[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 139) for the relief of George Addison Brown.-Mr. Thornton.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['']
Mr. A. C. BOYCE (West Algoma).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to briefly call attention to the conditions at Sault Ste. Marie in reference to the administration of the alien labour law. I shall first quote an article from the 'Evening News,' published at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, under date Wednesday, March 15, 1911.



[Stage Direction]
Men say Newcomers are Getting the Pick. Dismissed Official was Old Employee and Popular.
Immigration Officials are asked to make
Overtures with Department to stay Influx.
As a protest against the dismissal of ' Jack' Wilson, foreman of the electrical engineers employed by the Lake Superior corporation, the entire staff of 22 struck yesterday, and have not yet returned to work. Wilson has been in the service of the corporation for a number of_ years and is popular among the
This morning twenty-six electricians employed by the Lake Superior Corporation in rail mili went on strike, alleging that the management had dispensed with the services of electrician, J. Wilson, yesterday without cause. It is not yet known to what extent the strike will affect the operations of the mill. Strikers have not yet shown any disposition to return to work.
This is only the culmination of a long series of grievances which have been in existence at the towns of Sault Ste. Marie and Steelton. These grievances both now and in past years have been due to the fact that the Canadian Alien Labour Law has been laxly administered if there has been any attempt to administer it at all, and by reason of the lax and gravely inefficient administration of that law at the Sault there have been hundreds of importations into the towns of Sault Ste. Marie and Steelton of Americans in violation of that Act to the displacement of the working men of Canada, who are thus deprived of their wages and the bread and butter of themselves and their families. This is not the first time I have had occasion to make complaints about the conditions at Sault- Ste. Marie and Steelton. I know of my personal* knowledge that the Labour Department has on record that there have been continued importations of labour men from the American side in violation of the Alien Labour Law, and that no proceedings whatever have been
[Stage Direction]
taken by the Labour Department to check them. The Alien Labour Law, as I understand it, is both reciprocal and retaliatory; reciprocal in that it will admit imported labour upon the same conditions as the United States will admit imported labour from Canada, and retaliatory in that it prohibits and penalizes the importation of contract labour to the same extent as contract labour going into the United States' from Canada is penalized. Our Alien Labour Law professes to prohibit the importation of the sort of labourers who are coming in by hundreds to the towns of Sault Ste. Marie and Steelton and displacing Canadian workmen. The Minister of Labour knows because it has been on the records of his department and of this House for three years at least, that this is daily occurring, and three years ago a remedy was solemnly promised by the government. At the present moment this grievance is marked; it may be said that a crisis has arisen and the newspaper report which I have sent over to the Minister of Labour points to only a small amount of the dissatisfaction that exists. It is a pity that with an Act -on our statute-books which is apparently workable and for the enforcement of which the government has appointed an officer-I think I am right in that?
Mr. KING.: On that point the hon. gentleman is mistaken.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then, although three years ago it was shown beyond question that there had been steady and constant violations of the law the minister has not yet appointed an officer to enforce it. I gave him and his predecessor in office more credit for vigilance than they deserved. I regret the acknowledgment of the minister that after the promises and the pledges made by his predecessor in the Department of Labour no official has been appointed to administer the provisions of the Alien Labour Act. Let me refer the minister to the report of the proceedings of the House on July 6, 1908, where at page 12156 of ' Hansard ' for that year he will find the following petition:
To the Hon. the Minister of Labour, Ottawa.
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the town of Sault Ste. Marie, in the province of Ontario, most respectfully showeth:
1.	That by reason of close proximity to the
international boundary your petitioners are more than usually alive to the fact there is no rigid enforcement of the provisions of anv law in force in Canada to restrict the importation and employment of aliens, and that in consequence industries here suffer by the employment of foreign labour.	[DOT]
2.	That your petitioners are aware of, and will draw to your attention, the fact that across the border the law is rigidly enforced, and that on that side of the line drastic and prompt measures are taken to immediately deport any Canadian citizen who goes across


Arthur Cyril Boyce: to look for work and that in that respect your petitioners believe that the powers of the United States customs and immigration officers are exceeded.
3.	That in the opinion of your petitioners the present Act is not capable of giving prompt and adequate remedy which will meet the conditions which your petitioners know to exist, and your petitioners believe that more drastic and less cumbrous legislation should be enacted so as to enable prompt action to be taken by way of deportation of any aliens or foreigners seeking to enter Canada to wcrk therein under contracts made out in Canada, and so as to meet the condition of the things and the methods in which the law in the United States is enforced against Canadians.
4.	Your petitioners further would draw to your attention that there is no immigration inspector or other officers located here whose duty it is to see that the provisions of the Act in force are enforced and the consequence is both from the nature of the Act itself and from its non-enforcement, that the Canadian workmen are not adequately protected against foreign labour.
5.	Your petitioners therefore pray:
I commend to the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) who at that period was not in charge of the department, the remarks which I had then the honour to make in support of that petition, and I also commend to him the answers of his predecessor in office, the Hon. -Eodolphe Lemieux, which are reported at page 12159 of the ' Hansard,' 1908. Speaking on July the 7th, 1908 -in answer to my remarks upon the subject-the Hon. Mr. Lemieux said:


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I thank my hon. friend for bringing this matter up this evening. His remarks as they appear in 'Hansard' will serve me to-morrow as a brief for the Minister of Justice. It is true that practically the administration of the labour law is in the hands of the Minister of Labour, but when these cases are taken to the Attorney General of Canada, that is the Minister of Justice, he acts jointly with me. My hon. friend says we should have a law' similar in its effects to the law in the neighbouring republic. I believe in retaliatory measures, we should favour the doctrine of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
These were the words of the present Postmaster General: ' Ay eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.'


Rodolphe Lemieux: That, is Christian.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: That is the Mosaic law as well as the law of the Postmaster General. During the same debate the Postmaster General used this language further:
I have no doubt the remarks of my hon. friend which have been made in a fair spirit will have weight. I shall communicate with the Minister of Justice and see what better provision can be made to render the law more pliable and more effective in protecting our own people against the alien labour.

That was on July 7, 1908, and here we had a direct and definite promise by a minister of the Crown that the remarks made to, and the grievances, and the petition, which were laid before the House in a fair spirit as he says, should form a brief for the Minister of Justice to take prompt action next day to render the law more effective in. protecting our own people against alien labour. I ask the Minister of Labour whether anything has been done to carry out the pledge of his predecessor thus solemnly made. Has there been any attempt to amend the alien labour law so as to make it more pliable, and so as to protect the Canadian working man, his wife and family from the terrible effects of the importation of alien labour to the town of Sault St. Marie or at any other point on the Canadian border.
My hon. friend himself admits that nothing whatever has been done in reply to that earnest petition to appoint an officer to enforce the provisions of the law. Why has that not been done? This is not a mere temporary grievance. It is a permanent grievance. It is one that has existed from day to day and from year to year since that time. There have been, I understand, constant importation's of labour in violation of the Alien Labour Law, which have been brought to the notice of the minister and the minister has done absolutely nothing. I am now asking what he proposes to do. Does he not think that after three years it is high time something should be done to carry out the pledge made by the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux), then speaking as Minister of Labour, to render more efficient the protection of the workingmen of Sault Ste. Marie and Steelton and elsewhere along the border. The hon. Postmaster General then promised that he would have our labour law applied more effectively and made something else besides a law in name only. I have said that the labour laws in the two countries are either reciprocal or retaliatory. The Postmaster General takes the more drastic view. He says they must be considered as retaliatory and believes in the doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Well, I believe in the application of that doctrine laid down by the Postmaster General. I believe he should put an end to the conditions that have existed since July, 1908, as appears by the clipping from a newspaper I have referred to. I say that our Alien Labour Law should be treated as retaliatory and why? Because the Alien Labour Law on the other side of the line is administered in that spirit. We have heard a great deal lately about reciprocity in trade products, but if there ever was an example to show how that reciprocity will work out in favour of the United
States against Canada, it will be found in the condition of things under the Alien Labour Law. We have the same law here as they have in the United States, the same reciprocity, and the same power of retaliation. How does our law work out? No attempt whatever is made to stop the importation of alien labour from the United States; but let a Canadian citizen go across the line in search of work, and he is promply arrested and detained and deported under the Alien Labour Law of that country. I have here a despatch from Hamilton of March 9, a Canadian press despatch:
Alfred Stiles, a well known cutter, who left this city last week to accept a position at Terre Haute, Ind., was stopped by immigration officers at Detroit, and sent back to Canada with a warning that if he set foot in the United States again within a year he would render himself liable to imprisonment.
If that is not retaliatory law I do not know what is. What I want is to have our law administered in the same spirit. But hundreds of Canadians have been displaced in the factories and workshops at Sault Ste. Marie and Steelton by Americans imported in violation of the Act, and no step3 were taken to have the aliens deported. It is now three years since this matter was brought to the attention of this House, and since the Minister of Labour solemnly promised a remedy. I earnestly commend it again to his attention and ask him to get to work and put in force our Alien Labour Law, even if it be necessary to appoint 20 officers in order to protect our Canadian wTorkingmen and their wives and families.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am obliged to my hon. friend for having brought up this matter if only because he has given occasion to make a little clearer what is the nature of the laws of this country respecting the entry into Canada of aliens. Frequently the Department of Labour is charged with being indifferent in the administration of our laws regarding the admission of aliens. This attack is made regardless altogether of the fact that the Department of Immigration and other departments of the government have also a great deal to do with this matter. In fact the greater part of the work of restricting the entry of aliens falls within the scope of the Department of the Interior, and the immigration officials. It is only that part of immigration which has to do with contract labour that comes within the purview of the Alien Labour Act. My hon. friend has said that at Sault Ste. Marie he does not think there is any inspector for the purpose of enforcing this law, and left the impression that the Department of Labour was indifferent in this matter. I may inform him that within the

last few weeks officers of the Immigration Department have been very active at Sault Ste. Marie in refusing admittance to a large number from the United States. My hon. colleague the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) will be able to inform my hon. friend more particularly on that point; but I do happen to know that within recent days he has received complaints from the management of the company at Sault Ste. Marie about the rigid manner in which our laws are being enforced and admission refused to a large number who came from across the line. My hon. friend read an article from the ' Evening News,' of March 15, respecting the dismissal of one of the employees of the Sault Company. I shall just quote the words of that article, because on it my hon. friend has largely based the complaint he has made.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: That is only a public illustration of what is taking place, and it does not necessarily apply to all the con;-' ditions that exist there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At any rate my hon. friend introduced his remarks by quoting this article, and it is as he says a public illustration. It is as follows:
As a protest against the dismissal of Jack Wilson, foreman of the electrical engineers employed by the Lake Superior Corporation, the entire staff of twenty-two struck and have not yet returned to work. Wilson has been in the service of the corporation for a number of years and is popular among the workers who regard him as an extremely capable official. In his stead Shumaker has been placed, and the ire of the men was raised in consequence.
I contend there is nothing in that article on which my hon. friend can found a, charge as to the laxity of administration of the Alien Labour Act. All it states is that an employee of many years service, who was popular with the men, was dismissed and somebody else put m his place, and the employees to show their resentment at his dismissal, had gone out on strike.
As respects the administration of the Alien Labour Act, my hon. friend will realize that there are two methods which might be employed. One would require the federal government to take action every time that Act was violated; the other would leave it in the hands of the parties themselves to take' immediate action. As the law stood originally, before any action could be taken, the assent of the Attorney General had to be obtained. A number of complaints were made that inasmuch as the Attorney General of the Dominion had to be consulted before the law could be put into motion, the delays were such as to render it practically ineffective.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Has the minister not received reports and complaints from Sault Ste. Marie and Steelton that the provisions of the Act had been violated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall answer that in a< moment. Complaints were made that ini as much as parties were obliged to send their complaints to Ottawa there was too much delay, and the labour organizations, particularly of British Columbia, which were specially interested, asked that the law should be so amended as to render it unnecessary for the workingmen to come to Ottawa for redress. That seemed very reasonable, and in 1901 the law was am 'tided in such a way that those who complained of its violation could make their complaint either before the Attorney General of the province, or a judge of the comity court, and, on getting the consent of either, could take immediate action. I would like to read the section of the law in that particular. In the first place, the clause which sets out the offence in the broadest terms, as follows:
It shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership or corporation, in any manner to prepay the transportation or in any way to assist, encourage or solicit the importation or immigration of any aliens or foreigners into Canada, under contract or agreement, parole or special, express or implied, made previous to the importation or immigration of such alien or foreigner, to perform labour or service of any kind in Canada.
The penalty fixed for the violation of the section is a fine not exceeding $1,000, and not less than $50, which amount may be ' sued for and recovered as a debt,' or

Such sum may also, with the written consent	of a judge of a superior
county court, be recovered upon summary conviction before any judge of a county court, being a justice of the peace or any judge of the sessions of the peace, recorder, police magistrate or stipendiary magistrate, or any functionary, tribunal or person invested by the proper legislative authority with power to do alone such acts as are usually required to be done by two or more justices of the peace, and, when recovered, shall be paid to the Minister of Finance.
In other words, the provisions of the law have been made such that any party, anywhere in the Dominion who feels that this the broad clause which I have read is being violated can immediately take action of his own initiative to secure the enforcement of the provision. And not only is that the law, but there is a further provision which says that in the event of it being shown that the law has been violated and a fine imposed, the party who has been instrumental in bringing about the prosecution may be awarded a part of the fine imposed. I have here a communication received only a few days ago from Judge
55:>3

Fitch, Of the District of Rainy River, not far from where my hon. friend (Mr. Boyce) resides:


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Quite a long way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of course, the distances are considerable in this country. Judge Fitch says:
I to-day found the Johnson-Carey Company, railroad contractors, guilty of a breach of the Alien Labour Law and fined them $500. From the evidence, this company has not been paying any attention to this Act, but I do not imagine we will have much more trouble in the future. I would be obliged if you would advise me as to the disposition of the fine. Will it be paid to the clerk of the peace or to the Dominion government? I would recommend that the informant, Ed. Oleson, who laid the information and hired a solicitor, should receive $200.
As Minister of Labour, having authority under the Act so to do, I have advised the Minister of Finance that, under the circumstances, half of this penalty-a greater amount than that named by the judge himself-should be paid to the informer. And, I think, as the judge has stated, that this company, having learned what the law is and having seen that it is possible for any person to put it in force in a summary manner, will be careful to observe the law in the future. This is only one of a number of cases. I have here quite a number of similar communications received during past years from magistrates and others informing the department of convictions under the Act. The department has, in every case, recommended payment to the informant part of the penalty imposed as a result of the conviction which he has been instrumental in obtaining. I think that my hon. friend (Mr. Boyce), if he reflects.'will feel that, on the whole, this is a more effective way of securing compliance with the provisions of the Act than for this government to have one or trvo officers whose business it is to watch possible violations of the law along a border of between three and four thousand miles between the Atlantic and the Pacific.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a difference of opinion-


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. gentleman's (Mr. King's) predecessor in office admitted that it was not so. I quoted the speech the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) made on July 7, 1908.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Arthur Cyril Boyce: Can. the hon. minister (Mr King) tell me from whom the communication was received to-day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: From Mr. Denman, correspondent at Sault Ste Marie of the Labour Gazette 

'riling on behalf of others. A reply is being sent to Mr. Denman explaining the procedure and asking him to inform the parties that any one who lays information against a violator of the Act and obtains a conviction will be entitled to one-half the penalty which may be imposed. I think that if my hon. friend (Mr. Boyce) will take into account the fact that it is only that part which has to do with contract labour that is administered by my department, while the general law respecting immigration comes under the Department of Immigration and has regard also to the effective means being taken by the Department of Immigration to administer its part of the law, he will find that there is really no ground of complaint.


RECIPROCITY-OPINION FROM SASKATCHEWAN.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN (Regina).: I desire to bring to the attention of the House a telegram I have received concerning action taken at the convention of the rural municipalities of Saskatchewan, which has been m session in Moosejaw for the last few days. This association consists of representatives of the various municipalities from one end of Saskatchewan to the other, and is an exceedingly representative body. The telegram is as follows:

Moosejaw, Sask., March 16, 1911. W. M. Martin, House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Reciprocity agreement endorsed unanimously to-day by two hundred delegates at convention of Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities held at Moosejaw.


JAMES SMITH.
[Stage Direction]
As yet I have to find one solitary man in the province of Saskatchewan who is opposed to the proposed reciprocity agreement.

Mr. S. BARKER (East Hamilton).: I desire to call the attention of the government to a matter of importance-I think it may be said, of urgent importance. I have a memorandum here from a gentleman of very high reputation in the country, well known to every member of the government, and, I think, to almost every member of the House. It is as follows:
It is considered by gentlemen whose opinion is entitled to respect that dangerous conditions exist in the quarantine station at Grosse Isle. In view of the possible outbreak of a fresh cholera epidemic in Europe, they say there is cause for alarm in view of the fact that last autumn a cholera case was allowed to pass the quarantine station and reach Quebec. The facilities at Grosse Isle do not permit proper inspection to be made there. If a ship arrived with a case of contagious disease on board the victims have to be taken ashore in a small tug and all sorts of dangers are likely to result. Considering the enormous expenditure for useless wharfs, why is not the wharf at Grosse Isle extended so as to allow ocean steamships to approach and discharge their passengers?
However that may be, certainly, I think this should not be allowed to pass without serious attention from the government. I recollect that last year there was some rumour about a cholera patient arriving and being allowed to go as far as Quebec or some such point. If that occurred in one case, it might possibly occur again. I hope the government will take pains to consider what is stated here and provide a barrier against the danger referred to.


HEALTH CONDITIONS IN OTTAWA.
Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: In view of the alarming reports presented by Dr. Hodgetts with regard to the unsanitary condition of the city of Ottawa, I would like to know something more as to the authority under which he was acting-it seems he is acting under the Conservation Commission-according to what principles he is. acting, and when he was induced to take action. I have referred to this question once before, many -weeks Mr. MARTIN (Regina).
ago, from information that I had received, when I spoke pretty strong on the subject. I have watched the action of those who ought to be interested, and who I think are largely responsible, and it has seemed to me as a medical man that very little was being done which ought to be done to improve the unsanitary condition of the city of Ottawa, and to protect the health and lives of the members who, for the time being, reside here, and of the citizens as well. I said at that time, sipeaking as a medical man, that I had reason to believe that the medical health officer was absolutely useless, and that there was imminent danger to the health and the lives of the people of this city in consequence. I said that because of the number of people who live temporarily in Ottawa during the session of parliament, I thought it was imperative on the government to take some action, to insist upon the city doing its duty, and that some constituted authority ought to be empowered to take the work in hand, and do that which the city authorities were failing to do. I based my argument for this upon the ground that the Dominion government are spending large sums of money in the city of Otawa to ornament it, and to help improve the city generally, and from certain supplies furnished to the country, one of which was a supply of water for these buildings and for needs in event of fire. I was told then that it was not the duty of the government to act, that they had nothing to do with the matter, and iperhaps in one way they had not. But at any irate, week after week has passed, during which hundreds of cases of typhoid fever have developed, accompanied with many deaths, and we have gone so far as to make an analysis of the water two or three times, which analysis has disclosed the fact that the city water is unhealthy, which must be known by every person without an analysis. The very fact that so many cases of disease have started up, and could be traced to no other source, was strong presumptive evidence that the water was the source of the trouble. In the ' Citizen of this morning I find a report by Dr. Hodgetts, in which he says:
Acting on the reports made by the officers now engaged in the work of the collection of information for the Commission of Conservation, I have personally visited some of the premises reported to be in an unsanitary state. I find conditions existing in some of the>
homes where privy pits are in use to be of such a disgraceful character as to warrant my drawing your immediate attention to thei same. They are a menace to the persons living in the immediate vicinity and, if allowed to continue, the untreated excreta of typhoid patients which have been deposited in these sometimes overlooked privies and, in some

instances, even thrown upon the ground, cannot fail to be a source of infection and will, with the approach of milder weather, prove a ready means of spreading the disease.
Where such a relic of medievalism (privy pit) is in use and becomes the receptacle of the excreta of a typhoid fever patient, it is imperative there should be thorough and careful disinfection of the contents; and for this purpose the health department should exercise the greatest vigilance by systematically performing the necessary services, for if left to the individual householder, it is found the work is never properly performed.
The conditions to which your attention is directed are such as to call for immediate action by yourself and the local Board of Health.	,
He goes on to give a list of houses.
Accompanying this communication is a list of houses in which typhoid fever has been reported and where the officers of the commission find privy pits in use. Similar lists will be sent you from time to time. A copy of this letter is being forwarded to His Worship, Mayor Hopewell.
The list of houses mentioned contains fifteen names on Stirling, Lauretta, St. Patrick, St. Andrew, Church, Water, Victoria, LeBreton, Murton and Wellington streets. The second letter, dated March 13, was as follows:-
Having examined a portion of that section of the city situated along Cave creek in order to ascertain the sanitary conditions, I am of the opinion it is necessary that immediate attention should be given the same.
Instances are many where outside closets are discharging directly into the creek, and m one case the back portion of the house is built over the creek, and all the excremental matter is deposited in the creek down an outside closet. Prom this house the creek flows under other houses in process of construction.
Again, the creek has overflowed into back yards carrying sewage -with it, ancj in the floor of a shed of one house I found several inches of frozen sewage with masses of human excreta embedded therein. A more disgusting sight I have never seen in any city; and with the advent of spring the condition will not improve.
As it is now, Cave creek is simply a sewer of the crudest and most dangerous type, and drastic measures should be adapted forthwith whereby its pollution will be prevented.
I find that water is being taken from Lazy bay at a point not far distant from the month of Cave creek and sold to residents in the vicinity. If the sale extends to residents within the city limits, the practice should lie prohibited.
It is possible you are already aware of the condition 'indicated above through your sanitary inspectors.
He goes on to sneak of the conditions in other respects. Now when we know that that condition has continued for weeks in the city of Ottawa, which has nominally a hoard of health and a medical inspector at the head of it, and when attention has heen pointedly drawn to the condition
through the press of Ottawa day after day, and week after week, and that up to the last few days nothing has been done, the situation seems to me beyond comprehension. I think the government has been very remiss, their attention having been drawn to it over and over again, and they have practically said, what can we do?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: This government or the government of Ontario?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The government of the Dominion right where we are located at the present time, and which is paying to the city a large amount of money to help defray the expenses of the city, to adorn it, and to make it more healthy and attractive than it is and for the water supplied. This is the place where we have our Inland Revenue Department, where we have our analytical chemists, where we have our experimental farm, where we have professional men who are specially qualified to look into thepe things, and to make a report to the government. This is the city where the Dominion government has so much at stake, with two or three thousand civil servants employed doing the work of the country, and all dependent upon the government for their subsistence, and the government, which has entirely neglected these things, is in my judgment not doing their full duty, and we are right in drawing attention to it. I want to ask under what authority, or by what means, or under whose instructions, Dr. Hodgetts is acting? I am told that it is under the authority of the Conservation Commission. I did not know whether the Conservation Commission had authority delegated to them to institute such an inquiry or appoint a medical inspector to inspect the city. If it is done under the Conservation Commission, the Conservation Commission is under the government and the Conservation Commission has been in existence ever since the commencement of the session of parliament. Why could not the government have acted earlier. Why could they not have taken the action^ that they have done within the last few days, six o>r ten weeks ago? It was quite apparent then, as it is to-day, that something was wrong, that there was practically no board of health of any Value or medical health officer worthy of the name.


William Pugsley: Whose fault is that? Are they not appointed by the Ontario government?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is the fault of the city council. They have the power and duty to appoint this local board of health, and to see that the local board is doing its duty. But, with the fact made evident to us that

the board is not doing its duty, is it not strange that the government has taken no action until within the last few days. I 'would like to know under what authority they are acting now, how they propose to carry on the inquiry that is taking place, and what they propose to do regarding it.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) has asked a question with regard to the authority of Dr. Hod-getts, and by whom he has been appointed. Dr. Hodgetts is in the employ of the Conservation Commission. One of the objects that the Conservation Commission has to deal with is the health of the people, but I understand that under the law his work will be confined to making investigations into the public health and giving advice. I presume that is what he is doing in this case. I do not understand that he would have any authority to carry his recommendations into effect. I understand that that is a matter entirely for the local board of health. My hon. friend sought to find fault with the government because we had not taken action earlier. He has read a long report as to the condition of different houses and privies in various places in the city of Ottawa. This government has no power over that. It is a matter entirely for the local authorities.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Had the government not power to appoint Dr. Hodgetts two months ago?


William Pugsley: Dr. Hodgetts is simply going to investigate, that is all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is a valuable part of it.


William Pugsley: He cannot give orders; he cannot have his recommendations carried out. He has no authority over the matter; all he can do is to investigate and advise, and that, I take it, is what he is doing. I do not know how it is in the province of Ontario, because I have not read the Health Act, but in the province of New Brunswick, whose Health Act is largely the same as the Ontario Act, the appointment of the boards of health rests to a very considerable extent with the provincial government. They appoint the provincial board of health and the provincial board has the control over the local boards of health. I think that my hon. friend, instead of finding fault with this government, if he wanted to find fault with anybody, would perhaps have done better if he had sent a communication to the government of Ontario, urging that they should see that their authorities on the provincial board of health took active measures to see that the necessary steps were taken in the city of Ottawa. My hon. friend says that the local board of health is useless. Well, we have no control over the local board of health, Mr. SPROULE.
no power to interfere with it in any way. It is very true that the government is a large consumer of water, just the same as the citizens of Ottawa are large consumers of water. There is nothing I see that we could do immediately which would ensure ta better water supply than we have. To get *another source of water supply for the city of Ottawa would cost a great deal of money. That is for the local authorities to attend to. I would suppose that they would feel that it would be right to tax the people for the purpose of going to any reasonable expense in order to get a pure and good supply of water, but that is not something that the government can do. We have endeavoured to protect the health of the members of this House, the members of the Senate, and the employees of both Houses lof parliament by sterilizing the water. We have gone to considerable expense, and I believe that the report which I read to the House yesterday shows that the water which is being supplied and which is being sterilized as absolutely free of sewage bacteria. It is reported by the pathologist to be entirely safe for drinking purposes, while he also reports that the water which comes (from the taps unsterilized <as not safe for drinking.	.
I have thought that it wohld be well for us to consider what we could do in the near future to have a better supply for drinking purposes in connection with the buildings and the departmental buildings as well in case no effective steps are taken within a reasonable time to get a pure w'ater supply for the city of Ottawa. I have thought that we might bore down for an artesian tvell upon these grounds. I believe that in the vicinity of Ottawa they have some very fine springs of pure water, and that they have got a good supply by boring. I am now having inquiries made by the officials of my department, who are in communic>a-[DOT]tion with the officials of- the geological branch of the Mines Department, with the View of having all the information possible to guide us in regard to the matter, in order to see if we would be justified in boring a thousand or two thousand feet in the hope of getting a pure supply of good water which would be absolutely safe for drinking purposes. That matter is now under consideration. We are not blind to the fact that we ought to do what we can to give the members and employees of the House and the employees of the government a pure supply of drinking -water, but I do submit to my hon. friend that there is nothing more that we can do. We have taken the necessary steps to purify the water for drinking purposes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that is quite proper and I have made no 'adverse criticism of that.


William Pugsley: By the analyses that we have had made we have brought the matter

to the public attention, and impressed upon the municipal authorities the fact that the ordinary tap water is uns'afe for drinking purposes. I really do not see how we could have done anything more than we have done.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN.
Mr. ARMSTRONG.: The hon. member for St. Antoine division, Montreal (Mr. Ames), has asked me to inquire of the Minister of Public Works when he may expect a return which was ordered on the 13th of December last, in reference to public buildings. He is anxious to have it before certain estimates are placed before the House.


THE TARIFF.
Mr. CAMPBELL.: Mr. Speaker, there is a matter that I wish to bring to your consideration and to the consideration of this House. I do it because I see that the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) is in his seat. It is a matter that has been brought up already in this House by my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Len-no-x). It is with regard to an article that appeared in the ' Globe ' of date Saturday, March 4, of this year. At a meeting at Woodstock, in Ontario, the hon. member for North Oxford, in addressing the people, there spoke as follows. The speech is so good'l shall read it all:
With regard to reciprocity, he noted that very little had been heard about the consumer Js interest. He did not believe the reciprocity agreement being negotiated would affect the price to the consumer adversely. That might seem strange, as it was supposed the farmer would get a better price.
He was addressing, I understand, an aggregation of men who were more or less engaged in manufacturing. He went on to say:
He could not see that manufacturers would bo touched very much, as few articles manufactured in Canada were affected. He was sure the Bain and Woodstock wagon companies would compete in the world's markets even with 2) per cent reduction in the tariff. H^ thought the manufacturers opposed reciprocity because of what might follow, the 'thin end of the wedge,' but he had been assured

This is what I want to bring to your notice:
-he had been assured by Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier and Mr. Fielding that nothing of the sort would follow. They had gone as far in the farmers' interests as they would.
As a farmer and a representative of farmers, I want to emphasize that point that one oi the most aggressive members on the Liberal side of this House, one of the strongest supporters of the First Minister
and liis' government, in a public meeting gives his word as a member of this House to the people of Woodstock, a manufacturing centre, that he has the word absolutely of the First Minister and the Minister of Finance that the farmers' interests would not be conserved any further than was done by this agreement. He goes on to say:
It would be foolish for us to think of tinkering with the tariff or putting it on an unstable basis.
He was talking to manufacturers.
Therefore, the present government, in his view, would not tinker any more with it unless to make some minor adjustments.
This matter was brought up by the hon. member for South Simooe (Mr. Lennox), and the First Minister in reply said:
With regard to the other question, I think my hon. friend had better wait until the hon. member for North Oxford is in his seat.
This is the first opportunity I have had of bringing the matter before the House when the hon. member was in his seat. I hope that he will reply to me either that he is misreported in this Liberal newspaper or that he will repudiate this statement. From a farmer's standpoint, I hope he will not say the statement is correct.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I can relieve my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) from answering the question of my hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Campbell). I can answer him now. There is no doubt whatever as to the attitude of the government. It has been defined on this floor more than once, the last time it was defined was only two or three days ago, when the Minister of Finance, in answer to a question put to him with regard to the speech of President Taft and that answer will give all the information which my hon. friend wants. The Finance Minister was questioned as to the speech delivered by President Taft, at Atlanta, especially to the following extract:
When we entered upon these negotiations, I asked the Secretary of State and his commissioners to offer free trade in everything, but this Canada could not grant us, because she has a protective system and she was afraid of the competition of our better-organized industries.
To this the Minister of Finance replied;
That statement may be entirely correct, and I have no doubt is, as to the instructions that the President gave to his officials. But as to what actually occurred in the conference, the matter did not advance to a position which would enable these gentlemen to make such a formal offer in that way. At the very earliest stage in the negotiations we certainly gave them to understand that we could not undertake to have any free trade in manu factnres, speaking generally.

This is the position of the government. We have undertaken to have reciprocity in natural products, not in manufactured products. At the present time our policy is before the House to have reciprocity in natural products, and I shall be very glad if we have the assistance of our friends that far in favour of the farmers. I doubt very much if we will, but we will see what we will do afterwards.


Mr. FOSTER.: I am afraid the Prime Minister missed the meaning of my hon. friend's question. A supporter of my right hon. friend goes to a rural constituency and says he has the authority of the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance to make that definite statement. What my hon. friend wants to know is whether the member was authorized by the Prime Minister or Finance Minister to make that statement. I have noticed a tendency this last few years on the part of members on the government side to make announcements in various portions of the country of what will be done, and what will not be done. That is permissible, to a certain extent on the part of members of the government, but it has obvious disadvantages when the government authorizes lay members to make governmental utterances. If the statement of the hon. member for North Oxford is correct this was apparently done in this instance.


Wilfrid Laurier: The statement made by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) was quite consistent with our policy, it was nothing new, and he had perfect authority, not only he but every member of the Liberal side, to make that statement.


George Eulas Foster: Did the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance authorize the member in question to make that statement?
, Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I have answered that already. It is perfectly true. The hon. member for North Oxford and every Liberal member had such authority, he was not kept in ignorance of our policy in this matter and knew it well. He only stated what is our general policy.


Mr. HUGHES.: In view of what has transpired, is he not going to withdraw the Bill?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend will have to explain his logic, I do not understand it. The farmers want reciprocity. To that extent, they are immediately justified. Does he object?


Mr. W. D. STAPLES (Macdonald).: 1 do not believe the farmers of the west are being justly used by the government in this matter. The hon. member for Regina Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
(Mr. Martin) was very prompt to rise this afternoon and to read a telegram and state that he had not received intimation from a single person in the west that they were opposed to the reciprocity agreement. I venture to say that if the farmers of the west are informed that by the passing of this reciprocal agreement, there will, as the member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) states, there will be no hope for many years to come that there will be a reduction in the tariff on the articles they use, then you would soon find the farmers of the west adopting a different attitude, and sending a different kind of telegram. The farmers of the west are being misled, and only one side of the story is going out to them through a paper called the 'Grain Growers' Guide,' edited by a man who is here at the present time lobbying with the Liberals in this House. It is easy for him to make a strong appeal through that journal to the Conservative members of parliament to vote for the government on this particular question, but I wonder if the ' Guide ' will tell the people the actual fact: that this government does not intend to reduce the duty on agricultural implements. If the farmers knew that we would be getting a different kind of resolution from the various associations, and this resolution, I venture to say, has been prepared by Mr. McKenzie, the editor of that ' Guide ' and Mr. Hunders, his associate in the west, who is the president of the Grain Growers' Association. They have been decimating this resolution at all these meetings, and every day I get in my mail a copy of the resolution.


Some hon. MEMBERS: .. Hear, hear.


William D. Staples: Yes, I admit it, but just wait a minute. It is the same resolution all through word for word, syllable for syllable, and it is sent out by that association to the farmers. I tell you, Sir, that if the farmers knew that this government was not going to make any reduction in the duty on agricultural implements there would be a different kind of letter and a different form of resolution coming to the members of this House. We have at last succeeded in getting from the Prime Minister an admission that he is not going to change the tariff, but after all his remarks to-day are not very different from those he addressed to the deputation from the Manufacturers' Association some time ago. The farmers of the west will find, I believe, that they are not going to get out of this agreement what they had expected.


Mr. NESBITT.: A word of explanation-I was very correctly reported considering that I was just speaking offhand without any notes. I did say that I had discussed the matter with the minister, and that I could assure them-pretty nearly as stated

in the paper-that there would be no further reduction.


Glenlyon Campbell: That you had the assurance?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not want the hon. gentleman to put words in my mouth. 1 did not know until this afternoon that my speeches were of such great importance. But at all events I said I could assure them there would be no further reduction in the tariff at present, and so far as the other part of it is concerned, I was speaking simply about the tariff and not about any other matter in reference to the farmers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Dauphin in his remarks has certainly conveyed to my mind an entirely different impression as to the purport of the remarks of my hon. friend from that which the remarks of the hon. member for Oxford did at the time thev were made. I heard the hon. gentleman (Mr. Nesbitt) make his speech, and I heard everything he said, and I think I can speak as to hig words. Did I understand the member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell), when he used the expression: ' The farmers' interests would not be conserved any further,' to quote these words from a paper, or are they his own words?


Glenlyon Campbell: These are my own words.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought that must be so.


Glenlyon Campbell: Let me put the minister right. I said it seemed that if what this gentlemen said was correct, that the farmers' interests were not going to be conserved any further with regard to the tariff.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then it is simply-


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. member has already spoken.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Dauphin just interrupted me in the course of my remarks.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Did not the hon. gentleman speak in reply to the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Boyce)?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did with regard to alien labour.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Yes, and it is on the same motion to go into Supply.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).: I, like my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples), have had some communications from the farmers of the west, and from all I can learn the farmers of the west have laid well to heart that the best method of accomplishing human progress whether in politics or anything else is by a step at a time, and they have also a great belief in the proverb that half a loaf is better than no bread.


Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: I would ask the Prime Minister if his remarks also apply to the British preference.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I wish the House to understand that on the motion to go into Supply, if questions are put to ministers it opens up the point whether a minister can speak more than once on the same motion. If these questions may be put the minister must be allowed to answer, and consequently you would have a minister speaking several times on the same motion.


George Eulas Foster: We can stand it.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Then the House must he willing that the rule should be broken.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


RECIPROCITY-RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY ASSOCIATIONS.
Mr. M. Y. McLEAN (Huron).: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker I desire to place on record two communications which have been sent to me for that purpose. The first one reads:
Egmondville, Feb. 21, 1911. Mr. M. Y. McLean,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-At the last meeting of the executive of the Seaforth Branch of the National Council of Agriculture the following resolution was passed unanimously:-
We, the executive of the Seaforth Branch of the National Council of Agriculture, desire to place on record our approval of the tariff agreement entered into between the government of Canada and the United States, believing that it will be a great benefit to the Canadian people. We, therefore, urge upon you as our representative to do all in your power to bring about its enactment.
Yours truly,
The Seaforth Branch,
National Council of Agriculture. JAMES COWAN,
President.


THOS. G. SHILLINGLAW,
[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
I may say that this association has a very large membership, and is composed of both Liberals and Conservatives, and ali of them, I think, are farmers. This communication I have also received:
Brucefield, March 9.
A non-partisan meeting of the farmers of this vicinity wras held to discuss the recipro-agreement, and although the chairman invited United States.
To a large and enthusiastic audience several of the local farmers spoke in favour cf the agreement, and although the chairman invited any who might be opposed to it to express their views, no one responded.
The following resolution was then moved by Mr. Byron Waldron, and seconded by Mr. Jno. A. McEwen, and carried unanimously:-
That we, the farmers of this vicinity, hereby wish to place on record our hearty approval of the reciprocal arrangement between the government of this country and that of the United States, believing that if adopted﻿5547
[Stage Direction]
it will be of very great benefit to the people of Canada.
ALEX. MUSTARD, Chairman.
Mr. DANIEL (St. John).: As the reading of resolutions appears to be in order, I wish to direct the attention of the House to the following:
St. Stephen, March 13.-The parish of Duf-ferin, in which is located one of the best of the prospective winter ports of Canada, has an energetic Board of Trade, which held a largely attended meeting Saturday evening, and passed unanimously the following resolution :-
Resolved, that the Board of Trade of the parish of Duffer in, particularly desires to endorse the position of those, both Liberal and Conservative, who, believing the country's welfare to be greater than party, are opposing the proposed reciprocity treaty with the United States.
First, because we believe the proposed agreement is hostile to the best interests of the agricultural and labour interests of Canada, as well as against the commercial and manufacturing centres, on which the farmers depend so largely for their best markets, and! labour depends so largely for its employment.
Second, because it lets free into the Canadian market, in ruinous competition with the Canadian farmer, the surplus farm products, not only of the United States, but also the Argentine Republic, Denmark, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan and other countries, in which owing to the low wages, the cost of production is far less than in Canada, and because ^the agreement does not provide for free entry of our farm products into those countries.
Third, because it would reverse the fiscal policy bv which Canada has been establishing at home a more profitable him he*-, thus realizing one of the great purpjses of the fathers of confederation, and because it v ill nullify the work of years in dovcbpL'g trade with the mother land and thus retard the grandest ideal of all patriotic Canadians, imperial unity and the growth of imperial power within the empire.


Mr. BLACK.: Where is that from?


George Eulas Foster: It is not from Hants.


Judson Burpee Black: Never mind, I am asking the question.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This parish is in the county of Charlotte, N.B.


Mr. TALBOT.: It is a printed document?


John Waterhouse Daniel: A county represented by my hon. friend opposite, and it is, I presume, inhabited principally by fishermen and farmers.


Mr. CARVELL.: And controlled mainly by Mr. Ganong, the late Conservative member.


John Waterhouse Daniel: If the people there support the Conservative party, that shows Mr. McLEAN (Huron).
their very good sense. I offer this as a sort of antidote.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Mr. CROSBY.: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire to read a resolution which will no doubt be of some interest to this House. I take it from the Montreal ' Star ' of March 16th:
Kentville, N.S., March 15.

After a long discussion the Board of Trade at an early hour this morning passed a resolution protesting against the proposed reciprocity agreement on the ground that it would cause disturbance in Canadian trade, hamper Canada's freedom.in developing her own resources, and diminish Canada's position as a unit within the British Empire.
That is from a town in King's County represented by the hon. the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden), and a county which has very seldom sent a Conservative to this House or even the local parliament. Only a few weeks ago, whether owing to the operations of the Minister of Militia or not-he knows best himself- they succeeded in electing a representative to the local legislature who was a Liberal. I have therefore something to warrant my saying that this resolution at least must have been passed by Liberals. Therefore, while there may not have been any very strong disposition on the part of the government to withdraw the reciprocity agreement, I am sure there will be no difficulty about their doing it now. If there be any part of the Dominion which could be benefited by this agreement, it would be that particular section. In fact it has been said by a great many that the fruit interests there and throughout the eastern part of Canada at least would be benefited. That resolution comes on from a centre which has always been accustomed to elect Liberals both for the Dominion parliament and the local legislature.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Can my
hon. friend give me any names?


Adam Brown Crosby: I have only what I find hi the newspaper.


Frederick William Borden: Yery meagre. With regaird to that, I would like to say that a meeting of the Kings County Board of Trade in Kentville-not the Kentville Board of Trade-was held the other day at Kentville at which /people from every portion of the county were present and a great many speeches were made. I am sorry I have not the newspaper here, but a resolution in support of the reciprocity proposals was moved and a vote taken of 87 in its favour and 2 against. I think that more correctly represents -the feeling in Kings county than the result of the

meeting to which my hon. friend has referred and of which I have had no report whatever. The hon. gentleman has mentioned the fact that, very recently, in Kings county a by-election was held for the provincial legislature. And I may say, in parenthesis, I believe my hon. friend was quite anxious because I happened to be absent from the House during that time, taking part in that election- doing my duty, as the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) pointed out, as one of the citizens of Kings county. It is quite true, the country of Kings was carried by the Liberals by acclamation on that occasion, and one of the reasons why it was carried by acclamation was that, a few days before nomination day, the full text of the reciprocity proposals now before this House were published from one end of that county to the other. I had the pleasure of speaking throughout the county at some ten or twelve meetings, and took occasion to read to the people the text of the proposal, and to point out-and they did not require very much argument-the advantages which would accrue to them from this reciprocity arrangement. I had not intended to refer to this matter on this occasion, but, as my hon. friend mentioned it, I thought that, perhaps, it would be better to go a little further. A little later on, I shall hope to have the full report of the meeting which he has quoted as having taken place at Kentville. I have here, in the Halifax ' Chronicle,' a full report-two or three columns-of the meeting of the Kings County Board of Trade to which I have referred. But I may have occasion later on to refer to this matter again, and I will not detain the House now by speaking of it further.


Mr. MARTIN BURRELL (Yale-Cariboo).: As the reading of resolutions seems to be in order, and as the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), is in his place, I would like to read one more, especially as it concerns a part of the country to which he made strong reference on the 23rd of February last. He will remember reading an editorial from the Summerland ' Review ' setting forth, the minister presumably intended to show, a reliable expression of the opinion of that district, an opinion favourable to the reciprocity agreement. Now, I ask leave to read a resolution which will show how the case is regarded in the particular part of (the' country of which he spoke:
Summerland, B.C., February 21, 1911. Martin Burrell, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-I have the honour to submit for your consideration the following resolution ivhich was unanimously adopted at a joint 175
meeting of the Summerland Farmers' Institute, Fruit Growers' Association and Agriculture Association, held here recently:
Resolved, that the above named associations strongly endorse the resolution passed by the Associated Boards of Trade regarding the tariff on fruit, a copy of which herewith follows, and that a copy of said resolution be sent to Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Hon. Senator Bostock, Hon. Clifford Sifton and Mr. Martin Burrell, M.P.
I do not think it is necessary for me to read the resolution referred to, because I have already put it on ' Hansard ' twice. It is a strong resolution deploring the effects of the reciprocal proposals as regards the fruit industry. I wish to specially call the attention of the Minister of Customs to this as showing the absolutely false position he took before this House, in presumably, giving the impression that the editorial which he read expressed anything but the sense of the editorial writer himself.


Mr. B. B. LAW (Yarmouth).: I desire to call attention to a resolution of the Yarmouth Board of Trade.:
Whereas, the reciprocal trade arrangement recently drafted by representatives of the United States and representatives of Canada is now before the parliament of Canada for ratification;
And whereas, in the opinion of this Board of Trade the ratification of said arrangement and the amendment of the customs tariffs of both countries in accordance with the schedules to said proposed arrangement will establish between Canada and the United States, not only a more liberal trade policy than heretofore, which must have many advantages, but will promote and encourage the commercial interests of both countries and strengthen the friendly relations now happily prevailing between them, and thus add another safe-guard to the peace of the empire by further promoting the union of Anglo-Saxon rations for their common interests;
Therefore resolved, that this Board of Trade place on record its approval of said trade arrangement, and of its hope and desire that it may be ratified both by the Canadian parliament and the American Congress, believing that its ratification will effect a marked increase in the prosperity of the people of Canada.
Further resolved, that a copy of this resolution he forwarded to the Hon. W. S. Fielding, Minister of Finance, and to B. B. Law, M.P.' at Ottawa.
Yarmouth, N.S., Feb. 13, 1911.
This resolution was passed unanimously by the Board of Trade of Yarmouth, one of the most influential in the province, and composed of both Liberals and Conservatives.


Mr.   W.@: ,T. ROCHE (Marquette). Tne hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin), stated-I do not remember whether he said he had not met or that he had not



heard of a single man in Saskatchewan opposed to the reciprocity pact. Of course, if he meant that he had not met such a man, I could well understand it, because while a resident of Ottawa, he is not likely to meet very many men at this distance from his own province. But, if he meant he had not heard of a man resident in Saskatchewan who was opposed to this reciprocity pact, I beg to call his attention to a press despatch in the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' of March 5, which purports to give an account of a meeting, not of any manufacturing concern or of any board of trade, but of no less an association than a Grain Growers' Association, and that in the province of Saskatchewan:
Fleming, Sask., March 5.-A largely attended meeting of the Fleming Grain Growers' Association here Thursday night strongly condemned the proposed reciprocity treaty, and oassed a strong resolution against the proposed ratification of the agreement. It was stated that the Canadian wheat would lose its reputation in the markets of the world, trade would be transferred from the Canadian lines to United States roads, and that it would be detrimental to the best interests of the empire commercial relations.
I commend this to the attention of the hon. gentleman for Begina, who, apparently, is not iconversant with what is going on in his own province, and would also draw his attention to the fact that there are some Grain Growers' Associations that do not allow their thinking to be done by another set of men. It is true that there are resolutions cut and dried, manufactured, as the hon. member fior Macdonald (Mr. Staples), said, sent out to the local associations throughout the west and passed as a mere matter of form -we all know how easily that is accomplished. On the other hand, there are associations composed of intelligent men who do their thinking for themselves, who are not going to be dictated to by any other set of men, but pass resolutions in accordance with their own judgment.


William Melville Martin: Is not Fleming situated on the boundary between Manitoba and Sackatchewan, and would not these men be mostly residents of Manitoba?


Mr. ROCHE.: Are the residents of Saskatchewan very different from the residents of the province of Manitoba, just across the boundary line between the provinces? This letter is dated Fleming, March 5, and Fleming is in Saskatchewan.


William Melville Martin: Has the hon. gentleman any evidence that it was a Saskatchewan man?


William Roche: That is a silly question.


William Roche: 



PRIVILEGE-MR. CROTHERS.

Mr. CROTHERS.: A few minutes ago my attention was called to the reading last night by the hon. member for Carleton, N. B., (Mr. Carvell) of a few sentences from some newspaper purporting to give what I had said the night before with reference to the members of the Treasury Board who were present when the question of issuing a certificate to the Farmers' Bank was up. It will be remembered by hon. gentlemen then present, that the Minister of Finance had stated that there were present at that meeting of the board, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and the Minister of Finance himself. The sentences the member for Carle-ton read last night made me say that notwithstanding what the Minister of Finance had said, the Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright had not attended that meeting of the Treasury Board. They are in these words:


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This was followed by an article which appears in the Ottawa press-
I presume he means the Ottaw'a ' Free Press '.

of this afternoon, and which is as follows :-
Mr. Crothers, of West Elgin, declared that at the meeting of the Treasury Board, at which the certificate was granted, there were only three present, and not a quorum. ' Sir Richard Cartwright was not present, or the certificate would not have been issued,' said he.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not say anything of the kind, and if my hon. friend from Carleton had taken the trouble to look up in * Hansard ' what I did say, he would have found it very different. On page 5483 I used these words:
We have been told that there were present on that occasion Sir Richard Cartwright, the Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur), and the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding). Well, I do not believe that Sir Richard Cartwright had his attention called to the facts, or he would certainly not have consented to the issuing of this certificate.
So I did not contradict the Finance Minister, I would not for a moment question a statement of fact made by the Finance Minister that Sir Richard Cartwright was present at that meeting of the Treasury Board. What I did say was that I did not believe his attention had been called to the facts of the case, because if they had, 1 do not believe he would have assented to the issuing of the certificate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Dominion Lands and Parks-salaries of the outside service, $370,000.
["Of course, the hon. member for North Ontario says that 'dealing' means that they cannot buy a coal mine as well as coal mined. Probably he is right. I would not like to dispute that. This road was running through the southern part of Ontario where every little town and village is served with railways that have as good connections as they could get with coal mines."]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: Before explaining the details of this vote, I would like to be permitted to place before the committee ^some facts and figures in regard to the work done under this vote during the past and previous years. As the committee is aware, the administration of Dominion lands has a very important influence upon the increase of population and of the productive wealth of Canada. Therefore, it is a matter of great interest to the country to know the results which have been reached by the expenditure of this money. I am sure the committee will be gratified to know that under the vote for Dominion lands during the calendar year 1910, there was the largest amount of land settlement in the prairie provinces that has ever taken place in the history of Canada. The number of individual entries for land were 52,072, besides 18,352 pre-emption entries. In all therefore, there were taken 70,424 separate entries for land. These 70,000 entries represented a total area of 11,617,600 acres. It may interest the committee to know that the amount of land in the three prairie provinces which passed to individuals last year on conditions of residence and cultivation, was almost equal to the total area of the 23 countries which constituted the western peninsula of Ontario, an area of 11,840,000 acres. It may be of further interest to know that in this corresponding area in the western peninsula of Ontario, there was, at the census of 1901, a population of 1,313,000 people, a little short of one-fourth of the total population of the Dominion at that time. That is to say, under the operation of the Dominion Lands Branch of the Interior Department last year, an area of land passed into the hands of individuals on conditions of residence and cultivation, equal to the 23 counties constituting the western peninsula of Ontario, including York and Simcoe.
This area,_ judged by the standard of the western peninsula of Ontario, is capable of supporting at any rate over a million and a quarter of people. The conditions of cultivation which are attached to the entries of -which I spoke, without the fulfilment of which conditions the titie to the land cannot pass to the individual, applied to 2,500,000 acres, that is to say the government of Canada entered into contracts with 52,072 people last year to bring under cultivation 2,517,020 acres of land, the condition being that the title should not pass unless that amount of land was cultivated. It may further interest the committee to know that this area of cultivation under contract is very nearly double the total area of the province of Prince Edward Island. Last year there was put under contract to cultivate 2,517,020 acres of land while the total 1751
land area of Prince Edward Island is 1,397,760 acres.
The rapidity of the increase of settlement is also, I assume, a matter of some interest. While the individuals making entry during 1910 were 52,072, in the year 1909 the individuals making entry were 40,408. Five years ago the number of individuals making entry was 34,503; five years before that, in 1900, it was 7,764 and five years before that, in 1895, it was 2,326. In the three periods of five years each the number of entries has practically doubled in each period and during the last period, while the number of entries has not been actually doubled, the amount of land entered for has been more than doubled and the amount of cultivation contracted for has increased fourfold.
It may also be of interest to the committee to be informed as to the result following the passage of the Land Bill of 1908. which placed at the disposal of homestead settlers all the land not then alienated in these prairie provinces without regard to whether it was comprised within odd or even numbered sections. By the Act of 1908 the lands which had been held under reservation for the purpose of aid to railways or such other purpose as might be through fit were made available to homestead settlement without distinction of number or place.


Mr. WILSON (Lennox).: That was not in the railway belt?


Frank Oliver: Not in the railway belt of British Columbia. I am not speaking of that; I am speaking entirely of the three prairie provinces. That feature of the Bill of 1908 was that in a certain area of Saskatchewan and Alberta a pre-emption privilege was allowed for reasons which were set forth at that time. Within that area a homesteader was entitled, when entering for his free homestead, to enter also for an adjoining quarter-section as a preemption upon which he should pay a price, and upon which lie would do cultivation duties and in regard to which he had to establish residence. I need not perhaps repeat that the area of country extending, roughly speaking, for a distance of 400 miles along the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway between Moosejaw and Calgary -I do not wish to be understood as saying extending from Moosejaw to Calgary, but for a distance extending 400 miles along the railway between these two points-up to the passage of the Bill of 1908, contained very little settlement. For one reason or another it had not proved attractive to settlers. I am not able to give the number of homesteaders who were settled within that area up to that time, but those who are familiar with the conditions will, I am

sure, agree with me that the number, as compared with the area under consideration, was comparatively small. Since the adoption of the principle of pre-emption which took effect the 1st September, 1908, there have been taken -within that area, as the result of the provision of the Act of that date, 46,066 pre-emptions representing a total area of 7,370,560 acres upon which, in order to earn title, cultivation was required amounting to 2,303,300 acres. It may be of interest to the committee to know that the area taken in pre-em-tions since the 1st September, 1908, in a district which up to that time had not been considered favourable by settlers, is more than equal to the total area of that part of the province of Quebec which lies south of the St. Lawrence river extending from the western limit of the province to a I oint south of the city of Quebec, containing altogether twenty-two counties. In a little over two years undeT the pre-emption provision of the law of 1908 an area of land was taken up in that particular part of the northwest which hitherto had not been considered attractive to settlers equal to twenty-two counties of the province of Quebec, and' I think I am safe in saying the twenty-two counties in the province of Quebec which contain the greater part of the presently occupied agricultural area, at any rate, that which is most densely peopled and most profitably worked. The area of the twenty-two counties is 6,508,000 acres, as compared with 7,370,560 acres taken under pre-emption and entry since September 1, 1908. In connection with these pre-emption entries there were taken of course an equal number, 46,066 of homestead entries. Some of the homestead entries had already been taken, but there were taken after the first of September, 1908, in connection with the pre-emption entries not less than 46,000 homesteads representing an area of 6,400,000 acres, and calling for cultivation to the amount of 1,200000 acres. That is to say in that one area of the Northwest under the special provision of the Act of 1908, an area of land has passed to actual settlers under conditions of residence and cultivation that is more than double the total area of the twenty-two counties of the province of Quebec which contain the major portion of the population of that province.
Another feature of the Act of 1908 which was looked upon with some doubt by a number of the members of this House was the purchased homestead provision. Under this provision a man who had exhausted his homestead right became entitled to acquire 160 acres of land within the preemption area under conditions of residence and cultivation equal to those required in the case of an ordinary homestead, and in addition he was required to pay the Mr. OLIVER.
sum of $3 an acre. It was suggested at the time by those who were opposed to this provision that to allow the settler to acquire an additional homestead at such a low price would tend to unsettle the conditions existing throughout the greater part of the prairie country. It was declared by a gentleman who had some right to speak with authority, a member representing a constituency in the province of Manitoba, that such a privilege would be bound to be a serious detriment to the already settled sections of the country. However, the provision was agreed to and went into effect with this result:	While 46,066 preemptions were taken, only 3,726 purchased homesteads were taken, an area of 596,160 acres, calling for cultivation to the1 amount of 186,300 acres. The fears which were expressed at the time of the injurious effect of this provision have not been realized. The acquirement of a matter of 3,726 purchased homesteads in the pre-emption aTea has not injuriously disturbed existing conditions of settlement in the older settled portions of the prairie provinces, while it has at the same time afforded opportunity to the man who had already exhausted his homestead right, and for one reason or another desired to take another chance at fortune, an opportunity on reasonable terms and was availed of in 3,726 cases. The operation of the provision, I think, justified its adoption by the House, and has not at all borne out the objections that were urged against it.


Glenlyon Campbell: How many of those 3,726 purchased homesteads were acquired by men who, having already acquired homesteads, say in Manitoba, had perhaps without a due appreciation of the law, fraudulently acquired new homesteads in other provinces by taking what were really false oaths, as subsequently ascertained by the officials of the department.


Frank Oliver: None of the 3,726 purchased homesteads would come into the class mentioned because the man who had exhausted his homestead right by coming into the purchased homestead area had the right to take another homestead under these conditions. The cases mentioned by my hon. friend are not within the law, arid are not included within this number. They are cases where men acquired their homesteads and afterwards illegally acquired other homesteads not in the pre-emption area, and having acquired the second homesteads illegally, thereby placed themselves under penalty of the law. In many of these cases we have taken a lenient view, and have sometimes cancelled the fraudulent entry, and sold them the land at a price which would take away the clean profit that they would have made if they had got the land on their first fraudulent entry. Within the

pre-emption area the price at which the land can be purchased is $3 an acre. When we find a man who has secured fraudulent entry outside the purchase homestead area we charge him a price over $3, sometimes $4, or sometimes more. In no case that I know of have we demanded a price on the actual valuation of the land. We may have been more lenient than we should, but we cannot be accused of having dealt unfairly by these people. Some of them possibly may have had a misunderstanding, but whether or not we are inclined to deal leniently rather than harshly with them. Of course, if a plan puts himself within reach of the criminal law he takes his chances, and if he is punished he has no ground of complaint.


Samuel Hughes: 
Frank Oliver: This department has nothing to do with the administration of criminal law. In some cases prosecutions have been entered under the criminal law, which is under the administration of the province. Our compromise with any man in regard to the ownership of the land does not relieve him from the operation of the criminal law if any one chooses to invoke it against him.


Samuel Hughes: It might mitigate the offence.


Frank Oliver: It might, but we have nothing to do with the criminal aspect of it.


Glenlyon Campbell: Some years ago a man who had had a homestead in Manitoba asked, through the legal column of the Winnipeg ' Free Press ', the Liberal organ, whether he could take a homestead in one of the western provinces, and the answer was that under the law he had a perfect right to take a homestead in Saskatchewan or Alberta after having taken one in Manitoba. The minister knows as well as I do that the farmers of the Northwest, particularly the pioneers, have not much time to read the newspapers; they do not know anything about the quibbles of the law, and when they hear that the government organ gives such advice, and when they act upon it, they certainly ought to be treated as leniently as possible. Now,
there is no doubt that in many cases where perjury lias been committed and a second homestead taken or it may be a third, the government has been very lenient and has taken care that certain individuals should have the privilege of buying these homesteads at prices below the real value. I believe in that leniency myself, but I point out to the minister that I know of three cases in my own constituency, and about them I have spoken to the minister, where the men are the worst Tories or the best Tories, just from the point of view you look at it, and who are unfortunate enough to be illiterate, but who relied absolutely upon what was expounded as the policy of this government in the Winnipeg ' Free Press ', and perjured themselves it is true -I do not excuse that for a moment,-but thinking they had to comply with some quibble or some phraseology to get what they thought was their right, they did apply for a second homestead. These three men are languishing in jail to-day, and at the same time I could name to the minister off hand a dozen staunch Liberals who have committed the same perjury, but who to-day are freemen and have their homesteads and have been granted their patents. I do not wish to mention the name of any man who has not the right to come here and answer me, but I say this is a fact, and I say it is absolutely unfair to give one man, because he is a Liberal and has a political pull with some one in this House, rights and privileges that are not extended to the Conservatives who support me. I do not believe for a moment that the Minister of the Interior knows of these facts; I think he is too big to do anything of the kind. I do not want to throw a bouquet at him by any means, but I can tell him that his department is and always has been absolutely rotten in that particular regard, and I want him to know it. I ask him to guide himself by that knowledge.
I will hand to him if he asks for them the names and he may rest assured that the facts are as I state them. I have three men languishing in jail for doing what dozens of Liberal heelers and government supporters have done in the last ten or fifteen years in the Northwest, and who are to-day freemen. These men are in jail because they would not support my opponent last election; there is no other reason. The man who sent the information tb the department against them is the man who put in a petition against me and accused me of every crime in the calendar. As was ably said by the Minister of Justice to-day, the fact is that a man who has been chosen by the people of his constituency is open to some scallawag getting uf>
and accusing him of every crime in the calendar, and there is no possible law by which that individual can be punished. This man to whom I refer, who petitioned

against me, tried time and time again in the office in Dauphin to break the laws and perjure himself and get a second homestead, but the officers of the Interior Department there knew him; they knew the circumstances, and they would not permit such an infraction of the law. The same man went to Saskatchewan and entered for a homestead, stayed there for a year or two, and perjured himself to the knowledge of the Minister of the Interior, or at least of his department, and after a year pr two his homestead was taken away from him. Was he prosecuted for perjury? Not much. He was too good a Liberal; he was the petitioner against my election.


Samuel Hughes: Who is this man?


Glenlyon Campbell: I shall not mention his name. I want to appeal to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) to put in practice what the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton has brought to his attention. While leniency is -a good thing, and we all approve of it, especially where there is illiteracy and want of knowledge, let that leniency not be onesided, let it be fair, let the poor, illiterate Tories-and there are some illiterate Tories, but jjot as many as there are Liberals-get a fighting chance to make good. I could go on and tell the minister about two of those cases in Dauphin-boys who hardly can write their names-who were told by the Liberals that the ' Free Press ' said that they could go and do this if they went into another province. They went and did it and are now in jail. One is an old man married to an invalid wife, a bedridden woman, with no money and nothing to keep her except the charity of the people. The other is the son, the sole support of his parents, and he is in jail. Why? Because he is a Tory and voted against Burrows-nothing else.


Mr. TURRIFF.: I can hardly believe that any such state of affairs exists such as my hon. friend depicts.


Glenlyon Campbell: You ought to know.


John Gillanders Turriff: I cannot believe that any man is treated by the Department of the Interior in a different way, in any shape or form, because he is a Liberal. During the five or six years that I was in charge of that land department, I never knew of a case of that kind. I have now been a member of this House for seven years and have had a good many complaints to make to the Minister of the Interior for being so absolutely strict in carrying out the .regulations in such an arbitrary manner-not giving away a little, not giving little concessions to settlers that in my judgment should be given. But I can say this, that I have never in one single instance in my own constituency, in the last seven years, got one bit of consideration for any one Mr. CAMPBELL.
Liberal or Conservative, or for any Liberal more than Conservative, in any shape or form, and I do not believe that any such partiality exists in the west to-day.
I do not believe that any Liberal in any part of the country can get any consideration which is not coming to him fairly, because I have not been able to get anything for any of my friends, Liberal or Conservative, in the way of extension of time or any little considerations of that kind.


Samuel Hughes: That must have been a sad disappointment.


John Gillanders Turriff: In some cases it has been, because there are cases in which I think consideration might be given to the settler and nobody would be hurt. But I can say, absolutely, that not in a single case has anything been given a Liberal in my constituency that would not be given a 'Conservative.


Mr. NEELY.: I wish to add my endorsa-tion to what my hon. friend from Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff) has said. The hon. member for Dauphin has stated that homesteaders are treated differently, according to their political views and opinions. Well, I think I have had as much to do in the matter of corresponding with the department in behalf of homesteaders as my hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) and probably somewhat more in recent years- since, at least, the present Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) has had charge of that department. Some seven or eight years ago the Humboldt constituency had hardly any homesteaders, hardly any people at all. At present there are many thousands of homesteaders in that constituency, and I have never known one single case in which a man's political affiliations were taken into consideration, so far as his treatment by the Minister of the Interior or the Department of the Interior is concerned. I have the same complaint to make as my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), and that is that sometimes the regulations of the department are administered too strictly. I have also the complaint to make that, in my judgment, some of those regulations are in themselves too severe. In some instances they go possibly beyond the spirit and intent of the Dominion Lands Act. But I have this to say, in justice to the Minister of the Interior and his department, that I have never known one case in which a man got consideration because he was a Liberal or was refused consideration because he .was a Conservative. I have written the Department of the Interior in the matter of '.dealing with homesteads, not about a few cases, but about hundreds of cases, and I 'do not know that any man from the west has had a larger correspondence along this line than I have had. That is due simply

to the tact that Humboldt constituency has been actively homesteaded during the time I have resided in it; and in all that time, in no instance, to my knowledge, has any man been given any more consideration because he was a Liberal than he would have been given if he had been a Conservative. I want to say further, that, in my opinion, it is not a fair statement to make in this House, without sufficient and positive proof, that any man is refused consideration because he is a Conservative. There may be occasions when my hon. friend thinks Conservatives were hardly dealt Svith by the department; but in such cases it was not because they were Conservatives but because they broke the law. My hon. friend tells us of a man who had gone to jail, but he gave himself the reason. It was because he had perjured himself.


Glenlyon Campbell: What about the other ones? Some got off.


David Bradley Neely: The hon. member for Dauphin is a public man, he was elected as a representative of his constituency and as a representative of the people of Canada. If he knows of any case where men, who are not in jail, ought to be in jail-


William D. Staples: The minister knows it and admits it.


David Bradley Neely: They were tried and acquitted.


Samuel Hughes: Never acquitted.


David Bradley Neely: If my hon. friend knows of men who ought to be in jail and are not, who have committed crimes for which they should be in jail, it is his duty as a public man to lay that information before the department. And I will guarantee that, inside of twenty-four hours, the Minister of the Interior will institute an investigation and will carry out the spirit and the letter of the law.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


David Bradley Neely: My hon. friends opposite should not be too severe on the officials of the department or the department itself.


Glenlyon Campbell: I was not either, was
1?


David Bradley Neely: It is known that my hon. friend has even taken steps himself, on certain occasions, to lead even officials to do what was not in the best interest of the country.


Glenlyon Campbell: My hon. friend is a liar, absolutely a liar.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) will realize that that language is not allowed. It will be necessary for him to withdraw those words.


Samuel Hughes: I rise to a point of order.


Glenlyon Campbell: I call him a liar, and 1 refuse to take it back.


Samuel Hughes: I rise to a point of order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I do not think I can hear any other point of order than the oni! I have raised.


Glenlyon Campbell: He had better talk of his honesty? Where is the capital of Saskatchewan? What does it cost to vote fcr it?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. member for Dauphin will realize, I am sure, that he has spoken hastily, and also that his words are not parliamentary. I think that will be sufficient to cause him to withdraw them.


Samuel Hughes: But, previous to that point of order there is one which the Chair did not raise. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), was out of order in making the statements he did concerning the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell), and it is his place first to withdraw his declaration.


Glenlyon Campbell: What I said goes. He is absolutely a liar. But if it is not par liamentary, I take the word back. But he is absolutely a liar.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman is distinctly out of order. Such a breach of order must be


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Glenlyon Campbell: I will not take a word back, he is a liar, first, last, and all the time.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Inasmuch as the hon. member has refused to withdraw, unless he will, even at this moment withdraw, it will be my duty to report the matter to the House for such action as it deems proper and desirable. I will still give him an opportunity to withdraw, for he, himself, must realize very clearly how unparliamentary his expression is.


Glenlyon Campbell: It is a hard task, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw something that is absolutely true.


John Gillanders Turriff: That is no withdrawal.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. member must obey the rule and withdraw the expression.


Glenlyon Campbell: I will withdraw the expression, at your order, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Now, you had better make that man withdraw-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If there is a point of order with regard to any previous expression, let the hon. member state the point of order, and I will hear it.


Samuel Hughes: I raised the point of order. The hon. member for Humboldt, in charging the hon. member for Dauphin with seeking to induce an officer of the Crown, an officer in the service of this government, to perform an illegal and criminal act, is unparliamentary.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I did not understand the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) to use the terms attributed to him by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes). Had I understood so, I would have called the hon. member to order myself. But, the point of order having been raised and the charge made that these words were used, I will allow the hon. member for Humboldt to state whether they were correctly understood or not, and to make his explanation.


David Bradley Neely: I did not use those words. I said, and I repeat what I said, that the hon. member for Dauphin himself-


Samuel Hughes: Did he sell the capital of Saskatchewan?


David Bradley Neely: My hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) perhaps has something to say. I will give him an opportunity to say it. I am not cowardly enough to make insinuations-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Neely) must confine himself, at this time, to an explanation of the point of order.


David Bradley Neely: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) is interrupting me while I make my statement.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Mr. Chairman, why don't you call this gentleman to order?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have not realized that any breach of order has been made.


John Dowsley Reid: I rise to a point of order. Do you, Mr. Chairman, deem the word ' cowardly ' within the rules of debate in this House?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have not heard the word ' cowardly ' as attached to the hon. member for Victoria and Halibnr-ton.	.


David Bradley Neely: I said I was not cowardly enough to make insinuations across the floor of this House. If I have anything to say to any man, I will not be like some hon. members, but will make my statements openly and plainly. I only ask that any man in this House who has anything Mr. SCHAFFNER.
to say about me shall say it openly-let
him make a statement and then we will be able to deal with the matter. Now I did not say my hon. friend from Dauphin had compelled any official to do any illegal act. I said that my hon. friend from Dauphin had made the admission or the statement-


Glenlyon Campbell: That is absolutely false.


David Bradley Neely: Excuse me, you do not know what I was going to say yet.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman should at least wait until the statement is completed.


David Bradley Neely: That in connection with a certain transaction, a firm with which my hon. friend was identified in connection with a certain transaction by which that firm obtained a grazing lease-I will put my statement plainly-in the Northwest- that it cost that firm a certain amount in order to induce an official of the department to obtain this grazing lease from the department.


Glenlyon Campbell: Where do I come in?


David Bradley Neely: I have a stenographic report in which the hon. member for Dauphin, in his election campaign, made that statement.


Glenlyon Campbell: Mr. Chairman, you have just heard the statement he has made, that he has a stenographic report. I demand that here and now. I believe his statement


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman will have an opportunity to do that, but the statement is not completeu. I will ask the hon. member for Humboldt to understand that a point of order was raised with regard to certain expressions that he used. He has the right to explain, but I think an elaborate discussion of some other circumstances would hardly be in order. I will ask him to make his explanation as concisely as possible.


David Bradley Neely: I am not making an elaborate explanation. I am explaining that I did not make the statement that the hon. member for Dauphin, or some other hon. gentleman said I did, and on which they raise the point of order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If that be the case, if the hon. member for Humboldt denies having used the words attributed to him by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton, his denial must, under the rules of the House, be accepted. In that case, unless another point of order is raised, the hon. member may proceed.


Glenlyon Campbell: As I understood the remarks of this gentleman from Humboldt, they were to the effect that I had admitted

doing something that was illegal and wrong. That is what I understood. My protest was unparliamentary, and, Mr. Chairman, you know that I am always ready to express my regret to you for falling from grace. When I say that, I say all that is to be said. No man alive-that has been my religion- no man alive can come to my face and say to me: You did a mean thing or a crooked thing. That is my religion. And this member from Humboldt cannot do it anywhere outside of this House, and he can't get Jim Jeffries to do it outside of this House, but I will give them some of the fairest sport they ever had. Is it a fair thing that a creature of circumstances like the member for Humboldt-if that language is parliamentary-can get up and say here under your protection something that he cannot say anywhere else in God's wide world? What he said is absolutely, first, and all the time, false. It was the ' Free Press, the Liberal newspaper of Ottawa


David Bradley Neely: I rise to a point of order, I have the floor.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the point of order is correct. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell), rose to the point of order, the point of order has not been stated explicitly, and if he will explain the point of order I will listen to him.	1


Glenlyon Campbell: I will state it again. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) said I had admitted that I had been guilty of an infraction of some law or other. I say that is an absolute untruth-if that language is parliamentary- and he must withdraw it, and withdraw it unconditionally.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The h.on. gentleman for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) certainly made a statement in regard to certain actions of the member for Dauphin; I did not myself hear that the words used were unparliamentary. But if the member for Dauphin denies having done the act attributed to him, by the member for Humboldt, his denial must be accepted.


David Bradley Neely: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is a very strange thing that I am called upon to deny a thing before I have said it.


Glenlyon Campbell: I again rise to a point of order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the hon. member (Mr. Neely) must be allowed to complete his withdrawal. The hon. member made a statement with reference to a certain act by the member for Dauphin, the denial of the member for Dauphin must be accepted. That is the rule of parliament, irrespective of what the hon. member for Humboldt may believe. When
he has once charged an act to the member for Dauphin, which that hon. gentleman denies, it is that parliamentary acceptance of the denial that the member for Humboldt is asked to give.


David Bradley Neely: Well, if the member for Dauphin says he never made the statement on the platform in his constituency in the last Dominion election, that he or his firm spent a certain amount of money in order to obtain the consent of an official of the department to obtain a grazing lease in the west, then of course I will accept the hon. gentleman's statement.


Glenlyon Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I am quite ready to make the statement at any time, but that is not my point of order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman is correct. The particular statement that the member for Humboldt made, not any modification or explanation of it, if the hon. member for Dauphin denies it, that denial under the rules of parliament must be accepted, ft is simply a withdrawal of that particular statement in that form, and not in any other.


David Bradley Neely: I have no recollection of stating anything that the member for Dauphin did until a moment ago. I did not elaborate or make any statement, and the hon. gentleman's denial, and his emphatic language towards myself as to the truth of my statement, were altogether out of order, because I had not stated what the nature of the offence was. It is only the last time I was on my feet that I did so, that I made the explanation. The hon. gentleman cannot deny what I had not said. I made the statement the last time I was on my feet_as to what the particular thing was that I charged the hon. member with. I say again that if the hon. gentleman states that he never made these statements on a public platform, I will take his word for it.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman has just stated that if the member for Dauphin denies having used the words attributed to him, or the statement, he, the member for Humboldt, accepts that denial.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am not going to have the onus put on me. I have risen to a point of order. The member for Humboldt stated-I do not know the exact words, but the meaning was that I had admitted having committed some crime for some reason or other. I rose to < that point of order. What object would I have had, if he had not made a statement of that kind, questioning my truthfulness, in rising to a point of order? I surely had some incentive to get on my feet in something that he had said. ^ absolutely insist

on fairplay, I expect to get it, I always do get it. I absolutely insist that the hon. gentlemen take back that statement in the form he made it, that I had admitted having done something that was not within the law, to obtain something for myself or somebody else.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is somewhat unfortunate that the question has been mixed with other questions, and that the memory of members, as well as of the Chairman, is not as clear as it was at the moment. But the general rule remains, that when a member of this House attributes a certain act to another member which that other member denies, his denial must be accepted. It is now unfortunately too late to recall the exact words; in my memory they appeared to be in this form, that the hon. member for Dauphin had admitted urging the officials of the department to do some act not in the best interests of the country.


David Bradley Neely: That is exactly what I said.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: But I do not recall the word ' illegally ' being used or implied. But even in that form, if the member for Dauphin denies, then the member for Humboldt must, under our parliamentary rules, accept the denial.


Glenlyon Campbell: I have not withdrawn anything yet.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think that under all the circumstances the expressions of the member for Humboldt would be fairly considered a withdrawal of that statement.


Glenlyon Campbell: I just want to say this, and say it so that you will understand it, and the House will understand it, and if it gets beyond the confines of the House, that everybody will understand it-I have never in my life made a statement that, by myself, in any way personally, as came out in the ' Free Press ' article that was read by the member for Humboldt, I had bribed, or got any one to bribe, any high official of the Department of the Interior to obtain any concession, whether right or wrong. I want to say emphatically that any one, whether it is the Free Press, or any one else on its behalf, the member for -Humboldt, or any one on his behalf, or on behalf of the Minister of the Interior-I am sorry to drag him into it-says a thing like that about me, he lies, and lies by the clock.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


David Bradley Neely: Well, Mr. Chairman, if my hon. friend denies ever haying made any such statement I accept his denial. I am quite prepared to apply the whitewash brush and put my hon. friend on a pedestal. He tells us that he has never been guilty Mr. CAMPBELL.
of doing anything wrong, and never did any harm.


Glenlyon Campbell: I beg your pardon, I am not going to be misinterpreted, Mr. Chairman. I rise to a question of privilege.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman may raise a point of order.


Glenlyon Campbell: The member for Humboldt has just said that I claimed I have never done any wrong. I want to say again that he had better revise his text before he makes this statement. I am frail, like yourself, Mr. Chairman. I do wrong thousands of times, but I have my regrets with regard to those wrongs.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the hon. member for Humboldt may proceed with his remarks.


David Bradley Neely: I will ask you to call it six o'clock. Mr. Chairman.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 93) to incorporate the Alberta Electric Railway Company.-Mr. McCarthy.
On section 14: right to acquire and operate coal mines,
William Pugsley: I do not see any objection to giving the company these rights. I think the Canadian Pacific railway are operating a coal mine at Bankhead in the Rocky mountains. I do not see any special reason why a railway company should not operate a coal mine or coal mines, because they are the largest consumers of coal.


Frank Oliver: I think my hon. friend is in error, I do not think the Canadian Pacific railway are operating the mines at Bankhead.


Mr. FIELDING.: It is a subsidiary company.


Frank Oliver: I do not think the Canadian Pacific railway are operating any coal mines anywhere, neither is the Canadian Northern, although I do not know if they have authority to do so. I wish to repeat most emphatically the objections I offered once before to this Bill. In my judgment the linking together of authority to mine coal and to transport it by rail is detrimental to the best interests of coal mining, and of the consumers of coal who would be affected by this charter. I wish on behalf of the people of Alberta to register a most emphatic protest against the granting of

these powers in this charter. What has been alleged to be a precedent is not a precedent, but if we pass this charter then we will establish a precedent which will no doubt have an injurious effect in the future.


William Pugsley: I was not aware that my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior had expressed an objection to this section. Of course he speaks largely for the section of the country affected, and his views are entitled to very great respect, but it seems to me it is impossible to prevent a railway company from operating a coal mine if it wants - to. What difference does it make whether the Canadian Pacific railway operate a coal mine in their own name, or through another company, the stock of which they have acquired. I understand the Canadian Northern have acquired coal fields at Brazeau, and I do not know that it makes any difference whether they operate those fields in the name of the Canadian Northern or another company. There might be advantages in having another company for financial reasons, for the raising of the money on bonds or stock of that company, but if they control the subsidiary company it is about the same thing as if they were all under the same name.


Frank Oliver: That point was under discussion when the Bill was up before, and while no one will pretend that the same men who constitute a railway company may not also constitute a coal company and thereby work in unison to the detriment of the public, the reason this company wants this authority to handle coal incorporated in their charter is in order that the two interests shall be interwoven so that the companies cannot be dealt with separately by controlling legislation. Everybody realizes that there must be controlling legislation as to transportation, and most people recognize that there will have to be controlling legislation in regard to coal mining. If the coal mining interest is legally a separate interest it can be dealt with by controlling legislation very much more conveniently and satisfactorily than if it is united by legislation with the transportation interests. Certain special privileges must be given to transportation companies, or they cannot carry on their business. There is no special privilege required for the carrying on of a coal mining business. But when the coal mining business is put under the same legislative authority, and given the same legislative privileges as a transportation company, then there is a danger that it will escape from future legislative control. That I am satisfied this company is seeking, and it would certainly be to the detriment of the public. It is in the interests of coal mines and of the capital invested in them
that there should be an absolute separation of interest between transportation and coal mining so that the man who owns the coal mine shall get a square deal in the matter of transportation, and it is just as much in the interests of the consumer that there should be actual competition in the producing of coal that the railway company should stand in the position of a common carrier in dealing with the coal mine operator at the one end and the coal consumer at the other. No matter what the private interests of the individuals who constitute a railway company may be, we know that we have the right of legislative control which we can exercise if they are separate legal entities in a manner that we cannot exercise it if they are not separate


Mr. HERRON.: I am not positive whether or not the charters obtained by other railway companies give them the right to operate, but it is well known throughout the west that the big companies do own coal mines and I think operate-them to a considerable extent. The Canadian Pacific railway are operating the Hosmer coal mine, although perhaps not very successfully. The Canadian Northern railway have acquired coa. rights all along the foot-hills in fact, between my town and Calgary, and I think the Grand Trunk Pacific have been purchasing or acquiring coal mining rights, although I am not positive about that. The Minister of Railways the other evening said that in the near future parliament would have to interfere with those companies, and take from them the rights they have acquired under their charters to operate coal mines. For that reason I take it for granted that they all have these rights in their charters. In that case I do not see why we should start now to make a precedent in the case of this company and take away the rights they are asking for, and not give them a fair chance to be on a level with other railway companies oper-pating in the western country. That is all I have to say and I do not think there is any more to be said. Other companies have this right, and I do not see why this company should not be put on an equality with the others. It would be a great accommodation to the people if this right were conferred on this company which may serve portions of the country where other larger railroads are not likely to go.


William Pugsley: I would like to know if this were agreed to in the Railway Committee, because if so it would influence me very much.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: I am instructed by the Minister of Railways that this section was agreed to as a compromse. There was a clause in the Bill allowing the railway to operate a telephone company, but that was

objected by the province of Alberta, and an arrangement was made between the province and the promoters of the Bill by which the railway company relinquished its right to the telephone clause which had been passed by^ the Railway Committee, and in consideration thereof the province of Alberta agreed that this section should be allowed in the Bill. A distinct arrangement was, therefore, made, and if this clause is^ stricken out then the railway company will have nothing in return for its abandonment of the right to operate telephones. It is pretty well understood that in matters appertaining to their particular departments the ministers in charge are supposed to know more than others and their opinion carries weight. The Minister of the Interior is assumed prima facie to know more about a matter pertaining to his department than would the Minister of Public Works, and the Minister of Railways is supposed to know more about a railway matter than would the Minister of the Interior, and in connection with this principle I quote what the Minister of Railways said this day week, ' Hansard ' 5181:


Mr. GRAHAM.: I think we had better let it pass. It was explained in the committee pietty fully. In the west the railway companies practically all own coal areas, and operate them in connection with their traffic. It may be that in the years to come we shall have to cancel all these rights by legislation if they are abused. If it should happen that the coal companies and the transportation companies should put their heads together so that where you reduce the freight rates they will add them to the price of coal, it might be necessary to pass legislation in Canada similar to what has been passed in the United States, prohibiting coal companies and railway companies from being one and the same people.
We, therefore, have the authority of the Minister of Railways that in his judgment this is a proper clause to pass, he being at the time perfectly aware of the arrangement made between the parties.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My recollection is that when the Bill left the Railway Committee it contained the telephone clause, but that the coal clause had been stricken out in the committee. It was discussed to a certain extent in the Railway Committee, and on a vote being taken the telephone clause was left in, and the coal clause rejected. I cannot understand how the Bill gets to this House in its present shape, and in the absence of so many members from Alberta who are interested in the matter it seems to me that the Bill should go back to the Railway Committee for investigation. It is a most remarkable thing that everything we did in the Railway Committee seems to be reversed. In the absence of further light I am still .of opinion that the telephone clause should remain, because I do Mr. NORTHRTTP.
not believe in a monopoly in telephones, and as to the coal matter on general principles I would be opposed to it.


John Herron: Mr. Chairman, is there a clause (j) added to section 7 in the reprint ?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: There is a paragraph (j) subparagraph of clause 7.


Mr. McCRANEY.: My recollection is that when this Bill left the Railway Committee it contained the telephone clause, and did not contain the coal clause, and I do not understand how it now comes before us in its present shape. I am informed that subsequently there was an arrangement for an exchange of clauses, but I would like to be satisfied as to whether the matter came up again before the Railway Committee, and whether it endorsed that arrangement?


William Barton Northrup: This day week the Bill was in the committee, and I quote from ' Hansard ' page 5179:
On section 12,


Mr. DOUGLAS.: I move that section 12 be stricken from the Bill.


George Perry Graham: Does Mr. McCarthy agree to that ?
' Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Ewan McCraney: That refers to the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole House, but I have been referring to the Railway Committee. Whatever arrangement was made it appears to have been made after the Bill left the Railway Committee and under these circumstances it is proper that the Bill should go back to the Railway Committee. We are creating precedents and these precedents should be carefully considered by the Railway Committee which is responsible for railway legislation.


Samuel Barker: I do not understand the argument that when the Committee of the Whole House has approved of a clause you have to send it upstairs to a standing committee to get that approval confirmed.


George Ewan McCraney: I do not understand that the Committee of the Whole House passed on this.


Samuel Barker: Yes, this day week.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The Committee of the Whole House ordered that the Bill was to stand over for reconsideration, and that is why we are reconsidering it to-night. In the Railway Committee we inserted the telephone clause and struck out the mining clause, but there appears to have been an arrangement made afterwards between the representatives of the province of Alberta, and the promoters of the Bill to transpose the clauses, and that is what the hon.

member (Mr. Northrup) refers to when he reads from ' Hansard ' what was done in this committee the other night. I stated then that I did not like the legislation, but that I was a long distance away from where the road was going to be built, and when the parties agreed 1 did not see any reason why I should dissent. At the same time 1 am opposed to the legislation, and would prefer that this Bill went back to the Railway Committee. If the Railway Committee should agree, I personally would not object to it going through, but I think it ought to be reconsidered by that committee.


Samuel Barker: In the Committee of the Whole House the Bill was agreed to as it now stands. Why should we send it back to the Railway Committee, which is only a portion of the House, for approval, when the whole House agreed to it?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: For the very simple reason that this is a very material change, and that the Railway Committee did not consider it. This change was not proposed by the province of Alberta. That province did not propose to insert the coal clause an# strike out the telephone clause when the Bill was before the Railway Committee. It is only because the Railway Committee did not have the opportunity to consider the Bill in the shape in which it now is, that I ask that it be sent back to them.


George Ewan McCraney: With regard to what the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has said, this House has not yet disposed of the matter. The reason we have a Railway Committee is to have these things considered at greater length than they are likely to be considered in this House. The Railway Committee ought to have before it any arrangement made between the representatives of Alberta and the promoters of the Bill. We will only be doing justice to the promoters of the Bill if we send it back. If there were a majority in this House in favour of striking out this coal clause, the reverse of the arrangement which had been arrived at between the promoters and the representatives of Alberta, those who want to see the coal clause in, would still think that the Bill should go back to the Railway Committee.
I think that the Railway Committee is the proper body to discuss these matters before they come into this House.


Frank Oliver: What is remarkable in connection with this Bill is that it comes from the Railway Committee in a certain form and then is altered in the Committee of the Whole House in the absence of the promoters. I want to urge upon my hon. friend that this is a matter of too serious importance to be dealt with in that way. It. should be dealt with on the responsibility of those whose business it is to take the evidence and ascertain what merit
there is in favour of this measure. That is the business of the Railway Committee. If that committee should see fit to insert this clause I would waive any objection, but I do not think it is fair to the country or the House that an attempt should be made to have a clause inserted in the Committee of the Whole House after the Railway Committee have struck it out. This has been alluded to as a compromise. A compromise on what? The railway company ask for telephone privileges and a coal mining right. Is it a compromise that they he allowed a coal right instead of a telephone right? What is there to show that they should have either right?


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: Other companies have the same right.


Frank Oliver: Other companies have not the same right, so far as my knowledge goes, or ought not to have been given that right if they have it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I was present in the Railway Committee the other day when a similar Bill, proposed by an hon. member on your right, Mr. Speaker, had a similar clause in it, and that clause was passed.


An hon. MEMBER.: What Bill was that?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It was a Bill proposed by the hon. member for Brant, and had coal rights in connection with a coal mine in the United States.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I opposed that very Bill in the committee, but it was voted on and
carried.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: That is right. You are just confirming what I said.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to give the true state of affairs in connection with that Bill. That company was not authorized to mine coal or enter into the business of a coal mining company.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Yes, it was.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was simply for the purpose of producing coal and distributing it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What is the difference?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The reason given by the promoters of the Bill was that they were connected with a steamship line across Lake Erie, and the only way they could make the road a success was to operate the road in conjunction with that steamship line, and it could not be operated successfully unless the company had the right to produce the coal and distribute and sell it. That was a very different proposition from giving a railway company the right to mine coal and go into a general business.

657f>
The Lehigh Valley and various companies were mentioned and discussed and the distinction drawn between the Bill referred to by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) and the American companies. This Bill seeks to place this company in the same position as the Lehigh and other big American companies. It gives the right to the company to do the business of transportation and coal mining as well. That is quite different from the matter mentioned by the hon. member for North Ontario. Again the question was raised in the Railway Committee that they might create a monopoly by giving this company the right to purchase, sell and distribute coal, but it was proven to the committee that all the territory which would be covered by this proposed railway was now covered by three other railways. The railway mentioned by my hon. friend was an electric road, and the cases are not all analogous.


John Gillanders Turriff: There is no objection to this railway going into the coal mining business if it does it through a subsidiary company. That is the way other companies are doing, but you put a clause in allowing this company, which is not a steam railway company but an electric railway company, to enable it to go into the coal mining business. The main object of a clause is for promoting purposes, and the arrangement made in the way of a compromise, as I understand the matter, was not made by the Railway Committee, but by the Committee of the Whole House and between two or three members of the House. For my part I am opposed to either clause. I am opposed to giving this railway company the right to go into the telephone business in Alberta. The government of that province own the telephone business, which they purchased; and they do not want other companies to go into that same business. Just the same in the coal mining business.
A great deal of disadvantage may, and does, come to other miners of coal who have not a railway. Put this company on exactly the same footing as other coal miners. They will still have the advantage of having the railway, if they care to take the necessary steps, to go into the coal mining business. To that we can take no exception. But I do take most strenuous exception to any more railway companies being allowed to compete with the coal mine owners who have not equal privileges. This is a most unreasonable clause, and I do not see why its removal should be objected to. These parties can, if they wish, secure a charter, either from the local government or under the Dominion Companies Act, giving them all the powers they want for mining coal, but let that coal mining charter be separate from the railway charter, especially seeing that Mr. CARVELL.
this is to be an electric railway and is not supposed to be going into the coal hauling business.
Mr. OLIVER, I have agreed with my hon. friend (Mr. Turriff), with regard to the attitude taken on this Bill, but I have to disagree with him on one point lie mentions-that this company was not incorporated to go into the coal business. I had not the advantage of reading the charter before, but I find that it is certainly a very remarkable one-it is a blanket charter, covering the whole of the coal bearing area of southern Alberta. If ever there was a charter brought into this House with the deliberate intention of creating a monopoly in the mining and transportation of coal, this is that charter. The works of the company are set out in nine separate divisions.
(a)	From a point at or near the city of Calgary to the town of Banff in the Rocky Mountain Park.
(b)	From a point at or near the said city of Calgary south of the Bow river, through or near the Thigh Falls, to the city of Medicine Hat. crossing the Bow river at a point between Little Rolling Hills and Grand Forks.


George Ewan McCraney: All coal lands


Frank Oliver: Yes, all coal lands.
(c)	From the said railway between Calgary and Medicine Hat, at a point in or near Long Cculee, to the city of Lethbridge.
Everybody knows whether Lethbridge is a coal mining centre or not.
(d)	From a point on the said railway between Calgary and Medicine Hat at or near Expanse Coulee to the town of Taber, thence westerly to the city of Lethbridge, thepce to the said railway between Calgary and Medicine Hat, at a point on the said railway at or near Long Coulee.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: That is the route of the railway.


Frank Oliver: Yes, that is the route of the railway. If it has any purpose, it is to gather the coal area of southern Alberta into one merger under colour of a railway charter.


William Barton Northrup: Could not they do that under a separate charter?


Frank Oliver: Not to the same advantage..
(e)	From a point on the said railway between Calgary and Medicine Hat, at or near the Thigh Hills, to the town of Macleod.
(f)	From a point at or near the city of Calgary to the town of Carbon and thence to the Red Deer river at or near the junction of the Knee Hill, creek.
Another coal area.
(g)	From a point at or near the city of Lethbridge to the international boundary line at or near the point where the south branch

of the Milk river crosses the said international boundary line.
(h)	From the city of Medicine Hat to the town of Wood Mountain, in the province of Saskatchewan.
(i)	From a point at or near the city of Calgary to the town of Brooks, passing through or near Windermere, Strathmore and Bassano, with power to construct branch lines from the said lines of railway in the districts known as the Canadian Pacific irrigation blocks.
I cannot prophesy what would be the result of the passing of this, charter but the Bill carries its purpose on its face, and that purpose undoubtedly is to create a monopoly in the production and transportation of coal in the whole of southern Alberta. They apply to this parliament for a charter to build these lines, which, if they were built, and not under any special privilege, would, of course, be of advantage in the development of the coal mining industry. But when to the privileges of a railway company are added the privilege of conducting a coal mining business in that country, anybody can see what advantage there is to the mine that is connected with this proposed octopus railway as compared with a mine not connected with that railway. It simply puts the men who own the transportation and a few mines in a position to put the other miners out of business. Mr. Chairman, this is a most serious consideration. When I heard the matter brought up first, I thought it was possibly a mere accident that the clause regarding the mining of coal was inserted in the Bill, but, on careful consideration of the Bill, I must say I consider this measure an attack on the welfare of the southern part of Alberta, and, that being my view. I feel bound to confess that while, if that provision were withdrawn, I would say it was a meritorious enterprise, yet, so long as that provision remains in the Bill I wrould say it is entitled to all the opposition that any friend of Southern Alberta can give it.


John Herron: How about the Galt Co.? They have been operating coal mines from the earliest days of that country and operating a railway also, yet I have heard no objection. I have not their charter under nry hand, but I have always understood it was both a steam railway and a coal charter. What is the difference between a railway company owning a coal .mine, and a coal mine company owning a railway? We have been been putting through railway charters-doing it right along- in the part of the country in which I live.


John Gillanders Turriff: The Galt railway was chartered many years ago. It was the first railway, outside of the Canadian Pacific railway, to operate in that country, and the first company in western Canada to
operate a coal mine. They have done very good work in the past, and they are doing good work now.


John Herron: And there have never been any complaints.


John Gillanders Turriff: I have never heard any complaints about them. But they are in a different position there from the coal mining companies in the Crowsnest Pass, for instance. I may say also that I understand, the Galt Railway Company have sold out their railway, so that they have now only the coal mine as a separate work from the railway. Last year, I heard complaints from a mine owner and operator in the Crowsnest Pass. He pointed out that one of the mines was connected with one of the large railway companies, and that mine could always get the large, open, steel cars to load their coal, while the other mines had to take the box cars. That is not a very big matter, but it may easily mean 10, 15 or 20 cents of an addition on every ton of coal shipped, which is a profit in itself. Not only thsC but if the railway company is interested in a coal mine, I do not care how the commission tries to prevent it, the railway company and their officials are bound to give the advantage to the mine in which they are interested. That is all we want to obviate. Let this company have their coal mining rights, but let it be a separate and distinct company; and if we have done wrong in the past many years ago by authorizing some company to operate railways and coal mines, the time has come when we should do it no longer, and the time will come shortly when those railway companies that now operate coal mines will have to be dealt with separately, and the interest will have to be separated. In the meantime there is no reason why we should allow this company which professes to be mainly an electric railway company, the right to operate a coal mine.


John Herron: Deal with them all alike. The minister suggested that the other evening, and I agree to that.


John Gillanders Turriff: So far as I am concerned, they all will be dealt with alike in the future. I will never support again a railway charter, in this House or any other house, that carries with it the right to operate a coal mine. Take another point in this Bill. The capitalization for the enterprise is $10,000,000. This company might very easily utilize the half of that capital, or all of it, in coal mining enterprises. that would be easy to accomplish under this charter. So there is no good reason advanced, except that it has been done in the past, why the House should authorize this company to acquire and operate coal mines; and I hope the good

sense of the company will see that that clause is not allowed to remain in the Bill.


George Ewan McCraney: There is another consideration I would like to see discussed by this committee. I would prefer hearing the discussion carried on in the Railway Committee, but as the Bill is not being referred there, probably we have to discuss these matters in the House.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is the hon. gentleman opposed to the clause?


George Ewan McCraney: I will be obliged to oppose it unless it is referred back to the Railway Committee.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: And what then?


George Ewan McCraney: Then I will probably oppose it. We are in the habit of granting railway companies other powers than those merely of building and operating a railway, powers, for instance, with regard to the acquisition of water-powers, the building of telegraph and telephone lines, all those powers which are used incidentally by a railway company. Here we have the right given to a railway company to mine coal, a purpose that is not in any sense incidental to or necessary in a carrying company. The point that strikes me is this, that if we give this company the right to mine coal, it has a right to carry its own coal as free as it has to carry gravel, that is necessary on its own road, or its necessary iron, or anything else. Some time there may be an application before the Railway Commission to fix the rates for carrying coal from one point to another. The coal which is mined and owned by this company will be carried free, the cost of carrying must be paid by some person, and I submit to this House that it is altogether likely that the cost of carrying coal belonging to this company will be put over on other coal companies, because coal must pay the cost of its carriage. If this company is allowed to mine coal and to carry its own coal, the Railway Commission may not require any separate account to be kept of the carrying charges of this company's coal, and there will be difficulty in properly apportioning the rates of carrying coal from one point to another, and as between other coal companies and this railway company.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Did not the hon. gentleman support an identical clause in the Bill presented by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Harris) in the Railway Committee the other day?


George Ewan McCraney: I do not remember having expressed myself one way or the other, but as I was in the Railway Committee at that time, I am ready to take the responsibility of saying that I did support it. I have no recollection of it to-day. I remember some discussion about it, and Mr. TURRIFF.
for reasons which were given to the Railway Committee at that time, and which were considered by them as sufficient, the thing went through.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How does the hon. gentleman reconcile that with his present position?


George Ewan McCraney: The special circumstances, which I need not go into here, were considered by the committee, and were not the same as we find in this Bill.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I happen to have the Bill under my hand to which I referred in my question, Bill (No. 106), clause 11. The clause gives the company power, for the purposes of its undertaking of buying, selling and dealing in coal or lumber, and other commodities.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If my hon. friend's memory was half as good as it ought to be, he would know, and he does know, that lumber and other commodities were cut out of the Bill; and the hon. gentleman is not quoting the section that passed the Railway Committee, and he knows it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If the hon. gentleman will have patience, I will tell him that the passage in the section referring to coal and iron was maintained in the clause, and it was on my own motion that lumber and other commodities were struck out, and the reference to coal and ore still remains in the charter. Now I simply rose to emphasize the inconsistency of the hon. gentlemen who oppose this clause in this Bill. It seems an extraordinary circumstance that if the Bill is proposed by an hon. member on the government side, it may contain a clause that is broad enough to include the purchasing and selling of coal, and which would be detrimental to the public interest, according to the arguments advanced by the member for Saskatoon; but because it is proposed by another hon. member of this House, it meets with his disapprobation.
Mr. Mc-CRANEY. I hope my hon, friend is not suggesting that because the one Bill was proposed by a member on this side of the House, and the present Bill was proposed by an hon. member of the opposition, that that fact changes my point of view.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I asked the hon. gentleman how he reconciles his present position with his conduct the other day, and I cannot account for it on any other ground. The clause in the Bill having for its sponsor, the hon. membelr for Brantford, is broad enough to include the purchase of coal mines and selling or dealing in coal, another clause gives the right of selling and dealing in coal or ore. That is comprehensive enough to include coal mines, the company could purchase coal mines and deal

in coal mines; if they can purchase coal, they can purchase coal mines. Consequently, it would be very entertaining and would be a matter of information to the House if the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Mc-Craney) would explain and reconcile his two positions.


George Ewan McCraney: I would like very much indeed to do it before the Railway Committee, but I am afraid there is not time now in two minutes to do it here.


Frank Oliver: What section is my hon. friend quoting from?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick (Mr. Car-veil), has it before him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, you had better state it; I cannot find it here.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Section 111.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What Bill?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Bill (No. 106).
were cases in which men had transgressed the law and had not been prosecuted.
That is the fact, die said that there are cases in which men have transgressed and have been prosecuted, that in some cases men's entries have been cancelled, and they have been given no consideration, and in other cases men have been allowed to purchase at a price. Each case rests upon its individual merits. We cannot pretend to deal with all the cases alike, because if we did that, it would not be the fair way to deal with them, the merits being different under different circumstances. I had the opportunity of making inquiry regarding the cases of which my hon. friend spoke in the interval between six and eight o'clock, and I think the committee will agree with me that these are flagrant cases. One of them is the case of J. A. Cathers. This gentleman had three homesteads, and he has been sentenced, not by the Department of the Interior


William Henry Sharpe: In what province?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh, I beg your pardon.


William Pugsley: What time is it now?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In so far as I am concerned I am not subject to the accusation that I was inconsistent. I would like to point out to my hon. friend that the two Bills are different.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is only the difference between buying coal and dealing in coal.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Of course, the hon. member for North Ontario says that 'dealing' means that they cannot buy a coal mine as well as coal mined. Probably he is right. I would not like to dispute that. This road was running through the southern part of Ontario where every little town and village is served with railways that have as good connections as they could get with coal mines.



[Stage Direction]
The hour for private Bills having expired the House resumed in Committee of Supply.
Dominion Lands and Parks-salaries of the outside service, $370,000.
['It is now midnight, and it will take us hours to get through with Mr. Leech. I would ask, therefore, that the government allow us to adjourn.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at, 11.52 p.m.', 'Monday, March 20, 1911.']
Frank Oliver: When the committee rose at six o'clock, if the discussion then proceeding has ceased, there was some consideration of certain cases in which persons who had transgressed the law were suffering the penalty. I do not wish to enlarge on this particular side of the question more than to say that in so far as I am aware, and in so far as the intent of the department is concerned, we wish to deal even-handed justice between man and man. We do not want to give one man different treatment from another man. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) said that there 176


Frank Oliver: I could not say what province they were in, but the last ease, that which got him into trouble, occurred in Saskatchewan. It was not in Manitoba, and was not in the constituency of the hon. member for Dauphin. John Boyd had four homesteads, and Sam Boyd had two homesteads. Another of the family, William Boyd, had four homesteads, and I understand that proceedings are now pending against him. I cannot give any information as to the details of these cases at the moment. Of course, the papers could easily be brought before the House on an order, but I think the committee will agree with me that when a man has secured his fourth homestead he is not in a position to claim very favourable consideration. He is not in the position of the man who has had one homestead, and who might in some way or another have erred as to his rights with regard to a second. I think it is fair to assume that the cases in regard to which the discussion took place were exceedingly flagrant, and it would not have been fair to the law-abiding citizen, the law-abiding settler who wanted a homestead to have overlooked such flagrant cases. In the present condition of the country where there is a demand for land, and where honest men are honestly trying to get the best homesteads they can, it is not fair to them to allow a man who is not entitled to a homestead to get one, or, if he gets one unfairly, to retain it.


Glenlyon Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I,do not know the particulars with regard to all these cases. I believe that Cathers, the man spoken of first by the minister, had perfect liberty under the law to take two homesteads.


Frank Oliver: Very likely.

55S3


Glenlyon Campbell: Well then, it is scarcely fair to say that he had three homesteads. Having complied with the law the first and second time, he very likely was under a misapprehension when he took the third homestead. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. It is only one homestead more than he should have taken under the law, as I understand it. I realize that it is a most difficult thing for the minister to know exactly how to get rid of this immorality with regard to the homestead law without doing some injustice to some one, but I think that probably in this case that I spoke of, owing to the family circumstances, the ignorance of the men, their illiteracy and the fact that over a thousand of the best citizens of Dauphin constituency and Tisdale, where this infraction of the law occurred, have signed a petition asking for leniency, I think the minister would not break the heart of any man in this house, and would not hurt his system of running business if he did show leniency in this case.


Frank Oliver: I hope the committee does not misunderstand the position. This department has not the power to put a man in jail for breaking the law; the responsibility for administering the criminal law does not rest with us, in this case it rests with the province of Saskatchewan, and if a conviction has been secured, then leniency in the case does not rest with the Department of the Interior, but with the Department of Justice.


Mr. LAKE.: Did the department prosecute in his ease?


Frank Oliver: I could not *'say, but' it it very likely did. That is one thing and the administration of the law is another.


Samuel Barker: You could ask for leniency.


Frank Oliver: The department could ask for leniency, but the circumstances as laid out in the statement given to me are not such as to give good grounds for the Interior Department to ask for leniency. The punishment is awarded by an authority over which this department has absolutely no control and leniency in the case is the prerogative of another department of this government than the Department of the Interior.


Glenlyon Campbell: When a petition is sent to the department signed by the best class of people in the district who knew this man intimately asking the Minister of Justice for leniency, does the Minister, of Justice consider such a petition without referring to the Minister of the Interior?


Frank Oliver: It is his prerogative and his duty to do so. It is his duty and not mine.


Frank Oliver: 


Glenlyon Campbell: Would it be fair to ask whether in the event of the Minister of Justice referring such a petition to the Minister of the Interior he would suggest that leniency be shown?


Frank Oliver: I do not think it would be fair to ask me, but I have no hesitation in saying, and I take the responsibility of saying to the House that charged with the burden of administering the law in regard to homfesteads in that northwest country fairly as "between man and man, in the case of such apparently flagrant violation of the law, if the matter was referred to me for my opinion, I would -certainly say I could not recommend leniency in that case.


Richard Stuart Lake: May I call attention to a case in which there appears to have been discrimination. I brought the case to the attention of the minister in 1907. An order in council is published granting a homestead on payment of $5 an acre to the man whose case I called to the attention of the minister. This man homesteaded in 1902. In 1907 charges were made that he had not been four days on his homestead during the whole time. It was charged that this was his third homestead, and I read to the House a letter in which that charge was made. I subsequently sent a similar letter to the Department of the Interior. There were many applicants for that homestead. The minister decided that cancellation should not take place and cancellation apparently did not take place. The man retained his homestead, and now I observe this notice in the ' Canada Gazette ':



[Stage Direction]
The Minister of the Interior submits, under date the 28th September, 1910, that Mr. John Bradley made homestead entry for the northwest I of section 36, township 21, range 8, west of the 2nd meridian on the 30th October, 1902, and has made application for patent.
The minister states that a report has been made by an officer of the Department of the Interior showing that forty-two acres have been broken, of which thirty were under cultivation at the date of such report. The homesteader has also erected buildings valued at $575 and made other improvements to the extent of $65.
It is shown that Mr. Bradley was not entitled to make entry for this land, having already exhausted his homestead right's.
Thereby proving the contention I had made in the House:
The minister, however, recommends, in view of the valuable improvements which have been made, that authority be given for the sale of the quarter-section in question to Mr. Bradley at the rate of $5 per acre, payable one-fourth in cash, and the remainder in three equal annual instalments, with interest at five per cent per annum.

The committee submit the same for approval.
F.	K. BENNETTS,
Asst. Clerk of the Privy Council.
It will be observed that the order in council does not say that Mr. Bradley has performed his necessary duties, it simply calls attention to the improvements which he has put upon the land and is entirely silent in regard to the residence. Therefore, we may take it for granted that the duties have not been done and he has not performed the necessary residence duties, although I have always understood from the minister that the residence duties rank first of all, and that except in the most exceptional cases they are never allowed to be waived. I have seen other orders in council in respect of men who had already exhausted their right of homestead, who had got illegal entries to homesteads, but in these cases it has generally been stated that the minister is satisfied that the second entry was made through ignorance or some such reason as that. In Mr. Bradley's ease that is not stated. In all other cases I have noticed it has been stated that all the residence and other duties have been carried out, so we now have one particular case in which illegal entry was made, and in which the minister in his order in council does not even claim that the illegal entry was made in ignorance or by mistake; yet without the fulfilment of the necessary duties that man is given a patent for his land on payment of $5 per acre. It seems to me that is quite as bad a case as the others to which reference has been made, and it would appear as if there had been discrimination in this case. I shall not charge that until I have healrd what the minister has to say in respect of
It.
Frank Oliver: I do not recollect the case and certainly as my hon. friend states it it does look as if this man had got consideration to which he was not entitled I can only say that if that is the fact I am very sorry for it, and it was not a matter of knowledge or intent on my part. I can assure my hon. friend that as he has called attention to this case I shall take more care in future that such a thing shall not occur again. I shall take the best care I can to prevent it, because I feel that the very foundation of our success-and I think the House will admit that we have won some measure of success in settling that western country-is that there be a feeling of confidence in the fair dealing of the department as between man and man. No harder blow could be struck at the success of our settlement policy than the suggestion that one man is treated differently from another.


Richard Stuart Lake: Upon whose recommendation would such a matter be decided?
176i


Frank Oliver: Sometimes it is on the-recommendation of the agent, sometimes the homestead inspector, and sometimes the inspector of agencies, and if there is any question about the case the papers come to me and I go as fully into it as possible and give it the best judgment I can on the evidence before me. If Mr. Bradley has had special consideration I have to ac~* cept the blame, but I assure my hon. friend that it was not intentional on my part and possibly the fact that residence is not specified escaped mv attention. I ca,n hardly think that the case went through without the residence being actually before me, but if it has I regret it and so far as I am able I will guard against it in future.


John Gillanders Turriff: Apparently the reason Bradley was allowed to purchase the land when possibly the homestead conditions may not have all been fulfilled, was because he was not entitled to an entry, and he was sold the land at $5 an acre so that it was a sale. When he was not entitled to an entry they may not have thought it necessary to insist on the usual homestead residence. This appears to be one of the hundreds of cases that come up, where a man has lived on land for some years, performed a lot of residence, done much improvement in the way of cultivation and buildings, and then it comes to the knowledge of the department that he is not legally entitled to an entry and the question arises what it is best for you to do. In such a case, there is nothing that the minister can do that will not work injustice to somebody, and so you have to consider what it is best to do that Will inflict the least injustice. When I was commissioner I had to decide hundreds of such cases.


Richard Stuart Lake: Did you not decide that residence must be done in every case?


John Gillanders Turriff: To get a homestead patent, but this was a purchase at $5 an acre, and the man was not entitled to a homestead.


Richard Stuart Lake: He was there since 1902.


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes, but the homestead entry was cancelled and he lived on it so long.


Richard Stuart Lake: It was never cancelled and he never lived on it.


John Gillanders Turriff: No doubt he had done so many improvements that whoever decided the case thought the minimum of injustice would be done by allowing him to purchase the land at $5 an acre. I never heard of this case before, but I can easily see that that is what actuated whoever was deciding it.


Richard Stuart Lake: It is a very flagrant case and it occurred in my district, and I

brought it to the attention of the House at least twice, and I think three times.


Glenlyon Campbell: The point is: has a man who makes a false affidavit entering for a homestead and who is only a resident there for a month, any more right to be sent to the penitentiary than a man who makes the same false oath and through some influence can hold the land for a number of years, and then is allowed tin-ally to pay $5 an acre for land which may be worth $20. This man only performed four days' residence in five years. That is a point I would like to know something about. *


Frank Oliver: This government has no responsibility for sending any man to jail.


Glenlyon Campbell: The department has.


Frank Oliver: The settlement that was made with Bradley for his land does not in any degree prevent Bradley from going to jail if any one can prove the charge against him.


Mr. BRADBURY.: Who prosecuted in the other cases?


Frank Oliver: I presume the Department of the Interior did.


William Henry Sharpe: If the department is robbed have they not the right to prosecute?


Frank Oliver: They have if they please, but in this case they did not apparently consider they were being robbed. I emphasize the fact that we were not compounding any felony in dealing with these men for the land they are in occupation of now.


Glenlyon Campbell: In other cases the department thought it was necessary to prosecute and did prosecute. In this case they have known for years that Bradley committed perjury and instead of prosecuting him they have rewarded him by giving him the land at a great deal less than its value. The minister has the evidence under his own hand, it is in his power to prosecute, and he ought to prosecute and not make fish of the one and flesh of the other.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Why prosecute in the one case and not in the other?


Frank Oliver: Because in the estimation of the department the cases were not on all fours. I have not in my mind the very case referred to, but I presume that in the opinion of the department the cases were not similar. But whether we prosecute or not has no bearing on the liability of the man who broke the law. It was not any law of the department that he broke.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: He robbed the department.


Richard Stuart Lake: Mr.. OLIVER. We have nothing whatever to* do with the criminal law and are not bound to enforce it in any way. Any one who thinks that the criminal law has been violated by this man is at liberty to set in motion the machinery of justice and let justice take its course.


Glenlyon Campbell: I do not like to be on my feet so often and appear so pertinacious, but I would like to know why, when the minister has the evidence in his department that this man Bradley, as is affirmed by my hon. friend from Qu Appelle (Mr. Lake) to-night, took at least three homesteads some four or five years ago, and did not conform with the law in any particular at all as far as residence goes, and perjured himself in making the entries-I would like to know why this man has been protected by the officers of the Interior Department and not prosecuted. Instead he gets a presentation of three-quarters of that land and gets for $600 or $800 a homestead worth $2,400 or $2,500. If the minister will say that he will inquire fully^ into this matter and prosecute this man, if he finds the allegations against him to be true, I have nothing more to say. But if the minister is not going to do that, I shall have a great deal more to say.


Frank Oliver: I would not wish to stop my friend's flow of oratory at all, and I cannot give any guarantee as to what action I shall take until I know more of the case.


Glenlyon Campbell: All I ask is that the minister will inquire into it, and if he finds the facts as represented that he will prosecute.


Frank Oliver: There may be extenuating circumstances which my hon. friend is not aware of. I have told him that I shall have the case investigated and take such action as the facts may warrant me in taking, but I cannot bind myself to take any definite action at the moment.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I understand the hon. minister to say that it is not the duty of his department to prosecute in these
cases.


Frank Oliver: It is not the responsibility of this department to prosecute, but it is the privilege of this department to do so, if it thinks the case sufficiently flagrant to warrant prosecution.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: You really put the responsibility on the province?


Frank Oliver: I do not put the responsibility on the province. That is where it belongs.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: If it belongs there why is it .not left there in every case? What I do not understand is why the Min-

ister of the Interior or the Department of Justice found it necessary to prosecute some of these men and put them in jail, and not prosecute others, but leave their cases to be dealt with by the province. Why not deal with every case or with none?


Frank Oliver: I do not know that I can give any further explanation. The cases differ in degree and we deal with each on its merits, and we do not pretend to be infallible. To suggest that we should deal with all cases in exactly the same way is not a wise suggestion.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I do not say that, hut all these parties have perjured themselves, as I understand.


Frank Oliver: There may be extenuating circumstances in one case and not in another. The hon. member for Dauphin has been pleading extenuating circumstances in the cases of men who have been convicted, and. there might be such circumstances in other cases. No doubt we commit errors, but the policv of the department is to treat all men equally and give each man what is coming to him as we understand it. It is certainly not our policy to treat men differently because of their political opinion. When I was a private member I had a great deal of business with the Interior Department on behalf of my constituency, and I never was asked what were the political views of the men for whom I was acting. I never asked the question myself of any of my constituents, nor did the department ever ask me the question. Since I have had charge of the department, my instructions to the officials have always been to deal with every man according to the merits of his case without regard to his political views. That is one of the reasons why there has been a very considerable measure of success with the administration of the department. It is because the people feel that they are getting a square deal.
Now, if I may be permitted, I wish to say a word to my hon. Mends on my right who criticise the actions of the department from the opposite point of view from that of my hon. friends on the other side. The same principle applies exactly. We want to create the impression in the public mind of absolute fairplay between man and man in all the dealings of the department. Those who were members of the House when the Bill of 1908 was introduced will remember that the late Hon. Thomas Greenway, who was a member of the House at that time, criticised the Bill quite severely because it was, as he said, 'too wooden' in its operation;-that is, it did not leave enough discretion to the department to administer the law so as to meet all the variety of eases that can arise. His criticism was
perfectly sound and had very good foundation. But he was dealing with conditions as he had known them in years gone by, and condtions had changed. The Bill of 1908 was framed to deal with conditions as they then were-and, even mbre especially, as they were going to be. When there were two or three thousand homestead entries in a year, it was possible for attention to be given to individual cases, and for all the cases to be carried, as might be said, in the heads of the officers of the department and full consideration to be given according to the actual merits of each case. But with thirty, and forty, and fifty, and sixty, and seventy thousand entries a year, that kind of treatment becomes an absolute impossibility. Under such conditions, a rule must be laid down, and that rule must be followed; otherwise, there can Be but one result-confusion and dissatisfaction. Now, it must be admitted that in laying down a rule, you do work hardship in some cases. But my view is that, if we work hardship in some cases-and we alleviate hardship as much as we can-the main point we are striving for is to create confidence in the public mind that there is a square deal for every man in the transactions of the department. And the results show that we have attained it in a very remarkable degree. It is not con ceivable that the occupation of the land would have gone on as rapidly as it has during the past year or two if the people had not had full confidence that they were being dealt with on the merits of their application, and without regard to any other consideration whatever. I think it is one of the greatest tributes that could have been paid to the administration of any government that, when, from time to time, we opened for occupation, townships here or there throughout the west, people came by the trainload from the United States and from various parts of Canada in order to take their places in the line to secure their turn in entering for that land. Men stood in line for twenty-four hours, for forty-eight hours,-some, I believe, for seventy hours-
Mr. SOHAFFNER Women, too.


Frank Oliver: Women, too,-in order to get their choice of the land. They wouid not have done that if they had not thought at anyrate that when they got to the counter they would get a square deal. I think that the actual facts have justified the administration of the department to a most remarkable degree. While we have not been able to meet all possible cases that arose upon their actual merits, we have certainly been able to create in the public mind that confidence which is the very foundation of all success in administration.


Glenlyon Campbell: The Minister (Mr. Oliver) has just told you and this com-

mittee, Mr. Chairman, that his prime desire has been to create the impression in the minds of the people that fairplay is his object. He has gone on to point out that at various land agencies, as land was thrown open, the crowd stood for hours with a desire to have the pick of the land, and that every one who took his position was allowed to pass through the doorway in -his turn, and, at the counter, got fairplay. There is no one on this side who would criticise that for a moment. The government, possibly, could not, even if they desired, under the present law and in the open, do otherwise than give entry to every man in his turn. We are not criticising that point. The point we are criticising is that, when the time comes for these people to apply for their patents, the same fairplay is not given by the officials of the department to one as to another. The hon. minister has expressed regret that such things had occurred as were brought to his attention by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake). I will tell the minister how he could remove from the public mind a great deal of the fear that such things can exist. If he were to cleanse his department in the west to some degree; if he would remember that the Conservatives of the west have a suspicion-or a superstition or whatever he likes to call it; it is stronger than either, it is a conviction -about certain appointees of his government that they are not inclined to show fairplay to those tainted with Conservatism, he would do something to realize the wish he has expressed. I refer to such men as Mr. Seale, one of his homestead inspectors-(I do not know that 'Inspectors' is the proper word, but the minister will know what I want to get at). Why did Mr. Seale get that appointment? For no other reason on earth that any Tory in the west can elucidate except that in 1904 he was the returning officer for Dauphin, and, at the eleventh hour he made the Dauphin election a postponed election. Immediately after that he got the appointment at $100 a month from the government. He-never served the government in his life except in the way I am suggesting, and in that he was serving only a part of the people and not the people as a whole. Then, go further west, and right in the home town, I think, of my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) is Mr. Duggan.


David Bradley Neely: A good man, too.


William D. Staples: A handy man.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am not saying anything against Mr. Duggan personally, except that my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) says he was a very handy man. He was the returning officer for Selkirk at 1904. He had never served under the government in his life. He had been previously to that a bartender in Selkirk. He served under Leach, in what is called Mr. CAMPBELL.
among the Conservatives of Manitoba the Thin Red Line outrage, where hundreds of Conservatives were debarred from voting, and their franchise was stolen from them; and the Conservatives believe that was the reason he got employment under this government. I could go on and instance other cases. But this is what I want to point out to the minister, that if he wishes the people on both sides of politics in the west to believe in his good faith-as perhaps we all do, in his personal good faith-but I mean in the good faith of his department in its administration of the land laws, the sooner he gets rid of these excresences, the better for the country.


John Gillanders Turriff: In reference to the remarks of the Minister of the Interior as to ^complaints made by myself and others in 'regard to the administration of the lands, I only want to say that I for one have never suggested for a moment that- there was any discrimination between man and man on the part of the minister or of the department, because I do not think there is, I never knew of any, at all events. But what I have maintained before the minister himself on many occasions is that while you may be giving all hands the same deal, that deal may be a hard one, and unnecessarily hard. In my judgment there are many cases where leniency could be shown to a settler that is not shown, and that makes it harder for him. Where you have 60,000 or
70,000	homesteaders in a year, forty-nine out of fifty of them go there for the purpose of making a home, for the purpose of fulfilling the conditions. Out of so large a number there are many who find it difficult to fulfil all the conditions ot the law at the present time. Owing to the tremendous demand for land, they are forced to go away forty or fifty miles from a railway to make an entry. They go out there with a small means, and travel long distances, they have to haul their goods, their coal and provisions forty or fifty miles, may be, then a prairie fire burns up all the field. They may not be able to spend the winter there, and have to go on further. In many cases a man goes to make a homestead entry, he has a wife and children, and in my judgment great leniency should be shown to him. Where circumstances warrant it, an extension of time should be granted for going on their lands. That is not going to hurt anybody, cannot hurt anybody. In my constituency there are cases where I have applied for these little extensions of time, and for other considerations of one kind or another, many that the minister himself never sees, and the.officers write me that they regret that under the regulations of the department it is impossible to grant the request. Now I do not claim that there is discrimination, I know there is not, but I

claim that some consideration might be shown with advantage to the settlers. The object of the Homestead Act is to settle up the country, we want settlers, and we want to keep them there. But there is many a good man who finds himself in a difficult situation because, especially of late years, there is a percentage of men who make homestead entries, and who are not bona tide homesteaders', and on their account bona fide homesteaders, who are at a disadvantage as to means perhaps, have to go further and have to suffer. I think the minister could well show greater leniency in many cases to the settlers than he does now, and nobody would be hurt, and nobody would have a right to complain.


William Henry Sharpe: I agree with the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Turriff) that a good deal of leniency should be shown to the homesteader in western Canada. I sympathize with him as fully as any person, because I took up a homestead in western Canada in the early days, and went through all the hardships. Now here we have two cases. One is that of a man named Carrutliers, who went to work and took up two homesteads. He was entitled to these two homesteads, but he went a little further and he took up a third homestead, and he took a false affidavit in order to get this third homestead. I am told by my hon. friend from Dauphin who knows the man very well, that he is a good Tory. The department finds out that this man is a good Tory, they also find out that he has done something wrong, and they go alter him and send him to jail for a year or two. My hon. friend from Saskatchewan tells us of another case under the very same circumstances. He is entitled to two homesteads, and he goes to work and takes one more homestead that he is not entitled to. This man turns out to be a good Reformer, and the department allows that man-I do not say it is because he is a Reformer, but it looks a good deal like it-allows that man to buy his homestead for $5 an acre, and he does not have to go to jail. Now the hon. minister told us that in many cases where they got mixed up in their homesteads some were charged $2, some $3, some $4, some $5 and some $6. I would like to know according to what standard the minister charges $2 to a man who should pay $3, $4 or $5 for those lands. He also says that he has no Tight to prosecute these men. I think if there is any man in Canada who is responsible for the land of this country it is the Minister of the Interior. If Canada is being robbed of her land, if it is not the minister's duty to go after the people who are robbing Canada, I would like to know whose duty it is. I would like the minister to tell us by what standard he
charges one man only $3 and another $4 or $5 for the same land.


Frank Oliver: It would be hard to make a general statement that would cover the questions my hon. friend has asked. If he mentions an individual case I would be able to give the reasons by which we arrived at our conclusion in regard to that case. But to give him any general statement that would be a definite guide to the conclusions we have reached in cases which differ so tremendously in character, would be a very difficult thing to do.


William Henry Sharpe: In what way will they differ?


Frank Oliver: There are some cases where a boy takes land and he is under age, there are some cases where a man has done a great deal of improvement, another man has done residence and not much improvement, there is another case where the department may have had reasonable grounds for believing that the man acted in ignorance; there are nearly as many differences as there are cases. In these circumstances I do not think I can give my hon. friend any very full details. He wras in error in one thing. We do not sell at $3 per acre unless in cases outside of the preempted area, for the reason that I have already stated. Within the pre-emption area the standard price is $3. Therefore, in settling such a case outside of the area we must reasonably charge more than $3; otherwise it will be practically extending the pre-emption area over the whole country.


William Henry Sharpe: The reason I mentioned $3 was that the minister had spoken of $3 before six o'ciock.


Frank Oliver: Yes, but that is inside of the pre-emption area, but in cases outside of the pre-emption area we naturally have to charge more.


Richard Stuart Lake: I see that outside of the preemption area a man named Charles R. Dux-bury was given his land at $3 an acre, the statement being that he had failed to perform his residence duties. There the minister recommends a sale at $3 an acre.


Frank Oliver: That is not the same case as that in which a man has committed perjury in order to get a homestead. I might explain to the committee that there are cases where a man has fulfilled in a reasonable measure his obligations as to residence and cultivation, but for some reason which seems to the department to be sufficient, is not able to complete his residence so as to entitle him to the patent. The committee is aware that we cannot issue a patent unless and until the man is able to swear, and to bring two other witnesses to swear, that he has completed his duties in every

particular. If a man is short of his residence and the circumstances are such that it is not possible or practicable to complete his residence and he stands in danger of losing the time he put in and the improvements he has done on his land, we cancel his entry and sell him the land, and in some cases we sell it to him at one dollar per acre.


Richard Stuart Lake: The reason for his failure to perform the residence should be stated in the order in council. It generally is in these cases, is it not?


Frank Oliver: Sometimes it is, and I suppose it should be in all cases. I want it to be understood that if we sell at $1 an acre, as we sometimes do, it is because there has been a substantial fulfilment of the requirements but not a legal fulfilment of the requirements. We sell at that minimum price because the statute absolutely prohibits the issue of a patent unless the evidence is there that the duties have been fulfilled.


David Bradley Neely: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word or two along general lines in support of the remarks of my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). I think I would not be doing justice to the administration of this department if I did not repeat some of the things I said before six o'clock as to the impartiality with which the department is administered. I have probably written, not a few hundreds, but a few thousands of times, in behalf of homesteaders and settlers to the Department of the Interior, and my most serious criticism of that department is that to my mind there is not sufficient leniency shown to the homesteader and settler. As to discrimination between man and man or as to -any consideration of political views and opinions, I have never seen anything of the kind in any single case. The only case that has ever come under my personal observation where the department held a court investigation, was the case of a warm personal friend and supporter. There was some doubt as to whether or not he had actually fulfilled all the requirements of the law as to the residence duties. There was no question about his cultivation duties, because he had broken some 140 acres out of a quarter-section and had cropped this land for a number of years. But, there were contradictory statements of the neighbours. This man, who is a good, substantial citizen, although he claimed to have performed sufficient resident duties on his homestead was not able to furnish absolutely conclusive proof thereof, with the result that what, to my mind, was a very severe sentence was passed upon him. He was asked by the department to go back upon the homestead and perform his residence duties over again. I have brought that case to the attention of the department, I do not know what their action will be, but I am Mr. OLIVER.
free to say that it is the only case of a court investigation that has come under my personal investigation. The man is a Liberal, a supporter of mine, but that had absolutely nothing to do with the 'consideration of his case. The witnesses whom he called, while giving it as the best of their knowledge and belief that he had performed sufficient residence, were not able to give days and dates, with the result that he did not obtain his patent when he made application for it, and, as a result of the investigation, he is compelled to go back upon the land. But while taking this position and while defending the administration of the department in so far as the question of partiality and impartiality is concerned, I am free to say that there are some features of the Dominion Lands Act and some features of the administration of the Act, that to my mind bear somewhat heavily upon the homesteader. Mind you, that with all the authority and responsibility of the Department -of the Interior and of the government in connection with the public lands of western Canada, neither the department nor the government should view or consider themselves in the light of proprietors. Neither the department nor this government are the proprietors of our western lands; they are simply the administrators. The lands belong to the people, and while a certain standard must undoubtedly be maintained, the rules and regulations of the department should be so framed as not to make the required duties too burdensome, too onerous, and too much of a hardship to the individual homesteader or settler. Men go thirty or forty miles away from the railway, and in days gone by many men have gone 150 miles, and even more, and homesteaded under our homestead regulations and laws.
These men who have to transport over those distances their furniture, the lumber with which to build their houses, their supplies from the nearest market and their produce to the nearest market, are entitled to every consideration, and the homestead conditions, instead of being such as to make it difficult for these men, the honest men, the sincere men, who desire to live on the land, -ought to make his duties as light and easy as possible. Western members realize the great difficulties with which homesteaders are confronted. Men of some means who take up homesteads or purchased land can obtain for themselves even in their homestead days many of the comforts which they have enjoyed in the older parts of Canada or in other countries, but many of those who go into western Canada have but limited means and perhaps large families, and the struggle that some of these homesteaders pass through in the three years before they obtain their homestead patent has in many cases been a thing pitiable to consider. It

is this aspect of the homesteader's life that I am bringing to the attention of th.e minister. The officers of the department ought to be imbued with this spirit of the homesteaders' life and every rule and regulation laid down by the minister for the direction of his officers and for the administration of the Lands Act should have in consideration this feature of the settler's life.
I wish to point out one or two features of the present administration of the homestead rules and regulations which I think might fairly be considered. Take for instance the homestead year. The law says that the homestead year is a year from the date of entry or from the commencement of residence. There may be cases where men have put in their residence and where the six months does not correspond absolutely with either of these periods. To my mind the spirit and the intention of the Domin-on Lands Act is that the man puts in six months' residence in each of three consecutive periods of 12 months is fulfilling the spirit of the law. I wish to call attention to the ease of the njan who performed his residence duties by living on purchased land. I suppose that that provision was put in the Dominion Lands Act to enable the man who wished not only to homestead but to purchase land to make his selection of which land he would live upon, whether it would be on the homestead	or on the purchased	land.
What we want in the west is settlers, men who will settle on the land and will cultivate it, not speculators, not men who take up a homestead in order by hook or by crook to lead the department at the end of three years to believe they have performed sufficient duties to entitle them to patents. We want actual settlers and if a man resides on purchased land instead of on his homestead^ and fulfils his residence and cultivation duties faithfully, even if he has only paid 50 cents an acre on that purchase land, surely he has fulfilled the requirements of the Act. The department does not hold that view. I cannot understand how it is possible to make an arbitrary decision as to what constitutes ownership of land. I do not think that the payment of 95 per cent or 99 per cent of the purchase price constitutes ownership any more than the payment of 5 per cent. So long as the man who has sold the land is content to give a contract for that land to the purchaser and is satisfied with the way in which the purchaser is living up to the conditions of that contract it would appear to me to be a fair proposition that the department would leave that question to be settled between the man who sold the land nd the man who purchased it.
I quite realize that the regulations are made fairly strict in order to prevent fraud on the part of those who would obtain patents for land without having performed sufficient residence, cultivation and other duties, but there is a possibility of leaning too far in the other direction, and, for the sake of hunting down the guilty, making the innocent man suffer. My view of the administration of the Lands Department is that it would be better to let one guilty man escape than to have 99 innocent men bear a heavy burden simply to prevent the one guilty man from getting away with a homestead quarter-section without having performed sufficient duties.	_ _
I simply wish to impress on_ the minister that the spirit of the administration and of the rules and regulations of the department should be one of sympathy with the homesteader, and that where it is possible to show leniency, leniency should be shown in.the interpretation of the law.


Frank Oliver: I quite accept the criticism of my hon. friend (Mr. Neely), and I appreciate the spirit in which it is made. I would not wish to think that_ a department so closely affecting the life of the western country was not the subject of consideration by those who have western interests at heart, and, of course, if a thing receives consideration that consideration cannot by any possibility always be favourable. I agree with my hon. friend that it would be a mistake for the government to consider itself as proprietor of the western lands. It is only the administrator of the lands in trust for the people of Canada, and particularly for the people who are going to become the occupiers. No man in this House and few outside of it know of their own knowledge the condition of the homesteader, the difficulties he has to overcome, and what might be called the tragedy of homesteading better than I do. No one has greater sympathy for the homesteader than I have, but in administering this trust there must be consideration of its purpose which is to secure not only the cultivation but the occupation of the land. That is the principle underlying the homestead Act. It is not enough that the land shall be occupied, or cultivated temporarily; the purpose is to secure permanent residence and any administration that lost sight of that ultimate purpose would not and could not be satisfactory. There is properly an insistence upon residence on the land because that is the main condition of the ownership of the land without payment of a price. It is of little account to the people of Canada if the land once passes out of public ownership, though every acre of it were brought under cultivation, unless it becomes in fact as well as in name a land of homesteads 1 with citizens in occupation of these home-

steads. Every consideration is given to the man who by his conduct indicates that he intends to become a permanent occupant of the land. The best evidence that the law and administration is satisfactory to the vast majority of those who iare in occupation of the land is the fact that their numbers are increasing from year to year The man who makes the complaint is the man who is not willing to fulfil all the conditions that are imposed upon him, and this man is in an insignificant minority as compared with the large majority of settlers who find the regulations absolutely satisfactory to them, and who become owners of the land and establish citizenship in the country. It is essential that there shall be continuity of settlement, and the man who holds a homestead without occupation of that homestead is not doing what is fair by his neighbours, who depend upon his being on his land to keep up the good of the neighbourhood. It is because of this that the law is framed as it is, and that we have insisted more strongly in recent than in former years upon fulfilment of the actual conditions. In justice to the legitimate settler who is on the land and fulfilling his duties his neighbour must do the_ same thing. It is true we do extend leniency and that we consider the requirements of individual eases, but it is also true that when you do grant leniency outside the ordinary routine you at once raise the question of discrimination, and those who have not required any leniency to be extended to them are apt to consider that the man who gets it is getting an unfair advantage. The large majority of cases where men have needed leniency and have not got it are due to the objections of their neighbours. The department, of its own motion, has hardly ever cancelled a man's entry; every cancellation is made on the application of some other man who says he wants that land. The difficulties we have in administration are not difficulties between the government and the settler, but between settler and settler. What we have to guard against more than anything else is to allow the idea to get into the minds of settlers that one can get an advantage which the other cannot. I find that people will quarrel more about the trifling advantage which one man in a settlement is supposed to have got than about something of real importance to the whole community. There will be more letters written to the department complaining that some men have got a little extra advantage than there would be if a real hardship were inflicted on the whole settlement. The very complaint which my friend from Qu'Appelle has made with regard to this man Bradley is an evidence in point. Bradley paid $5 an acre for his land, he did certain duties, he paid what other people have paid, but my hon. friend thinks Mr. OLIVER.
there has been some discrimination in his case-it could not have been a very great discrimination-and he thinks that a serious wrong has been done. I am not prepared to say that everything was right, even in that very case, but a thing of that kind will reflect more discredit on the department than possibly anything _ else which has occurred; and that is simply due to the fact that we dealt with that case leniently. My sympathy is absolutely with the settler. The administration of our land should be absolutely in their interest. But when leniency is asked, that means discrimination, and discrimination means a grievance in the minds of those who dr>
not require leniency and consequently do not ask for it.


John Gillanders Turriff: In order to illustrate what I mean by a little more leniency being exercised on certain occasions, let me give one case I had to deal with. Two men, father and son, made homestead entries at a sub-agency and got their receipts. It is true that printed on the receipt in red ink were the words that the receipt was not absolute until the case was reported to the head office. But these men were foreigners, Frenchmen, who did not read-English. The son could not speak English at all, and the father very slightly. The entry was made at the sub-agency of Weyburn. Np doubt the sub-agent told the men thdy would have to wait until the papers went into Estevan before they would be absolutely certain that they would get their homestead, but these men did not understand English and they thought they had an absolute entry. The son got a homestead and the father, who had homesteaded already, purchased a pre-emption and paid $160 beside the $10 fee. They went out and broke up thirty acres and built a shanty before they became aware that one of these quarter-sections had already been entered. _ That quarter-section was the homestead which the son had improved. They did not speak English and consequently could not be made to understand. They came back to Weyburn and went to a lawyer, and the lawyer wrote to me. I went to the department and the case I put before the department was simply this. They said: We will give up the land if we get paid for the -work done. That is usually what is done. The government in granting, the re-entry, would make the man pay for the improvement, but the son said:	My father and I live together, we
must homestead close together, and there is no use of my going twenty miles further and taking another homestead unless my father can go there too and purchase a homestead alongside of me. The department insisted that under the regulations the $160 paid on account of the purchased homestead could not be refunded for a year, and in spite of all I could do-and

the father was a good supporter of mine-I could not get the department to allow that $160 to be refunded at once or applied on another purchased homestead. The father could not get his $160 back and could not take up another purchased homestead until he got it back, so that he and his son were prevented during a whole year from getting another entry. These are the regulations, no doubt, but it is a simple case in which the department should exercise leniency in administering these regulations. I do not think there is any regulation on earth that should compel a man to stay idle a whole year because $160 of His money is in the hands of the government and he cannot get it back. That is a case in which I claim the regulations work absolute injustice, and all I ask is a little bit of common horse sense applied to each individual case, and have each case dealt with on its merits. That man should have been allowed to have his $160 credited on the second purchased homestead even if the son and the father were both absolutely in the wrong. I am not saying that they were, for it is quite possible that the sub-agent made a mistake, but even if they were, leniency should have been exercised and the regulations should not have been allowed to interfere with a bona fide settler settling on his land.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Can the minister give offhand any information as to what extent these irregularities in making application for homesteads, to. which the applicants are not entitled, have been carried on? I do not think they can have been to any great extent.


Frank Oliver: I am afraid there has been a good deal of it, but of course all the cases we have dealt with have been published in the * Gazette ' and the number is not very large. I am afraid, however, that there are a good many which have not come to our attention. There is, I am afraid, carelessness in dealing with these matters, and a lack of consideration on the part of people in many cases which is not creditable. I introduced the purchased homestead preemption in the Land Act of 1908 in order that a person who had exhausted his homestead right could get legally another chance, and that no doubt did relieve the situation to a very great degree.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: We have been dealing so far with the applicants for homesteads whose irregularities got them into trouble, and in some cases into jail. This year I have had a number of cases similar to the one of which I intend to give as an illustration to-night. And I am not presenting this case because I have had any trouble with the officials of the department. On the contrary in everything I have had to do with the department, I have found
the officials very courteous. They have never in any way refused recognition or consideration. But this is a case in which the officials to my mind have not given very satisfactory explanation to me, or to the parties for whom I have been trying to get an explanation. As I said, we have thus far been dealing with the applicant. But there seems to be in the case which I wish to put on 'Hansard' a fault on the part of the department. In the first case, the applicant is at fault, and the applicant has to suffer. But in the case to which I wish to refer, the department is at fault, and yet again, the applicant has to suffer. That does not seem fair. They call it an error. Well, let me read this case which I have referred to. Here is a letter addressed to myself and dated Cartwright, December 31, 1910.
iRe S.W. 5-37-9 W. 2nd.
Mr. Elijah Owens of this place has called to see me with reference to the above lands. It appears that he went west in the early part of the year and after a great deal of trouble and expense homesteaded the above quarter. The Land Office received his money and issued their usual interim receipt, &c. Subsequently Mr. Owens was informed that the south half of this quarter was patented on the 31st of December, 1907, to the Canadian Northern railway, and advised that if he was not satisfied with the eighty acres left, his entry would be cancelled. His main grievance is that the Land Office should have known of this and prevented him from taking the land after having incurred the expense necessary to homestead. Mr. Owens advises me that his travelling expenses locating the land amounted to $50. He had five acres broken on same at $1 per acre, making $20. He paid an entry fee of $10; his whole expenses being $80. You will see that this means quite a loss to Mr. Owens, as he does not want an eighty acre farm and will have to abandon same.
Now, I claim that in this case, the department made a mistake. Mr. Owens went to a great deal of trouble to go west and homestead this quarter-section. He did his breaking and fulfilled all the requirements; but later, was informed that half of this quarter-section had been patented to the Canadian Northern railway. The minister (Mr. Oliver) being familiar with the west will know that eighty acres will be practically of no use to the man and that it will be better for him to give up the quarter, and all that he asks is that he be refunded his expenses, because of the error of the department. And here is the answer of the department.
Ottawa, January 20, 1911.
Dear Sir,-With reference to the letter to you from Mr. John D. Loughlin, in re S.W. 1 of 5-37-9 W. 2nd, I beg to state that there is no provision in the Dominion Lands Act under which the department would have authority to grant the compensation asked for by Mr. Owens



I think that is along the lines on which hon. gentlemen opposite have been talking. It is pretty hard to get over the explanation made by the minister that you must have some law, and hold to that law, or somebody will be saying that you have been partial. I quite understand that.
-on the ground that he was granted entry for the above described land in error, the south half of the quarter-sectjon having been patented to the Canadian Northern Railway. Mr. Owens has been advised that if he did not wish to retain the available 80 acres as a homestead his entry would be cancelled and a refund of the entry fee would be made to him. I may state that under section 15 of the Act authority is given to cancel an entry which may have been granted through error.
With regard to compensating Mr. Owens for the breaking performed by him, I beg to state that under the practice of the department a homesteader who obtains entry for land upon which improvements have been made is called upon to pay to the department the value of such improvements, which amount the minister may in his discretion pay to the person who placed same upon the land. If, therefore, the breaking

I call special attention to this.
-mentioned by Mr. Owens is upon that portion of the said S.W. \ of 5 which is available for entry, the value, if any, of the improvements would be collected should re-entry be granted.
Now, the minister (Mr. Oliver) made use of some splendid sentiments about justice between man and man, and said, as I understood him, that all cases were considered on their merits. That is the way I think they should be considered. Here is a case that, I think, should have been treated on its merits. As I said, I am not finding fault with the officials of the department; but I wish to bring this case, as I promised I would do, to the attention of the minister. Here is a case in which a man not only went to the trouble and expense of making a journey and taking up land, but also of doing some breaking on' the land. And he has lost the opportunity of getting his quarter-section. I believe that Mr. Owens should receive back from the department that $80. I understand the department to say that they have no fund from which they could make such a payment. But they have all the funds there are in connection with the government; and, if the error is theirs, if, in the first place, you are going to say that the man who makes an error, has to suffer the penalty, why should not the department, when it makes an error, suffer the penalty? This is a sample of at least three or of four cases that I have had during the present session. I believe this is a case to which the minister should give some consideration; and I do believe that Mr. Owens should re-Mr. SCHAFiFNER.
ceive back his $80. Even then, he will have suffered a loss.


Frank Oliver: There is no doubt, this gentleman has suffered a hardship, and because of the error of the department. It is also a fact that provision has not been made for dealing with such a case, and, therefore, we are limited in our dealings to just exactly what has been done. We could collect the amount of the improvements from any subsequent entrant and pay them to the gentleman who made the improvements. But we should have no warrant for dealing with travelling expenses, and I think myself it would be very doubtful policy to go so far as to pay travelling expenses in such a case. It might be argued that Mr. Owens had incurred travelling expenses looking over land, but there was other land in that part of the country as well as the land he took. His expenses might be arranged in some way that, if he took another homestead we could give it to him without incurring travelling expenses or something of that kind. I am satisfied it would not be possible, under the circumstances, to meet the demand for travelling expenses.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: They might be cut out.


Frank Oliver: We must admit that we were in fault. If it were possible to give the gentleman a consideration-as sometimes has been done-as I say, there is no fund from which to draw, but sometimes where we have wronged an individual iri that way we try to make it up to him should he take a subsequent entry by some consideration in the matter of duties or something of that kind. But that is the only way that the regulations allow us to deal with it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Could not that be changed? Is it a fair regulation?


Frank Oliver: It may be that it would be proper to make a change to meet such cases. But there have been very, very few of them, and the loss is not a,very serious loss. If the gentleman is taking land elsewhere, we might meet his wishes in some way in regard to fulfilment of duties, or in some other way that would be satisfactory to him.
Mr. SCHAFFNER, Will the minister take this letter and write me as to what will be done?


Glenlyon Campbell: Before this item carries, I would like to bring to the notice of the minister some details in the Auditor General's Report of last year. I have referred to two of the employees of the department, and have suggested to the minister that if he wanted the confidence of the general public he had better let them go.

In the Auditor General's Report, K-53, I find a reference to one R. E. A. Leech. He is put down here as an inspector of agencies at Brandon, with a salary of $3,000 a year and expenses. Is that the same Leech that is famous in Manitoba, or infamous, according to the point of view, since 1904, who is called the Thin Red Line Leech?


Frank Oliver: I think this gentleman has been called the Red Line Leech?


Glenlyon Campbell: Might I ask how did a gentleman with a nickname of that kind come to be appointed by a government that is desirous of getting the confidence of the public?


Frank Oliver: The gentleman was appointed before I became minister, I found him in the position, and I must say that I have found him a very efficient and faithful servant.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am glad to know that the minister finds him efficient and faithful. But there are one or two things concerning him I wish to mention. He has a salary of $3,000 a year. Then there is an item for board, lodging and horse feed, $1,073.15. Would the minister tell me what is meant here by horse feed?


Frank Oliver: I could not offhand give my hon. friend the detailed information. I understand that Mr. Leech's accounts are now before the Public Accounts Committee, and I am sure that every detail possible will be arrived at by that committee. In a general way, I can answer the question about horse feed. Mr. Leech's duties require him to visit the different land agenda in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. In addition he is from time to time employed in taking evidence in questions of the fulfilment of homestead duties, and in many such cases he has to drive to the locality in which the investigation is held and requires to have a horse.


Glenlyon Campbell: I see an item for livery, $287, which does not seem to be in harmony with an item for horse feed. Then he charges for fares, $1,350, and pu'ilmans, $379. Besides getting a salary under which presumably he is able to board himself, he is being paid between $4 and $5 every day in the year over and above his salary. Then there are other accounts for postage, telephones, rents and so forth, a number of small items, all charged up to the government. Here is another item, material and labour on a shanty, $141. What shanty is that, might I ask the minister? That is not where you lodge him, surely, when he is at home?


Frank Oliver: I could not answer what the shanty was for, I will make inquiries.


Glenlyon Campbell: It would be interesting for the committee to know whether you are going to have any more shanties built.


Frank Oliver: These accounts are all before the Public Accounts Committee, where there is every opportunity of threshing them out. It is possible this shanty may have been some temporary erection in connection with some land rushes that took place when special arrangements were made for taking care of arrivals.


Glenlyon Campbell: In looking further, I find letters in regard to this same man written by the Auditor General which show that he does not have the same confidence in Mr. Leech which is now expressed by the minister. On K-126. I find a letter written from the Audit Office in Ottawa, dated February 22,	1910, signed by J.
Fraser, Auditor General. Referring to Inspector Leech's travelling expenses. He says:
I have before me the expense accounts of Mr. R. A. E. Leech, inspector of agencies, for the period included between April 1 and October 31, 1909, and would ask your attention to the following remarks thereon:
1. In no instance does Mr. Leech make use of return tickets on the railways, but charges single fare in all cases. While on some of his trips, which are of a roundabout nature, return tickets could not well be made use of, still there are others on which a saving might have been made by the purchase of return tickets. For instance, there are about twenty trips between Brandon and Winnipeg for which $1 each way is charged. The return fare should be only about $6.70, which would have made a saving of $1.30 on each round trip. Again, on a trip to Ottawa and return, $33.80, the ordinary single fare, is charged each way. The regular return ticket from Winnipeg to Ottawa, however, is $59.45, so that a saving of $8.15 might have been effected on this trip. There are other trips on which, I think, return tickets might have been advantageously made use of.
I would make the suggestion to the minister that if there is any doubt in the mind of the watchdog of the treasury, the Auditor General, that any employee of this government is not absolutely honest in his accounts, a very much better method to follow than that at present followed would be to compute for a certain time the average expense and have an arrangement made with the different railways so that passes could be had and the average passenger rate paid straight from the government to the railway companies, thus removing any inducement in the way of an official who was mistrusted by the Auditor General to bring any onprobium on his name either rightly or wrongly.
3. With reference to livery hire, it appears that Mr. Leech is under a misapprehension with respect to the necessity for vouchers. He states that, according to his information,

livery vouchers are required only when the bill amounts to a considerable sum. In the November statement no single charge is for more than one day's livery hire, the highest for which is eight dollars. Eight dollars, however, would represent a very heavy day's drive, or the drive of a day and the good part of a night. I am advising Mr. Leech that sub-vouchers are required for all payments for livery hire.
4 and 5. With respect to meals on dining cars, Mr. Leech informs me that when he commenced work for the department and for some time afterwards, the price of meals was $1, which only required the keeping track of the number of meals in connection with his expenses. When these rates were changed by the railway companies it was only for the purpose of increasing their charges, and now it is a very poor meal one can get by limiting the price to $1, but as it is more convenient he has adhered to the old plan, although the meals have cost him considerably more.
To conclude, I might say that I have instructed Mr. Leech to bear your remarks very carefully in mind in future, and to make out his accounts in accordance therewith. I trust the explanations given with respect to the accounts already rendered will prove sufficient.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,


W. W. CORY, D.M.
[Stage Direction]
The Auditor General.
I made the suggestion to the minister that something should be done to provide that no such even indirect charge be brought against an official of the government as is contained in this letter of the Auditor General, and I would like to know how he takes my suggestion before I go on if he has anything to say.
Frank Oliver: No; I do not know that I have anything to say. I was rather of the opinion that this letter of the Auditor General is not a charge against Mr. Leech. It is a certain direction as to how his accounts were to be made out. I do not think it throws any implication upon Mr. Leech's honesty in regard to his accounts.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: He says that there are overcharges.


Frank Oliver: In that letter.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Not in that letter, but as you go along.


Frank Oliver: I followed the letteer and I did not find anything that would reflect on Mr. Leech's honesty. He is not considered to be as careful in the transaction of business as he should be, and the Auditor General points out how he should carry on his business so as to be less expensive, but there is no imputation of dishonesty.


Glenlyon Campbell: Perhaps the minister will read another letter from the Auditor General, dated March 11,	1910. It is
headed:


Glenlyon Campbell: 


INSPECTOR LEECH'S EXPENSES, INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN FARES CHARGED AND TRANSPORT ORDERS ISSUED.
[Stage Direction]
I would like the minister's special attention to this, because I think if is very important. The letter I read a moment ago was answered in a certain way by the Deputy Minister. This one is not answered and I would like the answer to-night.
Audit Office,
Ottawa, March 11, 1910.
Sir,-I beg to call your attention to certain inconsistencies between the fares charged by Mr. R. E. A. Leech, inspector of agencies, in his expense accounts and the amounts paid the railway companies for tickets supplied to him on transportation orders.
Order No. 1036 is for a single ticket from Calgary to Edmonton, delivered Mr. Leech by the Canadian Pacific railway ticket agent at Calgary on October 15, 1908. Order No. 1361, dated October 16, 1908, is for a single ticket from Edmonton to Regina, delivered Mr. Leech by the agent of the Canadian Northern railway. This order is stamped by the Canadian Northern Railway at Edmonton on October 23, 1908. On referring to Mr. Leech's accounts for the month of October, 1908, it would appear he arrived in Calgary from Banff on October 15
[Stage Direction]
That is the day that he got the ticket from the Canadian Pacific railway agent.
-that he remained in Calgary until the 17tli, on which date he left for Brandon direct, charging in his account a single fare ticket from Calgary to Brandon. He returned to Calgary again on the 19th, and on the 21st went back to Brandon. On October 23, the date on which the order was stamped at Edmonton, Mr. Leech appears to have been at Medicine Hat, on his way from Calgary to Brandon.
We, on this side of the House, recognized his capacity for taking care of personation, but wre did not know that he could be in two places at one time in his own person.
Order No. 1041 is for a single ticket from Calgary to Edmonton, delivered to Mr. Leech ,by the Canadian Pacific railway agent at Calgary on April 27, 1909. Mr. Leech's expense account shows that while he was at Calgary on April 27, 1909, he left on that date for Regina and did not go up to Edmonton.
Surely this is something that the minister ought to take into consideration.
Order No. 425 is for a single ticket from Regina to Prince Albert, supplied Mr. Leech by the agent of the Canadian Northern railway on May 10, 1909, Mr. Leech's expense account shows that he arrived in Regina from Brandon on May 10, that he stayed in Regina until the following day, when he left for Winnipeg. He does not appear to have gone ti Prince Albert at this time at all.
Surely that is something else for the minister to take into his consideration. The department was paying his way into

a different point at the same time as he had a ticket to go somewhere else, both tickets being paid for by the people.
Order No. 2152 is for a single ticket from Regina to Prince Albert, supplied to Mr. Leech by the agent of the Canadian Northern railway at Brandon on July 21, 1909. According to Mr. Leech's expense account he arrived in Brandon from Areola on July 16 and remained at Brandon until July 23
[Stage Direction]
The ticket he had got from Regina to Prince Albert was dated July 21.
-on which date he went to Winnipeg. He does not appear to have been at Prince Albert any time during the month of July.
Another case of personation. I am glad to notice that the nod of the minister is so emphatic that he must agree with me that Mr. Leech is an adept at impersonation.
Order No. 444 is for a single ticket from Regina to Prince Albert, delivered Mr. Leech by the agent of the Canadian Northern railway at Regina on July 30, 1909. Prom his expense account, Mr. Leech appears to have arrived in Regina from Banff on July 30, and to have proceeded the same date to Brandon, and not to Prince Albert.
He had a ticket for Prince Albert for which the people paid at the same time as he had obtained a ticket presumably for himself to go to Brandon.
Mr. Leech should have to explain why he issued transportation orders in his own name in the above cases, when his expense accounts show that he was travelling in a totally different direction. It is probable that the tickets supplied on the transportation orders in question were not for his own use, but for the use of other officials. If such was the case the name of the official using the ticket supplied should have been endorsed on the transportation order, or still better, the transportation order should have been issued, not in Mr. Leech's name, but in the name of the official actually using the ticket. A full explanation of the circumstances under which each order was issued should be furnished by Mr. Leech.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
J. FRASER, A.Gn.
The Deputy Minister of the Interior.
That letter was written from the Audit Office, March 11, 1910, and as far as I can learn, no answer has yet been returned to it. I would like an explanation now.
Frank Oliver: I notice there is no answer in the Auditor General's Report to that letter. The reason is that there was some delay in answering and the answer which should have appeared in the Auditor General's Report was too 'late for insertion. I . have here a copy of the answer to that letter and I shall place it on ' Hansard.' It reads:
Dear Mr. Fraser,-I am in receipt of your letter of the 30th ultimo, in which you draw attention to the fact that you have never received a reply to your letter of the 11th of March last, relating to certain transportation orders issued by Mr. R. E. A. Leech, inspector ot Dominion Lands agencies, which appear to conflict with his expense accounts. In reply, I beg to say that you will doubtless recall that in the year 1908, Mr. Leech was placed in charge of a general seed distribution which was conducted in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. It was originally contemplated to bring employees of this department from various Land Offices to assist Mr. Leech in his work, but owing to the unprecedented demand for seed grain of that year and the extent of the work involved in distributing it to needy settlers, it was found necessary to employ a great many temporary men to assist in various capacities. Some of them were sent out on special trips to various points and in such cases were given transportation orders by Mr. Leech in his name or the tickets were secured on Mr. Leech's order and given to them. In no instance, however, were such orders used except on government business.
I understand that Mr. Reid of your office lately called on Mr. Leech and went into this matter fully. I presume that probably you have his report ere this.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) W. W. CORY.
Deputy Minister.
John Fraser, Esq., Auditor General.


Glenlyon Campbell: That is satisfactory, except that the department had to be jogged five or six months after and asked for a statement with regard to it. I shall read another letter from Mr. Fraser with regard to the same Mr. Leech, with reference to his sleeping and parlour car charges:
Audit Office,
Ottawa, March 14, 1909.
Sir,-In my examination of the accounts of Mr. R. E. A. Leech, inspector of agencies, for the seven months included between April 1 and October 31, 1909, it appears to me'that the charges made by him for accommodation on sleeping cars and on parlour cars are considerably in excess of the advertised rates for such services. I inclose herewith a statement showing the various charges made by lum, the correct amounts, as nearly as I could determine them, and the apparent overcharges. In making out this statement, I have been guided, as far as possible, by the amounts advertised by the transportation companies. In other cases, however, I have been guided by the charges made by other officials for similar services. In a few cases it was difficult to determine whether the trip was made during the day or by night. In such cases I have been guided, as far as possible, by the charges for meals on the dining cars, as during the night these cars are not open. The amounts allowed by me, in the column headed 'correct charges' are subject to modification. Mr. Leech, however, should be asked to justify each charge made by him and to refund any overcharge.
When the Auditor General seriously makes a statement of this kind and absolutely says that Leech has been overcharge

ing the department, I think it is time for the department to seriously take the matter into consideration and ascertain the facts. Either Mr. Fraser or his clerical staff is incompetent, or Mr. Leech is dishonest. In saying that I do not wish to say anything detrimental to the capacity and capability of the Auditor General and his staff.


Frank Oliver: That letter is replied to on the following page as follows:
Department of the Interior,
Ottawa, June 10, 1910.
Dear Mr. Fraser,-Referring to your letter of March It last, with reference to the accounts of Mr. R. E. A. Leech, inspector of Dominion Land agencies, relating particularly to the sleeping car charges, I beg to say that I am now in receipt of an explanation from this official. He says, in effect, that he has always found it difficult to determine i' hether all the charges are in accordance with the sleeping car schedules. He has only recently been able to borrow a Canadian Pacific railway official sleeping car schedule, but even from this he has not been able to determine the rates in many cases. Those which the schedule shows plainly, however, indicate that his charges are correct, except a charge made nn April 7, Winnipeg to Nokomis, $4. In this case the through rate, as shown on the nnhedule, is $3, but if the trip had been broken or sleeper had been engaged, say from Winnipeg to Elkhorn and then from Elkhorn to Nokomis, the cost would have been $4.
I inclose you herewith a statement from Mr. Leech showing you the charges as he has been able to verify them from the schedules, but the schedules are somewhat intricate, and he has only given figures where there was no question as to what the charge should be. I trust you will find the explanation satisfactory.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,


W. W. CORY, D.M.
[Stage Direction]
The Auditor General.
There follows a statement of affairs made by Mr. Leech, taken from the schedule and compared with the schedule of fares and Mr. Leech makes the assertion that the correct fares have been charged.
William D. Staples: What authority had Leech to issue those orders to any other individual? It seems to me that he takes a great deal of authority upon himself. In Manitoba, to our dissatisfaction and discomfort, he took on himself authority to do what he saw fit with the voters' lists. Now, I understand he takes authority to issue to other agents travelling orders which I am led to believe are simply Jrom a little book of coupons on which? the ticket agent issues tickets. It would only take an hour or two to get an order from the minister to issue these transportation orders. Mr. Leech manages to carry on things in a high handed way and apparently he has some hold on the government Mr. CAMPBELL.
which enables him to do just as he pleases, and in his case the government dare not say their souls are their own. He draws a salary of $3,000 a year which he augments to $7,000 by other expenses. I believe the government could get a competent and honest man to discharge Mr. Leech's duties for a far less salary. And yet, the government goes on employing him from year to year notwithstanding that all these doings of his have been brought to their attention. It is time the minister should call a halt on Mr. Leech and investigate his transactions.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Leech was a commissioner with full responsibility to see that the seed grain got out and no technicality in regard to the issue of transportation or anything else was to stand in his way. It was a case of delivering the goods, and Leech delivered the goods in time, to the satisfaction of the people, and to the very great benefit of the country at large. He could not have done so had he been hampered by a requirement to appeal to Ottawa for issue of transportation when it was required. It is true that Mr. Leech is an expensive official. It is true he has a high salary and that his travelling expenses are very high, but I do not think they amount to more than is paid to other men in private life who are engaged in duties that are not any more responsible and that are not discharged with any greater ability. Although I did not appoint Mr. Leech I want to say on his behalf that his services as inspector of Dominion Land agencies, and in the position we have frequently placed him in as acting as a sort of court in case of dispute as to homestead duties', and particularly in the administration of the seed grain distribution, have been eminently satisfactory so far as my knowledge goes, and I take this opportunity of saying so.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: He charges a dollar fare from Brandon to Winnipeg and there is no such fare.


Frank Oliver: Are you complaining that he doe3 not charge enough?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: He charges 50 cents too much each time.


Richard Stuart Lake: The Canadian Pacific Rail-rvay folder gives the charge from Brandon to Winnipeg at 50 cents, and every time Mr. Leech charges double the legal fare.


Frank Oliver: I know he is an expensive man.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: He is worse than that, he is a dishonest man.


Frank Oliver: That can be threshed out before the Public Accounts Committee better than here and it is open to my hon. friend to prove M*. Leech's dishonesty if dis-
5614
I /

honest he is. He is certainly at their mercy to make what they can out of him in the Public Accounts Committee, and I assure them he gets no protection from me.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: If he travels by night in a pullman car from Brandon to Winnipeg the fare is two dollars, but in the day time the fare is 50 cents, and he apparently charges one dollar.


William D. Staples: If the department had the public interest at heart they would have asked Mr. Leech before now to supply the names of the persons he employed in this case of emergency. The minister says that Leech was aide to deliver the goods, and we all know he is a pretty handy man at delivering the goods, particularly on one occasion when he delivered the goods to the electors of Manitoba.


Frank Oliver: That was the time he failed to deliver the goods.


William D. Staples: He did not fail to erase the names of elector^ who were entitled to vote.


David Bradley Neely: What is the matter with your law in Alanitoba?


William D. Staples: The law is all right, but this Dominion official was all wrong. It is time the government took means to inquire into this man's actions more closely and that his services were dispensed with. That is my opinion of the honesty and efficiency of that gentleman no matter what the opinion of the Minister of the Interior is.


Richard Stuart Lake: The Auditor General's report makes out that in 83 trips during 7 months there was an overcharge made, and Air. Leech only attempts to explain 23 of them. Until he has cleared himself of the charge that he lias been systematically over-charging and putting the balance in his pocket Mr. Leech should not be allowed to act in the semi-judicial capacity he is constantly called upon to fill.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to ask the hon. minister how it was that Mr. AIcLean, who is employed in Winnipeg at $5 a day, was sent out just a month before the last local election in order to distribute scrip and was paid $10 a day extra. I cannot find out where he was distributing any scrip at all, but he was supposed to be a heeler for the Liberal party at the local election. It was in October that he was out doing that work, and he should have been paid at the end of October or in November. But he was not paid until the 1st of Alarch following. By delaying payment, the item never appeared in the Auditor General's Report until a year and a half after the work had been done. The result was that the government were paying this man $5 per day in Winnipeg while he was absent 177
from his work, and $10 a day besides for working in the local elections of Saskatchewan and Alberta. And at the same time this man meets Leech who was travelling all over the province, and the stubs of the tickets will show that while he gave certificates say from Calgary to Edmonton, he was travelling from Calgary to Regina. The inference to be drawn is that he had a lot of political workers going around the country and paid by the department at Ottawa. It is all very fine for the minister to say to us: you can go before the Public Accounts Committee and prove what you say. But how can we prove it? Leech will swear that these men were employed to run out and examine somebody's farm or something of that kind. The Act was illegal, it was defrauding the country in an underhand way, and the Minister of the Interior must have instructed Leech and McLean to do that kind of work. Then the minister held the payments over from October until after the 1st of March. Why did he not pay the men at once? I ask the minister now to explain that transaction and clear it up if he can. Then if it should come before the Public Accounts Committee, we will have the minister's statement, and see if Leech and McLean will confirm it.


Frank Oliver: With regard to Leech and
the tickets he issued to other people in his own name, I can only say that the case was one of urgency. A great deal of work had to be done in a short time, and it was important, not only to the individuals concerned, but the country at, large, that it should be done. Mr. Leech tried to exercise his judgment in these matters, and I am prepared to stand right behind him in that transportation. I do not wish to be understood that I am going to stand behind Leech in any investigation that shall be made in the Public Accounts Committee into all his financial transactions with regard to his own expenditures. If dishonesty can be shown against him, he will have to take the consequences; but so far as the issue of special transportation was concerned at the time of the issue of seed grain, I take the full responsibility. It was a case of urgency. Leech had full authority, and I have every confidence that what was done was done in the interests of the public. With regard to W. J. McLean, Whatever there may be against Leech as being a political worker, there is no such charge agains.t McLean. Mr. McLean was an old employee of the Hudson Bay Company, over 70 years of age. On account of his knowledge of the Indian language and character and his general desire to be employed, we gave Air. McLean this particular work of paying the Indian treaty money and taking evidence with regard to halfbreed scrip in the far northern country north of Prince Albert. The ordinary time of the year for paying treaty money was in



that month. McLean was paid by the two departments because he was working for the two. He was paid by the Indian Department for his work in paying out the treaty money, and by the Interior Department for taking evidence with regard to halfbreed scrip., The idea that Mr. McLean could under any circumstances be valuable politically is utterly preposterous.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister has let the cat out of the bag. McLean is no political worker, but during the month before the local elections he was sent out with this treaty money. It was not so urgent months before to pay this treaty money, but it became very urgent within two or three weeks of the election. McLean did not go out to buy votes, but here are a lot of electors in a local'election who want their claims settled, and McLean was sent out to pay them. Is it not astonishing that for months previously the minister would not settle this claim, and just a month before the elections he sent out a good honest old gentleman, whom no one would suspect of being a political leader. He sent him out to get the evidence and see who had claims. Some of the claimants he did not pay. He did not pay until after the election, and then went out to find all those people who had claims. He did not mention politics, of course, but there was a man guiding him around who was known as a political heeler. The minister knows better than that. He says it was very urgent and that they had to be settled just then. Of course it was urgent to carry the election.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did the Indians have votes in the election?


John Dowsley Reid: What about the halfbreeds? Have they not votes? They got scrip just the same as the Indians. The minister fixed the whole scheme and sent McLean just to get votes. He 6ent Leech out with seed grain of course, because of course that was necessary, but Leech was sent out when the local elections were going on. The minister should get up and acknowledge that the whole thing was a political scheme from start to finish. The men delivered the goods, there is no doubt about that; but they delivered them with money taken from the people of this country, illegally as I claim. The minister ban ease his conscience by saying that he did not go but himself buying votes; but it was an act he would not do in his private business, though in a public matter of this kind it is easy for him to settle his conscience if his conscience is at all pliable.


Glenlyon Campbell: With regard to the items referred to by the Auditor General in his letter of transportation issued by Mr. Leech to some one else, I can readily understand that it might be absolutely justifiable' under the circumstances the minister Mr. OLIVER.
has just cited in the case of the distribution of seed grain, though I do not see why a man could not buy his ticket and charge it up to the department in the manner usually followed. But I have yet to learn- and I would like the minister to note this- of any part of the Northwest provinces which sow at the end of July or in October. Why, then, should grain be distributed for seed purposes at these dates? The minister will find that of these five cases only two were in April and May when seed grain possibly could have been used, and the others in July and October. The reason the minister alleged surely cannot be the correct one.


Frank Oliver: In regard to other times of the year, of course the same justification does not exist. I do not pretend to justify Mr. Leech issuing transportation under ordinary circumstances. But, as I have already said, so far as the seed grain distribution is concerned, I must stand by him in that.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am not finding fault with that, but these are absolute charges brought by the Auditor General against this man Leech. One of these dates, as I have said, is October 23. There is no seed grain distributed then, unless it be winter wheat, and there was none grown in that part of the country at that time. And July 23, and July 30-you don't sow anything then.


Frank Oliver: There is no seed distribution at that time. I will inquire of Mr. Leech as to these. And, in the meantime, if the Public Accounts Committee are sitting on Mr. Leech, I can only advise them to go at him and find out for themselves. In the other cases, we will try to find out his explanation.


William Roche: The minister is placing too much emphasis on the investigation about to take place before the Public Accounts Committee. I believe that all that has been done so far is to move foT the papers. Whether there will be an investigation or not will depend wholly upon the character of these papers. But, with the charges contained in the Auditor General's Report, the minister should riot have satisfied himself with a waiting action by the Public Accounts Committee, but should have investigated the accounts and had Mr. Leech on the carpet to make an explanation. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) has referred to the fact that Mr. Leech could easily have verified the charges by looking up a Canadian Pacific railway-folder. But if we are to take Mr. Leech's word for it, we must take into consideration how difficult it is for him to secure one of these folders. Here is this great transcontinental line with its immense business; and Mr. Leech is in Winnipeg

*


An hon. MEMBER.: In Brandon.


William Roche: Yes, but he goes to Winnipeg sometimes in an election. And he would have us believe that it was three months before he could secure a folder, and then he had to borrow one. Mr. Cory's letter replying to the Auditor General is dated June 10, and begins ' Referring to your letter of March 14.' That is, it took until June 10, for this explanation to be forthcoming. And it proceeds:
I beg to say that I am now in receipt of an explanation from this official. He says, in effect, that he has always found it difficult to determine whether all the charges are in accordance with the sleeping car schedules. He has only recently been able to borrow a Canadian Pacific railway official sleeping car schedule, but even from this he has not been able to determine the rates in many cases.
How puerile that explanation is. It is ridiculous that we should be told, as a lot of intelligent men, that for three months he could not secure a Canadian Pacific railway folder in order to find the accuracy of these charges. I think an explanation should have been demanded of him by his superior officer, the Minister of the Interior, long ere this. In these large expenses, in addition to a large salary of $3,000 per annum, there is a chance, with a gentleman who does not bear the most enviable reputation, to get in small graft, and even large graft, by overcharging his expenses, unless the vouchers are forthcoming for everything expended. Mr. Leech's head office is in Brandon, but he appears periodically in Winnipeg, and usually at the time of an election. In the last provincial election he had business that kept him almost constantly, I am informed, in the city of Winnipeg. He used to be the provincial organizer for the Liberal party in the province of Manitoba, and it was understood that because of his services in that capacity that he was given his present position. No doubt, his knowledge of political affairs in that province was valuable to his party. I believe that in the provincial election in Saskatchewan, his services were needed, espcially in Regina. But he is not the only official who interests himself in that way. At page K-56 of the Auditor General's Report, we find the name of Mr. Ostrosky, who receives $100 a month and expenses, and who is a most active political agent. He came into my constituency during the late election and went through securing naturalization papers for the Galicians at no expense to them, of course, the money, no doubt, coming from the political party in whose interest he was acting. Now possibly the Minister of the Interior may be entirely ignorant of those circumstances. But whoever is responsible, this gentleman at any rate, who is an official of the Interior Department, has been very active during election time.
177J
I draw this to the attention of the minister so that he may make inquiry into the circumstances himself. He has expressed himself more than once in this House as being opposed to his officials taking part in elections. But in regard to Mr. Leech's expenses, I hold that the Minister of the Interior should long ere this have made a personal investigation into the charges made against Mr. Leech, in view of the correspondence that we read in the Auditor General's Report.


Frank Oliver: I do not for a moment throw responsibility on the Public Accounts Committee for the proper conduct of the affairs of the Interior Department. It is quite proper, as the hon. gentleman has said, that the accounts which are investigated by the Auditor General should be investigated by the department, and I propose to see that that is done. I merely offered the suggestion to hon. gentlemen that by the Public Accounts Committee they had an independent means of arriving at all the facts in regard to these accounts.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It is now midnight, and it will take us hours to get through with Mr. Leech. I would ask, therefore, that the government allow us to adjourn.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at, 11.52 p.m.

Monday, March 20, 1911.