced by our fellow subjects in the neighbouring provinces when threatened by piratical attacks at the hands of lawless men. And we beg to assure Your Excellency that, should a similar emergency ever unfortunately occur in this island, Your Excellency could rely with confidence on a like spirit in its inhabitants of every creed and station, and we admit the necessity of doing all in our power towards making due preparation for such an emergency by earnestly considering the laws which at present regulate the militia and the volunteer force.
A few days afterwards the legislature proceeded to pass a Militia Act. I quote:
On the motion of the hon. Solicitor-General the House went into Committee on the' Bill for the regulation of the militia and volunteer forces
The militia shall consist of all male inhabitants of the island, from sixteen to sixty years of age, not exempted by law; to be divided into two classes, namely active and sedentary militia; the active to be divided into two classes, namely, volunteer and regular militia.
For the purposes of enrolment and organization, each county shall be divided into as many regimental districts as may be decided upon by the Commander-in-Chief; and each such district shall again be divided into company districts. Each of the former districts to furnish one militia regiment, and each of the latter to furnish one regular and one sedentary company of militia.
And so on.
I find this resolution, moved by the Solicitor General at that time:
Resolved, that in consequence of the threatened invasion of the British colonies by bands of Fenian marauders, this House pledges itself to place the whole of the revenue of the island at the disposal of the Government for the purpose of organizing the militia and

volunteers, and for such other military purposes as may be deemed expedient for the protection and defence of the colonies.
That was accordingly done. The leader of the Opposition at that time, Mr. Coles, seconded that resolution and it passed the House unanimously. In accordance with the laws in force at that time, as I have already stated, all the male inhabitants of the island were called out by that Act and proceeded to drill. I have here letters from men who took part in the drilling at that time.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Were all the male inhabitants from sixteen to sixty under arms?


James Joseph Hughes: All with the exception of the exemptions. I will read a few of the letters to the committee, just to show what has been done by men who are still living. This is a letter from a man named James Feehan, of French village, Prince Edward Island, written on the 24th of February last:
I was one of the militia at that time, 48 years ago. We were drilled weeks at a time, three days each week, and sworn to proceed to headquarters at once on call, to be loyal to the Queen, and do our best to defend the country. One man of our company named Neil McKay, now of New Brunswick, got paid last fall. His claim is no better than mine. There are very few of the number living now.
There are other parts of the letter that do not relate to this matter which I need not read. Here is a letter addressed to me from a man named N. E. Mathewson:
Seeing that you have interested yourself in provincial volunteers and their pay at the time of the Fenian raid, I take the liberty of sending you the enclosed sketch of the Strathal-byn volunteers at the time. I suppose it is too late for any of us who are yet living to look for any recognition.
This is the sketch that he sent:
At the first murmur of danger the young men of Strathalbyn formed themselves into a volunteer company and called themselves the Strathalbyn volunteers. They elected me as their captain, the late Mr. A. B. McKenzie, lieutenant and Mr. Alexander Stewart, ensign. They assembled regularly for drill. I was their instructor, for there was no other convenient, and I had studied the manual then in use, and when we received our rifles, I taught them the manual of arms, and superintended their rifle practice. For some time we were drilled by a sergeant from H.M.O. 16th regiment, then stationed at Halifax. Lieutenant Governor George Dundas, at that time Commander-in-Chief of our island came out to see the company and was pleased with it. A squad of my company camped at the annual shooting match in Charlottetown.
This is a letter from a Mr. Keefe, dated February 18 last:
I drilled at the time Of the Fenian raid. The captain of the company I drilled in was Law-
rence Peters. Malcolm Leslie was drill sergeant assisted by a drill sergeant from Halifax. Our ages were taken and our height, also sworn in. We were liable to a fine of $25 if we were not in the ranks. We drilled in Souris and Rollo Bay. That would be in lot 44. I was living in Rollo Bay at that time.
Here is a letter from a man now living in Gloucester, Massachusetts:
I have been informed that all the men that served In the militia at the time of the Fenian raid in 1864 and 1865 have been awarded $100 by the Canadian Government. I have been speaking to five or six who have received their money. Now, I drilled for two years at Souris, Rollo Bay and the North Side, East point. I do not just rerqember our captain's name, hut our adjutant's name was Leslie, and our covering sergeant was John McIntyre. As I was born in Souris, I wrote to James Mineghy, but could not get any information concerning the bounty.
Here is a letter from a man named Peter Gormley, who appeared to be active in the service at the time. He gives a list of the men who drilled with him and who went about thirty miles from their homes for that purpose. His letter, which is addressed to myself, reads as follows:
Having read in the paper of the inquiry of volunteers at the time of the Fenian raid of 1866, I will give you a list of some of them. I am informed by those who served or drilled for two years or more, and I was present at every call. The last was at South Port, Prince Edward Island. Every one had to find himself and no pay for their time. Each one had to board or find himself in his eatables. I will give you a list of the people on St. Mary's road.
Here is the list:
Dan. Hughes, Michael Gormley, James Gormley, James McGuigan, Patrick McGuigan, John McGuigan, Thomas McCarron, Dan. McKenna, Thomas Hughes, Bernard McGuigan, Brian McCarron, Thomas Cassidy, Martin McCarthy, William McCarthy, Robert McCarron, Patrick McGee, Alex. Lawson, John Lavertv, Colin Steel, Donald R. Steele, Patrick Mckearney, Thomas Daly, John McCarron.
I think that if any men in the Dominion of Canada are entitled to recompense for what they did on that occasion, these men are. The Legislature of the province did everything that was necessary. Members of the Legislature at that time said that they were willing that the Prince Edward Island volunteers should go to the other provinces if they could render better assistance in that way than by remaining on the island. I think they did as much as was done by any other province. While the volunteers were not technically called out by proclamation, everything was done that could be done; the procedure was just as complete as if the volunteers had been

called out by Governor's proclamation. I would ask the minister not to insist upon the words ' called out by proclamation.'


Mr. MACDONALD:: I think the minister's amendment would not be of any advantage to my hon. friend the hon. member for Kings, Prince Edward Island, because the resolution would apply only in cases where the volunteers had been called out by proclamation of the Governor in Council. I understood my hon. friend to say that while there was no technical proclamation by the Government, there was action by the Legislature which would be substantially the same thing. I assume also from what he said that there was voluntary drilling of volunteers, although there was no regular militia at that time other than that which was initiated under the Art passed that year.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: Section 2 of the Act passed in 1912 reads as follows.
In this Act 'volunteer' means any person who was regularly enrolled or enlisted m and served with any militia corps which the Government of Canada, or of Nova Scotia, or ot New Brunswick called out for active service m the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six or which the Government of Canada called out for active service in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy, excepting, however, the two battalions of riflemen formed for active service in the Northwest.
As was stated by the hon. member for Kings the Legislature of Prince Edward Island provided for this emergency. The ninth clause of the Government's speech was as follows:
It is with feelings of just pride that we have observed the loyalty and spirit evinced by our fellow citizens in the neighbouring provinces when threatened by piratical attacks at the hands of lawless men.
Mr, MACDONALD:	Does it specifically
mention the Fenians?


Angus Alexander McLean: The Fenians were the only men who were disturbing the peace of the country' at that time. A unanimous vote of the Legislature of Prince Edward Island was passed pledging the whole revenue and resources of the island towards rendering assistance to repel this attack, and at the same session a militia Act was passed. That militia Act was sent to England for the assent of the Queen. Some objection was taken to it by the Colonial Secretary and it was returned with the suggestion that it be re-enacted. In the session ol 1866 the Aot was repassed with amendments. In the meantime, in the month of January, 1865, all the militia was called
out; if you look at the journals of the House of Assembly of Prince Edward Island you will find the Adjutant General's report of the militia of the province. It was an unusual thing to call the militia out at this time; the purpose was that Prince Edward Island should be in the *same position as the other provinces so far as repelling the piratical attacks referred to in the Governor's address was concerned. In the year 1865 large sums of money were voted to equip the militia and at the inspection of the militia in the city of Charlottetown in 1865 there were present
1,000	men. That was not an ordinary thing in the province of Prince Edward Island at that time. Of these men, 813 were equipped with uniforms. In the meantime the British Government had loaned the colony a large number of rifles; the Adjutant General's report states where these rifles were and how they were being used. The journals of the House of Assembly of: that year show that a large sum of money was expended for the purpose of organizing the militia and of putting them in shape in order that they might go into the field if necessary. So we have the militia of Prince Edward Island in the same position as the militia of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Canada. It is true that they were not called out by special order of the Governor of the province of Prince Edward Island, but the Legislature of the province made the provision that they should be put into a position to go into the field if necessary. As will be found in the Adjutant General's report, a number of drills were held; the number of officers and men and the quantity of equipment are also mentioned. Full details may be- found in the journals of the Assembly of Prince Edward Island. I understand that all these men were properly enrolled, and that the enrolment lists are to-day in the city of Halifax. When the militia was taken away from Charlottetown six or seven years ago, the militia authorities in Halifax asked that all papers in connection with the militia of Prince Edward Island should be handed over to the Dominion authorities. Without any reference to the authorities in Prince Edward Island, all of the old militia lists were handed over and sent on to Halifax. This was an improper proceeding on the part of Dominion authorities because these lists of the militia of Prince Edward Island before Confederation should have remained in the hands of the provincial authorities. They are to-day, however, in the hands of the authorities at Halifax and

if the minister would take the trouble he *could get them and see exactly What the condition of affairs was in 1866. I do not think the conditions in Prince Edward Island differed very much from the condition in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, and the militia of Prince Edward Island are entitled to the same considerations as the militia of Nova Scotia or of New Brunswick. If the technicality of the calling out of the militia is to be taken into consideration, and if the authorities in Ottawa insist that this proclamation must be produced, we cannot produce it, but I think that the technicality should not be allowed to be insisted upon in a matter of this kind. If the militia in Nova Scotia are paid, those in Prince Edward Island are as much entitled to it as they. It is true that a great sum has 'been paid to these men and the probability is that many people who are *entitled to this grant will not receive it. If the Dominion Government insists that the [DOT]authorities in each province shall produce the Order in Council, then, of course, the militia in Prince Edward Island cannot get the grant; but I do not think that would be a fair way to deal with the militia in Prince Edward Island, who did as much as the militia in any other province. Many of the militia in Nova Scotia and Upper Canada simply drilled, they were called out *and met at a certain place and were inspected by an officer and that is all that happened. They get their $100. Why should not those in Prince Edward Island get theirs? There is no reason. If the Government of Canada insists that that proclamation should be produced, then I would ask them to deal in a different way with the militia of Prince Edward Island, that is to grant the Government of Prince Edward Island a sum equivalent to the money which they spent in the calling out and drilling of the militia and a certain sum for the militia wlho were called out. There must be some way of dealing with this matter in order to do something for the militia of the different provinces who took part in the emergency.


James Joseph Hughes: I beg to submit an amendment. I think it will cover the ground and I am sure it will meet with the approval of the minister and of the committee:
That the resolution be amended by adding after the words * New Brunswick ' in the sixth line ' or who drilled in the province of Prince Edward Island In preparation for repelling the threatened Fenian invasion of 1886 and 1870.'

Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	I am sure the
House is very much interested and instructed by the data which have been placed before us by the two representatives of Prince Edward Island. It shows a splendid spirit in anticipation. But I think the hon. member for King's failed to note that in introducing the subject as he did, by quoting from the proceedings of the legislature of Prince Edward Island that they had observed with pride how the people of the neighbouring provinces had turned out to repel the threatened invasion, he made it evident that the threatened invasion had passed and gone before they were organized. The keynote of the whole matter is that if the militia were called out for active service in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Canada they complied with the law, and I am sure my hon. friends from Prince Edward Island would not ask for anything more than the other provinces receive. If they were called out for active service they come under the Act. If they were not called out for active service they do not come under the Act. Therefore, in consenting to insert the words * Prince Edward Island,' I think ample justice will be done to the people and representatives of that province. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for King's (Mr. J. J. Hughes) would simply hand over the bounty of $100 to every man between the ages of 16 and 60 in the province. There was not a part of the province of Ontario but turned out at that time to drill. In Nova Scotia there was undoubtedly a very peculiar condition of affairs. There was a universal compulsory service law in Nova Scotia, and the entire militia of that province were called out under that Act. It was a rather peculiar condition of affairs. Nevertheless they turned out, they were called out and I believe, from all the evidence submitted to the committee in the House here from representatives of both parties in the province, they turned out loyally and well on that occasion. If there is any evidence of that kind from Prince Edward Island, I would be glad to insert the words * Prince Edward Island,' but the amendment of the hon. member for King's of course would be ridiculous. . It would simply hand over the money to every man in Nova Scotia who was an adult at that time.


Mr. CARVELL:: I do not like to harp
back and say, I told you so; but if the minister will remember that when the Bill was introduced in 1912 I called his attention to

-the fact that he would have a lot of difficulty in the administration of the law, because he did not properly describe what -was meant by the words ' called out.' If he will refer to the debate of that year he will find that I particularly called his attention to that fact. I do not pretend to have any more insight into these things than any other member, but from my little knowledge of militia matters I should say that a lot of the difficulty started from that. There were not over 600 in Nova Scotia, and yet he is compelled to stand up and tell us that the men were called out and loyally obeyed the summons. He does not believe that in his heart himself.


Mr. SAM HUGHES:: Oh, yes, he does.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, he does not. He
knows that this is one of the most contemptible scandals in [DOT] Canadian history. Twelve thousand or fifteen thousand men have received $100 each in Nova Scotia who were never called out in the proper sense any more than I was called out, and I was only born a year $r two before that. It is true there was a proclamation by the Government of Nova Scotia calling out the active militia to perform annual drill, probably in anticipation of the Fenian raid. I daresay that they met the technical requirements of his Act. But does the minister believe that a man away down in Cape Breton island who was called out to perform annual drill really complied with the spirit of the Bill passed in 1912 providing a Fenian Raid bounty of $100? That is 48 years ago. Assuming that the man was eighteen years of age when he became a member of the active militia, that would make him 66 years of age to-day Does my hon. friend believe that there are
15.000	militia men in Nova Scotia to-day, 66 years of age, who were members of the militia at that time? It is not possible. I believe thousands of men in Nova Scotia have been paid who were barely born at the time of the Fenian Raid, and my hon. friend knows it. He believes it anyway. It is simply a scandal.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: There is evidence that
81.000	men responded to the call at that time in Nova Scotia alone.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the evidence
now, I dare say, but go back 48 years ago and what was the evidence then? I think that nearly every able-bodied man in Nova Scotia claims now that he was a member of the militia at that time, and was called out. I was down in Nova Scotia when the
minister's officials were going around. In the first place there were two or three officials from Ottawa; then a provincial organizer came down to lead the Ottawa officials round; a county official then appeared, and he was drumming them up. They held meetings in each constituency.
I went down with my hon. friend from Guysborough to hold a political meeting,at Canso, and the whole crowd was on the same boat drumming up these veterans.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Did the hon. member tell them on that occasion that they were all fakes?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I was not discussing that question at all, because I did not believe the minister was going to be fool enough to be caught by it. Perhaps if I had realized how easy the minister is I might have had something to say. They were only getting ready for the coup at that time. I know the minister is flighty, to use as mild a term as possible, when it comes to militia matters, and that he is not governed by the ordinary horse sense that actuates him in the business affairs of life. I think the minister would make every man a Colonel who would accept it, or a Brigadier-General. He would give away all the resources of Canada to militia men if his followers would allow him to do so. But the minister has sane business moments, and he knows that a great fraud is being perpetrated upon his department by the people of Nova Scotia. If he has a law which is capable of being so interpreted that frauds are being perpetrated upon the country why does not the minister amend his law to prevent this, and to bring within its purview those who are properly entitled to "the bounty? If it be necessary to bring in Prince Edward Island, bring it in, but on a reasonable business basis. Give these people a bounty if they are entitled to it, but if they are not, do not. I want to compliment the minister in that there has been no scandal in connection with this matter in my province. I think the minister has tried to administer the law fairly in most cases. I have two or three complaints before me, which I shall call to his attention later, but, generally speaking, I think the law has been fairly administered. I think the great majority of those entitled to the bounty have received it. In New Brunswick, there really was an attempted invasion of Canada. I think only three points in the whole Dominion were threatened. One was in western Ontario, another in the Eastern Townships, and the other

point was near St. Andrews, in New Brunswick. The people of New Brunswick responded, generally, and I think there was no outside assistance. They came from Woodstock, my own town, from Fredericton, and different points 100 miles away, and the threatened invasion was repelled. I think they only did their duty; they only did what British subjects ought to do, and what common humanity teaches every man to do-to defend his home and fireside. As I said before, I very much doubt the wisdom of the minister's granting a bounty at all. I do not see any reason why a man should be rewarded for defending his home and fireside in case of emergency. But if my hon. friend is determined-I think for political purposes-to grant this money, surely it ought to be granted in a sane business-like manner, and if he would apply the law all over Canada as in New Brunswick I do not think there would be much fault to find. I repeat that the manner in which these
15,000	people in Nova Scotia have been paid the bounty is simply a scandal. They never expected to be called out on active service; they never realized what it meant, and when the minister passed his law I do not think he realized what it meant. He used the words ' called out,' and it so happened that his friends in Nova Scotia found that the conditions fitted in with the words of the Act, and the minister had not the moral courage to repeal it. I have a few individual cases to bring to the attention of my hon. friend so that he can amend the law to meet these cases. On general principles I want to know if .the minister will not try to get down to real honest business, and if he feels he has a right to pass a law providing a bounty to do it in a way that will reflect credit upon his department?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must remind the hon. member that the amendment before the committee provides for an enlargement of the provisions made in the resolution under consideration, and therefore I must rule the hon. member out of order.


John Howard Sinclair: The motion is before the committee as well as the amendment, and I think members are at liberty to discuss it. I supported this Act at its Inception, and I have not changed my mind since. I want to say a few words in response to my hon. friend the member .for Carleton 'Mr. Carvell). I think my hon. friend is altogether mistaken, and 
does not understand the facts as regards ,Nova Scotia at that time. Very great preparations were made in that province- much greater preparations, I have no doubt, than in any other province of Canada. For certain reasons the people of .Nova Scotia were very much alarmed at .the time. They expected an attack by sea, and the entire militia of the province was ordered out and turned out. There was a very strong force of militia in Nova .Scotia at the time, considering the population of the province. No man who reads the history of those days, and the discussions in the local legislature, and who makes himself acquainted with conditions in Nova Scotia at that time, will have any doubt of the fact that there was a very large force of militia prepared to take a hand against this invasion, if it had been necessary to do so; but, of course, everyone is well ^.ware that the real invasion never took place; and that, in the view of some people, is a weakness in the claims of those people for compensation. The title to compensation rests, I understand, on a legal p(?int: on the words of a proclamation which was issued on the 17th of March, 1866, which reads as follows:
Proclamation by His Excellency Sir William Fenwick Williams.
Whereas a hostile invasion of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick is threatened, by which the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects therein may be put in jeopardy, and preparations are necessary to repel such invasion if made:
And, whereas, in such an emergency, I am by law authorized and required to call out the. militia force of Nova Scotia in aid of Her Majesty's regular forces for its defence:
I do hereby command and require all officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates of the militia force of Nova Scotia, and all persons liable to perform militia duty in said province, to turn out for actual service as in time of war, according to law, and subject, on failure so to do, to the pains, penalties, and forfeitures thereby imposed and provided.
Of which all persons interested will take notice, and govern themselves accordingly.
Given under my hand and seal at Halifax, this seventeenth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and in the twenty-ninth year of Her Majesty's reign.
By command of His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor and Commander-in-chief.
Charles Tupper.
You will note that this proclamation, orders the whole force of Nova Scotia out for actual service as in time of war. The language happens to be the same as the language in the Act which we have passed and I suppose it was unknown to the minister at the time this proclamation existed in the form in which it does. There is ample

proof that the force responded very loyally to this call. Sir Charles Tupper was Premier of Nova Scotia and the legislature *met just about that time. On the 19th of March the Premier of the province laid this proclamation (before the members of the legislature and he made a statement which is contained in the following minute of the legislature:
Hon. Provincial Secretary laid on the table, by command of His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor, a copy of the proclamation made by the Commander-in-Chief, calling: out the militia of the province, and in so doing moved the following resolution:
Resolved, that this House cordially approve of the action of His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief calling out the militia, as stated in the proclamation now laid on me table, and will provide for any expense required for the adequate protection of the province.
He said the condition of this province in relation to its local defence had occupied the attention of the Government and the Imperial authorities for a considerable period. It was of recent date, however, owing to circumstances to which he need not particularly allude, because they were familiar to every member

owing to the fact that a large body of lawless men were openly and publicly, in the heart of the adjoining republic, threatening the securities, the rights and liberties, of the people of British North America-that the subject had beeome one of immediate importance.
Mr. Prior said:
That the most cordial reception and the most hearty cheering had greeted the reading of the proclamation of His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief by the regiments who that day had been mustered on the common. He was confident that should the foe invade our province there would he hearts and hands to meet them on the threshold and to defend the hearth stones of our country. He gave this information not because the country would need any additional inducement hut in order that the slight and sarcasm that was frequently thrown upon a mixed population like that of Halifax might have no effect.
Sir Charles Tupper also made the following remarks:
Numbers of persons had been sent to Ireland, and large sums had been contributed to a movement having for its object the subversion of the integrity of the empire, by securing the independence of Ireland from British rule. While he believed that by proper precautions being taken we need not continue in apprehension, the Government had felt it their duty to watch most narrowly the course of affairs, and to take such measure as the security of the country might require. After the adjournment of the House on Saturday, information had been received of such character as to demand instantaneous action. Under the law, the only means by which the militia force could he made available for active service was by a proclamation embodying the militia, and placing them in a position in which their services could be readily
obtained. He was unwilling to place before the House the information that had been received by His Excellency and by the Commander-inChief of Her Majesty's forces, and the House would absolve him from any such necessity, because such a course would be extremely prejudicial to the public interests, as it would have the effect of cutting off the sources of information hitherto at command, and so far from increasing the security would have the opposite operation. But His Excellency had considered the circumstances as of such a grave character, and the danger of an attack upon some part of the province sufficiently imminent to warrant immediate action being taken without waiting to consult the House. The entire militia force of the province had, therefore, been turned out.
That was the statement made by Sir Charles Tupper two days after the issue of the proclamation by the Lieutenant Governor. There was great excitement throughout the province at that time, and on the occasion of the next meeting of the legislature, in 1867, there was a discussion as to what did take place', and reports from militia officers as to the number of men who did turn out to drill. The information is given in great detail. I find that the following statement was made by Sir William Fenwick Williams on the opening of the Legislature :
While the colonies have been subjected to threats and in some instances to the invasion of lawless men our province has been exempted from an attack, and although our local forces nobly responded to the call that was made upon them at the early part of the year to arm for the purpose of defence, happily no necessity occurred to require their services to repel an invader.
The exigencies of the province of New Brunswick rendered it necessary for a time to withdraw a large portion of Her Majesty's troops from this garrison for the protection of that colony-
My hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) led us to believe that the people of New Brunswick were looking after themselves but it appears that the regular forces of Nova Scotia were withdrawn and sent over to New Brunswick for the purpose of protecting the frontier of that province.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Also two companies of militia, the Shubenaoadie and one more, and some volunteers from Halifax.


John Howard Sinclair: Sir William Fenwiek-Williams continues:
__and it was with the utmost satisfaction that
I was enabled to fill their places for garrison duty by portions of the Halifax volunteer and militia artillery and the volunteer battalion and to mark how well that service was performed. The readiness and good discipline of the officers and men who were then employed showed how much has been effected by the efforts made during the last years to place our

local forces in a proper condition and how much we can depend upon them in the hour of need.
That shows the response that was made to the call. My Object in reading these extracts is to show the House and the country that in so far as Nova Scotia is concerned the veterans did their duty and if any recognition is going to be given they deserve to share in it. The Historical Society of Nova Scotia has collected a lot of information in regard to this matter and if any gentleman chooses to look at this book which I have in my hand, he will see a picture of the Sydney Mines volunteers in their regimentals, and with their guns at their sides, drilling in 1866, and preparing to resist the invasion. My hon. friend (Mr. 'Carvell), runs away with the idea that they did not turn out at all, but here is a photograph which shows that in one section at least they were drilling on that occasion.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: How many men were in the (photograph?


John Howard Sinclair: You can count them yourself; there is a very great number of men. There is a paragraph in this historical statement that I would like to read to the minister. It shows that prior to 1866, in the years 1863, 1864 and 1865, very great activity existed in Nova Scotia in militia affairs.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Forty-four thousand drilled in one year.


John Howard Sinclair: I find in this volume, published by the. Nova Scotia Historical Society, the following:
Much good work was done during this year (1864) towards maintaining and improving the force. The counties were divided into regimental districts; the officers and non-commissioned officers were brought into closer touch with the men under their command; the appointment of regimental adjutants was made one of competition, not of favour; and the position of commanding officer of a regiment was conditional on his efficiency, and not necessarily on his seniority in the corps. On 30th June, 105 regiments appeared on the roll, with a total strength of 48,675 officers and men; six months later this had grown to 110 regiments embracing 56,111 of all ranks.
Showing that the militia force of Nova Scotia at that date was very large indeed, compared with the population of the province. If there are 15,000 now in Nova Scotia it would not be a wonderful thing, because 1866 is only forty-eight years ago, and every man who was sixteen years of age was liable to be called out to drill. In my province, where people live to a

ripe old age, it is not surprising that out of 56,000 who did actually drill at that time there should be 15,000 living to-day. I do not agree with the statement that young men have been applying for. this bounty. That is not the case in the constituency I represent, and I never heaird of it in the . province of Nova Scotia.
I want to draw the attention of the minister to the provision with regard to the widows of the veterans. The Bill provides for payment of the bounty to the widows of the veterans who were living on the 1st day of April, 1912. I tsee no good reason why it should be limited to the widow's of veterans who were then alive. It appeals to me that surviving widows of veterans who died prior to that date have the same right to the bounty as the widows of veterans who were living on the 1st day of April, 1912. Early in the present session I put a question on the Order Paper asking what the view of the minister was in regard to this matter, and he was kind enough to give me an answer which I interpreted to mean that he would make provision for the case of these widows.


William Cameron Edwards: How many of them
would there be in Nova Scotia?


John Howard Sinclair: I was surprised, however, when I read the resolution, to find that it did not contain any such provision.
I asked the minister:
Has the Government considered the advisability of amending the Fenian Raid Volunteer Bounty Act so as to make provision for the payment of the bounty to the widows of veterans who departed this life prior to 1912?
Here is his reply:
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. The Act will be amended if necessary to meet every case that is not settled yet.
The cases of these widows are cases that are not settled yet, and I expected that the minister would make provision for them. I suppose that inadvertently he overlooked it and I hope that before the resolution is finally passed he will deal with this matter.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hour is late, but I cannot let the resolution pass without saying a word with reference to the position of affairs in the city of Stratford,
12 m. in the riding I have the honour to represent, with regard to this matter. At the time of the Fenian raid there was in Stratford what was known as the Grand Trunk Brigade, a body of very estimable

men, some of whom are still living but a great many of whom have passed to their reward. Those who are living are looking, not for reward, but for like recognition for their services as that accorded to others. The wording of this amendment is very broad, and it would apply to those who were called out to drill.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Both amendments
have been ruled out of order, and the main resolution is now before the committee.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: In the case of the Nova Scotia veterans, they appear to have been called out by some authority which is not clearly defined, but in the case of the Grand Trunk Brigade of Stratford, the men not only drilled but they went into active service and travelled seventy miles to the American border at Port Huron, defended the lines of communication, and put in all the service that any soldier could perform, until the trouble was over. I have nothing to say against the case of the Nova Scotia veterans, but here is a case which equitably is a much stronger one on which to appeal for recognition. The Stratford men went out as soldiers, performed their duties until all was over, and then were disbanded. J have fought it out with the minister, but he is obdurate. I have not been able to make any headway with him yet, and I give him credit for standing to his guns, but I hope that after hearing my statement to-night he will reconsider the matter. The men who were called out in Nova Scotia merely went to the market square and drilled, but as they were called out by virtue of a proclamation which happens to fit in under the peculiar wording of the Act, they are to be recognized. Surely a brigade like the Grand Trunk Brigade of Stratford, with the regulation uniform, the regulation arms, all the equipment required, going into active service, travelling seventy miles from their homes, and defending their country, ought to be recognized in this legislation?


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: On what ground does the minister decline to recognize such a fair claim?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Because the men were not regularly called out by duly constituted authority. The point he makes is that they were not part of a military unit or regiment, and unfortunately in Ontario there were no such wide and generous terms of proclamation as in Nova Scotia. In justice to my constituents, I must call the attention of the minister to this particularly hard case, which discriminates against men who are splendid citizens of Canada to-day. I would ask the minister to see that some legislation be enacted which will provide, that in equity the men who went into active service and who discharged their duty faithfully to their Sovereign and their country, should have their loyalty and patriotism recognized.
There was also recognized in my county at that time	and enrolled for the
defence of the country what was known as the Crosshill Company of Millbank, many of the members of which belonged to North Perth, and some to North Waterloo. These men drilled, they were advanced some distance towards the front, and then recalled. In Nova Scotia men who went to the market square by virtue of a proclamation are to get their reward, but in the cases to which I draw attention the men who actually went on active service are to be left out in the cold. Probably it is too late to amend the law this session, but I ask the minister in all candour to give it serious consideration and for the nonce to relax that strict military discipline which actuates him and to let his heart soften so that he may bring these men under the terms of some legislation which will give them that reward which is given to others who performed less service in defence of their country.


Mr. LAW:: The hour is so late that I feel like apologizing for speaking on this question, but I cannot let the remarks of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) go without expressing my disapproval of them. The hon. member for Carleton is usually sane and clothed in his right mind, but to-night I think he has gone to the other extreme. There are about 800 applicants for the Fenian Rai'd bounty from the county which I have the honour to represent, and I do not know of a single applicant whose claim is not valid and just and right. I should certainly not wish to think otherwise. If the volunteers of Nova Scotia turned out in such large numbers in 1866, and ran the risk of losing their lives and leaving widows and orphans behind them, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) should not be so severe on them. If the militiamen of New Brunswick, when they found the danger at their door, had taken to the woods, I am sure nobody could find any fault with them if they did not get the bounty which the Minister of Militia is voting for them.

I wish to urge upon the Minister of Militia the advisability of having this bounty paid as quickly as possible. These men are getting very old. Some of the volunteers in the county of Yarmouth are very old indeed. Several of them during this last year have been in very poor circumstances; and, if they had this bounty last fall, it would, no doubt, have prolonged their lives for a time and have prevented some of them from going to the poor asylum, where they died a few weeks after going there. There are otheT cases of death which have occurred since the bounty should have been paid. The minister is open -to censure for not having the bounty paid in the county of Yarmouth when the bounties for the other counties were paid, and I do not see any valid reason why the payment to the volunteers of the county of Yarmouth should have been delayed so long. The minister is also open to censure for not having brought this resolution to the attention of the House before. It should have been brought down before so that these bounties could have been paid before the Easter holiday,
I wish also to refer to the payment of claims of the widows of the veterans who died previous to the passing of the Act in April, 1912. I see no reason why the widows of these volunteers who came out and drilled and were prepared to go to the front, if necessary, should not he entitled to the bountv as much as widows of the men who lived until April 1, 1912. I trust the minister will amend the Act in such a way that the widows of these men may be paid the bounty.
I wish to call the attention of the minister to a circular issued in the county of Yarmouth, dated Chegoggin, N.S., December 2, 1913. I may say that Chegoggin is in the county of Yarmouth. The circular, which is addressed to the Fenian Raid veterans whose claims had been approved at that date, reads as follows:
I have received from Ottawa a list of the applications for the Fenian Raid volunteer bounty that went in from Yarmouth county previous to September 1. Your application has been approved together with about six hundred others from this county. There are thousands of cheques to be issued to Fenian Raid veterans in different counties, which involves a very large amount of extra labour on the Finance Department; but as soon as your turn is reached, your cheque will be mailed to you in a registered letter direct from Ottawa. Congratulating you on the success of your application and wishing you the compliments of the season.
I am.
Yours faithfully,
Howard W. Corning.

Had Mr. Corning any authority from the Department of Militia to send that circular to the Fenian Raid veterans of my county?


Samuel Hughes: Neither directly nor indirectly did any Liberal or any Conservative get any information from the Department of Miilitia concerning any of these names until the papers were laid on the table, and they got nothing except those papers, with one exception, namely, that I spoke to the Prime Minister and gave him data on a certain matter which does not concern the question before the House. Any man who attended the courts of Nova Scotia could have taken down a list of every man whose claim was approved. I have received similar circulars; and when I took my officers to task, they assured me that nothing had been given out by them, but that- representatives of newspapers had been .sitting in the courts at the time and had checked off the names as the claims were approved. I do not wish to waste the time of the House on such a trivial matter.


Bowman Brown Law: The answer of the minister is the same as the reply he gave to a question which I put in this House on March 18, of this year. The minister calls it a very trivial matter. I think it is not a trivial matter when Mr. Corning sends out this circular and makes statements which cannot be verified.
In the third paragraph of the circular Mr. Coming says:
There are thousands of checks to be issued to Fenian Raid veterans which involves a very large amount of extra labour on the Finance Department, but as soon as your turn is reached your check will be mailed you in a registered letter direct from Ottawa.
This led the Fenian Raid applicants in the county of Yarmouth to believe that they were to get their checks at once. On December 30, after this circular had been mailed by Mr. Corning, the payments ceased and no further bounties were paid. This caused a great deal of trouble to the applicants in the county of Yarmouth. Many of the men, expecting to get their checks at once, purchased goods or borrowed money, and have been unable up to the present time to repay those from whom they got these favours. The minister is quite right in saying that the Conservatives in the county of Yarmouth are making all the political capital they can out of this matter. I think it is absolutely wrong that the money of the people of Canada should he used for political purposes under the guise of loyalty to these veterans and to their widows.

Permit me to say farther that the report circulated by the Conservatives in Yarmouth and other counties that I voted against the Fenian Rail bounties is absolutely untrue.
I am in favour of these bounties and I hope that payments will be made to the veterans as soon as possible.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The remarks made by
the hon. member for Yarmouth bear out my assertion that this matter is nothing but a game o| polities. The minister himself has said that it is a political matter; let the politicians in Nova Scotia fight it out among themselves. To-day 800 men in the county of Yarmouth claim to have been members of the militia 48 years ago. I want to oppose for all I am worth the suggestion of the hon. member for Guysborough that the widows of the veterans should receive bounties. I think this thing has gone far enough; when you have paid nearly every man who was born in the province of Nova Scotia forty-eight years ago $100, it seems to me that you ought not to pay the widows. The hon. member for Yarmouth spoke about the people of Nova Scotia rallying to the flag and drilling to protect their homes and firesides against invasion. How on earth does my hon. friend think that that band of lawless persons in the neighbouring republic were going to attack Nova Scotia? The whole fleet of the United States at that time consisted of only a few old wooden hulks, and the whole British navy was ready to protect the province of Nova Scotia against invasion by sea. The hon. member for Yarmouth talked as if the people of New Brunswick went to the woods at the time of this raid. I know of a great many people who went to St. Andrews at that time, where there was a possibility of real danger; in my portion of the province of New Brunswick every able-bodied man* responded to the call, and none but those who actually did take part in repelling the invasion are asking to be paid. My father was one of the men who enlisted and if he were alive he would be entitled to a bounty. But I want to point out to my friends from Nova Scotia that my mother is alive and she does not want any $100 from this Government because of what my father did on that occasion. I think it is placing a very small premium upon the loyalty of the people of this country to say that after forty-eight years have passed not only the men but the widows should receive grants; ordinary commonsense should impress upon everybody the fact that these men were but doing their duty.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. member for Guysborough is quite right in resenting the imputation that has been cast upon those persons who have sent claims to the Government for Fenian raid bounties. If the hon. member for Carleton charges that the men who sent in these claims are crooks and perjurers, the Nova Scotia people have a right to resent his imputations in the strongest possible manner. The charges made by the hon. member against a respected body of men in the province of Nova Scotia are the most serious that have been made since I became a member of this House. He has not only insulted the members who have made these applications, but he has insulted the whole province of Nova Scotia. I think there should be an official investigation into the matter, and if the allegations of the hon. member are true, wholesale prosecutions of practically the whole population of Nova Scotia should be made; the men who made these false declarations, as well as the men who helped draw them up and secure the signatures, should be prosecuted. These wholesale accusations made by the hon. member for Carleton should either be proved or withdrawn.


Mr. McMILLAN:: Thirty or forty veterans in the county of Glengarry have made application to the hon. Minister of Militia for this grant. I can cite one case, that of the Hon. A. D. Macdonald, exLieutenant Governor for Ontario who was in a village called Lancaster. He was giving the word as he passed along that the Fenians were coming and that there would likely be an invasion near Lancaster. He sent word to Captain Macdonald, of Alexandria, who sent the word out through Glengarry to bring in volunteers, and before six o'clock in the morning four hundred of our stalwarts arrived in Alexandria with pitchforks ready to defend their country. While I have perhaps not the nerve to appeal to the minister for grants to the men who came with pitchforks to defend their duty, I still feel that he is in a rather awkward and embarrassing position. He is
trying	to	do	his	duty	to	thosewho	are	deserving	and	when	thereaie	so	many	who	are	deserving,	where	is	he	to	draw	the	line ?
I would ask the hon. minister of Militia whether the men who came with pitchforks are not as deserving of the $100 grant as those who came with shot-guns, because they did as much duty as far as the defence of the country is concerned. Therefore I feel that I really should appeal to him to



grant them the $100. We have other cases from Glengarry. I hold in my hand the medal awarded to one of those who perhaps was more deserving according to the argument that has been advanced. Two men, Norman McRae and Sandy McIntosh, who were pals in those days, who marched side by side and heart to heart, ready to shed their blood in defence of Canada, applied for the grant when it was announced that the Government had decided to give $100 to the Fenian raid veterans of '66 and '70. In fact these men were the first of the file claims. Norman McRae was Sandy McIntosh's witness and Sandy McIntosh was Norman McRae's witness. They came together and sent in the application, and the result was that McRae got his $100 but poor Sandy McIntosh has not yet received his. I investigated and found that Sandy's name was not on the pay roll hut Norman's was. I would ask the minister how it was that Norman McRae got his money and Sandy McIntosh did not. Sandy surely was there because I hold his medal in my hand. If the minister figures this out on the basis of the names appearing on the pay roll in order to entitle a man to the grant of $100, it is wrong, because poor Sandy was there with Norman and Norman was there with Sandy. Norman got the grant but Sandy did not. I think myself that we should perhaps remodel the legislation under which these grants are made. There are many good men who did service, even those who came in with their pitchforks, who were ready to do their duty and who are just as much entitled to the grant as those regularly enrolled in the militia. The Government should settle this matter for all time.


William John Macdonald: We sat very late last night, and the subject of this' resolution is not a matter of contention in any specific way for the sifnple reason that there has been a statute bearing on this matter since 1912. The principle has been recognized that the sum of $100 should be paid by way of bounty to the men who were called out for active service in the years 1866 and 1870. Under the terms of that Act, chapter 53 of II. George V., the time within which these applications could be made in order to take advantage of this Act was December 31, 1913. The minister has now asked the House to extend that time. Practically that is all that is involved in this resolution. In regard to the terms of the resolution, I would point out that there are some things that should be amended. My bon. friend

provides for the grant of $100 to every volunteer who i's living at the date of the passing of the Act based on this resolution. In view of the fact that in the latter portion of the resolution, in the grant which he makes to widows, that grant is made to the widows of volunteers alive on the 1st of April, 1912, that being the date upon which the Act of two years ago was passed. I think the minister should amend this Act so as to make the money payable to the volunteer who was living on the 1st day of April, 1912, because subsequently he goes on to provide for the payment of the money to the widows or legal representatives of the volunteers who died since that time. As a matter of good drafting, I think that should be done.
I would point out to the minister that I think in the great majority of cases that would be affected by this resolution, the applications are on file in the department, and were on file previous to the 31st of December, 1913. The number of cases in which the grant has not been applied for must be very few, and all purposes would be met by the minister limiting the time for the payment of this money to the end of this present year.
Having regard to every question involved, I think it would toe bettor to have this question settled during this year because otherwise, ini view of the expectations which have been raised ini the minds of those who Viovo sent in Their applications, there would be a great deal of dissatisfaction. I would like to ask the minister to consider amending the resolution by substituting 1914 for 1915. I would also like him to consider the suggestion made by my hon. friend f.om Guystoorough (Mr. Sinclair) as to the pension for widows and whether the time could not be extended. In view of the fact that the principle of this Bill was agreed to about two years ago, and as it is only asking for extension of time, I think the minister might well consider the suggestions which have been made. I think if the minister Would ask to report progress and consider the suggestions the results would be as well ion the end.


Mr. FOWLER:: I am somewhat surprised at the character of the speech which has been- made by the hon. member for Pictou. In view of the broad and sweeping character of the allegations made by the hon. member for Carleton, I thought that some one at least of the different members from

Nova Scotia upon that side of the House would have resented those charges against the people of Nova Scotia. Where was the hon. member for North Cape Breton? Why did he sit silent in this House after those charges had been made?


Mr. McKENZIE:: The hon. member has thought it proper to introduce my name. The discussion is not yet closed; there is plenty of time to hear from the member from North Cape Breton.


George William Fowler: It is to be hoped that
we will. I am afraid the sort of artillery my hon. friend uses is a little obsolete now; the rough bore is going out of fashion. The hon. member for Carleton is so much in the habit of making charges that he cannot refrain from attacking his own friends. I suppose that accounts for his attack upon the people of Nova Scotia to-night. Is it because my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) sits so close to my hon. friend from Carleton that he is afraid to resent those charges? We have had a speech from the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Law). He took up most of his time abusing two people: Mr. Corning who wa3 fortunate enough to win an election in Yarmouth against the utmost efforts put forth by the hon. member for that constituency, and that, no doubt, is why he feels so sore against him. The remainder of his speech was taken up by an attempt to censure the Minister of Militia for doing what the hon. member for Yarmouth approves of. The only fault he has to find is that it was not done more quickly, so as to keep a lot of people in Yarmouth out of the poorhouse, because he said that was where they were going last winter.


Bowman Brown Law: I did not say any such thing.


George William Fowler: It seems to me that the people of Yarmouth will not thank the hon. member for his somewhat unfortunate reflection upon the people of that town. But there are other members from Nova Scotia; there is the hon. member for Richmond. He sits quiet in his seat under the sneers of the hon. member for Carleton.


Mr. KYTE:: The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. McKay) did not give me a chance to speak.


George William Fowler: I am glad the hon. member still has the use of his speech, which we have often heard in this House-not 213i
often with pleasure. I had hoped that some of those members would have resented the charges made by the hon. member for Carleton against the people of Nova Scotia. The junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) sits silent in his seat under those reproaches. If some member on this side of the House had made that statement in regard to the 15,000 good men and true of the province of New Brunswick-men who did not shed any blood but probably shed some sweat drilling in the market place-and had called those men perjurers because, inferentially, that is what they were called by the hon. member for Carleton, what a row there would have been! I am surprised at the. junior member for Halifax, and pained as; well, because I did think that with all his faults (which he possesses in a high degree) there was in him some loyalty to the people of his native province. The people of Nova Scotia are not perjurers, I know they are honest men. The generation of 1866 was loyal, and so are their descendants, but so have their representatives in this House fallen that they will permit' the hon. member for Carleton to insult them, and yet not one will lift his voice in protest. We have seen the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) wax eloquent in this House in regard to Nova Scotia and its people, yet he was as mild as any sucking dove when he got up to speak. Where have all the fireworks gone? Is the stock exhausted that we did not have an exhibition from the member for Pictou to-night? We might have expected him to hurl back in the very teeth of the gentleman who sits behind him the charges that that hon. member distributed so plentifully with regard to the people of Nova Scotia. Not only has my hon. friend charged the people of that province with perjury, but he has, inferentially, charged the members from Nova Scotia who have been supporting the claims of those people with what you may call subornation or perjury. Gentlemen opposite are as much guardians of the treasury as those who sit on the Treasury benches, yet these representatives are trying to get these bounties granted to people who, my hon. friend says, are not entitled to them. They are helping to rob the treasury of these various $100 bounties against the best interests of the country. I hope some members from Nova Scotia upon that side of the House will do their duty.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What about that side?


George William Fowler: Members upon this side can always be depended upon to do their duty, but surely the first to spring to their feet should be members on the side from which the hon. gentleman comes who makes the charges. They have failed, and I have no doubt that we will hear from some gentlemen on this side from Nova Scotia.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I was not willing at first to butt into the merry little family quarrel that has been going on on the other side of the House, but inasmuch as I represent a Nova Scotia constituency, and inasmuch as the hon. gentleman who is the offender in this respect evidently expects some remarks from this side of the House, I cannot resist the temptation of making a statement, although the hour is somewhat late. In the first place, I shall refer very briefly to the remarks of the hon. member for Kings, Prince1 Edward Island (Mr. J. J. Hughes). I think we all sympathized with him in the plea he put forward for the payment of claims to the citizens of Prince Edward Island, even though, a- he himself explained, the claims of those people for the bounty are very slight indeed.


James Joseph Hughes: I made no such
statement.


Avard Longley Davidson: I understood the'effect of the hon. gentleman's speech to be that the citizens of Prince Edward Island, who had turned out to drill in 1866, should be paid the bounty.


James Joseph Hughes: You are correct in the sense that they would not come under the provisions of the resolution when the minister insisted upon them being called out by proclamation, but they were just as well entitled to receive this consideration as the men in any other province of the Dominion.


Avard Longley Davidson: That is really what I
wanted to say, but I have not the facility of speech that my hon. friend has and perhaps the House will pardon me if my remarks are somewhat obscure. The point I wish to make is that it seems somewhat regrettable that when this hon. gentleman was sitting on this side of the House, and when the party of his own political persuasion was in power, he do not take the same 'interest in this question. Not only did he not make a proposition of this kind when his own party was in power, not only did he not lift his voice for his constituents, but he

actually voted against a proposition of this kind. When a gentleman on our side of the House, then in Opposition, advocated the payment of bounties to the Fenian Raid veterans, my hon. friend voted against any proposition of that kind.


James Joseph Hughes: Tell me when that took place?


Avard Longley Davidson: It was in the year of
our Lord 1906. If my hon. friend looks at page 614 of 'Hansard' of 1906 he will see that Mr. F. D. Monk moved the following resolution:
That It Is desirable that the Government of Canada should recognize in some substantial manner the services rendered during the Fenian raids of 1866 and 1870 by our Canadian volunteers.
Mr. Hughes' name is recorded as one of those who voted against that resolution. I was not only shocked but I was absolutely pained at the very unwarranted remarks which were made to night by my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell). My hon. friend actually states that 15,000 of the good people of Nova Scotia perjured themselves.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want my hon. friend
to withdraw that statement because I did not make it.


An hon. MEMBER:: A big proportion.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, nor a big proportion. I asked this House if they believed there were 15,000 men old enough to have been members of the militia at that time. I did not say that they had all perjured themselves. I always stand by What I say and it is not for the hon. gentleman to attribute to me something that I did not say.


An hon. MEMBER:: What did you say?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman can read what I said, and he can take his own meaning out of it.


Avard Longley Davidson: I do not want to put
words into the mouth of the hon. gentleman that he does not utter because there is no necessity of doing that. I understood him to say that this was a stupendous farce, that it was absurd.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
John Howard Sinclair: Yes. What does the
hon. gentleman mean by saying that I have not always advocated the payment of these bounties?


Avard Longley Davidson: I will try to explain.
In the year of our Lord 1906 the hon. gentleman was in the House representing the county of Guysborough. A resolution was proposed which I have already read, by an hon. member, Mr. Monk. On that occasion did the hon. member foT Guysborough vote for Mr. Monk's resolution?


John Howard Sinclair: Mr. Monk's resolution
had no reference whatever to the payment of $100 to the Fenian Raid veterans. I understood the resolution referred to a land grant.	[DOT]


Avard Longley Davidson: These are the w'ords:
That it is desirable that the Government of Canada should recognize in some substantial manner the services rendered during the Fenian Raid of 1866 and 1870 by our Canadian volunteers.
Is there anything there about a land grant?


John Howard Sinclair: If you will read the
speech you will find he did refer to land grants and nothing but land grants.


Avard Longley Davidson: I am not reading the speech. I am reading the resolution-the thing that was voted on.


Mr. PROULX:: Was there an amendment to that resolution?


Avard Longley Davidson: And the hon. gentleman (Air. Sinclair) in 1906 voted against that resolution which did not say anything about land grants, and which merely asked that these veterans be rewarded in some substantial way. Furthermore, in the year

1911, my hon. friend from North Grey (Mt. Middlebro) proposed substantially the same resolution, which is to be found at page 9603 ' Hansard ':
That it is desirable that the Government of Canada should recognize in some substantial manner the services rendered during the Fenian raids of 1866 and 1870 by our Canadian volunteers.
It is seen therefore that some years after the first we have a second resolution and nothing about a land grant in it, and yet the hon. member for Guysborough when his friends were in power voted that they should do nothing to reward the veterans.


John Howard Sinclair: I desire positively to contradict the statement made by my hon. friend. I was not present; I was not in the Dominion of Canada at the time that resolution was moved in the House.


Avard Longley Davidson: I will refer the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sinclair) to page 9634 of
Hansard '. I do not think my hon. friend will repudiate a pair, and I find, among other names on that page, the euphonious name of Sinclair, which I presume means him.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend does not find on that page that I voted against the resolution of my hon. friend from North Grey, and if he says so he is not telling the truth.


Avard Longley Davidson: I will be very glad to hand the book over to my hon. friend.


John Howard Sinclair: I was not in the country at the time; I was in England.


Avard Longley Davidson: The hon. gentleman was paired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Avard Longley Davidson: Do hon. gentlemen opposite say that pairing is not voting?


William John Macdonald: Certainly.


Avard Longley Davidson: Do they say that a pair means nothing? I want to say
1 a.m. that it either means something or that the whip on the Liberal side of the House on that occasion practised the grossest fraud on this side of the House. I am a very young member of this House, but I have been a watchful student of 'Hansard,' and I never found yet an instance in which a member of Parliament denied or repudiated a pail.


John Allister Currie: He is the first man to do it in the House.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is not repudiating a pair.


Avard Longley Davidson: My hon. friend from Guysborough is not alone in this regard, because other members from Nova Scotia, in fact, every single Liberal member who was then representing Nova Scotia, including my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), including my hon. friend from Pietou (Mr. Macdonald)-


William John Macdonald: Just wait there. I want to say to my hon. friend that he has suppressed the facts in regard to the resolution of 1906. Mr. Monk, In moving the resolution, did not know that there was a Fenian Raid veteran in the province of Nova Scotia, and that resolution was opposed by Sir Frederick Borden, representing the Government, who pointed out to Mr. Monk that Nova Scotia had a large number of veterans whose claims should be taken into consideration. He asked Mr. Monk to withdraw the resolution in order that, the whole question might be inquired into, and we voted against Mr. Monk's resolution because he did not know up to that time that there was a single Fenian Raid veteran i'n Nova Scotia.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


William John Macdonald: The noisy brigade over there on the other side do not know-what they are talking a/bout. Furthermore, in regard to 1911-


Avard Longley Davidson: I am very glad to have my hon. friend endeavour to correct a mistake, but I do not want him to make a speech when-1 am addressing the House. I think he occupies as much of the time of the House as I do, and I do not think he should deny me the little time I am taking now.


William John Macdonald: If my hon. friend does not want me to correct a mistake in regard to 1911, I shall not make any further reference to it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William John Macdonald: Do I understand that my hon. friend (Mr. Davidson) will permit me to correct a mistake with regard to 1911?


Avard Longley Davidson: Certainly, you can give your side of the case if you wish.


William John Macdonald: The hon. gentleman will find a list of pairs on the resolution moved by Mr. Middlebro. This resolution was a purely obstructive motion made on

going into Supply, as everybody knows. At the time the motion was made my hon. friend from Guysborough was in England, and the hon. member (Mr. Davidson) indulges in diatribes against him because his name appears in the list of pairs. I was in Nova Scotia at the time; I was not in the House. I never knew the resolution was moved, and how can I be charged with responsibility?


Avard Longley Davidson: I am very glad to have the explanation of the hon. member from Pictou, because I do not want to do that hon. gentleman any injustice. He is very careful not to do injustice to anybody else, and I do not want to do injustice to him.


Bowman Brown Law: Did I understand the hon. member (Mr. Davidson) to say that every member from the province of Nova Scotia on the Liberal side voted against that resolution in 1911?


Avard Longley Davidson: Every member on the Liberal side who was in the House.


Bowman Brown Law: You did not qualify your statement in that way before.


Avard Longley Davidson: When this motion was put in 1906, the hon. gentleman appears as voting against it, and he never repudiated the pair until this late hour, when it cannot do him any harm.


Bowman Brown Law: I am not down thare as
paired; I defy the hon. gentleman to sliow it.


William John Macdonald: It i3 ' Mr. Low,' not ' Mr. Law.'


Avard Longley Davidson: We will find out about that.


Bowman Brown Law: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davidson) had better get on another pair of glasses if he wants to find my name there. I call on him to apologize for his statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Bowman Brown Law: I ask him to withdraw the
statement. It is absolutely untrue. It has been stated in Yarmouth and in other counties ovar and over again by Conservatives. The statement is a wilful and deliberate lie. I ask the hon. gentleman, if he is a gentleman at all, to withdraw the statement.'


Avard Longley Davidson: I am very sorry that
my hon. friend (Mr. Law) has shown so much heat, because really it is a case where
he has to take back water, not I. If he will look at page 647 of ' Hansard,' 1906, he will find Ms name is there, L-A-W, and while I would like to accommodate my hon. friend and take back any statement displeasing to him, yet as a good constitutional member of this House I am bound to stand by the records, and now I am going to ask my hon. friend from Yarmouth to take back the statement he made.


Bowman Brown Law: I say I did not vote, and my name is not there as voting, but it may be there as a pair.
Mr. DAVIDSON. The statement I made was that the .hon. gentleman appeared as a nair and he said he did not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Read the record as it is and let us have it all.


Avard Longley Davidson: You will find it at
page 647.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We have not all got that volume of ' Hansard ' here.


Avard Longley Davidson: There are a great many names of Nova .Scotia Liberal members who either voted or were paired.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Give us the names of
those who voted and those who weTe paired.


Avard Longley Davidson: It is really too much bother to pick them out but they are there. My hon. friend from Pictou, and my hon. friend" from Yarmouth, .and my hon. friend from Guysborough come forward now when their party is not in power, notwithstanding the fact that they appear as voting against this proposition, when their own party was in power, and they now say, when they are in opposition and when they have no responsibility, that we on this side have not gone far enough. They say that we should pay not only those who were alive in the year 1912, and the widows of those who have died since that date., but the widows of all Fenian Raid veterans and their children. All hon. members opposite deplored that the Minister of Militia was so slow and dilatory in making these payments. Had my hon. friends opposite stood to the back of Mr. Monk in 1906, or to the back of the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middle-bro), in the year 1911 and forced their Government to enact legislation such as we enacted the moment we got into power, then these people would not have had to wait so long; they would have all been paid and a great many widows, whose bus-

bands have died since 1906, in all these counties would also have been paid. Hon. gentlemen opposite cut a very peculiar figure at the present time. When their party was in power, they were very careful as to what obligations their Government would assume; but when they are in opposition, when their words are merely as idle tales, then they are very generous. They remind me of a Bible story. It is recorded in Holy Writ how Lazarus begged alms of Dives in this world and although Dives, when he was alive and had the pull, would not give Lazarus a crumb, after he went to his reward he became very full of concern for his relatives. He thought the Lord could not 'be trusted to look' after his relatives that he had left on the earth, and he wanted to go back to the earth to warn them. Hon. gentlemen when they are out of power, when they have no influence, when between us and them there is a deep gulf fixed, are very anxious to come forward with a great deal of advice and explanation; but it counts for very little and the people understand that.
A great deal of talk was engaged in by the other side in reference to an alleged attempt of the Conservative party in Nova Scotia to make a party issue of this affair. Hon. gentlemen opposite became very wrathful when they referred to the tactics of out side in trying to make political capital out of this. I have yet to learn that such tactics have been practised by our side, but I know that hon. gentlemen opposite have tried to do something very much like making political capital out of this affair. This is one letter, of which I have scores in my desk, which has been -sent out to veterans in Nova Scotia:
My Dear Sir:
I have been receiving so many inquiries asking for an explanation as to why the claims of Fenian Raid veterans in Yarmouth county have not been paid, that I thought it advisable to obtain a complete list (which is the first and only one furnished by the Department of Militia) of those whose claims have not been paid so that I would be in a position to give such information on the subject as is available here.
I fihd your name on the list of those that have been approved. The authority: under which this bounty is being paid expired December 31, 1313, and no further cheques can be issued until the Act is amended and provision made for the unpaid approved claims of which there are over six hundred in our county.
The Minister of Militia has given the assurance to the House that legislation will be introduced to authorize the payment of. all outstanding approved claims and when this Act is introduced it will receive my hearty and cordial support as the original Act did which

passed the House with the full approval and support of all the Liberal members.
I desire to take this opportunity to say that the statement made from time to time in Yarmouth that I voted against the payment of the bounty to Fenian Raid veterans is absolutely untrue, as the measure granting the bounty passed .the House without a dissenting voice, and the grant to Nova Scotia veterans was largely due to the energy displayed by some of our Nova Scotia Liberal members.
I beg to assure you that I shall do all X can to expedite the payment to all Yarmouth county veterans.
I remain,
Yours faithfully. Bowman B. Law.
There is another letter here signed by my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), which is exactly the same and in which this striking sentence again occurs:
I desire to take this opportunity to say that the statement made from time to time in certain newspapers that I voted against the payment of the bounty to Fenian Raid veterans is absolutely untrue. The measure granting the bounty passed the House without a dissenting voice, and the grant to Nova Scotia veterans was largely due to the energy displayed by some of our Nova Scotia Liberal members.
I would like the hon. gentlemen to explain what particular energies they displayed in order to make these bounties payable.


John Howard Sinclair: At the time that the1 Fenian Raid Bounty Act was passed, about the 1st of April, 1912, my hon. friend from Annapolis was a member of this House and I have no doubt that he was in his place at the time when this question was asked by myself. He will find the question on page 6255 of ' Hansard ' of that date:
Mr. Sinclair:	Will the Act apply to men
who were called out to drill? I understand that in the province of Nova Scotia a number of men were drafted and collected at some particular place, and submitted themselves to some few weeks of drill preparatory to going to the front, but they never did go. What will be done in the case of those men?
Mr. Hughes (Victoria) : The law says they must have been called out for active service and the man who is called out for drill is not called out for active service. He has to he called out in anticipation of meeting the enemy.
My hon. friend was in his place, and he did not rise to say a word against the decision of the minister, who practically said, when the bill was being adopted by this House, that not one dollar of the bounty, was to go to Nova Scotia.


Avard Longley Davidson: What is the date?


John Howard Sinclair: March 27, 1912.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: The mistake was made by the hon. member for Guysborough

who did not seem to know the difference between annual drill and active service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. minister, one year after this Act was passed, admitted that he did not intend in 1912 that all the people that now come within the Act should be included.


Avard Longley Davidson: It is absolutely a
matter of interpretation of the Act. What the minister said was that every person in Canada who could show that he came under the provisions of the Act would get the bounty. That is exactly the meaning of the statement read by the hon. member for Guysborough.
If any person could prove that he had been called out for active service under that provision, he would be entitled to the bounty. It was up to those interested in the Nova Scotia veterans merely to show that the Nova Scotia militia had been called out for the actual service and then the Nova Scotia veterans would come under the Act. The Bill as passed provides that those persons called out for actual service were entitled to the bounty. Hon. gentlemen representing Nova Scotia constituencies on this side of the House were able to prove-


William John Macdonald: Not a single Tory in Nova Scotia knew that this Act was to apply until last year.


Avard Longley Davidson: Exactly, we did not
know until we hunted up the proof. The hon. member for Guysborough never opened his mouth until we had obtained the decision of the department and until we had notified the public of that decision through the press of Nova Scotia.


William John Macdonald: The first bounty paid in the province of Nova Scotia was paid to a man from my county, upon application which I sent in in the autumn of 1912.


Avard Longley Davidson: It was not paid until
after we had provided the department with the proof that the Nova Scotia militia were actually called out for service.


William John Macdonald: It was paid in December, 1912.


Avard Longley Davidson: I am familiar with the matter to which the hon. gentleman refers. I read a speech which he made in the county of Pictou and in which he referred to this; I took the trouble to go to the department and look the matter up and I found that this application was not paid until after we had gone to the department and got this decision. Furthermore, the hon. member for Guysborough never said
anything about this in the House until he saw the papers coming from our constituencies in which the whole law was explained to the electors, and the proclamation upon which we based our case was set out.


John Howard Sinclair: The hon. gentleman is
making a mis-statement.


Avard Longley Davidson: I think I have stood a reasonable number of interruptions.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Middlebro):: The
rule is that unless the member speaking permits it, he shall not be interrupted.


John Howard Sinclair: I understood my hon. friend to say that I did not raise my voice at all at the time the Act was being passed, but that I did so later.


Avard Longley Davidson: I made no such assertion.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. member said that some months after the Act was passed ' we ' discovered that all who had been called out for active service were entitled to the bounty. Will the hon. member explain to me and to the committee what he meant by 'we' discovered that certain people were entitled to the bounty, and that it had not been known that they were so entitled at the time of the passing of the Act?


Avard Longley Davidson: When this Act went upon the statute book members representing Nova Scotia constituencies, who were in the habit of conferring together with regard to these matters, were receiving a large number of letters from Fenian Raid veterans inquiring as to the possibility of their obtaining the bounty. Upon looking et the Act we found that it applied only to those persons who had been called out for actual service. The question then arose as to what constituted actual service, and whether or not Nova Scotia veterans could qualify under that Act. We first went to the department, and the department insisted that proof must be given that the Nova Scotia people had actually been called out for active service. At first we were not able to get any evidence to convince the department, but afterwards we discovered a proclamation that had been issued by the Governor of Nova Scotia, signed by Sir Charles Tupper, who was then provincial secretary of the province, in which all members of the militia in Nova Scotia were called out for active service by the express terms of the proclamation. We presented our case to the department, and the department

said that that was satisfactory. We then, in turn, notified our constituents to that effect.


William John Macdonald: When was that?


Avard Longley Davidson: We notified our constituents in February, 1913. Applications had gone in from various counties, but no bounties had been paid up to the time when the proclamation was discovered. In March, after certain persons had sent copies of the newspapers containing this information to hon. geptlemen opposite, the hon. member for Halifax, the hon. member for Pictou, the hon. member for Guysborough and several other hon. gentlemen opposite rose, with apparent indignation, and criticised us for following this procedure and for appointing commissioners to take these applications. A few weeks afterwards these hon. gentlemen were doing the same thing themselves.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Doing what?


Avard Longley Davidson: Following the very
course which we pursued.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What course was that?


Avard Longley Davidson: That of informing their constituents, through the press, that those who were called out under the terms of the proclamation were entitled to the bounty, and the further course of appointing competent and intelligent commissioners in the county to take these applications. That was the course we followed, and that was the course imitated by hon. gentlemen opposite.


John Howard Sinclair: Does my hon. friend say that it was in February of 1913, when he first discovered that the veterans of Nova Scotia were sure of obtaining the bounties?


Avard Longley Davidson: No, I said nothing of the kind. Some time previous to February, 1913, we made the discovery and in that month we wrote the press.


John Howard Sinclair: The hon. gentleman-


Avard Longley Davidson: Surely, Mr. Chairman, I have been interrupted often enough.


William Sora Middlebro: I
must rule that no member has a right to interrupt the speaker without his permission.


Avard Longley Davidson: With regard to this
letter sent out by Mr. Law, I understand that all the Liberal jmembers of Nova Scotia circulated the identical letter, under a different name.


Mr. CARROLL:: I must give that assertion a most emphatic denial. I have written to every applicant in the county of Cape Breton, but I have written no such letter as the hon. gentleman has read.


Avard Longley Davidson: I do not wish to do the hon. gentlemen an injustice, and I am happy to accept his explanation. I do not wonder that he protests his innocence and that he desires to escape criticism of this kind. I think it should be borne in mind that every Liberal member from the province of Nova Scotia, when his party was in power, did everything in his power to prevent the Fenian Raid veterans of the province of Nova Scotia from receiving these bounties.


William John Macdonald: That is absolutely
untrue.


Avard Longley Davidson: Hon. gentlemen need
not give the lie to me; they will have to give the lie to the records of this House. The records are there; they will speak for themselves. Every time the House was divided upon this question when the Liberal party was in power, hon. gentlemen opposite gave their deadly and hostile opposition to the measure. The moment we got into power we started to redeem our pledges and one of the first acts of this Government was to redeem its pledge in this respect. Hon. gentlemen opposite are not satisfied and those gentlemen who would not do anything when their party was in power are now claiming that this Government is not going far enough.


Angus Alexander McLean: As the Chairman has ruled that an amendment to this resolution cannot be accepted under the rules, I would ask that the minister withdraw the resolution and get the consent of the Governor General to add the province of Prince Edward Island with the others.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You cannot beat Hughes out that way.


Angus Alexander McLean: I understand that
this resolution would amount to an increase in the vote and that is the reason an amendment cannot be made. The only way that this can be done is by getting the authority of the Governor in Council, if it is not withdrawn now and a Bill is brought in on this resolution, no amendment can be made to it and I would think the proper way for the minister to do justice to Prince Edward' Island would be to withdraw this resolution and bring in another in a few day's time.


George William Kyte: The bold and defiant challenge which the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) hurled across the floor of the House to hon. gentlemen on this side has its parallel in the nursery legend of a family in my town. A little boy, two and a half years old, was wearing his first pair of trousers and was very proud of them. He came out on the sidewalk to see if any one would notice them. The butcher came along, stopped his team at the door, and while he was cutting the order of meat which the boy's mother gave, the young fellow stood in front with his hands in his trousers' pockets. The butcher did not notice him. Then the boy went around in front of the horse, looked at the horse and finally said:	'Say, mister, is your
horse afwaid of twousies? ' I wish to say to the hon. member for Annapolis that I am not afraid of his trousers nor of the hon. member who stands in them. Hon. gentlemen express some surpise that the members from Nova Scotia did not protest against what they were pleased to call an imputation upon the honesty and good faith of the people of the province of Nova Scotia who applied for Fenian Raid bounties. I want them to understand that they are not the first men who are willing to stand up in this House and defend the honesty of the people of that province. But I did not understand the hon. member for iCarleton to cast any imputation on the people of Nova Scotia in respect of fraudulent applications for Fenian Raid bounties. What I did understand the hon. membeT for Carleton to say was that it was preposterous that in Nova Scotia the bounty should be given to men who did not go to the front to repel the invaders who threatened the shores of Canada in 1866, men who simply served in the militia at home, whereas the men in New Brunswick who actually left their homes and went to the front to meet the invaders did not receive a single dollar. If the people of Nova Scotia are enjoying the advantage of a bounty of $100 in respect of the service they performed in 1866 then the people of Nova Scotia have very little to thank my hon. friend from Annapolis for or any hon. gentleman supporting the Government in this House. My bon. friend in the course of his observations endeavoured to fasten upon the Liberal members in this House a charge of having voted against remuneration for Fenian Raid bounties in Nova Scotia when in 1906 they voted down a resolution moved by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I desire
to call the attention of the committee to the fact that Mr. Monk's resolution was not for a pension or for a grant of money to compensate these men for their services. His whole argument was in favour of a grant of land to be paid, not to the veterans of Nova Scotia, not to the veterans of New Brunswick, or of Prince Edward Island, but simply to the men who were called out in Ontario and Quebec in 1866.


Avard Longley Davidson: Will my hon. friend be good enough to show by the resolution of Mr. Monk where.it is stated that it is confined to the people of Quebec?


William John Macdonald: He never heard of
Nova Scotia having Fenian Raid veterans when he moved the motion.
Mr, DAVIDSON:	I understood the hon.
member to say that what the Nova Scotia Liberal members voted against was that payments should be made not only to citizens of Ontario and Quebec. That, furthermore, it was not for a money payment but for land. I ask him to point out, in the resolution which was voted down, anything to that effect.


George William Kyte: It is just the size of the hon. member for Annapolis to endeavour to confine my remarks to the resolution. What I propose to do is to direct the attention of the committee to Mr. Monk's interpretation of the resolution. Mr. Monk said:
As to the kind of acknowledgment to be given, undoubtedly that which has been talked about during these interviews, and prob-bably on that account is most mentioned amongst the veterans, is a grant of land. We have a very large territory still in the hands of the Government which we are endeavouring to settle. It is most desirable that that territory should be settled as soon as possible and with the best sort of people. 1 do not think it would be possible to And better men to undertake the settlement of our great Northwest than these men. Objection has been taken on the ground that there are not only the veterans whose claim I am now urging, hut also other deserving classes. Reference is made to the volunteers, who, in 1885 went up to the Northwest to put down the rebellion there. There were also those who saw active service during the Boer war in South Africa.
He did not even want these veterans to get the land free. He said:
I am advocating, not an absolutely fr'ee grant of land perhaps to those men, but on account of their merits we should acknowledge their services, the fidelity with which they have performed their duties, and at the same time encourage the volunteer movement, which I think should be encouraged in this country.

Reference to the speech of Mr. Monk will show that his resolution wae designed to bring about some recognition for the volunteers in the province of Quebec and in . the province of Ontario. He proceeded:
Scrip might be given to them, quarter-sections might be given to them without conditions and they would do with them what they saw fit, or conditions might be imposed upon them whilst granting them each a quarter-section which would enable them if they would not ensure their own presence on the lands to be settled-because most of them have reached an age when it is to a certain extent impossible for them .to go themselves and settle these lands-to delegate the execution of the restrictions upon them for the settlement and for the final patenting of these lots to members of their own families.
Now, Mr. Monk, in the light of the interpretation which he places on the resolution by his own language, certainly was not seeking support for his resolution from the Liberal members from the province of Nova Scotia. These volunteers in Nova Sooti'a performed their service in 1866. It was forty odd years afterwards that Mr. Monk moved his resolution in this House, and at that stage, when the youngest of these men must have been sixty years of age, the only compensation he desired for them, even if he intended they should benefit by it, was that they should pull up their stakes, leave the homes they had won in Nova Scotia, leave the land which they had cultivated, on which they had brought up their families and go out to the Northwest to take up quarter sections-and even these were not to be free to them.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Under the terms of
that resolution might not $100 be given instead of land?


George William Kyte: There is an old story about what might .have happened if something else had not happened. I am only speaking about this resolution. Sir Frederick Borden said on that occasion:
I understood one of his arguments to be that after all, this will not be such a serious matter because there were less than 2,000 of these men living in the province of Quebec and some 10,000 or 12,000 in Ontario.


Avard Longley Davidson: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend unnecessarily-


George William Kyte: Do not do it then.


Avard Longley Davidson: I said ' unnecessarily.' Is the hon. gentleman quoting from 'Hansard' of 1906?


George William Kyte: Yes.


Avard Longley Davidson: It was in 1911 that the hon. member voted against the principle?


George William Kyte: I did not vote against it. To continue the quotation:
Well, what about the other 15,000 or 20,000 who answered the call to arms and were ready to go to the front and who have since passed away? Are their children not to be recognized? Are we to limit this recognition entirely to the men now living and restrict it to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec? Why not include Nova Scotia and New Brunswick?
There, we have the crux of the whole matter. I think that I have convinced you, Mr. Chairman, and members of this committee-even if I have failed td impress the validity of my argument upon the member for Annapolis-that if the members from the province of Nova Scotia were present and voted against that resolution they were amply justified in doing so in the interests of the veterans of that province. If that resolution had been carried not one dollar would have been paid to the veterans of Nova Scotia; not an acre of land would have been granted to them, and yet the hon. member for Annapolis would endeavour to make out a charge of disloyalty on the part of Liberal members of this House against the people of that province because they did not vote away a grant of land to the veterans of Ontario and Quebec. I am not so sure that my hon. friend from Annapolis was always so considerate in respect of the claims of the people of Ontario and Quebec. I recall that in years gone by, when the province of Quebec was sending a very substantial majority to support the Liberal Government, my hon. friend from Annapolis was not so considerate or so anxious to accord favours to the people of that important province. So much for the resolution moved by Mr. Monk in 1906. I say that if that resolution were before the House to-day I would vote against it, and I venture to say that the hon. member for Annapolis would not have the courage to stand up and support it.


Avard Longley Davidson: Most emphatically I
would support it.


George William Kyte: In 1911 another resolution was moved in this House by yourself, Mr. Chairman (Mr. Middlebro), and I find it is in the exact terms of the resolution moved by Mr. Monk in 1906.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How did you vote?


George William Kyte: I will tell my hon. friend. The information will come just as soon as he wants it. The resolution moved in 1911

by yourself, Mr. Chairman, read as follows :
It is desirable that the Government of Canada should recognize in some substantial manner the services rendered during the Fenian Raids of 1S66 and 1870 by our Canadian volunteers.
It is unnecessary for me to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the time and manner in which you moved that resolution made it absolutely a resolution of want of confidence. But, Sir, I am not going to justify upon that ground the action of any Liberal member from Nova Scotia for voting against that resolution. I pointed out that the resolution which you moved, Sir, was in the exact terms of the resolution moved by Mr. Monk. But the hon. member for Jacques Cartier interpreted what his resolution meant. It meant that the volunteers of Ontario and Quebec, only, should be compensated for their services, and compensated in respect of a grant of land in the Northwest. Before you closed your speech, you also interpreted your resolution in the following language:
It is not for me to say what form that recognition should take, whether a grant of land or a pension. If a pension, it is to be remembered that most of these men must be close to 80 years of age and cannot live long. I think it is as little as the Government can do to give some substantial recognition sto these men who came to the aid of the country in time of stress.
It will be observed that it was your desire, Mr. Chairman, that either a grant of land, or a pension should be given to the volunteers who took part in the defence of their country .against the Fenian raid of 1866. Does the Act passed by the Minister of Militia in 1912 provide for a grant of land or a pension to the volunteers of 1866 and 1870? Do the veterans of Nova Scotia, who came out to drill in 1866, get a pension or a grant of land, according to the intention that you had, when you moved your resolution? Therefore, when hon. gentlemen 'say that hon. members from Nova Scotia, or any other province, who voted against the resolution moved by yourself, voted against the grant of $100 to the Fenian Raid veterans of Nova Scotia, they are stating what is absolutely untrue, and which cannot be justified by the facts. I was not present when the vote was taken in 1911.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Oh, oh.


George William Kyte: My hon. friend across the
way is inclined to be jocular, but perhaps I can give an explanation of why my vote was not recorded against that motion,
which will even satisfy him. Parliament adjourned that year about the 24th of May to enable the right hon. leader of the Government and other members to attend the coronation of His Gracious Majesty King George V. Parliament resumed on the 18th of July. That was on Tuesday. I left my home on Monday morning for the purpose coming to Ottawa by the fastest and most expeditious route. I went by the fastest and most expeditious route, but did not arrive in Ottawa city until a quarter to twelve on the Tuesday night following. Before I arrived here, the motion of the hon. member for North Grey had been disposed o'f; the vote had been taken, and I had not recorded my vote.


Avard Longley Davidson: Is the hon. gentleman's vote not recorded against that?


George William Kyte: My vote is not recorded
against it, as the record shows.


Avard Longley Davidson: I think the record
shows exactly the opposite.


George William Kyte: My hon. friend has been long enough in Parliament to have some idea of the elementary principles that govern with regard to divisions, and inasmuch as he has not been able to master them I will explain them to him. When a special vote is to be taken at a certain definite time it is usual for any two members to pair on that particular vote. Such a pair was not recorded as regards my vote. Parliament adjourned on the 24th of May. The hon. member for North Grey had not intimated in any manner whatever that he intended to bring a resolution of that kind before the House. Not a single member in the House knew that the hon. member intended to move such a resolution; certainly I had no intimation of it. That being the case, and Parliament having adjourned on the 24th of May, and having resumed on the 18th July, having received no notice or intimation from the hon. member for No~th Grey that he was going to move that resolution, how could I have been paired on that vote?
I would like to ask any hon. member if he thinks that on eveif motion, that is brought up, and on every vote that is taken which is not specifically brought home to him, he is bound by a pair made for him in his absence for the convenience of the whips.
Mr. DAVIDlSON: Does the hon. gentleman want an answer?


George William Kyte: I must object -to the hon.
gentleman interrupting me any further.


Avard Longley Davidson: I understood the hon. member to ask >a question.


George William Kyte: I did not ask the hon. gentleman any question because I know I could not get any information from that source. It is well known that there are dead pairs, that there are pairs which are alive and that there are pairs which are farcical. We do know that when a vote is taken in the House and when members on either side happen to be absent, in order to make it iappear, that members are always in their places in the House, the two whips get together without reference to the opinions, wills or wishes of the men who are absent, and say: Put down the name of so-and-so on the Liberal side against the name of so-and-so on the Conservative side and that is the way in which formal pairs are made. I am not endeavouring to shirk any responsibility in respect to my vote on the resolution of the hon. member for North Grey. In view of the fact that the resolution of the hon. member foT North Grey was in the exact words of the resolution of Mr. Monk who stated that he had reference to grants of land to the Fenian Raid veterans, in Quebec and Ontario, and in view of the fact that the hon. member for North Grey stated that he was not certain whether he wanted a land grant or a pension for the volunteers in Ontario and Quebec, I would have been amply justified in voting against the resolution because it did not cover the case of the Fenian Raid veterans of Nova Scotia. My observations in regard to inv cwn vote and my own pair on the resolution of the hon. member for North Grey in 1911 apply absolutely to every other Liberal member from the province of Nova Scotia who was not present during that vote.
We can point to the Bill passed in 1912, which is the subject more particularly of the discussion here this evening. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence having been aware that a considerable agitation had developed and continued in Quebec and Ontario for some years in respect to the compensation that ought to be paid to Fenian Raid veterans, considered that the time was opportune to deal with it. I venture to assert that before I have concluded my observations I will he able to prove that the hon. Minister of Militia

and Defence, .like the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, did not have in mind compensating the Fenian Raid veterans of Nova Scotia. The veterans of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were not in his mind at the time; he simply had reference to the veterans of Quebec and Ontario when this Bill was under discussion. 1 quote from 'Hansard,' 1912:
Mr. Currie: Might I ask the minister if it is intended to give the men of 1866 the same amount of pensions for wounds as the 1886 men got?
Mr. Hughes (Victoria) : This is not dealing with pensions at all. That would have to he done by way of special Act.
Mr. Broder: This applies to veterans of 1866 and 1870.
Mr. Hughes (Victoria) : If a man were called out in active service in either year. Some men were out only a week, and they come in under the Act; some were out three months and they get just the same. It is a thing one cannot possibly equalize in any other way.
Mr. Sinclair : Will the Act apply to men who were called out to drill? I understand that in the province of Nova Scotia a number of men were drafted and collected at some particular place, and submitted themselves to some few weeks of drill preparatory to going to the front, but they never did go. What will be done in the case of those men?
Mr. Hughes (Victoria) : The law says they must have been called out for active service and the man who is called out for drill is not called out for active service. He has to be called out in anticipation of meeting the enemy.
Mr. Sinclair: I have no doubt it was in anticipation of service, but the raid, as everybody remembers, was short. These men were not required to go to the front, but they were drafted. They went through the process of being drafted, selections were made from each regiment and those men that were selected, were taken from different places and submitted to drill preparatory to going to the front, but there was no call for them to go to the front.
Mr. Hughes (Victoria) : My hon. friend will realize from his legal knowledge that if the official notification to the officers in the locality called out these troops in a certain year for preparatory drill only, then they do not come under the Act. If they were called out for active service-as certain of the Nova Scotia volunteers were called out, and went to the front-they do come under the Act.
There cannot be any question as to what was in the mind of the Minister of Militia and Defence. According to his interpretation of the Act which he was endeavouring to get through Parliament, it was only such men, such volunteers, as were called out and went to the front that were entitled to the volunteer bounties provided for by the Act.
The hon. member for Annapolis was sitting in his place at that time and other hon. gentlemen from Nova Scotia, support-

ing the Government were, I presume, sitting in their places but yet not a single one of them raised his voice in behalf of the men df Nova Scotia who came out to drill but who were not called to the front. Therefore the hon. member for Annapolis, as every other hon. gentleman from Nova Scotia, knew absolutely, in view of the interpretation which the minister gave to that section, that not one of the men in Nova Scotia who drilled in 1866 would profit to the extent of a single dollar in respect to that bounty.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Not one man in Nova Scotia who was simply called out to drill has received the bounty or will receive it.


George William Kyte: If he was called out?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	Not one man in
Nova Scotia who was simply called out to drill, unless he has perjured himself-and I do not believe that any man has perjured himself-has received the bounty or will receive it. He must have been called out for active service.


William John Macdonald: If he was called out in response to the proclamation, even if he only drilled, he receives the bounty.


James Joseph Hughes: If he was called out for active service.


George William Kyte: Did he go to the front?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Yes.


George William Kyte: He went in spirit to the front but in body he lagged behind.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: I am sorry to hear I he hon. gentleman slandering the people of Nova Scotia and to see him joining hands with the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell).


James Joseph Hughes: Where was the
front? Was it in Nova Scotia?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	Prince Edward
Island.


George William Kyte: I have a letter that was written by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Stewart) in respect to the Fenian Kaid bounty. It is as follows:
Bridgewater, N.S., November 14, 1912.
F. C. Lavers, Esq., M.D.,
New Boss.
Dear Sir,-I have your letter of recent date re Fenian Raid Bounty Act.
The Act as it stands at present only applies to those who saw active service and those who drilled under the old Nova Scotia Militia Act in 1865 and 1866, are not on that account alone qualified to receive the bounty.
They must also have seen active service and who saw active service at that been on the pay roll of the country.
Tours truly,
(Sgd) Dugald Stewart.
Another letter reads as follows:
November 1, 1912.
The Act you refer to was passed last winter and referred to those times of the Fenian Raid. Just what the most liberal interpretation of active service means has not been clearly defined, but so far only those who were ir, active engagements or were on the pay roll of the country at the time, are recognized as being entitled to the bounty.
Therefore, as late as November, 1912, seven months after the Act had been passed and received the assent of His Royal Highness, a member as elosely associated with the Minister of Militia as the hon. member for Lunenburg believed in his mind and heart that only those men who went to the front were entitled to the Fenian Raid bounty. I think I have some more proof as to what men higher up in the councils of the Government believed. Last session of Parliament the following question was asked the Right Hon. R. L. Borden by Mr. Sinclair:
Are the parties who subjected themselves to drill and who made preparations to go to the front- if they were required entitled to share in the bounty that is to be given to Fenian Raid veterans?
Mr. Borden: I regret that I am not in a position to give my hon. friend any very definite information on the subject, as the question to which he has alluded has not been brought to my personal attention. I would suppose that it would depend upon the terms of the statute and upon the construction placed upon the statute by the legal advisers of the Department of Militia and Defence.
I wondeT if the member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) was the legal adviser called in by the Government to interpret the Act passed by this Parliament. Then again, Mr. Macdonald s^id:	_____
The hon. minister should make an authoritative statement as to whether- or not any one in the province who did not respond to the call for active service which was made under proclamation in the spring of 1866, but who did perform military service in that year, is entitled to receive anything under the Act. The interpretation of the Act seems to be reasonably clear, and I ask these questions for the purpose of adding the weight of the authority of the hon. minister to the information already at hand, so that Parliament and the country will understand exactly what the policy of the Government is on the subject. What did Col. Sam Hughes say in answer to that question:-
The answer of the Minister of Militia and. Defence was:
The Governor of Nova Scotia on the 17th day of March issued a proclamation calling out the volunteers of that province for active ser-

vice on the 18th. They had only twenty-four hours' notice but the men turned out in large numbers and drilled for a few days until the scare was over. At the time the Act was passed I had not read the proclamation, but my attention was drawn to the fact that the proclamation issued to the people of Nova Scotia actually called them out for active service. Every man therefore who can prove that he was called out and that he turned out to drill under that proclamation for active service, is, under the law, entitled to a bounty.
No change has been made in the regulations. The hon. member for Pictou county, (Mr. Macdonald) has correctly interpreted them. The consideration of the subject involves the question of actual service as compared with annual drill.


John Howard Sinclair: Who said that?


George William Kyte: The present Minister of
Militia and Defence. It is obvious from this quotation I have read that at the time this Act was passed it was not contemplated that any person except those who went to the front were to share in the Fenian Raid bounty.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	Would the hon.
gentleman be good enough to confine himself to the language I used?


George William Kyte: I have read the language
used by the minister.


Mr. ROGERS:: What is the hon. gentleman reading from?


George William Kyte: I am reading the answer of the Minister of Militia and Defence.


James Joseph Hughes: What is the page of
' Hansard ' ?


William John Macdonald: March 28, 1913.


George William Kyte: If it were not for the accident of the Minister of Militia having his attention called to a proclamation issued by the Governor of Nova Scotia on March 17, 1866-
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Will the hon. member read the language I used and not his comments?


George William Kyte: I read the language of the
minister. I assure the minister that I do not desire to misinterpret him, but sometimes the minister uses language that ordinary members can not always follow or are familiar with. If I cannot use 1 he very concise, although sometimes curt, language of the minister it is my misfortune but it is not my desire to mislead.
If it were not for the fact that the proclamation issued by the Governor of the province of Nova Scotia on the 17th of March, 1866, had been dug out of the dusty archives

of the province of Nova Scotia, no such interpretation would be given to the Act as would enable the people of Nova Scotia to get any acknowledgment in respect of their services performed in the Fenian Raid of 1866. I think I have satisfied the members of this committee that it was never intended that Nova Scotians, other than those who actually went to 2 a.m. the front, should get a single dollar of Fenian Raid bounty, and yet while such a restrictive interpretation was placed upon the legislation by the Minister of Militia, not a single Conservative member from the province of Nova Scotia got up to enter his protest against the unfair discrimination against the people of Nova Scotia. It was the Monk resolution over and over again; it was the resolution of the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) over and over again. I nearly made the mistake of saying that the Conservative members from the province of Nova Scotia in 1906 voted against the Monk resolution, but it so happened that there was not at that time a single Conservative member from Nova Scotia in this House to vote against the resolution, and that is why they did not vote against it. In the general elections of 1904 there was not a single Conservative elected in Nova Scotia, so that if the names of Conservative members from that province do not appear as having voted for the Monk resolution, it is owing to circumstances over which they had no control. In view of the arraignment made by the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) against	my	hon. friend from Yarmouth (Mr.	Law), for having voted
against the Monk resolution, I must assume that had my hon. friend from Annapolis been in the House, and had other Conservative members from Nova Scotia been in the House, then they would have felt bound to vote for the Monk resolution; a resolution which, according to Air. Monk's own language, only provided for grants of lands in the West for the veterans of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and under which there was not a single dollar of money or a single acre of land to be given to the veterans of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.


William John Macdonald: You mean they
would have voted against the Monk resolution.


George William Kyte: I say that in view of the strictures made upon the hon. member for Yarmouth for having voted against the

Monk resolution I am bound to assume the Conservatives would have voted for it if they had been in the House. The hon. gentleman from Annapolis stated that the Monk resolution was a perfectly proper resolution to vote for, and he condemned my hon. friend from Yarmouth for having voted against it, and, therfore, I am bound to assume that if there was a Conservative member from Nova Scotia in the House at that time, he would have supported the resolution of Mr. Monk and would have voted for gifts of land to the veterans of Ontario and Quebec without providing a single grant of an acre of land or a dollar of money for the veterans of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Had I been present in this House when the resolution of my hon. friend from North Grey was moved, and had I voted against that resolution, I would not thereby have been voting against the grant of $100 each to the veterans of Nova Scotia, because on the admission of the hon. member for North Grey himself, he had in mind either the granting of land or the granting of a pension for the Fenian Raid veterans, neither of which is secured to the veterans of Nova Scotia by the Bill under consideration.
I have no doubt there are some other observations made by my hon. friend from Annapolis that merit passing comment, but I shall not refer to them at this late hour. I only desire to say further that so far as the applications from the county I have the honour to represent are concerned, they are made in good faith and are supported by absolute evidence, and they have been filed in the Department with the most honest intention on the part of every applicant. From my county some 650 applications have been received, of which 444 have been paid. Some doubt has been expressed that there could be living at the present time 15,000 men in the province of Nova Scotia who were old enough to come out and drill forty-eight years ago. For the enlightenment of my hon. friend from Carleton, I desire to say that there is to-day living in the county of Richmond one aged citizen who did not qualify for the Fehian Raid bounty because he did not come out in 1866. The reason that he did not do so was that he was too old to come out. That man is still living. He is a loyal citizen, born in the good old English county of Devon. He still possesses all his faculties and is one of the most intelligent men I have ever met. I shall be glad, if the hon. minister does us the 214
honour to visit the county of Richmond, to take him to the home of this aged man and show him how the healthful climate of the county of Richmond-and it is not confined to the county of Richmond alone, but is common to the province of Nova Scotia- preserves men to a great age with the possession of all their faculties. Therefore it is not extraordinary that there are 15,000 men living in the province of Nova Scotia who are qualified for the Fenian Raid bounty.
I desire to impress upon the minister the desirability of bringing down his legislation as speedily as possible, so that applications filed in the department in the months of September, October and November of last year will be promptly paid.
The hon. Minister of Militia seems to be somewhat mystified as to how certain lists of Fenian Raid applications became circulated throughout the province of Nova Scotia. At an early date in this session, I put on the Order Paper a notice of motion for return showing all the applications for Fenian Raid bounties in my county. The hon. minister intimated that, it would be extremely difficult to get such a list as it involved a large amount of work. I stated that I had already seen a copy of that list, and that therefore it could not be very difficult to duplicate it. The hon. minister seems to express some doubt that there exists anywhere in the province of Nova Scotia lists of Fenian Raid bounty applicants. When the Fenian Raid Bounty Commission visited the province of Nova Scotia in 1913, the members of the board were all provided with lists of the applicants in that province. The local members of the board in each county also have lists. Therefore, it is not extraordinary if copies of these lists got out. The information came, I suppose, through the officers of the department, properly, and not through the officers having any desire to violate the instructions they had received.
The hon. minister stated, in answer to my hon. friend from Yarmouth (Mr. Law), that it was possible that some person might have attended the courts in the province of Nova Scoti'a and taken down each claim as it was passed. I am afraid that the hon. minister is not very familiar with the procedure and duties of that court or he would not have urged that as an explanation. The duties of the members of the board who visited Nova Scotia did not impose any obligation upon them to investigate individual claims. They simply visited Nova Scotia to ascertain whether or


James Joseph Hughes: Speaking earlier in the evening, the minister said that the people of Prince Edward Island were too late in drilling to qualify for the bounty.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: I said that the Governor in his address spoke about how proud they were to have observed the splendid manner in which the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick people had turned out, showing that the emergency had then passed.


James Joseph Hughes: The emergency could not have passed, because the minister under this proposed legislation intends to pay the men who. drilled as late as 1870, four years afterwards. The minister is certainly discriminating against the province of Prince Edward Island. The legislature passed a special Militia Act to meet the conditions; all the able-bodied men in the province met to drill for that special purpose. Surely that is just as good as if they were called out by proclamation of the Government. The very fact that the minister takes shelter under a technical point is conclusive proof that he does not wish

to deal fairly with the people of Prince Edward Island and with the men who drilled on that occasion for that special purpose. The minister said that if he recognized that the volunteers of Prince Edward Island were eligible for consideration under this resolution, a very large number of men would claim the bounty. He considered that to be an argument against it, while the fact that a great number of men in the province of Nova Scotia are eligible under this resolution is considered meritorious. You could not get better proof that the minister does not want to act fairly toward the people of my province and does not intend to do so. If any further proof were necessary, I would point to the fact that the minister was willing to amend the resolution to include Prince Edw'ard Island, but in such a way that it would not give the men of Prince Edward [aland one dollar. I do not think that any greater proof of insincerity could be adduced.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: It would suit the hon. member a great deal better to devote a little more energy to looking up the records and finding out whether or not any persons in Prince Edward Island are en-tit'ed to this bounty, than to come here and make insinuations. It has not been shown that the men in Prince Edward Island are entitled to this bounty. If the hon. member will produce evidence to show that one mail in Prince Edward Island was called out for active service, I will bring in a new Bill.


James Joseph Hughes: I produced that evidence this evening. I have a great deal of evidence, but the minister does not want to receive it.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: I certainly will not pay for annual drill.


James Joseph Hughes: This was not annual drill; it was special drill for a special purpose. What better proof does the minister want?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: I do not think the hon. gentleman is competent to judge.


James Joseph Hughes: I am not competent lo judge of what the minister may think, because he has very peculiar ideas and commits very peculiar actions. Amongst other things, for a minister of the Crown, he is neither courteous nor dignified. The hon. member for Annapolis said that I voted against the motion made in 1906 by the 214J
member for Jacques Cartier. It has been proved and demonstrated beyond the
shadow of a doubt that that resolution was not intended to apply to the Maritime provinces at all, and was not intended to apply in any way to the province of Prince Edward Island. I was justified in voting against that resolution; I would vote against a similar resolution to-night if one were presented, and I am justified in voting against the resolution now before the committee because it unfairly discriminates against my province. The hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island, supporting this Government, made a very fair suggestion to the Minister of Militia iand Defence, but he would not accept it. I say again that there is proof that this Government does not want to deal fairly in this matter with the people of Prince Edward Island, and the hon. member for Queens knows it. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier did not want to deal fairly with Prince Edward Island in 1906, and hon. gentlemen opposite, now in power, desire still to discriminate against that province. They use this money only where they think it will be of political advantage to them; they take the money of all the people to buy the political support of some of the people.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: The hon. member for Kings, Prince Edward Island, wishes certain concessions made to Prince Edward Island.


James Joseph Hughes: I do not want concessions; I want fair play.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Does the hon. member want every other province of Canada to be similarly treated? Does he wish that every -man who drilled during that period shall get the bounty?
Mr. J. J. ' HUGHES:	The minister is
doing the same in the other provinces; I simply want fair play for Prince Edward Island. The men of Prince Edward Island drilled specially for the purpose; they could not do any more and no more was done in any other province. I think they are entitled to some consideration.


William Sora Middlebro: Three or four companies in my riding, and dozens in the surrounding districts, went so far as 50 miles from home to drill in 1866 and 1870, and they have been refused anything under this Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have nothing to take
back that I said to-night regarding this matter. I do not accuse 15,000 people in


COMMON.&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Nova Scotia of perjuring themselves; I have too much regard for the assertions that I make and for the people of Nova Scotia to say anything like that. But I do not believe that there are 15.000 people in the province of Nova Scotia to-day who were actually called out in the month of March, 1866, to repel an invasion. It is not common sense to believe that more than 25 per cent of the persons who belonged to the militia of the province of Nova Scotia 48 years ago, who must have been 18 or 20 years of age at that time, are alive to-day. I said this thing was a scandal; I repeat it, and the only man I am blaming is the minister. I do not blame tne members from Nova Scotia for digging up an old proclamation upon which they get the minister to take action in this matter; that is their business.
When the minister tries to hide himself behind a play on words as he has done tonight when he says to the member for Kings: I will not pay the man who performs annual drill but only the man who was ordered out, he knows he is only playing on words, helping on this scandal. He admitted by his own interpretation of this clause, when I challenged him in 1912, and told him there would be trouble over this pension and who were called out, the minister gave his interpretation, and I admit it was very reasonable. But even then I could see difficulties ahead. The minister then said that the man who was called out under the Act as he interpreted it would be the man who actually was called out and went to face the enemy, not the man who performed his annual drill. The minister stuck to that for a year. I do not know what caused him to change his mind, but he changed his mind, and now we have the spectacle of every man in Nova Scotia who can prove that his name was on the pay roll and that he was sixteen years of age, being entitled to this bounty. My object in raising this discussion was to see if the minister would not abandon the unreasonable interpretation which he places upon his statute, or, if he cannot do that, change it and bring it around to reasonable common sense.
The hon. member for North Grey raised a question with a good deal of merit. He said that he has two or three regiments and scores of individuals who went fifty miles down to the lake, really to the frontier, intending to be ready to repel an invasion, as my father did and as thousands did in New Brunswick.- But the minister says: I have never been able yet

to see a proclamation calling out the troops in Ontario or Quebec, and therefore I cannot recognize them. Why cannot the minister be reasonable?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: The minister never said anything of the kind.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I took down his words at the time, I have not yet seen the order in Ontario and Quebec.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. member to be honest anl square should follow up his lines. He says that I gave that as my reason for not recognizing these men. He knows that is unfair and that I said nothing of the kind.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend need not get indignant; it will not do any good.


James Joseph Hughes: I intend that the hon. member shall be honest when he addresses me.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend might as well cool off, because I can stay here as long as he can, and there is no use getting indignant. My hon. friend has three or four measures to get through this House, and I advise him to be cool. When my hon. friend brings in legislation of this kind he need not expect to get off without criticism.


James Joseph Hughes: I want honest criticism.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And you will get it; you will get criticism of every kind, and you deserve all you will get and a good deal more.


James Joseph Hughes: Certainly from men of your class.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was referring to the position taken by the hon. member for North Grey. It is a reasonable position. The minister says: I have not yet seen an order in Ontario and Quebec, and the only conclusion I can arrive at from his statement is that because he has never seen any order to bring out these troops en masse he cannot recSDgnize the troops in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick as he can those in Nova Scotia. I t|rink that is an illogical conclusion and if my friend would not fly off the handle because it is a little late we would not have such exhibitions of temper as he exhibited a few minutes ago.


James Joseph Hughes: I notice the hon. member for Carleton is fairly cool now.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, the member for Car-leton never loses his temper and he can usually stick to his text. I have several cases in New Brunswick exactly in a line with the case brought forward by the member for North Grey. I have written the minister about four men at least in Charlotte county. I have sent him the correspondence. There is a man named J. Mil-liken who was right on the ground, within a few miles of where the actual invasion took place at St. George. He is one of a number who were on guard night and day for a month, men belonging to No. 3 company of home guards. They received their arms and accoutrements from the capital of the province, Fredericton. They were ordered out by Col. Wetmore, in charge of the militia forces in that portion of New Brunswick. These men were called out by somebody, it is true not by a proclamation made by the Governor, and the men referred to by North Giey were called out by somebody, possibly not by the Governor of the province. Surely my hon. friend can get broad enough, surely he can see the justice of this contention and will amend this resolution. He has it in his power now. It is not going through tonight, he will have time to think over it and dream over it and surely he can amend it and bring down a reasonable Bill. I am not; pleading, I have always taken the ground that a man should not be paid for defending his fireside. I take that ground to-night. But if my hon. friend, for political purpose and nothing else, is going to introduce legislation like this, then I am like the member from Kings, I say that every portion of this Dominion should be treated alike and treated fairly. If my hon. friend is going to say that, because of the digging up of an old musty record of the city of Halifax, the volunteers of the province of Nova Scotia had a right to this money on a technicality, surely my hon. friend ought to big enough man to amend his law; if he does not want to reduce the men of Nova Scotia, bring everybody else in Canada up to that level. If he cannot bring other people up to it, cut them down, get it into some sort of reasonable shape Take the men mentioned by the hon. member for North Grey. Take the men I have referred to here in Charlotte in New Brunswick and the men in other places who actually were called out, I do not say by the Government, but by somebody over them, in this case by Colonel Wetmore, the chief military officer of that portion of the province. These were men who were called out, who went to the front, who complied with all
the technicalities and the definition laid down by the minister when the Bill was introduced two years ago. Surely my hon. friend can be big enough to amend his Bill and take in the men who really, in all common sense and honesty, ought to *be included in this and not stick to the jug-handled interpretation which he is applying. I think I am justified in saying, in view of what has taken place to-night, in view of the statement of the hon. member for Annapolis that they did not know anything about this for a year after the Bill was passed until finally they found the old proclamation, in view of all this the minister ought to come down to the House with a reasonable measure, which will give the bonus to the people entitled to it and put every province and every person in this Dominion on a fair footing and get the Bill through and make an end of the whole matter. I do not think that the minister should get chesty because some criticism is made of this measure and I do not think that the member for North Ontario and Kings and Albert have helped him along very much by attempting to throw stones at me because I do not mind them very much and, as I said before, I usually come back and say what I want to say in the end. I think I am putting to the minister now a reasonable proposition. I am only asking him to change the law and make it reasonable and apply it to every section of Canada alike.


James Joseph Hughes: I know the cases of these four men. I have looked them up. They undoubtedly turned out voluntarily as did thousands in the county from which I come, and drilled, but I have never yet seen an order from Colonel Wetmore ordering these men out. If the men can produce that we will be glad to see it. We have looked into the case as carefully as possible. We have had men down there in every case; the officers in charge have done their level best to follow the cases up.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Here again is where I
contend my hon. friend is not reasonable. One of these four men is no less a person than Senator Gillmor, a man alive and well to-day.. All these men have made affidavits, but Senator Gillmor does not want the $100; he holds the same views as I do. The other men do want it. What better evidence does my hon. friend want than that?


James Joseph Hughes: I am not the board.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then make a law to
comply with it; make the law fair.


William John Macdonald: I think that every
hon. gentleman will agree with me that we could discuss this resolution much more effectively in daylight.


James Joseph Hughes: On the second reading.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend will make the change in 1914?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There was such a strong attack made upon the members of Nova Scotia by the hon. gentleman who was put up by the minister for that purpose-


James Joseph Hughes: Now, now, he can get up himself.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When the minister has any legislation of any character to put to the House, if he has anything to say to members on this side of the kind that was meted out to us to-night, it would be more to the purpose and more manly, if I may use the word, for him to say it himself than to get a muck dredge like the hon. member for Annapolis, who has one spout in the air and another in the mud, to do the service.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.'


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think the minister
would do well to dispense with this muck dredge performance the next time he has a resolution to put through. I must say that I cannot congratulate the hon. member for Annapolis on the way in which he handles Holy Writ. He might know something about muck dredges and things of that sort, but when he goes into the realms of Moses and the prophets I am afraid he is on territory that he knows nothing about. There are certain things which we should all observe. I am not now referring particularly to the hon. member for Annapolis. When there is a real scoundrel walking up and down this country nature provides against his making havoc among the people by putting a certain stamp upon his face that warns them: This chap is a scoundrel, look out for him.


Avard Longley Davidson: I hope my face compares favourably with the hon. gentleman's.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Lord has .put a
stamp on the face of the hon. member for Annapolis which says: You are prohibited from handling the book of Holy Writ; To you it is a sealed book; the seven seals cannot be touched by you. The hon. member for Annapolis showed to-night that the holy volume is to him a sealed book of
. 1
which he knows nothing whatever. He made a most unfortunate comparison: he put himself up as the wealthy man who had all the power behind him, and spoke of us poor chaps on this side of the House as Lazarus. Perhaps there is some truth in the comparison; poor Lazarus was licked by a. dog. My hon. friend will not perhaps wish to apply that part of the Scriptures to 

himself. There was another point; the rich man passed through the dissolution of the tabernacle and in hell he lifted up his eyes. Does the hon. member fox Annapolis wish to apply that portion of the Scriptures to himself? I trust he will go home and say his prayers before he does the disappearing act in a chariot of fire, smelling of brimstone. This is the very cheap vaudeville that we have received from the hon. member for Annapolis. I suppose the minister gave him a trial before he took him on, just as actors undergo before going on the boards. I suppose he performed before the minister. There is an account of a certain damsel who performed before a king who promised her anything to the half of his kingdom. I suppose the minister had this man perform before him before giving him the task of abusing members on this side of the House. If so, I cannot congratulate him on his judgment in giving the job to the hon. member for Annapolis. There are some hon. gentlemen on that side of the House who could have done this thing with better effect, and whose word would be accepted with some degree of credence and weight in the country. The minister will find that the faults of the man he chose are something like the faults in the Frenchman's horse. A Frenchman had traded a horse. He said: ' Now that we have .made the trade I might as well state that the horse has two faults.' 'Oh, what are they? '
' Well', said the Frenchman, 'when you let him go he is pretty hard to catch, and when you catch him he is not worth a damn.'


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It may have been
difficult for the minister to get a man to perform the muck dredge act, but when he did get one he turns out to be something like the Frenchman's horse. If the hon. member for Annapolis thought he was going to make capital against Nova Scotia members by his performance he is very much mistaken. For myself-and I am but the least among the members of Nova Scotia-I am not at all afraid of any attack

the hon. member for Annapolis will make upon me in the eastern part of Nova Scotia, or in the county I represent. As to what took place in this Parliament in 1906, I must plead all ignorance, for I was not here. I first came to the House in 1904; I resigned early in 1906, and came back again in 1908. So what took place in 1906 is not attributable to me in any way whatsoever. But if I had been here when that resolution was passed, so long as the resolution had reference only to Ontario and Quebec, and involved no benefits to Nova Scotia, I would have recorded my vote against it. The same resolution exactly was repeated when I was here in 1911, and for two reasons I voted against it: first, because it was brought in as a vote of want of confidence; and secondly, because it was exactly similar to the resolution introduced in 1906 having reference particularly to a grant of land; the people of Nova Scotia at that time could not go out to the West, and the grant of land under the conditions mentioned would have been of no benefit to them. I submit therefore that in view of what was involved in the resolutions of 1906 and 1911, they were not capable of conferring any advantage on the veterans of Nova Scotia, and we have committed no sin in voting against them. Since then the legislation that the minister has brought down for the purpose of paying $100 has come before Parliament, and I have given it my cordial support. On the 28th March, 1912, I made these observations:
l would ask the minister if there is any clear definition of what is meant by a volunteer? I think that when the men were called out and went into camp, and were prepared to go to the front, they should be regarded as volunteers. Any man who went into camp to drill by reason of that raid, and was prepared for active service, should be called a volunteer. Having turned out and gone into camp, even though it was not necessary for them to go to the front, still I think they are entitled to recognition.
That is the position I took, and that is the position I take now, I never saw any letters forwarded such as were read by the hon. member for Annapoli's. I had tried to help people in my county to put their claims properly before the department. I helped hundreds of them, and I would help them again. Several little mistakes happened in the department, for which I do not blame them, owing to similarity of names, such as Macdonalds, Mackenzies and Campbells, and other causes. The member for the county can be serviceable
in straightening out mistakes that are liable to occur. As representing the electors in mj* county, I tried to help them out in that way. Many gave wrong addresses, or mistakes were made resulting in the address turning out wrong. Cheques were held in the Finance Department because they did not have the right addresses. I have straightened out very many of these things. If the hon. member for Annapolis thinks it a censuraole action on my part to help an old gentleman who may be in my county and does not get his cheque, I do not agree with him, because I think it is my duty to help him as quickly as possible. I am doing that. Every member has such duties to perform, and I presume he performs them. The hon. member for Annapolis, I presume at the suggestion of the minister, comes forward, lashes himself into a fury, and tries to foment the whole House and make little of us through the province of Nova Scotia because we are trying to help out the veterans in our respective counties in getting the bounty which the mihister has been kind enough to give them. This should not be a matter of politics at all. It should not have been dragged into politics. I do not think we have any right to try and make politics out of it. I do not say what we might have done but we are not to be accused of what we might have done when we have not done it. It is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of recognizing deserving acts performed by patriotic citizens forty or fifty years ago. When the hon. member for Annapolis broke out in a fury and endeavoured to make political capital out of it he disregarded every higher consideration which this gift by the minister might involve. There are other things that perhaps we can deal with later on. I am sorry indeed that this gift on the part of the minister and of the Government has been used in the vilest possible form in every election in Nova Scotia from the little town elections to the top notch elections it is used in every shape for corrupting purposes. I presume that was not the intention of the minister and I am sure he would do well if he would try and put an end to it as quickly as possible. I make these observations so that 'Hansard' will not go out this morning with the flaring observations of the assistant deputy minister of Militia, the hon. member for Annapolis, and without some statement in defence of the position that I have taken.


William John Macdonald: In the second line of the resolution I understand that the min-

ister has agreed to put ' 1914 ' instead of ' 1915.' Then, in place of the words 1 to every volunteer who is living son the date of the passing of an act based upon this resolution,' I suggest that the minister make it read ' to every volunteer who was living on the first day of April, 1912.' This resolution is .continuing chapter 53 of the Act of 1912, and that language is there. ' Every volunteer who was living on the date of the passing of this Act,' which was April 1, 1912, is the language used. If the minister would make that change, then the latter part of the resolution would be consistent with that which provides for the payment to widows of parties who were living on that date. Then, the last words of the resolution read: * and to whom no grant has previously been made under the authority of any Act.' That does not appear in chapter 53, and I do not know that it is relevant. I would suggest that, while we have no objection to the resolution going through, the minister would be wise if he would frame his act so as to make clear the points that I have called his attention to.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: I will read two clauses of the proposed Act. The first two sections are the same as those in the previous Act. Then, section 3 provides that:
The Governor in Council may at any time before the 31st December 1915-
We will change that to 1914.
-grant the sum of - one hundred dollars to every volunteer who is living on the date of the passing of this Act.


William John Macdonald: They must have been living on the 1st day of April, 1912.


James Joseph Hughes: In order to be living to-day they must have been living then. Then, section 4 reads:
The Governor in Council may at any time before the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen-
That will be changed to 1914.


William Cameron Edwards: Has that been decided upon? I do not agree with the hon. member for Pictou on that point.


James Joseph Hughes: We can fight that out on the second reading.
The Governor in Council may at any time before the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, grant the sum of one hundred dollars to the widow, or, through being no widow, then to the legal representative, of every volunteer who was living on the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and twelve, and to whom, or on
[Mr. Macdonald. 1
account of whose services as a volunteer, no grant had previously been made under the authority of this act or under the authority of the Fenian Raid Volunteer Bounty Act.
The object is to prevent the trouble of probating.


William John Macdonald: The minister distinctly agreed earlier in the evening as to it being 1914 and that has been eliminated from the discussion. I am speaking particularly for the people in our province because all our applications are in. If there are any people who have not put their applications in the time can be extended but from our standpoint, and I think in the interest of the whole country, it is desirable that the matter should be closed up as soon as possible. Our discussion on the question has gone upon the assumption that the minister gave us that assurance earlier in the evening.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not think you are justified in taking that position.


William John Macdonald: The minister said so.


William Cameron Edwards: I did not understand it in that way.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: My legal officers advise 1914.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. HUGHES thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 176, to make further provision for bounties to volunteers who served the Crown during the Fenian raids.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 2.55 a.m. Thursday.
Thursday, May 7, 1914.