Mr. AMES moved:: That the Select Standing Committee on. Banking and Commerce have leave to sit while the House is in session, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the 20th report of the said committee presented this 30th day of April, 1913.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I would suggest that that stand until Friday.


Herbert Brown Ames: We were hoping to be able to sit this afternoon for a while at least. We have nearly finished our labours on the Bank Bill. There are some thirty-five clauses yet remaining to be dealt with. If hon. members agree, I would suggest that the njotion might be amended so as to give us leave to sit this day only and have the general question as to our sitting while the House is in session dealt with on Friday. I will bring in a new report on Friday asking for the general permission.


Wilfrid Laurier: Are there witnesses from a distance to be examined?


Herbert Brown Ames: No, we are through with the witnesses. We are now dealing with the clauses of the Bill.


Mr. CARVELL:: It is intended this afternoon to take up one of the most important sections, the* interest section, and 1 should like much to be present in the committee when that is dealt with. But there are matters of great importance coming up in the House this afternoon. I know there are other members who would like to he present here, yet who would like to be in the Banking and Commerce Committee. I suppose it would be possible for us to neglect either the House or the committee, but we certainly cannot be in both places at the same time.


Wilfrid Laurier: If there are no witnesses to be examined, but simply matters to be brought up that the committee has to consider for the preparation of its report, I cannot see any reason why the committee should not sit, as committees usually do, when the House is not in session. What reason can be advanced for this motion?


Herbert Brown Ames: The only objection to delay is that, as I understand it, the House is shortly 'to sit in the morning, and we are very anxious, if we can, to finish with the Banking Bill before the morning sittings begin. We expect to find it extremely difficult to continue our sittings when the House has three sittings a day.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the committees have not finished their business, that is a good reason why the House should not sit in the mornings.


Mr. BORDEN:: My impression is that
three years ago the House began sitting in the mornings quite early in the session, some time before the right hon. Prime Minuter left for England. It seems to me that after five and a half months' sitting, it is time that the House began to sit in the mornings.


Wilfrid Laurier: That depends on the business of the House. When the budget speech has been presented and there are no more Bills to be introduced, there is no objection to morning sittings. Nobody cares to sit here much longer. 1 think I have said elsewhere that prorogation was a blessing, and I am of that opinion still. But morning sittings should commence only after all the business is before the House, and the committees have finished their work.


Mr. EMMERSON:: I desire to explain
my own position. I opposed this application in the committee. I have several amendments to move to the Bank Bill, and I did not think we should make the request to the House to be permitted to sit while the House is in session. But since coming into the House it has been intimated to me that the important matters which I had in hand would not be taken Mr. AMES.
up, and of course I have no personal objection to the committee sitting. Of course, I should like ve*y much to be there when other amendments are being considered. Yet it is very important in the interests of my constituents that I should be present in the House this afternoon, and _ so I should not be able to attend the Banking Committee.


Herbert Brown Ames: Let it stand as a notice of motion to be taken up on Friday.
Motion stands.



QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. KYTE:: 1.	What quantity of timber has been sold off the government farm at Kentville from March 1, 1912, to date?
2.	What are the names of the parties to whom sold, the amount purchased by each and price of same?
3.	Have all accounts for timber sold or taken from government farm since March 1, 1912, been paid?
4.	If not, what are the names and amounts of those in arrears?
5.	What is the cost per cord to the Government for firewood delivered from the government farm? .
6.	How many cords of firewood have been sold since March 1, 1912, to date?
7.	To whom is payment made for timber and firewood sold off the farm?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1. 1084 cords of stave wood at $3
per cord		$325
30 trees at $1.50 each		45
2. A. Cecil Margeson, Kentville,	
N.S., 1084 cords stave wood	
at $3 per cord		325
Kenneth Sharp, Kentville, N.S.,	
30 trees at $1.50 each		45
3. Yes.	
4. None.	
5. Two or three dollars per cord,	according to distance of haulage.
6.	2134 cords.
7.	To the superintendent.


MUNRO HOMESTEAD ENTRY.
Mr. OLIVER:: What disposition has been made of section 11, township 56, range 26, west of the principal meridian ?


Mr. CROTHERS:: A claim was filed by Mr. Harry Munro for homestead entry for the southwest quarter of this section on the ground of settlement prior to survey, and this quarter section was subsequently surrendered from school lands endowment and homestead entry tnerefore granted to

Mr. Munro under the provisions of sub-section 1 of section 39, of the Dominion Lands Act, and the southeast* quarter of section 30, in the same township was selected in lieu thereof and set apart as school land. Mr. Munro subsequently located half-lbreed scrip on this land and patent issued to him therefore. The 'balance of the section is undisposed of.


SOULANGES CANAL SUPERINTENDENT.
[Stage Direction]
* Sir WILRID LAURIER:
1.	What have been the supplementary expenses to the _ regular salary of Mr. St. Amour, superintendent of the Soulanges canal, in each month since he entered into the employment of the Government?
2.	What do these supplementary expenses consist of?
Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	For the month of December, 1911,
$27.75; January, 1912, $39.65; February, 1912, $55.20; March, 1912, $51.20; April, 1912, $67.45; May, 1912, $66.25; June, 1912, $71.70; July, 1912, $82.60; August, 1912, $85.50; September, 1912, $64.80; October, 1912, $60.30; November, 1912, $46.40; December, 1912, $49.90; January, 1913,	$34.40; February,
1913, $21.90; March, 1913, $41.80.
2.	Travelling and hotel expenses in connection with the inspection of canal.


VETERINARY DIRECTOR GENERAL IN HALIFAX.
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: Has Doctor Torrance, Veterinary Director General of Canada, been recently in Nova Scotia? If so, for what purpose, at whose request, and what were his instructions?


Mr. BURRELL:: Yes. Sometime previously information had been received at the office of the Veterinary Director General that the tuberculin supplied by the Health of Animals Branch to Truro Agricultural College had failed to give reaction, and, as special inquiry was being held in Halifax in relation io this question, the minister instructed Doctor Torrance to proceed to Halifax and give such information as the committee might desire to have.


GUYSBOROUGH CUSTOMS OFFICERS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: What are the names and salaries of all customs and preventive officers, respectively, appointed by the present administration in Guysborough county, N.S. ?


Mr. REID:: Port of Canso, chief port,
E. M. Hurst, acting preventive officer, $700; Larry's river, W. J. Murphy, acting preventive officer, $150; Liscomb, William Hemlow, acting preventive officer, $200; Whitehaven, C. *V. Wells, acting preventive officer, $400; Port Mulgrave, David Murray, acting preventive officer, $400.


ACTON VALE PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
[Stage Direction]
How much has been said to the proprietor of the Electric Light Company for lighting the public buildings at Acton Vale, Quebec, from 1st April, 4011, to 1st April, 1912, and from 1st April, 1912, to 1st April, 1913?
Mr. ROGERS:: 1911-1912, $103.05; 1912-
1913, $160.80; total, $263.85.


BOULARD LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER.
Mr. FORTIER:: 1.	Has an inquiry been held respecting Napoleon Daigle, keeper of a lighthouse at Boulard, in Lotbiniere, as announced by a newspaper of Quebec?
2.	Who made this inquiry, what was the result and what is the total cost of it?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Mr. J. G. H. Bergeron.
(b)	No action is being taken.
(c)	$52.30.


WHARF CONSTRUCTION.
Mr. FORTIER:: Does the Government intend to complete the works of wharfs under construction, and [DOT]does the Government know that wharfs are indispensable to the transport of agricultural products to the markets of Quebec and Montreal?


Robert Rogers: (a) Yes, if deemed advisable; (b) Yes.


DISMISSALS.
Mr. FORTIER:: 1.	For what reason was Francois Dore, caretaker of the two lighthouses near the church of St. Antoine de Lotbiniere, Quebec, dismissed ?
2.	Has he been replaced by Gedeon Demers?
3.	Did Mr. Demers take a very active part in the last federal and local elections?
4.	Was there an inquiry, and who recommended this change?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Political partisanship.
2.	Yes.
3.	The department has no information upon this subject.
4.	(a) No; (b) Hon. L. P. Pelletier.


Mr. FORTIER:: 1.	Why has Philias Abel, keener of the lighthouse of the Cote de Lotbiniere, in line with those of La Barre a Boulard, been replaced by Omer Lemay?
2.	Is Omer Lemay a political canvasser of all parties?
3.	Has an inquiry been held concerning
Abel?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1. Lightkeeper, Phileas Abel, has been removed for political partisanship.

2.	The department has no information upon this subject.
3.	Yes.	[DOT]


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of the report made by the inquiring commissioner, Mr. J. H. Bergeron, in the inquiry lately held by him, at Quebec, re Doctor J. D. Page, of Quebec, and of the reports made by the advocate of the complainant and defendant in the same cause, at the request of the inquiring commisisoner.- Mr. Boulay.
For a copy of all letters, papers, memoranda and other documents, dated since January 1, 1912, relating to the Kitsilano Indian reserve in the city of Vancouver.-Mr. Oliver.
For a return showing a list of all the newspapers in Canada in which advertisements 'have been inserted by the Government, or any minister, officer or department thereof, between the 10th day of October, 1906, and 10th October, 1907, and between said dates in each of the years following up to the 10th of October, 11911, together with a statement of the gross amount paid therefor for the years mentioned, to each of the said newspapers or the proprietors of the same.-.Mr. Thornton.

Frank Oliver: For the production of the original papers, letters, memoranda and other documents comprising file No. 726a, being file quoted from by the Minister of Public "Works on Tuesday, April 17, :19il3.


Robert Rogers: Stand.


Frank Oliver: Might I ask why this
motion has stood since yesterday?


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend is asking for the production of original papers, which I understand is contrary to the rules of the House, and I want to look into the matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: It has been done before.
Motion stands.
INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY BRANCH LINES, &c.
House again in Committee on the following proposed resolution-(Mr. Cochrane):
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Minister of Railways and Canals may, subject to the authority of the Governor in Council, construct, .purchase, .lease or otherwise acquire, in whole or in part, any _ railway, railway bridge, railway station, railway terminal, railway ferry or other railway work; and that any such railway or other work shall become a part of the government railway system.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Mr. COCHRANE moved to amend the resolution by inserting after the word * work ' in the fourth line the words:
Mr. HAZEN.
For the construction, purchase, lease or acquisition of which special provision has been made by Parliament.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The minister is asking for large powers in connection with railway construction or purchase. Are there any particular railways which he wishes to purchase or which he desires to have power to construct and if so what are they ?


Mr. COCHRANE:: It is impossible to
say where railways will have to be constructed. We have had quite a discussion in this House on the question and demands for the construction of railways, particularly in Guysborough, Pictou, Cape Breton counties and also in other parts of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The lines which are to be purchased or leased is a matter for investigation. We are only taking authority to do it. If the hon. member would wait until the introduction of the Bill so that he would have a copy of it we could proceed with the discussion more intelligently.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No Bill can be
brought in except in conformity with the resolution and it would be much better for the House if the minister would be more direct and give us this information. Does it relate to the branch line Dolicv in connection with the Intercolonial?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Why does it not so
state? In 1904 when I was minister and brought down a resolution with respect to the Canada Eastern Railway from Fredericton to Loggieville in New Brunswick


Francis Cochrane: You had already purchased it?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We had entered into an arrangement. We were required to go into the most minute details. Subsequently when the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), in 1910, came to Parliament asking for authority to acquire these selfsame branch line railways, he was required to name them with particularity and indeed exception was taken to the character of his resolution because he did not give in it the full particulars. Exception was taken in 1904 to the character of the information which I laid before the House in support of that resolution which related to one particular railway. Here my hon. friend asks for power, subject to the authority of the Governor in Council:
To construct, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire in whole or in part any railway, &c.
Anywhere, it is not confined to branch lines of the Intercolonial, it could be in the West. It seems to me that before we come down to a discussion of this one subject of the branch lines in connection with the Intercolonial, the resolution should

state just what is in the mind of the hon. minister and the Government. My hon. fnend says that hon. members have been urging construction of this or that line. That is not relevant, that is not an answer to the objection which I make. Hon. members may desire to have certain lines constructed and other hon. member may desire to have certain branch lines acquired but the point is, what has my hon. friend in his mind in respect to the lease or purchase of these lines? If a policy has been decided upon by the Government it should be laid before Parliament and we should have particulars of the lines that it is proposed to acquire, or at least some details. It may be applied to the lines which it is intended to construct. Surely we are entitled to have that information before passing this resolution. We cannot intelligently discuss it without such information. I have asked time and again what the policy of the Government is with respect to the purchase or acquisition of those branch lines and I have been told:	Wait, wait,
you will learn of it at some time in the future. Even now, when a resolution of this far-reaching character is brought here, no information is vouchsafed to us as to any of the particulars in regard to it. I remember that in the discussion on the Canada Eastern Railway resolution the hon. member from Kings took exception to the passage of the Bill till the Government had declared their policy as regards the other branch lines in the maritime provinces or other branch lines connected with the Intercolonial, and that objection taken by him was repeated by other hon. members. They thought it the duty of the minister to say what was the policy of the Government with respect to_ other lines connecting with the Intercolonial. The minister does not indicate that this relates to the Intercolonial or any particular railway which he proposes to acquire or construct. It seems to me that he nas not been direct or frank, that them is something veiled about this. I would like to know what the policy of the Government is in regard to this. Have they in mind the acquisition of any branch lines and, if so, what branch lines have they under consideration? My hon. friend has had an official of his department, a very highly paid expert, during the past year and a half going over these railways. Surely the Government have had a report from that gentleman and surely they have considered that report and the whole question before bringing down this resolution. Or, does the minister seek to get this authority and then afterwards determine upon the policy in respect to the matter? If so, 1 do not think it is treating the House fairly. It is certainly not treating the country fairly and it .is not treating the owners of many branch lines connecting with the Intercolonial fairly. He is seeking power to expropriate any of these lines. I am
quite in accord with him if he comes before Parliament and declares frankly what his policy is and if he states that his policy is to acquire such branch lines as may be even deemed desirable among a certain number of those that will come up to a certain standard. I would heartily approve of such a proposition and I would go further, as I went in 1910 and 1911, I would support the granting of powers of expropriation, not that it may be necessary to expropriate, but that it may facilitate the acquisition of lines by arrangement. I think it is very desirable that the power of expropriation should be in the Bill. I know that in the year 1911, on the occasion when my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), then Minister of Railways and Canals, moved his resolution, I took exception to it because it did not contain powers of expropriation and because I thought it was in the interests of the country and of the Intercolonial railway that those powers should be taken by him in order that the Government might be able to gdt these roads, if possible, on fair and reasonable terms. Where the owners of the branch lines were unreasonable, it was desirable that the Government should have the power to bring them to book in the interest of the people served by these roads. I shall not refer to my remarks, which were uttered, I think, in May, 1911. But in that instance my hon. friend from South Renfrew was frank in his statement as to what he wanted to do. He was outspoken. I did not think he went far enough and I so said on that occasion. I do not think that my hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane), in this instance is frank with the country in regard to it.


Robert Laird Borden: He is decidely frank.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He may be frank,
but not candid. He has, in remarks which he has uttered in this House, given us to understand that he does not want to acquire any branch lines and that he does not think it in the interest of the Intercolonial that they should be so acquired.


Francis Cochrane: I do not think I was as frank as that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well, I so understood my hon. friend. Does my hon. friend repudiate that insinuation?


Francis Cochrane: I repudiate the broad statement that was made. I said that I did not want to acquire some of the branch lines.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well then, my hon.
friend wants to acquire some of them?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Why does he not state in his resolution that he does want to acquire certain of them and that he

is coining to Parliament and asking for power to acquire some of them? Evidently my hon. friend has in his mind certain railways that he wishes to acquire.


Francis Cochrane: No.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well, I gathered that from the statement he made.


Francis Cochrane: I have no particular railway in mind.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are some lines in connection with the Intercolonial railway that he wishes to acquire and he is seeking power by this resolution, and the Bill which is to follow it, to carry out his wishes in that regard. Perhaps this is no# the occasion when this should be fully discussed, but certainly I do not wish this resolution to have even my silent approval unless I have some further information with regard to it. The course being pursued by my hon. friend is one that was condemned every year that this subject was under discussion in a concrete way. I am entirely in favour of acquiring these railways. If my hon. friend will not go as far as I would and acquire them all, then, on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, I would support him with respect to the acquisition of some of them at least, but I think it would be fair to this House and to the country that he should take us into his confidence as to just what he wants to do by means of this resolution, what he purposes to do and what the policy of the Government is in respect to the subject.
He has harnessed up the two propositions, although they are distinct-one, that of acquiring railways already in existence and the other, that of constructing new railways. I do not think that they should be combined in one resolution, and I think that they should be considered separately and each upon its own merits. In the matter of the acquisition of lines already in existence, I certainly think the resolution should mention those railways that the minister has * in mind, the railways which the Government have had under consideration with a view to their acquisition. I remember very distinctly the exceptions that were taken to resolutions of a similar character in previous years and the principle was propounded in this House that, before the Government should seek powers, such as are sought by this resolution, they should give the fullest possible and even detailed information. That was the principle that was supported by my hon. friends when they were sitting on this side of the House, and I think they should live up to it to-day, although they have got into the habit of not living up to any cf the principles/which they supported when in Opposition. This is a resolution which, in my judgment, should Mr. EMMERSON.
not have our approval until we have the information. I want to support any policy that will mean the acquisition of these railways and even the construction of certain others, but surely my hon. friend is not serious in coming to the House and asking for_ such general powers to construct railways. If we pass this Bill, the minister could build a railway anywhere in Canada without reference to the present Government system of railways. Surely he has no such idea in contemplation; surely he knows what railway he wishes to construct, and if so why should the information not he set forth in this resolution as it was in the resolution submitted in May, 1911? I took exception to that resolution because I thought there should be certain coal railways in Nova Scotia that should be included in it and because the terms of the resolution did not give sufficient detailed information. I am almost tempted to doubt that the Minister of Railways is in earnest with respect to the acquisition of branch lines connected with the Intercolonial railway, judging from the character of this resolution.


Francis Cochrane: Is that fair?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think that is a fair statement.


Francis Cochrane: That is a pretty strong statement.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The resolution would almost lead me to believe that the Government has decided upon a different policy.


Francis Cochrane: That is better; you
say 'almost' now; not altogether.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I want to be fair and I want to state the case as it appears to me from the wording of the resolution. No one reading the resolution would conclude it had reference to the acquisition of the branch lines connecting with the Intercolonial or that the minister would confine himself to the construction of railways as feeders to that line. If the minister has the intention, as he says he has, of applying this to the Intercolonial branch lines, why does he not incorporate it in the resolution? Nothing could be more indefinite and uncertain in its terms than this resolution, which asks for unreserved and unrestricted power which Parliament would be recreant to its duty if it granted.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: It is much to be regretted that upon this question of acquiring the branch lines of the Intercolonial, extraneous matters should be included in the resolution, which tend to promote differences of opinion among the members in this House. On more than one occasion the House has expressed its opinion on the

desirability of the Government acquiring the branch lines and operating them as part of the Intercolonial system. Had the minister submitted a resolution simply providing for authority to lease or to purchase such branch lines on proopr terms, there would, I think, be no objection from any member of this House. We have the evidence that we are unanimously of the opinion, in the interests of the Intercolonial and in the interests of the'country, which is served by these branch lines, that they should be taken over and operated as part of the Intercolonial railway. The resolution as first submitted reads:
That it is expedient to provide that the Minister of Railways may, subject to the authority of the Governor in Council, construct, purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire, in whole or in part any railway, railway bridge, railway station, railway terminal, railway ferry, or other railway work, and that any such railway or other work shall become part of the Government railway system.
That gives a power which the minister must realize is greater than was ever given or ever thought of to be given to any minister or any government. Under that resolution, which does not seem to have been drawn with any care, the Government could commit this country to purchase a railway hundreds of miles away from the Intercolonial; it could undertake the construction of anyrailway in any part of the Dominion, and even though Parliament might not afterwards provide the money to pay the hills, the contractor could enter suit in the Exchequer Court and recover against the Government for whatever obligation the Government entered into with him. Evidently upon consideration the minister has considered it would not be desirable to press such a resolution and he proposes to amend it as follows:
To insert after the word ' work ' in line four the words for the construction, purchase, lease, or acquisition of which special provision has been made by Parliament.
Under that amendment it seems to me that the whole matter is rendered nugatory so far as immediate action is concerned. If the resolution is passed with this prohibitory clause in it, my hon. friend must still come to Parliament for authority to lease or to buy any of these branches, or to construct any new lines. That 3imply means more delay, possibly until another session of Parliament.


Francis Cochrane: What would you have me put in the resolution?


William Pugsley: I would limit it entirely to branch lines of the Intercolonial, because it is in respect of those that Parliament is already committed by a resolution just as strong as this one would be if it
were put through in this emasculated form It would simply be a declaration that this House is in favour of leasing or purchasing or building any line of railway which the Government may hereafter be authorized by Parliament to lease or to purchase or to build. It is simply an academic resolution, which gives no authority whatever to take any action. My hon. friend must see that he cannot move hand or foot if the resolution is passed with this prohibitive clause in it, because he must still come to Parliament and get this special authority. What I would do would be this: I would authorize the Governor in Council to lease for a long term of years any of the branch lines of the Intercolonial on terms to be approved by the Governor in Council, with the provision that the lease shall be submitted to Parliament at the next session after it is entered into. I am willing, and I have no doubt this House is willing, to trust the Governor in Council in regard to the leasing of the branch lines. There could not be any mistake as to that because the Government have a record of its past earnings and they could get a report of the board of management and of the engineers of the Intercolonial. If any branch lines are to be purchased, I would leave that entirely as a matter of appropriation, or I would provide in the Bill that, if it was decided to purchase any of the branch lines, a board of arbitration should be appointed by agreement to determine as to what was a reasonable price. If there was any difficulty so far as a lease was concerned, the same provision might be made. We would then be taking a step forward instead of, if this resolution were passed, being in exactly the same position as we were before.


Francis Cochrane: What would you do
if we leased a line next summer? How would we operate that line unless we got an appropriation from Parliament?


William Pugsley: That would be provided in a vote for the Intercolonial system. The minister would have to come down with his supplementary estimates, and ask Parliament to vote what additional amount he would require for that purpose.


Robert Laird Borden: That would bring the matter hack to the condition which my hon. friend says is useless and unworkable, namely, an appropriation in the first place by Parliament.


William Pugsley: I do not think so.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend found
fault a moment ago with the proposal of the minister, because he said that it all rests with the approval of the appropriation by Parliament, and therefore the minister's hands are completely tied. My hon.

friend is now suggesting exactly the same thing-an appropriation by Parliament before the minister shall act.


William Pugsley: No. That is so far as the operation is concerned, but you must first get a lease of the road.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the use of acquiring a road if you cannot operate it?


William Pugsley: If Parliament authorized the lease, Parliament would vote the necessary appropriation to operate. The difficulty is that you cannot acquire a road; you cannot lease it; you cannot make any agreement at all under this resolution, as it is proposed to be amended. Then why pass the resolution at all? The point is that provision should be made of a definite character for the leasing or acquiring by purchase of the branch lines of the In-tetrcolonial, the leasing or purchase to be left to the Governor in Council, and provision could be made that, if the Government and the companies could not agree upon the price, it could be left to a board of arbitration, or the amount to be expended could be fixed by a referee or by the judge of the Exchequer Court, whatever might be the best way of doing it. On this resolution or on a Bill founded upon it, the minister cannot take any action. He cannot lease a road; he cannot buy one.


Francis Cochrane: I could put in the
supplementary estimates an extra sum for the Intercolonial with this in view. If any road were leased this session under this Bill, we could commence to operate it and bring down the lease at the next session of Parliament for approval. I think under the resolution we can do it.


William Pugsley: If the resolution is
passed, my hon. friend would decide what lines he would acquire; he would ask a supplementary vote for that and proceed after that to acquire the line, so that he could depend on the appropriation?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


William Pugsley: If that ft the intention of my hon. friend, possibly it could be worked out in that way. I am anxious that we take some step forward in connection with this important matter. I would be very sorry to say a word which would hinder or delay the carrying through of the idea which my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson), has contended for so long, and to which he succeeded in getting the unanimous approval of this House in a resolution passed some time ago. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways is desirous of carrying out the wish of the House. The only question is how best to do it. Although I do not agree with the mode in which he proposes to do Mr. BORDEN.
it, I would be very sorry to throw any obstacle in the way. In the province from which I come there is an exceedingly strong, and in fact intense desire that these branch lines should be taken over and operated as a part of the Intercolonial system. It is felt that the public would be very greatly benefited by that, and although for a few years these lines might not be profitable, in the final result most of them could be worked up into valuable feeders and would fee beneficial not only to the public but to the Intercolonial system as well.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Even as amended, this resolution is very broad on one point, that is, as to the location of any lines that might be leased, any new work that might be constructed or any railways or terminals that might be purchased. On looking over the resolution, I am inclined to think that one could almost, for instance, build a railway1 in connection with the Hudson Bay railway.


Francis Cochrane: We are building the Hudson Bay railway.


George Perry Graham: You are doing it under a special statute.


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


George Perry Graham: But I think under this
resolution a railway could be constructed not in connection with the Intercolonial or the Prince Edward Island railway at all, but in some other part of Canada. Would it fee possible, on the second reading or in Committee of the Whole, to consider an amendment to effect what is desired? This is a resolution on which the Bill is to be founded, and I understand that you cannot go very far in making amendments at this stage.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me the difficulty about this amended resolution is perhaps that it ties the hands of the minister a little too much. In its original form it was probably too wide, for example, in respect to the possibility of building a road in the West which the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has mentioned. There is no idea of building a road in the West or in connection with the Hudson Bay railway under this -resolution. The minister has in mind the acquisition of certain lines in the maritime provinces, a subject which has been touched upon very often in this House, and possibly the construction of short branches of the Intercolonial railway, as I am informed by the minister, that the powers under the Railway Act for such purposes, are limited to five miles.
The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) thought this resolution was too wide without the words now proposed to

be added, which were not included in the resolution, but which form part of the Bill, and which for some reason were omitted from the resolution by the officer of the House who prepared it. Without these words the resolution certainly was of a very ample character; with these words added to it as my hon. friend from St. John suggests, it is very much restricted. I think it would be possible to work it out in the way the hon. gentleman himself suggested a little while ago, that is, to have an appropriation from Parliament at the present session enabling the .minister to proceed. As to what the hon. member for Westmorland has said concerning the desirability of indicating at the present time certain lines of railways to be acquired, I think that members of the committee will see upon consideration that that would be impossible at the present moment, because the acquisition of any particular branch line roust depend upon a certain investigation which, I think, has not been complete or has not been-
Mr. COCHRANE; Is not complete.


Robert Laird Borden: -or which has not been put into a satisfactory form up to the present time. One object, the principal object of the minister, as I understand, in introducing the resolution, was to get a certain power to negotiate, or a basis of negotiating, which would enable him to go on and do something. The resolution as at first introduced was quite unrestricted, there is no doubt about that.


George Perry Graham: No closure on it.


Robert Laird Borden: It was unrestricted for the reason that a portion of it as drafted was omitted. Now, I would not like to suggest at the moment any other amendment of the resolution which I think was prepared by the department-


Francis Cochrane: No, by the law clerk of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: It is just possible that we might be able to devise some amendment to tne resolution as is proposed wnich would meet the views of hon. gentlemen on both sides more adequately than does the somewhat restricted form in which .the resolution appears as amended.


Mr GRAHAM:: My object is to make this Bill workable. The resolution is too wide as introduced but this amendment restricts it too much. I do not want to block the Bill, I want to get it through in workable shape. I understand the difficulties of working this out fairly well for I have tried it. In the first place there is one thing we ought to keep cleariy m mind and that is that the Dill is for the purpose of leasing or constructing roads in connection with the Intercolanial and Prince Edward Island railway in the maritime provinces or Quebec. My own idea is that the minister ought to have a pretty free hand in leasing. Leave him free to lease, u ,C	simply on condition that
he shall place a copy of the lease on the table of the House at the next session of Parliament As to purchase or construction, I think he ought to come to Parliament and tell us what he is going to do. I think that, after discussion, our ideas are about on the same line as to working out this problem, and the best way to do it.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Will the minister
say whether he has any survey parties in Nova Scotia just now with reference to finding a short line of communication between Moncton and Halifax? I heard a rumour when in Nova Scotia that some engineering parties, supposed to be for the Government, were working in the countv of Colchester.


Francis Cochrane: We have none in that section. There was last summer an investigation on the Sydney branch with a view to bettering the conditions-shortening the line where we could and taking out the grades. I hope to have a party this summer on the section of railway the hon. gentleman speaks of. But there is none yet that I know of.


William John Macdonald: Would the minister in making an investigation and sending his engineers instruct his officers to see that .an investigation is made as to the advisability of utilizing what is known as the Short Link railway from Oxford Junction to New^ Glasgow as a possibility in connection with the shorter route he wishes to have?


George Perry Graham: This does restrict the minister very materially-


Henry Robert Emmerson: Too much.


Robert Laird Borden: You wanted it restricted.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I want it restricted to the Intercolonial railway and branches connecting with it; but I want the minister to have power to do something, and
T think this would restrict him so that he could not do anything.


Francis Cochrane: The instructions were to shorten and better the road in any possible way. The report is not out yet. They aTe working it through.


Mr. GATJVREAU:: Is the minister prepared to let me know if the two reports made as to the Timiscouata road that runs from Edmundston down to Riviere du Loup are final or whether if there are going to be further reports on this line? Also, if this line is settled one way or the

other to be leased or purchased by the Government?


Francis Cochrane: I can hardly answer as to that until we have made an agreement. Most of the reports made so far are on the physical condition of the roads and not to the traffic or what might be expected to be realized as time goes on and the country develops. As I said some time ago about building the Guysborough roau, we should have a traffic report before we come to a definite understanding so that when we come down for either purchase or lease we may be able to give definite information as- to what the purchase or lease will realize in the future.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Then the inspection
made last summer was not final?


Francis Cochrane: It was only a physical inspection and not as to the possibilities of earning power.


Mr KYTE:: Will further investigation
and reports on these lines in Nova Scotia be necessary 'to determine whether _ they should be taken over or leased, or is the report made by Mr. Kirkpatrick sufficient to enable the Government to come to a decision?


Francis Cochrane: That was only an investigation of the physical condition of the road, and what it would take to put it into shape. As to the future possibilities, there has been no inspection made, ouch an investigation will have to be made by a traffic man to have it authentic.


John Howard Sinclair: Is the report made bv Mr. Kirkpatrick available to members of the House?


Francis Cochrane: No.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister place it on the table?


Mr COCHRANE:: I do not think it is
advisable to give any such information until something has been done in the matter; then I think the House and everybody else is entitled to full information.


John Howard Sinclair: I am in #avour of this resolution, and I do not see that there should be very much difficulty in making it satisfactory to both sides of the House. I think the Government ought to have power to lease branch lines without first submitting the proposal to Parliament, and to purchase branch lines subject to the approval of Parliament. If the minister had brought down a resolution of that kind, authorizing him to lease and to purchase branch lines of the Intercolonial railway subject to the subsequent approval of Parliament, he would have met with no opposition, because that would be the proper way to proceed. It will be readily recognized that it would not be advisable to com-Mr. GAUVREAU.
pel the minister to come to Parliament and announce in advance what lines he intended to purchase, because in that case he would clearly be obliged to pay a great deal more for the lines than he otherwise would. But when he has made the best possible bargain, it ought to be subject to the approval of Parliament, and the agreement of purchase should oe ratified by this House before it finally becomes effective.
I hope the minister will be able to put himself in a position to take some forward steps in regard to this very important matter. I do not resard the resolution as being of much importance as far as the construction of new branch lines is concerned because the minister must come to Parliament to obtain the money before he can construct them. I was told bv the minister the other day that he had already informed the House as to his policy with regard to new branches, but the information he gave us is very indefinite. So far as I can recollect the only matter in respect of which he has taken us into his confidence is that some time in the future he intends to find out whether there is sufficient traffic to warrant the .construction of the proposed branch lines. I would like very much to know when he intends to do that, and if that is preliminary to taking any decisive step in regard to the proposed new branches.


Mr. BELAND:: I understand that by this resolution the hon. minister is acquiring all the power necessary to enable him to purchase branch lines but that he cannot exercise that power until an appropriation is voted by Parliament.


Francis Cochrane: That would be for a
purchase, not a lease. Something would have to be put in the supplementary estimates this year in order to carry it out.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Before the hon. minister
decides upon what lines he should acquire I would like to impress upon him what I consider to be the necessity of acquiring an important branch line known as the Temiscouata road. That branch, which is seventy miles in length, extends from Riviere du Loup on the Intercolonial railway to Edmundston, N.B. I think the late Government intended to acquire the Quebec Central railway which touches the Intercolonial at Harlaka Junction, but since the late Government was turned out of power by what I consider to be an unfortunate mistake on the part of the electors, the Canadian Pacific railway leased the Quebec Central railway for a period of ninety-nine years. The Quebec Central runs from Levis southwards to Valley Junction, and then east covering about one "hundred miles, towards Cabano. Cabano, by the way, is touched by the Temiscouata railway. The intention is to continue the extension of the Quebec Cen-

tral towards Cabano on the Temiscouata. When the Canadian Pacific railway, or the Quebec Central, has reached Cabano, it is likely that all the traffc on the Temiscouata railway will be drawn from the Temiscouata territory down the Quebec Central railway to L6vis, and that will be a distinct loss to the Intercolonial railway. The Quebec Central railway will run to Cabano within a few years, and I think it is very important, in the interests of the Intercolonial, that the Temiscouata line should be acquired as soon as possible. The Canadian Pacific railway has a branch line extending from St. John via Fredericton Junction and Aroostook to Edmundston, and this makes greater the danger that the traffic of this district will be taken away from the Intercolonial. The Temiscouata runs through a district very rich in timber; the lumber industry on that line, as on the Quebec Central railway, is very large and remunerative. For these reasons I hope the hon. minister will take action in this regard by placing an appropriation in the supplementary estimates to secure this branch line and to make of it an important feeder of the Intercolonial railway.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I desire to add a few words to the remarks made by my hon. friend and to thank him for what he has .said on behalf of the Temiscouata. It is not only the Intercolonial that is to profit from the acquisition of that line. I think the minister will realize that, as the road from Riviere du Loup to Edmundston is a short one, the railroad is obliged to charge very high rates, and this has been a great source of complaint from the farmers of that district. The acquisition of this road, therefore, would provide for a reduction of the rates, and thus be a great benefit to the farmers of that community. I think it is in the best interests of the Intercolonial, as well as of the farmers, that the Government, either by lease or purchase, should acquire the Temiscouata road from Rivifere du Loup to Edmundston.


Mr. TURGEON:: I would ask the minister whether he has in view the acquisition of the Caraquet and South Shore lines running from Gloucester to Tracadie. I have pointed out to the House the advantage of that line as a feeder to the Intercolonial.


Francis Cochrane: That is a question
which I do not think I can answer, because I do not propose to announce what lines or any lines I propose to take or to investigate. I know that they are willing to make some agreement with the Government. That is as far as I can go.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish):: I called the attention of the minister to the need of a railway from Antigonish to Country Harbour through the South River valley. I asked the minister on the 27th March,
1912, if he had in contemplation the making of a survey of that suggested route. He said:
I can say to the hon. gentleman that I hope to investigate the best route for the railway. During my trip of investigation I shall investigate all routes and decide on the best.
I asked the House this session whether an investigation had been made and the answer was, not so far as the minister was aware of. There was a local by-election in the county of Antigonish in January and promises were made that a railway would be built through there if the results of the election were satisfactory to the powers that be. Letters from the minister were exhibited and referred to, to the effect that a railway would be built through there. Has the minister given instructions to have a survey made of the route and, if not, when does he intend that a survey of the route shall be made?


Francis Cochrane: I have not given the instructions and will take the balance of what my hon. friend has said into consideration.
I beg to withdraw the present resolution and to substitute the following:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Minister of Railways and Canals may, subject to the authority of the Governor in Council, construct, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire, in whole or in part, any railway, railway bridge, railway station, railway terminal, railway ferry or other railway work in the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, or in any or either of the said provinces which in his opinion can more conveniently and usefully be operated as part of the government system of railways, or which may be deemed necessary or desirable for the more efficient operation of the said system.
Provided, however, that a copy of every such lease, or contract of purchase shall be laid before Parliament within one month after the execution thereof, if Parliament is then in session, or if Parliament is not then sitting within ten days after the opening of the next session thereafter.
Provided further that no such line of railway so leased, purchased or otherwise acquired shall exceed two hundred miles in length in any single instance.
Provided further that no contract for the construction of a line of railway exceeding twenty-five miles in length shall be entered into until after a sum of money for the purpose shall have been appropriated by Parliament.
Provided further that any such railway, or other work when so constructed, leased purchased or otherwise acquired shall form part of the government system of railways and shall be subject to the provisions of the Act respecting government railways and the Acts in amendment thereof.



Provided further that no such railway shall he so constructed, leased, purchased or otherwise acquired unless it directly connects with some part of the then existing system of government railways.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: The last part of the
amendment requiring that the roads must connect with some portion of the existing system of Government railways, would require amendment. Take, for instance, the two railways in the county of Gaspe and Bonaventure, only one of them would come under that description.


Francis Cochrane: We would not want the second one if we did not have the first.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But it might make it
clearer because, according to the last line of the amendment, only the first one hundred miles would be admissible as there are two different railways.


Robert Laird Borden: The northern portion
could not he acquired under this until the road directly connecting with the Intercolonial had first been acquired and become a part of the Intercolonial. The word ' then ' before ' existing ' would cover such a case.


William John Macdonald: What progress has
been made in the direction of arriving at an agreement with the Canadian Pacific railway in reference to running powers over the existing line of the Intercolonial?


Francis Cochrane: I am sorry to say
that the negotiations have not yet been completed? The Canadian Pacific railway desire some things which I do not think the Intercolonial can give and we have not overcome the existing differences; but the matter has not been dropped.


William Chisholm: A
moment ago I asked the minister for some information with respect to the intention oi the Government regarding a proposed line from Antigonish to Country Harbour. He answered that the matter was under consideration. We know how much that answer means. Am I to understand from his answer that the promises that were made at the elections by persons pretending to have authority to make promises for the Government were foundationless and that in this as in many other particulars an attempt was made to deceive the people? I stated that letters were exhibited which purported to be from the Minister of Railways and comments were made on those letters to the effect that a line of railway was to be built there. I submit that Parliament has a right to get information of this kind before it is given to the public. I think it is up to the minister, in view of the promise made in March, 1912, to be more explicit and communicative on a mat-Mr. COCHRANE.
?a76
ter of this kind. He stated, in answer to my question:
I can say to the hon. gentleman that I hope to investigate the best route for the railway. During my trip of investigation I shall in->
vestigate all routes and decide on the best.
I would like to know what the minister has done in the way of implementing that promise that he would have a survey made. Has ho given instructions to any engineer to ascertain what is the best route there? In view of the representations that were made during that election, I think it is only right that the minister should say whether he has had a survey made and, if not, whether he intends to investigate that route. The people who have been treated to these promises on the occasion that I have referred to have a right to know how much faith they can put in the sincerity of those who made promises of that kind purporting to come from the government and from the Minister of Railways.
Mr. MoKENZIE:	I perhaps might be
regarded as neglecting the interests of the very important and railwayless county that I represent if I should fail to say anything in connection with this resolution. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) promised me some time ago that he would give consideration to the situation in connection with the Est-mere and Baddeck railway. I understand that the minister is making inquiries about the feasibility of building that road. The Estmere and Baddeck railway is not exactly in the same position as other proposed branches, because a very thorough survey has been made and the report of that survey is in the hands of the minister. I understood from him, the last time that this question was up in the House, that he was not satisfied with the report that he had got from the engineers, as he considered that it was not sufficiently exhaustive. I understand that the minister thought that the average expense of constructing the twenty-three or twenty-four miles of road was too high, and in this connection he mentioned a number of bridges. There are quite a number of bridges on this particular piece of road. These bridges always presented a difficulty when efforts were made to secure for Victoria county connection with the Intercolonial railway. Governments, and the companies that were spoken of, always feared the expense of these bridges. One of these bridges crosses a narrow arm of the sea, another the Middle river, and another the Baddeck fiver. But there is the whole field of Victoria county ahead, so that after building this piece of the road and these bridges, they would be available for any further extension of railways into the county. Although the

building of these bridges would make the first few miles appear expensive on the average, when it comes to the extension of the road further into the county of Victoria, there is not a county in Nova Scotia where railways can be built cheaper, and these are really the only large bridges that would have to be built. The streams in the county along the route are very small and short, and therefore I wish to point out to the minister that he must not be alarmed by reason of the expense of these bridges. I trust that at the earliest possible opportunity he will satisfy himself of the feasibility of making the start in Victoria county. This is only a commencement, but if these twenty-two or twenty-five miles were built, I am sure that the people would be satisfied, and would look forward in the future to further extensions. I trust that what I have said_ about these bridges will satisfy the minister that this is only the commencement, the inlet, so to speak, into the county, and that further extensions will be comparatively cheap in so far as the building of the road is concerned. I am not going to bother the minister further now with observations. I have put this matter before my hon. friend, as well as before former ministers, and it is getting to be an old story now. But it is fresh in the hearts of the people of Victoria county, it is an interesting question to me and it must continue to be so until something practical is done to relieve the necessity that exists in that county for railway connection.


Francis Cochrane: I would be very glad if the hon. gentleman, before the House prorogues, would come in and let me go over the map with him.


John Howard Sinclair: I think the minister
should give some answer to my hon. friend from Antigonish (Mr. Chisholm).


Francis Cochrane: I did answer him as best I could.


John Howard Sinclair: It is rather a serious
charge that my hon. friend has made against the minister.


Francis Cochrane: I am not responsible for anything said there.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand that my hon. friend from Antigonish says that, prior to the local election in Antigonish, people were travelling the county, especially in the South River territory through which this proposed branch is to rim, canvassing with letters purporting to be signed by the Minister of Railways with reference to this line. If the minister did not write letters of that character for use in the local elections he ought to give the fact to the committee and state that he did not do so. But
letters in connection with the election were known to be circulated all over eastern Nova Scotia. The farmers in Antigonish were promised the free transportation of hay and notices to that effect were put in the newspapers purporting to have behind them authority from Ottawa. It turned out later that there was no truth in the statement.


Francis Cochrane: I have told the House frequently that the Intercolonial railway would not carry hay free.


John Howard Sinclair: But the minister has not told the House that he did not authorize anyone to state to the people that he was going to build this branch line.


Francis Cochrane: I do not know what
was said.


John Howard Sinclair: I think my hon. friend from Antigonish is entitled to an answer because, if it is true that on the eve of the elections gentlemen were carrying letters through the county signed by the Minister of Railways projecting a line through a country that be never investigated and that he knows nothing whatever about, we ought to know it. I do not not think that the minister desires that a charge of that kind should go abroad and it is well known in eastern Nova Scotia.


Francis Cochrane: I am not responsible for election promises.


John Howard Sinclair: I think we ought to get a statement -from the minister.


The CHAIRMAN:: Does not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sinclair) think that his remarks will be more relevant when we go into the estimates on this question? The matter does not seem to be strictly relevant to this Bill, although it is connected with it.


William Chisholm: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals stated -that he gave an answer upon this subject. What was the answer?-the matter is under consideration. The question was a very simple one. It was: Has he had an engineer on that route, or is it his intention to have that route surveyed, and, if so, when? Surely he ought to be able to answer that question particularly in view of the promise he made on the 27-th March. Let me put the question in another way: Is -the minister prepared to implement the promise which he made on the 27th March and which is found on page 6228 of ' Hansard ' ? My hon. friend f-ro-m! Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) referred -to some promise -made down there abm-t the free transportation of hay and the minister said that he -had stated in the House that the Intercolonial railway would not -carry bay free. Let me call the attention of the committee to -the -fact that -the minister did not vouchsafe

that information until three or four days after the election, in Antigonish county. When I asked the question early in December the election was pending and the answer I received was ' stands.' When the question was read from the Order Paper, the minister refused' to give the information but merely gave the answer that the question should ' stand.' But on the second sitting day after the election in Antigonish county, my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) had no difficulty at all in getting the information from the minister. What was his answer? His answer was that he had taken the ground all along that there should be no free transportation of hay on the Intercolonial railway for the county of Antigonish or the eastern counties of Nova Scotia. The minister had written letters to the late Conservative candidate in Inverness who had written him on the subject as early as October. The minister stated in those letters, the particulars of which I have received since the papers were brought down, that the Intercolonial railway was not going to carry hay free for the farmers of Eastern Nova Scotia. But why did not the minister vouchsafe that information when the questions were put to him in November and December? No, they wanted to keep these things dangling, like the supplementary and main estimates of the Minister of Public Works, before the people of the county. So it is with the promises made respecting the branch' line. The Minister of Railways says he is not responsible for the promise, and I am glad to know that the representations made by the parties down there, some of whom are Irresponsible, had no foundation in fact. The people of the South River will remember with humiliation the attempt made to fool them in this matter, as they had been fooled in the matter of public works, and free transportation of hay that were promised to that county on the eve of an election. So far as I am personally concerned, I do not mind the disrespect or contempt with which I may be treated, but my constituents have a right to be treated decently in this Parliament, and they have the right to an answer to this question: does the minister intend to have the survey made of that road and if so, when?


Francis Cochrane: I answered the hon.
member when he last put the question that I did not have a survey made, and that I would take the other matter into my serious consideration.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I must
congratulate the Government on the action they have at last taken. It is now three months since we had a field day debate on the question now before the House, and the minister has no doubt realized that
Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).
the feeling was so general that the time had come for the taking over by the Intercolonial of many, if not all, of these branch lines, that he has at last taken action. Canada should have a Government railway system worthy of the country and one which should not be obliged to take second or third place to other railways created by this House. We have made the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk, through the generous assistance given by this Parliament, two of the leading railroads in the world, and the time has come when the Intercolonial should be placed in the same class. In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec, there are large tracts of land which have not been developed for want of proper railway facilities. This House ha3 been generous at all times in the matter of railway subsidies, but in some places through mismanagement or extravagance or want of proper control the money has not been applied so as to give the people of these provinces the railway facilities they are entitled to. The special case I have in mind is the railway which runs through the counties of Gaspe and Bonaventure, and connects western Canada with the east end of Quebec, the gateway of the St. Lawrence. Since we had the debate on this question on the 20th of January last, public opinion has been awakened in Gaspd and Bonaventure, and the municipal councils of the two counties have met at New Carlisle in conjunction with the business men of both counties regardless of party politics, and resolutions were unanimously passed asking the Government to take over the Atlantic, Quebec and Western railway and the Quebec Oriental railway. I will read a paragraph from the resolution adopted at the New Carlisle meeting, which will show the feeling of the people of these counties on this matter:
This council consider it expedient and of the most vital importance for the welfare and best interests of the coast of Gaspe that both railroads should he taken over and become a part of the Government railway system of Canada, to be operated and controlled by the same, and therefore the county council of the county of Gasp6 and the county council of the county of Bonaventure, beg to memorialize the hon. the Minister of railways and Canals to take such 6teps as he may deem necessary to acquire and place the said railway under the direct control of the Government.
Copies of this resolution were forwarded to the right hon. the Prime Minister, to the hon. Minister of Railways, to the Postmaster General, to the ex-Postmaster General who once represented the constituency, to the present representative of the county of Gaspe in this House, and to myself, as well as to the local members for these constituencies. Since then, I understand a

deputation has called upon the Prime Minister and upon the Minister of Railways, and the Rostmaster General, urging the importance of taking over this railway. I have here the latest report concerning the Atlantic, Quebec and Western railway, which shows that upon that one hundred and two miles from Gaspe Basin to New Carlisle, there has been expended $3,809,000 out of which not less than $1,114,000 was expended for the construction of bridges over these numerous large rivers that flow into the Baie de Chaleur and which are crossed by this railway. It would be unfortunate if, after an expenditure of close on $4,000,000 in the county of Gaspe, one of the oldest settled counties in this Dominion, the people should be deprived of that communication with the government railway to which they are entitled. I may recall the fact that Mr. Johnston, inspecting engineer of the Railway Department, has reported that the character of the Atlantic, Quebec and Western railway is not even second to that of the Intercolonial railway. It would be unfortunate, indeed, if this new and modern railway should be left without connection with the Intercolonial because the old Baie de Chaleur railway, which separates it from the Intercolonial railway, should be allowed to remain in the poor condition it is. The old Baie de Chaleur railway was constructed in 1884 by a company that meant well, a company which included the leading people of the district at the time together with experienced railway men, but they lacked the capital necessary to carry on such an enterprise to a successful conclusion. The subsidies were utilized more or less advantageously, but a great many complaints were made on both sides and the Baie de Chaleur railway became a football in Quebec politics for fifteen years with the net result that the people of that constituency are left with a railway which is no credit to this country. There are no fences along the road to protect the cattle, the trestles are old-time wooden trestles erected fifteen or twenty years ago, and over the Grand Cascapedia is a trestle which is patched up now and again, so that the whole railway is not in what might be called a satisfactory condition. The desire of the people is that some means should be found by the Government to take over the road, by purchase or lease or in some other way. For the information of the Minister of Railways, who is possibly not familiar with the conditions, I would mention that in 1901 the late administration gave the usual subsidy to the section from St. Charles de Caplan to New Carlisle, twenty miles, the other portion of the line being eighty miles. That subsidy was voted under conditions which were rather unusual and to which I would like to call the attention of the minister, because of the fact that there has
been so much criticism by the people in that district, that a great deal of the money had not been properly applied in the past. They insisted that proper provision should be made this time, and the control of the payment of the subsidy was left with the Minister of Railways. When this last subsidy was voted by Parliament in 1901, for that part of the line from Caplan to New Carlisle, it was agreed that the subsidy should be paid in three parts, first to the Hamilton Bridge Works Company in payment for bridges constructed in the said section of railway, and further that this was not to exceed $35,000. There was no difficulty on that score. The bridges were put up and this amount was paid. The difficulty came in on the second item for the completion of the roadbed and work in connection therewith. When the work had been completed, Mr. McLeod, who was one of the oldest and most experienced engineers of the department, was sent down to investigate the amount of work that had been done and to ascertain exactly what the trustees were entitled to. He reported that they were entitled to much less than they claimed. The Auditor General authorized a release of a payment of $114,000 to the contractors. He allowed towards the payment, under the third condition stipulated in the Subsidy Act, of overdue claims in settlement of labour, boarding house claims and materials and supplies furnished in connection with the construction of the said section of railway, a sum not exceeding $32,000. There still remained $18,000 which has never been paid out and which is claimed by the contractor, Mr. Scoles, on the one hand and by the bearers of time checks, labourers, and people living in the constituency who supplied the work, the material and the board. I advised the Minister of Railways, at the time when the part payment of $32,000 had been made, to withhold this second sum of $18,000 until, as we expected, the new Gaspe railway could take over the old Baie des Chaleurs railway. If that had been done, under the statute of 1907 they would have been obliged to pay down the sum of $50,000 for the purpose of clearing off all claim? that remained unpaid between Mata-pedia to Caplan for time checks, for board and for material furnished. It was hoped that this $50,000 that the Atlantic, Quebec and Western railway agreed to pay would wipe off all indebtedness when they took over the Baie des Chaleurs railway as well as the $18,000 of the subsidy which remained unpaid; and that both of these sums could be placed together and paid out by the minister on a report by the commissioner to be appointed for the purpose of ascertaining what claims should be recognized under this law. The $32,000 which was paid was paid on a report made by Sir Franpois Langelier, who at that time

was a judge of the Superior Court, and who was appointed commissioner for the purpose of receiving claims between Caplan and New Carlisle. The claims between Matapedia and Caplan were never taken up. We had never the means at our disposal of ascertaining exactly what the amount of the indebtedness of the company was; but, roughly speaking, from the information which we could obtain, we thought $50,000 would be a fair amount to offer to the people scattered along this coast. The Atlantic, Quebec and Western railway, although disclaiming all responsibility for these debts and claiming that they were owing by the old company, agreed, in order to put an end to the matter and to have the good feeling of the people in that district, to put up $50,000 to wipe off the whole indebtedness. Unfortunately this company went to the wall and both roads are now being operated toy trustees or receivers. Although the Gaspe railway is in first-class condition, the other railway is not; it has practically no rolling stock. I do not believe the Quebec and Oriental railway owns a single freight car. The freight cars used are almost exclusively the property of the Intercolonial and sometimes an odd Canadian Pacific or Grand Trunk car. They have a couple of passenger trains, but they are not sufficient for the needs of the country. They have lately had down there some very important companies, among them the Edwards Syndicate at Bonaventure and others from Philadelphia at Pabos, but these people have found that it is impossible for them to get proper railway communication. This railway communication can only be got by taking over these two railways and connecting them with the Intercolonial. The time has come that steps are necessary to bring about this much desired change. As the hon. minister is aware, one of the last acts of the former Minister of Railways was to have adopted in this House on the 18th of May, 1911, an amendment to the Railway Act in order to expropriate these roads, but the dissolution of Parliament in July of that year prevented this Bill from going further and it remained here. I suppose the minister saw it. It is not in the statute book but I managed to get a copy of it. It is to this effect:
Whenever it is made to appear to the minister that any railway owned by a company incorporated by the Parliament of Canada, the construction of which has been aided by a subsidy from the Government of Canada, cannot by reason of the condition of such railway or of its equipment be safely and efficiently operated, the minister may apply to the board for an order that the said railway, or its equipment, or both, shall bo put in a safe and efficient condition which order the board is hereby authorized to make after such notice to the president or manager of the company and the trustee of the bond-Mt. MARCIL.
holders, if any, as to the board seems reasonable; and the board may, by order, direct what repairs, improvements on additions shall be made to the said railway, or equipment, or both, and within what times the same shall be undertaken and completed respectively.
2. If the company fails to comply with such order of the board, the Governor in Council may, upon the recommendation of the minister, approve of such order, and direct that a copy of such order and of the order of the Governor in Council approving thereof, certified by the secretary, of the board and the clerk of the Privy Council respectively shall be filed by the minister in the office of the registrar of deeds of each county through which such railway runs, and upon such orders being so filed there shall, ipso facto, be created a first lien or mortgage upon the said railway and its equipment in favour of His Majesty for the amount of the said subsidy, which shall immediately thereupon become due and payable to His Majesty. Such lien may be enforced by His Majesty in the same manner and by the like proceedings as any other lien upon property may be enforced by His Majesty in the Exchequer Court of Canada. The said court may order such railway and its equipment to be sold to satisfy such lien, and pending such lien may appoint a receiver to manage and operate such railway. Any moneys realized from such sale may, with the consent of the purchaser, be applied by the minister under the direction of the chief engineer of Government railways towards the repair and imr provement of such railway and equipment so far as the same may be deemed necessary by the minister, and any moneys so realized, and not in the opinion of the minister required for such repairs and improvements, may be paid to the company owning the railway at the time of the sale, or to the trustee for bondholders, in the event of there being outstanding bonds secured by mortgage or otherwise upon such railway.
It was expected that that would be one of the means of bringing matters to a head. Unfortunately I have since learned that the efforts made toy the trustees for the bondholders of the Quebec and Oriental railway in England to raise money for the purpose of putting the road in a proper condition have failed completely. Therefore the road is simply kept open. Mr. Scoles has shown great energy in the matter but he is greatly handicapped. He has managed to keep the road open, but that is all. Whatever the minister does to help out the difiiculty will be gratefully received. We cannot impose our terms. What the people want is that these roads should be properly operated by the Intercolonial, because the service given by the Intercolonial under the regime of the minister has been satisfactory as far as our constituency is concerned. The putting on of the Ocean Limited all the year round has been an immense boon. Landing in that constituency at 9 a.m., is very different from landing there_ at 2 a.m., because Bonaventure is practically half way

between Halifax and Montreal. We want this railway extended through these two constituencies, and I hope that this will be done. The minister should take whatever means are required so that the legitimate grievances of the people throughout these constituencies may be investigated, and anything that is fair and reasonable should be done. Some municipalities voted thirty years ago bonuses all along the line. The hon. minister will find that in 1907 Parliament dealt with these municipalities paying these bonuses and granted them Telief on the ground that they had never received the service to which they were entitled from the company. I hope the minister will see to it that the fair claims are paid, that the relief of the municipalities who have granted in all $50,000 is maintained by being made a condition of the purchase or lease and also that the payment of the right-of-way is assured, many of the owners not having yet been paid. I could give a case at the first station out of Matapedia, at Cross Point opposite Campbellton. The line runs through land owned by a good Scotchman, M. F. Fraser. Mr. Fraser never received a red penny for the property taken away from him by the railway. The company became insolvent and he was not paid. The same is true all the way to New Richmond and elsewhere. At these places the land for the right-of-way was taken from people and promises made of payment which were never implemented, and to this day the people have received practically nothing. If one of the officers of the department were appointed as commissioner he could in a few weeks' time become familiar with the conditions there, which conditions are unusual. I hope for the sake of Canada and of this Parliament, as well as for the sake of the people concerned, that when the minister makes a bargain, he will make a good one, because the people have been complaining for twenty-five years of the way they have been treated by railroads. Some of them have been led to despair that there was any justice for them so far as railway matters are concerned. Fortunately, my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) was representing the county of Gaspe, and he took the matter up and pushed the railway to Gaspe where it reaches one of the most beautiful harbours we have in the country. I will say no more, but close with the expression of the hope that whatever the minister does will be done to give better railway facilities and remove some of the grievances which, though small matters in themselves, have been rankling in the breasts of my constituents ever since before I had the honour of being their representative, and that he. will see to it that the people get what they are entitled to. If he does this, he will do
one of the best things that could possibly be done for that county.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to second the
able remarks made by my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). That hon. gentleman and I have been united in our efforts to complete that railway. As stated, I have been more fortunate than he was. because we succeeded in breaking the monopoly of the old Baie des Chaleurs Railway Company early in 1900, and it was the new company that built the Gaspe section of the railway. According to the report made to the Minister of Railways and Canals bv the engineers of the department this new railway is considered as to road-bed and equipment one of the best in Canada. But while there are no overdue accounts on the last section of the railway system in the county of Gaspe, my hon. friend is right when he states that many of the peorde have not been paid for the right of way and wages in his own county of Bonaventure. Whatever arrangement is arrived at by the minister, I hope that he will see to it that those who have surrendered land for right of way or have done work for the company in the county of Bonaventure shall be paid out of the proceeds of the sale or out of the returns that are to be paid to the companv. I am glad to support what is said by my hon. friend from Bonaventure. because he has always done his best for his constituents. Unfortunately he had to face a very serious situation with the old companv. Now that the Government undertakes to relieve the people of that incubus, it is only fair that they should be paid both for right of way and for work done for the company.


Francis Cochrane: I remember the field day of which the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) speaks, and particularly his own speech. I have heard a good many speeches on branch lines in this House, and none of them appealed to me to the same extent as did the one delivered by the hon. gentleman. He went into the matter not from a selfish standpoint but to give information of what there was for a road to do and what a rich part of the country it was. In reference to the position of this road, it is a pretty serious one, on account of the great expenditure that will be necessary to bring it into a safe condition. A deputation was here from the hon. gentleman's section of the country a few weeks ago in reference to the road. It would appear from the description they gave of it, that the only thing the Government could buy or rent would be the right of way. But (now the hon. gentleman tells me that even that is not paid for. I do not know what the company have to sell or lease to any great extent. The deputation told me of the very serious conditions under which the settlers and those who have business there have to labour in paying the freight

rates, and it certainly deserves the consideration of the Government and of the department, and that consideration I shall be glad to give it. I am only afraid that the terms and conditions which the company will demand will be almost prohibitive. With reference to the accounts which the hon. gentleman has spoken of as standing so long, I will undertake to have a commissioner investigate how the money is to go and as to how it should be divided.


Charles Marcil: I wish to thank the minister for the promise he has made, and I have no doubt it will be implemented at an early date. I do not wish to impose on his good nature, but there was one thing I omitted whioh I desire to mention. The deputation to whioh he refers, no doubt mentioned the bridge from Cross Point to Campbellton. There is a pressing necessity for that at this time. In 1904, this Parliament incorporated a company authorized to build a joint railway and highway bridge from Cross Point to Campbellton. This would enable the two Gaspe railways to enter; Campbellton and to connect with the Intercolonial railway eastward and westward, and through the International railway through the state of Maine with the American roads and also with the New Brunswick roads. The people of . Campbellton are very much interested in the construction of this bridge. I understood that the deputation to the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Railways dealt with this matter, and I have no doubt they received the assurance that it would be considered. This is one feature in connection with the taking over of the railway, a matter which I would like the minister to consider, because it will give these railways added importance from the Intercolonial railway standpoint to have the bridge built from Campbellton to Bonaventure county. It will bring these roads directly into the Intercolonial railway quarters at Campbellton, and the roads will be operated from Campbellton, which is a railway center. I see that by the resolution the minister has power to build bridges where necessary. In this case, it was to be a highway and railway bridge combined. This was in the interest of the Western railway, now called the International, which was promised a subsidy of $160,000 and also asked a guarantee of bonds. The late Government answered that unless in the case of a bridge of national importance they could not undertake to guarantee the bonds. The matter has remained in abeyance, but it is one that might be taken into consideration when the matter of acquiring these branch lines is being dealt with, because these lines will be rendered much Mr. COCHRANE.
more valuable when this bridge is built and they are brought into direct communication with Campbellton, St. John, Halh fax, the United States railways and the Canadian railway system to the West. The construction of this bridge would be an easy matter, as the water is very shallow at that point, and the bridge would not need to be more than 1,300 or 1,400 feet in length. In the last number of the Graphic, published at Campbellton, the importance of the shipments made from that point and other parts of northern New Brunswick to the United States is dealt with, and the minister will recognize the importance of this traffic when he knows that in 1912 the United States consul certified to the shipment of 922 carloads from Gloucester county and 1,517 carloads from Restigouche county, bound for the United States. So that if Gaspe and Bonaventure could be brought together by the Intercolonial railway at Campbellton by means of this bridge, this business could be doubled. Gaspe i3 three times the size of Restigouche county, and Bonaventure is larger than Gloucester county; it is an immense territory all by itself. I have no doubt that the construction of this bridge would be a good investment and it would do the people of Gaspe county the justice to which they are entitled.


William Chisholm: It is apparent that I cannot extract very much information from the minister regarding the proposed line of railway, the interests of which I have at heart. I am not, however, dissatisfied with the information that I have received from him. We have in his statement no assumption of responsibility for the pre-election promises made in January last for the purpose of influencing the electorate, but rather a repudiation of the assurances that we got on that occasion. The minister commended the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) for giving information with regard to the line of railway he was discussing, and for approaching this subject in a proper spirit. Nothing now remains for me but to submit a few facts which not only justify but demand the building of the road to which I refer. Of course great bodies move slowly, and I am not without hope that the minister will in time see the necessity of building this road; I believe that he is more magnanimous than his curt manner would indicate. So far as this proposed line of railway is concerned, the situation is not new to the minister. I have pointed out on more than one occasion the nature of the country through which this road would run and its resources, and the minister promised on the 27th of March last that he would investigate this route, and, in fact, all routes, for the purpose of providing railway

facilities in that particular part of the country. The hon. minister on March 2, 1912, received a letter, of which I have a copy, on this very question. That letter was from the secretary of the Arisaig and Country Harbour Iron and Railway Company, Limited, and, I understand, accompanied an aplication for a subsidy for that road. The letter sets forth in such clear and succinct language the resources of that part of the country and the ease with which a road can be built that I can do no better than quote the letter. It is addressed to the minister, and, among other things, it says:
Before any decisive action is taken by you

 -
That is with regard to the construction of a line from Country Harbour Cross Roads in the western part of Guysborough county.
Before any decisive action is taken by you I venture to suggest that an exhaustive examination be made of the merits of an alternate route, viz.: that from Country Harbour Cross Roads to connect with the Intercolonial railway at the town of Antigonish.
My reasons for asking this are as follows:-
The exploration of minerals, and the development of mineral resources in that section of Nova Scotia are proceeding at a rapid rate, and for the most of them an outlet is required at the seaport of Country Harbour.
The iron deposits of Arisaig, covering about thirty miles of territory, comprise a good many beds of ore, much of it low grade, but a portion of it very high grade ore. A large sum of money has been expended the past two or three years in exploratory work, the result of which is to demonstrate the existence of ore both in quantity and quality that promises to be of great value and of economic importance to the province.
The Big Marsh Shales in the same vicinity corresponding to the celebrated Albert Shales (New Brunswick) are just now coming into prominence, in the manufacture of high-class oils. This will afford an element of traffic, as will also the plaster deposits in the vicinity of Antigonish. The most promising copper mine east of Lake Superior is situated at Poison's lake on the route of the proposed Antigonish-Country Harbour line. A large sum of money has been expended the past two or three years in sinking shafts and doing development work. This industry cannot be developed without railway connection. These four natural products would afford a traffic for a branch railway that is entirely wanting in a road from Country Harbour to Suunybrae. The former line presents no physical difficulties; the gradients are exceedingly easy; no bridging or rock-cutting is necessary, and the earth work is light. It passes through a fine agricultural country and the prospects of traffic are so good that a local company is prepared to construct and operate it if assisted with the usual government subvention, which no company has been found willing to do with the other route. This route will afford the people of Gnysborough the shortest possible connection with the
Intercolonial railway. It would be a great misfortune to the province if the Government expended a large sum of money in the construction of a railway that would fail to serve any but a small percentage of the interests at stake.
Yours verj* truly,
W. C. (Milner.
I need not elaborate on the varied resources to which the writer refers. The copper mines at Copper Lake are as he represents them to be, but unfortunately these mines cannot be properly developed, or, as a matter of fact, developed at all, unless proper transportation facilities are provided. These mines are situated at about eighteen miles from a railway, and any one will realize that it would be impossible to develop these mines without having such transportation facilities as the construction of this railway would provide. As to the gypsum deposits to which he refers, I may say that these deposits are most valuable. I quote from a report on the gypsum deposits of the maritime provinces by W. F. Jennison, made in 1911, page 61:
Although large quantities of gypsum are found in the southern and western part of the district,

The district referred to includes sections around Tracadie harbour, Pomquet harbour and Antigonish harbour.
-yet those nearest the east and northeast, particularly in the vicinity of Antigonish harbour, are much superior; in fact, it is very difficult to find exposures better 'both inquantity and quality, many of them being over one hundred feet high, some twice this height, and covering an extensive area. Much of the rock is the very best white compact, having the appearance of alabaster. It is regrettable that while the area contains practically inexhaustible quantities of gypsum of the very best quality, it is inaccessible to transportation facilities.
As to the quality of the gypsum there is no question whatever that it is equal to any that is found in Canada, and I have no doubt that, if better transportation facilities were afforded, the gypsum industry would be largely developed. Let me read the following extract taken from Professor Henry How's Mineralogy of Nova Scotia, 1868:
Concerning the oil-coal of Antigonish county, Mr. J. Campbell reports a 5-foot seam of curly cannel, which will yield at least forty gallons of crude oil per ton, and 15 feet of oil-shale, which will yield at least twenty gallons per ton.
In the report which Dr. R. W. Ells made in 1911 on the bituminous or oil shale of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, page 39, may be found the following:
In Dr. R. W. Ells' report on the bituminous or oil-shales of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, at page 39, is found:

M
In the recent examination of these areas at Big Marsh, about nine miles north of Antigonish town, extensive outcrops of very black shale are seen, with others grey and reddish in colour. With these black shales are beds of coal, somewhat impure, containing a large percent^e of ash. The black shales do not all kindle readily, but some portions burn freely, and should contain sufficient hydrocarbons to be of value for distillation. They are probably the shales referred to by Mr. Campbell, already noted. They have nob yet been tested, but are similar in character and belong apparently to the same horizon as those of Hants county, and are well worthy of careful examination as to contents in oil and sulphate of ammonia.
At page 22, Dr. Ells says:
In Nova .Scotia the shales are more usually black in colour, containing also bands of blackish material which are rich in hydrocarbons, the black shale deposits being in places of great thickness.
Among these ar&as may he mentioned a basin of shales with thin coals, found a few miles north of Antigonish town, which has been opened to some extent, in the search for workable seams of coal. These coals have been regularly examined by the Department of Mines and found to he too impure to make a good fuel. According to the report of Mr. H. Fletcher (G.S.C., 1886), no seams of workable coal appear yet to have been found in the peninsula north of Antigonish, the black shales there exposed being in some cases mistaken for coals, into which they pass at several points; but from many of these opening^ no trace of good coal has yet been obtained.
Mr. Campbell, in How's Mineralogy of Nova Scotia, 1868, has clearly shown that these oil-coals underlie the lower carboniferous limestone at Big Marsh. He divides them into two groups, the lower 70 to 80 feet in thickness, including 20 feet of good oil-shale, 5 feet of which are curly cannel, rich in oil; the upper, 150 feet thick, in immediate contact with the limestones, and containing a large percentage of oil. Of the 5-foot seams of curly cannel, he states that ' it will yield at least forty gallons of crude oil per ton, and 15 feet of the remainder will yield at least twenty gallons '
The black shales are associated with light grey micaceous shales, with impressions of broken plants, and are in places much faulted and sometimes steeply inclined.
In view of the commercial possibilities of the oil-shale deposits which occur in large magnitude in eastern Nova Scotia, and which are referred to by Mr. Campbell in How's Mineralogy of Nova (Scotia, samples from the principal deposits were collected in both Antigonish and Pietou counties since the above was written. Those gathered in the former county are principally from the Haflowell-Grant, known usually as the Big Marsh, eight samples of which were taken as follows :-
No. 1 is from Dan. McDonald s property, on which a shaft was sunk forty years ago, to a depth of over 60 feet; No. 2 (curly shale) and No. 3 (plain shale), are from McLellan brook, a small stream about half a mile east of No. 1; No. 4 (curly) and No. 5 (plain), are from Sawmill brook; No. 7, from the branch of

Sawmill brook; these are known as Dan. Boyds; while No. 8 is from the Big Beaver- Hugh Melnnis' property, several miles nearer the shore. It was supposed that these samples would fairly represent the nature of the several deposits in this district-most of which were worked to some extent in former years- and furnish a reliable test of the 6hales, as to their yield in crude oil and sulphate of ammonia.
The analysis made in the laboratory of the Mines branch shows:
Analyses of Antigonish County 'Oil-s:hales.
Crude Ammonium Specific
No.	Oil.	Sulphate,	~	"
Imp. gals. libs, per ton.
.. ..	HO-O	38-0....	23-0	34-0....	U-0	22-6.. ..	ilO-O	17-0
No. 4.. .
No. 5.. .
No. 6.. .
No. 7.. .
This, in comparison with the shales found in Scotland and New Brunswick.
Gravity.
0-906
0-890
goes to show that the shales of Big Marsh are of good quality, so all that is required is transportation facilities. In fact capitalists are ready to undertake the development of these deposits if they can have some assurance or hope that railway facilities will be afforded. It is all very well to say: If you go ahead and develop your industry first we will provide the railway as soon as we find that the railway will be a profitable investment for us. That may be very good business from one point of view but I submit that in these days, when there are so many fields for investment, the converse of that should be the guiding principle for the Minister of Railways in this case. We cannot hope to get the shales and the iron ore at Arisaig and the copper at South River developed unless there is some reasonable assurance of transportation facilities. But I have not the slightest doubt that if transportation facilities were afforded the capital would be forthcoming at once. As a matter of fact there is a company now interested in the shales at Big Marsh. A company is being formed for the further development of the copper mine at Copper lake.
I do not think that in this letter which I have read anything is stated as to the character of the country and its agricultural possibilities. Through the South river valley, along the South river and all through that section is one of the finest Agricultural districts in Nova Scotia; all the way from Goshen down to South river is excellent fanning country. As pointed out in this letter, the cost of running a road through that valley would be comparatively trifling; the bridges required would be few and inexpensive, the country is practically level and there is every facility for the building of a very cheap line of railway. As to the other portion of the "road referred to, that is the portion from Merigomish to Arisaig and on to Antigonish, it again runs through a fine agrieul-
Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).

*tural section and not only is there iron ore at Arisaig but it is an excellent fishing station, one of the best on Northumberland strait. I would ask, therefore, that the minister should find time to think this *matter over and at least have an engineer go over the route and make survey. As 'I have said, the minister promised in 'March, 1912, that he would have this route investigated and his attention was called to it not only by myself but by the letter of March, 1912, to which I referred. Yet at this session he says that he has done nothing to implement the promise fmade on the 27th of March, 1912, and so \ve must conclude all assurances given in January last as to the building of this road were merely pre-election promises, without foundation or justification. I say that it is up to the minister and only proper that the minister should, for the sake of his own reputation, implement the promise he made and for the sake of the *reputation of the men who spoke on behalf of the Government in January last something should be done in the way of assisting to build a line through the South River valley as a feeder to the Intercolonial *railway.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time, and concurred in.
Mr. COQHRANE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 185, to amend the Government Railways Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 179, to provide for further advances to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners.-Mr. Hazen. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Mr. HAZEN:: I staled on a previous
occasion that I would bring to Ottawa one of the harbour commissioners and the engineer of the commission to give further and more detailed information than I was 'able to give. The hon. member for Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux) and the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) met these gentlemen the day before yesterday in my office, and the plans of the work proposed were explained to them. I stated that I thought that very little private property had to be taken in order to carry on the contemplated *work. I am confirmed in that by the engineer.
V Sir WILFRID LAURIER:	There must
be a report or request or memorandum from the commission indicating the work to be performed. That should be presented to the House.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, I have it here. I
have already given the amounts that are
required for this purpose but I can repeat them if my hon. friend desires me to do
SO.	V


Wilfrid Laurier: If you please.


John Douglas Hazen: The proposed expenditures are as follows:
New quay wall, to north face of Louise embankment 1,800 lineal feet. $810,000
Dredging trench for above	 110,250
Dredging channel approach	 621,250
Filling required for season of 1913 ..	85,067
Making a total for	the	work	in	connection with the new	quay	wall of	$1,626,567.In addition to the	above	there	are	the following :Grain elevator	$1,014,483Car ferry terminals	
56,350
Railway tracks to grain elevator and
for terminal yard	 16,454
Roadway bridge	 25,000
Floating crane	 60,000
Service boat	 130^000
Floating fenders	 i'o00
Office building	 7o'o00
Dredging	 450|000
Building plant	 50,000
Total	$3,502,854


Wilfrid Laurier: Is there in the hands of my hon. friend an official application from Mr. Price?


John Douglas Hazen: The harbour commissioners have made an application to us for an advance of $3,500,000 for the purpose of carrying out these harbour improvements. The figures are made up as I have stated them to my right hon. friend. In the statement submitted to us it is said that:
Messrs. Coode, Matthews, Fitzmaurice and Wilson, of London, England, made a report dated the 21st January, 1913, to the commissioners in regard to the proposed increased wharfage accommodation in the harbor, for ocean-going steamers and other large vessels. The existing accommodation, they state, is extremely limited for a port possessing such natural advantages and vast prospects of trade expansion. The provision of additional berthage and other facilities connected therewith could not fail, in their opinion, to prove of immense benefit to the port and to the country at large.
The plans submitted show the additional wharfage accommodation and reclaimed areas that could be provided. Arrangements would not, of course be made in the first instance for constructing the whole of the accommodation, at each site as shown on the drawing, but for putting in hand and executing the work in such instalments as might be considered desirable from time to time, each portion forming a section of the complete project.
The present accommodation at this point consists of the tidal basin which has an area of 18 acres, with 3,300 feet of quayage and a depth of 26 feet at low water of spring tides. The entrance to the basin is 200 feet wide.

The west dock, opening from the tidal basin, is about 2,400 feet long by 600 feet in average breadth with an area of 40 acres and a quay frontage of about 3,400 feet. The depth of water in the wet dock is from 22 to 30 feet and the depth over the sill of the gates is 35 feet at high water of spring tides. The width of the entrance from the tidal basin is 60 feet. From the north east corner of the tidal basin a pier extends northwards a distance of 1,600 feet. The pier is 300 feet in width and provision has been made for berthage on both faces, although the inner berth, 1,000 feet in length, is not as yet available pending the completion of the necessary dredging alongside and in the approach; There is a depth of over 40 feet at low water of spring tides alongside the outer face of this pier.
Large additions to the present dock facilities have been contemplated for some time past, northward of the Louise embankment. The main feature of that scheme is the construction of a large separate basin in which extensive further berthage accommodation is obtained by a system of projecting jetties, about 1,000 feet in lenght, pointing approximately north and south. The construction of pier No. 1 was the first step undertaken in the execution of those proposals, and in continuation thereof the Louise embankment has been widened on its northern face nearly as far as the root of the proposed pier No. 2 which it was intended to construct parallel with pier No. 1 and at a distance of 500 feet therefrom. The engineers do not however, favour the construction of short jetties. They are of opinion that economical advantages are afforded by providing the wharfage accommodation in one continuous line. It gives a greater amount of berthage and adapts itself to the various lengths of ships to be accommodated.
As a first instalment, the engineers recommend the widening of the Louise embankment. The basin opposite the proposed widening would ultimately be about 3,300 feet to 4,000 feet in length by 2,000 feet to 2,500 feet in width, thus affording a very large space for the maneuvering of vessels entering and departing. This basin would be dredged to a depth of 35 feet below the level of low water of ordinary spring tides. In the first instance, however, and until the 'proposed pier,' as shown on the plan was executed, it would be unnecessary to dredge the full width of the basin. This basin when completed would have an entrance width of 1,500 feet. The proposed widening of the embankment and the area of 80 acres to be reclaimed in this vicinity are shown on the plan by red colour of dark tint.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I looked at the plan and there is no such colour in it.
Mr. HAZEN; Where is the other plan.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The other plan, I
understand, is not the one that is to guide us.


John Douglas Hazen: The plan we had the other day is the one that is referred to here. It is in the possession of the clerk.
Mr. HAZEN.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that the
reclaiming is being abandoned.


John Douglas Hazen: Is it not being proceeded with in connection with this?


Wilfrid Laurier: What I would like to have particularly is the application of the commissioners for the money and the statement as to how they propose to spend it.


John Douglas Hazen: I am sorry I have not that, but I have here details of the proposed expenditure of the money.


Wilfrid Laurier: The commissioners must have made application for this money, and in this application they must have stated how they purposed to spend it. I expected the minister would have put that application on the table.


John Douglas Hazen: I have here all the details of the expenditure.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon.
friend would obviate a great deal of difficulty and give us better satisfaction if he would read the statement signed by Mr. Price. For my part I have great confidence in Mr. Price as a harbour commissioner. I think he can do good work and anything signed by him would carry great weight with me.


Mr HAZEN:: This is done on Mr. Price's application.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no
doubt of that but I would like to have that application; the minister can get it this
evening, and in the meantime I would ask him where is the ear ferry terminal to be?


John Douglas Hazen: I think it is to be further up. It was suggested by the Postmaster General the other night that there was some agreement probably between the harbour commissioners and the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners, but there is no agreement of that kind.


Wilfrid Laurier: It would be
more satisfactory to see on the plan where the car ferry terminal is to be.


John Douglas Hazen: The car ferry, as I understand it, is not down there at all.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A service boat is
mentioned; is the minister informed whether the commission has acquired the hull of the Bavarian, an old boat which was wrecked ?


John Douglas Hazen: I know what my hon.
friend refers to; I have not been informed of anything of that sort.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was informed that
the Bavarian had been sold to the commission.


John Douglas Hazen: I should not think the
Bavarian would be suitable for that purpose.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the minister bear in mind the suggestion of Mr. Power, member for Quebec West, that the service boat should be equipped as a fire boat for the protection of the valuable property in the harbour.


John Douglas Hazen: Certainly; that is a very
good suggestion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I take it for granted
that all the improvements are going to be made on the property of the Quebec Harbour Commission and that there is no expropriation to take place?


John Douglas Hazen: That is what I understand.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I can repeat what my
right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has stated, and it is also the view taken by the members who represent the city of Quebec and the Quebec district, that they all have the utmost confidence in Mr. Price's ability to carry out honestly and diligently the work of the harbour commission. We would like to have the application signed by Mr. Price, as there certainly must be one, and to have it placed on ' Hansard.' Has my hon. friend the plans for the St. Charles river, or have they been sent back to the Department of Public Works ?


John Douglas Hazen: They are not in my possession.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Perhaps my hon. friend will ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers). The whole scheme is practically one.


John Douglas Hazen: I shall see if I can get
them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think you can.


John Douglas Hazen: I think Mr. Valiquette
took it away from here.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I see the Minister of
Public Works is now in his seat. Would he be kind enough to ask Mr. Valiquette to bring here at eight o'clock the plans for the St. Charles river works, because we are considering the Quebec harbour. I for one think that it is part of one whole scheme, the harbour works and the river St. Charles. I would like to have the plans before the House when we are discussing this Bill.


Robert Rogers: If I can find the officer
of the department, I shall be very glad to bring them.
At six o'clock, House resumed, and then took recess.
After Recess.
House lesumed at eight o'clock, and again went into Committee. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 2-advance to harbour commissioners :


John Douglas Hazen: Before we separated ?,t six o'clock the right hon. leader of the Opposition asked about the request that was made cn behalf of the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec, by Mr. Price. T may explain that Mr. Price came personally and -submitteo to us a statement of what was required. We communicated with Mr. Price enclosing a copy of the Bill to be submitted i* Parliament, and in answer to that we received a leter from the secretary-treasurer, dated Quebec, February 4, 1913, and addressed to the deputy minister approving the general terras of the Bill but calling attention to the fact that whereas the Bill provided for -on advance of $3,000,000 the memorandum submitted by Mr. Price showed proposed expenditures aggregating $3,500,000, and not $3,000,000, and asking that the larger sum be loaned. Accompanying this letter was a copy of the statement which had been submitted and which is exactly the same statement which I read to the House this afternoon. I may say further that my light hon. friend asked me with regard to the purchase of the Bavarian. I stated that I had not heard of it, but since then I have learned that before the three present commissioners took office, the old commissioners purchased the hull of the Bavarian intending to convert it into a large on which the steam crane was to be placed which was to be bought and to be used for lifting goods in the harbour.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That was when Mr. Chateauvert was there?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the hon. minister know what was paid?


John Douglas Hazen: I am not certain. I will
get that information and give it to the hon. gentleman.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who sold that hull to the commissioners?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know. I suppose it was the steamship line that owned the vessel. It had belonged to the Allan line.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think it was sold by Reford.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know, but it was bought by the old commissioners and the present commissioners, I understand, will use it for the purposes which I have indicated. Then, something was said about the car ferry. I thought that this referred to

the ferries on which the cars of the Grand Trunk Pacific were to he carried across the river; pending the completion of the Quebec bridge; but I find it has nothing to do with that. This is for freight cars brought on ferries from Levis across the river to Quebec. That is for the transfer of freight cars of the railroad line on the south side of the St. Lawrence.


Wilfrid Laurier: Can the hon. gentleman give me any information as to the use which was intended for the service boat proposed in this expenditure?


John Douglas Hazen: The service boat, I think, will be used largely for the same purpose as that which the boat called the Sir Hugh Allan is used by the Montreal Harbour Commissioners-for the general work of the commissioners about the harbour.
On section 4 :
For the purposes of this Act the period of construction of such terminal facilities shall terminate on such dates as the Governor in Council shall fix and determine.


Wilfrid Laurier: Has the minister any idea how long it will take for this construction?


John Douglas Hazen: No. The impression is that they can have the grain elevator ready for the season of the spring of 1914, and that the terminal facilities ought to be ready, the greater paTt of them, next year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What capacity has the elevator?


John Douglas Hazen: A million bushels. I can tell the hon. gentleman now that the amount paid by the old commissioners for the hull of the Bavarian was $22,000.
On the preamble:


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there a dredging
plant in the harbour?


John Douglas Hazen: The dredging this year
will have to be done by contract.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have any contracts
been let?


John Douglas Hazen: A contract has been entered into with the Dominion Dredging Company.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that a Quebec firm?


John Douglas Hazen: It is an Ottawa firm.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What will be the cost of the dredging?


John Douglas Hazen: A portion of the dredging is at 19} cents and a portion at 21} cents a cubic yard.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. HAZEN.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Hazen, Bill No. 182, respecting the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners, was read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 1-short title:
Frank Oliver: When this Bill was up
for consideration on a previous occasion I think the minister said there were no features in it that brought in any other interests than those of the harbour and of the Government.


John Douglas Hazen: That is all.


Frank Oliver: The Bill is drafted
throughout on that principle?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, nearly every section
of the Bill is in accordance with similar sections in the Hamilton, Montreal and Winnipeg Harbour Acts. This Bill has a provision that all the foreshores shall be vested in the Harbour commission, and that after the expiration of five years the public may take these over. There is a very considerable foreshore in the harbour of Vancouver. For some years these foreshores were disposed of by grants at a very nominal sum, but after a time the Government began to realize their value and the policy became rather to lease than to grant them. Formerly the leases were made for a period of twenty-one years, with a provision for a renewal of twenty-one years after the expiration of that period, and a further renewal of twenty-one years after that. Instead of making these renewals at the same rental, so that they would run for sixty-three years, we have provided that, at the end of twenty-one years there shall be a readjustment of the rental charge, and if no agreement can be reached between the parties as to this, or if the amount fixed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries be considered to be too large, the question shall be referred to the Exchequer Court. With the passage of the Bill, all this, of course, reverts to the harbour commissioners.


Frank Oliver: Are the leases to be
granted by the harbour commissioners for a period of twenty-one .years, or only five years?


John Douglas Hazen: I think that if a company intend to establish an industrial enterprise and to expend large sums of money on these foreshores, they would be unwilling to accept leases for so short a period as five years. This is a matter that will come under the judgment of the harbour commission, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.


John Howard Sinclair: In granting leases are
the rights of the owners of the lands fronting on the waters respected?


John Douglas Hazen: Oh, yes; my view is that we have no right to grant leases without considering the rights of the riparian proprietors.
On section 13-right to expropriate.


Mr. McKENZIE:: The powers of expropriation are very zealously guarded in all legislation. The word ' expropriation ' is very rarely used in this way in legislation. Here no mode is provided for expropriation.	*


John Douglas Hazen: The wording of this section is the same as in the corresponding section in the Montreal, Winnipeg, and Hamilton Acts. No difficulty has arisen in connection with it in Montreal.
On section 14-Crown lands vested in the Harbour Comimisison:


Wilfrid Laurier: The first
words of the section are very broad and may cover very valuable privileges to the corporation. They are:
All lands and interest in lands within the limits of the harbour, and heretofore vested in His Majesty in the right of Canada, shall, by virtue of this Act, be vested in and held by the corporation for the purposes of this Act.
I would have hoped that my hon. friend would have been able to-day to give us an idea of the extent of land that is conveyed to the corporation by this Act. I have heard nothing up to the present to indicate what is the total area. Is it foreshore land or is it land in the city?


John Douglas Hazen: Only the foreshores.


Wilfrid Laurier: How many
acres will they cover?


John Douglas Hazen: I cannot accurately tell
my right hon. friend. They are pretty extensive and very valuable. Some portions have been granted in the past, wharfs have been constructed and industrial establishments have been located on the foreshore. In other cases leases have been given. At the present time we get a revenue from these leases of, I think, about $10,000 a year. I think that ninety per cent of the leases were granted before the present Administration came into power and perhaps ten per cent have been granted since. It would be somewhat difficult to work out what the area of the foreshore would be. But it seems that the provisions of the Bill pretty well safeguard the public interest. The clause vests the title to the foreshore in the commission, limited by the restriction that it must be held subject to any lease or privilege already granted and subject to riparian rights and the Government may at any time, after each
recurring five years, repossess itself of the property. This was thought desirable in view of the tremendous increase that may take place in the value of the property in years to come. All dealings in the land conveyed are subject to the approval of the Governor in Council and the harbour commission can give no fee simple to this land, or quit claim, and they cannot give a lease for a longer period than twenty-one years. It was thought on consultation with the Department of Justice and others that that pretty well safeguarded the interests of the country.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, I think so.


John Howard Sinclair: If the Government should decide at the end of five years to repossess themselves of this foreshore, would they have to pay anything to the commissioners?


John Douglas Hazen: They would have to deal equitably and to assume all the liabilities that had been incurred in the meantime.


John Howard Sinclair: Nothing more?


John Douglas Hazen: The commissioners get
nothing. The commissioners have no personal interest. These harbour commissioners are practically branches of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The harbour commission of Montreal is practically that. These gentlemen are selected to administer the harbours in the interest of the country generally and of the community in which the harbours are situated. It might be that contracts have been made, or they may have appointed people to office and there might be some equity which would have to be considered, but there is no reason why anything should be paid to the commissioners as such.
On section 22-valuation of goods according to provisions of Customs Act:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the intent of this section?


John Douglas Hazen: This section embodies the usual procedure. It is embodied in the Montreal Act of 1894, clause 30, chapter 48, in the Winnipeg Act, clause 20, chapter 35, and in the Hamilton Act, clause 21, chapter 98. It provides for the use by the board of the customs facilities. This has been found desirable.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the object of it?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is the way of getting their tonnage.


John Douglas Hazen: Charges are made on the
goods that land over the wharfs and they are based on the valuation which are made under the Customs Act for duty purposes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Supposing a vessel
came in with a small cargo of fish to one of these wharfs, is it the intention that the

owner should have to pay some tax by way of harbour dues on that fish before he could land it?


John Douglas Hazen: No. In the harbour of
Montreal vessels pay nothing at all; there is no tonnage tax. The revenues are derived from what the goods pay that are taken over the wharfs and put into the warehouses. An importer pays on the goods, be they pianos or dry-goods, according to their valuation. The vessel pays nothing, there is no tax upon shipping, but the goods pay for the facilities that are provided in order that they may be landed cheaply. There are wharfs and warehouses with the aid of which the goods are landed and protected from the weather and that is what is paid for. This clause provides that in valuing these goods for the purpose of the payment of whatever rates may be imposed-and the rates are subject to the approval of the Governor in Council -the valuation, on which the ad valorem rates are imposed, shall be made according to the provisions of the Customs Act, the valuation being the same as that on which the customs would collect duty on the same goods coming into the country.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is where there are dutiable goods, but they would have coastwise goods in British Columbia that would not be subject to duty and therefore the valuation for customs purposes would not apply.


John Douglas Hazen: I am under the impression that small boats, such as my hon. friend has referred to, fishing boats and that sort of craft, generally discharge their cargoes at small wharfs belonging to people who are dealing specially in fish. However, if any difficulty arose it would be corrected. We would not permit a tax to be imposed that would hamper the industry that comes to a port. I have had no complaint along that line from Montreal.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They may have the
practice established at such a large port as Montreal.


John Douglas Hazen: Goods which are not dutiable would pay for the privilege in the warehouses on the wharfs.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is another matter.


Frank Oliver: Are the charges to be fixed on some basis connected with the cost of running the harbour?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Are they to 'be levied simply as a matter of not giving something for nothing or are they to be levied as a substantial tax to support the cost of the harbour?


John Douglas Hazen: It is hoped the business
will be sufficient, so that without imposing any new burden there will be enough col-Mr. McKENZIE.
lected to pay the revenue charges and the interest on the loans advanced by the Government for the purpose of building wharfs, elevators, and other harbour facilities.


Frank Oliver: Vancouver is in close competition with other ports nearby which have shipping facilities for Canadian trade, and it would not be good economy to fix the charges so as to make the harbour self-supporting if by doing so business would be deterred from coming to that harbour.


John Douglas Hazen: Quite so.
On sections 29, 30, 31 and 32-seizure and detention of vessels:


Frank Oliver: To one not learned in the law the sections about seizure and detention read very seriously and it would be noharm to have a little explanation.


John Douglas Hazen: There is provision in section 29 that vessels which have done actual damage by running into the wharfs may be detained and seized, and a similar clause in the Montreal Act has been found to be very necessary. Sections 30, 31 and 32 deal with seizure of goods for unpaid rates and stipulate how the seizure shall be made.


John Howard Sinclair: The chairman of the
commission has the power of a magistrate,, and the solicitor of the commission can bring action, and that seems a good deal of power to place in the chairman.


John Douglas Hazen: The same idea has occurred to me. I do not think the chairman of the commission should have that power. Where you can go before a judge and a magistrate and the collector of customs there is no necessity whatever for giving their power to the chairman of the commission. I am glad my hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) called my attention to that, and I move that clause (d) of sub-section 3 of section 31 be stricken out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Frank Oliver: The effect of this is that the vessel may be seized for damages and the goods may be seized for dues.


John Douglas Hazen: That is it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is not the law of
Nova Scotia and I do not think it is the law of New Brunswick that any person can step in and seize a vessel for striking a wharf.


John Douglas Hazen: In the Admiralty court you can arrest a vessel for wages or for damages done to a wharf; this simply goes a .little further.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am quite aware what the Admiralty Court can do, but they can do other things. When a vessel is seized

in the Admiralty Court, the master at once puts up security and gets an order of the judge releasing the vessel and then he can go on his way. I can see no such machinery here. If a vessel is seized, the master has either to pay his money at once, and any exorbitant charges that may be imposed against him, or to stay there until he gets a trial. To put the Admiralty Court in the hands of a commission is putting shipping in the maritime provinces under entirely unfair conditions.


John Douglas Hazen: It is not a new provision; it has been done in other oases and no hardship in consequence of it has come to my attention. It is more of a preventive measure. If my hon. friend finds any case in the working of it where hardship has resulted, I will certainly ask for a modification of it.
Bill reported.


VOLUNTEER BOUNTY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Crothers, House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient 'to amend the Volunteer Bounty Act, 1912, and (a) to provide that any substitute of a grantee of a warrant issued under the provisions of the Volunteer Bounty Act, 1908, and who has been duly appointed, such substitute may locate and enter for lands, as provided for in the said Act of 1908; and (ib) to extend the time within wihioh a grantee or bis substitute may locate and enter for such lands.- Mr. Roche.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Frank Oliver: Before the resolution is adopted, would the minister be good enough to explain what amendment is intended to be made to the provisions of the Act as it stands at present ?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Chairman, members will be aware that the original Volunteer Bounty Act was passed in the year 1908, providing that a grant should be given .to all persons then domiciled in Canada who served with the British forces in South Africa in the years 1899-1902, giving them until the 31st day of December, 1910, to locate two adjoining quarter sections of land, and authorizing the substitute, who became entitled to a transfer from the original grantee, to locate the land. In 1910 the time for locating these grants was extended to the 31st of December, 1911. As it was found that a number of these grants had not been located, in the year 1912 another extension of time was made until the 31st of December, 1912. It is now proposed, as it has been ascertained that a good many of these scrips have not been located, that the grantees should be allowed until the 31st of October in the 282
present year, to locate this scrip and to prove their right thereto-not only the grantees, but the substitutes. I think the Act of 1912 limited the time within which a substitute should be permitted to make his location. He was not given the full rights that were given to the original grantees. One of the sections of the original Bill provides that, instead of scrip being given for two adjoining quarter sections, scrip may be given for $160; and still another section provides that a man who is entitled to locate these two quarter sections may surrender his claim to the Government and get $500 in money. When the scrip was given first about five years ago, it was not thought to be worth much, but it has become very valuable now and I do not see any use of that section in the Bill, giving them scrip for $160 instead of for 320 acres of land. It was in the Bill, however, and I have left it there. The same has been done with the right to surrender and to get $500 in money. The grantee, the substitute, and the man who has surrendered his scrip, are all put on the same level. Some surrendered their scrip but they were never paid any money, and under this Bill they are given the right to come in and to locate their two quarter sections notwithstanding that surrender. The extension has been made to October 31, 1913, in the hope that all these scrips may be located by that time and that we will not be required to make any further extensions of time.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I hope the minister wilil promise that there will not be any further extension.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I cannot promise that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: All ministers in the past have promised that and I hope my hon. friend will also do so.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I cannot do so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Probably the Minister
of Public Works will do it for him.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: There must be a limit, and I think if they get until October 31 they can have their scrip located by that time.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think the Minister of Public Works had no hesitation a year ago in promising that there would be no further extension of time; that this was final and that the man who did not have his land located 'by the 31st of December, 1912, was out of it forever. My hon. friend now asks for an extension to the 31st October. I would like to hear him make the same promise as was made in the past. It seems to me we ought to be consistent. If he made that promise, it would only put him in a position to follow out former preced-



ents and to come here next year in order to ask for a further extension. If he did not make that promise he might be embarrassed when he came next year in order to ask for an extension of the time.


Frank Oliver: Could the minister say
how many scrips are still outstanding?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, I am not in a position to tell my hon. friend.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the question of the extension of time for the location of this scrip, I would like to say that the situation has been rather unfortunate. The time limit for the location of scrip, as the minister said, was the end of December, 1910. At that time, representations were made on the part of those who held -e-ip that there had not been fair and reasonable opportunity, through lapse of time, for them to locate, having regard to precedent in connection with the former issues of scrip. It will be remembered by the minister that when the question of extension of the period for location for a year from the end of 1910 was brought forward in the House, it met with a great deal of opposition, particularly from the members who were then in Opposition. It was urged that such a concession was largely "to the advantage of speculators rather than to the advantage of those who had originally held the scrip. That view was urged very strongly, and I am not sure that my hon. friend the acting Minister of the interior did not assist in pressing it upon the attention of the Government. I know that some of his colleagues did, and particularly the present Minister of Militia (Mr. Hughes). I remember very distinctly that hon. gentleman was, veTy strong on the point that this extension of time was more in the interest of speculators than in the interest of volunteers. But, be that as it may, the Government of that day took the responsibility of extending the time for a year. It was thoroughly well understood at that time that there should be no further extension. The Government changed, however, before the end of 1911, and before the end of that year under the new Government, the rumour was circulated that there would be a further extension of the time for the location of the scrip. The effect of that was, of course, to stiffen the price of scrip-to add to the speculative value. Assuming that the scrip was not obliged to be located at the end of 1911 and still retain its value the continuation of the right of selection was to the advantage of the scrip holder or speculator. Those who felt they were ' in the know ', if I may use the expression, of course were able to hold their scrip and secure any benefit that would be derived from the extension of time, while those who were not ' in the know ' felt com-Mr. CARVELL.
pelled to sell out and .accept whatever loss there might be, or whatever difference there might be between the price they had to take, believing the scrip right was going to end with 1911, as compared with what it was worth by the reason of a further extension. I need not say that is a very, undesirable condition, but it is a condition that existed, and it is a condition that should not exist. After the end of 1911 that is, some time during 1912, after the scrip rights had expired absolutely according to law I forget in what month, but I fancy about the month of March.


Mr. McCRANEY:: Assent was given in
April.


Frank Oliver: Yes, but the Bill was brought in, I think, in March. That is, during January and February at any rate, those who held scrip held it absolutely on the prospect of what the Government was going to do for them. I need not enlarge on the fact that that again was a very undesirable condition and that it tended very greatly to promote scrip speculation which had not prevailed under previous circumstances. In fact, if my recollection is right it was stated in the House by the then Ministerof the Interior that there would not be an extension of time for locating the land but that some arrangement could be made to convert the right in cash. I have not ' Hansard ' under my hand and I cannot show that that statement was made, but I believe it was made; and at any rate,the point is that several months after the right of locating the scrip had lapsed absolutely according to law, those who held scrip or were interested in scrip were kept in a condition of uncertainty as to what was going to be done. At last, some time in March or April, 1912, a Bill was brought in which provided for an extension of time until the end of that year. And the Bill went through the House in the belief on the part of the members then present-I think I am speaking correctly when I say so-that that measure made provision for the extension of time to all holders of scrip until,the end of 1912 with the alternative of taking $500 in cash in commutation of their rights. But, as a matter of fact, that Bill contained a section, No. 7, which particularly debarred from the privilege of locating on land within the year 1912 a certain class of those who held scrip. I cannot understand on what principle that section was introduced. But the effect of that section was to debar from land those holders of scrip who above all others were best entitled to locate it and whose holding of the scrip savoured less of speculation than the holding by any other men connected with the scrip. The section reads as follows:
No substitute made, constituted or appointed before the first of June, 1912, under

the Volunteer Bounty Act, 1908, shall have any right under the said Act or under this Act except such as are provided by sections 5 and 8 of this Act.
That is to say, a man who had in good faith bought the scrip and who under the terms of the Act could only use that scrip by locating it and fulfilling the duties upon the land was specifically debarred from locating it by the terms of section 7.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: You do not think
that was right, do you?


Frank Oliver: I certainly do not; I
think it was very wrong. He was debarred [DOT]from locating the land and the best he 'could do was to avail himself of the provisions of section 8 and take five hundred dollars commutation. He could only do that after Parliament had voted the money, and Parliament had not voted any money up to that time. A certain number of scrip holders were absolutely deprived of their rights, and stood to lose in cash anywhere from one hundred dollars to five hundred dollars on the scrip they held.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: What rights had these substitutes subsequent to December 31, 1911 under the Act passed by my hon. friend? Their rights ceased on that date.


Frank Oliver: Certainly.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Then none were taken away from them.


Frank Oliver: Neither had anybody else any rights after December 31, 1911. These 'men had no more rights than any of the other scrip holders had, and, again, they had every right that any other scrip holder had. They had no right in law, but an absolute right in equity; this was recognized in the case of other scrip holders, and was not recognized in their case, for no reason that I can see. These men paid for this scrip anywhere from five hundred dollars to one thousand dollars.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Knowing that they
would not have any rights after December 31, 1911, unless there was an extension.
Mr. OLIVER. Unless there was an extension. But there was a rumour circulated throughout the country after the change Of government that there would be an extension, and those who had faith or hope or expectation held on to their scrip looking for that extension. I am simply pointing out the facts for the purpose not of finding fault but of ensuring that, so far as possible, whatever disabilities these persons have been subject to in the past may not continue or recur under the new Act. These people paid anywhere from five hundred dollars to one thousand dollars for the scrip they held; they had a right to commute that scrip for five hundred dollars, which caused them -a loss of anywhere from one hundred dollars to five hundred dollars.	There were about
one hundred of these scrip holders debarred by section 7 from locating their land, and they suffered an average loss of three hundred dollars, which is a matter of some thirty thousand dollars.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Speculators.


Frank Oliver: The man who bought the scrip and registered it was not a speculator; he was the man the speculator was making his money out of. He was the man who was entitled to protection rather than that he should be robbed of thirty thousand dollars by an Act of this Parliament. I want to impress upon the Government the fact that by reason of the uncertainty that has surrounded the extension of time of locating this scrip, a very great and undeserved hardship has been inflicted upon a large number of people, and the element of speculation has been introduced, in dealing with the scrip, in a most unfortunate and unwarranted manner. In the present instance the right to locate the scrip terminated on December 31, 1911. Had the Government prior to that^ date brought in legislation granting this extension now proposed, every man who held scrip would have known what his rights were; but the Government did not bring in that legislation before the rights then existing had expired, and has not brought it in yet.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: My recollection is
that my hon. friend prior to December 31, asked the Minister of the Interior if he intended to extend the time, and the minister told him that he did. That was not a rumour; it was a statement made to this House, so that those who held scrip, either as original grantees or substitutes, knew prior to December 31 that there was going to be an extension; therefore I fancy they did not sacrifice anything.


Frank Oliver: 1 am under the impression that this was after January 1, 1912, so that the rights had actually expired [DOT] before I asked the question.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am not so sure of that.


Frank Oliver: In any case it is not a matter of importance to my argument, because the ninety-seven persons who were specifically debarrrd by the Act of last year did not know until to-night that their rights were to be recognized. While I understand from the minister that he intends to recognize their rights in the proposed Bill, that will not be a fixed fact until the Bill has actually been introduced; so that these people are still practically without recourse, and are subject to disposing

of their scrip at any price they can get for it. I submit that the Government did not act fairly in the fall of 1911 or in the fall of 1912 by those who held scrip rights.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I remember distinctly that my hon. friend asked the Minister of the Interior whether in that proposed extension he intended to include those who were substitutes, and he told my hon. friend distinctly that he did.


Frank Oliver: I asked several times, but I am sure that time it was after the 1st of January. I may have asked the minister before the end of December if there was going to be an extension, but, I am sure when I asked about the substitutes that was after the 1st of January. When the Government on two occasions had allowed these scrip rights to lapse without providing for a renewal it was acting without due regard to the rights and interests of the men who were concerned, rightfully and properly, in the ownership and holding of that scrip. It was a wrong thing to do, it was done without excuse, it was an injury to a large number of citizens who had done nothing to warrant such injury being done to their interests, and I am pressing that upon the Government on this occasion in the hope and expectation that such action will not occur again and that in the Bill that is about to be introduced upon the basis of this resolution the wrong that was done by section 7 of the Act of last year will be remedied and these people will be placed, no matter what steps have been taken, in identically the same position as they should have been in from the start. If there is to be any further extension of the scrip rights- and I hope there will not be-that extension should 'be granted before the present right expires in order that every man who has rights may know what value he holds. It is not fair and it is not right that the matter should have been handled as it has been. I do not suggest that it has been handled in this way by design for the purpose of enabling men who had the ear of the Government to make use of their knowledge to their special advantage and to the disadvantage of other men, but certainly that is what has occurred and it is a very important consideration. The Government would be well advised to see that this does not occur again under the legislation that is about to be introduced. The minister informed me that there would be a six months' extension. That would be until the end of June. Now we are told it is to he until the 31st of October. That is identically in line with what occurred in 1911 and 1912; the word of the minister went out that the rights of selection would terminate at the end of June and men handled their scrip with that in view. Now we have an extension until the Mr OLIVER.
31st of October, and the man who held scrip or was in a position to buy scrip and knew or had reason to believe that this extension would be granted had an advantage in dealing with that scrip over the ordinary citizen of the country that was not fair or right and I hope that in any further transactions in connection with this scrip the Government will make due announcement before the termination of existing rights so that every citizen will be in a fair position and one man will he just as good as another in the ownership of scrip.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend has
pointed out that certain actions that might have appeared unfair were taken by the Government in respect to the extension of time. If such action on our part is open to censure, then, of course, similar action upon the part of hon. gentlemen opposite is equally open to censure. As far as my knowledge of the circumstances goes, I was always opposed to any extension of time in connection with this scrip and did not hesitate to say so at any time or at any place and if my hon. friend will inquire he will find that during my reign as Minister of the Interior every letter that left the Department of the Interior under every circumstance made it clear that the Government did not intend at any time to give any extension, believing as I did that by taking this action the scrip rights would be settled and closed out before there would be necessity on the part of the Government for giving any such extension. I have not much to complain of in respect to the statements of my hon. friend except his suggestion that certain individuals ' in the know ' of the Government held their scrip. No man in any part of Canada who ever held a scrip, as far as I know, had any knowledge except what was addressed to the public throughout the whole length and breadth of Canada in respect of what action the Government was taking in this matter. No single individual, to my knowledge, in any part of the country had any information or knowledge of any kind or description that any special action was going to be taken or any special extension of time to be given by the Government because I believed then as I do now that it was undesirable to extend the time. Last year when the extension was introduced I endeavoured to keep out as many as I could. I kept out, as my hon. friend said, those who had registered their scrip and therefore were classed, as far as the department could understand it, as being speculators. It was my desire in reference to that ninety-seven, believing that they were speculators, to keep them out entirely. It turned out by the conditions that have developed since that these men apparently were not speculators and I presume that is why the acting Minister of the Interior is providing in this Bill that they should be treated similarly to the

others. That was the idea I had at the time and that was the sole and only reason why it was provided by the Bill that they should be kept out as far as was possible for us to do so. Extensions have been given from time to time in regard to this scrip and I think it has been a mistake. Nevertheless my hon. friend knows that there is always a certain pressure and a certain amount of reasoning and argument put forth that carries a certain weight and influence why an extension should be given. The acting Minister of the Interior is presenting a Bill to-night to extend it until the 31st of October of this year. If tne acting Minister of the Interior will follow my advice he will have no hesitation in pledging this House and this country that no further extension, even to the extent of an hour, will be given to anybody who holds this scrip because I do not think they are entitled to it. My hon. friend talks of scrip holders being treated unfairly. I think they have been treated most fairly by every Government and by everybody having anything to do with this matter, far too fair has the treatment been of the individual holders of this scrip and they should know and understand now and for the last time that they will receive no further extension at the hands of this Parliament, in so far as any holdings that they may have are concerned. They have the whole summer to locate their scrips, and if they do not take advantage of it they should not come back to this Parliament. If they do come back they should not be entitled to consideration at the hands of members of Parliament with respect to any further extension. That is my view of the matter, and if the acting Minister of the Interior will follow my advice, that is the course which he will take in dealing with it. The scrip owners have been treated absolutely fairly, and as Minister of the Interior I tried to treat them fairly, nothing more or less, and I gave no advantage to any one individual over the multitude of those who held that scrip at any time or place or under any circumstances. If the acting Minister of the Interior will follow my advice, he will have no hesitation in assuring this Parliament that no further extension will be given to any holder of this scrip. Let us have the matter closed once and for all, and let us be done with it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am very glad to hear this declaration from the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), because he speaks as if he were sincere, and I am going to consider that he is sincere about the matter. The difficulty is that, when my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) was Minister of the. Interior, he also stated that he was sincere, and the . Minister of Public Works a year ago acted as if he were sincere; but, somehow or
other, there is always somebody who has sufficient influence to break down the good intentions of the different Ministers of the Interior, with the result that these extensions are taking place. But I believe that the Minister of Public Works is sincere in the statement ne makes tonight, and if he is sincere in the frank statement he has made there is no need to review the facts. But the fact is that this whole business has been most unfairly handled by the Department of the Interior, handled in the interest of the speculator and taken entirely away from the real purpose for which the grant was made four or five years ago. We all know that this was a grant given out of the generosity of Parliament to the men who went to South Africa in the late war. It was intended, and I believe that the original legislation guarded it as far as possible, that this grant should inure to the benefit of the volunteer alone. My recollection is that at the first it was enacted that he could not even assign his rights, and that he must go and settle upon the land himself; but they got around that by issuing some sort of a document in blank. The ingenuity of interested parties got around the statute anyway. I know of my own knowledge of at least dozens of volunteers, and I think I could go up to the hundreds, especially in the maritime provinces, who believed the declaration of the Government in 1908 and tne statements contained in the Act, that they only had two years in which to locate their scrip. Not being able to go West and locate, and not being able to sell for any large amount, they disposed of their rights for $160. That went on for perhaps a year and a half. Then people got wise and saw that there might be an opportunity to have this time extended. It was extended once by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver). Then the value of the scrip began to go up, and it soon became a matter of speculation. In the last two or three years it has been purely a matter of speculation. These rights have been very largely acquired by gentlemen who were looking after the matter of making money, and I find no fault with them, because they have a perfect rignt to buy these rights as long as they are for sale. But while we are extending the time we are forgetting the fact that this right which was given as a recognition of the services of the volunteers, has degenerated into a money-making idea pure and simple. However, after the positive assurance of the minister, the House can rest assured that this Bill puts an end to the whole matter.


George Ewan McCraney: Mr. Chairman, I feel, with my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvel!) who has just spoken, that we must

give credit to the Government of thW day for sincerity as we gave credit to the late Government for their intention not to extend the time. But my experience is such that I expect there will be applications for extension. I notice that the time limit is set for the 31st October. I would suggest that a date be set which will be within the sitting of Parliament. If there is to be a September session, the 31st October will be all right, but if Parliament is to sit in January, as I hope the practice will be in future, I would suggest that the time be made a year from now so that we can get away from this practice, which my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has referred to of allowing rights to go out of existence and bringing them into existence subsequently by Act of Parliament. I remember a scrip holder, by assignment, coming into my office and seeing .me before the 31st December, 1912. There had been no announcement of any intention on the part of the Government to give an extension. He told me that he had not been able to locate and he asked me what he was to do. I said: The only thing you can do is to locate the best you can, take somebody's word for it, because your rights go' out of existence on the 31st December. I have never seen him since. There is no doubt what I thought about it myself. This right should expire during the time Parliament is sitting so that before the expiration some announcement might be made. I would suggest to the acting minister that he make it the first of May next.
There is another point that I wish to bring up. While we started out with the idea that there should be no speculation in this scrip, we have to recognize not only the fact that there has been speculation, but the further fact that rights have been created altogether apart from the rights of the original holders and the speculators.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: My hon. friend is probably aware that the original Act provided for assignment.


Mr McCRANEY:: Yes, I am aware of
that. At the outset there was no intention on the part of those who were supporting the proposal to give land to the South African veterans that there should be any assignment at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: At first there was one
assignment only.


George Ewan McCraney: Yes, we wanted those who lived in the maritime provinces, who were not farmers, and who were not able to locate their land, to get the value and we allowed one assignment -believing that we had thereby shut out the speculators. But the assignments were made out in blank, and, as a matter of fact, there has been a Mr. McCRANEY.
great deal of speculation. Another element has entered in also and it has been the bonafida holder .apart from . the original volunteer and apart from the speculator, the man who has paid $500, or $600, or $700 and who expects to locate. That man has rights which I think we ought to view from a different standpoint from that from which we are viewing the matter tonight. I agree with the principle that we should put a time limit on the location of scrip. The Department of the Interior must clean up some time and I have made the suggestion that the time limit should be during the sitting of Parliament.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It will expire on the
31st October.


George Ewan McCraney: Yes, but I make this suggestion to the acting minister, that while the right to locate shall expire at some date, he should give to those who have not located the sum of $500 if they apply for it.


John Dowsley Reid: Instead of the scrip?


George Ewan McCraney: Yes, instead of the scrip. Our farmers are busy. If these scrips are worth anything to the Government they are worth $500 at any time. Any attempt (to fix a time limit is apt to bring about, perhaps not injustice, but possible hardship. One case about which I am corresponding with the department refers to certificate 6635 issued to Albert McVittey, endorsed to Abraham Funk, who is a German Men-nonite farmer living west of Rosthem in my riding. He did not locate the scrip and he now has no intention of doing so. There was a piece of land he thought would be thrown open. I think there were two or three scrips bought in the neighbourhood of Rosthem, each believing that the holder might be the fortunate locator. Mr. Funk has not located (the scrip yet and when he made application for the $500 after the 1st of January he was told that under section 8 his rights had expired. I want to point out to the minister that if it was worth $500 to get in that scrip before the end of December, it surely ought to be worth $500 to get it in now.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: There is a provision
in the new Bill for that.


George Ewan McCraney: Yes, but my argument is that there need not be a time limit on the payment of the $500 where the holder does not locate and surrenders the scrip. Another case which has come before me is the case of scrip held by Mrs. Friesen, who died some time last summer. Her estate was involved, administration could not be obtained before the end of the year, and the estate is now the holder of that scrip, and until this Act goes
89X7

through it is worth nothing. I am very glad the Government is bringing in this amendment and I know that those who are benefited by it will be grateful. The circumstance in the . latter case is a thing over which no person had control, the death of the holder and the difficulty of getting administration. I would urge on the minister that while he may fix a time for the location of scrip so that he may clean up the lands in his department, he need not fix a time for the payment of money on the surrender.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: There is no time fixed in the Bill.


George Ewan McCraney: The Bill fixes a
time for the expiration of the right to get the $500. If the minister distinguishes between location of scrip on the one hand and the payment of money in lieu of scrip on the other hand, I would like to hear about it.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Under the Bill, as I understand it, a person holding scrip may surrender on the very last day of October next. He may not possibly get his money on that day, but does my hon. friend suppose the Government would refuse to pay him the next day?


George Ewan McCraney: No, but that is provided he has surrendered before the 31st of October.	.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Certainly. .


George Ewan McCraney: Why should he not
on the first of November be able to turn in his scrip to the Government and get $500?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We must fix some
limit.


George Ewan McCraney: I commend that to
the consideration of the minister.


Mr. MARTIN (Regina):: There is something in the point raised by the hon. member from Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney). Section 8, in the Act of 1912, with respect to the payment of the $500, is:
Any grantee under the Volunteer Bounty Act of 1908, or any substitute duly qualified in that behalf, as provided for in section 5 of the said Act, may on or before the 31st December, 1912, surrender to 'the Grown all rights under the said Act, and upon executing the surrender, &c., he shall receive the amount of $900.
The point is that a man may have been trying to locate that scrip, whether he be the original grantee or substitute, on the 31st December, and through some misfortune he has failed to locate. It seems to me some time should be fixed in the new Act providing for the obtaining of the $500 after the 31st of October,, which is the date fixed for the location of the South
African warrants. The conditions of the country are such that a man may be perhaps 150 or 200 miles away from a railroad, and some provision should be made for allowing him to get that $500 paid thirty days after the last day on which, under the new Act, he can locate that scrip.
I submit to the minister a concrete case with which I have had something to do. Owing to the fact that the public did not know there would be an extension of time, most holders of scrip decided to get rid of it or surrender it to the Government and accept the sum of $500.	_
A man thought the time for locating the scrip was expiring on the 31st December, and he could not locate it and he said he would take $500 from the department. He wrote to the department and through some mistake the execution of the surrender provided for in the Act of 1912, was not properly executed, and is not executed up to the present time. He now knows of this further extension and the question arises whether he will get the scrip he surrendered practically to ;the department, and be able to locate under the provisions of this mew Act. I have been in correspondence with the department for some weeks on that case and it has been ruled that he will not be able to locate his scrip. What is he going to do? I would like to hear the view of the minister as to whether or not that man is entitled to locate his scrip.


Mr. EDWARDS:: A case came under my notice somewhat similar to the one given by the member for Regina. A man formerly in my own county, who went out West, purchased one of these scrips from a South African veteran who was living in Australia. A transfer was made some time in the latter part of August, 1911. He had until the last day of the year to locate. I am not just sure of the day of the week on which that last day came, but I think it was a legal holiday. At all events, the time that he had for locating was comparatively short. He picked two or three parcels of land which he might locate, and a day or so before the time expired, he went to the land office intending to locate on those particular lands. The agent told him that a certain other parcel of land would be open in a day or two and advised him to wait. Acting on that advice, he waited, and when the day came round he went and located on this other land; The agent told him that due allowance would be made for the legal holiday. He was, however, according to the strict interpretation of the Act, a few hours too late. It seems to me that was a case where the fault was not of the man locating, and that his case should receive some consideration. Believing that he was entirely out of it, he surrendered his scrip. I cer-

tainly think that man should be given the right to re-locate.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: He has that right.


William Cameron Edwards: If that is so, that will answer the question of the hon. member for Regina.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: For once at least I am very much in sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton with one exception. 1 believe that the Minister of Public Works has stated the facts as they existed at that time, and as they have existed all along. I never could understand, and I stated so at that time, why the Bill of 1912 took the privilege from the substitute, which as I understand this resolution will give back to him. We should have had in 1912 a resolution the same as we have before us to-day. I know personally of some very great hardships that were inflicted in 1911. As the hon. member has said, and as anybody living in the West knows, during November and December or in fact at any time during the winter it would be almost impossible to locate lands. The impression abroad, among the laity at least, was that the same privileges were being granted by the Bill of 1912 as are being granted by this resolution. I know of at least two cases in my own constituency, two widows who were trying to provide for their families, who had purchased this scrip in December and who did not know until January that, being substitutes, they would be unable to locate. I objected last year and I asked that the very same conditions as are in this resolution should be submitted then. I am very glad that the Minister of the Interior has seen fit to provide for those substitutes in that way.


Mr WARNOCK:: I agree with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney) when he suggested to the minister that a further extension should be made to December 31 instead of to October 31 for the location of this scrip. I have found out during the past year that much of this scrip that was supposed to be held by speculators, is helf by bona-fide farmers. I have in my own riding several farmers who purchased scrip, paying seven hundred dollars for it. I know of one case where a farmer bought three of them last year. He tried to locate in the Peace River district and was informed at the land office that the time had expired on December 31, 1911. He still holds his scrip and is prepared to locate now when he is given that privilege. I think that to the 31st of October is a rather short period. Borne farmers who are holding scrip in Southern Alberta propose to locate in the Peace River district, and it would take Mr. EDWARDS.
some time to select suitable land. I would suggest to the Acting Minister of the Interior that he meet the suggestion of the hon. member for Saskatoon and extend the time to at least the 31st of December.
I do not agree with my hon. friend the member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) when he says that grantees of scrip should not have been allowed to assign. In that case a great many of the young men who went to South Africa would not have accepted scrip as it would have been of no value whatever to them. I think it was quite correct to allow one assignment. I heartily approve of this resoluton.


William Melville Martin: Did I understand the
minister, when he answered the concrete case that was put before him by the hon. member for Frontenac to answer also the case which I attempted to put before him a few minutes ago?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, I was only
answering one question.


William Melville Martin: Will the hon. minister
answer the question that I asked him a little while ago?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not remember
what it was.


William Melville Martin: I would not, for a moment, think of saying anything discourteous to the minister, but I submit that any representative in this House is entitled to some attention especially when he, in a most courteous manner, states some facts to a minister of the Crown, and the minister of the Crown apparently pays no attention to what he says.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He does not know
better.


William Melville Martin: Whether it is discourtesy or ill-breeding I do not know.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


William Melville Martin: It is a case I might say
in regard to which I have had some correspondence with the department. A man towards the 31st of December, 1912, came to the conclusion that no extension of time was to be granted. Finding that it was severe winter in the western provinces and thinking that he would not be able to locate this scrip to any advantage, he decided to surrender his scrip to the department. He did so. Later on he found that an extension of time was to be granted and he wants this scrip back. Will there be any amendment in this Bill-perhaps it is merely a matter of administration- will that man be able to get that scrip back, considering the fact that he could not locate at that time and also that he did not know that there was any extension of time?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: A section of this Bill
provides for a case like that. Under this Bill the man will not be prevented from locating.


William Melville Martin: I do not see anything in the resolution to that effect.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That is in the Bill.


Frank Oliver: The Minister of Public Works was good enough to say to-night, as on previous occasions, that in extending the scriD rights after they had expired he was following the example of myself. I wish to correct him and to inform him that when the late Government extended the scrip rights which were expiring on December 31, 1910, the extension was made before that date.
Resolution reported.
Mr. CROTHERS thereupon moved for Leave to introduce Bill No. 186, to amend the Volunteer Bounty Act, 1912.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROGERS moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
Frank Oliver: I had an interview with the whip on the Government side and was informed by him that the purpose of going into Supply was merely to pass a certain item. There is no objection whatever to doing so. But under the new rule, if we are moved into Supply to-night on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, as I understand the rule, we shall be debarred from the privilege of moving a vote of want of confidence on the estimates of the Minister of Agricuture when Committee of Supply on those estimates is again proposed. I would ask the leader of the House if he agrees that if we go into Supply tonight for the purpose of passing this item we are not thereby brought under the operation of that rule in this instance.


Robert Rogers: I may say in answer to
my hon. friend that he may rest content.
I do not think the time will come when he will be debarred from moving any resolution of want of confidence that he may desire to move under the new rule.


Frank Oliver: I would like a specific answer to my question.


Robert Rogers: I thought my answer
was specific; if it can be made more specific I shall be glad to make it so. If the estimates for the Department of Agriculture should be taken up on Friday, for example, I can assure him on behalf of this side that he will be given every privilege and opportunity in so far as moving any vote of want of confidence that he may desire to move is concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Arts, agriculture and statistics-for renewing and improving Canadian exhibit at Imperial Institute, London, and assisting in the maintenance thereof $8,000.
Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose this is the
usual vote?
Resolution reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.

Friday, May 2, 1913.