1918-04-02

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery certificates and reports of the election and final returns of the members of the House of Commons to serve in the Thirteenth Parliament of Canada, and also a special report in respect to the election for the electoral district of Yukon Territory.
As the Tatter report is very voluminous, I have issued instructions that it be printed as an appendix to the Votes and Proceedings, and that copies be circulated among the members at *the earliest possible moment.



REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of North West Mounted Police for the year ending September 30, 1917.-Hon. Mr. Rowell.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. B. STACEY (Westminster District) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 26, to Amend the Representation Act, 1914.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Will the hon. gentleman please explain the nature of the Bill?


Mr. STACEY:: The object, Sir, is simply to change the name of one electoral district in the province of British Columbia. Under ordinary circumstances, possibly, the name of an electoral district may be of comparatively minor importance; but in this particular case it is the cause of great confusion, inasmuch as the adjoining constituency is known as New Westminster, whereas that to which the Bill refers is now called Westminster District, and confusion has already arisen because of the similarity of the names. It is therefore deemed desirable by those immediately interested- that a change should be effected. With regard to tlie proposed name of the riding, the object is two-fold. The constituency in question lies adjacent to the Fraser river, on both its north and south banks, for a distance of from sixty to one hundred miles, and the locality therefore seems to suggest a suitable title. In addition it perpetuates a name that should be cherished in the annals of Canadian history. For these two reasons, I beg leave to introduce this Bill to change the name of this constituency from Westminster District to Fraser Valley.
Motion agreed t-o and Bill read first time.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon.   S@: 
Sir SAM HUGHES:: Were the officers
.military or civic officers?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: They were
Dominion officers engaged, in the enforcement of the Military Service Act. It would *appear so far as the Government has information at the present time that the disturbance might have been put down without much difficulty if proper effort had been made by the civic authorities. However, these men sustained the injuries to which I have alluded, and while the affair occupied a considerable time, nothing more of importance seems to have occurred that evening.
On the following evening an attack, apparently organized in advance, was made upon the registry office which contains the records connected with the Military Service Act. According to the information which has reached the Government, it would not have been difficult, at that stage even, to prevent what took place. Again I repeat that according to the information which thus far has come to us, no adequate or reasonable effort by the local authorities was made to prevent the disturbance and preserve public order. Accordingly the building was ramsacked and I believe it was set on fire; but fortunately all the important records came through without serious damage. They happened to be in a room other than that to which the crowd gained entrance, and where the crowd apparently thought that the records were kept. Consequently, very little loss of important records has occurred.
Then, on that or the following evening other unfortunate and deplorable incidents took place. Newspaper offices were attacked and wrecked, and attempts were made to procure arms. The situation on Saturday appeared to be so serious that the Government decided that the garrison of the city of Quebec should be reinforced, and on 'Saturday evening and on Sunday about one thousand additional troops were sent in. These are there now, under the command of General Lessard, who on Saturday was ordered to proceed forthwith to Quebec to take command and who arrived there, I believe, on Sunday afternoon. The troops which were sent from some parts of Ontario are troops which have been under training, I believe, for some time and have been gathered from various parts of Canada.
The most deplorable incident, however, is that which occurred last evening, .and which resulted in loss of life. From the information in the possession of the Government it would appear that four persons have been killed and a great many wounded. I believe that about sixty persons who were actually engaged in the assault have been taken in charge by the military. The troops, so far as we can judge from the information presently available, acted with great restraint and moderation. They were pelted with bricks and stones; a great many different attack's were made upon them; they were fired upon with firearms of various kinds, and eventually the fire was returned.
So far as the enforcement of the Military Service Act is concerned, it is the duty of the Federal Government to see that it is enforced. We have endeavoured in all parts of the country to enforce it with impartiality, fairness, consideration and firmness. We shall continue to do so in the future, and we shall see to it that Federal officers engaged in the enforcement of the Act are adequately protected, if the local authorities fail to give them that protection which ought to be accorded. I say this in all calmness, and in the assurance that this duty on the part of the Federal Government will be recognized universally in the House and throughout the country, and even by those who in the first instance were opposed to the principle on which that law is based.
Further than that, if in any part of this country it appears that, by reason of the enforcement of this Act, the municipal or local authorities are unable or are not dis-

posed to preserve public order, it will devolve upon the Government of this country to see that public order is preserved, and we intend to perform that duty.
The incidents which have taken place have made it apparent to the Government that some amendments will be necessary to the Military Service Act. One of those which is now in preparation is this: That persons who engage in active or forcible resistance to the enforcement of the Act shall be forthwith enrolled in the military forces of Canada, without regard to whether their class has been called out; without regard to any exemption that they may have procured, and subject only to the consideration that they are within military age. I believe that is a proper principle to adopt. If any persons in this country are disposed to wage war upon the civil authorities of Canada engaged in the enforcement of this Act, then it seems to me they may well be given the opportunity to exercise their warlike spirit upon the enemies of their country.


Right Hon.   S@: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I may, I hope, be permitted to say a word upon this matter, especially as the trouble which has taken place in the city of Quebec has occurred in the electoral division which I have the honour to represent in this House, and which I have represented in Parliament for more than forty years. My view is the same ae that of the Prime Minister: that the law is to be observed. And, following the remarks that my right hon. friend has uttered, I may state that the law will be observed even by those who do not believe in it. The law, whether it is right or wrong, good or bad, judicious or otherwise, is the law, and it will be observed in Quebec as elsewhere. My right hon. friend made hiis statement under reserve to-day. I shall await what he has further to say upon the subject. I shall only say that, while the law is to be observed and must be observed, it is possible to have it enforced in such a way as to provoke public sentiment.


Mr. J. BEST:: Oh!


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Wilfrid Laurier: I shall make good my words when the proper time comes. But if the law is enforced with proper regard for the rights of the people, my right hon. friend can be sure of it, there will be no difficulty at all in carrying it out.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall, of course, be very happy to hear any suggestions the right hon. gentleman has to offer in that regard, but I would like to make this observation: The incident which seems to have provoked the first disturbance in the city of Quebec is an incident which has occurred hundreds, if not thousands, of times in other parts of the country, and has had no such results as those which' occurred on Thursday last. That might perhaps be borne well in mind.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know how the law has been observed elsewhere, but I take especial interest in the city of Quebec, as I happen to be one of its representatives in this House, and, in my humble judgment, the law will be observed there as in other parts of the country.



THE WAR.

[Stage Direction]
CABLE DESPATCHES FROM SIR EDWARD KEMP; HEROIC DEEDS OF
CANADIANS.	.
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert Laird Borden: 

THE QUEBEC DISTURBANCES.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe):: Did I understand the right hon. leader of the Government to say that a date will be fixed for a debate on the Quebec riots?


Robert Laird Borden: I merely said that to-morrow a fuller statement would be given after we had received official reports.
Mr. CURRilE: Might it not be well to fix, say, Thursday for the debate? Otherwise, I wish to give notice that on Thursday next I shall move for leave to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing this matter.



INCOME TAX RETURNS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: I ask the Acting Minister of Finance whether, at the reauest of various boards of trade and business corporations, he is extending the time within which the income tax returns have to be made? I noticed in the financial press last week that a movement was on foot for' that purpose, and as a great many people do not fully understand the operation of the Act, I think if my hon. friend would grant a further delay it would be all the better.


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Finance):: No further delay has been proposed; in fact, it would be hardly possible. However, upon request, we shall be pleased to consider any suggestion for reasonable delay.



SUPREME COURT ACT AMENDMENT.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) the House went into Committee on the following .proposed resolution, Mr. Botvin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Supreme Court Act, Chapter one hundred and thirty-nine of the Revised Statutes' of Canada, 1906, and to provide that the Judge of the Exchequer Court, or if he is absent from Ottawa or for any reason unable to sit, a Judge of a Provincial Superior Court may, on the requisition of the Chief Justice or in his absence, the senior puisne Judge, attend at the sittings of the Court and aot as an ad hoc Judge for such period as may be necessary; and that the said Judge so attending may be paid his travelling expenses and receive a per diem allowance for living expenses of ten dollars for each day that he is necessarily absent from his place of residence.
Mr. DOHERTY:: The purpose of the
measure which is intended to be based on this resolution is to obviate an inconvenience that has arisen at different times in the past, and that presents itself perhaps, [DOT]more acutely at the present moment. As the members of the House are aware, a quorum of the Supreme Court consists of five of its members. Whenever by reason of circumstances it is not possible to unite such a number of the members of the court, while it is still possible for the court to proceed with four members only, the result of such a proceeding is not found [DOT]to be satisfactory in practice. That litigants reaching a court of ultimate appeal should find themselves face to face with a court so constituted that it may possibly divide evenly, with the result either that the judgment appealed from may be con-
side red standing or affirmed, or a rehearing be ordered is obviously not desirable. The purpose of this measure is to make it possible, when by reason of illness, .uinavoid-able absenoe, or other sufficient cause, five judges are not available for the holding of . the term, for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Co.urt or the senior puisne judge, in his absence, to call an ad hoc judge to fill the place of the judge who may be prevented from taking part in the sittings of the court by any of the causes which 1 have mentioned. This power, I think I can safely say, is vested in the Chief Justice of all the provincial courts; certainly that is the case in the province from which I come. We propose to empower the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or, in his absence, the senior puisne judge, to call in as an ad hoc judge first the judge of the Exchequer court, or if that judge for any reason should not be available, then a judge of the superior court of any province.
M>r. LEMIEUX:	Any of the judges of
the Exchequer Court?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As at present constituted, there is but one judge of the Exchequer Court, with an assistant judge. This measure does not propose to call in the assistant judge of the Exchequer Court, but the judge of the Exchequer Court, or if he is unable to act, a judge of the Superior Court of any of the provinces. The reason the measure had to he premised by a resolution is simply that it makes provision that where an outside judge is so called in he shall toe paid his travelling expenses and the ordinary per diem living allowance which is allowed under the general law to any judge who is called upon to serve at a place other than the place of his residence.


Samuel Hughes: I understand there is no provision in the Supreme Court Act for retiring#a judge with superannuation after a certain period of service.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, yes.


Samuel Hughes: I understand not. Would it not toe an opportune time to insert a clause in this resolution that a judge, after a certain tenure of office, might be retired, under the Supreme Court Act, with superannuation? It is possible, as I understand the law, for an officer to occupy the position of a judge in the Dominion of Canada long after the period of his usefulness has passed. Will it toe possible, when this Bill is before the House, to amend it in that respect, without any further resolution?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It would not 'be (possible in a measure of this kind, nor, indeed, in any measure passed by this Parliament, to make provision for the compulsory termination of the holding of a judicial office by any judge of the Superior or High Court, because under the provisions of the British North America Act the tenure of office of the judges of the High Court continues during good behaviour. There is no power, therefore, either in the Government or in Parliament, to compulsorily terminate the holding of such an office. The hon. gentleman is aware that there are certain provisions under which, if a judge voluntarily retires at a certain age, he becomes entitled to a superannuation, determined according to his period of service and age. But there is no power in this Parliament, as I understand the law at all events, to make provision such as the hon. gentleman suggests. I think, in order to attain that result, if Parliament considers it desirable, it would be necessary to amend1 the provisions of the British North America Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have listened with
great attention to the remarks made by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and I may say at once that this proposed measure strikes me as being right. 1 am informed that of late many litigants from various parts of Canada were held up because there was not on the Supreme Court bench the number of judges required by law to hear cases. However, the legal fraternity accepted the fait accompli, and legislation is proposed to-day to obviate such a state of things in the future. About 1896 or 1897 similar legislation was under consideration, if not presented, by the then Minister of Justice, Sir Oliver Mowat. I do not know if the Bill was ever printed, but, at all events, there was an intention on his part, expressed, in the Senate where he held a seat, to appoint ad hoc judges in such cases as the present Minister of Justice seeks to provide for under this Bill. However, the measure was not introduced, and to-day we see the necessity of it. I should like to call the attention of my hon. friend to one point. The Chief Justice will be empowered to request the services or attendance of the judge of the Exchequer Court. Everybody in this House, and everybody in the legal fraternity or in the judicial world, has the highest regard for the Chief Justice of the Exchequer Court.
I say the Chief Justice advisely, because it is a well known fact that there are two judges in the Exchequer Court, the Chief Judge and the Assistant Judge. The A6-16
sistant Judge has the same power as the Chief Judge, and both are men of very high standing. I do not see why a distinction should be made, and, on the contrary, I think there are reasons

which my hon. friend will easily understand-which would seem to require the presence of the Assistant Judge. I need not dilate at any length on that special phase of the case, but I know that at certain times- there may be reasons why the Assistant instead of the Chief Judge should be called upon to act. My hon. friend will perhaps consider the point when he introduces the Bill. As regards the ad hoc judges coming from the Superior .Courts, I -have nothing to say. I do not know whether there will be a distinction between the Chief Justice of the Superior Court, the Assistant Chief Justice and the other judges or whether all judges of the -Superior Court will 'be made eligible.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With regard to the suggestion concerning the Assistant Judge of the Exchequer Court, I will be very glad to consider the matter. It will be open to us, I think, to make an amendment, if it is decided upon, when the Bill is introduced. I may say that there was no intention, in providing for the services of the Judge of the Exchequer Court to cast any reflection on the learned Assistant Judge of that Court. As to the suggestion that there might be occasion when it would be desirable for special reasons that the Assistant Judge should act, I think the hon, gentleman -will find, when the Bill is introduced and the circumstances considered, that it will be very -easy t-o make a provision which will be found adequate.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and concurred in.
Mr. DOHERTY thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 27, to amend the Supreme Court Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first * time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUH MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved the third reading of Bill No. 17, to amend the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act.
He said-:	Before the Bill is read the
third time, I wish to call attention to a feature of the amendment which has developed. The Bill as it stands provides for
[Stage Direction]
the extension of the terms of the agreement of 1890, between the Dominion' and the province of British Columbia, so as to make it applicable to forest reserves. It makes it applicable to forest reserves, or at least, not inapplicable to reserves as it was the intention that it should be applicable to forest reserves. However, the Bill as it reads, is applicable not only to forest reserves but to part reserves. The Department of Justice advises us that in the original Order in Council, which constitutes the agreement between this Government and the province of British Columbia, there is no provision which requires its application to park reserves, andi the officers of the parks branch are very desirous that the parks should be preserved from, invasion at the hands- of miners' or others. Consequently, I wish to move:
That the Bill he referred hack to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend it as follows: "That clause X of the Bill be amended by striking out all the words from the beginning of the clause to and inclusive of the word "expedient" in the second line thereof and substituting therefor the following words: "Provided however, that where in a Dominion forest reserve, outside of the area of the Dominion Parks now or hereafter established, it is not expedient for topographical or other reasons."
Then it would read on:
To use for public road purposes the existing ' road allowances, the title to which is vested in the Crown in the right of the province, the provincial governments may, by order of the Governor in Council, be permitted to lay out such roads as may be necessary for the convenience of the public, and may be granted title thereto in consideration of the surrender of such portions of the said road allowances as are not required for public roads.
It is desired that parks be not opened' to the laying ouit of provincial roads the same as forest reserves.
Samuel Hughes: A public road, I
presume, means a wagon- road, not a railroad.?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: - Not a railroad. The chief amendment is to the second clause. I wish to move, as relating to this clause:
That clause 2 of the Bill be amended by adding thereto the following proviso: "Provided that this section shall not apply to any Dominion park now or hereafter established."
It simply limits the operation of the Bill to forest reserves and does not include Dominion parks.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.

On section 1-to authorize granting road sites to provinces upon surrender of certain road allowancesi
Mr. MEIGHEN moved that the section be amended by striking out all the words from the beginning of the clause to and inclusive of the word "expedient" in the second line thereof and substituting therefor the following words: "provided, however, that where in a Dominion forest reserve, outside of the area of Dominion parks now or hereafter established, it is not expedient for topographical or other reasons," etc.
Mr. BUREAU:: I think you read, in the tenth line, the words "vested in the Crown in the right of the province, the provincial government may by Order of the General"-


Arthur Meighen: May by order of the Governor in Council.


Jacques Bureau: Those words are not in the Bill I have here.


Arthur Meighen: The words "by order of the Governor General in Council" were inserted in the Bill while in committee.


Jacques Bureau: Why are Dominion parks exempted from the right of changing a highway for topographical reasons?


Arthur Meighen: It is desirable that no other authority than the Dominion shall have power to enter the parks. There could not be the same objection to allowing the provincial authorities to make roads in forest reserves. Forest reserves
4 p.m. are not beauty spots as are the tracts reserved for park purposes. If the provincial authorities were permitted to enter the parks, our control would not only be invaded but it would be very seriously impaired to the detriment of the parks. There is nothing in the original agreement by which we are in any way enjoined to allow the provincial authorities to make- roads through parks.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-to authorize grant of minerals in forest reserves to the province of British Columbia under agreement of February, 1890:


Arthur Meighen: That clause 2 he amended by adding to the clause as within the printed Bill the following proviso:	"Provided that this section shall not
apply to any Dominion park now or hereafter established."


Jacques Bureau: That is on the same principle as the previous amendment?


Arthur Meighen: The same principle exactly.


Mr. PULTON:: As this Bill effects the constituency which I represent, I would like to make a suggestion to the hon, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) in regard to it. I think I am right in surmising that the cause of the amendment being brought in was a difficulty that arose in connection with certain mineral claims in the Highland Valley near Ashcroft. These claims -were located prior to the establishment of the forest reserves by the Act under which they are now constituted. When the owners came to apply for Crown grants they found that, the reserve being established, the Crown grant could not be obtained, as the Forest Reserves Act prevented the Dominion from transferring the minerals or surface rights to the province. In the case of these mineral claims, it is only right that the applicant should obtain a grant not only for minerals, but for surface rights-. I understand from the minister that has been recognized and that a Crown grant in re-spedt to these mineral claims will be issued in due course; that is, that the right to the minerals and the surface rights will be transferred to the province so that the province may grant them to the locator under its Mineral Act. It seems to me that, now that the Dominion Government has recognized the principle of allowing these forest reserves to be entered and the mineral claims within these reserves to :be developed, the.department might go farther in the matter. There is nothing in the amendment which provides for the granting of the surface rights along with the grant of the minerals. I feel sure that the locators of mineral claims, or the parties who undertake to develop these claims, will want to be assured as to what rights they will get. In my opinion,, they should get more than they can get under the provisions of the Forest Reserves Act, namely, a license or a lease. Mining companies are very sensitive, and they are likely to hesitate in the expenditure of a very large amount of capital unless they can have a more permanent title surface rights than can be obtained under the Forest Reserves Act at the present time. If, however, the minister does not feel that he can go that far, an assurance might be given in the Act itself that the surface rights will be dealt with at the same time that the mineral rights are transferred. These companies will then know what title they will get to the surface rights, and it is -absolutely necessary for them to have some rights upon the surface in order to develop the claims. I would suggest that in this clause 164
some provision be made whereby these men will know that they will get the right to use the surface.


Arthur Meighen: of, as a matter of fact, by a general policy of leasing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What about your royalties?
Mr. M1EIGHEN: And the royalties have been reduced too in very many oases.


Rodolphe Lemieux: From ten to five cents.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, from ten to five
cents in the case of coal. In the face of that policy laid down by Parliament, it would be scarcely fitting now to introduce legislation that would re-establis'h the old conditions, 'and in- relation to the very class of cases where they never formally obtained at all. Instead of moving in that direction, Parliament has been moving in the other direction, and moving very rapidly. So it appears to me the proper course now is to leave to the applicant his right to leasehold. I have no hesitation in stating that applicants wiho conform to the law of British Columbia and to our regulations will receive and be entitled to receive under those regulations, a lease of the surface rights, and I do not think he can ask for more.


Frederick John Fulton: I would like to draw
the attention of the minister to the fact that under this Bill the baser minerals will be transferred to the province to deal with, and the province will issue a Crown grant, notwithstanding the policy of the Dominion in adopting a lease. The only question is with regard to surface rights, and it would be rather anomalous that the miner should have a Crown grant of the minerals and only a lease, or license, with regard to the surface rights. He has a grant for all time of the minerals, and license or permission only and that for a limited period to use the surface rights. What I suggested was that there should be an assurance that He would get the right, possibly by way of a Crown grant, and if not in the form of a license or lease, to enable: him to work the minerals for which he will have the Crown grant.


Arthur Meighen: I have given the assurance, provided, of course, the miner complies with the Provincial Mining Act and with the regulations of the department. He has to do that before he can make application.
Bill reported as amended.



DAYLIGHT SAVING.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 4, to provide for the time in Canada being in advance of the Solar Mean Time during the summer months.-Sir George Foster.
On section 1-Act cited as The Daylight Saving Act, 1918.
Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that the new legislation is in force in the United States.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It has been in force since yesterday, has it not?


George Green Foster: Since 31st March.
Mr. LEMIEUI^]: And as a consequence our trains have to wait an hour at the boundary line?


George Green Foster: At some points.
On section 2-Time advanced one hour.


George Green Foster: Instead of Solar Time I propose to make an amendment by striking out the last line and substituting therefor:
in each province shall be one hour in advance of the time which under the law of the province is the time prescribed for such province, and if there is no time so prescribed, of the acoepted standard time.
In each of the provinces of the Dominion, with the exception, of Quebec, standard time is the accepted and legalized time. On inquiry from the Attorney General of Quebec I find that eastern standard time is the accepted time ini that province, but that there is no legalization of it.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is meant *by "accepted time?"


George Green Foster: It is the time
which is accepted in the province. Eastern standard time is carried out there, although it has not been legalized by Act of Parliament. The amendment provides that the time shall be one hour in advance of the standard time as it is legalized in all the provinces, or in any province in which it is not legalized, of the acoepted time, which in Quebec is eastern standard time.
M,r. BOYCE: Would it not foe well, Mr. Chairman, so to word this Bill as to provide that county or township councils may adopt the law or not, as they see fit? This *measure is going to work great hardship on the farmers. As a farmer, I have no objection to the people of the cities adopting such a measure as this if they wish to

spend the day playing ball and amusing themselves, we farmers are not going to find fault. But in this serious time, when we should all Ibe united with the object of producing food, the loyal farmers of Canada consider that no new legislation of this kind should be enacted. I trust that this suggestion will be carefully considered. Seventy thousand of our farmers are now fighting at the front trying to uphold the rights of the British Empire, and we should not- make it any harder for those who are at home to solve the great problem of producing food for the people. We should, therefore, he- permitted to use our own judgment in the matter of the saving of daylight. We have to get up early in the morning anyway, but we cannot start work until the dew dries, especially during haying and harvest time, and if this Bill passes we shall lose two hours of valuable time in the- evening.


Mr. HALLADAY:: I do not believe that it is the intention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to turn the sun back an hour or to compel the sun to rise in the West and set in the East. I represent one of the largest farming constituencies in the Dominion. I have farmed a number of years in Manitoba and Alberta, and I know whereof I speak. I cannot see how the passing of this measure wiill increase or decrease production in our part of the country. Show me the man who is not up with the sun at harvest time and working until the sun goes down, and I will show you a man who is not keeping pace with his neighbours. It is absolutely necessary that we gauge our work by the sun, not by the clock. We in the West are not troubled with -the dew, but the passing of this Act does not force our eastern farmer friends to get up one hour earlier than they do at present. I cannot see that the measure will adversely affect the farmers of Canada, but I can see that it will give the great army of indoor workers an extra hour of sunshine, and for that reason I am prepared to support the Bill.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he is seriously encroaching on the Sabbath day. For at least two thousand years the Sabbath day in this country has begun at a certain hour; it has been so established by Divine decree.


George Green Foster: You are given twenty-four hours of it; that is quite enough for you.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The good, conscientious people in my part of the country will object strenuously to my right hon. friend's encroachment on the Sabbath. An old magistrate in my county once said to a minister: when I find that you are on one side and Moses is on the other, I am with Moses every time. In the same manner, when I find Divine Providence fixing the Sabbath at a certain time, I stand by Divine Providence when I find that the Minister of Trade and Commerce alone is on the other side. But, laying all jokes aside, in our part of the country men who have to go to work at twelve o'clock Sunday night will object very seriously to going to work at eleven o'clock instead of twelve; they will regard themselves as working on the Sabbath day. It is worthy of consideration whether the sanctity of the Sabbath can be thrust aside by simply altering the clock.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend's authority must be biblical; I would like him to give me the chapter and verse. I know that he can do so very easily.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would refer my hon. friend to the twentieth chapter of Exodus, where it is laid down that we should remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy; no part of it is to be transgressed.
Section as amended, agreed to.
On section 3-annual enforcement:


Wilfrid Laurier: I was under the impression that the Act was to be for one year only, as an experiment.


George Green Foster: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not so
expressed in this section.


George Green Foster: I meant that the Act should apply to the summer season applicable during the year. Tihe provision that the Act shall be enforced each year during such time as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council was made for this reason: we should have liked to bring the Act into force eoterminously with the Act in the United States, but legislation had to be provided, and it was not known exactly when this legislation would be through. Therefore, a clause was put in giving the Governor in Council power to call it into force.


Wilfrid Laurier: But the amendment goes much further than my right hon. friend intended.


George Green Foster: No. '


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, I understood from my right hon. friend the other day that this measure was to be an experiment for only one year, and that it would have to be renewed if found satisfactory. Under the section as amended, it is in the power of the Governor in Council to carry it on from year to year without any reference to Parliament at all. If that is not what my right hon. friend intended, he should amend the section accordingly.


George Green Foster: The Act shall be in force during the present year.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is it.


The CHAIRMAN:: The section, as
amended, reads:
This Act shall be in force during the present year, for such time as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Adjustment to meet special conditions:
Wilfrid Laurier: What is the [DOT] meaning of this section? Has my right hon. friend any concrete case in mind?
Sir GEORGE FOSTER. This is copied entirely from the English Act, and is meant to provide a means for making any adjustments which may be found necessary.


Mr. McMASTER:: What kind of adjustments?


George Green Foster: Adjustments
where times clash, for instance.


Wilfrid Laurier: My right hon-friend has a copy of the Bill, I thought he might have a case in mind.


George Green Foster: I have no case in mind. This is simply a precautionary section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-power of Railway Board to advance standard time one hour:
Mr. MORPHY:: Supposing the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada did not advance the standard time used by railway companies, what a muddle we should be in in this country if trains were running on one time, farmers -working on another and industrial men on another.


George Green Foster: The railroads will not object to the change in time. What this section is meant to do is this, which is taking place now under the regulations in

regard to standard time and the running of the railways in the United States of America. It is often inconvenient, although they divide the country up into zones, that those zones shall Ibe absolutely fixed as regards certain lines of railway, for instance, at terminal points or divisional centres i^hat run a Tittle beyond or fall a little short of the limiting meridian. In that case the Interstate Commerce Commission in the United States has the power, and our Railway Board here will have the power, to extend or set back the time within the zone for the traffic on that line.
Mr. MoMASTER: in section 2 a certain interpretation is given to standard time. I think, therefore, it will be necessary to make section 5 agree with that. I would also suggest that the powers of the Board of Railway Commissioners should he only in accordance with the Act, that is to say, their powers to .make this change should be no wider than the terms of the Act.


George Green Foster: That is done, is it not? In the first place, as to time, section 5 says:
The Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada shall have power to advance by one hour the standard time.
It is standard time that has been adopted. Then as Tegards the carrying out of the power, the section goes on to say:
-and to make such orders as may be necessary for the convenient carrying out of the provisions of this Act.
They cannot go beyond the provision of this Act. Does not my hon. friend think that is sufficiently safeguarded?
M.r. BUREAU:	The period of time for
which they can make the order is not
limited?


George Green Foster: They have to
conform to the the Act, and the time during which the Act is operative is prescribed by the Order in Council. It does not seem to me they can get further than that. It is just as binding upon them as though the times were stated in the Act.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: When I spoke I had not the Bill before me, but it struck me that this Parliament, in the method of expression. in the section, is not exercising its functions over the Railway Board. The section reads:	[DOT]
The Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada shall have power to advance by one hour the standard time used by railway companies in Canada.
Why not make it imperative that they shall advance the time? Why give them

an option? Unless this Parliament makes up its mind as to what they shall do, and unless this Bill makes it clear that they shall do it, there is bound to be confusion if they do not follow the Bill. There may be reasons why they should not advance the time; there may 'be reasons why they should.


George Green Foster: I would think
that this gives all the power that is necessary. The Act in the first place, shows its intention. The Board of Railway Commissioners, making arrangements for the railways are given power to advance the standard time 'by one hour. In some cases they may not require to advance it by that hour, for instance, in the case of a junction point which is just short of the meridian at which the time changes. If my hon. friend will look at a railway map of the United States, he will find instance after instance in which the railways do not run on standard time right up to the meridian point, simply because it would upset matters and be generally disadvantageous to do so in those cases.


Wilfrid Laurier: Our conditions w;th regard to latitude and longitude are about the same as the United States, and we should follow them as closely as possible.
iMr. McKENZIE: I suppose there will be no question raised that this Bill does not apply to Government Railways. Section 5 refers to " railway companies," but Government railways are not railway companies.


George Green Foster: It will be impossible for them to work out of joint with the other railways.
Mr. McKENZIE-: I presume the intention is that this legislation shall apply to all railways. I was just bringing to the notice of the minister the wording of the section.	.


George Green Foster: I have no objection to inserting after " railway companies " the words, " including Government railways."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That would remove all doubt.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On the preamble:


George Green Foster: The preamble will have to be changed to accommodate itself to the change made in the Act. I therefore beg to move that the words " solar mean time " be struck out and the
words " accepted standard time " be substituted therefor.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Before the preamble is adopted I should like to ask the minister if there has been any pronounced demand for legislation of this nature, and if so, from what quarters it has come. It seems to me this legislation is introducing a disturbing element into the country and so far as I can see there is absolutely no need for it.


George Green Foster: 
Andrew Ross McMaster: Has -any association
of farmers told the -minister they were in favour of this legislation?


George Green Foster: At a very large meeting indeed, representative of western farmers and of persons intimately connected with the farming districts in Saskatchewan, including reeves and other municipal officials, this matter came up and -a resolution was passed favouring the Daylight Saving Bill, That voiced -a widespread opinion in the province of Saskatchewan, which is -a representative farming

community, and ought to be taken as pretty well indicative of the farmers' feelings.
Mr. MeMASTER:	It would seem. to me
that people wiho grow grain almost exclusively are hardly representative of farmers; they are specialists. Before the preamble passes, d should just like to put this on record. I am the representative of an agricultural community in eastern Canada and since this legislation was before this House for discussion on the last occasion, I have made it my business to find out from the farmers in my county what they thought about it. One of the leading farmers writes me as follows:
In regard to the Daylight Saving Bill, my opinion is that it is worse than useless in these eastern provinces. During hoeing, haying, and harvesting, of both grain and root crops, they are so wet with the dew that we cannot do much with them before seven, and sometimes it is eight o'clock or even later before they are dry enough to work in. One hour from five to six in the evening is worth three or four early in the morning, especially during the haying and harvesting time. However, I think that the farmers will not pay much attention to it; but men who work by the day in haying and harvesting time may want to commence one hour sooner in the morning and stop one hour earlier at night. If so, I think it will be a discouraging feature to a Greater Production campaign.
That is the evidence of a practical farmer in the county of Brome, and a member of the Quebec Council of Agriculture. I put these matters before the minister, because it seems to me that, however useful the work done by people in their backyards may be in the way of growing vegetables and other products, the man we have to depend upon for greater production in 'the country this coming season is the farmer, and I am very much afraid that the minister is running counter to the best opinion of the informed agriculturists in the country East and West, and especially in the East.


Donald Sutherland: With reference to the application received from the farmers of Saskatchewan and Alberta, I should like to point out that conditions in western Canada are very different from conditions in Ontario. The daylight is much longer in those provinces than in Ontario. They do not have the heavy dews that we have in the older provinces. That fact is quite apparent to every one, and, consequently, it is not going to affect them to any marked extent. I was a little surprised at the minister stating that applications had been received from practically all industries and businesses. If agriculture is not an in-

dustry or business in this country, I should like to know what is. I think it will be generally conceded that the most important industry that we have in Canada at this particular time is farming. I say most emphatically that little consideration has been given to the need for greater production by the introduction of this Bill at the present time. I believe consideration has been given to those who are anxious to have more time for recreation and pleasure rather than for production. I think that this is not the proper time to introduce this measure, and I believe the minister would be well ad- ' vised, in view of the serious condition confronting us, if he would hold this legislation back until some time in the ' future, when conditions will not be as serious as they are at present. If the people in towns and cities are anxious to extend the daylight, as they term it, they have absolute power to do so. They can pass legislation for that purpose when it does not affect any one but themselves, hut you are going to make this measure apply to other people, who will be very seriously and very materially affected. I believe this Bill will prove more disastrous to the cause of agricultural production in this country than the propaganda that is being waged for greater production, will accomplish. I think it will much mere than offset anything that will, be gained by the propaganda. I expressed my views on this matter wihen the Bill was up for second reading, and I desire now to make myself clear, and to warn the Government that this is a very inopportune . time to introduce legislation, which, I am quite confident, has been largely urged by people who are anxious to have more time for leisure and sport at a time when such matters ought to be foreign to our minds.


George Green Foster: I congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the introduction of this Bill. It shows that he is progressive and is meeting the demands and desires of the people generally throughout the Dominion. There has been some objection to the Bill, and I do not think it is altogether becoming to those wiho have raised the objection when we consider what the large cities and the smaller cities and towns are doing to assist in greater production. Take the city of Toronto with its large population: we are told by one of the city members of the great production in Toronto in the backyards. The Council of the city of Toronto last year granted the sum of $2,500, and certain citizens also made contributions, and alto-

gether six or seven thousand dollars was raised to assist in greater production, and to educate the boys and girls of the city. The Rotary Club, which ihas had this matter in hand, raised this amount of money. They first secured a supervisor, an expert on soil and seed, who gave instructions and lectures to the boys and girls of the city. To illustrate the result of that movement, this year the farmers made application to the city for many of the boys who assisted them last year. Altogether they applied for some 15,000 boys to assist in greater production. I may say further that this movement has i tendency to interest the boys and girls in the work, and to create a desire for greater freedom and open air m the country than they have enjoyed in the past. Thousands of those boys and girls who have gone to the farm to do the seeding and other work will drift back eventually and become permanent residents1 of the outlying districts. Surely that is a consideration. We are getting greater numbers from the city, and we will educate them allong the line of freedom and open air. There has been some opposition, although not a unanimous opposition, from the farmers throughout the Dominion. One hon. gentleman who spoke this afternoon is a very extensive farmer in the West, and he expressed his approval of the measure. Many others have done so. Therefore, I think, after the debates which have taken place in connection with this Bill, that it is a move in the right direction, and will benefit the farmer. The farmers may not feel the benefit at the moment, but in a very short time they will be surprised at the response which will come from the cities, towns and villages in the way of assistance. I therefore, congratulate the hon. minister on bringing this measure forward at this time. He is progressive and desires that the young Canadians shall be in advance of the young people of the great country to the south. They are a few weeks in advance of us in the United States, and, although they are a great and progressive people, we want to show them that we are up to date, and that in a short time we will be ahead of them in this matter.


Mr. SMITH:: I expressed my views
last year as fully as I thought desirable, but I desire to refer to an article which appeared in one of the Ottawa papers, which had all the earmarks of being inspired, which stated that no supporter of the Government had a right to express an opinion in opposition to any measure the Government submitted to this House. I
desire to say, as a supporter of this. Government, not as its slave, that my idea in connection with this Bill is that they have not touched one of the great fundamental principles of agriculture, namely the details of farming. My view, after long years of experience with many of our leading public men, is that, whilst they may know a good deal about some things in connection .with farming, they do not know enough of the details which go to make up farm life and which go to make a really prosperous farmer. We are told the farmer can do as he likes. I know that I can go to bed when I like, no matter whether the Bill passes or not, and il can get up when I like; but I cannot control ,my men. The whistles are blowing and the bells are ringing in the surrounding towns, and when the city men. get through their work at five o'clock, do you mean to tell me I can control my men? I say no. Iif I could appeal to the hon. minister, my appeal would Ibe along the lines of the remarks of the hon. gentleman from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), that the hon. minister should, for a time at least, withdraw this Bill. It appears' to me that the time is inopportune, and that the enforcement of such a measure would be irritating and disturbing, especially when you consider that our boys across the water are being battered in every possible way. This Government should have bigger and greater things to consider than this Daylight Savings Bill.


Mr. ARGUE:: The minister has made reference to a public body in Saskatchewan representing the farmers asking for this Bill. I would like to know what body in Saskatchewan that is. I represent a constituency in Saskatchewan, and there is only one association there that has the right to speak for the farmers. That is the Grain Growers' Association. Is that the" association which asks for it?


George Green Foster: No; neither for nor against in so far as they are concerned.
Bill reported.



DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Dominion Lands Act.
Jacques Bureau: Are the amendments
contained in this Bill detailed amendments to the various clauses, or are they following a principle, or are they for the purpose

of changing or improving the administration of the Act?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman's first statement is absolutely correct; they are detailed amendments clause by clause, and there is no general principle running through them whatever. They do not in any way radically amend or change the principle/ of the Dominion Lands Act. There is no fundamental change except the feature of the Bill which I referred to on its introduction, namely, that which confirms an Order in Council withdrawing altogether Dominion lands from purchased homesteading and pre-emption.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the chair.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: These amendments are so extensive that it is almost a pity that the minister did not consolidate the Act. It disturbs, perhaps necessarily, the previous Act very much, and I think it would have been almost as well to have consolidated the Act entirely in order that when one gets the Act as consolidated he will have the whole of it.


Arthur Meighen: We are close to the date of a general consolidation of the Dominion statutes. I do not think the amendments are of sufficient importance to warrant one in bringing in a new Dominion Lands Act for the reason, embodied in the remarks of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), that there is no fundamental change in principle. They are amendments in the strictest sense.
On section 1-Declaration as to improvements prior to entry and valuation by homestead inspector:


Jacques Bureau: If I understand this rightly, it is to give sanction to the clause which existed in the old Act which left it to the judgment of the minister to cancel the entry if the improvements were not reported by the entrant. Now you cannot grant entry unless he who makes application first discloses the improvements which are made either by himself or by his predecessor or predecessors-is that the change which is made?


Arthur Meighen: The old Act was worded something like 'this: that the applicant for entry should make a declaration 5 p.m. as to the value of the improvements, if any, that were on the land, and it was provided that later on the minister had power of cancellation in the event of anything false being so declared.

The purpose of this amendment is to give legality to what has been the practice of the department, that is, in each case to make compulsory a statutory declaration, to provide for a homestead inspector's report and to provide that the improvements must he paid for. That is not provided for, I think, in the old Act. I have just sent for a copy, but there are no copies in this building at the present time, and we can only get them by sending to another building. This provision legalizes the existing practice of requiring that the homestead inspector's report .must be received. Then the amount of the improvements must be paid 'by the applicant. Furthermore, it provides that where there is a seed grain mortgage registered against land on the records of the department the amount to be paid by the applicant, before the entry can be completed, shall include the amount of the mortgage, that is in so far as the 'seed grain mortgage exceeds the amount of the improvement. Of course, the original entrant gets the value of the improvements, and the Government is enabled to get rid of the entire seed grain mortgage.


Jacques Bureau: Would the minister give me a concrete case? 1 do not exactly understand what is meant with respect to improvements and the excess value of the seed grain mortgage. Supposing I make entry on a piece of land, and my predecessor has made $500 worth of improvement but owes $500 for seed grain?
Mr. MiEIGHEN: Then you would have to pay $500.


Jacques Bureau: That amount only?
Mr. MEdGHEN: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: The Government reserves to itself the right to collect from the men who bought the seed grain; that is the mortgagor, the amount of the mortgage, and there is no discretion in the matter of paying it back?


Arthur Meighen: In the case my hon. friend refers to, where there were improvements to the value of $500 and a seed grain mortgage of the same amount, the entrant would have to pay that $500, which amount would go first to the credit of the former entrant who had abandoned the land or whose patent had been cancelled. Then it would be placed against his obligation for seed grain, thereby discharging that obligation, and we would get our money back.


Jacques Bureau: Then the money is paid to the Crown?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: I understand.


Arthur Meighen: Had there been no seed grain mortgage the minister would have had power to give that $500 to the former entrant. Now we simply absorb it to satisfy the seed grain mortgage. If the seed grain mortgage had been $600 he would have had to pay the whole of that sum, and the minister then could give the excess of $100 to the, former owner.


Mr. KEEFER:: I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior how the law would operate in the case of a man who had placed a mortgage on his homestead in order to buy a tractor?


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend is under a misapprehension. No man could mortgage his homestead to buy a tractor. The only way a homestead could be mortgaged is for seed grain under a special Act. The case he cites is not in point.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How does the Government or the minister, ascertain the value of those improvements?


Arthur Meighen: Under clause A.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do I understand the
practice to be that if a man goes in and takes an entry on land, and fails to comply with the regulations, and is either ejected- I believe there is a process Of that kind sometimes-or abandons the place, but has made some improvements before abandoning it, the Government still recognizes his right to be paid for his improvements? In such event how is the value ascertained?


Arthur Meighen: We do not recognize
it as a right, but the minister has had [DOT]power-at all events he has exercised the power for many years-of transferring the value of these improvements as paid by the new entrant to the old entrant if he could -be found. It was not always done, but virtually always. It-was not paid to him as a right, he could not have sued for it, but as a matter of course, the value was given to him. He had improved the land to that extent and it was felt to be his money. The value is ascertained on the [DOT]basis of an inspector's report, and the entrant has to make a declaration as to what he deems the value should be. If the amount is too low he has to pay the balance before the entry is completed. If the amount is too high then he gets a repayment. If the man makes a false declaration he will not get the entry at all,
Mr, BUREAU:	Are these powers exercised by the minister himself?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, not by the Governor in Council. .


Wilfrid Laurier: Does not the minister think the clause is too severe altogether? The law which it is now sought to amend reads'as follows:
A person applying for entry for a homestead, a preemption, or a purchased homestead, shall declare, before being granted entry, what improvements, If any, there are upon the land with respect to which his application is made, and shall pay the value of such improvements,-
Should he fail to make such declaration his entry shall be liable to cancellation in the discretion of the .minister. . Now, as I understand the amendment, the party who seeks to make entry is bound to declare what improvements there are upon the land, and to pay at once what charges there may be upon it. Would it not be preferable to wait a little while before exacting a payment? The entrant may he a poor man, and if you require him to at once pay whatever charges there may be on the land he may not he able to do so. On the other hand, if you allow him to work his homestead for a few years his circumstances may be improved to an extent that will enable him to defray whatever charges have to be met. I am afraid that if yon compel an entrant to pay these charges immediately upon applying for entry on the land which has been deserted by its previous owner you will possibly prevent him from making entry, whereas if you allow him to work the homestead he may get more firmly on hie feet and obtain that improvement in his circumstances which will make it easier for him to pay the necessary charges. Of course, the Government must have sufficient protection in cases of this kind.


Arthur Meighen: The applicant has always been compelled to pay at once the value of the improvements, it being recognized, doubtless, that he got the benefit at once of the existing improvements. For example, if there was a house on the land be got the advantage of that house and w-as thus able to enter upon and cultivate the land more quickly than he otherwise could, and therefore enjoyed greater benefit by reason of the fact. There has been no hardship in the past in collecting the value of the improvements. My right hon. friends' remarks mtay have greater weight with regard to the case of seed grain, fodder, and other relief. The new entrant does not get the benefit of that; the former entrant gets the benefit of the seed grain,

fodder, and other relief. So far as we have carried out the practice which will be here made law. We have not -given anything -to any one abandoning a homestead where there was a seed grain mortgage against it unless he paid the amount due. It may be worth considering whether or not the minister should noit have the power to grant an entry subject to the payment of the amount of the seed grain mortgage, in so far as it exceeded the amount of the improvements, such amount to be paid prior to the issue of the patent. I would rather have the legislation go through in this form because these seed grain mortgages have b.een due since the spring of 1915. We have not been quite as successful in collecting them as we had hoped. Approximately half have been collected, but there would seem to be no reason why more should not be collected. However, the utmost efforts have been made to get them in, and all concerned are most anxious to exert every possible pressure to attain this end. By "all concerned" I mean the farming communities and organizations themselves. The farmers' organizations and loan organizations are most anxious that these liens be removed as rapidly as possible. While liens against abandoned homesteads may have to be taken up by homesteaders who have a little money, it seems to me that the advantage we get is well worth that discrimination, if you call it such, in their favour. We will get the money in, whereas if we let it stand until the man gets his patent, he may postpone the getting of his patent a considerable time, and cause us to be out of our money that much longer.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Has any provision been made for the collecting of taxes which may be due on a homestead, which has been abandoned, for the municipality or school district in which the land is situated?


Arthur Meighen: I have not looked into that point, but my belief is that the homesteader's interest in the land is taxable, but once his interest is gone and tne land reverts to the Crown, the right of the municipality to that tax lapses.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-cancellation and compensation for improvements:
Jacques Bureau: What is the difference between this and the similar clause of the old Act?


Arthur Meighen: Under the old Act compensation could be paid to the former en-

trant, but now power is taken to pay it to any dependent. There are some cases where a homesteader -abandons his land and his wife and family at the same time. Under the old Act we had power, if we could find the man who had skipped out and was the least deserving of all, to give the money to him. We could not give it to those who were most deserving of it and who had been deserted.


Jacques Bureau: That is the only change?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On sections 3 and 4-requirements for homestead letters patent; computation of period for performance of requirements.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the word " residence " in this section mean from the time that the man takes possession, or from the time that he begins to reside on the land?


Arthur Meighen: Begins to reside on the land.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That means he must
have a house and live in it before he is a resident?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not like the word "shifted" in line 42; I think the word " changed " would be a better one. We do not shift dates.


Arthur Meighen: I brought this matter to the attention of the draftsman, who informed me that this clause was before a committee of Parliament last session and was approved in this very language. I believe also that it is the language that was used prior to 1908 when the same principle was invoked. In 1908 stricter rules were adopted as to computation of residence, and it is now desired to come back to the more lenient rule. Cases of great hardship have arisen. Under the rules as amended a man might reside for thirty-five months on his land and still not have covered the necessary eighteen months in occupation of the land. In fact it was found to toe impracticable to be fair and just to homesteaders and at the same time follow strictly the rules laid down. The proposed change gives a wider scope; it enables us to compute the residence years in one of two different ways, or part in one and part in another. In every case, of course, a man has to put in six months of residence in each of three separate years. I do not know why the word "changed" would not do just as well as the word " shifted," though per-

ihaps "shifted" is a little more comprehensive.


Mr. McMAOTER:: It may be western, but it is not good English. I would, ask the minister to agree to. that change. I should not like to be a member of a legislature which talks about " shifting" dates.


Arthur Meighen: I am agreeable to the change.


Jacques Bureau: The old section provided that only in the case of unsurveyed lands could the date of residence be computed as before entry. When a settler went on a piece of land that was not surveyed and made entry after it had been surveyed, he had the privilege of having his entry computed as from the date of his commencing residence.


Arthur Meighen: That is provided for in another section. That is the law.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 1-declaration as to improvements prior to entry, and valuation by homestead inspector:


Arthur Meighen: I beg to move, inasmuch as from a date about two weeks ago, purchased homesteads and pre-emptions cannot be entered for, that section 1 should have these words in lines 7 and 8 omitted:
For a homestead, a pre-emption or a purchased homestead.
The clause will then read:
A person applying for entry shall declare.


Jacques Bureau: The word " entry," I suppose, covers everything in accordance with the interpretation section at the beginning of the Act?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1 as amended agreed to.
On section 5-absence on military or naval service, and for three months after discharge, to be counted as residence:
Jacques Bureau: This adds the naval service and service with the Allies, which were not in the old Act?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. Under the old Act any one engaged as a member of a military force enrolled under the authority of the Minister of Militia and engaged as a member of that force in the suppression of an outbreak or insurrection in any part of the British Empire, or in the defence of the British Empire against a foreign power, is
entitled to the benefits therein set out. He is entitled to count as residence the time during which he was so engaged and also three months after his discharge. This amendment extends those benefits to members of the British and Allied forces, and it also includes within the scope of the section-holders of purchased homesteads or scrip locations. Not only are homesteaders so entitled, but men who are in the position of having purchased homesteads, and purchasers of South African scrip locations, are also included.


Ira Eugene Argue: I would like some information with regard to our soldiers who are at present overseas. Last week I received a letter from Major Cameron who enlisted in the city of Swift Current, and I know many other men who went from there who, before they went away, were given to understand that their time of enlistment would apply on their homesteads. Some of them entered for their homesteads before they enlisted; some of them entered after they enlisted. Major Cameron informs me that the time of those mien in his company who entered for a homestead after enlistment does not apply on their homesteads. I do not see why such a distinction should be made. I do not Gee why the time of a man who entered for a homestead yesterday and enlists to-day should apply on. Hie homestead, while the time of a man who enlists to-day and enters for a homestead to-morrow is not permitted to apply on his homestead. Both men are fighting for their country. They may be men from the same place, perhaps even boys on neighbouring farms, and they may have enlisted in the same battalion the same day. One man- on. his return will receive the title to his homestead, while the other is told he cannot have it unless he puts in eighteen months' homestead duties. Is that the meaning of this section?


Arthur Meighen: That is not the meaning of this section at all, but speaking gen' erally, my hon. friend's statement of the law is correct. What we aTe doing ie simply amending and extending the benefits of section 22 as it has always read. I may, however, answer what my hon. friend asks. Under the ministry of my predecessor that rule was adopted, and personally I find no fault with it. At first sight it appeared to me to be an arbitrary distinction, but I think it is founded on a sound principle. It is, indeed, the principle recognized in this section as it has always existed. A man who is a bona fide homesteader and who

then enlists in Hie Majesty's forces, or in an allied force, if he has been a resident of Canada, is entitled to credit in his residence duties all the time occupied during his enlistment. There was a body of opinion that urged that the same advantage should be given to the man who homesteaded after his enlistment; that he should also be allowed to count the time occupied during his enlistment as residence on his homestead;, but I think a few moments' serious reflection will show that that would open the door to a very great abuse of the homesteading privilege. If that were to be granted, then it would only be reasonable to expect a flood of entries from every one who enlisted, who did not, perhaps, intend to become a bona fide homesteader at all, but by the mere act of entering after enlistment,' he, if he were enlisted for three years, would be entitled to a free grant of land, merely upon having certain improvements done. In that way the whole settlement provisions of the Act would he obliterated. The whole spirit and purpose of the Homestead Act would be so aihused as to ibe practically wiped out. It is true, when you come to distinguish, as my hon. friend does, between the case of a man who homesteads the day (before he enlists and the case of a man who homesteads the day after he enlists, the distinction appears very arbitrary, because between those two there is virtually no distinction; but the line of demarcation must be found 'between one case of a ibona fide homesteader and the other, and that is the only place I know of to locate the line. In the case, however, of those who have homesteaded after enlistment, consideration has been shown. They have been granted protection of their homesteads while they are on duty. That land is reserved for the soldier so long as he is on active service, and will be reserved for a sufficient length of time to enable him to locate on it after he returns. That will be his homestead, entirely irrespective o:f his right of entry under the Soldiers' Settlement Board.


Ira Eugene Argue: According to the minister's ruling, it would seem that all that is required to make a man a bona fide homesteader is that he go on his homestead one day before he enlists.


Arthur Meighen: That is the extreme case.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I notice that the
soldier is allowed three months after his discharge to go on his homestead. The question arises in my mind whether that period is quite sufficient- When the war is
[Mr. Meighen.1
over we expect there will be a great dearth of shipping, and in the case of a Belgian or French reservist discharged in Belgium or France, there might be a delay of several months before he could get passage home. Has the minister considered that point?


Arthur Meighen: Under this Act we can give him as much time as we wish in which to take up his residence duties. All that this Act fixes is that the time during which he is absent on military duty shall count as residence on his homestead plus three months more. I do not think it would be well to extend that three months. I fancy that in the great majority of cases it will not be necessary, because the residence duties will already be done.


Jacques Bureau: Has the minister considered whether it might not be advisable to extend this privilege to any man serving in the forces? I see that it is provided that the minister may "permit him to resume his residence upon his homestead, preemption, purchased homestead or land located by him under any land warrant or scrip," and it says that the time "may" be counted as residence. Why not use the word "shall" if this provision is solely for the benefit of the entrant?


Arthur Meighen: The word " may " is almost invariably used in association with the conduct of the minister, and in this case I think it is the better word. There may be an exceptional case where it would be deemed justice not to apply the rule at all.


Mr. NESBITT:: ,1s there a provision that the wife can take over the homestead in the case of the husband's death?


Arthur Meighen: In case of death the
patent is granted forthwith and in the name of the deceased soldier. This has been done by Order in Council ever since some date in 1915, and we are now making statutory what is now law by virtue of the Order in Council of that date. If a man is so disabled as not to be able to resume his duties his patent is granted to him. If he is killed the patent is granted in his name just the same as if he had lived.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: His heirs would have to take out letters of administration?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes.


Mr. CROWE:: Suppose there is a certain sum of money due on the purchase price in , the case of a soldier who has been killed, and that his widow who has remained on

the land while her husband is overseas cannot afford to pay the balance-; what woulld the Government do in a case of that kind?


Arthur Meighen: 'She could raise the
money on the land.


Sanford Johnston Crowe: Is it right to ask a woman who has given her husband to the country to raise this money? She may be bringing up three or four children on the land, and that is surely a benefit to the State. I think there should be some clause in the Act providing for a case of that kind.


Arthur Meighen: So long as the woman [DOT]is able to raise the money and get the patent, there is no difficulty in her way except the financial one. Of course, if we - were ito take the ground that wherever there is a debt to the Crown by the widow of a deceased soldier, that debt should be cancelled, we would be open to the charge of inequality because it would hardly be fair to treat the widows of soldiers who were indebted to the Crown on one scale, and the widows of soldiers who had discharged their indebtedness on another scale. There can be no inconvenience to the widow in paying her debt so long as she gets the land immediately. She gets the patent and pays what indebtedness there may be due on the land to the Crown.


Jacques Bureau: I -agree with the minister's contention if the indebtedness has been paid off after the soldier has been enrolled. But 1 do not see why the widow should get the refund if the -deceased soldier had discharged his indebtedness before he enlisted.


Arthur Meighen: Suppose there are,two men -side by -side; one man pays off his indebtedness because he owes it, and is able to; the other man is -also able to pay, we will suppose, but does not do so, because he is getting the money at five per cent. My hon. friend would say that in the case of this -second man, if his- widbw paid while her husband was at the front, the money should be refunded to her, but that in the case of the other one who is honest enough to pay before going to the front, the money should not be refunded?


Jacques Bureau: I -assume that these people are honest and that they will pay when they have the money. My hon. friend assumes that they won't pay when they have the money, preferring to have the use of the money at 5 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: They are both honest.


Jacques Bureau: Then why not alleviate the widow's burden without necessarily having to refund to the other woman the money that has been paid? The woman in the second case is on the lan-d with her children and is not deprived of anything; she has everything the farm has produced. The two cases I submit are not on all fours. However, I do not take any exception.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend would penalize the one who was prompt and pay a premium to the one who was not prompt.


Jacques Bureau: I assume they are both honest.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: As to the question raised by my hon. friend regarding the different status of a man who entered, either before enlistment or immediately after, it seems to me this matter is passed over rather lightly. I recognize the contention of the Minister in this respect, that there must be some arbitrary line drawn, but surely not one quite so arbitrary as suggested. The point is that the man should be a bona fide entrant. Should there not be some way of providing what a bona fide entrant is? I know of young men who enlisted early in the war who did not know about this regulation, but when it became known, others made entry for homestead, and they were put in a different position entirely from those who first enlisted, because if they entered after they enlisted they would have -a different standing entirely from those who entered before enlisting. It would seem to be quite reasonable that there should be some clause setting out what a bona fide entrant is- some provision such as that -a man must be on the ground, or must have done something in connection with the land, to make him a bona fide entrant.


Arthur Meighen: There are cases, n-o
doubt, of inequality under this law. As I stated before, I was impressed with the need for a change when the question was first addressed to me. At that time I was not minister of this department. I took the matter up with the officials and the minister of the department, and I was persuaded that the line was drawn in the best possible way. I do not know of any rule that could be adopted that would better determine the bona fides of an entrant, or better determine his right to be considered a homesteader that the fact that he entered his land, paid his entrance fee, and committed himself to his homestead quarter section. Some better rule might be discovered, and if the hon. gentleman would

think the matter out, and make a specific suggestion, I would be very glad to consider it. But we must remember that up to this point, in the administration! of the department, entrants who made their entry, and then enlisted, got the benefit of this provision. You have to bear in mind that, up to the present time, they got the benefit of this provision. What the hon. gentleman from Saskatchewan suggested was not that you should go back, but taking the case of the man actually residing on the land, that you should not only give him the right, but extend the right to others who had not resided on the land. I was combatting that suggestion. If my hon. friend would-suggest a specific rule as to a fairer test to apply to decide whether the homesteader should get the right to count his enlistment time as homestead time. I would be very glad to consider it.


John Archibald Campbell: My idea is that it
should be either one thing or the other, either along the line suggested by my hon. friend from Saskatchewan, to put them all on the same footing, by giving everybody the right, or along the other line, and provide that no one shall be given the right, unless he is a bona fide entrant. But the word " bona fide " should be defined in some way.


Mr. REDMAN:: This question of allowing time to count in the case of a soldier filing subsequent to enlistment has been brought to my attention hundreds of times. On several occasions when regiments were going overseas from Calgary almost the entire regiment went down and filed, which, of course, would be subsequent to enlistment. This matter has been brought to my attention by men who have pointed out the extreme cases cited by the minister. I quite realize, that if we should make an absolute rule we might have difficulty in that others who are overseas might file, and so practically all the available suitable land would thus be taken up and not developed. I would suggest that the matter should be carefully considered with the view of providing, if it is at all possible that those who have already filed subsequent to enlistment should be given their homesteads. I do not know the number who have so filed, but the relative importance of the question can be better understood when the number is ascertained. There is a great feeling of unrest in regard to these cases.
Another matter which has to be taken into consideration is the Soldiers' Land Settlement Scheme. It seems to me there might

not be sufficient suitable land to give a homestead to each soldier under this Act, and also provide for him under the Land Settlement Scheme. It is very possible that if the regulations should allow them to, keep the homesteads under this Act they might have to keep them in lieu of the land they would obtain under the Soldiers' Land Settlement Scheme. If we had the information as to the number who have filed we would then know whether it is possible to grant them this privilege.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend from
Calgary will bear in mind thait if all enlisted men who have entered and homesteaded recently were granted this privilege, then we would be in difficulties with the other man who had not entered. He would say:	"You said you would not count my
enlistment time; therefore I did not enlist, and you have discriminated against me grossly." I do not know what answer you could give him. Therefore II think, subject to any suggestion that may be made, that we had better stick to the ru],es we made, especially because it is not improbable that many of the returned soldiers, in view of the privilege that is granted them of making the soldier entry as well as tha homestead entry, will want to abandon the entry they have made and will want to re-enter again, in a locality where they can have the homestead and soldier entry together. In view of that, I think there would be very great difficulty encountered if we receded from the rule we have followed so long.
On section 6-issue of Letters Patent t >
British subjects only:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister realizes, I suppose, that he is departing from the English common Saw. This is the first time, I think, in the history of legislation in any British country that we .have drawn this distinction. At English common law an alien can hold all kinds of property except property in shipping. That has been the law for ages and the minister is now departing from it. It is a very radical change and it ought to be very carefully considered.


Arthur Meighen: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I concede the superior knowledge of my hon. friend as to these dates, but at the same time there seems to be no principle in this. Bill. A foreigner can come to Ontario, and Ibuy land and there is nothing in. our jurisprudence to prevent it. He .can Ibuy a farm, put his deed on record, and he owns it; hut his brother, who comes from- the .same country and who has in every particular the same qualifications, 'cannot get land in the Northwest.


Arthur Meighen: He can ibuy land., but he cannot get a free homestead.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 

PRIVATE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
SECOND READiINIGS.
Bill No. 6, respecting The Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.-Mr. Stevens.
Bill No. 7, respecting The Canadian Indemnity Company.-Mr. Allan.
Bill No. 8, respecting The Cosmos Cotton Company.-Mr. Spinney.
Bill No. 9, respecting Fraser Lumber Company, Limited, and Fraser Companies, Limited.-Mr. Elkin.
Bill No. 22, respecting The Canadian Society of Civil Engineers and to change its name to " The Engineering Institute of Canada."-Sir Herbert Ames.
Bill No. 23, to incorporate Merchants Casualty Company.-Mr. Andrews.
Bill No. 24, respecting The Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company. -Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 5, to amend The Dominion Lands Act, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Jacques Bureau: I do not think all the paragraphs have been read. With reference to paragraph (e) of section 6, dealing with an alien female infant who has been granted entry for a homestead, and who is prevented from becoming a British subject by the provisions of the Naturalization Act of 1914, I would like the minister to give me a concrete example of such a case."


Arthur Meighen: Take, for instance, the case of a woman who complies with the conditions enabling her to get entry and who marries an alien. She is not empowered under the provisions of the Naturalization Act to naturalize, consequently she could not qualify to get her patent at all unless this provision was inserted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Area of cultivation may be reduced.
Jacques Bureau: Under the old Act the power to state the area of cultivation required was a matter for the Governor in Council, whilst this amendment brings it directly under the jurisdiction of the minister. Is there any particular reason why the change should be made?


Arthur Meighen: Linder the former law, in case of pre-emption as distinguished from cases of homesteads, the whole township had to be declared of the character set out here in order to enable any pre-emptor to have his cultivation reduced. In that case, one-half of the township might be incapable of having the requisite duties performed on any quarter-section, and the other half might be just the other way. Indeed, you might have a case in which the law could be applied to one-half of the section and not to the other half. The first object of this amendment, there-



fore, is to permit a distinction between one pre-emption and another pre-emption, not between one township and another township. That being the case, it becomes desirable that the necessity for an Order in Council should be dispensed with. The recommendations are made on the report of the homestead inspector in each case, and I do not see any value in the intervention of the Governor in Council. In other instances also the necessity for Order in Council is being dispensed with. The time of Council has been taken up with the reading of Orders in which members of Council do not take any interest, and which of necessity must be a matter of administration, to be left to the responsible minister.


Jacques Bureau: In the official Gazette I often see recommendations by the minister to extend the time of a man's residence on a homestead and the like.


Arthur Meighen: That would be in the case of a homesteader. The Order in Council would set out that that particular homesteader was relieved of his duty, but in the case of a pre-emptor the power was given to place townships, not single preemptions, in that category.


Jacques Bureau: The publishing of those Orders in Council in the Gazette must serve as an official report available to the public, and also as a precedent in the case of further applications of a like nature being made. Unless there is some objection other than that of taking Council's time in reading the recommendations, I do not see why this change should be made. Otherwise, there is no way of ascertaining what changes are made or what conditions are required by the minister.


Arthur Meighen: The regulations are
known to homesteaders who can easily secure copies of them, and who therefore 'know the conditions under which their cultivation duties may be reduced. I do not think the public generally are sufficiently interested in whether a certain homesteader has his ploughing duties reduced from thirty to twenty acres to warrant the publication of each Order in Council in the Gazette.


Jacques Bureau: But the settler is.


Arthur Meighen: The settler is, but he knows it without reading the Gazette. I doubt if there is one settler in the whole West who takes the official Gazette.


Jacques Bureau: If some one made an application to my bon. friend in the course

of his practice of law with regard to the reduction of cultivation duties, my horn, friend would probably refer to the Gazette.
Mr. IA1EIGHEN: If il were the practising lawyer 'I would go to the regulations and there find; the conditions under which my client was entitled to apply for a reduction of cultivation duties. The reduction would then be made, and my client would have .a letter from the department, stating that his area bad been reduced. That is all the authority he needs; I do not think that either the laywer or the entrant would look at the official Gazette.


Jacques Bureau: No, but there should be
a general rule.


Arthur Meighen: The only rule you can
have is in the regulations. One man might have a homestead in which thirty acres would be required; another right across the road might have a homestead where eighteen acres would be required, and some one else to the north might have one where twenty-five would be required-all depending on the varying character of the soil.


Jacques Bureau: It is concentrating everything in the minister's hands.


Mr. MYERS:: I suggest to the minister
that he incorporate in this provision some discretionary power to reduce the area of cultivation where land becomes flooded, and it is impossible to get under cultivation the number of acres required by the Act.	i


Arthur Meighen: I see no objection to inserting the word "flooded" after the words "wooded, rocky."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 8-holder may obtain patent by extra payments where he is in default for residence duties solely:
Mr. A1EIGHEN: Under the law as it stands now and has stood for about three years the pre-emptor who has obtained patents for his homestead and is in residence on either his homestead or his pre-emption may, if he has done his cultivation duties and effected the necessary improvements, secure his patent by simply paying up. Previous to three years ago that was not the case; the pre-emptor had to complete his - residence duties as well in respect of preemption, and might complete them on the homestead. This rule was relaxed three years ago to the extent of enabling him, if he continued in residence after he was through wdth his homestead duties and had

his patents, to dispense with all the other residence duties by simply paying up. Cases, however, arose where the homesteader who had pre-empted left his homestead, forsook his residence duties altogether, came back and reinstated himself as a resident on the homestead, and then demanded his patent on the payment of $3 an acre. Cases of hardship arose where the department had to require such a man to perform his three years' residence duties. This provision, therefore, is to enable the department to give him this answer: you have abandoned1 your residence duties; if you do not want to go ahead and perform them you must pay $3 an acre extra for the land. There are cases where men who are in business want to avoid the necessity of the residence duties, and where it is felt that it would be equitable to allow them to do so on paying that extra price for the land.
Section agreed to.
On section 9-certificate of recommendation to holder of entry for a pre-emption on completing all duties except payment:
Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that certificate to have the same value, so far as the rights of the entrant on the land are concerned, as if he had the patent? He can dispose of his interest?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: But 'before the patent is issued, the patentee, or whoever gets his interest in the land, has to pay the purchase price. What is the particular object of this? Has there 'been any hardship on the homesteader because he could not get the money?


Arthur Meighen: Hon. members Who were in the last Parliament will remember that this subject was pressed upon the House by the hon. member who then represented Saskatoon. Very many cases arise where the holder of a pre-emption owes the preemption moneys to the Grown. He has performed his cultivation duty; he desires to raise a loan with which to pay off the Crown; but he cannot do so; he can do nothing at all with his land until he secures his patent. In order to meet difficulties of that kind in relation to homesteads, there previously was a provision in the law for granting certificates of recommendation for homesteads, but those were abolished in 1908. There was not the same reason for the certificate of recommendation for homesteads that there existed for certificates of recommendations for pre-emptions, because there could be no money owing to the Crown
m
in relation to homesteads, homesteads being free. But where a pre-emptor finds himself in the position that he wants to pay off the Crown, but there is no means by which he can put a loan on his pre-emption in order to pay off the Crown to get the patent, he is practically forbidden access to the money markets. This provision gives him that access for the period of a year, which period may be extended at the discretion of the minister. The effect is that he can deal with his homestead, as if he owned it, subject, of course, to the possibility of that certificate of recommendation failing unless lived up to within the year.


Jacques Bureau: In a case like that, would the lender put his mortgage on record before the Crown was>
paid off? What would 'be the effect, supposing I advanced a man $1,000 upon a pre-emption and he gave -me a mortgage and I put my mortgage on record before the patent was issued?


Arthur Meighen: The certificate itself sets out what he owes to the -Crown, and any rights -he has to mortgage or deal with his land are naturally subject to the indebtedness to the Crown.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Entry for purchased homesteads :
Jacques Bureau: That is the same thing as for pre-emption. *


Arthur Meighen: The same thing in the case of a purchased homestead.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Myers moved to amend section 10 by adding the word " flooded " after the word " rocky ".


Andrew Ross McMaster: Might I point out that by adding the word " flooded " there, you make it possible of interpretation that the land must always be flooded? I would suggest it would be better to say " or subject to floods from time to time ". I believe that is the meaning of the amendment. I do not apprehend that, in order to have the benefits of this proviso, the land must always be flooded. I would imagine it would be subject to floods from time to time so that it could not be cultivated as fully as if it were not subject to floods.
-Sir SAM HUGHES: I think the point is very well taken. In the Northwest there are tens of thousands of acres of good land that are flooded at times. Such land could be made arable by drainage. Rocky land could not be made good by any process known to farmers. In my opinion the word

"flooded" should not he inserted at all. I can point out to the Minister of the Interior tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of acres of such land in the Northwest of Canada that in time will be the best land in the country, and all it wants is a little drainage. Although that land is flooded to-day, it should not be exempted.
Mr. MEIiGHEN:	The section as it has
been amended at the suggestion of the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Myers) is the best possible for the following reason. It is not intended to exempt land that ie only subject to flooding, that may be all right one year and perhaps flooded another year, .because the homestead duties can be performed the second or third year. If you make it simply "subject to floods," then the door is opened too wide, because there is a great proportion of land, as the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) has said, that is subject to floods. But- take the case of land say adjoining lake Manitoba, which is near my own home. A man may homestead a quaTter-section there, and there may be only .a fraction of that quarter-section that is really capable of cultivation. Why? Because the rest is flooded :by the lake. It is not only subject to the floods, it is flooded land, and it is only right and proper that in a case of that kind his duties should be proportionately reduced. ,It has been the practice of the department so to reduce them. To put the word " flooded ", as suggested by the hon. member, covers a case of that sort. If you use the words "subject to floods," the door is opened too wide, and it would enable a reduction to be made, because merely in a certain year the land was covered by water, and in such a case the duties might be capable of being performed the next year.


Samuel Hughes: As the minister is aware, two or three charges of dynamite properly placed might drain all the flooded land around lake Manitoba. I can point out one place in the Northwest, that I have had in view for a long time, that is flooded on account of a beaver meadow. We have not secured it yet, but we are watching for an opportunity to get hold of it. A week's digging will drain it. Although that land is flooded to-day, at an expenditure of less than fifty dollars it can be made arable.


Arthur Meighen: In a case of that kind it will be the duty of the minister to reduce the area of cultivation.


Samuel Hughes: If he has the authority, that is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 12-sale of agricultural lands to entrant prevented from completing duties but with equitable claim:
Jacques Bureau: Is not that provided in the old Act?


Arthur Meighen: This section is the same as the old Act except that the power is placed in the hands of the minister, instead of in the Governor in Council. My hon. friend will agree that any man wlic has had the training of a Solicitor Genera! can he trusted with that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-sale or lease of lands unsuitable for cultivation:
Arthur Meighen: This section is important in this sense: it gives the department the same power to deal with lands that should be reclaimed by drainage that it now has with regard to lands that should be reclaimed by irrigation. Section 34, if this amendment is agreed to, will read:
Lands unsuitable for cultivation without the aid of irrigation or drainage, or lands required in connection with any system of irrigation or drainage may be sold or leased in such manner and under such terms and conditions as are fixed by the Governor in Council subject to the provisions of the Irrigation Act.
In November, 1916, conferences were held between representatives of the Governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and representatives of the Irrigation Branch of the Interior Department, at which arrangements were arrived at drawing the line of responsibility with regard to irrigation and drainage as between the provinces and the Dominion. These arrangements were afterwards implemented by legislation in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and I think also in Manitoba, hut at all events, in the other two provinces. A scheme was also devised at the conference whereby the provinces might enter upon irrigation and drainage enterprises affecting Dominion lands, and the responsibility of the Dominion with regard to those enterprises was defined. Therefore, it is now the part of wisdom to place the drainage lands of the Crown in the same position as the irrigation lands, so we can deal with them as we are now able to deal with the irrigated lands.


Jacques Bureau: Has there ever been any arrangement between the provinces and the Dominion with regard to what are known as the marsh lands, or has there ever been any transfer of these lands?


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend refers to the swamp lands?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Those lands have been transferred from the province of Manitoba to the Crown; there were none in the other provinces.


Jacques Bureau: It would be to lands of that sort this Act would apply in the other provinces?


Arthur Meighen: Yes; such of those
swamp lands as are unsuitable for cultivation without the aid of drainage. Portions of those lands may not need drainage at all, even though described as swamp lands.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-Regulations to control disposal of timber and pulpwood berths:
Mr- LEMIEUX: These lands are disposed of by public tender?
Arthur Meighen: Yes. The object of this section is to enable the Governor in Council to extend the area in the case of pulpwood leases. Of course, a pulpmill will not be established on the basis of an area that is insufficient for its requirements for any reasonable length of time.


Jacques Bureau: The object is to increase the area in the case of pulpwood?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am not familiar with the original law, but paragraph (c) of this Bill says: "no offer by tender shall be accepted unless accompanied by the full amount of the bonus." I suppose bonus and bid mean the same?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, in -a sense. Tenderers have to agree to pay the license fee, Which is fixed. Then in addition to that they give a bonus, which really means a bid.
Mr. MoMIASTER: It does not mean they will have to accompany their bid with the full purchase price?


Arthur Meighen: With the full purchase price except the license fee, which is based on the amount of timber cut.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Might I suggest that
that might operate against the poorer tenderers, and perhaps result in the department's not getting as high a price as might otherwise be obtained.


Arthur Meighen: It has always been the
practice to collect the purchase price of the berth before the timber is cut. I think it would be rather the part of folly to wait until the timber was partially or wholly cut before collecting the purchase price of the berth. As soon as a man goes into one of these berths he immediately commences ito deplete the supply, and we collect as he proceeds to cut, the license being in proportion to the amount taken off.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I't has occurred to me that in the far Western Provinces through ladk of sufficient 'advertising and on account of the long distances, there might be a very limited number of tenderers, and as a result the pulpwood limits, which are very valuable to-day, might be sold for a song. What is tlhe policy of the department with regard to 'these sales? Is an outside price fixed after a preliminary cruise of the limits? I understand that in Quebec and Ontario the outside price is generally based on the report of the cruiser.


Arthur Meighen: It is the practice of the department and has been since 1908, to have a cruise of the area made by an inspector, and an upset price is fixed, based on his report.


Rodolphe Lemieux: By the department?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and sixty days' advertising in every case-a minimum of sixty days in one newspaper of local circulation, and in one newspaper of at least provincial circulation. All timber berths are sold by public auction, so that every possible chance to exploit the department, I think, is eliminated.	.


Samuel Hughes: Does the minister state that it was the practice to have these limits cruised?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: How long since?


Arthur Meighen: 1908.


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. minister explain the system of opening tenders in the department? In ancient days we have heard that there was a possibility of tenders not being properly looked after in the department.


Arthur Meighen: The system is to have no tenders. The sale is by public auction; consequently there are no tenders to open.


Mr. CAHILL:: Where will the auction be held?


Arthur Meighen: At the office of the crown timber agent for the district.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that when the limit is put up the bidders pay in cash so much per mile, which is called a bonus?


Arthur Meighen: So much for the entire berth. That is the bonus. Then, in addition to that, the bidder has to pay so much per thousand feet.


Jacques Bureau: That is the stumpage?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Does he not pay a yearly license?


Arthur Meighen: He pays five dollars per square mile in addition to that. There are other elements in the payment. There is the stumpage of fifty cents per thousand which he pays, then five dollars per square mile, and then the bonus.


Jacques Bureau: The five dollars is for the license, and he pays the stumpage as he cuts?


Arthur Meighen: And an auction sale is held to ascertain what bonus is to be paid besides. The man paying the highest bonus gets the limit.


Frederick John Fulton: It appears to me that in many cases it may ,be a very great hardship to have to pay a bonus in a lump sum, especially in a case where, as often happens, timber being much more inaccessible now than in previous years, it is necessary, either to put in a railway or build flumes in order to get the logs out. This entails considerable expenditure of capital, and it might very well be that the bonus should extend over a number of years, instead of being paid1 in a lump sum. To my mind the license fee is too small, and it has given rise to this practice, in many cases, even after the timber berth has been logged off, the company holding it continues to hold it, and pays a small annual rental, which does not amount to anything, but the berth is a great asset to the company in making a statement on paper to the shareholders or the bank. They may have a good many square miles of holdings, but a large proportion of them may have been logged off, and yet on paper they have still very large holdings. In this way they are in a position to .show these berths as an asset in their statement to the shareholders.


Arthur Meighen: The answer to the first inquiry is that the bonus does not require in certain cases to be all paid at once. The regulation reads:
6. Purchases to the amount of one thousand dollars or under shall he, paid in cash at the time of sale. Purchases over one thousand dollars and not exceeding five thousand dollars shall be paid one-half in cash at the time of sale, and a note or notes shall be given for the remaining half of the purchase price payable In three months with interest at the rate of five per centum per annum. Purchases over five thousand dollars and not exceeding ten thousand dollars shall be paid one-third in cash at the time of sale and notes shall be given for the remaining two-thirds of the purchase price, payable in three and six months, with interest at the rate of five per centum per annum. Purchases exceeding ten thousand dollars shall be paid one-fourth in cash at the time of sale and notes shall be given for the remaining three-fourths of the purchase price, payable in three, six and nine months with interest at the rate of five per centum per annum. Notes given as herein provided shall be made payable at a bank in the city or town in which the sale is held or at a bank in the city of Ottawa.
'So that, the department provides that in all cases under one thousand dollars the payment shall be in cash, and provides in every case for such payment as will enable the Department to receive the money before its security is gone. That meets the objection raised by my hon. friend.


Frederick John Fulton: Then why does the regulation say that the tender shall be accompanied by payment of the full amount?


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend will see that clause C reads:
No offer by tender shall be accepted unless accompanied by the full amount of the 'bonus.
Where it is sold by tender, that applies. Where it is sold by public auction, the regulations which I have just read apply. The practice is to sell entirely by public auction. This amendment leaves the mat- , ter just as it stood before in that respect, that wherever the sale is by tender the full amount must be paid.


Frederick John Fulton: In both cases it might be taken into consideration whether the principle might not be extended still further, so that the balance of the bonus unpaid might remain a charge on the remaining timber to be taken out. In that way the bonus would not be lost, because the money would be collected as the berth was being depreciated in value by the timber being taken out.


Jacques Bureau: Is the uniform price of the license five dollars per mile?


Arthur Meighen: East of Yale the uniform price is five dollars per mile. West of Yale it is five cents per acre.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-conditions of licenses- erection of mills:
Mr.. BUREAU: In the case of an ordinary timber limit the purchaser has to erect a mill within a certain time.
Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: It must have a capacity, I think, of a thousand feet a day for every two .and one half miles purchased, and it must be operated six months in the year. Is there any regulation, or any provision, that forces the purchaser of a pulpwood berth to erect a mill and operate it?


Arthur Meighen: We have no provision up to the present time for selling the timber limits for the purpose of the pulpwood industry. This is our first venture in that line. We have already provided, in order to meet the new conditions, that no timber limit .shall be larger than twenty-five square miles. We here enact the clause that imposes on the pulpwood operator a corresponding obligation to that all along imposed on the lumber operator. But we have not had experience enough to enable us to say just exactly what character of mill that man should erect, and within what time, and so forth. Consequently, pending that provision, we place the power in the Bill to enable the minister to fix the nature of the mill to be erected, just as stated here.
Shall erect a mill or mills of such capacity and character, and at such point or points, and at such time or times, as the minister may decide.
Experience will teach us in this, as in the case of lumber mills, what should be required.


Jacques Bureau: Has any discussion taken place with the officers of the department, or those who have been more especially charged with looking after the pulpwood berths, as to the conditions that will be imposed on the purchaser, the capacity of the mill, and the number of months it will have to be operated, or the quantity of wood the purchaser will have to saw a year?


Arthur Meighen: The form of regulations with respect to pulpwood has not yet been discussed with me. The officers of the department have the matter under consideration.


Jacques Bureau: Will those regulations be published in the Official Gazette?


Arthur Meighen: Yee.
.Sir SAM HUGHES:	Has the minister
considered the point about the control of the limit. As. I understand the law, the minister has the option: of saying whether or not he will wipe that man out. In other words, the minister, or officers of the department, could close a man out by requiring him to put lip a mill of a certain size and under certain conditions, and operate it in a certain way, and could make it impossible for the owner to. carry on business. Why not fix it more definitely, and have a general clause in the law.


Arthur Meighen: It would be desirable
to fix it definitely, but we have not the data to enable us4o do it, and we do not think we are able to make all the provisions, at all events without some experience in the operation of the pu'lpwood industry.


Frank S. Cahill: I.s it the intention of the minister, before advertising a limit for sale, to set out the regulation as to the mill, and the cutting of the wood that would be necessary on that particular limit?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Mr. MACKIE:: With reference to the amendment to section 15, I would like to ask why the minister is given discretionary powers as to the points at which mills have to be erected in connection with pulpwood concessions. At certain points along the Athabaska river where there are enormous areas of pulpwood, there is natural gas and at many places there are valuable water-powers. It might be more advantageous to the owner of a timber berth to erect his mill at a point where these natural resources could be made use of rather than at the point which the minister might designate. Therefore, I would ask why it should not be left to the owner to say where his mill should be located.


Arthur Meighen: I think it is only proper that the department should have some say as to the location of the mill. It is quite true that no matter what power you put into the hands of the minister he may so exercise it as to be oppressive, but I think the principle is sound that the minister should have some supervision as to where the mills should be located in reference to the timber berth which he puts up for sale. Of course, the tenderers for that berth would be in a position to inquire as to what the requirements of the minister would be in

that regard; and so they would not be purchasing in the dark. This is similar to the regulations that have been in force for years in reference to lumbermen.
On section. 16-withdrawal of portion ol timber berths from license after notice:


Jacques Bureau: Why ihas the notice been shortened from one year to sixty days?


Arthur Meighen: The main purpose of the amendment is to enable withdrawals to be made for other useful purposes as well as for agricultural purposes. One year's notice has been given in the past, but the experience of the department is that a year is quite unnecessary and it is believed that sixty days is sufficient. When a year's notice is required it makes the regulation cf very little value.


Jacques Bureau: It may not give a person sufficient time to remove camps or other things if only sixty days' notice is given. If it were in the summer season, or in the logging season, and the licensee were given notice to get out, it might mean that his license would be cancelled, his land withdrawn and be would not be in a position to take his property away.


Arthur Meighen: In such case a longer time would be given- This is simply a minimum of sixty days, because in most cases sixty days is sufficient, but wherever more is in equity required, it is given.
On section 19-pulpwood included and area of tract extended;


Arthur Meighen: This is to make a limit not exceeding one square mile -and it is to include pulpwood as well as timber and cordwood.
On section 22-no department employee to purchase land;


Jacques Bureau: That is to prevent employees from dealing in land?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. It means that an employee cannot get a homestead entry or deal in land in any way.


Samuel Hughes: Does that prohibit an agent of the Government in the United States from dealing in land?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Samuel Hughes: In the olden days Government land or immigration agents in the United States were privileged to take commissions on the sale of land, and I say advisedly that it was a very good1 plan. That was stopped and it had a very injur-
[Mr. Meighen.l
ions effect on immigration coming into our Northwest from the United States. I do not know whether this would 9 p.m. affect it or not. There is no reason why Government agents bringing in immigrants should not be authorized to sell land and -take a commission on it.


Arthur Meighen: It does not affect that point at all. The law as it stood forbade any employee of the Government to locate any land or act as agent for any other person in that behalf, and any employee violating that subsection was liable to dismissal. This amendment provides that an employee cannot take land by homesteading it or otherwise.
On section 2M-Cancel latkxn of letters patent or recommendation issued in error.


Jacques Bureau: This is to allow the amendment of -the certificate?


Arthur Meighen: That is all, on account of the certificate or recommendation.
On section 24-Cancellation of patent if issued through fraud, improvidence, ot in error.


Jacques Bureau: Is there anything in the old Adt which authorizes -the department to take action similar to this?
Mr. MEIiQHEN:	Under the law as it
stands now, when the patent has once issued the only way -the department can have it cancelled is -by laying information in the Exchequer Court. That will still prevail, but additional provision i-s -made.


Jacques Bureau: That is, after the patent has i-ssued?
Mr. (MEIGHEN: The Justice Department has held that as soon -as the patent is sealed it is issued, even though it remains in the department. Consequently, we cannot prevent the -man from getting the benefit of that patent, even though we find it has issued through fraud. The amendment enables us to cancel under such circumstances.


William Alexander McMaster: I do not want to get the reputation of being ia purist in language, but the -word " improvidence," I think, is intended to connote carelessness. I think what the law intends to convey is th-a-t the instrument has issued through fraud, or carelessness, ot error. " Improvidence " really -means extravagance, and I do not think that is what -is intended to be conveyed.
Mr. iMEIGHEN:	I think it is better to
retain the wording as it is, because in the

old Act exactly the same words are used: " WtheneveT letters patent, or other instrument respecting land have issued through fraud, or improvidence, or in error, any court having competent jurisdiction"-and so forth. When we aTe putting a proviso into the Act we had: better follow the same language. Doubtless there have been cases decided upon this provision, and I think the language should be continued.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not familiar with the wording of the old Act. Is the language here much the same as it is in the old Act?


Arthur Meighen: The language is the
very same. We are using the old section just as it is, which enables1 us to go to the courts and secure cancellation of a patent issued through fraud, or improvidence, or in error; but it is provided in addition that if the patent had not left the department, even although legally issued at the time and with the seal of the Crown affixed the minister, upon proof of the improvidence, fraud or error, may himself cancel the patent without going to the court at all.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What strikes me is
that there may toe cases where the patentee may regard himself as being harshly treated if he has not got the right to appeal. In this case the minister seems to be the sole judge, andi no machinery is provided whereby the man interested has the opportunity of presenting his case. In connection with matters arising under other departments that opportunity is given. For instance, in the Department of Customs, if a vessel is seized for infraction of the customs laws, or improper entry, the minister may declare that the vessel be condemned, but the owner is given the opportunity of appeal within thirty days, either to the Government or to a court. Now I would like to see a loophole here for a man who feels himself aggrieved to present his case before some independent court, or to appeal to the 'Governor in Council.


Arthur Meighen: The situation is this:
Up to the issue of a patent to a homesteader or a pre-emptor the minister is the judge as to whether or not he has earned that patent. There has never been any need for a court of appeal over the minister, although I presume that if a man Claimed to have lived up to all requirements of the law and then been' arbitrarily refused) his patent by the minister, he would be entitled to action against the Crown, andi he is entitled to that yet. But subject to that right, the minister has had1 the power of
decision as to whether or not the patent was coming to that man up to the moment of issue. After the issue then the minister could no longer decide, but if he wanted the patent cancelled he had to go to the court. All this amendment does is to extend that point very slightly. The minister has the power to decide not only up to the moment of the legal issue, which is the sealing of the patent with the seal of the Crown, but up to the moment that the patent leaves the department on its way to the patentee. I went into the matter with the Department of Justice and held that the patent was not issued at all until. it left the department. However, the Department of Justice took the view, and I think rightly, that the patent legally issues when the seal of the Crown is affixed. We therefore think that the minister's power should still be exercised, and should still prevail, up to. the -moment that the patent leaves the department.
On Section 25

Stock in lieu of cultivation in case of certain quarter-sections.


Jacques Bureau: Will the minister indicate what changes, if any, have been made with reference to the substitution of cattle for the cultivation of the land?


Arthur Meighen: The Act says that the
holder of a pre-emption which is not of a class suitable for agriculture may substitute stock in lieu of cultivation, notwithstanding the fact that there may be a sufficient area of arable land on the homestead to allow the performance of cultivation, If the required area of arable land can be found either upon his- homestead or his pre-emption, the practice is to- require the entrant to do the necessary cultivation, and it is desired to bring the Act into conformity with the practice. That is the purpose of this amendment.


Edward Thomas Wordon Myers: I would suggest that the minister use his discretion as to whether it is necessary for substantial buildings to be erected in certain localities.


Arthur Meighen: Of course, where a
homesteader has his pre-emption as well, he may use the buildings now on the homestead. He may utilize those buildings wholly, and at the same time avail himself of the stock substitution regulation with regard to- his pre-emption; but it has never been felt that we could do away with the necessity of the buildings altogether and merely allow the homesteader to- put stock on the land. To do that would toe to invade, too seriously, I think, the spirit of the

regulation which requires the use of the land as a hamieet-ead for the purposes' of agriculture.
On section 26-Patent to be issued in name of deceased entrant in certain cases:


Arthur Meighen: In British Columbia, while there is provision for the appointment of an administrator of the estate of a deceased person, no power is given to the administrator to acquire in his own name the real property of the deceased. Under the law as it stands now, therefore, there is imposed on the Department of the Interior, in relation to the Peace River land and the railway belt, the obligation of ascertaining who the heirs are. We think that is no part of our duty, and we are providing that in such cases the department, when the time comes to issue patents, may do so in the name of the deceased person. We do that now in the case of deceased soldiers, and we shall be doing it, if this Bill passes, in the case of patents of lands in British Columbia.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: : No province, so far as I know, gives the administrator power so to acquire real estate.


Arthur Meighen: The administrator has this power in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: At common law he would not.


Arthur Meighen: It would be his duty at common law simply to see that the estate was distributed to the heirs; but in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, where our Crown lands are, the administrator has power to take to himself the legal estate of the real property, and that enables us to convey to the administrator as soon as he is appointed any lands to which the deceased was entitled. We cannot do that in British Columbia; we are compelled to search out the heirs. We now wish to issue the patent simply in the name of the deceased and have the administrator distribute it according to the law of the province.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: Before we come to the preamble I wish to submit an amendment which is to constitute section 27 of the Bill, the present section 27 to be section 28. The effect of the amendment is really to ratify the Order in Council, the spirit and purpose of which I stated to the House on moving the introduction of this Bill- 
to abolish altogether purchased homesteads and pre-emptions:
27. (1.) The privilege of pre-emption entry on Dominion lands as provided for by section 27 of the Dominion Lands Act, Chapter 20 of the Statutes of 1908, as amended hy sections 2 and 3 of chapter 27 of the Statutes of 1914, is hereby withdrawn.
(2.) The privileges of purchased homestead' entry as provided for by section 28 of ohapter 20 of the Statutes of 1908, as amended by section 4 of chapter 27 of the Statutes of 1914, is hereby withdrawn.
(3.) Where land has been reserved for preemption entry for any homesteader who is on active military service, or -where notice has been issued to any person allowing him a specified, time within which to appear and secure preemption or purchased homestead entry for a given quarter-section, such land may he sold to the homesteader or to the person so notified, at the rate of three dollar's per acre, subject to the duties, terms and conditions which would have obtained if the pre-emption and purchased homestead privilege had not been withdrawn.
(4.) This section shall be deemed to have come into operation on the twentieth day of March, 1918.


Jacques Bureau: Why is the twentieth day of March particularly mentioned?


Arthur Meighen: That was the date the Order in Council was passed abolishing purchased homesteads and pre-emptions. It was considered wise to do it by Order in Council and subsequently to ratify it by legislation, for if we simply waited for the passing of the legislation there would likely be a rush for homesteads and pre-emptions, and to that extent the purpose of the amendment would have been defeated.


Jacques Bureau: The old provision is in force only in respect of those who enlisted and are now at the front, and who made application for homestead before they left?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It must have been a great relief to tlie broad-minded, nonpartisan Minister of the Interior when patronage was abolished in all departments, for I am sure that it would grate upon his nerves and feelings if he had to divide the population into two camps and be kind to some and do nothing for others. But something is still lingering behind which looks like patronage, and it is found in the different Tory newspapers in my part of the country. In the Sydney Post, for instance, which I have before me, I find a synopsis of the coal mining regulations, to which is appended the name of the Deputy Minister of the Interior. This notice finds its way into all the Tory papers of Nova Scotia, but by no chance gets into others. If patron-

age is abolished the minister should eliminate this patronage altogether, or, if such advertising is necessary in his department, give a share of it to the Grit papers, which are, if anything, more widely read in Nova Scotia than the Tory publications.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend's principles are sound, but his information is rather antiquated. Patronage is abolished wholly. The advertisement my hon. friend refers to is, I assume, from a paper of last month, because while it was possible for us to abolish patronage, we could not regard existing contracts as " scraps of paper."
Mr. McKENZilE: The date of this paper is March 22.


Arthur Meighen: These contracts are contracts, and all of them expired, I think, at the end of March; but after the expiry of these contracts, these regulations are no longer inserted in any paper, Unionist, Liberal, or Conservative, and thereby the country is saved a very large annual outlay.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the preamble:
Arthur Meighen: I shall not ask that we carry the preamble. I wish to leave the Bill in Committee for this reason: I have under consideration an amendment which I purpose submitting, providing for a change in the law relating to the interest on school land sales. The amendment will be ready when the House next goes into Committee. I, therefore, move: That the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Jacques Bureau: Will the minister tell us the purport of the amendment?


Arthur Meighen: I speak what is now in my mind in this regard. It is this, that as to all future sales the rate of interest shall be raised from 5 per cent to 6 per cent with 7 per cent on arrears. That is to say; suppose that the terms are one-tenth down and the balance one-tenth yearly for nine successive payments with interest at six per cent; then if a purchaser permits his payments, whether of interest or of principal, to run into arrears, he shall pay seven pear cent on those arrears. As regard past sales, a difficulty arises, because they have been made on express terms, and, of course, in so far as a purchaser lives up to those terms, his contract will not be interfered with; but where a purchaser fails to live up to those terms, the department has not power to raise the rate of interest without his consent, and it is proposed to ask for
power, on obtaining his consent, to raise the rate of interest on arrears to seven per cent in respect of those sales as well. We are, of course, able to obtain his consent unless he is prepared to pay up the arrears, because the power of cancellation is vested in Council.


Jacques Bureau: It will not be a hold-up?


Arthur Meighen: The idea is that as regards arrears the rate of interest shall hereafter (be seven per cent, and that in new sales the rate of interest on money not in arrears shall be six per cent. The idea is to make it in the interest of purchasers to pay up in accordance with their contracts and not merely to hold school land for purposes of speculation and not even pay interest or principal.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways and Canals), Bill No. 14, to confirm an agreement (between His Majesty the King and the Van Buren Bridge Company, was read the second time.
Mr. REID moved that the House go into Committee on the Bill.
Jacques Bureau: We have not had much information in regard to this contract, which is a long one, and it would be worth while looking over it before we go into Committee of the Whole House.


Mr. REID:: The Bill has been on the Order Paper for a week or so, and the agreement is printed in the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: The minister knows how it is with these agreements. It is necessary to know what brought about the agreement, why it was brought about, and what were the considerations.


John Dowsley Reid: I will explain it when it gets into Committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1 ^agreement of 8th March with Van Buren Bridge Company confirmed ;
John Dowsley Reid: This Bill is to confirm an agreement for the leasing of a stretch of about two miles of the Bangor and Aroostook railway between the International and Transcontinental railways. The Bangor and Aroostook railway runs from the state of Maine across the Transcontinental and up to the International, and our object in

leasing this line is to do away with the upkeep of two stations. When this agreement is ratified, the trains now going over the International will go over these two miles of line, and the Transcontinental station at St. Leonard' will serve as a union station for both lines. We shall then require -but one set of station -agents and shall save the operating expenses on two miles of road. The lease exipires in 1934, which is the year when the bonds of this railway fall due. The owners could not sell this railway or we would have purchased it. The rental is $1,200 a year, which is the estimated amount of the interest on this portion of the railway. At the expiration of the lease the Government will have to consider whether to take a further lease or purchase the two miles.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I have just arrived from home where I had -an opportunity of interviewing the residents of the village of St-. Leonard, and I have here a petition, also a number of letters and telegrams, protesting against the leasing of this road, if it be the Government's intention to have a union station for the International and Transcontinental.


John Dowsley Reid: Our object in acquiring this piece of road is to have a union station for the International and the Transcontinental. At present passengers coming in on the International have to drive.or walk over the Transcontinental if they are going on to Levis or Moncton. The union station will obviate that.


Pius Michaud: It is all very well for the minister to say that if passengers on the International want to go to Quebec or Moncton they have to walk or drive over to the Transcontinental railway station, but as a matter of fact the Transcontinental train passes through St. Leonard, going west, at three o'clock in the morning, and . going east, at twelve midnight; so hardly any one travels over that road because of the inconvenient hours. On the other hand, it is very easy for them to catch the Canadian Pacific, which runs parallel to the Transcontinental. The people of St. Leonard object very strongly to the idea of this union station. It is proposed to be built outside of the village altogether, about a quarter to half a mile away. With your permission, Mi-. Chairman, I shall read the following petition without reciting all the names, prepared by the citizens of St. Leonard against this proposed legislation:

To the Honourable Minister of Railways and Canals of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.



THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE CITIZENS OF THE VILLAGE OF ST. LEONARD, IN THE COUNTY OF MADAWASKA,

[Stage Direction]
AND PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK HUMBLY SHEWETH:
That we the undersigned citizens and residents of the Village of St. Leonard, N. B., are desirous that the terminus of the International railway shall remain at its present location and are all strongly opposed- to the erection of a Union Station at or near the St. Leonard Station of the National Transcontinental railway for the following reasons:
1.	That the present location of the terminus and station of the International railway is to the best advantage to all the citizens of the said village, and to the best accommodation to all the travelling public;
2.	That there is no local train service on the National Transcontinental railway of any kind for passengers nor other local accommodation. The only passenger trains are the one north-bound due at St. Leonard, N. B., at 12 p.m. and the south-bound at 3 a.m., thereby no train service at the dispositions of the local travelling public;
3.	That passengers from the International Railway points desirous to make connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway trains for local points, as well as passengers from other points to points on the International railway, would be compelled to travel for a 10 minutes' walk or in cab, the baggage to be transferred by truck teams, if the proposed union station is built at the Transcontinental railway, to the great disadvantage of all the passengers as well as the citizens of our village. Furthermore that it will be removing local train accommodation from the most business centre of our village to a location most out of the way for all the people's advantage, except a very few families in that direction.
4.	That such ohange in the terminus of the International railway and its passenger station and freight office will lead -beyond any doubt to the detriment of the future as well as of the present welfare of our village and its citizens.
And further pray that this our petition be approved as to the views and opinions of the undersigned, and that instead of a Union Station being built at the Transcontinental railway as proposed, a passenger station be built at or near the place of -the present terminus and yard of the International railway at or about the most business centre of our village.
We therefore humbly pray and urge for your serious consideration the urgent need- of granting our request.
As in duty bound we will ever pray.
This is signed by all the merchants of the village of St. Leonard. I think there are between 70 and 100 signatures, including members of the legal -profession, customs officers, postmasters, station agents and men of other professions. I have no doubt the hon. minister wants to do what is right by the people of St. Leonard. I have visited the place where the station is proposed to be (built, and I have also seen where the

old station in connection with the International railway was huilt. You are doing a great harm to the people of St. Leonard if you remove the present station of the International railway and build a union station outside the town altogether. While they were trying to get an Act passed in this House to build that short line of railway, to unite the Van Buren bridge with the International railway, the citizens of St. Leonard objected strongly to that short line of railway, for the reason that the Americans were building a bridge over the St. John river in order to connect with the International railway, for one purpose only, namely, to be able to transport our national resources in the province of iNe-w Brunswick into the state of Maine. They have been transporting our national resources, pulp-wood deals, manufactured lumber, and other kinds of wood. When the Act was about to be passed in this House I received a message from the citizens of St. Leonard asking, before the Act be passed, that a certain provision be inserted. I could not obtain the Act to-night, but I will produce it at the next sitting of the House. The telegram was as .follows:
Give your hearty support for railway bridge here providing that it is strictly understood thajt International station and terminus remain in St. Leonard Village at its present location.
That is where the station of the International railway is now built. They ask that it shall remain whore it is. I do not think the minister will desire to remove it at the present moment unless he wants to change the whole line. That telegram is signed by five citizens of St. Leonard.
John Dowsley Reid: Do I understand that is the charter that was got by the Van Buren Bridge Company, or by the International Railway Company?


Pius Michaud: I believe it was the Van Buren Bridge Company, and they are the people who built up the short line of railway which you are about to lease under this Act. If you are going to lease that short line of railway, and remove the railway station, because you are buying that short line of railway, you are not following the provisions of the Bill. The Bill says you cannot remove the station except to the International railway, and that the terminus shall remain at St. Leonard in its present location. From my point of view, it would be unfair now to change the whole law. I have been asked to state by whom this message was signed. I find the following signatures: F. C. Rivard, J. R. Cyr,
B. R. Violette, Raymond Hebert, A. J. Violette. These are the leading men of the village of St. Leonard. I would ask the hon. minister to give me an opportunity at the next sitting of the House to produce the Bill passed in 1913, wherein we can find .a clause providing that the. terminus of the International railway and its station cannot be changed from one place to another. ,1 hope he will give me an opportunity at the next session of the House to produce the Bill.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, the hon. gentleman knows the locality better than I do. I have never been in St. Leonard, and I have simply to take the statement of the officials of the road. As I understand the situation, there are now three railway stations in St. Leonard, the National Transcontinental station on the through line between Levis and Moncton, the Canadian Pacific Railway station on the line that runs through St. Leonard, and the station of the International railway. The Government owning both the International and the Transcontinental and keeping up two sets of employees at the two stations, I think the House will agree with me that that is hardly fair or right. The proposal is that the International railway shall have its terminal at the Transcontinental station. If this is not done, we must keep up the two stations. You may change the location of the station on the International, but you must maintain the station on the main line (between Levis and Moncton. When the matter was brought to my attention by the officials of the department it struck me as a reasonable business proposition and one to which I could not see that any person could object. The hon. gentleman raises objections, one of them being that the trains go through on the Transcontinental road, that there are no local trains and therefore, it would not be of service. I can hardly see that is a reason why the trains should not have their terminus at the same station. I do not see why you should keep the 'International station where it is because it is a little nearer the Canadian Pacific. The hon. gentleman has raised two questions which of course I shall look into. One is that the station on the Transcontinental is not proposed to be placed in as convenient a spot for the public. If the Transcontinental had their station built there, and all completed, it would be rather difficult to move it now. I do not see how I could agree to that, without looking further into It. The bon. gentleman also



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Fisheries-salaries and disbursements of Fishery Officers and Guardians, including the expense of the Advisory Board and an allowance of $200 to W. J. F- Casey, Secretary thereof, Fisheries Patrol Service and Oyster Culture, $400,000.
Rodolphe Lemieux: There is a decrease.


Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: I beg to move,
seconded .by Mr. Reid, that the words "and an allowance of 1200 to W. J. E. Casey, secretary thereof," be struck out. I would like to drop this provision because Mr. Casey has 'been otherwise provided for. The officers of the department who are members of the advisory board receive no remuneration, but when Mr. Casey was made secretary he was in the third division, and as his salary could not go beyond $1,200 per year, it was considered that he should have extra pay. He has since taken the examination for the second division and. will be promoted this year to subdivision A of the second division at $1,600. He is now receiving this amount with the allowance as secretary of the advisory board.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who are the members
of the advisory board?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Nova Scotia: H. B. Short, Digiby; W. C. Smith, Lunenburg; A. King, Halifax; G. A. Hemen, Arnold. New Brunswick: A. B. Carson, Rexton; F. T. B. Young, Caraquet; John Jackson, St. John, Prince Edward Island: C. H. B. Logworth, Charlottetown. Quebec:	A.
Arseneau, Magdalen Islands. British Columbia: F. H. Cunningham, New West-

minster; O. H. Nelson, Prince Rupert. I am thinking of doing away with this advisory board. I think we can get along without it, ibut that has not been definitely settled upon as yet.


Mr. COPP:: What were the expenses of
the advisory board last year?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The expenses for
1916-17 were $815 and the allowance amounted to $620, making a grand: total of $1,435.02.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister has appointed! quite a number of inspectors; or perhaps they were appointed before the minister took charge of the department. I understand their duties to be
10 p.m. connected with the inspection of salted and pickled herring. I would like to know how many there are of such officers, and if he has any reports from them, or what services they are rendering. Are they of any particular advantage to the fishing industry of this country? Reports have come to ime from time to time that in the part of the country from which I come there are a great many of these officers drawing big salaries and doing nothing.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 
Mr.   D@: How many inspectors have you?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I will give you that information in a moment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Can the minister tell me what portion of the vote of $400,000 is applied to the fisheries patrol service?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The appropriation for that service is $190,000 and the expenditure to February 28, $187,073.72. We have 134 overseers, 800 guardians and 28 inspectors.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Some years ago oyster culture was carried on in the waters of Prince Edward Island. I am sorry to say that the succulent Malpeque is fast disappearing, and the same fate appears to be overtaking the oysters at Miscou, New Brunswick. I think it would be in the interest of consumers if the department would, under the diligent and energetic direction of my hon. friend (Mr. Ballan-tyne) look carefully after this food. The Malpeque oyster is, as the minister knows, a very excellent food, and commands the respect of aJll the connoisseurs in North America. It is really a pity to see the excellent Malpeque oyster disappearing so rapidly. I remember that some years ago an effort was made by the department to promote oyster culture, but I do not know what progress has been made.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The private oyster beds have been taken over by the several provincial governments, therefore, oyster culture is now in the hands of the provincial authorities.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I want to ask a question or two of the minister, and at the same time to congratulate him upon the resolution he has made in regard to the carrying on of the business of the department. I have had occasion during the last two or three years to draw the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, whilst the estimates were under discussion, to a situation which prevailed in the province from which I come in regard to the inspectors, fishery overseers and wardens, and I have never yet been able to get an absolute answer as regards these different classes of officers. Now, there is a multiplicity of officers along all the sea coasts of Canada who pretend to look after the fishing rights and interests in their respective localities. I find on pages R 46 and 47 of the Auditor General's Report for the year ending 31st of March, 1917, reference made to the fishery overseers and inspectors in the province of New Brunswick. Did I understand the minister to say that the term of office of the overseers and wardens expired on the 31st of March last?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No, what I said was that the term of office of the wardens, who are also known as guardians, did expire on the 31st of March, hut not so with the overseers or the fishery inspectors, who are permanent.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have noticed that there are inspectors, overseers and wardens, and also special guardians. In the province of New Brunswick, I notice, the special guardians during the year ending 31st of Alarch, 1917, cost $33,933.85- Am I to understand that these officers have been abolished, and that there are no special guardians in existence to-day ?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: So much with respeot to that. I have on previous occasions drawn the attention of ithe department to what I believe to be an absolutely irregular, unnecessary, and unbusinesslike way of engaging and paying the overseers and wardens. It is a different matter with the inspectors. There is a certain number of these officials who have prescribed areas over which they exercise control.
There are a number of inspectors, each in charge of a zone or area and each in receipt of a fairly good salary. One of the inspectors in New Brunswick gets $2,000, besides travelling expenses, $787; allowance for stenographer, and so on. The overseers and wrardens are also paid salaries. For instance, Mr. Prescott, of Baie Verte, gets the magnificent salary of $150 a year, but for travelling outlay he received last year $752.70. I know the location; I know what has taken place in that office during the last number of years. These men are paid practically no salary, but they send in a report as to mileage and that is the way they make up their salaries.


John Dowsley Reid: They cannot live on $150.


Arthur Bliss Copp: No, they cannot live on that amount. In the same locality there is an inspector at Barachois, Mr. Vinneau, whose salary is only $120 a year. He does the same work as Mr. Prescott, but strange to say his travelling outlay last year was $1,022.30. This is an indication of what has been taking place in the department for some years.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: These guardians are allowed ten cents a mile when they travel. Apparently these two men have done considerable travelling; I have no way of checking that up just now.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The department should have some check on these matters. They should pay these men a reasonable salary and require them to make proper returns and give full value for what they receive, or be subject to dismissal. What is true of these two cases is true of the other overseers and wardens. I hope the minister will see that his department is placed on a business basis and operated along business lines, irrespective of political favours.
I wish also to bring to the attention of the minister a matter that was referred to in the House early last session. Along the shores of New Brunswick, not far from my own county, illegal lobster fishing has been

going on. The inspector sent his patrol boat out, caught the men fishing lobsters out of season, seized the boats, and, I think destroyed one. When it was found that boats belonged to some person friendly to the Government, close to the department, a commissioner was appointed to investigate the matter, and I have a copy of the return that was brought down containing all the evidence. I notice that an amount for legal expenses is charged up in connection with this investigation. If the minister will look at the commissioner's report he may readily draw a conclusion whether there was illegal lobster fishing in this case and whether the person whose boats were seized was properly dealt with toy the inspector. The inspector tried to do his work in a proper manner, but as soon as it interfered with some who had pull, the inspector's jurisdiction was set aside, the matter taken out of his hands and a commissioner appointed to investigate. I draw the minister's attention to these facts simply to point out to him that he has a great gulf or chasm to bridge in order to get away from what has been going on in his department during the last few years.


Mr. DUFF:: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the explanation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries with reference to this item. I am pleased, indeed, to hear that he is going to make a change in the appointment of fishery guardians. The minister should toe congratulated that at last he has taken hold of this part of his department in a tousinesslike manner. The county from which I come is, perhaps, the largest fishing county in Canada-and I have in mind other counties in Nova Scotia where these guardians have been appointed during the last twenty years and where there was really no necessity for them at all. I suggest that great care toe exercised with reference to those who appoint these guardians. I think the minister said that the appointments were to be made toy the Civil Service Commission.,


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The appointments are in the hands of the Civil Service Commission, tout if that body needs any advice -and I assume it will-the inspector of the district in question would toe the man from whom we should seek advice. If we find that he is not giving us the kind of advice that we would expect to get from a business man then we will put another inspector in charge of that district.


William Duff: I conclude my remarks to the minister toy merely saying that the House

would like him to give instructions to those inspectors to toe sure to -employ men who are not partisans, but who will do their duty.


Mr. VIEN:: In regard to the minister's explanation as to the decrease of $101,000, I understand that the decrease in the number of overseers will account for some portion of it, but I would like to know what portion of the decrease is accounted for by the decrease in the staff and what portion by the decrease in other expenses.
Mr. BAXiLANTYlNE : I do not agree with the cut in the estimates of $101,000 that has been made here, and I think I shall be forced a little later on to insert it in my supplementary estimates. I really do not think the cut should have been made at all, but economy is the watchword now, and the cut was rather forced on me.
Mr. McMAiS'TER: We were going to congratulate the minister on the decrease.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the item carry?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Wait a minute. We are not talking for talk's sake; we want to get some practical result out of this inquiry. Before the commissioner came in, I was asking the minister about the inspectors of pickled fish, quite a number of whom were appointed under the Act that was passed in this House two or three years ago. The Opposition very severely criticised that Act at the time it went through, objecting that no benefit to the people would result 'from the appointment of a number of officials. In the part of the country from which I come, which is largely a fishing district, those inspectors are of no practical value or utility to the district at all. They are di awing salaries for which they give no real return. In the island of Cape Breton there are one or two of those inspectors receiving large salaries, and, I suppose, large travelling expenses, and I would like to know from the minister what quantity of pickled fish they have examined and of what practical utility they are to the country generally, and particularly to the fishing industry. If he finds they are not turning out to be of benefit to the fishing industry and to the people generally, I think, even if they have been appointed under the Act, it would be proper economy to dispense with their services and to use the money for some more necessary purposes.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Will the hon. member be good enough to wait until we come to that appropriation? I shall be very glad to give the information then.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We are now on an item relating to inspectors. I do not want to be talking in too partisan a fashion, but we must bring matters to the notice of the minister. I do not know whether the minister likes this or not, or whether it suits him or not, and- I am not going to say; but it is all very well to drop patronage at this stage when every crevice, every corner, every conceivable office is filled with Tories. The minister says: I will not do anything; I will not exercise any patronage; I will pass it on to another man. Let us inquire who he is. He is a Tory of the Tories, and if any latitude is left to him, he is going to swing the old axe in the old way, and the old' patronage will continue. That is human nature. I am afraid the minister will find that he and some of his brethren are in the position of the old gentleman who was passing away into the eternal bliss that awaited him and who said to his spiritual adviser: "I am willing to forgive everybody and I do forgive everybody; but there is one man whom I will forgive, but you, John,"-(pointing to his boy)-"look after him after I am away." The minister may say: I will not exercise any patronage; I will do nothing of that kind, but I will hand it down to the inspectors. Who, pray, is the inspector? A very strong partisan, and if he is given latitude to select men, he will naturally-and I do not blame him for doing so-select -his own friends. That is what will happen, at least, in our part of the country. It has often been thrown at me from across the floor by members from British Columbia, that they are not as partisan as- we are, but I speak from observation in my own little province by the sea. I hope this thing will pass off and appointments made, not because of partisanship but because of fitness for the duties of the position.
Last year, I brought a matter to the notice of the department. In my county we have an official who was charged by one of his neighbours with destroying property without justification. This neighbour sent letters to the department, tout he was told by this official: You need not make any reports about me; you can save your breath; you oan save your paper; this is a Tory Government; there are Tory officials, and they will simply laugh at you. I sent these letters to the minister's department, and I received a letter from some official- I forget his name now-stating that inquiry would be made into the matter. I believe this official who scorned the idea of toeing brought to time because he was a Tory is



still in office, and I have not heard that anything has been done about the matter. I do not want to mention any names. This man is in the district of Little Bras d'Or, in the county of Cape Breton. It is very easy to find out who he is. The letters are on file. I hope that official of the Government will not (be permitted to sling lip-so to speak-at his neighbours and say: I can ride roughshod over you; you have no remedy because I belong to the Tory party, and you can whistle for your porridge for any good it will do you.
Mr. BALLAN-TYNE:	I am too old in
year9 to learn any of the political tricks to which my hon. friend refers. I am, as he knows, nn amateur politician, and rather proud of that fact, but I do claim to be somewhat of a trained business man. I do not know of any other way to rid the department of the influence the hon. member has referred to except to place responsibility where it properly belongs. I have already placed, the responsibility on the inspector of the district. If the hon. member finds that the inspector of the particular district that he represents is not acting fairly and is making appointments on a political basis and not on an efficiency basis, and he brings that to my notice, I will guarantee him instant dismissal of that inspector, I do not care how long he -may have been in the service. With such a large department as that over which I have the honour to preside, reaching from one ocean to the other, I could not possibly adopt any other course. I do not know, of course, all the particulars of every division and constituency throughout the country. I cannot do any more than emphasize what I have already stated, namely, that it is the only business -way to put the matter into the hands of the inspector that is in charge-of the district. I will see that he carries out his orders in the way he should. If he does not, 'I will discharge him.


Mr. JOSEPH READ:: Until the minister made the statement that he was thinking of re-inserting the item of $101,000 in the supplementary estimates, I felt like congratulating him. I quite agree with his suggestion that a -good many of those overseers could be eliminated without any injury being done to the service. I would advise the Government as a whole to take into consideration whether it is not in the public interest to have the Department of Fisheries a separate department altogether from Marine and Naval. There is plenty of room for such a department in the Government, because I think some of the new

ministers have not too much to do. The fishing industry is one of the -most important industries in the Dominion; it is to-day second only to the industry of agriculture, and it is not half exploited-. Now that meat is scarce, the people are 'beginning to ask for more fish, and evidently that means more brains. You cannot do better than to make the Department of Fisheries an entirely separate department.
With regard to the falling off in the production of oy-sters, that has perhaps resulted from -the importation of American oysters. As far as the Malpeq-ue beds are concerned, I think our local government is perhaps more largely to blame than the Federal Government. They began to encourage the importation of a large number of American oysters, and from all we can find out, it would appear that they have introduced a disease which has decimated the native oyster almost entirely. Either that is the cause, o-r it is one of those freaks of nature where it sometimes occurs that these luscious bivalves have periods of increase and periods of decrease, or it may be because in the great Richmond bay, which produces Malpeque oysters, they have permitted indiscriminate lobster fishing and perhaps induced the starfish to comae in there and destroy our oysters. There is no question, however, that the oyster industry of Malpeque, or Richmond hay, Prince Edward Island, the great field of that fine bivalve, misnamed- Malpeq-ue-I think it should be called the Richmond Bay-oyster is becoming almost extinct. It would foe well f-or the department to look info that matter and see if they can if possible discover the real cause and remedy it.
If the minister expects to have nonpartisan appointments, he will not have them by giving the inspectors power to make them, because the inspectors, as a rule, are far more partisan than the men who appoint them. That is true as far as my county is concerned. It is true of our province that the man who is appointed is appointed because of his extreme partisanship. If the Union Government is ito warrant its existence at all, it should warrant its existence on the basis of nonpartisanship and no patronage.


Mr. FIELDING:: May I suggest to the minister that at a convenient time-I shall not say he should do it now, because it is rather an important matter-he should give the House some authoritative information as to what has been or is being done by a rather important commission which has recently held sittings to inqnire into

fisheries matters? It is a commission of an international character. According to the reports in the public press, some very important changes are being made in our fisheries, but I am not taking exception to any action of the commission. I am inclined to think some of the recommendations I would cordially approve, and I am not sure I would oppose any of them. I am aware, however, there is some discontent in Nova Scotia as to what is regarded as the insufficiency of the opportunity given to people who wish to be heard on the subject. The commission came to the conclusion that they ought to have a public hearing in Canada, and they selected one point in the Maritime Provinces, the city of St. John. If only one point could be chosen, I would find no fault with the city of St. John, which is central. It seems to me-and I know it is the impression in the fishing communities-that in a matter of such great importance, opportunity should be given by the commission for hearings at other points.
There may have been good reasons why this could not be done. I am not making my suggestions to my hon. friend in any critical spirit, but this is a large question; very much has been said in the press about it, and I only take advantage of this occasion 'to say that at a convenient time when he has had the opportunity of studying the matter he might give the House official information as to what has been done or is being done at this moment, by the important commission which has been charged with the duties of investigating the fishery affairs not only of Canada but of the United States.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I shall be very glad to give the hon. gentleman the information he asks for. The commission have not yet finished- their sittings, and in the course of a week or two will be going out to British Columbia. As hon. gentlemen know, this is an international commission, the American representatives being Hon. Wm. C. Red-field, Hon. E. C. Sweet, and Dr. H. M. Smith; and the Canadian representatives Chief Justice Hon. J. D. Hazen, Mr. G. J. Desbarats, and Mr. W. A. Found, Superintendent of Canadian Fisheries. Without going into detail, what this commission have accomplished with regard to eastern Canada is simply this: In the past Canadian vessels were not allowed to land or dispose of their catch at American ports, nor were American vessels allowed to land and dispose of their catch at Canadian ports, but arrangements have recently been ar-
18J
rived at whereby this will be possible in future for the fishermen- of both countries. This agreement was readily agreed to by the American representatives, and it is highly appreciated not only by the Government of Canada but by the people as well. In addition to that, in the past we have had a close season for lobster fishing, and during ouf close season, American smacks used to fish for Canadian lobsters outside the three-mile limit; but now an agreement has been reached wheTeby the American Government will not allow American smacks to fish outside the three-mile limit during our close season for lobster fishing. I am sure hon. members will agree that these concessions are of the greatest importance not only to the fishermen of Canada but to the country itself. Of course I cannot foretell what decisions will be arrived at when the commission hold their sittings in British Columbia. There are many important- problems for them to solve, particularly the question of the conservation of salmon.


Mr. KAY:: I am very glad to hear the minister say that the commission has not finally closed its sittings, because I would suggest to him that he take up with the Canadian representatives of that commission the question of fishing in Missisquoi bay.
Mr. BALLANTYNE; It was an error on my part not to mention that. At the request of the Canadian Government, during the sittings of the commission that have recently been held, it was mutually agreed between the two countries that there should be no commercial or seine-net fishing in Missisquoi bay. The hon. member knows of course, that Missisquoi bay forms a very small part of lake Champlain, and the United States Government have been urging the Canadian Government for a great many years to prohibit commercial fishing in Missisquoi [DOT] bay, as that -was the chief place where the fish from American waters came up to spawn.


William Frederic Kay: destroys the pike that infest lake Champlain, (but as a matter of fact, only 34,000 pounds, out of this 164,000 pounds, are pike, the balance being what fishermen call " rough fish," largely made up of perch and fish which are not game fish. I may say that bass fishing is very good in lake Champlain and Missisquoi bay, but the fish cannot be retained by the fishermen. They catch very few, and those are returned to the lake unhurt. It would appear to me that, especially at this time when we are urged to consume as much fish as possible to save meat for the Allies, the commissioners should have considered the matter very seriously before they prohibited the catching of this large quantity of fish so near to Montreal, which, I presume, is the largest fish-consuming city in Canada. The Government can hardly expect the people to take their propaganda for eating fish and saving meat very seriously when they prohibit the catching of a large quantity of fish, for the purpose of allowing pleasure fishermen with rod and line to catch fish in lake Champlain. The department says: That the United States Government, in conjunction with the authorities of the States of New York and Vermont, are trying to build up the fisheries of lake Champlain, with the purpose of making the lake a favourite summer resort, commercially the fisheries could never attain much importance. It is a question of whether, in normal times, this is a perfectly true statement of the facts, but surely even the United States Government, who are at present our allies, would not wish to deprive this country of a large amount of fish, simply with the object of making an attractive summer resort of the villages on the border of lake Champlain. As the hon. minister has said, this has been a question which has been debated between the two countries for a great number of years. There have, apparently, always been very good reasons which have compelled, or impelled, our Government to refuse the request of the United States to prohibit seining. I personally am quite convinced that during this period of six weeks, which is before the fish are spawning, more pike will be destroyed by the large number of perch left in the lake than are taken out by the seine. The perch abound there in great numbers, and they live on the newly-hatched spawn of the pike and bass. So that I think this prohibition of seining will really result in a large increase of perch, and, therefore, in 
a large decrease in the number of sporting fish. However, at the present time, I base my request to the Government largely on the importance of securing all the fish possible for consumption in this country.
There is another matter which is worthy of attention. These fishermen have been fishing in this lake under license from the Government, as I said before, for some forty or fifty years. The season commences on the first of March, and the Government passed an Order in Council on the 18th day of February. This was not published in the press until about the 23rd of February. I know that the fishermen have quite large investments in their seines and ropes, and several of them who fish in this lake purchased new equipment this year. It would hardly seem fair to these men that they should be deprived without some notice, of what they have regarded for so many years as a right from the Government to fish. I would urge the hon. minister to take this question up with our Canadian commissioners, and procure evidence from local people as to the truth of the assertion of the United States commissioner, in order that, for another year, the rights of fishing in lake Champlain may be restored.


Mr. DEMERS:: I am glad that the hon. gentleman from Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) has brought this matter to the attention of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, because we, in that part of the country, are interested in this question, which is a very important one for us. I believe the Government has misjudged the true situation, and that this question was not fully considered. Apparently this Order in Council was the result of mutual concessions between the United States and Canada, but I believe that the only concession was on our side. I submit that there can be no comparison between the action of the United States Government in prohibiting the importation of lobster taken outside of our territorial waters and the action of the Canadian Government in prohibiting at any time fishing by means of nets in Missisquoi bay and the Canadian waters of lake Champlain. Our close season for lobster fishing is as beneficial to the United States as to Canada. With our protective legislation as to lobster fishing, lobster is more plentiful not only in Canadian waters, but outside, and even in American territorial waters. But in this case it is not the same thing at all. Here we have an Order in Council passed by the Canadian Government which will be beneficial only to the United States. Pike perch is not lobster and lobster is not pike

perch. Lobster is not a migrating fish as pike perch and bass are and the consequence of this difference is that as pike perch and bass resort to Missisquoi bay in springtime for spawning purposes only, as soon as the spawning time is through these fish migrate to American waters and never come .back. By their nature they always tend to go upstream; and they go into American waters and do not come (back. I submit that by this Order in Council we will be deprived of this kind of fishing at all times and the only result will be to givie the benefit of that kind of fishing to the Americans, particularly American sportsmen.
But there is another aspect of this question which should be considered by this House. There are a good number of families of fishermen who for two or three generations have been partially engaged in this occupation. During the winter time they go to large expense in order to be ready for the season and they rely very largely on fishing for their living. Just at the opening of the season, without any notice, and although this question has been studied for many years, there comes an Order in Council which says that all this expense to which they have gone shall be a complete loss and that they must look elsewhere for their living. I do not think that is fair or reasonable, and I blame the Government for having acted in this'matter by Order in Council. If this Government, or the minister, wished to imitate the Americans, for whom some of them seem, now to have so much admiration, they had excellent occasion to do so. They could have introduced a Bill, into this House as the Americans have done with regard to the question of the lobster fishery, and as we can see by the letter which my hon. friend received from the department. We see that with regard to the question of the lobster fishery the United States have not yet made a concession, but they have introduced a Bill into Congress. They did not pass any Order in Council. I think this Government would have done better to have imitated the action of the United States Government and introduced a Bill into this House. That would have been more democratic, more constitutional, and in that way the Government would not have hurt these poor fishermen.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am sorry that 1
cannot agree with the hon. members who have spoken. As hon. gentlemen are quite aware, lake Champlain, which is owned by the United States, is fifty miles long and seven miles wide. I am sure that hon.
gentlemen are also aware that for many years the United States Government have not permitted any nets to be used in lake Champlain. Our great ally is standing shoulder to shoulder with Canada to-day, not only with her men at the front but also giving us freely of her money. Our American friends also have granted to Canada the vast privileges that I mentioned a moment ago by allowing our fishing vessels to clear for American ports and to dispose of their catches there. They own lake Champlain, fifty miles long and
11 p.m. seven miles wide, and we own Missisquoi Bay, which is only from three to five miles wide:	They are
anxious to preserve the fish of lake Champlain and have been pressing upon us, a friendly nation, for years, to prohibit net fishing for perch at the time of the year when the fish are spawning. What attitude should we have taken? It has been clearly proved that this is the time of the year when the perch spawn. It also has been clearly proved that Missisquoi bay is the spawning ground of the perch. Hon. gentlemen have said that probably this action was taken very hurriedly. I wish tc assure them that it was not done hurriedly at all. We have on the international commission,, men who understand thoroughly the fisheries of Canada and the Ignited States. When representations were made from the 'States of Vermont and New York before this international commission when it was sitting in the city of Boston as to the effect of this net fishing, when it was asked to prohibit net fishing of perch in this small Missisquoi bay, was it not the logical, the businesslike course for Canada to say to her cousins, that Canada would agree to the fair proposition that our allies made? I think the House will take this broad view of the question. We cannot take a local view of a question like this, and even if we did, I do not see any ground that would cause the commission to refuse to give to our American friends the very fair concession that the Canadian Government has just granted.


William Frederic Kay: Would the minister tell the committee if he considers such action proper at this time, in view of the very urgent appeal for food production and conservation made by the Tight hon. the Prime Minister no later than last week to the Canadian people when he uttered the following words:
It is the earnest hope of the Government that every citizen will realize his or her personal individual duty to adopt and1 carry out the suggestions made by the Canada Food Board.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Minister of Railways is present (Mr. J. D. Reid), and 'I would therefore ask whether any refrigerator cars have been provided for the transportation of fish. It is all very well to keep the fish in cold storage at the various harbours, but it is important to transport that fish in cold storage, on the Government cars, from the

Maritime Provinces to inland points. For some years past accommodation of this nature has been provided, and I would like my hon. friend (Mr. Reid) to tell me what has been done lately in that regard.


John Dowsley Reid: We have a number of refrigerator cars on the Government railway system, but the business of transporting fish is increasing and we need more cars. Within the last few days I have awarded a contract for, I think, one hundred and fifty or two hundred and fifty refrigerator cars. The Canadian Northern Railway system have a number of refrigerator cars, and -there are a few belonging to the Canadian Government Railway system, but not a sufficient number. However, it takes some little time to procure new cars, and I sent the superintendent of car service away a few weeks ago to ibuy some second-hand cars so that we might get a few that we could use in the meantime. We are preparing as fast as possible to increase the number of cars for this particular service. Of course, the Amercian lines are taking a lot of these cars to the other side-even a number of those that we have, and when they get over there it is very difficult to secure their return. This applies not only to refrigerator cars, but to box cars and freight cars.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There will be a debate on this question later on, and at present I am mainly concerned with the consumption of our fish in Canada, and I would ask my hon. friend to see that a number of refrigerator cars are put aside for the Canadian service proper. He is aware that for months to come fish will he more and more in demand. It is an excellent food, and certainly the fish found in Canadian waters are of a very superior quality. It is a thousand pities that more fish is not consumed inland-in Montreal, Quebec, Toronto, Kingston and elsewhere. I represent one of the maritime constituencies and I know the great need for refrigerator cars. However, I have a motion on the Order Paper in regard to this matter, and intend to bring it up again.


John Dowsley Reid: It was brought to my attention within the last month that cars should be obtained almost immediately for the carrying of such products as have been mentioned, between the lower provinces and, say, Montreal and Ontario. As I have said, I have arranged to purchase ten or fifteen second-hand cars, which will be available within the next month or six weeks. We have awarded a contract for a large number of new cars, but they will

not be delivered until September.or Octobe" and these second-hand cars will be available in the meantime for the short run between Montreal and the lower provinces.
Mr. BALLANTYNE-. We have a limited refrigerator express service now one day each week from Mulgrave and Halifax to Montreal, the Department of Marine and Fisheries paying for the icing of the ear as well as one-third of the "express charges. In addition, we have a refrigerator fast freight service from Mulgrave and Halifax to Montreal three days each week, the department guaranteeing the earnings of the car on each trip west to be at least $35 plus the cost of icing. I sympathize with the suggestion of the member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux) that it would be well to have more refrigerator cars; we hope to have an express system instead of the system I have just referred to. Hon. gentlemen will see that the Government are doing a good deal in paying the charges which I have mentioned.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the large centres more fish will be consumed in future, and if it can be obtained at reasonable prices certainly the community at large would he much benefited. Some years ago the Department of Agriculture paid bonuses to cold storage establishments in different parts of Canada. Is there not also an arrangement whereby the Department of Marine and Fisheries, with a view to encouraging these establishments amongst the fishermen, grants the latter a bonus on their cold storage operations, subject to plans and regulations adopted by the department?


Joseph Read: I take it that the matter of refrigerator cars comes under the Department of Railways?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, the Department of Railways furnishes the cars.


Joseph Read: When the Minister of Railways brings down his estimates I hope that he will have made provision for a very much larger number of refrigerator cars than appears to be now contemplated. A great number of these cars will be needed in the immediate future for the service between Prince Edward Island and Ontario and Quebec, for the carrying not only of fish, but of potatoes as well.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not mean to say that the 150 or 250 cars that we are ordering are entirely for the carrying of fish.
Officials of the Canadian Northern and Government railways met and decided that we should order the number of cars that I have mentioned, for the carrying of apples, fish, potatoes and other articles which should be transported in refrigerator cars. When my estimates are brought down I will have full information on this subject.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am glad that in this item the minister is making provisions for assisting the establishment, maintenance and inspection of cold storage for bait. The fish used for bait in Nova Scotia is a small kind of herring which comes in large quantities around the coast in the spring and is to he obtained only during a' short period of time, possibly a month or so. Unless he catches sufficient quantities of that small herring at that particular season, the ordinary fisherman cannot get it at any other time and is not in a position to furnish himself with all the bait that he will require during June, July, August, September, and late in the season. It is all very well to say that the fishermen should themselves provide a place for the storage of bait, tout the experience of the last fifty years is that they will not do it, and fortunes are lost, one might say, because the fish come in large quantities around the coast and the fishermen cannot get them unless he has the bait. For many-years I have urged that some such provision should be made as is effective in the colony of Newfoundland, where the Government obtains and sells bait to the fishermen. I suggest not that the Government give the bait away, but that facilities be provided for the storing of bait at suitable places and that it toe available for sale to the fisher-ment at all times while fishing is on. I hope that provision made toy the minister under this item is a beginning in that regard. We are too niggardly about the spending Off a few thousand dollars, even a million dollars, on the fishermen. We have no conception of the immense wealth that is at our doors, particularly in Nova Scotia, in connection with the fisheries-wealth of which we are getting only the fringe. Thousands of tons of the finest fish come along the shores, and we take only one of every million of them, simply because we are not properly equipped. I can assure the minister and the Government that any money they spend in providing bait facilities to encourage the fishermen in the catching of fish will be money well spent, and the people of Canada will appreciate and praise what they are doing in that direction.


William Duff: I am glad to hear my hon. friend speak of the necessity for cold storage facilities in Nova Scotia. I think I am correct in saying that there are at present mechanical bait freezers at Halifax, Canso, Port Hawkesbury and Lunenburg. These mechanical bait freezers are doing excellent work, much better than the smaller freezers. The small bait freezer has not been a great success, but the large bait freezer has been doing excellent work. I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and of the Government to the absolute necessity, in view of the fact that we are asked to produce more, of providing further bait .facilities. As far as my own county is concerned, at present we have about 125 vessels engaged in deep sea fishing, and these vessels have to send as far as Providence in the United States, for their bait. About three weeks ago about 25 cars of bait were imported from there to Lunenburg, to partly supply the fishermen with the bait they require for their first fishing. I would suggest to the minister that if any place in the province of Nova Scotia deserves to have a bait freezer it is the countv of Lunenburg. If a bait freezer were established there, the fishermen would be so encouraged that they would go into the steam trawling business, and inside of two years there would be a considerable number of steam trawlers fishing out of Lunenburg and other parts of the province. This would mean that the production of fish in Nova Scotia would be increased two-fold. I trust the minister will take this suggestion into consideration, and agree to have at least one bait freezer at Lunenburg, and another at North Sydney, where the vessels call in the fall of the year.	v
To provide for fisheries Exhibit at Canadian Exhibition at Toronto, $5, (MM).


Joseph Read: I understood that all the exhibitions were going to be cut out this year. Is there any real reason for this exhibit at Toronto?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Have you increased the price o<f the dinners?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No.


William Frederic Kay: A few moments ago the minister stated that economy was the watchword of this Government. Now it does not seem to me that an expenditure of even the small amount of $5,000 is necessary for a fisheries exhibit at the Toronto exhibition. I have at the present time a resolution on the Order Paper urging the Government to prohibit all exhibitions this year, and to be consistent with the view which I very strongly hold, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. MeMaster, that this item he struck out.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is not necessary for me to make any lengthy remarks on this motion at this advanced hour of the evening. The Government has very properly been making an appeal to 'the Canadian people for thrift and economy. With the price of bacon .and other meats as high as it is 'in Toronto, is it necessary to encourage the Toronto folk to eat more fish by supplying them with these dinners?


Mr. JACOBS:: More brains.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I 'think it would be only fitting if the .Government set an example of economy and thrift to the people by cutting out this item, and therefore I have much pleasure in iseconding the motion.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I would remind my hon. friend from Brome that this is not simply a Toronto Exhibition, but a national exhibition, to which people come from not only all parts of Ontario, but from all over Canada. When we take into consideration that very nearly 39,000 fish dinners were served by our restaurant on the exhibition grounds last year, and if, as my hon. friend from Cartier suggests, this is going to add to the brain power of the people of Ontario., I think the House, appreciating as it does the value of advertising, ought to feel justified in voting this small item.


Samuel William Jacobs: We have voted the amount so often without results in added brain power that I think it should be cut out.


Mr. McKINLEY:: Or the vote made very much larger.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My hon. friends must appreciate the advertising value of this exhibit, when they remember that the Canadian Exhibition at Toronto is visited by nearly one million people every year. Surely hon. gentlemen do not wish to

retard the fishing industry of Canada by objecting to this small sum.


Mr. ROBB:: I must say that earlier in the evening I told the Government Whip there would be no vote to-night. Perhaps the Government would consent to adjourn and leave this item over.


John Dowsley Reid: If there is any objection to this item we could let it stand and take up some other item; it is only for a small amount anyway.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is not simply a question of S5,000, but it is a question of spending 55,000 for something that is not absolutely necessary, and then spending 53,000 on some other work that is not absolutely necessary. It is here a little and there a little, and it comeis to a considerable sum in the aggregate. We are merely asking the Government to show the sincerity I am sure they possess in their desire that the people of this country should economize.


John Dowsley Reid: The Toronto Exhibition is a very large one, I suppose the largest in Canada. It has been customary to have an exhibit there. The item has been cut down this year to $5,000. People come from one end of the Dominion to the other to attend this exhibition. It is quite evident that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, after taking the matter up with the officials, has come to the conclusion that, rather than do away with the item altogether, it would be better to spend a small amount. However, if there is any objection to it, there is no reason why the item should not stand.


Georges Henri Boivin: I beg to say that the motion of the hon. member for Missisquoi is not in order, because he moved to reject the resolution in its entirety. The only way to do that would be to vote against it. The resolution will stand for further discussion, and members of the Opposition have a perfect right to vote against the resolution when it is again brought before the Committee. Any motion to have it struck out is unnecessary.
Item stands.
Salaries and maintenance of fish breeding establishments, $300,000.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I wish to draw to the attention of the Committee, and of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) that the Government have cut this item down $100,000, which is in keeping with his wishes.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes, but I hope the good impression made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will not be removed in a moment by a statement that he will place another fifty or seventy-five thousand dollars in some supplementary estimate. He raised our hopes very high. He pointed out $101,000 of a decrease 'in item 227, and when we were prepared to congratulate him he said that in the supplementary estimates some further amounts would be brought down.
To provide for the inspection of pickled fish, $15,000.
Mr. MoKENZIE:	Now that explanation
about those inspectors will coune in.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Do you want to
know the names of the inspectors?
Mr. MicKENZIE:	I want to know what
they are doing, their justification for living.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I think the hon.
gentleman is aware that these inspectors are called upon to inspect pickled fish there, and while it is voluntary we have given some consideration to the possibility of making it compulsory later on by introducing legislation, probably next session. In the meantime, I might state that those inspectors inspected last year in all 8,977 barrels of herring and mackerel. Of these 3,083 failed to pass the inspection.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The cost of inspection is almost 53 a barrel.


William Duff: In my county alone there
must have been 20,000 barrels of pickled fish caught and handled, and I do not think the inspector ever .saw 100 barrels of fish. I think in the interests of economy the money spent in my county, at least, could be very well saved, and the inspector's services dispensed with.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not very much
of a fisherman, nor am I very much interested in fish, except that I represent a large number of fishermen. It has been dinned into my ears continuously that we have an inspector residing in the city of Sydney receiving a very considerable salary and he is not doing anything. I should like to know if in the four counties, Inverness, Richmond, Victoria and Gape Breton, there has been any inspection which would justify the existence of an officer of this kind, at a high salary. If he is earning .the salary, I have no objection, but if he is sitting in his house or attending to his other business and receiving public money that he does not earn, I would certainly object.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am advised by the superintendent of fisheries that the salary of the inspector at Sydney is $1,200 a year; and that he has made very many inspections there. I am sorry I cannot tell the hon. gentleman the exact number to-night, but I will be very glad to furnish the information to-morrow.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The furnishing to me of the information does not concern us very much, but I want the minister to inquire if this man is earning his money.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I will be very glad to do that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He does not need the salary, because he is a well-off man, and a big merchant.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I thank the hon. gentleman for bringing the matter to my attention. I shall look into it to-morrow; if this inspector is earning the money he will remain-if not, he will go.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I want to ask a question in regard to fish hatcheries. You have reduced the estimated expenditure $100,000. Is it the intention to close up some of the fish hatcheries, or is this a reduction of salaries?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There is a saving of $30,000 a year in not reopening the fish hatcheries, and there are other matters which go to make up the reduction.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is there a reduction of salaries?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No. The largest item is the $30,000 to be saved by not opening up the lobster hatcheries, and, in addition to that, we are not going to carry on the usual programme adopted by the Government. We are going to curtail, and that is one of the reasons that we have every effort possible to make the handsome reduction shown here of $100,000.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Are you closing the fourteen lobster hatcheries?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Closing them all.


Arthur Bliss Copp: For what reason?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am not an expert fisherman, but I have taken the best technical advice I could from those on the spot, arid also from expert technical people who have devoted a great deal of time and study to the lobster industry, and I have been informed-and I think credibly informed- that the lobster hatcheries do not produce

within 70 per cent of the small fry Which would be produced if they were allowed to go on in the usual way. I think the hon. gentleman is aware that when the female lobster is caught, it is taken to the canneries, and the eggs are brushed off, then an officer calls for these eggs, and they are put into a jar, and hatched in the hatchery. I am told that in this way there is only thirty per cent production.
If the eggs are allowed to remain on the female lobster in the usual way until the time has arrived when the female extrudes her eggs, there is a one hundred per cent production. We have, therefore, decided not to continue the hatcheries and consequently we can save $30,000 a year.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I had occasion to read the very interesting and valuable report made by Prof. Knight on this question, and he advises very strongly against the further maintenance of these lobster hatcheries. Has the department come to the conclusion absolutely to do away with these hatcheries and dispose of the property?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It is the final decision of the department to permanently do away with these hatcheries and we are going to advertise the buildings and lands for sale.


William Frederic Kay: Referring again for a minute to the question of seine fishing in Missisquoi bay, I would ask the minister if he would not consider the advisability and fairness of indemnifying these fishermen for the expense they have gone to in preparing for the season's fishing under the impression that they would get their licenses as usual.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. gentleman's recommendation will be taken into consideration by the Government.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I notice the minister says he is going to abolish the lobster hatcheries. He told us that the better way was to rely upon the natural propagation of the lobster. Our difficulty in the Maritime Provinces has been that the lobster fisherman catches the berried lobster as well as the other, and uses it. Has the minister any well matured scheme by which he can protect the mother lobster?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That question has also received very careful consideration by myself and the technical officers of the department. We are going to send Prof. Knight down there, together with some students who have given a great deal of time and thought to this industry, and we

are going to carry on a campaign amongst those lobster fishermen to endeavour to prevail upon them as far as we possibly can to return to the sea every female lobster they catch. Just how far we will succeed time will tell.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my hon. friend any news about the Stanley? The fishermen on the Magdalen Islands are waiting patiently for a ship. A member of the Quebec Government wired me to-day. The Minister of Agriculture wants to ship grain to the people of the Magdalen islands, and he wants to know if the Stanley is to be sent in a few days.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am sorry to inform my fhon. friend that the Stanley was damaged by ice when she went to the rescue of the Russian steamer. She is being repaired in Halifax now and I hope to receive definite information by to-morrow. I am fully seized of the necessity of sending the steamer Stanley to the Magdalen islands as I understand the fishermen are badly in need of gasolene and coal oil. I hope to be in a position to let my hon. friend know definitely to-morrow.


Joseph Read: I would ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the members of the Government to make inquiries to ascertain where the $160,000 paid in fishing bounty comes from so that we will have that information when the question comes to be discussed in the House. It strikes me that this is the interest which is being paid on the $5,000,000 that was granted under the Fishery Award in 1872 or 1873. I think it would be just as well to look into that so as to be able to present the information to the House when the matter comes up.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I can answer my
ihon. friend by telling him he is perfectly correct in his statement. This bounty is the interest under the Award which was made in 1877.


Joseph Read: When that item comes up I want to point out that there is an unjust and unequal distribution of the money.


William Stevens Fielding: The item will not come up, because the payment is fixed by statute.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand, as a result of my ramblings in the county of Gaspe that a very large number of the fishermen transfer these bounty cheques to the merchants on the coasts, sometimes for a very small consideration, and that they regret after a while that they have negotiated
these cheques. Was there not a regulation passed some years ago whereby these cheques were honoured by the department and paid only to the fishermen and whereby merchants getting hold of these cheques could not use them?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That is quite true.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does that condition still exist?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The money is paid directly to the fishermen and not paid to the merchants?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Quite so. I appreciate very much the way in which the committee has helped me to get my estimates through. There is just that little Toronto item if you want to clear everything off.
To provide for a fisheries exhibit at the Canadian Exhibition at Toronto, $5,000.


Georges Henri Boivin: Carried.
Mr. MaMA'STER: Under pressure brought by the representatives of the Maritime Provinces who evidently wish to stand in well with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid the House adjourned at 11.56 p.m.
Wednesday, April 3, 1918.