FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 192) to incorporate the Alberta and British Columbia Railway Company.- Mr. Galliher.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 103) to amend the Timber Marking Act. He said :	This Bill is
merely to insert the words ' New Brunswick ' in section 2 of the Timber Marking Act. At present that Act applies only to Ontario and Quebec. I have received application from the lumbermen of New Brunswick that it should be made to apply to that province.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first [DOT]time.

Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I would ask the permission of the House to make a statement with regard to an accident of considerable proportions that occurred to the Cornwall canal this morning at about five o'clock near lock 18, the first lock west of the town, about a mile from the centre of the town and a little west of the bridge of the Ottawa and New York Railway. In the southern bank of the canal there is a break, which has widened until I understand, from a message just received, it is about 150 feet long. The pier of the swing portion of the New York and Ottawa bridge, which was located just inside the south bank of the canal, toppled over, and the bridge being swung out of place now lies lengthwise along the southern bank of the canal. At last reports the water was pretty well out of the canal ; it was below the bed, and no further" damage will be done, although the damage is very serious. The loss will be heavy, not only to the country, but to the shipping interests. The through traffic on the railway will be stopped, or can only be carried on by a system of transfer if that can be established. Being under the disability of having my chief engineer ill in the hospital, I immediately wired to Mr. Waller, the engineer of the Welland canal, a very capable man, to report at once and to act ns chief engineer, and he has wired me that he is leaving St. Catharines this morning. I have sent Mr. Bowden, of the designing engineering staff, to Cornwall, to look over the ground, so that we will know how matters stand.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Does it interfere *with navigation as well as with the traffic of the railway ?


George Perry Graham: It will stop navigation, so far as west bound traffic Is concerned, until the damage is repaired. There were no boats in the canal at the time, I believe.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Has the minister any idea of how long the repairs will take ?


George Perry Graham: I am not in a position to say. I have asked the acting chief engineer to meet me at Cornwall in the morning, and will then be able to report how long It will take. It is the purpose of the department to make the repairs with all possible speed.


Robert Laird Borden: What is supposed to have been the cause of the accident ?


George Perry Graham: The overseer passed the snot last night, and there was no indication of anything wrong. The report of the engineer will be necessary, I suppose, to give us any definite information.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought the minister referred to some small break in the bank of the canal ?


George Perry Graham: Of course, it was comparatively small at first, but the rush of water made it wider.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman was not referring to any previous indication ?


George Perry Graham: No, there was no indication whatever before.



INDIGNITY TO CANADIAN CITIZEN.

Mr. EDMUND BRISTOL (Center Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I wish to bring to the attention of the Trime Minister certain extraordinary treatment which was accorded on Thursday last to a body of Canadian excur-sionis.ts by the immigration officials of the United States at Niagara Falls The facts are stated in an article which appears on the front page of the ' Mail and Empire ' of yesterday, which I will read :
Indignity heaped on excursionists-Naturalized Canadian citizens marched through Niagara Falls streets under police guard and detained three hours by immigration officials.
An episode occurred at Niagara Falls, New York, on Thursday, in which a number of respectable and hard-working citizens of Toronto were subjected to considerable indignity and inconvenience through the over-officious-ness and boorishness of United States immigration officials. On Thursday last the employees of the Standard Cloak Company held an excursion to Queen Victoria Niagara Falls Park. In the course of the afternoon a number of the excursionists, including many women and children, decided to go across the river to spend an hour in Uncle Sam's domains, and they accordingly boarded a car. All the members of the party were of the Hebrew race, but were, with one exception, naturalized Canadian citizens, the exception being M. Taube, who held United States citizenship papers. At the United States end of the
international bridge they were interrogated by an immigration official, who informed them that they could not enter the city of Niagara Falls, New York. It was pointed out to the over-zealous official that all in the party had return tickets to Toronto; that some of the men had left their wives and children on the Canadian side, and that all the men had their Canadian naturalization papers with them. The jack-in-office contemptuously replied that the papers were ' no good ' and would listen to no arguments. The visitors then offered to return to the Canadian side, but this the officers refused to permit, informing them that they would have to see the inspector. The whole party were then forced to alight from the ear, one man, who was accompanied by his wife, and who wished to remain on the car and return to Canada, being roughly pulled off. Guarded in front and rear by policemen, the party of men, women and children, about fifty in all, were marched through the business streets of Niagara Falls, amid the jeers of onlookers. They were placed on another car and run for a short distance of a couple of miles to the outskirts of the city, where the immigration officer proposed to lock them in a small room until the inspector was summoned. At this the men of the party protested, as the day was a sultry one, and they were permitted to remain outside under guard. When the inspector arrived, he listened to the explanations of the visitors, but manifested the same scorn of the Canadian naturalization papers as had his subordinate. Mr. M. Gebirtig, a citizen of Toronto for eighteen years, as spokesman of the party, gave his word that the whole party desired nothing but to get hack to Canadian soil, but the inspector paid no attention to this. When Mr. Taube, the only American citizen with the party, added his assurances, the excursionists were allowed to depart, after having been detained just three hours.
1 would ask the right hon. gentleman if lie thinks it proper to take any action in the matter ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I had seen the report in the newspapers which my hon. friend has just read to the House and I had thought anil still more hoped that the report was exaggerated; but from information received. not particularly, but so universally from the press, it seems to me that there is foundation for the rumour that Canadian British subjects were subjected to indignities on the Dart of United States officials. It is not possible to conceive what may have been the motives of those officials, for our relations with our neighbours are always cordial and friendly, and we have had no reason hitherto to complain of the treatment accorded to our fellow-subjects when they visit that country. It is possible that they may have been over zealous. At all events, the matter requires some attention, and it will be our duty to ask the British ambassador at Washington to bring it before the American authorities.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to inquire of the Prime Minister whether or

not he is prepared to bring down the further documents that were asked for on two or three occasions in connection with the correspondence with the Rev. Dr. Shearer. A letter of the 31st of 'May refers to other correspondence. It is of course desirable that the correspondence should he complete.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say that having been absent from the city this matter escaped my attention. I shall at once look into it.



GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.

Robert Laird Borden: I inquired yesterday as to the dates when we might expect the further legislation already alluded to by the Prime Minister, and also the date when we may expect the supplementary estimates. We are approaching the end of the seventh month of the session, and I think we should know when these measures and estimates are to be brought down.


Wilfrid Laurier: With regard to the legislation, what we have to bring will be brought at a very early date, probably in the course of the week, though I would not like to confine myself absolutelv to that.


Mr. FIELDING.: With regard to the supplementary estimates, we cannot fix the precise time when they will be brought. There is a considerable proportion of the main estimates not yet disposed of, and therefore there has not yet seemed any urgency with regard to the supplementaries. However, we are reaching a stage of the session "when all public business will be a matter of urgency, and all these things may be hoped for at a very early day.



JUDGES' SALARIES.

Mr. LENNOX.: I desire to ask the Minister of Finance if he is prepared to answer the question which I asked yesterday about the judges' salaries?


William Stevens Fielding: The salaries of the judges of the Yukon are arranged for by annual appropriation, and In the absence of a vote it was impossible to pay them in the usual way; but the salaries of all other judges are fixed by statute, so that there has been no difficulty in their case.


Haughton Lennox: It was with reference to the judges of Ontario that I spoke.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend will give me, either in the House or personally, any c-ase^ in which there has .been any difficulty, I will investigate the matter.


Haughton Lennox: I saw a memorandum that in one case at all events there was a failure to pay.


William Stevens Fielding: There must have been a misunderstanding. I am informed that the difficulty in regard to the Yukon judges was not in reference to salaries, but to liv-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
ing allowances. There ought not to be any difficulty anywhere in regard to salaries.


Haughton Lennox: The memorandum said : ' This cannot be paid because the money has not been voted.' It referred to the portion of salary due on the 1st of May. There was also another case in which the matter was referred to.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT.

Mr. FOSTER.: I would ask the Minister of Agriculture if he can set a time when the Civil Service Bill will be taken up ? '


Mr. FISHER.: There will be some resolutions with regard to the financial part of the Bill. These are now being prepared, and I hope to be able to put them on the Order Paper to-morrow, and on the day after or the next day I hope to be able to move the second reading of the Bill. I wish to do so at the earliest possible moment, probably on Thursday.



GOVERNMENT STEAMERS.

Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries answered a question the other day in regard to ships built in Canada. At that time I had not given him the fact that the Department of Agriculture had obtained since 1900 the bnilding in Canada by public tender of two ships-the ' Alice ' for Grosse Isle, at a cost of $83,000, and the ' Madge ' for William Head, B.C., at a cost of $44,250.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the order :
Resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Graham for the third reading of Bill No. 118, ' An Act to amend the Railway Act with respect to telegraphs and telephones, and the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners,' and the proposed amendment of Mr. Northrup thereto.
George Perry Graham: I was prepared to go on with this Bill by arrangement understood in the House the other day; but I received a telegram from the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) a few moments ago saying that he had missed his train and asking if we could hold over the consideration of this Bill until this evening. The regrettable fact is that I have to leave for Cornwall this evening, so that I cannot be here after six o'clock. If hon. gentlemen feel that they would not like to go on in his absence, we might perhaps defer the matter, and I will see if I can make arrangements with some of my colleagues to take charge of the Bill in my absence, because I do not wish to delay it any longer.


Wilfrid Laurier: Under the circumstances, I think it is due to the hon. member for East Hastings and to the House that we should not proceed with this item until this evening after eight o'clock.



DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) moved second reading of Bill No. 181 to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting the public lands of the Dominion.
Robert Laird Borden: Will the minister be good enough to explain in what respect if any, this Bill differs from the Bill of last year. I have not had much opportunity to examine it.


Mr. OLIVER.: The Bill presented to the House is practically the same as the Bill presented last year, except in one particular. We have, however, taken advantage of the suggestions that were made in the House during the discussion last year and of the experience that we have gathered during the time intervening, and have carefully revised the details of the Bill; but the principles of the Bill, and to a great extent the wording, remain exactly the same as last year, with the exceptions to which I will allude.
When the responsibility of administering the prairie lands of the west was first undertaken by the Dominion government, the matter was dealt with by order in council. This was succeeded by legislation, which was amended from time to time. The House will understand that an Act regulating the administration of such an extensive area and which had been subjected to amendments for some twenty years was in a condition, to say the least, confusing. True, there was a revision when we had the general revision of the statutes, and this revision brought together all the different amendments and put them in a convenient shape. But this revision included a number of provisions which, in the lignt of experience, we found did not work out with advantage to the settlement of the country. These provisions are, however, still law, and it does not seem desirable that we should retain in our Act provisions which are not being put into effect. Therefore, we think it very desirable that we should amend the Act so as to bring.all its provisions up to date, leaving out matter which experience has shown us had better be left out and improving what remains.
The question of opening to settlement the odd numbered sections Impressed itself forcibly on the attention of the government last year ; and it was thought that when provision was to be made for a change in the method of dealing with one half of the total area of the country was the proper time in which to make general amendments to the Lands Act. Therefore, the Bill was introduced last session.
As regards the odd numbered sections, some time in the early eighties, when the policy of railway construction in the west was entered upon, aided by land grants, it was deemed advisable to reserve the odd numbered sections, or one
half of the total area of the country, in order to provide for aid to railways. From time to time railways were aided out of this great reserve. The Canadian Pacific Railway, the Calgary and Edmonton, the Regina, Qu'Appelle and Long Lake, the Hudson Bay Railway, the Manitoba and Southeastern and a number of others, all received a certain portion of the land included in these odd numbered sections. The policy of aiding railway companies by land grants was the policy of the previous government. It has not been, however, and is not the policy of this government; and since we have come into office no grant of government land has been made in aid of railways. As a consequence, in the process of time, the railways to which the grants had been made either earned their grants or forfeited them. As the grants were earned, they were allotted to each company, and as the grants were forfeited, they were cancelled, so that by last year the question of railway land grants was practically a closed one. And I am glad to be able to say that all the companies entitled to land grants have now selected their lands. There may be a slight residue in one or two instances, but, generally speaking, all the lands which have been earned have been allotted and selected, and we know exactly where we stand on the question of railway land grants.


George Eulas Foster: Are the patents issued ?


Frank Oliver: They are either all issued or nearly all, and they are be'ng issued as quickly as the resources of the department will permit.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: Roughly speaking, how many acres have been given the railways and what is the residue left?


Frank Oliver: The total amount of land granted and earned by the railways is 31,000,000 or 32,000,000 acres, just about the same amount as, up to the present, have been opened as homesteads. Since this government has been administering the lands of the west we have succeeded in giving away to homesteaders just about the same amount as our predecessors gave to the railways and which the railways earned. Of course, one half the whole area was reserved by them for the purpose of being given to railways.


George Eulas Foster: The 32,000,000 of acres of homesteads granted, does that include those granted under the previous government?


Frank Oliver: Yes, all the homesteads the government of Canada has been able to give away amounts to 32,000,000 acres.


Edmund James Bristol: What was the amount left of this acreage set aside?


Frank Oliver: I have not the figures under my hand. The question is one more easily asked than answered, because the ' amount left depends entirely on where you

set the limit. If you set the limit at the boundary of Canada, there are many millions of acres left. As you bring the northern boundary down, you decrease the number of acres available. An estimate which I put before the House last session contemplated a total of about 170,000,000 acres of what might be described as unquestionably good land, out of which would be taken the railway lands, the homestead lands, the school lands, the Indian lands, the swamp lands, thet Hudson Bay Company lands, all of which you might call fixed charges upon our lands.
Mr. 8AM. HUGHES. Are these fixed charges on these 170,000,000 acres ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: The total settlement area of the Northwest the minister estimates at 170,000,000 acres ?


Frank Oliver: That is the area we feel absolutely justified in saying is in large part suitable for settlement-we feel that we are not putting the boundary too far north.


William Findlay Maclean: How much of that is surveyed ?


Frank Oliver: About 120,000,000 acres altogether has been surveyed to date.


Mr. LAKE.: Has the land grant in aid of the Hudson Bay Railway been completely satisfied ? Will any more grants be made for lines constructed in that direction.


Frank Oliver: That is a question to deal with, but perhaps the hon. member (Mr. Lake) will allow me to come to it later.


Samuel Hughes: Will the minister pardon me for going back to this 170,000,000 acres ? That area would make 200,000 sections in round numbers, and, allowing two settlers for each section, that would mean 400,000 farms. Is that all that the minister calculates ?


Frank Oliver: I admit that I am not quick at figures, and my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has the advantage of me, for he has been figuring while I have been talking. I am not able now to check his calculations.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the estimate include Manitoba ?


Frank Oliver: Part of it.


Robert Laird Borden: Does it include the public lauds in Manitoba 7


Frank Oliver: Part of the public lands in Manitoba. We took a map of the three prairie provinces and drew a line which we considered would be fair as defining the country as to the agricultural capabilities of which there could be no question. That line did not include the wnole of the province of Manitoba ; there are parts that Mr. OLIVER.
are not generally considered to be strictly agricultural. Nor did we include the whole of any of the provinces. We drew the line so as to include the country with soil and climate unquestionably suitable for agriculture.	.


Samuel Hughes: I am not criticising the hon. ministers figures. But I think it will be a surprising statement to the country that only 400,000 farms are there.


Frank Oliver: I cannot make it bigger than it is, and I am not making it any smaller. I said that about 120,000,000 acres has been surveyed. And, according to what we think is a conservative estimate, there are 170,000,000 acres that are undoubtedly available for settlement. But, beyond that, there is a stupendous area of which a great part may be suitable for settlement. And I would not wish to be understood as indicating to the House that it is not fit for settlement ; in speaking as I do I am speaking of what is now demonstrated and concerning which there can be no question.


Mr.   POSTER@: I do not wish to interrupt the minister, but I want to be sure I have understood him. Altogether, we have surveyed 120,000,000 acres. Altogether, within the lines drawn of which the minister has spoken, we have 170,000,000 acres of land. Prom this are to be taken 32,000,000 homesteads, about 31,000,000 or 32,000,000 for the railways, the Hudson's Bay Company lands and sehool lands.


Frank Oliver: And the Indian reserves and swamp lands.


Mr.   POSTER@: Can the minister give us the figures of the Indian lands, school lands, Hudson's Bay Company lands and swamp lands ? If we had these, we would have the lines pretty distinctly.


Frank Oliver: I did not expect the Bill would be called this morning, and I have not the information under my hand. But I can give it at a later date. .
Now, in regard to the Hudson Bay Railway :	When grants were being made to
railways, a provision was inserted in the Lands Act providing for a grant of land to a railway to Hudson bay, the grant being li,800 acres per mile for the part of the line within the province of Manitoba, and 12,800 acres per mile for the part from the boundary of Manitoba to Hudson bay. At that time, of course, Manitoba was the only part of the prairie west that contained settlement to any great degree, and ,was, therefore, the only part that was immediately interested in a railway to Hudson bay. Since that time, with the settlement of the provinces to the west, of course, interest in a railway to Hud on bay has increased, a direct and material interest which unquestionably exceeds that of the original province of Manitoba. However, it was in deference to the view then

generally held that there should be an outlet from the prairie west to Hudson bay that provision was made in the Lands Act for this grant of which I have spoken. Advantage has been taken of this provision and of Orders in council which from time to time were passed subject to that provision, to earn the land grant so far as concerns the part of the railway from a point within the province of Manitoba to the Saskatchewan river. For that part of the railway, a company, now the Canadian Northern Railway Company has received 6,400 acres a mile for the portion within Manitoba and 12,800 acres per mile for the portion outside of Manitoba.


Richard Stuart Lake: How much altogether?


Frank Oliver: I have not the figures at hand.


Richard Stuart Lake: Where was it selected ?


Frank Oliver: In different parts of ihe west. I cannot, at the moment, give the particular location. The question of a railway to Hudson bay and of aid to such a railway is settled so far as a line to the Saskatchewan river is concerned, but from the Saskatchewan river to the shores of Hudson's bay there remains a distance of some 500 miles. For some reason, I am not prepared to say what the reason was, it was thought well to divide the proposition of a railway to Hudson's bay into two parts, one to the south of the Saskatchewan river and the other to the north. As I have .said, the part south of the river has been built and the lands earned, and so far as I know patented, but as to the provision for a railway north of the river no action has been taken. Provision still remains in the Land Act that there may be a land grant of 12,800 acres per mile for the part of the railway from Saskatchewan Tiver to Hudson's bay. I have already said that it is not a part of the policy of this government to give land grants to railways. I need not enter into a discussion as to the merits of that policy. There was a policy of giving laud grants to railways, but that has not been the policy of this government. But we are face to face with this condition, that we propose to deal with the north half of the Hudson Bay Railway line and with the whole country, which up to the present has been held in reseravtion for the purpose of meeting demands upon it on behalf of railway land grants. We propose to deal with that stupendous area of country and to open it for settlement, and while we have the provision in regard to a land grant in aid of a railway lo Hudson's bay facing us on the statute-book. we also have the fact that the need of a railway to Hudson's bay is more strongly impressed on the people to-day than ever before by reason of the settlement of the two western provinces, because
the further west settlement proceeds, the greater the advantage of an outlet to the bay will be. The average advantage to the western prairie provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, in having a railway to the bay is about 1,000 miles rail or lake and rail haul as compared with Montreal. This is a fact which, of course, no government could ignore, nor could it ignore the further fact that in years of plenty, with the increase of production that has been going on from year to year, there has been every year a blockade of grain in the fall. Every fall, except last fall, when the crop was short, and even last fall to a certain extent, there has been a blockade in grain. Therefore, it is a plain proposition. There is, as it were, a mortgage standing against the lands of the Northwest in respect to aid to a railway to Hudson's bay. The necessity of such an outlet is greater than ever before and is more impressed on the minds of the people than ever before. Therefore in wiping out the mortgage upon the lands on behalf of a railway to Hudson's bay. if we undertake to do as we pr p se in this Act, it is necessary that we should place something in its stead, and that is the proposition that I desire to lay before the House. It is in that particular that the proposition contained in the Bill to day differs materially from the Bill as it was placed before the House last year.


Edmund James Bristol: How much land would be taken if the railway to Hudson's bay were completed under the existing statute?


Frank Oliver: About 6,500,000 acres, 12,800 for say 500 miles from the Pas to Fort Churchill.


William Findlay Maclean: Is the railway to The Pas in operation?


Frank Oliver: I understand so, yes. I have said that it was necessary to provide in some way for the construction of a railway to Hudson's bay, and when we were wiping out the liability, as it might be called, against the lands of the west, it was necessary that we should make some other adequate provision to meet the case. The Bill as it was presented last year proposed to meet the case by what was called a revival of the preemption privilege. That is to say, instead of setting aside a certain area of land to be granted to a railway company, to be sold at a future time by that railway company for its own profit, or instead of 'the government setting aside a certain area of land and holding if as a trust, applying the money derived from it to build a railway, it was proposed last year to revive the preemption privilege. That is to say in regard to certain sections to allow the homesteader to buy an ajoining quarter section at a fixed price under settlement conditions. We believed that by the revival of thrt privilege we would create a new source of rev-

enue to the Dominion treasury that would be adequate to meet the responsibilities which would have to be assumed by the construction of a railway to the bay.


Samuel Hughes: Why restrict the sale to homesteaders ; why not sell to any man with money?


Frank Oliver: Because the policy of thi-s government, mistaken or otherwise, and consistently followed, has been only to dispose of the agricultural lands of the west to actual settlers.


Samuel Hughes: That is what I meant, if a man comes in and wants to become an actual settler.


Frank Oliver: We will sell to him. but he must be an actual settler or we will not.


Samuel Hughes: But he will be an actual settler and not a homesteader.


Frank Oliver: If any one having a right to a homestead comes to us and says he wants to buy from us at $3 an acre, subject to settlement conditions, instead of taking it for nothing under settlement conditions, I expect we will be able to sell to him, but I do not expect to meet many of that class of people, and do not believe that we can build the railway from the revenue derived from such sales.
In our Bill of last year with the intent of creating a fund which will be adequate to meet the responsibilities to be incurred by the undertaking of the construction or providing for the construction of a railway to Hudson bay, we proposed, when we were opening the odd-numbered sections to settlement, to say that any man who was entitled to a homestead entry would have the privilege of taking up alongside of that homestead a pre-emption for which he would pay $1 an acre, subject to the completion of certain settlement duties. We believed that by that provision we would be enabled to raise a fund that would meet the responsibility to be undertaken because of the railway to Hudson bay. We believed that it would be a sound business proposition from the stand-point of the settlement of the country. I believe, generally speaking, that view was accepted. However, there was a further provision contained in that Bill, running alongside of this provision, in regard to pre-emption inserted for the same purpose. That is to make sure there would be a fund created sufficient for the purpose that was intended to be served, we proposed to allow a settler who already had a homestead, who had earned his patent to that homestead, to take up another quarter-section of land, a single quarter-section in this case, to pay for it and to earn his patent by the performance of settlement duties. We have the two classes to deal with-the new settler who. would be entitled to one free homestead and to pay for adjoining pre-emption, and the old settler who already Mr. OLIVER.
had a free homestead and was allowed to take up another homestead of 160 acres on payment and settlement condition.


Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY..: A homestead anywhere?


Frank Oliver: A homestead anywhere. The right of pre-emption was restricted to the part of the country in which the railways had not taken the odd-numbered sections ; that is to say, the right of pre-emption under the Bill of last year was restricted, speaking in a general way, to the more central, southerly prairie area extending from Moosejaw on the east to near Calgary on the west and from the international boundary on the south to somewhere near the latitude of Battleford on the north. Within that area the right to pre-emption would apply, because, within that area, the railway companies had not seen fit to select the odd-numbered sections as their land grants. It would also apply to the conntry north of that area where the railway companies had seen fit to select their land grants. That is in all the great north country the provision would apply, but it would not apply in what we might call the railway belt because the railway companies, having the free right of selection of their lands naturally chose the choice lands, in their estimation, which were found to lie between the clear prairie of the south and the wooded country of the north. So that, the 32,000,000 acres which have been selected of the odd numbered sections form what might be called a great horseshoe on the map running northwesterly from Manitoba, following the Saskatchewan river to the west and turning south along the foothills to the boundary line. Our Bill of last year proposed to permit the taking of pre-emptions south and north of the railway belt.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that a new homesteader was compelled to take his pre-emption adjoining his homestead?


Frank Oliver: Yes. If he could not get it adjoining his homestead he could not get it at all and he could not get it in a township where the railway companies had selected the odd-numbered sections.


Mr. KNOWLES.: If he did not take it then he could not take it until he had earned his patent, after which he could take it?


Frank Oliver: Yes. The old settler was permitted to take his second homestead or pre-emption anywhere, in the railway land grant or outside of it and the reason for the difference was this: The one man was entitled to a half-section; the other was entitled to only a quarter section and it was believed that where the odd-numbered sections had been taken by the railways it was not sound public policy to allow the even-numbered sections to be taken in half section farms. To have allowed that would have been to have placed the railway com-

panies at a disadvantage in the sale of their land and to have unduly scattered settlement. We believed that it would be fair and right, where the railway companies had taken the odd numbered sections, that there should be four settlers on the even numbered sections and that if these four settlers desired to add to their farms they could buy from the railway companies. But, in that part of the country where the railways had not taken their land, if a man was to get a half section he had to get it from the government in one way or another. He could not get a half section, and so we provided, as I have said, that in townships in which the railway companies had not selected the odd-numbered sections the homesteader could take his homestead and his pre-emption alongside in either odd or even numbered sections.


Samuel Hughes: Is that in the new Bill?


Frank Oliver: I am speaking now of the old Bill. Objection was taken to the provision of that Bill-


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. The right of preemption under the old Bill extended everywhere, did it not ?


Frank Oliver: No.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. If I understood the old Bill the right of pre-emption applied to the three provinces of the west. I want to find out the difference between the old Bill and the Bill which the minister introduced on 29th May. Under the old Bill there was no limitation to the area within which the right of pre-emption applied, was there?


Frank Oliver: If the hon. gentleman wants to know what was in the old Bill and what is in the new Bill, if he will listen to me, I will try to tell him.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman. I am merely asking the question for information because he is not explaining it in a way that I can understand it.


Frank Oliver: I have been for some time speaking of the provisions of the Bill of last year. I stated them correctly. Whether my hon. friend understood me or not is another question. I will repeat.


Samuel Hughes: When the minister speaks of the old Bill, does he mean the Bill of last year or the old pre-emption law?


Frank Oliver: No, I mean last year's Bill.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: As I understand, the right of pre-emption under the Bill of last year, was not limited to any particular section but that it applied to Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Frank Oliver: I have been for the last ten minutes explaining the difference be-353
tween the provisions of the Bill ; that part of it applied to the whole country and the other part of it only applied to part of the country. For the benefit of my hon. friend I will "go over it all again. I said that the pre-emption provision-that is the right of the settler to take a pre-emption alongside of his own homestead-applied not to the townships in which the railways had taken the odd numbered sections as land grant. Did my hon. friend hear me say that ?


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Yes.


Frank Oliver: If he will take the Bill of last year he will find that is the fact.


Robert Laird Borden: It could not apply to them.


Frank Oliver: It could if we had wished to make it but we expressly exempted them.


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot understand that.


Frank Oliver: I am merely stating facts.


Robert Laird Borden: I am simply asking for information ; I may be very dense but I desire to understand it. I do not see how you could give pre-emption in respect of lands that had already been given away to a railway company.


Frank Oliver: I cannot do better than to make a statement of facts and that I am doing and I cannot do more.


Robert Laird Borden: No, if you would only make it clear.


Frank Oliver: I thought I made it definite at any rate. I say again that the provision in the Bill presented to parliament last year provided that within the area south of the railway land grant and within the area north of the railway laud grant the new settler might take up 320 acres as a homestead and pre-emption adjoining, but that he could not take up that homestead and pre-emption adjoining within the area covered by the railway land grant, or in other words, in townships in which the odd numbered sections had been granted to railways, or to make it more definite, in townships in which not more than eight sections had been granted to railways. That was the wording of the Act. But there was a provision that was intended to meet the case of a man who already had only one homestead and did not have a pre-emption, and which enabled him to take a second homestead or pre-emption if you like to call it so anywhere either in the railway land grant or out of it. The new settler then who wanted a pre-emption had to take it south of the railway land grant or north of the railway land grant ; the old settler who wanted what we call in this



Bill a purchased homestead could take that purchased homestead anywhere that he could find it.


Samuel Hughes: The minister referred to townships in which not * more ' than eight sections had been granted ; he means not ' less ' than eight sections.


Frank Oliver: Yes, I meant not less. There was considerable objection taken to those provisions of the Bill and whether those objections were wisely taken or not I do not propose to consider now.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. What was the section of the old Act which limited the right to pre-emption ?


Frank Oliver: If the hon. gentleman has the Bill before him he can find out as well as I can.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. If the minister knows he might as well tell.


Frank Oliver: If I had the Bill before me I could tell in a moment. If the hon. gentleman listens I will tell him.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: That is what I want you to do.


Frank Oliver: 
Mr. HERRON.: The minister has been speaking about assistance ; I would like to know if he has provided what he considers sufficient to build the entire Hudson Bay Railway. I do not mean assistance; I mean the entire cost of building it.


Frank Oliver: I am doing my best to make a clear explanation and to make definite statements, and what I think I said, and what I meant, and what I want to say now at any rate is, that I believed that in presenting the Bill of last year I was making ample and adequate provision for the building of the Hudson Bay Railway, for the whole cost of the building of the railway. That was the purpose I had iu view in making the provisions of the Bill so sweeping as they were.
Now, the Bill was presented and there were objections taken to it. It was believed that its provisions were too sweeping, that if they were given effect to they would have certain injurious results upon settlement one way or another. I have already said that the Bill embodied my views. I believed it would not only provide adequately for the building of the Hudson Bay Railway but would also be acceptable to the people, would be in line with the policy of the government and would be sound public policy in the interest of settlement as well.


Edmund James Bristol: Is there any railway today in existence that has the right to that 12,000 acres of land for the construction of a railway to Hudson bay ?


Frank Oliver: No.


Edmund James Bristol: It is free to deal with?


Frank Oliver: No railway would have the right to it until the railway was built under the terms of the statute.


Edmund James Bristol: Has the statute been acted upon by any railway company ; is there anything binding ?


Frank Oliver: I do not consider there is anything binding in it at all ; it is merely a matter of policy. But if a railroad were built to Hudson bay and that provision were in the statute then I think that railway company would have fair grouud to claim the land. At present of course there is no railway built and therefore I consider we have a perfect right to amend the Act, and it is a matter of policy whether we make provision for the building of a railway to Hudson bay and how we make that provision. The proposition I placed before the House last year was our proposition for creating a fund which would be adequate to the construction of a railway to Hudson bay; a proposition which in our estimation was sound public policy.


Edmund James Bristol: This Land Act would repeal that grant ?


Frank Oliver: This Land Act proposes to repeal it. We believed our proposition was sound public policy in the matter of the settlement of the country and would be acceptable to the people of the west and acceptable to the people of the east. We believed that the construction of the railway would not lay any additional burden upon the treasury of the country because by this means an entirely new source of revenue would be created which would he adequate for the purpose. However the position was taken that there might be effects that were not in line with my views and that might be injurious to the well being of the country, and certainly in a matter of such great importance we desire that there shall be no question, we desire that there shall be no difference of opinion, we desire that there shall he unanimity as far as possible in regard to either the building of the road or the provision of means by which it shall be built.


Samuel Hughes: Suppose you should make provision for the construction of a road to Hudson bay, and that the company operating under the title of the old Hudson bay charter were also to build and by building earn their land grant how would you prevent them obtaining the land grant?


Frank Oliver: No rights have accrued tinder the law as it stands to-day. If this Bill passes before any such rights do accrue then there will be no such right.


Samuel Hughes: This Bill specifically repeals.


Frank Oliver: That is the intention.


Mr. AMES.: In connection with the Winnipeg Great Northern Railway Company grant we were told in answer to a question of mine on the 27th of May, 1908. that there were 2,523,008 acres granted to that rail-3531
road and 6,016,000 acres further granted to that railway north of the Saskatchewan, a total of about 8.539,000 acres, and that the time for earning this was extended by Act of Parliament in 1903. Has that extension expired?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then the right to earn that has. entirely and absolutely lapsed; is that so?


Frank Oliver: While I do not find any fault with the interruptions I think in all fairness the questions I have been asked would come quite as well in committee.


Samuel Hughes: I think they improve the minister's speech,


Mr. PUGSLEY  .@: I am not complaining.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Neither are we.


Frank Oliver: I think this is the fifteenth time I have said that there were objections taken to the pre-emption provisions as they stood for the reason that they were of such sweeping character as to (it was alleged) in some degree disarrange land values, and, therefore, financial securities in the west. That, I repeat, was not my view. I thought that view, was mistaken, but in deference to that view and in consideration of the fact that it seems to be taken for granted that we can provide sufficient money in aid of the construction of a railway to Hudson's bay by a less sweeping provision the Bill has been much less sweeping in its terms. So if it shall be agreed by the House that we can provide sufficiently for aid to the construction of a railway to Hudson bay by a less sweeping provision, then I am perfectly satisfied with a less sweeping provision-I do not ask the House to take legislation which by reason of its sweeping character causes any liability to disarrangement of the process of settlement or to disturb the financial equilibrium of the country in any way. The point we have in view in regard to this pre-emption matter is that there shall be a railway built to Hudson bay. If we can get a railway built to Hudson bay without any pre-emption provision at all then I am not insisting upon the pre-emption provision. But I am insisting on the pre-emption provision as a means of ensuring the early building of the railway to Hudson bay. Now then in deference to the views which were held and held so strongly-I think by none less strongly than by my hon. friend from North Toronto-in deference to these views and in view of the belief that we can by a less sweeping measure secure aid that will warrant parliament in pledging the credit of the country to build the rSilroad to Hudson bay, we have amended our provisions regarding pre-emption and have brought the [DOT] Bill forward in its present form.

The main difference between the provisions of the Bill of last year and the provisions of the Bill of this year are : That the Bill of last year provided for dealing in one way or in another way with all the land of the whole prairie west, while this Bill provides only for dealing with the land confined by certain limits laid down in the Bill and which practically include only the great central area in which the railway companies have not seen fit to take any land grants and in which the homestead settlement at the present time is comparatively limited.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: What will be done with the odd sections outside of that area ; will they be open for homestead entry?


Frank Oliver: Oh, yes. I was hardly correct in my statement-the first provision of the Bill is to say that all lands are open for homestead entry; that is to say. the odd numbered sections everywhere will be open for settlement as soon as this Bill passes.
Mr- SAM. HUGHES. The odd numbers as well as the even numbers?


Frank Oliver: Yes, but within that great central prairie area extending from some distance west of Moosejaw to a point some distance east of Calgary on the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and from the international boundary to township 44. Within that area only we ask that the preemption provisions and the purchased homestead provisions shall apply. That is the radical difference between the Bill of last year and the Bill of this year. The reason for that difference is, as I have said, the Objection taken to the sweeping character of the Bill of last year in the fear that it might unduly disturb the conditions of settlement and finance, and the belief on my part that we needed to make belief on my part last year, that we needed to make the Bill as sweeping as it was in order to ensure the building of the Hudson Bay Railway. By restricting the application of the pre-emption provision and the purchased homestead provision to the area I have mentioned, I do not think anybody will suggest there is any danger of any serious disturbance of either the settlement or financial conditions in any respect, and by applying the pre-emption provision of this Bill to that area, we will create a new source of revenue which will provide sufficient money to ensure the construction of a railway to Hudson bay.


Samuel Hughes: Is the allotment of 320 acres in that area due to the fact that it is generally understood that one would require 320 acres there to make a proper homestead, which is not the case in other sections ?


Frank Oliver: Yes, I was about to give the reasons why we apply the pre-emption Mr. OLIVER.
provision to this particular area. When the system of surveys of the Northwest was first undertaken, our settlement was far in advance, toward the west and north, of any settlement in the adjoining United States. The 160 acre farm had been adopted as a standard in the prairie states of the west, and that was adopted by us in our western prairies as well. In Ontario a 100-acre farm was the standard, and probably that is the case in the eastern part of the United States; but they did ont consider 100 acres sufficient in the prairie states and they adopted 100 as the standard. Our survey of the west was based upon the idea that 160 acres is the proper size for a prairie farm ; and the experience of the older settled western states as well as that of the older settled portion of our western prairies, shows that view to be approximately correct. But natural conditions change somewhat as you go further west. In Iowa and Minnesota a 160-acre farm is a fair-sized farm; but when we get into Nebraska and Dakota 160 acres cease to be sufficient, according to the experience of tlie present day. And as there is only an imaginary line between Canada and the United States in the west, the same natural conditions whicli require a farm to be of a large area in the more western portions of the United States onerate in our own prairie west. In the states where the 160-acre farm was the standard, there are adequate and regular rainfalls, and it is possible to crop the rich prairie land from year to year without cessation. But as settlement spread westward into the country where the rainfall is not so regular, it was found that the attempt to crop the land every year resulted in getting no crop at all during the dry seasons. A different system of farming had then to be adopted, and the farmers adopted the method of planting only one-half their land each year and summer fallowing the remainder. So that instead of having to plough his land in the spring, after the snow had melted and the frost had come out of the ground and then putting his seed into the loosened earth which the spring winds dried out, with the result that in dry years there was no crop, he was able, by summer fallowing the land, to put in his seed the following spring just as soon as the snow had gone and before the frost had left the ground ; and as the land had not been disturbed, the dry winds of spring could not take away its moisture, and the result was a good crop. But when he attempted to crop his entire farm every year he could not get any harvest in a dry year.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Neither could he in Manitoba.


Mr. BRODER.: The summer fallowing retained the moisture.


Frank Oliver: Whatever was the reason, that was the result. The fact is that there

are to-day millions of acres of land under successful cultivation in Dakota and in our own west which, ten or fifteen years ago, were practically given up as not suitable, simply because people did not know how to farm it. But it stands to reason that if a man can only farm one-half his land in each year,, he must have twice as much la'nd if he is voiug to raise as much crop. Therefore, a farm of 320 acres in the western part of the prairie region is no larger as a moneymaker than a farm of 160 acres in the more easterly part.


George Eulas Foster: Where would the minister draw the line ?


Frank Oliver: I did not propose to draw any line, but the criticisms of my hon. friend and some others have compelled me to draw one. The line I draw is an arbitrary and not a scientific one, but a line had to be drawn.


Samuel Hughes: Is it not a fairly scientific line too, taking the altitude into consideration?


Frank Oliver: I think there is fail-ground for the line being drawn where I propose. But that is a matter upon which there may very easily be differences of opinion. I do not think there is any good reason for a line being drawn, but if it has to be, I think that where we propose to draw it is the better division. As we go westerly our altitude increases and therefore the seasons differ and there is necessity for summer fallowing, which system requires two acres to one where summer fallowing is not necessary. Further west again, in the foothills, where the altitude is still greater, instead of summer fallowing and growing of spring grain being adopted the system of growing winter wheat is adopted. And the result, so far as acreage and product is conecerned, is the same, because, in producing winter wheat, you cannot sow in the fall after you have reaped your crop. The land you crop this year you cannot sow until next year, because you have to sow early in the season, and the crop has not been taken off the land in time to admit of that.


John Herron: I may say that the minister is mistaken in that last statement. About half the people in the southern country do sow after reaping the fall wheat crop.


Frank Oliver: I know that some people do -and I know that there are many people in other .parts of the country who sow without ploughing at all-but my hon. friend will not stand up here and say that that is the best way to raise fall wheat. I have seen men sowing winter wheat even in October in the southern part of the prairie country, in the district that my hon. friend (Mr. Herron) represents, and, possibly, these men got a crop. But he knows they have no right to get a crop, sowing their grain at that time of the year. They are depending simply on the kindness of Providence and not on their own judgment or skill. What I say is that, in practice, in the western part of the country where the rain fall is uncertain, in order to make a farm successful two acres are as necessary as one acre is where the rain fall is certain. Now, the need of a farm of 320 acres in our prairie west has been met, so far, by the possibility of the settler who has homesteaded a free quarter section purchasing the adjoining quarter-section of railway land. It is because of the possibility of his doing this that we have been able to attract from the United States such large numbers of well-to-do farmers, people who would not be satisfied with a farm of 160 acres, people who have farmed on a large scale in Iowa or Minnesota, who sell their lands at big prices and come to our country, not to tie themselves up to a small patch of land, but to acquire a large area where they can farm at a satisfactory profit. These men were largely attracted to Canada by reason of the fact that they could get a free quarter section, and, adjoining it, what they considered a cheap quarter-section of railway land. That fact has had a very material effect in the settlement of our country so far as it has gone. But, I have said to the House that we had 32,000,000 acres of railway land, and we have disposed of about 32,000,000 acres of homestead land. The choice of the homesteaders has been very much that of the railroader^ That is, the railroader chose what he thought was the best part of the country, that lying between the dry prairie to the south and the wooded country to the north, and the homesteader has done the same. So, to a great extent, the even-numbered sections in the country of railway land grants are settled on by homesteaders, and to-day, if we expect any large influx of settlers, though there still remains some of the land intervening between the odd-numbered sections of the railway land grant, the ne_w settlers must largely go into the prairie of the south or into the woo 1-ed country to the north. If they go to the prairie of the south, where there are no odd-numbered sections in the hands of the railway companies, they must be restricted to one quarter-section unless we adopt some other principle or policy of dealing with our lands. Now, we believe that would he a very great deterrent to settlement in that part of the country. We believe that the conditions there, being such as I have described, a 320-acre farm is one of fair average size and means should be offered the new settler to acquire such a farm. He cannot acquire it from the railway company, because the railway company is not there; the lands are in the hands of the government to-day, and the government is the only person with whom the settler can deal.


John Herron: Can the new settler enter for homestead and pre-emption at the same time ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


John Herron: Then, the land will he pretty well taken up before he is able to get his entry.


Frank Oliver: I do not think so. I should be glad if it were. We have some 28,000,000 acres, and I should be glad to know that we can dispose of 28,000,000 acres in six months when it has taken twenty-five years to dispose of 32,000,000.


John Herron: He has to remain three years before he can get his patent ?


Frank Oliver: No, the new settler who can find two quarter-sections adjoining to suit him under this Bill, at the same 'time that he enters for a free homestead on one can enter for pre-emption on the other. But he does not get the patent on the pre-emption until he has resided there six years.


Herbert Brown Ames: Did I understand the minister to say that the entire land in the dry belt within the line he has drawn is estimated at 28,000,000 acres ?


Frank Oliver: The land that has not been taken by the railway companies within that area.


Herbert Brown Ames: Both odd-numbered and even-numbered sections ?


Frank Oliver: Yes. We believe that by giving this pre-emption privilege to the new settler, we shall thereby do a great deal to attract settlers to that particular part of the country which, up to the present time, has not been attractive to our settlers. Unless some provision of this kind is made, that part of the country for the reason I have mentioned, will not be attractive to the better class of the new settlers we hope to get from south of the line. If is a natural condition which differs from the natural conditions prevailing in other parts of the country and requires a difference in legislation. And I am bound to say this to the House : that if there never was a Hudson Bay Railway or a prospect of a Hudson Bay Railway, I believe it would be necesary-not only right and proper but necessary-if we look to the settlement of that part of the county by the best class of new settlers, that we should make some such provision as is contained in the Bill.


Mr. STAPLES.: The minister has stated that there are no railways in that particular locality. If the country settles up in the manner he suggests by the attraction he is giving of pre-empting the homestead as well, how does he hope to get railway facilities in there ?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend rather misunderstood me, I think. I did not say there were no railways, I said the railway companies had not selected any large amount of their land grants in that area.


John Herron: But there are railways. The main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway runs for 400 miles through that territory. It is because of the conditions I have mentioned that settlement is still sparse along the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway in that district.


Samuel Hughes: There are two roads to the north.


Frank Oliver: There are other roads expected to be constructed across the same area, and we believe with this same provision, which enables a man to acquire 320 acres within that area, we will attract a class of settlers whose efforts will be of great benefit in the development of our country, whom we could not expect to attract to that part of the country or possibly at all, if we did not offer them some such opportunity as we are offering under the provisions of this Bill.


William Findlay Maclean: Is there sufficient evidence to show that the summer fallow method of farming will make that dry area attractive?


Frank Oliver: So far as the experiment has been carried, the summer fallow system of farming and fall wheat growing has been very successful, but there Is still an enormous part of this country untried, and I will not say, nor would I be warranted in saying, that all of it will ever be fit for agriculture, either by summer fallow or fall wheat growing. But we have seen such changes in that country in the last few years, that I am not prepared to say to this House that there is any part of it in which the soil is suitable where it may not turn out that the climate is suitable as well.


Samuel Hughes: Did not the minister receive an order from a western American company in return for a large grant of land in order to establish an experimental farm to demonstrate that the land could be successfully worked in the manner indicated as well as by heavy rolling in the fall?


Frank Oliver: Yes, I have had such a proposition. I do not consider it is possible to draw a line such as the hon. member for North Toronto spoke of anywhere. We cannot say that, so far as the climate is concerned, there is any part which cannot be brought profitably under cultivation if we can attract the right men to it by offering them a reasonable opportunity. We do know that up to the present time that country has not been attractive either to the railway company or to the settler, and my judgment, and I present it with all humility to the House, is that unless we provide for 320-acre farms in that area we cannot expect it to become attractive to the most desirable of the agriculturists we hope to get from the south of the line.


Herbert Brown Ames: What proportion of the 28,000,000 acres is open to regular homestead entry as even numbered sections, and what proportion will necessarily be utilized as odd numbered sections as pre-emptions?


Frank Oliver: All the even numbered sections in that area are open, if they are not already taken, and when the Bill passes the odd numbered sections will be just as open to homesteading- as the even numbered sections are to-day. We are not closing anything to homestead settlement.


Herbert Brown Ames: As I understand it, the even numbered sections in that 28,000,000 can be entered. It is proposed to make it possible for a homesteader to take an odd or even numbered section, but the whole 28,000,000 acres will be open to homestead, although not to pre-emption. Can a man settle an odd numbered section and pre-empt an even numbered section?


Frank Oliver: Certainly.


Herbert Brown Ames: There is then to be no distinction whatever?


Frank Oliver: None whatever.


Herbert Brown Ames: If a settler homesteads he pays nothing to the government. If he buys a pre-emption he pays $3 an acre. Consequently, about one half of that 28,000,000 acres would be sold at $3 an acre. Is that to be the manner in which the fund will be created?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: What proportion of the 28,000,000 acres does he calculate will be sold at $3 an acre to provide for the Hudson Bay Railway fund?


Frank Oliver: I will come to that. I have dealt with the side of the proposal giving the new settler the right to take a pre-emption adjoining his homestead. My hon. friend has suggested to the House that there is a possibility that the man who goes in may not be in circumstances to take a pre-emption. He may be, for reasons of his own, satisfied to take only a homestead, and, of course, we would not get anything for our fund out of the preemptions that these people do not see fit to take. I want to impress this on the House, because that leads up to the second proposition contained in the Bill, and gives the reason for it. There may frequently occur cases where the new settler, having a free choice, takes his homestead and pre-emption. Other men may come along and take other homesteads and pre-emptions, with the result that there is a single quarter-section surrounded by other land which the surrounding settlers, having exhausted their pre-emption rights, cannot take and which it is desirable we should be able to dispose of in order to get our money for the Hudson Bay Railway. We propose that any settler in the west
who has already acquired a patent for one quarter-section, who lives either inside or outside the limits of the area covered by the Bill, who desires to acquire another quarter-section within .the area on the terms laid down in the Bill, shall have the privilege of doing so. That is to say, on going inside that area and taking a quarter-section, not a half-section, because he already has a quarter-section, he can pick out a quarter-section, and by residing on it, cultivating it and paying ?3 an acre, he can get the patent.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: He may decide not to take the hedged-in quarter-section.


Frank Oliver: He does not have to. We are proposing to offer the opportunity to the old settler in the west in order that we will have a reasonable chance to dispose of that hedged-in quarter-section in any case, so we will be fairly sure to sell enough of that 28,000,000 acres to give us money to build the Hudson Bay Railway.


William Findlay Maclean: Could an old settler from Manitoba go in there ?


Frank Oliver: Precisely; that is the idea.


Samuel Hughes: Why should not a settler from Ontario or the United States who goes in there with his money, as well as a homesteader from Manitoba or any other part of the Northwest, be allowed, if he pays his $3 an acre and complies with the settlement duties to get his farm ?


Frank Oliver: So he can; only, in addition to that, under the provisions of the Bill, he can get 160 acres for nothing at all. If he does not want 160 acres for noth' ing he does not need to take it.


Samuel Hughes: Would the minister allow him to buy 320 acres ?


Frank Oliver: No. We stand squarely on our policy of the land for the settler and the settler only.


Samuel Hughes: He is a settler.


Frank Oliver: Very well, if he is a settler he can not only get his 160 acres but he can just as well 320 if he wants it.


Samuel Hughes: Not upon the same terms.


Frank Oliver: The difference is that he will have to stay six years in order to get 320 acres, whereas, he will only have to stay three years to get 160. What we want is actual settlement and we think we are just as much entitled to require a man to stay six years to get 320 acres as to stay three years to get 160 acres. We believe, tiiat, by holding out that inducement and by the imposition of the condition that the settler shall reside there for six years, we ensure greater permanence of settlement, and a better class of settlement than if we gave a patent on three years' residence.


Samuel Hughes: Is the minister asking any distinction between a man who has a wife and family and the man who is single.


Frank Oliver: No.


Samuel Hughes: I think the minister should. Any one who has gone through the Northwest will say that settlement by a bachelor is not settlement at all. It is simply barbarism, whereas, settlement with a family is Christianity.
Mr. OLIVER, My hon. friend must surely give the young man a chance to prepare for his bride.


Samuel Hughes: Let him take the girl right along with him.


Frank Oliver: I do not agree with my hon. friend's policy at all.


William Findlay Maclean: Roughly, how many patentees of land in the west would have the right to take up this additional land ?


Frank Oliver: I could not form any idea but I would say between one-third and oily-half of the settlers of the west.


William Findlay Maclean: They would all wake up in the morning and And themselves quite a little richer.
Mr. OLIVER, That is a point that will stand argument. That is an important point of difference. It was this feature of the old Bill that was particularly objected to, the point of objection being that it would have a tendency to make everybody rieh. I want to say here and now that iii so far as any act of mine can make every settler in the Northwest rich that act would and will be performed. That is my principle. I have nothing to take back on that point, but it did not seem to me to be the principle of all our friends in the House last year and I suppose it is not yet.


Samuel Hughes: You want them to give something for something ?


Frank Oliver: Precisely. I do not consider that we are doing anything wrong, when we want to build the Hudson Bay railway, in taking that money from a man who has pioneered the west,'on the same conditions as we are prepared to take it from a man who is going into the west as it is to-day. We should keep the idea before our minds of getting the money. We want to get that money on conditions of settlement and if the old settler is prepared to meet those conditions of settlement within the area I have mentioned I am here to say that I do not think that any interest is suffering and if the settler is thereby benefited I am glad to be able to be the means of his benefiting. Rut I "link my hon. friend is under a rather wrong impression as to the benefit and the


Frank Oliver: amount of benefit. This particular area of country is not an area of country, which, speaking generally lends itself to successful farming in areas of 160 acres. Therefore, it may not be an attractive field of settlement for the old settlers of the country who may wish to make new homes for themselves. The Bill of last year differed most radically from this one in that particular because, by that Bill, the old settler had the privilege of taking his pre-emption anywhere throughout the length and breadth of the three prairie provinces, in the dry area, in the timber area, in the railway grant area. Wherever he found a quarter-section he had the right to get it by settlement upon it and by doing the duties prescribed by law. All I can say is I am sorry I cannot give him that privilege.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Frank Oliver: At one o'clock I had concluded the explanations that are necessary at the present stage of the proceedings in regard to the pre-emption and purchased homestead provisions of the Bill. They first, had relation to the provision for a fund that shall stand in the place of aid to the construction of the Hudson Bay Railway, and next, they relate to provision for the better settlement of a certain tract of the prairie country. As to the possibility or the probability of the area in question yielding the amount which may be required should the government undertake the building of the Hudson Bay Railway, it may be well to say a few words. Assuming that the Hudson Bay Railway project as it is required to be met by governmental action relates to a stretch between the Pas on the Saskatchewan river to Churchill, a distance practically of 500 miles


Richard Stuart Lake: Is the railway permanently completed as far as the Pas?


Frank Oliver: The Railway Department reported to the Interior Department that the railway was completed and that the company had earned their land grant and the Interior Department has been in process of patenting the lauds selected by the company under the terms of the land grant. Whether the road is a good road or a bad road-whether it is completed or not, my hon. friend had better discuss with the Minister of Railways. As I understand the question it relates to a stretch of 500 miles between the Saskatchewan river and the shores of Hudson bay and it would seem to me it would be fair to estimate the total cost of that railroad at about $30,000 per mile.


Samuel Hughes: Is the minister aware that the Canadian Pacific Railway from Toronto to Sudbury cost $60,000 a mile?



190S

Frank Oliver: I am not aware of that. In fact I saw what purported to be a semiofficial statement in the newspapers which indicated the road had cost $45,000 per mile.


Samuel Hughes: It cost $60,000 per mile.	*


Frank Oliver: Well, I am not laying before the House any proposition to build the road or any suggestion as to how it shall be built or who shall build it, I am merely discussing the question of the adequacy of the funds expected to be provided under the pre-emption clauses of this Bill, to meet the probable requirements. I am assuming the probable requirements to be $30,000 a mile for 500 miles or $15,000,000. A question fairly asked is:	Are we likely within a
reasonable ;time to dispose of a sufficient number of pre-emptions in this particular area to cover tfiis amount?


Samuel Hughes: -Is the minister taking into consideration any expense for the harbour at Churchill or the terminals of the road?


Frank Oliver: The minister is not ; he is merely taking into consideration the 500 miles of railway and he is not even taking that into consideration except to suggest the possibility that such a railway might be built for a certain sum of money, simply for the purpose of the argument as to the probability of this Bill being adequate to meet the requirements of the case. Our estimate is that there are 28,000,000 acres of land subject to the provisions of this Bill, and such part of that land as it is proposed to sell under the provisions of the Bill it is proposed to sell at present for $3 per acre. It would therefore require the sale of 5,000,000 acres of pre-emption lands to realize the total estimated cost of the 500 miles of railway between the Saskatchewan river and Hudson bay. As there are 28,000,000 acres available it may be supposed that every acre of this large area would be taken in either homestead or pre-emption. That every homesteader coming into it would take a pre-emption. That would provide for 14,000,000 acres at $3 per acre. But besides that, within the area there is a considerable amount of even-numbered sections which have been granted to the railway companies and which have not yet been homesteaded. These will also be subject to purchase as pre-emptions by people who have already secured their homesteads in other parts of the country. There is also a possibility-I say merely a possibility-of our having not only 14,000,000 acres to sell at $3 per acre, but also perhaps a couple of millions of acres more. That is. selling within the area I have set out, but selling even numbered sections to old settlers interspersed among the railway land. However, there is of course not much possibility of that suggestion being realized.
We quite believe that it may be a longtime before certain parts of this country are required for settlement and there are probabilities and possibilities which do not contemplate that it shall be taken up absolutely in half-sections. But I think it is fair to say that considering the way in which settlement is pressing forward, and the requirements of the country, and the attractiveness of the proposition we offer the people for settlement in that area, that we can reasonably expect that out of 28,000,000 acres we will dispose of at least one-fifth in pre-emptions. If that be so then, say 5,000,000 acres would give us the amount of money that on a rough estimate we suppose it will be necessary to provide for the Hudson Bay Railway. It may be that there will not be that area disposed of as preemptions ; it may be that we will not realize that amount of money from the tract in question. I can only say that if we do not and if we think it is sound public policy to raise money to build the Hudson Bay Railway in that way we can very easily enlarge the tract and thereby increase that source of revenue. On the other hand, if we find that we are raising more money than we require, we can easily change the system. The position, as I bring it before tbe House and the country, is that beyond all question we are offering an adequate means of meeting the liability that will be created, out of an entirely new source of revenue, to the full satisfaction of the people immediately interested, and I believe of the people of the whole country as well.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Have you taken into consideration the time when the land may be sold ? If so, what will you do in the meantime ? It may be ten years before the land will be sold.


Frank Oliver: It is not at all suggested that the building of the railway should await the raising of the money from this land. I hope I have not been understood as suggesting anything of that kind. What I have tried to say was that the conditions appeared to demand the construction of the railway, and that by means of this Bill it is proposed to provide a new source of revenue which will be adequate to meet the responsibility thereby laid on the treasury of the country. We do not propose that the building of the railway shall await the sale of 5,000,000 acres of this land, but we want to be able to say to the people of the country that if we find it necessary to pledge the credit of the country to an extent to raise sufficient money to aid in the building of the Hudson Bay Railway, here is a new source of revenue that will relieve them of the burden of the responsibility they thus undertake. We hope by this proposition to be able to secure the early construction of the railway, and we have every confidence that the bur-

<len upon the general treasury of the country will not he thereby increased to the amount of one cent.


Richard Stuart Lake: Is it proposed to put the proceeds from the sale of these pre-emptions into a trust fuud to be held until they meet the amount for which the country is obligated, or are they to be treated as the ordinary revenue of the country ? Another question ;* is the building of the railway proposed to be a charge on the lands of the northwest ?


Frank Oliver: Neither the one nor the other. I have tried to say, and I will repeat, that it is intended by the provisions of this Bill to create a new source of revenue which will be adequate to meet the charges expected to be laid upon the country by reason of the construction of the Hudson Bay Railway.
With regard to the boundaries of the tract in question, as they are laid down on the map which I have placed on the table of the House, and with regard to the reasons for the selection of those boundaries, as I have already said, it is not possible to make a boundary that shall be absolutely unexceptionable from every point of view. The conditions of the country change more or less gradually as you go in certain directions, and in certain instances there are breaks in the changing conditions. Therefore when it is necessary to make a boundary, the best we can do is to make one that will be nearly what may be called a scientific boundary. Our eastern boundary, which is the one possibly the most in question, we propose to make by following the line of the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway from the international boundary northwesterly to its junction with the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, then westerly along the Canadian Pacific Railway to the third meridian, then northerly along the third meridian to a point on the south branch of the Saskatchewan river, then following that river to a certain township line, taking that to the north branch of the Saskatchewan river, following that to the north line of township 44, following that westward to a certain range line, and thence continuing southerly along that to the boundary. The reason for this eastern boundary line, which my hon. friend might very well say is somewhat peculiar, is that we desire to follow as well as we can, by a well defined and easily described boundary, the change in the natural condition of the country which takes place in what is called the Coteau of the Missouri or the second prairie steppe as you raise from the Red river towards the Rocky Mountains. The line of this prairie steppe runs from southeast to northwest. It is fairly well defined ; but inasmuch as it runs diagonally across our sur-Mr. OLIVER.
vey, a description that would define that boundary according to survey would be very difficult to follow-would not really be very intelligible. Therefore as the line of railway that I have mentioned follows in the same general direction as the Ooteau of the Missouri which by reference to the map will be seen to have been very largely the boundary of selection by the railway company, we have thought that the railway line itself would be a boundary that everybody could understand, that follows the general direction of the change in the condition of the country, and that will be generally satisfactory, although there is between the railway and the edge of the Coteau a good deal of country that is not subject to the description which I have given and which will apply to the greater part of the country west of that. We take the south' branch of the Saskatchewan river for the reason that it also is a well defined boundary. It is necessary to make a boundary somewhere, and a well defined boundary that will give us as much of the sort of country I speak of to the west as possible is the best boundary to take. We take the northern township line, not because the country changes immediately north of that line, but because it will include almost all the areas over which the railway companies have not seen fit to make their selection. We have included other portions where they have seen fit to make their selection; but we think that the system we propose to follow will be intelligible and satisfactory. Then we apply the pre-emption provision of the law within the area I have described to townships in which the railway companies have taken less than eight sections of land grant, and we apply the homestead purchase provision to any lands within that area. I have said that the objection that was made to the Bill in its form of last year does not seem to me to apply to this Bill at all- that if there was any danger of disturbing the general balance of settlement by the sweeping provisions of the Bill of last year, the provisions of the Bill of this year are not subject to that criticism.
There is I believe sufficient to achieve the purpose we have in view and not sufficient to warrant the anticipation of injury which seemed to lie heavy on the minds of some of our friends this time last year. At the same time we propose to relieve the mortgage, so to speak, which today lies against the 6,500,000 acres of land of the Northwest in respect of the Hudson Bay Railway. As long as that provision remains in the statute-books, it is a notice by parliament to the world that, in the estimation of parliament, it is a proper policy to grant 6,500.000 acres of land in order to construct a railway from the Saskatchewan to Hudson bay. That is not in accord with

the policy of this government nor is it in accord with its administration, but by passing this Bill, we relieve ourselves of any claims, past or present or future, against that 6,500,000 acres. The difference between the proposal in the Bill and the provision in the Lands Act is this : That if the provision of the Lands Act regarding a grant to the Hudson Bay Railway should be made under the practice that formally prevailed, whatever company should build that road would have the right to select 6,500,000 acres wherever they might see fit throughout the Northwest Territories, and upon the completion of the road, this land would become their absolute property to be held by them until they could secure such prices as they might see fit to exact. It was under this policy that the 32,000,000 acres which have been alienated were held, and a large part of it is being held to-day, closed against settlement, held at high prices, a burden under which the Northwest staggers to-day, a burden which has to be carried by the settlers of the west, who will ultimately have to buy the land and dig the price out of it by their toil, enterprise and saving. Instead of taking that course we propose to allow the purchase by actual settlers, on settlement conditions, of say 5,000,000 acres of land, realizing thereby, out of a fixed and moderate price per acre, sufficient money to meet the requirements of the government in respect of the railway. Under the system that prevails of land grants to railways which we are displacing by this Bill, the enhancement in values by reason of the settlement and improvement of the country enures to the railway companies. The criticism which has been made against this Bill is that the probable enhancement in value will enure to the benefit of the settlers. That is radically different from the Lands Act as it stands. It is in that view and from that standpoint I desire to place the Bill before the House. If it be the fact that a settler is by this Bill given the opportunity to improve his position by reason of the enhanced value of land for which he has paid only a moderate price, I believe that is sound public policy, the best that can be pursued in the settlement of the country.	There is no money
which a settler, who builds up a home on the prairie, can make out of his land which he does not earn, and who, I ask, is better entitled to the enhanced value of the land by reason of settlement than the man whose settlement gave the enhanced value. It is because the settler will have the benefit of the enhancement in value of his land due to his settlement, that I ask the approval of the House to this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall not detain the House more than a few minutes. It was obviously necessary for the minister to occupy some time in the introduction of
tlie Bill and he has certainly shown a great deal of versatility in dealing with the subject. He gave us three different views last year, in three different Bills. He then made a strong argument in support of the last revision of the Bill of last year. That Bill was undoubtedly different, in certain important respects, from the present one, and he has just made an able and vigorous speech in support of a proposal absolutely inconsistent with his proposal of last year. We can therefore in all sincerity congratulate him on the versatility he has shown in dealing with this very important question. He seems to have confounded my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) with the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway). I was always under the impression that it was the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) who rose after the Minister of the Interior last year and made a savage attack on the proposal in the Bill then submitted. But apparently the minister is under a misapprehension and imagines it was my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) who made that attack. Let me recall to the Minister of the Interior the fact that the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) last year, speaking immediately after the Minister of the Interior, declared that the proposal as advocated by him would be absolutely destructive of the interests of the people. Let me give his exact words :
I do think we ought to take a longer time to consider such a Bill as that now before the House than, as I understand, we are likely at this stage of the session to give it. The Bill comes down late in the session and proposes a very radical change to my mind.
I certainly hope that this Bill will not be pressed in its present form until we have a longer time and more opportunity to consider what are going to be its results. I repeat that I cannot conceive anything more detrimental to the interests of the people of western Canada, especially to the province of Manitoba and to the eastern part of Saskatchewan, which I know very well, than to put upon the statute-book such a law as this.
And further on :
But, if that be the case, I would say to the government, I hope they will not press this Bill through the House.
And so on through the course of his remarks. The hon. gentleman attacked the Bill very fiercely indeed, subjecting it to a very searching criticism so far as the preemption clauses were concerned. It is that hon. gentleman, no doubt, that the Minister of the Interior had in mind to-day when he referred, as he did, to my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). If the arguments of my hon. friend from North Toronto were effective in convincing the Minister of the Interior, I am bound to say it is the first occasion on which I have known them to, prevail with the minister.

I have known my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) a good many times to criticise in a very severe and effective way the administrative and legislative measures of this gov eminent, but I am bound to say that I have always found the Minister of the Interior throughly obdurate. On this occa sion he would have the House conclude that it is owing to some remarks of my hon. friend from North Toronto that he withdrew that Bill and has introduced it in amended form this session. The minis ter may desire to convey that' idea, but we shall feel free to believe as much of it as we think fit.


Frank Oliver: If I seemed to desire to convey that impression, I certainly did not desire it. I did allude to the fact that the hon. member for North Toronto had op posed the Bill, as he did. But I did not say it was because only of his opposition that it was amended-at least I did not mean to say that.


Robert Laird Borden: I accept the assurance of the minister. I had rather understood it in the way I have mentioned. The hon. minister has referred a great deal to the Hudson Bay Railway in conneetion with this discussion. I was about to criticise the action of the government in this connection, when I was to some extent relieved by an answer which the hon. minister gave to the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner). Everything in the minister's remarks would have led one to suppose that we were to wait for the Hudson Bay Railway until a certain fund had accumulated out of the sale of these lands. So far ns I could gather any idea on (hat point from the remarks of the hon. minister, I certainly understood him in that way. But, if I now correctly understand him, the land subject to pre-emption and the land subject to homestead purchase are to be sold and the ' proceeds are to go to the general revenues of the country, and even if we do not sell an acre of that land, or no matter how much we sell within the next four or five years, the Hudson Bay Railway project stands by itself endorsed and approved by this House. Therefore, I do not understand how it is that the Minister of the Interior finds it necessary, in the course of his remarks, to introduce the Hudson Bay Railway scheme into the proposal to be placed before the House. If the Hudson Bay Railway were not to be built, would the minister not have brought down the Bill in the form in which he has brought it down? Or in what d'ffereut form would he have brought it down? He has not enlightened the House on that point. And, if not an acre of land is sold in ten years, I trust, and am led to believe, the Hudson Bay Railway project will still go on in the meantime and without delay. So the two proposals seem to me to have no very intimate connection, except Mr. R. L. BORDEN
so far as that connection may be put forward for party purposes

which I understood to be the real object of the hon. gentleman's remarks on that subject.
In the course of the hon. minister's concluding remarks he referred to the lifting of the mortgage of six and a half million acres from the shoulders of the people of the Northwest. It is a remarkable circumstance that this government, having aopted as he said, an absolutely different policy, has taken twelve years to lift that mortgage, when they could have done it in five minutes in the first session of parliament after they came into power. It would not seem to me that the policy of the government in regard to such matters has had quite fair play at the hands of the government itself when it has taken them twelve years to bring this about. If the policy of the government were such as he announced to us this afternoon, why did he not lift this mortgage in his Land Bill of last year? That is a fair question, but one that the hon. gentleman has not met in any way.


Haughton Lennox: On the contrary he has renewed it by statute and order in council year after year.


Frank Oliver: I could answer that, though it is really hardly necessary. The provision in the Land Act as it appears in the revised statutes is for the land grant for the whole of the Hudson bay road. At the time the Bill introduced last year was prepared, the railroad had not been officially completed to the Saskachewan river, and, therefore, as I understood, that provision had to remain in effect so as to give the proper authorization for that part of the road which was built to the Saskatchewan. But once that had been completed, the necessity for the provision ceased and, not being required, it does not appear in this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: It would have taken an ordinary draughtsman perhaps half an hour to prepare such an amendment to the Lands Act as would have removed this mortgage of six and a half million acres and still have left untouched the vested rights of the parties building the road up to Pas. Surely if this were the policy of the government, half an hour of the time of a competent draughtsman might have been allowed for that purpose during the twelve years that this government has been in power.
Now, I do not,desire to take up time with a discussion of this measure at present. We had the Bill before us last year in a certain form: we have it before us in a certain other form ; we shall be able to discuss it thoroughly and fully in committee. It is not advisable or desirable that I should make any remarks now which can be made with greater convenience when we are in committee. There is only one

thing I should add. I should think there is one class of people in the west who are entitled to some consideration from the government and from parliament. I refer to the men who went into the west in bygone days, who have been the pioneers of that great country, who have gone through a great deal of hardship and toil, and the results of whose labours have made that great western country known to the world through the enormous crops which have been heralded abroad. The question whether that particular class of the community is dealt with in a reasonably just manner can be discussed in committee when we reach the particular sections which which their rights are concerned. For the present all I have to say is that we shall give the Bill every fair and reasonable consideration in committee, pointing out to the Minister of the Interior our views in respect of any of the clauses where we think it ought to be amended, and we trust that our suggestions may receive the same reasonable and fair consideration as that which we intend to extend to the provisions of the Bill.


Samuel Hughes: I desire to draw the minister's attention to the fact that he seems to be disposing of all the public lands in the Northwest without making provision for the South African veterans who were promised certain consideration by the government. I do not see any reservation made for them.
I would also point out that the greatest evil in connection with the* homesteading law in the Northwest is that no one excepting the land agents know who holds the lands throughout a district. A man after .spending a considerable sum of money and time in selecting a homestead for himself may make application for that homestead. The land agent finds out from him what it is like ; in other words uses the homesteader as a land agent for himself, he receives the man's application and tells him that he regrets the homestead is applied for by another. The homesteader has then to seek another piece for himself. In the meantime the land agent takes advantage of this information for some friend whom he happens to have convenient and an application is nut in. That has been done by not only government agents but by other agents. I would impress on the minister, as I have done on former occasions, the absolute necessity of having at every one of these land offices and sub-land offices plans of every township in the district of that office showing the quarter-sections that are entered and that are not entered, showing upon each quarter-section that is entered, the name of the man for whom entry has been made, arid the date of the entry and of having this map open for public inspection so that the homesteader can walk into the office and, by making application, have the book or map placed in front of him so that he may copy
off the names of those holding quarter-sections. That would do away with some of the greatest evils now existing. I hope the minister will place a clause in the Bill at the proper time covering this.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1-Interpretation.
Robert Laird Borden: Is there any part of this which is new ?


Frank Oliver: Subsection (g) which defines the entrant of a purchased homestead. That is a term used for the first time in this Act. It is for convenience of expression.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it prat'cally the same as the Bill of last year ?


Frank Oliver: Practically.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no material change ?


Frank Oliver: There is no material change there.


Richard Stuart Lake: In subdivision (f) 'there seems to be considerable change. The words ' prescribed at the time the land was entered for ' seem to be a change from the principle of the Bill as introduced last year. As I understand it that means that the conditions under which a person may obtain a homestead entry, may be varied from time to time by the minister and are not laid down positively in this Act.


Frank Oliver: This is an Act in regard to the Dominion lands. There was a previous Act to which there were a number of amendments. This is simply to cover the general cases, so .that whether a man got his entry under this Act or the previous Act or some other Act the conditions which governed at the time when he got his entry govern in regard to the earning of his patent. It is to provide that there shall not be any change in the conditions under which a man earns his patent from the conditions prevailing at the dafe of his entry.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be much more simple to say ' in accordance with the conditions at the time of entry.'


Frank Oliver: That is the intention.


Richard Stuart Lake: Are the conditions all laid down definitely in the Act?


Frank Oliver: No. there are certain conditions which are laid down definitely in the Act, and of course these would be the conditions that are mentioned by this Act. As to subsection (g) in dealing with the two separate cases of the man who is allowed to take a half-section of land homestead and pre-emption, and the case of the other man who, already having taken a homestead must now look for another quarter-section, we speak of that case as a purchased home-

stead, so as to make a fair distinction between the two cases.
On section 3-application of Act.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the change in this as compared with the Revised Statutes ?


Frank Oliver: I will have the statutes here in a moment.


Robert Laird Borden: The Revised Statutes include British Columbia lands, and this is simply limited to Dominion lands ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. The Act of last year included the railway belt of British Columbia and it is left out of this Bill ?


Frank Oliver: Yes, we did not desire to include that provision in this Act; We have found in administering the railway belt in British Columbia that the conditions are so different from those of the prairies that it is not advisable that it should be administered under the same Act.
. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Under what law7 have you been administering it ?


Frank Oliver: At the present time we are administering it under the Dominion Lands Act, but we have found the conditions so unadapted that we thought in framing this Act we would not require those lands to be brought under its provisions.


Robert Laird Borden: This Act takes the place of the present Dominion Lands Act ?


Frank Oliver: lres.


Robert Laird Borden: Well then that Act will be repealed?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Under what law will you administer the railway belt?


Frank Oliver: Our proposal was to administer it under regulations which would be different in different 'sections of the belt.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the present law give power to make these regulations?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Richard Stuart Lake: The Yukon is also omitted ?


Frank Oliver: Yes, for the same reason.
On section 4,
Provisions of this Act not applicable to railway belt, British Columbia, except those which relate to timber forfeiture and trespass, &c., but Governor in Council may make such regulations for administration and disposal as he deems suited to conditions.


Robert Laird Borden: I think this provision is very wide-reaching. It does not Mr. OLIVER.
seem to contain any limitation whatever upon the power of the Governor in Council. Under regulations made by the Governor in Council, as provided by this section, the whole of this land might be alienated for some trifling consideration or mere nominal consideration, and, while it is necessary to repose a great deal of confidence in the Governor in Council for certain purposes of administration, a provision of this kind goes far beyond what we would consider salutary and proper. I would suggest to the minister that the power of the Governor in Council to dispose of these lands should be limited in some way. I cannot understand why it should be unlimited.


Frank Oliver: In the Revised Statutes my hon. friend will find that there is no allusion to the railway belt of British Columbia in the application of the Act. As a matter of fact, the railway belt of British Columbia is under a special Act which has relation to the negotiations between the British' Columbia government and the Dominion government and, although we are administering the railway belt nominally under the Lands Act as it stands to-day, in so far as I am aware, there is no very definite authority for our doing so. We are only stating in so many words in this Act the actual condition that prevails at the present time and which we have in our administration, in realty, recognized. That is our difficulty in dealing with numerous Acts as they are to-day. We are administering without due authority, and it is taken for granted that because we are administering we have the authority. In this Act we are making it perfectly clear as to the authority.


Robert Laird Borden: It is entirely proper that the government should know exactly what their authority is for this or any other purpose. It is the purpose of the present Bill to prescribe conditions within the limitations of which it shall be possible for the government of Canada to alienate the public lands in the western provinces, with the exception of this particular belt of land. Under the statutes, as they have existed in the past, discretion has, to some extent, been conferred upon the Governor in Council, and sometimes upon the Minister of tlve Interior, with respect to the disposal of such lands. In so far as public lands in eastern Canada are concerned, the government cannot, as I understand, alienate them in fee simple. Take, for example, the proposal of the government to dispose of a certain portion of Major's Hill Park for the purpose of constructing thereupon an hotel ; the government are obliged to come to parliament with a resolution and introduce a Bill for the purpose of giving them that authority. I understand thoroughly, of course, that it would be absolutely inconvenient and impossible to carry out any system of that kind with respect to the

prairie area of the west, and therefore we have this Bill laying down conditions and limitations and giving the Governor in Council power to alienate public lands within those conditions and limitations. Then you add to that proposal that a very large and very valuable tract of land, as I understand, shall be absolutely within the disposal of the Governor in Council without any limitation whatever upon the authority to give that away, to sell it for a nominal price or dispose of it in any other manner. I do not think that is necessary. More than that, I would strongly protest against any power of that kind being conferred upon the Governor in Council. It may be that it is the law to-day for the reason that public attention has not been called to it. If it is the law, then 1 have simply to say that I was not aware of it before, and I would regard it as a very unfortunate condition of affairs. If any different system of administration, if any more extensive powers require to be conferred upon the Governor in Council with respect to these particular lands, well and good ; but I should think it ought to be within certain conditions and limitations, and I am inclined to think that the minister, upon reflection, will agree in that view. How many millions of acres are there within this railway belt?


Frank Oliver: I cannot answer that question.


Robert Laird Borden: It is a very large tract of land?	,


Frank Oliver: It is a very, very large tract of land ; I should say 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 acres in extent, anyway. In reply to my hon. friend, the condition is not being changed by the provisions of this Bill, but the conditions are being set out on the face of the Bill. I would be very glad if I were in a position to make a proposal to the House so as to make the conditions with respect to dealing with the railway belt a part of the Bill. If I were able to make a proposition to parliament that would be satisfactory to me and to the people of British Columbia interested in the disposal of the railway belt, I would be glad to do it, but I am unable at present to make such a proposition, and for the present I am simply asking parliament to continue the existing condition.


Richard Stuart Lake: Have not a number of settlers gone into the railway belt in the last year or so? On what conditions have they got their land?


Frank Oliver: We assume to administer the railway belt under the terms of the Dominion Lands Act as applied to the prairies. So long as there was very little demand for land in the railway belt it did not make any difference, but when people are going in there in considerable numbers it becomes somewhat grotesque to apply the conditions
applicable to a flat country to a country that is set up on edge. They do not work out satisfactorily and I frankly say to the House that I am unable at the moment to propose what I consider would be a proper permanent provision. It must be remembered that not only are the conditions in the railway belt different from those on the prairie, but the conditions in different parts of the belt itself differ from each other.


Mr. FOWLER.: The important thing is what the land grows and not whether it lies horizontally or perpendicularly. A great portion of the railway belt is timbered and therefore the conditions in the prairie country cannot apply. On what present condition are homesteaders allowed to obtain homesteads within the railway belt?


Frank Oliver: We assume to give 160 acres subject to settlement conditions, but until recently the demand for homesteads here has been so trifling that it made very little difference. Now, however, we are experiencing all sorts of difficulties.


George Eulas Foster: In what particular?


Frank Oliver: For instance, if a man wants a homestead in the valley of the Columbia river where there is abundant rainfall and heavy timber and where there is perhaps only a little strip along the river that is suitable for orchard purposes, it is manifest that to acquire that man to cultivate fifteen acres is something that he cannot fulfil and he cannot get his patent unless he fulfils it. Then, the conditions in the dry belt from Shuswap to Vale are radically different, and it is impossible to make general regulations that will apply to the whole railway belt equitably. I am unable at present to offer the House any legislation that would be suitable to these varying conditions and I ask the House to let the matter stand for the present and to deal with the law as it applies to the prairie.


Robert Laird Borden: I would suggest that the authority to make regulations as to the railway belt should be subject to the same limitation as may be found in the Yukon Act; namely: that the regulations shall be in force only until the end of the then next session of parliament and unless during that session they are approved by parliament.


Frank Oliver: I know of no objections to that proposal and if that meets my hon. friends views in regard to the railway belt I will be glad to make the necessary provision.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not meet my view, but I offer it as an alternative to the difficulty the minister says he is in, and in view of the fact that he is not able at present to submit a satisfactory measure dealing with these lands. I suggest it as the next best course.


Frank Oliver: I am quite willing to make that provision for tiie time being.


George William Fowler: Is it the intention of the minister to deal with the homesteading of the railway belt in the near future?


Frank Oliver: It is my hope, if not my intention.


George William Fowler: An ordinary farmer in the fruit growing district of British Columbia has from ten to twenty acres which is ample in that district, but which would be a very small farm on the prairie. It would be absurd for the government to grant 160 acres or anything like it as a homestead in the railway belt. I would suggest that the homesteads in this district be not less than ten acres and not more than forty acres, and that the government should make different rules for different localities.


Frank Oliver: Precisely; that is what I propose.


George William Fowler: I have been a good deal in British Columbia, and I know the conditions and I am satisfied that from ten acres to twenty acres would be a very good homestead in the fruit growing districts. Even in the more northerly districts, from forty acres to sixty acres would be equal to 100 acres on. the prairie.


Frank Oliver: I visited British Columbia last year with the view of working out some scheme which I would be able to place before parliament, but so far I have not arrived at a solution. Where the best fruit land is situated is where the timber grows heaviest and our regulations with regard to the taking up of a prairie farm contemplate that a man shall be able to earn his living out of that farm within a year, or two years at most. In the heavily timbered region there is no possibility of a man clearing a sufficient area in the course of a year or two to make a living unless he is a moneyed man. I had in view that it might be well to provide that reasonable holdings of this land should be acquired on conditions of clearing and improving without actual residence, so that a man employed at good wages in the mines or smelters might spend part of bis wages in having a small area of this very expensive land improved and made ready for cultivation. Otherwise there is no way in which it can be brought under cultivation except by men of capital.


George Eulas Foster: As a matter of fact, has the minister administered any of these fruit lands so far, and if so, in what areas has he given them and in what way has he administered them ?


Frank Oliver: As I say, our regulations have made no difference between one kind of land and another, and that is where they are faulty and where we want to change them. The question of the settlement of people upon these fruit lands has not arisen Mr. R. L BORDEN.
directly to any great extent, because at present they are all or nearly all occupied or covered by timber limits, and there is a continual fight between the proposed settler and the limit holder, into which the government has hardly yet projected itself, but into which it will necessarily have to project itself in the course of events.


Richard Stuart Lake: Has much land been surveyed out in this belt and have you been able to grant a number of patents ?


Frank Oliver: We have surveyed a good deal of the land and have granted a good many patents, but they are more in what is called the dry area than the fruit area.


John Herron: During this session the minister introduced a Bill to provide for the granting of scrip for land to the volunteers who served in South Africa. I understand that this land would have been available for that purpose. I have had a great many requests to ascertain whether this Bill takes away the land in the railway belt in British Columbia, so that there will be no possibility of these men locating upon it.


Frank Oliver: This Bill does not make any change in the conditions that prevail now. We are merely allowing the present conditions to continue because we have not anything better to offer, and we are saying on the face of the Bill what the conditions are. If the Scrip Bill passed and this Bill did not pass, the veterans would not be entitled to locate their scrip lands in the railway belt. So that in that respect the Bill makes no change.
On section 5

Yukon Territory.


Richard Stuart Lake: The provisions in regard to timber which are contained in other portions of this Act may be made applicable to British Columbia, but apparently are omitted in the case of the Yukon. What special reason is there for that ?


Frank Oliver: The reason is that the conditions in the Yukon, as it seems to us, do not warrant the holding of timber berths, as tiie conditions in other parts of the Dominion do. The timber there is scarce and we think should be acquired only for purposes of immediate use.


Richard Stuart Lake: In the Bill of last year special provision was made to enable the government to make regulations in respect to both homesteads and timber in the Yukon. That seems to be omitted in the present Bill. Is there any reason for that ?


George William Fowler: You do not grant homesteads in the Yukon ?


Frank Oliver: We have power by order in council to grant homesteads, but the demand is not very great and the conditions have to be somewhat different from else-

where. In reply to my hon. friend from Qu' Appelle, I think the proviso in section 5 covers his point. I am under the impression that there is a general provision near the end of the Bill in line with the suggestion made a little while ago by the hon. leader of the opposition.


Robert Laird Borden: I think so-section 77.


Frank Oliver: That was framed after the discussion of last session, to cover the same point raised then by the leader of the opposition.


George William Fowler: Do you sell lands in the Yukon ?


Frank Oliver: We do, for purposes of use.


George William Fowler: Do the town sites, such as that of Dawson, belong to the government ?


Frank Oliver: I am not sure about the town site of Dawson, but I am sure that the town site of Whitehorse belongs to the government.


George William Fowler: What steps does a man take who wants to purchase a site for a house in a town site such as Whitehorse ?


Frank Oliver: He would make application to the land agent in the Yukon.


George William Fowler: Who fixes the price he will pay ?


Frank Oliver: The land will be sold either by auction or at private sale. If at auction, he would fix the price himself ; if at private sale, the land would be sold at a valuation fixed by some officer of the government.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister know what proportion of the town site of Whitehorse has been sold?


Frank Oliver: I know that a considerable portion of the area occupied by the town has been sold ; but I have not at the moment any knowledge of the total area surveyed in town lots or the quantity sold.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister get that information ?


George William Fowler: The timber-how do you manage about that ?


Frank Oliver: We only issue permits to cut. We did not sell any berth.


George William Fowler: It is an annual permit ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George William Fowler: To cut so much over a given space.


Frank Oliver: Precisely. We found that, under the system of granting berths, the amount of timber was limited, and there 354	.
was a tendency to hold the berth rather than develop it, and we thought we would cancel the whole system.


George William Fowler: When was that cancellation done ?


Frank Oliver: Two years ago.


George Eulas Foster: There was a return brought down with reference to the town of Whitehorse, and I have some of the papers. Return to an order of the House, dated 10th of February, 1908, showing the parties to whom were made the original grants from the Crown of the lands comprised within the limits of the town of Whitehorse, Yukon territory, and any assignments made thereof, with names of parties, dates and consideration therefor.
The townsite of Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory comprises a number of group lots, each containing an area of forty acres, more or less. The subdivided portion of the town-site comprises group lots 1 and 4 and portions of group lots 2 and 3 in group 5 of the said territory.
The patent for lot No. 1 in the above group was issued in favour of W. W. B. Melnnes on March 3, 1900, and this lot has been since subdivided into town lots.
The patent for group lot No. 2 was issued in favour of George W. Mitchell on March 3, 1900, and a portion of this lot has since been subdivided into town lots.
The patent for lot No. 3 was issued in favour of G. F. Mclsaac on March 3, 1900, and a portion of this lot has been subdivided into town lots.
The patent for lot No. 4 was issued in favour of Duncan C. Fraser on March 3, 1900, and it has all been subdivided into town lots.
The unsubdivided portion of the townsite of Whitehorse appears to include portions of lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in group 5 of the said territory.
Following are the names of the persons to whom these lots have been patented, and the date of the patent:
Lot No. 5, Harvey Graham, March 3, 1900.
Lot No. 6, William Whitman, March 3, 1900.
Lot No. 7, H. James Lawson, March 3, 1900.
Lot No. 8, George H. Maxwell, March 3, 1900.
Lot No. 9, Arnold Berdoe, March 3, 1900.
Lot No. 10, Harry Jas. Patterson, March 3, 1900.
Under the original conditions of the sale the government of Canada owns absolutely for its own use or sale one-third of the blocks of lots within the subdivided townsite. No other' assignment or transfer from the original purchasers has been filed in the Department of the Interior, but, since Crown grants for these lots were issued on March 3, 1900, .the original purchasers may since that date have transferred their rights, by filing their transfers with the registrar for the district.
The lots in question were sold at the rate of $10 an acre, that being the price at which lands in the Yukon Territory were at that time being disposed of.
It would seem that the policy observed in this transaction was for the government



to retain one-third of the subdivided lots and the rqst was given on application to the parties named at $10 an acre. That is a very small price. No distinction was made between townsites and farm lands. The valuable townsite of Whitehorse, which promise to be very valuable, as there are large mining areas close by, which are being developed and are supposed to be very rich-the whole of this townsite seems to have been disposed of at $10 an acre.


George William Fowler: The government retains one-third. Is that one-third of the price? Would the members of parliament who bought the land have to pay for the whole and then hand over the government one-third ?	[DOT]


Frank Oliver: I am not personally familiar with the transaction, but I presume the government sold two-thirds and kept the other third.


George William Fowler: As I understand it, this townsite was divided into building lots of 40 acres each.
/Mr. OLIVER. In that case, no doubt the government sold two-thirds of the lots, and the third they retained.


George William Fowler: How has this turned out? Has it been profitable for those members of parliament who were endeavouring to eke out their small salaries by Yukon speculation? I think they were applied for in 1900.


George Eulas Foster: On the 3rd of March, 1900. I do not know whether this return bears out the interpretation of the minister but it might just as well be the other way.


Frank Oliver: I am under the impression that the township is subdivided by the government, but I am not personally aware of the fact.


George Eulas Foster: The minister might get that information, because it is a little bit interesting.
On section 5a,
5a. Notwithstanding anything in either of the two sections next preceding, the Dominion lands in the railway belt and in the Yukon Territory shall be taken and held to be public lands of the Dominion to which this Act applies within the meaning of the Dominion Lands Surveys Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite understand this. It seems to say that it does not apply to certain lands, nevertheless it does apply to them. I direct the minister's attention to the words * to which this Act applies.'


Mr OLIVER.: It will be remembered that the provisions in regard to the surveys were a part of the Dominion Lands Act. It was desired to separate them from tile Dominion Lands Act. We had a mix-up in. re-Mr. FOSTER.
gard to that last session. We passed a Surveys Bill and, because the Dominion Lands Act did not pass, we had to repeal the Surveys Bill. We have passed the Surveys Bill this session, but we find there was a provision which we should have included in the' Surveys Bill, and we are trying to meet the case by this somewhat peculiar provision of the Dominion Lands Act, as we cannot amend the Surveys Bill this session.


Robert Laird Borden: I should have supposed that it would be better to see some such expression as shall be taken and held to be public lands to which the Dominion Surveys Act applies.'	.


Frank Oliver: That had better stand for the present. It was suggested that sections 4 and 5 should stand for a certain amendment. But, as that amendment is provided, it is not necessaray that they should stand.


Robert Laird Borden: They have passed.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Section 5a stands.


Frank Oliver: Yes.
On section 6,
6. In the event of an exchange of any Dominion lands for other lands with any province, corporation or person, the lands conveyed through such exchange to the Crown in the right of the Dominion shall be deemed to be Dominion lands.


George William Fowler: Peace rive lands, does that mean?


Frank Oliver: No, thrtt is provided for in the preceding section. This section is to say that, if for any reason we acquire by exchange any land, it shall not be part of any special fund but shall be subject simply to the Dominion Lands Act.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: Can the minister give us any idea of the quantity of land that has been exchanged with the province of Manitoba in lieu of the swamp lands? Under the arrangement between the province and the Dominion all swamp lands must be transferred to the province from time to time. In some instances, these swamp lands are settled upon by squatters prior to the transfer. These lands, as I understand it, are retained by the Dominion government for the squatter and other lands given to the province. Has the minister any idea of the quantity which has been exchanged for the swamp lands on which squatters have settled? *


Frank Oliver: I have not the exact figures here. But I am informed that the quantity is approximately 90,000 acres.


Richard Stuart Lake: In making railway land grants, I suppose there are sometimes men squatting on odd-numbered sections?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Richard Stuart Lake: I suppose the minister endeavours to get an exchange with the railway for these lands?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Richard Stuart Lake: That may take place any time subsequent to the selection of the lands by the railway, I suppose?


Frank Oliver: Yes.
On section 7,
7. No land shall be open for entry for a homestead or for sale until it has been surveyed in accordance with the provisions of the Dominion Lands Surveys Act, and notice that it is to be open for entry upon a date to be set forth in the notice has been posted for at least two weeks in the land office of the district in which the land is situated, and has been published in at least one newspaper in that district; and the printing and publication of the notice shall be made in such manner as is determined by the Governor in Council.
2. It shall also be the duty of the agent to have such notice promptly posted in each of the offices of the sub-agents in his district.


George Eulas Foster: What has been the time of notice so far?


Frank Oliver: Until some months ago, it has not been the practice to give notice. But, on the discussion of the Bill last year, it seemed to be the view of the House that notice should be given, and since then we have made provision for notice as in this case. I think the notice now is given according to these printed regulations. I cannot say whether it is ten days or two weeks, but it is approximately the same as in the Bill.


John Herron: Does the Minister think two weeks notice sufficient?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


John Herron: To what area would that apply-township or portion of a township?


Frank Oliver: Township or fractional township.


Richard Stuart Lake: I think there should be wide publication of this notice. The section provides for publication in one newspaper in the district. I suppose that means land district?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Richard Stuart Lake: The land districts are extensive, and I think it would be better to have publication in a number of newspapers, especially those nearest to the land in the case that it is to be thrown open to homestead entry.


Frank Oliver: Would it meet the hon. gentleman's view to alter it to read ' one or more newspapers ' ? But there may be districts in which not more than one newspaper is published. In fact, we propose to 354J
have a district in which, up to the present time, there is no newspaper at all.


Samuel Hughes: Provide for publication in a newspaper in the capital of the province in which the land is, as well as in a newspaper in the district.


William Findlay Maclean: Make it at least three of the nearest newspapers in the district.


Frank Oliver: All right. But, in that case, two newspapers might be published in the same place and that would be no advantage.


William James Roche: I do not think that sufficient notice is provided for here. Take, for instance, Marquette and Dauphin constituencies. There is only one land agency, and it is north of the Riding Mountains in the town of Dauphin. There are two papers published in that town, but tlie people south of the mountain never see these papers. If notice were published in the post offices of the district, that would bring it more prominently before the people. To publish it in one or two newspapers in the nearest place, perhaps two in the same town and another in a neighbouring town, would not reach the district as a whole.
Mr. SCHAFFNER, I would suggest publication in the capital ot' the province in which the lands are situated, as the Winnipeg, Regina or Edmonton papers are taken everywhere in the west.


Frank Oliver: I am willing to accept the suggestion to publish in one newspaper in the land district and another in the capital of the province.


Mr. TURRIFF.: One or more.


Frank Oliver: There is no restriction on the number in which we may publish it.


George Eulas Foster: Information that a certain township is to be opened may be received by parties who have been keeping track of the lands and they may get in their entries. With only two weeks' notice in the land office of the district and an advertisement in one newspaper, which perhaps would not be circulated in the district before the date for receiving entries, there surely would not be sufficient notice and publicity. I do not think the minister could err on the side of giving extensive notice so that all parties interested may be aware of the opening. The necessity for full notice will become more urgent as the entry areas become more remote and of less extent.


Frank Oliver: I am agreeable to providing the fullest notice, but already we see considerable difficulty in putting these requirements in statutory form. I think that posting of the notice in the land office and the subland agencies is really the best

notice we can give, because the man who is looking for the land will keep in touch with the agency or subagency.


George Eulas Foster: The post office notice is cheap and easily arranged.


Frank Oliver: If it is laid down in the statute that notice is to he posted in the post offices it is very necessary that the conditions should be such that the notice shall appear there. A land district contains a great many post offices, the mail communication to some of these offices may be only weekly or by-weekly, and the routes may be such that letters would be two weeks in reaching them, and if you impose the burden of giving notice in all the post offices of the district in the terms of the statute, then every man interested is entitled to depend on the notice appearing in the post offices. The postmaster may or may not post up the notice even if it is sent


George Eulas Foster: Your officer can send the notices and the Postmaster General can issue general instructions to bis postmasters that they shall post them.


Frank Oliver: If we say in the statute that a notice will appear in the post offices we must take measures to see that it shall certainly appear. There are no such measures that I am aware of possible so far as this Act is concerned. The issuing of orders by the Postmaster General to post notices in accordance with this Act is beyond the jurisdiction of parliament, and if we insert such a provision in this Act we must ensure compliance with it, or we are liable to mislead the public.


John Herron: Two weeks' notice seems to me to be insufficient ; I would say 00 days, and if the notice is published in the post offices and the subagencies nearest where the land is located it would be quite sufficient. I do not consider the land office a very prominent place to advertise anything even in the way of land ; I think the post office is a far more conspicuous way of advertising and for that reason I would suggest 00 days at least.


Mr. WILBERT McINTYRE.: I would suggest to the committee, in order to give the fullest information, that the advertisement be inserted in one of the Winnipeg papers, because the land seekers generally stay at hotels and the Winnipeg papers are almost always to be found in the hotels.


William James Roche: 
Mr. BURROWS.: I quite agree with the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche), who said that it was a good thing to have ample publicity in the ease of opening up new land for settlement. In the northwestern portion of Manitoba this land is situated in the Dauphin land district, and there is a sub-agent at Swan river. All the land that is left to be surveyed is in the district of Swan river. I do not think there is any land in the county which the hon. member for Marquette represents that is left to be surveyed. There is nothing left unsurveyed except that which is in the timber area.


William James Roche: May it not be that some, persons living in Marquette might want to secure land in the Swan river district?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Yes, but we have a land agent at Swan river, in the only district in which it is likely there will be any further land surveyed.


Richard Stuart Lake: I think it might be taken for granted that if the notices were sent to postmasters, ninety-nine out of every hundred would put them up. Considering the difficulty that the minister has pointed out, I think it would be sufficient that there should be a provision that the notices should be sent to the different post offices. I think that if the minister would kindly hold this section and suggest an amendment which would provide for fuller publicity it would be a good thing. I think two weeks is too short, and that a notice of at least one month or more would not be any detriment, but would be for the public benefit.


Robert Laird Borden: If you provide that land shall not be opened until notices are posted up in the post offices it will be the duty of the minister to send these out and see that they are posted up, otherwise the land will not be legally open for entry. Therefore, I think that the suggestion of my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) is the better one ; that is, to make a dis-

tinct provision as to the publication in certain newspapers and another provision as to sending notices to the post offices without imposing on the minister any obligation to see that they are posted up. X would suggest that the word ' and ' in the third line should be changed. The sentence would express the idea better and doubtless remove a misapprehension if you were to strike out the word ' and ' and insert the words ' nor until.'


Frank Oliver: Yes. Is it understood that there is to be an advertisement in a newspaper published in the provincial capital?


John Herron: I would suggest that it should be published in the ' Official Gazette.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.
Mr. OLIA'ER. Shall we allow thirty days' notice instead of two weeks?


Richard Stuart Lake: Thirty days.


Frank Oliver: All right.


Robert Laird Borden: Are considerable quantities of land opened at the same time or does it vary?


Mr OLIVER.: It varies greatly. Just as soon as the plans are completed in the surveyor's office they are sent out. Until the plans are completed the land cannot be properly opened for entry.


George Eulas Foster: I think the minister should take into account the very proper suggestion of my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr, Roche). No government should penalize any party in the country, and each oif the parties should have equal notice. The notice should be given in a prominent paper belonging to each party. What reason is there that you should simply allow the Liberal readers of the ' Free Press ' to have the benefit of the notice and not tEe Conservative readers of the ' Telegram ' ?


Frank Oliver: Does my hon. friend propose to embody that provision in the Act?


George Eulas Foster: I propose that which is only a fair, square deal. Does the minister think it is anything else?


Frank Oliver: We are discussing the Act, and I am asking hon. gentlemen if this is something that could go into the Act?


George Eulas Foster: If it is necessary to have a square deal, put it in the Act.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHE'S. I am surprised at my hon. friend from North Toronto. After the next election the ' Telegram ' will have the publication of it.


Mr. S. J. JACKSON.: There is some objection to having the time extended from two weeks to thirty days. In our part of
the country when a township is being surveyed the settlers are waiting anxiously to have that land thrown open, and it is just keeping them out of their homestead a little longer without any benefit to any one as far as I can see.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, the object of the thirty days' notice is that a sufficient number of people may be made acquainted with the fact that the land is open. If a shorter period of time is sufficient, well and good ; but would a shorter period of time be sufficient?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: It would probably differ in different parts of the country. We have a very rough country compared with the west, and the surveyor may be employed three months in surveying two or three townships. The settlers are all aware of the survey being made and they are waiting to get their entries in.


Samuel Hughes: A great many of the homesteaders follow along after the surveys, aDd when these surveys have been completed they have their land picked out. Here is a man who spends his time and money following the survey, and by making it necessary to give thirty days' notice you deprive that man of the benefit of his energy and outlay in following tne survey.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I think two weeks would be long enough.


Samuel Hughes: I would say three weeks. It would be fair to every one.


Frank Oliver: Once the survey lines are run upon the ground the man who wants to settle knows where the land is, and knows whether any certain parcel of land in the survey will suit him or not. It is a long time, possibly after the lines are run on the ground, before the plans are approved by the Surveyor General, or before a legal entry could be made. During that time any man may go upon that land, squat and wait for the time when the land will be open for entry.


Samuel Hughes: Not under this law now.
Mr. OLIVER, Our law does not provide for it. It is outside of the law. It is not part of our policy to put a man off public land when it is not reserved. Therefore, a person who wants a piece of land, the lines of which ate surveyed, goes and squats upon it. The longer you keep the land from entry the more chances there are for people to squat upon it, to take occupation without entry, and the more likely will be the complications when people who depend simply upon the registration of the plans make entry for the land. I am not suggesting that there should not be a reasonable length of time for notice, but I think two w'eeks is as long as we ought to give. Otherwise we are putting a premium upon

the squatting upon land which, in our administration, we find one of the most unfortunate things that we have to deal with. The worst complications arise from men who have squatted after survey but before they are entitled to entry.


Samuel Hughes: I thought you provided against that?


Frank Oliver: No. Our purpose in surveying land is to get people to go on it, and if a man goes on without the formality of getting his entry it is no reason why we should reject him unless the land is reserved.


Richard Stuart Lake: What is the usual lapse of time betwen the actual survey and the approval of the survey?


Frank Oliver: It is impossible to say. A surveyor cannot possibly plot his survey until he concludes surveying, so that the lines he ran in May are probably not approved by the surveyor general until the following May and the lines he ran in November are possibly approved at the same time.


Richard Stuart Lake: The time which elapses is very considerable any way and the additional fortnight is not likely to create any particular inconvenience and it will have the advantage of giving full publicity. I would like to see it a month.
Mr. OLIA7ER. I think two weeks is sufficient.


Richard Stuart Lake: If it is two weeks clear notice to all parts of the district and not merely from the first publication at the land office it would be sufficient.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Everybody will have notice in Alay if it is understood all the surveys will be approved at that time.


William James Roche: If application is made for land which has not been thrown open for homestead entry and the land agent receives that application, then if the land is thrown open for homestead entry would that applicant have priority? Or is it the intention of the government only to give the land to the first applicant who personally appears at the land office after the land is thrown open?


Frank Oliver: The regulations provide :
An application made either in person or in writing for vacant land not then available or land in reserve or land not available for any other reason will not give the applicant any prior right with respect to such land in the event of it becoming available.


William James Roche: Would it not be wise to inform the land agents not to accept applications until the land is thrown open? A great many people have been fooled in the past because they made application to the land agent with the idea they were to be notified, and the verv day after the lands were thrown open they found
Mr. OLIVER
some one had appeared in person and got the land.


Frank Oliver: This is a very important point. For a long time priority of application, no matter under what circumstances it was made, was always considered when the land became available. That is right theoretically but it became unworkable in practice. We found that men who made applications had left the country, and yet they had to be huuted up and notified and the man at the counter was wearied out of his desire before a conclusion could be reached. The worst feature of it was that people got the idea that they were being humbugged by the land officials on the plea of a prior application; to avoid that the provision I have read was made on October 1, 1907. We cut out all prior applications and all land agents were notified accordingly. But, on account of its being a radical change from the previous system, no doubt many people are not aware of it although we have published and circulated many thousand copies of these regulations. We found the best way was to reject the application until the land became available and then give it to the man at the counter.


Samuel Hughes: As to occupying land after survey and before the survey is confirmed by the surveyor general, subsection 2 of the regulations provides :
1 he occupation of land after the survey thereof without entry, as provided by this Act, gives to the occupant no right thereto. The occupier may be ejected as a trespasser and his improvements forfeited to the Crown.


Air. DUNCAN ROSS.: It is quite true there has been considerable difficulty, and particularly in the railway belt of British Columbia, in regard to these prior applications. It is also true that under the new regulations the same difficulty arises and I am rather inclined to agree with the member for Marquette that the land agent should be instructed to refuse the application unless the land be actually open for settlement. If the land is not open for settlement the applicant thinks his application is placed on file and when he finds that some one else gets the land, trouble arises. The only way to obviate that is to refuse to take the application until the land is open to settlement.


Frank Oliver: The agents have very definite instructions on that point. However, such a radical change of procedure naturally causes confusion until it is well understood.


William James Roche: The present regulations are open to grave abuses, and abuses have occurred under them. Some favoured individuals have been notified in advance either by the homestead inspector or land agent that on a certain date the land would be open for entry and they have been early on the spot and got priority, whereas the other applicants who have filed their appli-

cations witli tlie same land agent before the lands were open were passed over. Therefore they claimed that they were unfairly dealt with. I can easily see that under the present system the land agent or the homestead inspector could give an advantage to certain favoured parties over their competitors.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: As I understand, priority of application entitles a man to the homestead. In my district I have had a great deal of trouble in the last few years in trying to settle disputes between men who have been the first applicants and men who have squatted on the land. I think that the man who goes on the land with his family and puts up a house ought to get the quarter section, whether the land has been surveyed or not.


Mr. LANCASTER.: If you give the squatter the right over anybody else, how will you ever prevail on him to take out his patent ? Will he not he content to rely on that special privilege and never perfect his title, as he ought ?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I would like to see the actual settler who squats on the land get some rights.


Wilbert McIntyre: If we are going to give the squatter after survey the right to settle before the time of the official notification has expired, what is the use of going to any trouble in regard to the official notification ? Why do we say that after a certain time a man shall have no right if a man can go on the land after it is surveyed and establish a vested right ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: I think this discussion is not at all necessary, because the applicant has to make an affidavit to the effect that no one is residing on the said land. If there is anybody on the land at the time, he cannot make his entry until that man's title is investigated.
Section 7 allowed to stand.
On section 8-entry for homestead-as to mineral and water rights.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: The words in that section, ' that are not reserved ' seem to me to be rather broad. I do not know under what circumstances the land would be reserved. The words place a great deal of power in the hands of the minister. I pointed out the same thing last session. At the same time I asked for a certain reservation to be made. The minister says he took heed to representations made by the hon. member for North Toronto, and I hope he has listened to those made by other members on this side of the House. The reservation I asked to be made at that time was for the purpose of encouraging
higher education. I pointed out what had been done in certain states of the union, and why it had been done. I can see no good to be gained by repeating what I said then, except to say that this was done iu . the province of Manitoba in 1885. In 48-49 Victoria, chapter 50, section 2, of the statutes of Canada, this clause is to he found :
An allotment of land, not exceeding one hundred and fifty thousand acres, of fair average quality, shall be selected by the Dominion government and granted as an endowment to the University of Manitoba for its maintenance as a university capable of giving proper training in the higher branches of education, and to be held in trust for that purpose upon some basis or scheme to be framed by the university and approved by the Dominion government.
I think I suggested that provision should be made for the encouragement of education in the mechanical arts. I would like the minister to inform me if he has considered the desirability of making some reservation for the purpose, and what powers he considers he would have under the words ' that are not reserved.'


Frank Oliver: It seems to me that the words of the section say what they mean and can mean only what they say :
All unoccupied surveyed agricultural lands to which this Act applies that are not reserved or that have not been disposed oi shall be open to entry for homestead.
That contemplates the possibility of a reservation of some of these lands. The power of reservation is contained in section 76 and section 80. It is laid down plainly that the Governor in council has certain powers of reservation and of granting titles for certain purposes. The Minister of the Interior under section 80 also has the right to make reservations for certain purposes there specified, and to withdraw any reservation upon it being considered to be not further necessary. Perhaps these are not powers properly placed in the hands of the Governor in council or the minister, but I cannot see what fault there is to be found with the wording of this section ? It provides that lands which are under reserve shall not be open to homesteading ? It seems to me nothing could be more clear or necessary. As to the proposal to reserve lands for the purposes of higher education, that is a question of government policy, which must be left to the decision of the First Minister.
(Mr. SAM. HUGHES. This would be a very proper place in which to insert the little clause to which I drew the hon. minister's attention some time ago :
In every land office and sub-land office there shall be 'open for public inspection, during regular office hours, maps or plans of each

township, on a sufficiently large scale, showing what quarter-sections are entered for homestead or pre-emption or otherwise disposed of, or against which cancellations are entered, with the names of the sections and the date of each entry.


Frank Oliver: That same point was up for consideration when the Bill was considered last year, and I think it is provided somewhere in the Bill, that on application anybody may obtain an abstract of title with regard to any homestead. On page 7, paragraph 7 of the Bill, there is a clause providing for the giving of an abstract which I have mentioned.


Richard Stuart Lake: A man can go in and examine the map himself ?


Frank Oliver: The instructions say that the agents shall keep the maps on the wall so that tlie entries from day to day shall show on that map. and besides the applicant must, on application, be given up to three townships diagrams which he can carry away with him, showing the entries to date upon the three townships ; besides, if he wants particulars with regard to any homestead, he can get them on payment of a fee of twenty-five cents, so that there is every opportunity to secure the information.


John Herron: I would urge the minister to consider the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. McCarthy) to set apart a portion of the land for assisting in higher education. That has been done in the western states to the great advantage of the people. That was one of the best amendments they made to their land law, and I do not see why it would not have the same effect here. Suppose you were to set apart one section or two half sections, the day will come when that will be very valuable, and the people will get the benefit at a time perhaps when it would be very much needed.


Frank Oliver: The subject referred to is no doubt very important but it does not appertain to legislation regarding the administration of public land. It is a question of government policy, the announcement of which must necessarily be made by the first minister.


William Findlay Maclean: As the minister is representing that western country, lie should make representations on behalf of the scheme proposed to his colleagues. The beginning of the University of Toronto, which has now an income of seven hundred thousand dollars to one million dollars, was a land grant in the early history of that province. While I agree with the minister that the matter does not come within this particular measure before the House, still it is well to impress on him the advisability of taking some steps at an early date to secure some provision for the establishment of a university in the western provinces. Mr. SAM. HUGHES.


Richard Stuart Lake: Have there been applications to the minister for grants of land for university purposes ? I am under the impression that the Legislative Assembly of the Northtwest Territories, several years back, made application for the reservation of a land grant, and they regretted that they could not deal with the lands themselves, because they would have set aside a considerable grant for the carrying on of a university.


Frank Oliver: I cannot recall that I have had any application ? At any rate, as I have already said, applications would not properly be addressed to me, but rather to the head of the government, because this is a matter of government policy and not a matter of departmental administration.


William Findlay Maclean: Would it not be too late if we are now disposing of all lands that remain ?


Duncan Ross: If the hon. member (Mr. W. F. Maclean) will allow me, we are taking authority under section 76 to-
Set apart and appropriate lands for the sites of places of public worship, burial grounds, schools and benevolent institutions and for other public purposes.
This will become a question of policy on the part of the government, and the government can carry it out under this section of the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: That would not give the authority. ' Other public purposes ' would be considered to be public purposes of a similar character.


William Findlay Maclean: What we are suggesting is some kind of endowment or gratuity.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Could we not deal with it when we come to section 76 ?


Frank Oliver: I do not think this is a matter that can properly come under the provisions of this Act. It would be a matter of government policy to be properly dealt wuth in a separate Act, just as the question of land grants to South African \olunteers is dealt with in a separate Act as a matter of government policv. While my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has said that we are disposing of these lands, we expect it will be many years before they are disposed of. We are only making provision that they shall be disposed of under certain conditions, that is all.


Richard Stuart Lake: Has the minister not decided to define^ what ' agricultural lands ' means in this case ?


Frank Oliver: I think we had that discussion last year, and I would prefer to be excused from providing a definition. I -would be willing to accept a definition that

would meet the case. I have made some little search for a form of words that would be suitable, and I have not been able to find one that would convey the idea satisfactorily to my own mind. Therefore, X had very little hope of placing the matter successfully before the House.


John Herron: As to the other portions of section 8, why should not the settler have the privilege of purchasing these mineral rights ? Why should he not have the right of first application for these minerals on his homestead ? That has been a very serious question in our country, and I think the minister has had a policy on that subject in the past.


Frank Oliver: I am very willing to give the homesteader that priority as a matter of administration, so far as it can be done without prejudicing the development of these natural resources. But I fear very much that it is not possible to provide in the statute to give the homesteader the priority my hon. friend suggests without making it possible to use that power for the purpose rather of tying up these resources instead of securing their development, which, I believe, is what every one is anxious to see. As a matter of administration, we may be able, under certain conditions, to give priority to the homesteaders in this matter, but if we find that this priority is being used to prevent the development of natural resources, we are in a position to withdraw the privilege ; but if it is made statutory it cannot be withdrawn, and, forthwith, it can be speculated upon, and, I think, would probably result in very grave abuses. At any rate, that is the view that has been taken of that matter in times past, and, as human nature has not changed much in all these thousands of years, it seems reasonable to suppose that what was true twenty years ago is probably true to-day and not unlikely to be true twenty years hence.


Mr. BLAIN.: This is a matter that has received great attention in the province of Ontario in respect of the lands in the northern part of the province. For many years the pine timber was reserved and could not be cut by the homesteader, and the mineral rights were reserved also. During the last three years and a half, this has been entirely changed. Now, when the land goes to the settler, he gets possession of everything-the right to cut the timber and the right to control the minerals. I rather think the minister would be doing the best thing if he would put a clause of that kind in the Act and allow the settler to control everyhing on his land. The subject 'was debated fully in Ontario for many years. One party on one side and the other party objecting, but I believe that at this time
in the province, both side of politics and everybody interested in the development of northern Ontario will agree in the policy now in force.


Frank Oliver: In this Bill I am not introducing any more radical measure than experience has demonstrated to be necessary and advisable. I am working it out as much in line with past conditions and past legislation as it has seemed to me the circumstances would fairly admit. Now, I am not, for one moment, going to argue against the view expressed by my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) ; it is in line with my own personal sentiment, and is much in line with our administration so far as we are at liberty to deal with such matters. But it is an absolute reversal of the principles that have hitherto prevailed. And it is within the knowledge of my hon. friend that I have had considerable difficulty in bringing this measure so far as I have brought it, in regard to the question or the part of it which seems to be the most important, without loading it with other and new questions which would be, of course, controversial and would render more difficult our arriving at the point that I want to arrive at

that is the disposition of the odd-numbered sections and the provisions in regard to the construction of the Hudson Bay Railway. As to the example of the province of Ontario, I shall not allude to the difference in the conditions prevailing in the new part of Ontario as compared with the west. I will simply say that I would like to have the advantage of the operation of his new principle which has been adopted in Ontario, for some little time so that we would be thoroughly aware of its merits before advocating its adoption in our territories in the west. There are manv points in it which anneal very strongly but it is something new. it is something radical : Ontario has seen fit to make the experiment and we will be glad to see its results before adopting it.


John Herron: We have had examples in the west of the effect of having companies own all the coal lands. During the coal famine a year ago last winter there were coal mines which had been owned by private companies for many years but which were not being operated at the time of the coal famine. The companies put men on to guard the mines to prevent people taking out coal for themselves. Consequently' hundreds of men had to haul coal 15 miles when they could have dug it at their own doors or a few miles away. That is one of the hardships that come from corporations having control of all this mineral, especially coal. They do not always develop their properties in such a way as to be to the advantage of settlers. A companv controlling a mine will not supply a small community because it is not worth while to do so on account of

their large operations, and therefore the settler is prevented from securing his supply of coal. I believe the settler should have the privilege of buying at least a small quantity of coal when it is discovered on his homestead.
On section 7-provisions for homesteading.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. In subsection 3 I notice that under the Bill as introduced last year the minister reserved to himself the right to make the reservation for a minor. Now that lapparently has been given to the land agent. __
Mr. OLIVER We have tried to set out in explicit terms what we might consider the rights of a minor so that it can be decided whether a given case is a proper one to grant the reservation. In fact we remove it practically from any decision. The agent merely has to decide on the question of fact, and after the evidence is given on these questions of fact there seems to be no reason why the matter should be referred to the minister.


William D. Staples: What does the minister mean by saying that when there are not 160 acres of laud in the particular parcel he can allow the applicant to take adjacent land to make up the necessary quantity ? Is it where there is a lake on a particular quarter-section ?


Frank Oliver: There might be such a case. This is not a new provision but it is merely carrying forward a provision that, has been in the Act for many years.


William D. Staples: Supposing there were twenty or thirty acres short, would you cut it out of an adjoining quarter-section or where would you take it from?


Frank Oliver: It is a matter of permission and we would not allow it to be taken unless it were advisable to do so. Supposing it was thirty acres short and it could be taken to advantage, we allow say forty acres to be taken from the adjoining home stead and charge the homesteader with the difference between his homestead and the balance. But we do not need to give permission at all.


William D. Staples: If a person has purchased 160 acres and, owing to climatic conditions and drainage, thirty or forty acres of that land which were formerly under a lake are now dry, by what procedure would he be able to get that quantity of land so described from the government?


Frank Oliver: If the land formed part of the quarter-section upon which he had homesteaded there would be no serious proceedings. He would state the fact to the land agent and apply to add the area to his homestead free. It he only had a homestead of seventy-five acres and the balance Mr. HERRON.
of the section were under a lake and the lake dried up, I think that he would be entitled to claim the balance of the quarter-section free.


William D. Staples: That is as far as a homesteader is concerned, but how would it be as far as a purchaser is concerned?


Frank Oliver: We do not sell land which is under a lake until the lake dries up. But when it has dried up it is in our discretion to sell to the man owning the adjoining land if he desires to buy. We have to be governed by circumstances, but as a rule we meet with no complications in this regard.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I would like to call the attention of the minister to the fourth line of subsection 3 of section 9. Would not the same rights supposing a minor lived with his father who had bought agricultural land? Why hold the land for the son of the homesteader and allow him to make a homestead entry and not allow a man who purchased land the same privilege?


Frank Oliver: Would my hon. friend read the next two lines?


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: I was under the impression that in order to get the 160 acres he would have to be living with his father or some relative on a homestead.


Frank Oliver: No, he may live on purchased land, but the purchased land must not be less than eighty acres.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eifht o'c'.o k.
On section 10-rights of parsons settling on lands before surveys.


John Herron: If a man has already obtained a homestead in some other portion of the country and has had his patent he is eligible for a pre-emption. Suppose he went into the pre-emption belt and entered for a homestead would he have to reside six years before he obtained a patent ?


Frank Oliver: No. He had to reside three years on his first homestead in order to get a patent and he has to leave that and reside on his new or purchased homestead in order to get a patent for that. His residence on the two separated quarter-sections is the same as is required of the other settler who is able to take a homestead and pre-emption together and who must put in six years on his homestead in order to get a patent for both homestead and pre-emption.


John Herron: Suppose a man wanted to purchase a pre-emption without having a homestead, does he have to reside more than three years ?


Frank Oliver: I cannot imagine the case of a roan who having an opportunity to take 160 acres free would wish to pay for ICO acres. If there is such a man and lie should apply I think I can assure my hon. friend he will have an opportunity to earn his land and that he will only have to spend the three years upon it if he only wants one quarter-section.
Mr. HEItRON. People do strange things in connection with land, and the minister has to provide for very peculiar cases in a land bill. Some will buy land on the top of a mountain, while you could not give it away to other men.


Frank Oliver: The principle may be very well accepted that we will not give a patent for a quarter-section to a settler short of three years' residence whether the homestead is free or purchased. If he wants two quarter-sections, whether one of them be free or not, it will require three years in each case and the two pei'iods of residence run consecutively and not concurrently.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: This clause provides for a squatter on agricultural land, but what are you going to do with a squatter on land that is not agricultural? For instance, men have gone to Fort Churchill in the last three or four years with the manifest object of squatting on non-agricultural land for the purpose of getting a homestead entry and with the object of speculation. What is the minister going to do in a case of that kind?


Frank Oliver: Each case would have to rest upon its merits. The case of a man who occupies before survey or reservation would depend very greatly on the circumstances surrounding the settlement. If he had settled bona fide, if he had entered into extensive business, if his residence meant a substantial acquisition to the development and general welfare of the country, we might consider his case differently from that of a man who simply went there and put up a building for the purpose of acquiring title to the land. There is no law which would give that man any particular area of land and he would, therefore, be at the discretion of the department, whereas in the case of agricultural land he would be entitled to 160 acres.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: I know that parties have gone to Fort Churchill and settled on lands there in the hope that it may become of value as a town site in the future. I do not think under the circumstances of that kind such parties should get a patent.


Wilbert McIntyre: Does the residence of a squatter prior to survey count ?


Frank Oliver: It has been the practice of the department for many years to al'ow
residence performed before survey in earning the patent.
On section 11-Application for entry.


Richard Stuart Lake: According to this clause the acceptance by the agent of the fee gives the applicant a right to the homestead. Cases have occurred in which the man whose fee has been accepted has been subsequently dispossessed. I do not know whether the law was formerly what it is proposed to be under this Bill or not, but I would like to know what the policy of the minister would be in such cases.


Frank Oliver: There is no change in policy or in principle made in the law by this section. There is some change in the wording,' with the object of making it clear that a man who has paid his $10 and has got his receipt is the owner of the homestead against all the rest of the world except the government. I do not know what my hon. friend alludes to when he speaks of homsteaders having been dispossessed. Of course, until the patent is issued to a settler the government retains its interest and its right to the homestead, subject to the settler fulfilling the required conditions. If the conditions are not fulfilled, the settler may be dispossessed by the government ; but no other person has a right to dispossess a settler under the law' as it has been or under the law as we propose that it shall be.


Richard Stuart Lake: Oases have been brought to my notice in which the man who made his entry and obtained bis receipt was subsequently informed by the agent, after he had made preparations to go on to his land, and, in one case, after he had been for some time on his land, that a mistake had been made and that somebody else had a prior right to the homestead, and on that ground he was dispossessed. One case has recently been brought to my attention, into which the department is now inquiring, in which the man got the receipt for his money, went on to the land and is at present living on it ; and, so far as I can understand, the position of the department is that somebody who has never been on the land has the rightful entry to it.


Frank Oliver: Of course, mistakes may occur, even in the best regulated families, and it is quite evident that if the department issues two receipts in respect of the same land one of the parties who hold those receipts must fail in obtaining possession. But so far as the government is concerned, its right to the land does not pass until the patent has been issued ; but the payment of $10 and the possession of the receipt gives the holder the right to the land against everybody else except the government.


Richard Stuart Lake: It would seem to be impossible. if the books are properly kept,

that two receipts should be issued inadvertently for the same land. Then I take the minister's position to be that in a case of that sort the first receipt that is issued has priority and entities the holder to the land so long as he performs the duties.


Frank Oliver: There may be many cases of a man acquiring a homestead receipt improperly. I cannot go over the instances that might occur. Every case would have to rest upon its own merits. I cannot say that the man who holds the receipt of prior date has necessarily the right to the homestead. I could not say which would have the right unless and until I knew the circumstances of each case.


Richard Stuart Lake: If the man has improperly obtained the receipt, I thoroughly understand that that would affect his claim ; but if a man has the receipt and is entitled to make the entry, he should have the prior right to the land. That, I take from the minister's explanation, is the law and the intent of this section.


John Gillanders Turriff: I might point out that in some cases the man who got the entry first and got the receipt would not be entitled to the land. lie might be quite innocent. He goes to the land office and makes a homestead entry for a certain quarter-section, believing it to be vacant. He has not seen the land himself ; he has been given the information by somebody else ; but when he comes to take possession, he finds that a man has resided on the land and has made large improvements without having made entry. Take the case of a man who got his entry receipt and had to be told that he had given wrong information, possibly innocent, and that the entry had to be cancelled. In most cases where there is trouble between two men over an entry, it is where a homestead entry has been cancelled on wrong information ; and after the entry is cancelled, it sometimes transpires that the original entrant was not in default at all, that the entry was cancelled in error, and on evidence given by the man who afterward made the second entry. In that case the second man has to be notified not to take possession, or to give up possession, and the original entrant is put back into possession. A great many cases arise in the working out of the Act where trouble comes between two men looking after the same quarter-section. Until one has had some experience one would hardly believe the number of circumstances that will arise and make trouble, and that without any wrong intention.


Richard Stuart Lake: A false statement might be made by inadvertence or deliberately, but the first man who gets his receipt has the absolute right to the land and nothing can dispossess him unless there has been error as has been suggested Mr. LAKE.


Frank Oliver: That is the intention, and the change in the wording is to make that as clear as possible.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: I take it, from subsection 7, that it is intended to furnish an abstract, adopting the suggestion made last session, and to have the -title to the homestead in the possession of the man just as he has a title to his property in a registry office. Section 7 provides that the name of the party who made the entry for the homestead shall be given, and the date upon which he made that entry and the date upon which the cancellation notice of the entry would expire, or, if a period of extension has been given, the date upon which that would expire. Would it not be well to furnish in that abstract also the name of the party applying for cancellation. My recollection is that the objection urged last year against any such provision, was that it might encourage the jumping of homesteads. If the party applying for the cancellation of a homestead knew that the original entrant would go to the land office and find out who it was that was trying to cancel his homestead, it would do away with that practice to a considerable extent. I make the suggestion that the abstract furnished at the land office should also disclose the name of the person applying to cancel the homestead. Another evil it might overcome is this. I suppose there is nothing to prevent a man who has applied to cancel a homestead, from withdrawing his application. If he did, I presume the original entrant would hold his right until some one else came along and applied to cancel. If a man withdraws an application to cancel, no proceedings are taken until some one else applies. If the name were given, that would prevent a man who was holding a homestead entry from getting some one to make application to cancel and then have it withdrawn.


Frank Oliver: This provision has been enforced by regulation for the past seven or eight months. The reason for not putting in the name is that cases of cancellation become very personal in their character and we do not think it advisable to intensify that disposition by furnishing the name of the applicant for cancellation. It would then become matter of public notoriety in the neighbourhood that so and so had applied to cancel another man's land, but so long as the name is not given, no one will have official authority for saying it was so and so who made the application to cancel. Regarding the course followed when an application to cancel is withdrawn, under the regulations the proceedings are dropped provided it has been shown that the entrant is in good standing; but if it has been shown that he is not, then the proceedings for cancellation are continued, and the homestead entry is cancelled although the application is withdrawn. This is to prevent collusion,

so that when a num applies to cancel, there is no advantage gained by his dropping out of the cancellation proceedings, should, the entrant not be in good standing.


Herbert Brown Ames: Which class of applications receives first consideration-the application to homestead or the application to purchase surface rights on a coal area? Suppose on the same day there are two applications- one for a homestead, and the other to purchase the same quarter-section as a coa/1 area, which would be regarded as having the prior claim?


Frank Oliver: So far as I know, if both were equal in date, the homestead application would have priority.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is that the practice of the department-that the homesteader is given advantage over the man who purchased land for coal purposes ?.


Frank Oliver: 
Richard Stuart Lake: With reference to the point brought up by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) and the minister's reply that he thought it not advisable to give the names of persons who had put in applications for cancellation, there is one point that the minister has omitted to consider, and that is that bogus applications for cancellation are put in to hold off the genuine applicant. I have been in communication with the commissioner of the Dominion lands with relation to one case that has come to my notice. A certain man has been applying for the cancellation of a homestead for three years past, but the department has been constantly giving extensions of time to the homesteader. I have half a dozen affidavits to the effect that the man in whose name the homestead entry was given has never been in the Northwest at all and that all the applications for extensions of time are bogus applications. In fact, the papers were brought down and the affidavits and declarations of the work done on the homestead did not agree although made within a very short space of time before the same person. A neighbour on the spot, who knew perfectly well the man in whose name the entry stood was not there and had not fulfilled the conditions, applied to have the entry cancelled. At the expiration of every extension given by the department he has put in a new application for coneellation. He was not
a very well-informed man and thought that was sufficient. The only result, however, was that a further extension was given to the man holding the entry. I took up the case with the Commissioner of Dominion lands and for the first time I learned the name of the person who was supposed to have the first application for cancellation against this land, an application made several years ago. I sent the name to my correspondent in the locality and he sends me an affidavit from the head of the colony -it was a Jew colony-stating that he does not know the person, and that such a person, to the best of his knowledge and belief, has never been in the colony at all. Further Information, though not supported by oath, is that the person in whose name the application is made has never been in this country and is now residing in Russia. So, the man who has put in all the applications for cancellation as each extension of time expired has been kept out of his rights to have the land when the land was cancelled because there was a bogus application in ahead of him. And he was never able to offer any evidence to show that the man whose application was in was not in the country because he did not know his name. It might very well happen in another case, that an applicant for cancellation had, subsequently to his application, secured another homestead entry. 1 think that in that case, and in any of the cases that have come to my knowledge it would be a proper thing for the department to be perfectly open and to give to the person who applies for information the facts not only as to the date on which application for cancellation was made, but also the party who made the application.


Frank Oliver: Of course, the case the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lake) has mentioned supports his argument very well, but it is certainly a very extreme case and I cannot understand how it can occur if the regulations are observed by the officers of the department. It is here as plain as print can make it, page 8 of the regulations, and appearing first in the edition of last October that :
Application for cancellation of entry of a homesteader in default must be made in person at the land agency of the district within which the land is situated or at the office of a sub-agent authorized to transact business for the district.
So, under these regulations, an application by a person resident in Russia, of course, was no application at all, and has no standing before the department.


Richard Stuart Lake: But what was the regulation in force some years ago ?


Frank Oliver: There is no doubt that there was a good deal of abuse some years ago in the matter of cancellation. In the sudden rush for land in the rapid increase

of settlement there occurred change of conditions that had to he met by change of regulation. Until recently, there was very little question as to an application for cancellation, and there is no doubt that many abuses occurred in that way. But of late we have been very successful and have restricted the right to cancel. If my hon. friend will read the provisions in the regulation following the one I have read, he will find that only a man who is entitled to make entry is entitled to apply for cancellation, and he, as I have said, must apply in person. It seems to me that there is very little room-in fact, no room-for the conditions my hon. friend has stated, which conditions I am aware did exist some years ago, but which, if they exist to-day, are in direct contravention of the plain wording of our regulations, and the agent guilty of permitting that condition of things is liable to severe censure by the department.


Richard Stuart Lake: Let me give some more details of this case. His first application for cancellation was made on October 15, 1905. The answer was that the matter was under consideration. Protection was then given to the 1st of June, 1906. He went on the 1st of June, 1906 to the agent at Regina and was told to come the next day. He wTent again the next day and was refused. There were no improvements and there w7as no one on tlie homestead. On July 2, 1906, he wrote to the department that he had made six applications for cancellation in two years. On July 10 of that year, the agent wrote that the land was not open for inspection. Further leave was then granted to the man who was holding the entry, although I have six affidavits to the effect that he never had been in the Northwest at all. The applicant never knew, even at that time, that there was any one ahead of him in he matter of cancellation and it was only on the papers being brought down in the House that I found the name of the prior claimant for cancellation The record so far show's that the homesteader has never been in the Northwest. I consider that the man who has applied six times and more for cancellation certainly should have his claims considered. Subsequently it seems that the department allowed the lands to be transferred to a brother of the homesteader, but since the brother came into possession of it, he also has failed to fulfil his duties. A new applicant for cancellation has come in in the meantime, so that apparently the person who has stuck to it with such perseverance all through is again going to be done out of his choice of getting his entry. The papers are all in the Department of Dominion Lands, and I would like the minister to consider them and get the case settled at the earliest possible moment. It seems a case of hardship to this man who has complied with the regulations all through.


Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: I am at a loss to see how the question of the prior application to cancel has anything to do with the case. In view of the terms of the regulations and in view of the affidavits my hon. friend speaks of and the statements he has placed before the House, certainly the case seems to be one in which the officials of the department have not been attending to their business properly. I have not a very intimate knowledge of the case, but if my memory serves me rightly very strong representations have been made as to the facts on both sides. The case as my hon. friend has sketched it affords ample evidence of the very brilliant mentality of the race of people who are interested in this particular tract of land. It is a case I am afraid of very hard swearing on both sides, and it is very difficult for the department to decide exactly where it is at. There is a difficulty which I fancy applies in that case and which occasions a great deal of trouble and hard feeling throughout the country ; it is the privilege of the young man to hold land by living with his father instead of on the land. This privilege is accorded by common consent as being to the general advantage of the country, as inducing or encouraging the young men growing up in the country to hold their own land, allowing them to avail themselves of the assistance of their parents in improving the land ; but while that is universally recognized as being a proper and advantageous privilege it has in many instances given rise to complications very much like this. I assume the case my hon friend speaks about includes the father who has a sou who has taken land-in the vicinity of the father's homestead and who assumes to fulfil his duties upon the homestead for which he has entered by residence wi(h his father. That of course puts out of reach the possibility of proving with any effect whether the yonng man ever was on the homestead or not. He never needed to be on the homestead in order to fulfil the duties. If he was with his parents that was sufficient, provided improvements were made on the homestead. When it comes to proving that one member of a certain family has never been in residence with the family, great difficulty is experienced, and the evidence of the family naturally has weight over the evidence or statement of some person outside of the family. If that is the case, and I fancy this is such a case as my hon. friend has in mind, we have accepted the statements or evidence possibly of the father that his son was residing with him, if not to the full extent, at any rate to such an extent as would warrant us in holding the land for the son. Then there is a further privilege that we allow. We allow one member of a family, if his entry is in good standing, to abandon in favour of another member of the family. We do not allow that as be-

tween pepole who are not relatives; the son may abandon in favour of his father or the brother in favour of his brother. In this case I presume it has been represented to us that the young man had resided with his parents and thereby fulfilled his duties on his homestead, that it was not convenient for him to continue and he desired to abandon in favour of his brother.


Richard Stuart Lake: The minister is sketching out the case pretty clearly. The time which was given for this transfer to take place expired and the transfer did not take place until some time afterwards. To my mind when the time had expired, the cancellation should have taken place. Would not the minister think that ?


Frank Oliver: That is true. Cancellations would probably have taken place at that time, but, as I have said, this cross firing in regard to applications for cancellation, unfortunately, in many cases, gets down practically to a family quarrel or a quarrel between two families. In such cases we, as a matter of policy, give consideration to the ostensible effort to keep the family together rather than allow a member of the hostile clan, so to speak, to get in on the preserve of the family whose interest is being contended for. That is the principle upon which we act generally and it is possibly in accordance with that principle that the case which my hon. friend speaks of has arisen. He has stated the case and certainly, on his statement, it is a bad case, but I fancy that the other side is very much as I have stated it, and when it is considered in that light it is not such a very bad case.


Richard Stuart Lake: I am inclined to think that the minister has taken the right position in laying down the general rule that it would be right to keep the family together under such circumstances. But, in doing so he must be careful that injustice is not done to others. He speaks of the possibility of there being a number of false affidavits in this case.


Frank Oliver: No, pardon me I do not wish to suggest that the affidavits are false, but what I said is that there is the very greatest possible difficulty in any person who is not a member of the family being able to swear positively as to the presence or absence of a member of the family.


Richard Stuart Lake: ' Hard swearing ' is the term the minister used. I have here three affidavits all with English names attached to them. One of them is by a man of the very highest character in that neighbourhood. I know him personally to be so and I do not doubt that the others are also, and in these affidavits they make the same statement that the original applicant has never
been in the district. I think the minister knows the case to which I have been referring. Suggestions have been made to me that this is a case in which there might be a prosecution for perjury. But, there are difficulties in the way of starting that prosecution unless the affidavits are forthcoming and in the hands of persons who think they are in position to undertake it.
I do not know in what way the department would facilitate these documents being placed in the hands of persons who might wish to undertake a prosecution, but I think, that if there is any suspicion that false swearing has been going on, the department should facilitate anybody who considers it to be his duty as a citizen to take action against others whom he believes are breaking the law. So much for that side of the case. The minister stated just now that under his reading of the regulations the agent had been doing wrong all along in considering that the original application for cancellation stood as against subsequent applications after the department had adjudicated upon the case.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Richard Stuart Lake: As I read his own regulations I take it that after the department adjudicates on the case and gives an extension of time the original application for cancellation still holds good as against all other applications and then at the expiration of the time, if the department again reconsiders the case and gives a further extension of time, the original applicant for cancellation still has priority.


Frank Oliver: That is correct provided the original application for cancellation was made as required by the regulations in person and that the person who made the application for cancellation was eligible for homestead entry.


Richard Stuart Lake: If it should be proved in this case that the person did not make the application in person, then, I presume, the other applicant to whom I have been referring, who made the application subsequent to him would be in good standing at the present time.


Frank Oliver: Undoubtedly, as I interpret the regulations.


David Henderson: What steps does the department take to ascertain if an applicant for cancellation is eligible ? Does the department simply allow a man to make an application for cancellation without furnishing proof that he is eligible as a homesteader ?


Frank Oliver: I do not know that he is required to make any affidavit at the time of filing his application for cancellation, but he has to make a statement, and unless his

statement is true the application is of noneffect.


David Henderson: Is the truthfulness of it tested before he is put in possession or would it be when he applies for his patent ? He might get a very considerable advantage if he made application, not being entitled, and was allowed to remain in possession for three years. By that time the matter may have been forgotten entirely by the original homesteader. I would have thought that the applicant for cancellation would have been required to furnish evidence of his eligibility before he could serve notice of cancellation upon a homesteader. May I ask the minister, in the event of a homesteader being cancelled out, after having been in possession for two years and being unable, owing to peculiar circumstances, to continue residence and complete his homestead duties, what are his rights in law ? Is he cast adrift without anything after having built a house and stable and made improvements upon the land or is he entitled to any consideration ?


Frank Oliver: According to the letter of the law he is not entitled to any consideration. He took the land under a certain agreement, he failed in his agreement and therefore he has no rights. But, in practice, where improvements have been made and an application to cancel has been made, the applicant to cancel is required to declare the improvements, to state what improvements there are and their value. If cancellation is carried out he is required to pay that value into the land office and our practice is that when we have collected the value of the improvements we pay it over to the man who made the improvements and lost his homestead. We do that not as a matter of law but as a matter of grace and it is, at any rate, a matter of practice. It may be that a man who has lost his homestead complains that the valuation placed upon these improvements by the applicant for cancellation is not sufficient. In such cases we have an Inspection made by the homestead inspector, the valuation is revised by the homestead inspector and the person who secures the entry is required to pay according to the valuation made by the homestead inspector. If there is no dispute there is no inspection.


David Henderson: Is there any fixed time for the man who cancels out another to pay for these improvements ? Should he do it at once before he gets possession or is he allowed a certain length of time ?


Frank Oliver: It is not a matter of law. It is a matter of grace and I think the rule is to require the improvements to be paid for when the entry is given. There are exceptions to that rule, but if the improve-
Mr. OLIVER
ments are not paid for at the time fixed the person who receives the entry loses the right, and it is open to some one else.


Richard Stuart Lake: I had a letter with'n the last day or two in which the statement is made that an American citizen who had taken up a homestead and made improvements on it was obliged to return to the United States because of ill-health and could not complete his homestead duties. He applied to have the value of the improvements refunded to him, and the reply of the department was that this could not be done as the homesteader had left the country. Does the minister think that practice to be fair under such circumstances ? It sems to me there should not be any such discrimination.


Frank Oliver: I fancy this would be a somewhat infrequent case, and there is possibly no established practice of the department with reference to it. A number of years ago it was not the practice to pay over the value of the improvements to the original homesteader, but a different system was adopted in later years. It may have been considered we were not warranted in paying over the money to a person who had left the country, inasmuch as the refund is a matter of grace and not of right. If the hon. gentleman will give me the details I will look into the case. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr.. Turriff) will know the practice better than I.


Mr.   TIJRRIPF@: The practice was to pay the money over irrespective of where the man came from or where he went, and I doubt very much if any change has been made. Any other rule would seem to me to be unfair.


Richard Stuart Lake: I will send the correspondence to the minister and I hope he will give the matter consideration. Of course there may be details I am not aware of, but it seems unfair on the face of it. The minister did not state the policy oif the department with reference to facilitating prosecutions for perjury which citizens may feel it their duty to bring. I hope the minister will give every assistance in a matter of that sort.	.


Frank Oliver: The administration of the lands depends very largely upon the truthfulness of the statements that are made under affidavit. We have every interest in seeing that those who violate the law are punished, and it certainlv would be our duty to facilitate any action that might be taken in that regard.


John Herron: I have been interesting myself on behalf of a homesteader for the last six or seven months under circumstances similar to those referred to by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake). This homesteader resided on his homestead in the vicinity of High River for over a
1J197

year, and it was conceded that his improvements were valued at $3oO, but he returned to the United States and I was told most emphatically in the department that there was no refund coming to him because he had left the country.


Herbert Brown Ames: This seems to be a suitable occasion to bring to the attention of the minister a case which was brought to my notice some months ago. I was slnd to hear the minister say that if he received two applications at the same time, one from a homesteader and one from a man who wanted to acquire surface and mineral rights, he would give the homesteader the advantage. That has not always been the practice of the department even in that portion of the country where the minister himself resides. Thirty or forty miles west of Edmonton, on the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific, there is a place known as Wabanum lake. There are homesteaders all through that section and some of these homesteaders were anxious to acquire a fractional section in their neighbourhood. One of them, J. C. Haddock, wrote on the 7th of April, 1906, to the department to know whether he could purchase the northwest quarter-section 8, township 53, range 4, west 5th meridian, as it was a broken quarter-section adjoining his own property. The department replied :
in that neighbourhood that this section was not for sale, they forthwith so'd it to John Howey as a coal claim and then John Howey withdrew his homestead entry (it never having been used by him, he never having resided on the land, so I am informed) and he became possessed of the land through purchase. The farmers in that neighbourhood who had been watching that quarter with great care expecting that it would be cancelled and that they would have au opportunity to either homes ead or purchase, were very indignant, and particularly these gentlemen who one' after another had applied for permission to purchase and who had been told the land could only be homesteaded. One R.J. McArthur on the 1st of February, 1907, wrote a pretty strong letter to the minister on that subject and as the letter contains some information it may be well to place it on record :
Wabanna, Alberta, February 1, 1907. The Hon. F. Oliver, ,
Hon. Sir.-Oil the matter of the northwest of 8-53-4, west of fifth meridian, which consists of over one hundred acres.
It was homesteaded in June, 1906.
I went into Edmonton to cancel it, but found out to my astonishment that it was being sold.	.
Ill April, 1906. John C. Haddock, Esq., wished to purchase it (his homestead adjoins it) but was told that it was kept for homestead-
The agent of Dominion lands at Edmonton has been instructed this land is open for homestead entry to the first eligible applicant* but is not for sale.
Shortly after another man by the name of Lederman, residing in the neighbourhood, also applied to the department to know if he could purchase that fraction of a section on the shore of Wabanum lake, and he received a similar reply :
The agent of Dominion lands at Edmonton has been instructed that it may be granted as a homestead to the first eligible applicant, but it is not for sale, and you had better communicate with that official.
Both of these persons who resided in the immediate neighbourhood were told there was no use trying to purchase that land. It happened that John Howey, of Edmonton, a newspaper man by profession, had applied also to purchase and had also b en refused, but John Howey took a hint and on June 13, 1906, he made out a homestead application in which he said it was his intention to reside upon and cultivate that land, and as a homesteader John Howey's application was granted for th's fraction of a quarter-section. Three months liter John Howey seemed to have discovered a seam of coal on the land and consequently he made application to the depnr meut to purchase the surface and coal rights, saying he was a homesteader on the quarter-section. And although the department had repeatedly notified the settlers
lUg.	.
I am led to understand that you are going to introduce a Bill whereby actual settlers can buy the land adjoining them. In this case that was refused one, and given to another, which I think was most unfair.
This land is only being held for speculation, and such land in causing much delay to the general improvement of the district.
I will be pleased to hear from you at an early date, hoping you will give it some consideration.
Yours obediently,
robert j. McArthur.
As if that was not enough, another letter came from this Mr. Haddock, who was disappointed in his hope to purchase, and he says in part :
Three or four persons wanted to homestead that fraction of 8 after they found out it was to be sold, as they could live on it with some garden truck and cows and pigs and sail boats during the season, and that would make more help for the roads.
Then Mr. Haddock complains bitterly that lands are held by speculators, and that the taxes for maintaining the roads will be very heavy on bona fide settlers. It would appear from this that the department put itself on record as being unwilling to sell that land, that a number of people wanted to homestead it, and that the department was willing to sell it to John Howey because there was some coal in it, although he made no attempt to mine any coal. It appears that



this land has become very valuable, as it is oil the right of way of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and is close to the proposed town site at Wabanum lake. I asked a question in the House on February 19, 1908, of which it may be well to remind the minister, as to this quarter-section. I asked when and by whom the land was first entered for as a homestead, and he replied:
On June 12, 1906, by John Howey.
I then asked :
Was it subsequently acquired from the Crown by purchase? If so, when, by whom, in what manner and at what price ?
To which he replied :
Yes; on October 30, 1906. by John Howey who purchased the land for coal mining purposes at the rate of $10 an acre, the sale including both the surface and under rights.
I then asked :
Where is the residence and what the occupation of the present owner?
The minister replied :
The place of residence of John Howey appears to be Edmonton; his occupation has not been furnished.


Then I asked :: Is it a fact that this quarter-section is situated close, to the proposed town site of the Grand Trunk Pacific at Wabanum lake?
The reply was :
The government has no information.
I was surprised at the time that the hon. minister had so little knowledge of John Howey or of his occupation. The people of Edmonton were also surprised when they saw that answer published in one of their newspapers, because it is well known to them that John Howey is the editor of the Edmonton * Bulletin,' and has been the leader writer of that paper for the last five years, a paper which I believe the Minister of the Interior himself owns or has a large interest in and was formerly connected with. Consequently it afforded the people no little amusement to find that the minister knew so little of John Howey or of his occupation. Here is a man who is not a bona fide homesteader, who lives in Edmonton, and will probably continue to reside there, holding down this quarter-section as a coal claim, which I understand is to be cut up into town lots and sold at a very handsome profit. It appears to me that in this instance the bona fide homesteader was not given a fair chance, and I bring this case un because I understand that the minister's policy is that all things being equal the homesteader is to have a prior right to the land. Here is a case in the minister's own bailiwick "which appears to prove the contrary.


Herbert Brown Ames: I hope that the department will in future give the homesteader a better chance.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the particular instance which the hon. gentleman has mentioned, I do not know that it would profit the House if I were to follow his statements and show how far he has deviated from the facts. He has spoken of a number of applications having been made to homestead this land, but he has not shown that any made applications to homestead except the one who did homestead. There were two applications to purchase the land as agricultural land, and those applications "were refused, because the land was not for sale as agricultural land. We did not and do not propose to sell land as agricultural land. The gentlemen who applied to buy it had no priority of right with regard to it. Their money was no better than any other man's money, and no other man's money was going to be accepted for that land as farm land. Mr. Howey applied for homestead entry of this land. ' He was the first man, so far as my hon. friend's record informs the House who applied for homestead entry for it, and he was given the homestead entry.


Herbert Brown Ames: Did he fulfil any obligations?


Frank Oliver: I am not aware what obligations he fulfilled ; but he was the first applicant for homestead entry, and he got homestead entry ; and wThen my hon. friend suggests to the House that there were applications for homestead entry which were not properly considered, am I in order when I say that my hon. friend was trying to mislead the House ?


Herbert Brown Ames: May I again read that extract from the letter :
Three or four persons wanted to homestead that fraction of 8 after they found out it was to be sold, as they could live on it with some garden truck and cows and pigs and sail boats during the season, and that would make more help for the roads.


Frank Oliver: I have no doubt that three or four persons may have wanted to homestead. There may have been three or four thousand persons who wanted to homestead some particular piece of land ; but the Department of the Interior Is not endowed with the gift of prophecy or omniscience, and can only know who wants to homestead by the applications that have been made. My hon. friend has shown to the House that there was no application made to homestead except the application that was received and acted upon. Now7, Mr. Howey applied for the homestead. He w7as the first applicant, and he got his homestead entry. What has my hon. friend to say against that action on the part of the department ? At this particular time and up to the 1st of April, 1907, I think, the lands of the Northwest were for sale as coal lands

to the first applicant at $10 an acre. Mr. Howey applied to purchase this particular quarter-section or a part of it as coal land, and ottered to pay therefor the ordinary price. He was the first applicant for the land as coal land, and it was sold to him as coal land at the price for coal land. What has my hon. friend to say against that transaction ?


Herbert Brown Ames: Has he ever mined any coal ?


Frank Oliver: I do not know whether he mined coal or not. Again I say it is no part of the business of the department to know whether he mined coal or intended to mine coal. The action of the department taken in both cases was absolutely regular, and my hon. friend has no warrant for suggesting to the House, as he has done, that there was any irregularity in any way. shape or manner, connected with that transaction. As far as Mr. Howey's connection with the Edmonton ' Bulletin ' is concerned, the question my hon. friend asked was, where Mr. Howey resided, what his business was. He did not ask that of me personally Jiut of the Department of the Interior, and the department answered that his residence was Edmonton and that it had no information as to his calling or business. The question was answered truthfully. It was none of the hon. gentleman's business. He has no license to question me as to my private knowledge of this, that or the other matter. What he has a right to know, is what is on record as to the business of the department. He has the right to arrive at that jenow-ledge by certain means, and it will be time enough for him to make such suggestions as he has made, when he finds that the answers from the department are incorrect, or do not set out the facts.


William D. Staples: According to subsection 3 of section 11 a person may make application at a sub-agency, provided he makes it under form F, and wires the district agent that he has made application. The application is filed and he is given reasonable time to go and make personal application. What length of time would be considered reasonable for an applicant to go to the district agent to make application. A man might be shut out from a very desirable quarter-section which he might want for a homestead. Some one might hear that he had gone to make personal application and then go to a sub-agency and wire ahead, thus taking advantage of him.


Frank Oliver: It is impossible to fix any stated time in the statute. We use the word reasonable time, because the time will vary under different circumstances, and we know of no other form of words which will make the provision more definite.
355}


William D. Staples: I also notice that personal application is required unless provided by order in council. There is a hardship there. A man might go to look over a certain district with the intention of not only securing a homestead for himself but also for his son, but to go up there to make personal application and take the boy off the farm is requiring a good deal, and there should be some provision to meet such a case.


Frank Oliver: As the regulations stand at present, and as we propose to have them under this Bill, one member of a family can enter for the other. We do not allow a neighbour to enter for a neighbour. That is not in the Act but in the regulations provided by Governor in Council. My hon. frieud is no doubt aware that the proxy entry in force some years ago was very seriously abused, and for a time we cut it off altogether. Then we re-instated it so far as the members of a single family are concerned ; but there is this provision in addition, that in the case of a proxy entry the entrant must inform the agent that he is actually in residence upon the land before the end of six months, or the agent is instructed to summarily cancel the entry. There is that difference between it and the ordinary entry. The latter is only cancelled after an application for cancellation is made.


William D. Staples: I think that is a very wise Drovision. Would the man who makes application at a sub-agency be permitted sufficient time to go and inspect that particular quarter-section? He may have applied without having seen the land.


Frank Oliver: The applicant for entry is expected to have seen the land before he makes his application.


William D. Staples: But suppose he did not see ii and got his knowledge from others?


Frank Oliver: There are eases which occur and cause a certain amount of difficulty and dissatisfaction, but it is absolutely impossible to provide for all cases. We lay down the principle that the first applicant is the man who is entitled to the entry, and we place the responsibility upon him of having seen the land or being able to make affidavit as to its condition as regards himself or occupation by any one else. That is our principle, and I do not think it will be sound policy to deviate from it.


William D. Staples: All you could do in such a case would be to require a personal application to the district agent.


William Stevens Fielding: Intimation has been given us that some hon. gentlemen interested in this Bill would prefer that it ba not proceeded with further this evening. I beg to move, therefore, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


George Eulas Foster: When is it proposed to go on with the Bill again?


William Stevens Fielding: To-morrow.


George Eulas Foster: The reason of leaving it now is that members who wish to familiarize themselves with the Bill may have an opportunity to do so. but if we are kept in Supply to-night and asked to go on with the Bill to-morrow morning, what opportunity shall we have to look at it'? If there is anything in the excuse, it would be better to arrange that the Bill should not go on until to-morrow night or Thursday morning.


William Stevens Fielding: Then, say Thursday morning.


William Findlay Maclean: How will it be about the Railway Bill?


William Stevens Fielding: Is that set for Thursday?


George Eulas Foster: I thought it was set for to-night.


William Stevens Fielding: There was an understanding between the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) and the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) as to that, and I do not wish to intervene in it.


William Findlay Maclean: I understand the Bill is to go on Tuesday.


William Stevens Fielding: Whatever the understanding was it will be carried out.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND FISHERIES-THE CASSELS INVESTIGATION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['The Bill relating to the use of tobacco by minors, the Bill relating to the bounties on lead, and, after that, Supply taking up the estimates of the Minister of Public Works.']
George Eulas Foster: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, can the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) tell us whether the evidence taken before the Cassels Commission has been placed before the House?


William Stevens Fielding: I shall have (o inquire of the Clerk of the House.


George Eulas Foster: I am informed that the understanding was that the file on the table should be kept complete.


William Stevens Fielding: The clerk tel's me it has not been sent.


George Eulas Foster: What we have had is really nothing. This investigation has been going on for nearly two months. It really looks very much like jollying the House along. A promise was made that we should hive a daily report of the proceedings laid on the table of the House, and we have had nothing but the first report. If the Minister of Finance takes as much longer as he has already taken, we shall go away from


William Stevens Fielding: here without having seen the report at all. Something should be done if the minister has any idea of carrying out the promise made.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know who made any promise.


George Eulas Foster: Why, the hon. min'ster (Mr. Fielding) himself.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I did not make any promise. I thought the request a reasonable one and caused intimation to be given to the officers of the House which I thought had been complied with, at least as respects one or two of these reports. I still am under the impression that I saw a report of one or two days' proceedings. I would suggest that the Clerk of the House communicate with the court, and if this is done I can see no reason why the report should not be laid on the table.


George Eulas Foster: Could not the minister go further than that? When the minister said that it would be done, I took it that it would be done. Now, he leaves the clerk to struggle with the commission. He is not able to do that. It takes a man of the calibre and standing of the Minister of Finance for that.


William Stevens Fielding: In matters under their own control the ministers are able to give directions, but when it comes to the sol anility of the courts, I would hesitate to give directions.


George Eulas Foster: I wish the hon. gentleman was as deferential to the court in every respect. The court gave him to understand particularly what he required in order to make progress with this commission, and neither the Minister of Finance nor the First Minister has complied with the request.


Mr. J. G. H. BERGERON (Beauharnois).: I would ask if the report of the evidence of the royal commission has been translated into French and when we may expect to have it laid before the Houie? I asked that two months ago or more, and I was told that it was being translated. I have every reason to believe that the translation has been finished for a month. Still we have not the report before us. Would the minister be good enough to find out when it was printed and when it will be before the House?


William Stevens Fielding: I would remind my hon. friend that the officers of the House are no more under the control of the Finance Minister than they are under the control of the hon. member (Mr. Bergeron). I will make inquiries with pleasure and will endeavour to get the information required.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) does not understand me. The translation is finished and it is now

in the printing office. I have not the right to inquire, hut I think that my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) could find how far it has gone and whether it is printed or not.


William Stevens Fielding: I will have inquiry made.



Mr.   .T. HERRON@Alberta: I would like to know when we may expect the Bill granting scrip to the South African volunteers. I would like to see this brought down before the Land Bill becomes effective. otherwise it will be of very little value to the men.


William Stevens Fielding: I am sorry the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) is not in his place. I would ask the Ron. gentleman (Mr. Herron) to put the question another day as I could not give him the information at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
-Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works). I think it would be well to take up the Harbour and Rivers votes.
George Eulas Foster: Before these votes are taken up. would the minister give the information we asked for last night on item 152 which we allowed to go through, but concerning which we were to have information? He was to tell us as to the cement and as to the Deep Waterways Commission.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: In regard to the Deep Waterways Commission I am not prepared to-night to give the hon. gentleman the information. In the early part of the evening I received information which was new to me. to the effect that the question of the delimitation of the boundary between the United States and Canada along the St. Lawrence system has been referred to the International Deep Waterways Commission. I believe that has been done by treaties which were under negotiation before I became minister, and I have not had time since then to look into the matter. I think that, probaly, the treaties were laid before the House and my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) probably knows the facts concerning them. A telegram which I received from the secretary of the commission tonight refers to the fact that the joint commission has had a sitting to-day in Toronto, and he calls my attention to article 4 of the treaty the last treaty, which was concluded in April. I would assume that is the clause under which they are acting. Perhaps my hon. friend will allow this to stand until to-morrow and in the meantime I will get the information.


Mr.  J. D.@: REID Is that with reference to the proposed dam across the St. Lawrence of which I spoke to the minister last
night, asking for an assurance from the government that the dam would not be authorized by order in council or anything done with it without first submitting the whole thing to parliament.


William Pugsley: I shall call the attention of the Prime Minister to that, but I think that any statement with reference to it should come from the Prime Minister. The question of the hon. member for North Toronto was as to what work the commisison was doing and more particularly as to the authority the commission had to engage in the work of fixing the boundary along the-St. Lawrence system.	^


Mr. J. D. REID.: Is there a report? '


William Pugsley: The commission have made a report, they report once a year.
In connection with the cement testing laboratory and the information which was to be produced as to the specific purposes for which the vote of $5,000 was required, that information can be given in connection with these harbour matters, no doubt tomorrow.


George Eulas Foster: Do not forget the other two points. Mr. Cote's voucher and the copies of the commissioner's report which were published.


William Pugsley: I was also to get particulars as to the reports made in reference to the flooding at Belleville and of the Thames river. I do not see either of the gentlemen interested in his place and I had better let these matters stand until they are present.


Mr. COCKSHUTT.: Would the minister permit a few words about another item in the resolution in connection with the grant to the Bell Memorial Association which was under discussion last evening ? There is a slight difficulty about the wording of the vote and that is why nothing has been done up to the present with the government grant. The Finance Minister has the wording desired but through an oversight the words of the vote stand the same as last year. The Bell Memorial Association is an incorporated association under the laws of Ontario for perpetuating the memory of the inventor and the invention of the telephone. It is now in a position to say that its work is completed so far as the financial arrangements are concerned. I see that the minister said last night that nothing had been done. Something has been done, property has been purchased for the erection of the memorial and negotiations are going on for the purchase of more property and several artists both in Great Britain and the continent as well as in Canada, are at present at work on the design for the memorial. But the wording of the vote is not quite consistent with the objects of the association as presented. The Minister of Finance knows that the Bell homestead,

which it is desired to acquire, is on the outskirts of the city of Brantford and could not he included in the purchase under the wording of the vote.


William Pugsley: My hon friend the Minister of Finance states that in conversation with my hon. friend to-day he said the vote had passed, but the change desired can he made upon concurrence. That would he satisfactory, would it not ?


William Foster Cockshutt: Yes, but while we were discussing this item I wish to state that the matter is a live one, that everything is being done that can be done to forward the work. We are pushing forward as rapidly as possible. May I read a brief statement by the inventor with reference to the invention of the telephone. He states that the telephone was invented in the city of Brantford in the year 1874, and that, to use his own words :
The first transmission of speech over a real telegraph line was made in Brantford in the autumn of 1876 on the lines of the Dominion Telegraph Company. In one experiment speech was transmitted from Brantford to Mount Pleasant (a distance of about five miles), another from Brantford to Paris (a distance of seven miles), and a third from Brantford to my father's house on Tutela heights, (a suburb of the city), where the results were witnessed by a large number of Brantford people.
I want to say that we have the sanction of the inventor for the statement that the telephone city of Brantford is the place in which that invention was made ; it is the home of the telephone and this memorial is to be in perpetuation of the invention and the inventor, who at that time was a resident of Brantford.
Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia, Annapolis harbour-improvements, ice piers, $20,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote to make provision towards the construction of a number of piers, substructures, stone filled, concrete work and concrete superstructure on a line across the Annapolis river. The piers will arrest the heavy pieces of ice that flow down the river in the spring.


Mr. BENNETT.: How much was spent on this ?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. The total expenditure in 1907-S was $340.48 That was simply preliminary work. In addition to that creosot-ed timber was purchased costing $12,092.24. 'Then, there is wharfage, landing, freight, &e., amounting to $323.35.


William Humphrey Bennett: So that of the $20,000 voted last year you have spent nearly $15,000 ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: And you are asking for $20,000 to spend in 1909 ?


William Foster Cockshutt: 


William Pugsley: Yes, my intention is to ask for a further amount in the supplementary estimates.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the estimated cost of the whole work ?


William Pugsley: 


William Humphrey Bennett: In the $50,500 do you include the $15,000 already expended ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it a contract work ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who are the contractors ?


William Pugsley: Messrs. Reid & Archibald, of Halifax.


William Humphrey Bennett: How many tenders were received ?


William Pugsley: Two.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the total amount of Reid & Archibald's contract ?


William Pugsley: 


William Humphrey Bennett: How do you explain the difference ?


William Pugsley: The creosoted timber is supplied by the government.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was that bought by tender ?


William Pugsley: I think not. There are only two companies which are engaged in supplying creosoted timber and the department made the purchase from a concern that has always given the greatest satisfaction.


William Humphrey Bennett: From whom was it purchased ?


William Pugsley: From the Norfolk Creo-soting Company.


William Humphrey Bennett: Where are their headquarters ?


William Pugsley: In Norfolk.


William Humphrey Bennett: What kind of timber is that ?


William Pugsley: Southern pine. It has to be creosoted on account of the teredo.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would like to ask the minister if he proposes during the coming year to make it a condition that there shall be nothing but Canadian timber used. The minister, I may say, has had his attention called to the fact that throughout Ontario and also in-


William Pugsley: I am afraid I could not give my hon. friend any assurance upon that point, because, for work under water

where the torredo is prevalent, it is necessary to have southern pine creosoted. There are no works in Canada where timber can be creosoted.


William Humphrey Bennett: Surely there have been docks constructed of Canadian timber that have stood the ravages of time for many years.


William Pugsley: Time is different from the torredo.


William Humphrey Bennett: And insects.


William Pugsley: No, thte torredo is a worm that is peculiar to certain waters. It is found along the Nova Scotia coast and it is very destructive.


William Humphrey Bennett: Apart from any works that may be constructed in salt water the minister should make it imperative that all timber used should be Canadian timber. If the minister were to make inquiry of any lion, member on either side of the House from Ontario he would find that the lumber market in Ontario is practically at a standstill. There never has been a time in Ontario' when the lumber business has been so dull. All the yards are lull of lumber and the mortification of Canadian lumber merchants is very great when they see this timber being crowded into Canada from the south owing to the fact that labour in the southern States is very cheap. Representations have been made from time to time to the government on this subject. X do not know whether the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was present at the meeting when a deputation waited on the Prime Minister and some other members of the government a couple of years ago and which was made up not only of lumbermen from Ontario but even from British Columbia and they made out a very strong case. In the city of Toronto more particularly last year, when building operations were more active than they are at the present time, vast quantities of this southern pine were being used. So great has been the effect of this competition that hemlock, which is a suitable kind of timber for heavy bridge and other kinds of work and which, it is claimed, is quite equal to southern pine, has been side tracked and it can be purchased for $4 a thousand less than formerly. In the construction of all the bridges and buildings upon the Temis-kaming Railway the Ontario government have made it a condition that there would be no more imported timber allowed to be used. What prevails in Ontario should equally prevail with reference to works under the Dominion government and I hope the minister will endeavour to meet the suggestion which I have made.


William Pugsley: I am entirely in sympathy with the idea of using the timber
produced in Canada and also all other material produced in Canada where it can be properly and advantageously used in the public interest. It is certainly news to me that either the government or a contractor would think for a moment of going to the southern States and getting pine, which is very considerably more expensive than Canadian timber, if Canadian timber would do just as well. But, in the portion of the Dominion from which I come it has always been considered that for certain work, southern pine is more desirable than the ordinary timber which can be obtained in Canada. In so far as the construction of wharfs is concerned the government uses Canadian timber as far as possible and I would go so far as to say that as far as possible we will use Canadian timber upon all the works which are constructed by the department but I could not at the present time, until further advised and after consultation with the chief engineer say that I would cause it to be specified that the contractors must use Canadian timber because it might be that in connection with certain works it would not be in the interest of the public to use Canadian timber in place of southern pine.


Samuel Hughes: A few years ago the Grand Trunk Railway built a bridge on the line between Omemee and Peter-boro out of Georgia pine. That bridge has had to be replaced. There are six or seven thousand men out of employment in Ontario to-day through the negligence of the Finance Minister in not placing a duty on American lumber and timber coming into this country. There have been upwards of $12,000,000 of imports from the United States last year. That would be a nice sum of money to be distributed in wages among the families of these men in Ontario. British Columbia fir is now being used on the Temiskaming & Northern Ontario Railway. Formerly the contractors were using Georgia pitch pine. It came to the notice of the minister in charge of the department in Ontario and he immediately gave instructions that British Columbia fir was to be used. It is answering the purpose well and I am told even better than the Georgia pitch pine.


George Eulas Foster: You are taking a vote of $20,000 for harbour improvements and ice piers at Annapolis and I understand the minister to say the expenditure will run to about $50,000 ?


William Pugsley: During the present year ?


George Eulas Foster: What will be the total expenditure and what is proposed to be done ?


William Pugsley: It depends upon how many ice piers are built.


George Eulas Foster: What is the proposition ?


William Pugsley: It is contemplated to build three ice piers now. It will depend upon the result whether parliament will be asked to provide for the construction of additional piers.


George Eulas Foster: With what object are these ice piers built ?


William Pugsley: For the purpose of protecting the harbour and shipping and to prevent ice accumulating.


George Eulas Foster: Ice coming from what direction ?


William Pugsley: Down the river.


George Eulas Foster: When has the urgent necessity for this arisen ?


William Pugsley: There was a vote of $20,000 last session. My memorandum says it is to form an ice barrier to arrest the heavy cakes of ice which are at present the cause of more or less inconvenience and damage to vessels in Annapolis harbour.


George Eulas Foster: I have had some knowledge of the Annapolis river and Digby harbour and the aids to navigation there, but I have never yet heard a new danger had arisen requiring $50,000 or more to prevent the ice coming down the Annapolis river and playing havoc with navigation. In the spring the ice runs out of the rivers in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and other parts of Canada-what havoc has been caused which necessitates this large expenditure ?


William Pugsley: This is not a new question. As long ago as February, 1903, there was an agitation in favour of this and an inspection was made and tne engineer reported on the condition of the river and the nature of the ice floating down, and that a line of piers such as detailed in the plan should be placed on the lower site for 600 feet above the wharf which would serve to keep the vessel berths at Annapolis free of ice and safe for shipping. This matter has been urged strongly for a number of years and last year a vote was taken.


George Eulas Foster: What havoc has been caused to the shipping by the ice which necessitates the department taking action ?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will realize that where there is extensive shipping the formation of heavy ice from shore to shore would be very likely to do serious damage and cause great inconvenience.


George Eulas Foster: Wrhat is the navigation in winter between Digby and Annapolis ?


Mr. PICKUP.: This is not for improvement in the navigation between Digby and Annapolis but for the purpose of facilitating vessels which come in from foreign ports to take out products.


William Pugsley: i


George Eulas Foster: What is the extent of the navigation there ?


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: Forty or fifty foreign going vessels load at Annapolis and 222 vessels load coast wise.


George Eulas Foster: But this is June ?


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: These piers are required for the purpose of preventing the ice from injuring the wharfs and the vessels loading at these docks in the winter. The damage is caused by the breaking of the ice which forms in the French basin.


George Eulas Foster: The ice piers are to be built above Annapolis ?


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: What is the (volume of navigation there from the 1st of January until the 1st of April ?


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: There are usually a few vessels loading there ?


George Eulas Foster: How many ?


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: They ship about 25,000,000 feet of lumber from there now even without this improvement.
'Mr. PUGSLEY. And the ice barriers prevent vessels from using Annapolis in the winter.


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: Lumber and other products are shipped from there and there would be a much increased export if this improvement were made. Those interested in the trade are preparing to extend their wharfs and docks to accommodate a class of larger vessels believing that improving the harbour by placing these ice piers will prevent them being destroyed by the floating-ice and enable them to ship their products all the year.


William Pugsley: Mr. Dodwell, the engineer, in January 1907, reported that there was every reason to believe that a smelter would be established at Annapolis if they could ship the ore in the winter. The difficulty apparently has been that in the winter season vessels cannot with any degree of certainty come to Annapolis or be certain when they can leave when once they get in, by reason of the ice barriers. Annapolis is an important place and is the centre of a very productive section of the country. It is a great fruit growing district and I understand shipments of fruit are made from there.


George Eulas Foster: At that season of the year ?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. With a proper system of storage fruit would be shipped in the winter which is a very good time to avail of the English market. Owing to these ice barriers they have not been able to ship in the winter.


George Eulas Foster: Would the fruit be shipped by these lumber steamers ?
Mr. PUGSLEY, It would be shipped on steamers with a proper system of cold storage.


George Eulas Foster: Is the navigation between Digby and Annapolis open and unobstructed from January until April ?


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: It would be if this work were done.


George Eulas Foster: Is it used by ocean vessels at all in that season ?


William Pugsley: I understand it would be if the result of these ice piers is as successful as anticipated.


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: If these piers were erected and the harbour improved so as to enable merchants and those interested in shipping to ship their products during the year, there is no doubt whatever that the volume of the trade at that port would be increased very materially.


George Eulas Foster: And this stream of navigation would pour in there from January to April?


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: I imagine they would get rid of what products they had. I may say that the tides rise and fall there 28 or 29 feet, and the ice forms in Frenchmen's bay, above Annapolis harbour, and when the high tide comes it breaks it up so that it comes down in sheets as large as this chamber or larger and destroys the piers. I have known it to destroy $500 or $600 worth of one wharf in one season.


George Eulas Foster: Are there many wharfs there?


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: Yes. I can show you a photograph of eight or nine vessels loading there last October and carrying about five million feet of lumber.


George Eulas Foster: Could the minister or member inform us what amount of damage has been done to the piers by the ice in the last four or five years?


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: It is not the amount of damage done to the piers so much as the danger to the vessels loading at the piers.


George Eulas Foster: Can the bon. member tell what vessels have been damaged or destroyed?


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: I can tell of a number of vessels that were caught in the ice from Frenchmen's bay and damaged or destroyed. The ' Zebeck ' was one. I believe it was destroyed.


William Pugsley: We can make it a winter port as well as a summer port
Mr FOSTER For fruit, for instance?
Mr PICKUP And for lumber and also iron ore. I might say that the Drummonds, of Montreal, have control of an
iron property near there, and they propose to build a wharf for the shipment of ore ; and the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company, on the strength of this appropriation, have been extending their pier.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister any report showing the necessity for this work and the probability of the expenditure of money he is making being sufficient to make Annapolis harbour into a winter port? Ice piers have been a favourite method of employing a large amount of public money in certain rivers in the province of Quebec, but the disease does not seem to have broken out very much in the maritime provinces as yet ; and my trouble with this was that it seemed to be a transplantation of the microbes down to the maritime provinces. I would like to know whether there has been a scientific and sufficient examination made into the whole matter before the minister came down for an appropriation?


William Pugsley: I gpresume that 1fhe matter was fully considered last session, when the first vote was taken. The only report I have here is one from the resident engineer, Mr. Dodwell, an engineer of iarge experience, who has been a good many years in the department. His opinion is that the building of these ice piers will have the effect of preventing this floating ice from getting into the harbour of Annapolis, and will thereby make it safe for steamers. The engineer would not be able to report as to how many vessels would be likely to frequent Annapolis harbour. That is a matter rather for business men. It appears that many millions of feet of lumber are exported from Annapolis, and that it is conveniently situated with reference to valuable iron mines ; and any man of experience would say that it would be a great advantage if lumber and ore could be shipped at all the seasons of the year. It would seem to me, therefore, that the trade done in the summer season will be continued during the winter season as the result of the building of these ice piers. That is something that will impress any man who gives consideration to the subject as of very^ great advantage.


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: I might say that the shipping men are of opinion that these ice piers will prevent the ice coming down and destroying the wharfs, and this work has been urged by the board of trade of Annapolis Royal, which sent a deputation here to give information on the subject to the minister.


George Eulas Foster: Do these representations appear in the minister's file?


William Pugsley: No, I think not. They saw the minister personally.


George Eulas Foster: Is there nothing on file in the way of petitions from the owners of

the iron mines, or the shippers, or the fruit-growers in the Annapolis valley?


William Pugsley: There is a statement in regard to the iron mines.


George Eulas Foster: With reference to Mr. Dodwell, 1 think you might dismiss him with this remark, that he is an engineer, and if the minister tells him to go down and find out whether a certain work would prevent the ice bobbing down on the wharfs, he will take his instructions and report accordingly. But the question of the appropriation is another matter, and I was asking whether the minister had on his files any voluminous petitions from boards of trade, shippers of fruit, or shippers of ore or lumber, together with a statement of the losses which have accrued. As the minister will see, if he spends a hundred thousand dollars there, the interest and up-keep will amount to ten thousand dollars a year at the least, and that would do a good deal towards making any little repairs due on account of damages by the ice. I remember living in Fredericton ; when the ice comes down the St. John river it crushes in the wharfs, but the people there never heard of the very brilliant idea that the government could get to work and build a chain of ice piers there to protect the wharfs.


William Pugsley: Suppose it were possible by the expenditure of even one hundred thousand dollars just above Fredericton to enable vessels all through the winter to go from St. John to Fredericton-ocean vessels -would my hon. friend say that was not proper expenditure?


George Eulas Foster: I would not spend two minutes arguing such a proposition because it is purely suppositious. The minister has a fairly fertile imagination. What I wanted to know was whether or not these great interests down there, which have been cramped and cabinned because these ice piers had not been built, have taken interest enough to put their representation in a tangible shape before the minister.
Mr. PUGSLEY A deputation from the board of trade and the shipping interests in Annapolis came to Ottawa to state their case to the minister. My hon. friend who represents the county, accompanied the delegation and on many occasions has urged the construction of this work on the attention of the minister.


George Eulas Foster: But an unfortunate feature is this, that while it may be very easy to impress the minister, the translation of what impressed him has not come to the House, and the committee is entitled to know what were the arguments which prevailed with him. In such cases, is it not the rule, after these delegations have urged the construction of these important improve-Mr. FOSTER.
ments, for the minister to ask them to put their demands in the shape of a memorial, so that the minister may have something substantial to present to parliament when he asks for this vote ?


William Pugsley: That is an excellent idea, but it does not appear to have been done in this case.


George Eulas Foster: I am afraid there is a good deal of imagination about it. However, I have made my criticism and would be sorry to stand in the way of an immense improvement with a view of deepening a winter harbour, and I throw the responsibility on the minister.


Mr. CROCKET.: Were these wharfs at Annapolis provided by the government ?


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: One of them is owned by a company and was subsidized to the extent of fifteen thousand dollars some twenty-five years ago. The other is wholly the property of the Dominion government.


Oswald Smith Crocket: In the case of the St. John river, the local government is called on to pay one-half the cost of the wharfs and the repairs. That rule is not applied to Nova Scotia or Quebec. Only the other day 1 read an article in one of the St. John papers, calling attention to the very large amount expended by this government on the River Saguenay, and contrasting that with the expenditure on the St. John river. The article sets out the amounts that were voted by this parliament for the St. John river from 1901 to 1905 :
In 1901-2	$ 3,000
1902-3	 4,813
1904-	5	
2,6421905-	6	
3,294Total	$13,749
In the case of the Saguenay, which is seventy-one miles long, from Tadousac to Chicoutimi, the Dominion government expended for wharfs :
Since-
1869-$ 41,680 at St. Alexis.
1897- 10,366 at Anse St. Jean.
1897- 23,055 at Ste. Anne.
1902- 12,142 at Le Tableau.
1903- 14,008 at St. Fulgence.
Total. .$101,251
In 1904-5 the piers and dams for the Saguenay river cost this government $18,000 ; in 1905-6, $20,653 ; in 1906-7, $4,515 ; total, $43,165.
The Minister of Public Works knows well the great amount of lumber business carried on in the River St. John and the large amount of travel. There are many localities requiring wharfs which ought to be built and kept in repair by this government. If the wharfs in the navigable rivers of Quebec and Nova Scotia are, why this discrim-

ination against New Brunswick ? In the recent provincial campaign, the Minister of Public Works held out the promise that he would do away with that injustice, and bring down some resolutions providing that the whole cost of the wharfs in the navigable waters of New Brunswick should be borne by this government as is done with respect to the other provinces 1 hope the hon. minister will not lose sight of the matter and carry out the promise he made the electors of New Brunswick In the recent campaign.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend, I presume, did not hear my remarks during the recent election at all, or he would not have misquoted me. I am not quite sure that I made any reference to the wharfs at all.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am quite sure that the hon. minister was reported in the St. John ' Sun ' and other government papers in New Brunswick as having made pretty full reference to that subject. I can produce the newspapers.


William Pugsley: Whether I did so or not, I have always felt that the people along the St. John had a claim for consideration from the federal government. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) will remember when he was Minister of Finance of the strong pressure brought to bear on him to get a little aid for the wharfs in the St. John river. There seemed to be an idea then-and I do not think It has been entirely dissipated-that the building of wharfs in non-tidal waters was not the business of the federal government. I think that was the view the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) took. But, after a good deal of pressure, exerted for a number of years, he consented to pay one-half the cost of wharfs upon the St. John river. In order not to get away from the idea that they should not be built in non-tidal waters at the expense of the federal government. he used to have a statement in the estimates that it was to pay half the cost of wharfs in non-tidal waters of the St. John river and tributaries. It was so extended that if the tide rose even six inches it was considered tidal water. So there was quite a contribution of the federal government to building wharfs in the St. John river and the rivers and lakes tributary to it. When this government came into office Mr. Blair succeeded in getting more liberal grants, but always of one-half the cost. During the last two years, two or three wharfs have been built on the St. John entirely at the cost of the federal government. One of these was in Sun-bury, and it was not very popular, because when it was transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the minister sought wharfage dues, the people objected because the provincial government had never charged tolls for the use of wharfs. My own view is that the federal government should do something in the way of building wharfs on the St. John river, and I am prepared to say that, in my judgment, it should do more than has been done in the past. For it is true, as the hon. member said, that the federal government is building wharfs on the Saguenay, on the St. Lawrence, on the Lievre. on Lake Temis-caming, on Lake Nipissing and other rivers and lakes which are just ns much nontidal waters as any part of the St. John river and its tributaries.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The St. John is tidal water up to a point several miles above Fredericton.


William Pugsley: There is a slight rise.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It is classed as tidal waters, I believe, eight or nine miles above, so that the distinction the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) makes does not apply to that portion of the river. I understood him to say that the practice has been to construct wharfs wholly at the expense of the government only in tidal waters.


William Pugsley: The government in recent years has not limited expenditures to wharfs in tidal waters, but in many places the department has been guided simply by considerations as to the necessity for the wharfs in the interest of commerce and traffic. I have given the matter careful attention, and trust I shall be able to meet the reasonable expectations of the people of New Brunswick in this regard. But I would not like it to be understood-I do not think it would be in the interests of the people to have it understood-that the provincial government should depart from its policy of building wharfs. The government cannot build wharfs in many places, for it has not the money to do so. While I would give reasonable accommodation, I do not think the local government should refuse to do what they have been doing for fifty years in the building of wharfs on the St. John river and its tributaries. I am prepared to help, and I am sure my colleagues would authorize me to help, but we cannot do all the work.


Mr. DANIEL.: I think the reasons the minister (Mr. Pugsley) gives for the very slight participation of the government in the buiding of wharfs on the St. John river are scarcely adequate, for there has really been no definite policy in regard to the matter on the St. John river. At Oromocto this government built a wharf, and the provincial government was not called upon to pay any part of the expense. Nor is the minister correct, I believe, in what he [DOT]says as to the non-tidal condition of the St. John river. He must know that at the north end of St. John city, at Indiantown, the tide rises two or three feet, and the influence of the tide extends up the river as far as Fredericton, at all events, if not beyond that. So calling the St. John a non-

tidal river is hardly a sufficient excuse for this government giving that river the go-by, as it practically has up to the present time. 1 do not think the minister or any one else can give a good reason why this government suould build wharfs out and out on the navigable rivers of other parts of the Dominion and decline to do it in the province of New Brunswick. The minister has given no excuse for not doing away with the order, if it is an order, and I do not see that the minister has any reasonable ground to continue to carry out this idea of only paying half the cost of the wharfs that are necessary. The St. John river in the summer time is a busy place. It does a good deal of the freighting of that portion - of the country. The section through which the river runs is thickly settled and there is a good deal of commerce done. I was expecting to hear the minister say that he would do away with the disability entirely and take it upon himself as Minister of Public Works to recommend to the government that where wharfs are necessary on the St. John river they should be built wholly at the Dominion expense.
Baddeck wharf, $2,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the total cost of this?


William Pugsley: The estimated cost is $14,800. It is under contract and this amount is required to complete it.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who are the contractors and how much were the tenders?


William Pugsley: Hugh Macdonald, cf North Sydney, is the contractor. The contract was dated March 2, 1907. and the date of completion is March 2, 1908.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it finished ?


William Pugsley: Practically finished.


George Eulas Foster: Is this in place of the old wharf ?


Mr. A. C. ROSS.: We never had a public wharf there before.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much did the site cost ?


William Pugsley: Three thousand dollars.


William Humphrey Bennett: From whom was it purchased ?


William Pugsley: Alexander Macdonald. The site is 170 by 300.


George Eulas Foster: Are dues charged on this wharf ?


William Pugsley: I could not say ; that depends on whether it has been transferred to the Marine Department.


George Eulas Foster: Is it the intention of the minister to transfer it ?


William Pugsley: Please ask me something easy, I have not formed an intention yet on the subject.


John Waterhouse Daniel: 


George Eulas Foster: What is the rule ?


William Pugsley: The rule is the same as it was fifteen years ago.


George Eulas Foster: Then it will be transferred, I suppose.


William Pugsley: Not necessarily, I met one the other day that was twenty years old that had not been transferred.


George Eulas Foster: You might meet one that was fifty years old.


Richard Blain: How far is this from Halifax ?	[DOT]


William Pugsley: 300 miles I suppose.


Richard Blain: The reason I asked is that I see my old friend Mr. Macllreith of Halifax looming up in legal expenses. I was wondering if there were no lawyers there. How is it the local men are overlooked ?


William Pugsley: I understand it was a local man who did the work under Mr. Macllreith's direction.


Richard Blain: Why should that be ?


William Stevens Fielding: In that respect there has been no change. Under preceding governments there was one general solicitor who had charge of all solicitors' work for Nova Scotia and who made arrangements with the different local men. It has been the policy of the Justice Department for many years to have one gentleman in charge before the whole province.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is it the same in other provinces ?


William Stevens Fielding: It was the policy in Nova Scotia. The leader of the opposition was in that capacity for many years.


Richard Blain: In looking over the past I see that this was one of the chief grounds of complaint of hon. gentlemen opposite when they were on this side. I was surprised that they should adopt a policy which they had condemned.


George Eulas Foster: I understood from a return which I received that Mr. Macllreith levied toll on every poor country barrister, and I understood the Minister of Justice to say he would look into that and arrange it. Does the Minister of Finance approve of that system of levying tolls on these country barristers in that way ?


William Stevens Fielding: I am not quite sure that I approve of the methods whereby lawyers carry on their business generally. I am told the method is the same as is employed in the legal profession in private affairs, that is business passing through one central office is transferred to other offices, and a certain portion of the fees goes to the local man and a certain portion to the

central office. If that has been done in this case it is not unusual. I am not sure that it is satisfactory and I think the Minister of Justice has the matter under consideration now.


George Eulas Foster: I think the Minister of Finance, if he looks into this will find there is some difference. If Mr. McDonald, a lawyer in Pictou, sends a piece of business to Halifax for his correspondent to look after, there is some division of fees, but that is quite different from a law or a practice which would make it a part of the policy that should be obligatory upon the legal fraternity. Why when the Minister of Public Works has to get a title to a piece of land in Sydney, should he send that work to Mr. Macllreith and then have Mr. Macllreith send it down to Sydney and take a toll off the fees of the local solicitor. I do not see that this is parallel with the other at all. I am quite sure that the representative of that county has legal gentlemen supporting him who are sufficiently well versed in law to take the title to that piece of land. That is what I object to, that it is the system of middlemen which is being carried on in a hundred different ways and even extends itself to all this matter of legal patronage. Some man stands at the receipt of custom ; in this case it is that notable lawyer Mr. Macllreith and he tolls all the business sent to him, parcels it out in the districts. It would seem to me more direct and less expensive to go to the local man where he has sufficient talent and experience to do the necessary work.


William Stevens Fielding: There is much to be said in favour of that system but there must be another side to the question, otherwise the Department of Justice for the last quarter of a century would not have insisted on having the work done through one gentleman at Halifax. The hon. gentleman says it is strange that if a title is to be examined in Sydney it should be sent to a certain gentleman in Halifax. That is exactly what has been done for more than a quarter of a century. The arrangement of the Halifax gentleman with the local practitioner in a county is a matter between themselves. The accounts have to be taxed in every case by the Department of Justice so that substantially the practice to-day does not differ from the practice in the past. I think my hon. friend is wrong when he says it differs from the practice in private affairs. I think what is called the agency system is recognized in the profession and that a solicitor in a large city receiving business which he has to pass over to some one else, might do very little of the business himself, but would be entitled to a portion of the fees. I am told
that is the practice of the legal profession in Ontario.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister carry it out in the province of Ontario in the same way ? Is there some central lawyer, say in Toronto, to whom they send all legal business in connection with the government and then have him distribute it to A, B, C, and D, and collect his percentage upon the costs ?


William Stevens Fielding: I could not say as to Ontario, but I know the practice in Nova Scotia.


William Pugsley: It is sent from my department to the Department of Justice which handles it. It seems to me there is quite an advantage in having one man responsible for the proper discharge of business and if it does not cost more I think it quite proper to have one man attend to all business and see it is properly done.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend can see an advantage more quickly than any other gentleman I am acquainted with. He can see an advantage in any indefensible system brought up. I have no doubt that if he were dealing with some supplies


William Pugsley: Fifteen years ago you would have supported it.
Mr. FOSTER, -that Mr. Merwin furnished, the minister would have been able to see a considerable advantage in having a gentleman of Merwin's experience and knowledge handle the business and hold him responsible for all that- is purchased although it would have cost 75 per cent more than to buy it from another source.


William Pugsley: You do not suggest that this costs any more ?


George Eulas Foster: I suggest that it is part of an intricate patronage system which enhances the cost. This man parcels out the business to A, B or O as he chooses. But, there is a system of patronage and when the hon. gentleman says that it does not enhance the cost I think it will be found that it does enhance the cost.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend would repeat that speech and put the name of Mr. Rorden in it he would be just as correct. In the davs when my hon. friend was Minister of Finance and, to some degree, was responsible for these- matters there was one gentleman in the city of Halifax who did the whole of the government's business in Nova Scotia and he made his own arrangements. I do not think it could have been such a very bad system or else my hon. friend would not have allowed it to go on. However. I am not so wedded to it that I am defending it very strongly.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is hardima

ly fair in suggesting that because it happens that Mr. Macllreith, a Liberal lawyer, is engaged by the Department of Justice to look up titles and attend to matters of this kind, the system is one that should be condemned in the strong language in which he has undertaken to condemn it. As a member of the bar of Nova Scotia, I remember when the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) did the business for the Department of Justice in Nova Scotia. Mr. Borden and his firm, in those days, instead of engaging a competent solicitor to look after matters which could be attended to by a solicitor who was living in the county in which the business was to be done, sent out the junior partner of the firm. The government paid not merely for the cost of searching the title of the properties which were being taken over and the cost of the certification of the title but it also paid the additional expenses of the junior member of this Halifax firm who was sent out to do this work. So that, if the hon. gentleman's soul is vexed because Mr. Macllreith has local solicitors to do this work, I am sure he will be bubbling over with indignation when I tell him that this system was pursued in the days of the former administration and that it then involved a greater expense than at the present time. When this government came into power, finding that this system had prevailed in the past, Mr. W. B. Ross' firm were entrusted with the business they being responsible to the Department of Justice. Mr. Macllreith, on Mr. Ross' firm going out of business, assumed the business in the same way. What I complain of is that the hon. member for North Toronto should see in this a frightful condition of things. I know that it is perhaps no answer to say that this system existed under his government, but I think the hon. gentleman might have become solicitous upon this question at a much earlier period in his career. Personally, as a member of the bar of Nova Scotia, I think that this system of having a Halifax la ,vyer dealing with these questions is one which should not be continued. I have made personal representations to the Department ef Justice upon this subject. The hon. gentleman is not fair in using the word ' toll taker ' with reference to a gentleman who happens to be a member of the legal firm which is doing this business legitimately just as Mr. Borden did it previously. 1 think the system which obtains in Ontario under which the Department of Justice deals with a local solicitor is the proper one. I have said so to the Minister of Justice. I do not think that the Minister of Justice is averse to considering that view and I hope to see the same system adopted in Nova Scotia as that which prevails in the rest of the Dominion.
Barachois-combined dam and training pier at moutli of river, $1,100.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 


William Humphrey Bennett: What will be the total
cost ?


William Pugsley: This is a revote to complete it.
Bay St. Lawrence-harbour, $20,500.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is this the commencement of this work ?


William Pugsley: This is under contract ; $10,000 is a revote and this is required for converting a place called MeDougall's pond into a safe boat harbour by constructing a channel 365 feet long and 60 feet wide.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the total cost ?


William Pugsley: 


William Humphrey Bennett: When will it be completed ?


William Pugsley: In September, 1908.


William Humphrey Bennett: How many tenders were received ?


William Pugsley: Four, the lowest "being $2.4,550 and the highest $26,300.
Big Lorraine harbour-dredging entrance channel, $3,600.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much was spent last year ?


William Pugsley: This is a revote.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will this complete ? Mr. PUGSLEY. Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has a contract been let ?


William Pugsley: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will tenders be asked for the work ?


William Pugsley: This will probably be done by the government dredge.
Breton cove-extension of breakwater pier, $6,500.


William Pugsley: This ia under contract.


George Taylor: What is the entire cost ?


William Pugsley: The total cost will be $6,500.


William Humphrey Bennett: When will it be completed ?


William Pugsley: On the 28th October, 1908.
Cape St. Mary-breakwater extension, $10,800.


William Pugsley: This is also under contract. Of this $5,000 is a revote.


George Taylor: Will this complete it ?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Caribou Island causeway between island and mainland, $5,500.


William Pugsley: This is a revote. It is to complete a causeway of brush and stonework 1,330 feet in length.


George Taylor: When will it be completed ?


William Pugsley: This is to be done by day's labour. It is expected to finish it this year.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How many people are there on Caribou Island ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There are about fifty families on the island. The vote is for the purpose of restoring a work that was constructed under the old government and that was washed away by a storm which took place a few years ago.


George Taylor: Why is this not done by contract ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The work is so situated that it cannot be done by contract. It has always been done by day labour.


George Taylor: This involves an expenditure of over $5,000 and should be done by contract.


William Pugsley: There are two different classes of work. One is brush and stone work, of which there are 2,280 yards at 80 cents, making $2,240. The further work that is expected to be required will bring the total amount up to about $5,000.


George Taylor: It is all one job and it is doing work by day labour that the law contemplates should be done by contract.


William Pugsley: The actual work is about $5,000.
Charlos cove breakwater, $6,000.


William Pugsley: We will drop this item. The work has been completed and paid for.


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the total cost?


William Pugsley: The contract price was $12,875.
Church Point-repairs to wharf, $2,400.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is this done by day's work or contract ?


William Pugsley: Day labour.


William Humphrey Bennett: In what county?


William Pugsley: Digby.
Cow bay (Port Morien)-repairs to breakwater, $10,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is this done by day labour or contract?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. Day labour.


William Humphrey Bennett: What, will the total
cost be?


William Pugsley: We are doing a little each year.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How long has it been
going on?


William Pugsley: Work of the same character has been swing on for thirty years ; removing boulders and extending breakwater to improve harbour.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is it stone?


William Pugsley: Concrete and stone.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will $10,000 be spent in the coming year by day's labour?


William Pugsley: My chief engineer tells me it is repair work, and cannot be specified to be done by contract.
Digby harbour-improvements including repairs to piers, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This is under contract ; total probable cost, $67,500. The contractors are J. E. and H. Bigelow, of Canning, N.S. This year $17,900 will be spent.


Richard Blain: Is Canadian cement used in all these works?


William Pugsley: In connection with Cow Bay, I am not sure we can get Canadian cement to the best advantage, because we have no cement works in the lower provinces except at Sydney.


Richard Blain: Is the Sydney cement good ?


Alexander Charles Ross: It is all right.


William Pugsley: We specify Canadian cement wherever possible.


Mr. JOHNSTON.: Since a question has been raised about the cement, I may, for the benefit of the minister and his engineers, give my experience as a cement architect. My judgment is (and my judgment is shared by very many people who have used the Sydney cement very extensively) that the Sydney cement is all right for all the purposes of the Department of Public 'Works. But there appears to be somebody or some influence with the Department of Public Works which militates against the use of Sydney cement.


John Dowsley Reid: Sell it through Strubbe, the Montreal middleman.


Alexander Johnston: My hon. friend had better not get too fussy about these things. I simply want to point out to the Minister of Public "Works that it is worth his while inquiring'into the question of using Sydney cement in connection with works for which it is absolutely suitable.


William Pugsley: I might make a very brief statement with regard to cements. Other cement manufacturers have made similar complaints that they have been discriminated against, and I gave directions a short time ago that there should be a complete test made of the cements which these factories turn out, and that the manufacturers should have an opportunity of being represented in the laboratory by any expert they might choose to name. I can


OOMMOKS
[Stage Direction]
assure my lion, friend that if the Sydney manufacturers of cement think there has been any discrimination on the part of Mr. Perlev, who is in charge of the laboratory,
I will afford them an opportunity of there being a test made and of their being represented by an expert from McGill College or Toronto University, or any school of technology, to see that such test is properly made.
George Taylor: What is the use of a test if the department will not buy it?


William Pugsley: They are bound to buy it. The moment it passes the test of the laboratory of the department the contractor is at liberty to furnish it, but it must pass the test.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the minister say the Sydney cement has not passed the test?


William Pugsley: I do not. The first intimation I have had about this matter is what I have heard just now.


John Dowsley Reid: We should give a chance to Canadian industry, and the Sydney cement should be purchased for this work instead of importing cement from England. I never heard of the Sydney cement works before, but if th lr cement comes up to the test it should be used in this public work, provided it is sold as cheaply as other cement.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no reason why the Canadian cement makers should not supply their cement at equal prices. From what the member from Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) says, it is quite apparent that the Sydney people are not getting a chance to supply the cemeut required in Nova Scotia. It appears to me there is something wrong about it, or else the Sydney people would get the order.


Alexander Charles Ross: I would like to explain points in regard to the Sydney cement. Not many years ago Canadians generally did not believe that good cement could be made in this country. Engineers and contractors were prejudiced against the home made article, but it is now admitted that as good cement is now made in Canada as in any part of the world.


John Dowsley Reid: Is the Sydney cement made from the same material as other cements ?


Alexander Charles Ross: Yes. The Sydney cement contains the same constituents as all other good Portland cements, but the product is derived from the slag of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company's furnaces. This slag is granulated by applying water when in a molten state. It is then dried and ground exceedingly fine in ordinary cement mills. The result is a first-class cement. The Sydney cement mill has Mr. PUGSLEY.
been in operation about three years (capacity 500 bbls.) This cement meets all the requirements and government tests and is giving good satisfaction in all kinds of work. On account of this cement being derived from furnace slag, composed of lime and clay (in proper proportions), instead of from lime stone and clay (or marl) the base of Portland cements, some few engineers are still sceptical, this prejudice is, however, very rapidly being overcome through tne merits of the article.


William Pugsley: There is no prejudice on the part of the department against any cement. All we want is a good cement that will stand tne test of the depart men t.
Glace Bay-assistance towards harbour improvements, $3,000; beach protection works, $10,000. ,


William Pugsley: The first item is a balance which is required to complete the construction of harbour works. Of the second item, $5,000 is a revote. It is asked to provide for the construction of pile and brush works 4,000 feet long, 44 feet wide, 7 feet above high water at spring tides. It is on the beach separating Glace bay from the Atlantic ocean.


George Taylor: Is this to be done by contract ?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Hall's harbour-repairs to breakwater, $8,300.


William Pugsley: This is to be done by day labour. A considerable part of this is for the purchase of timber; therefore the labour will be under $5,000.


George Taylor: I do not see how that affects the law that no work costing more than $5,000 shall be done by day labour.


William Pugsley: I do not think my hon. friend is quite right in that. In this case it is required to restore the end of the breakwater and the eastern portion of it for its entire length. It is a work which the engineer thinks can be better done by day labour. We have a right to buy timber to the amount of $5,000 ; that would be from one concern. Then we have a right to employ labour up to the amount of $5,000.
Lake Ainslie-protected boat channel leading to wharf at Kinloch railway station, $1,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: What boat plies on Lake Ainslie that comes up to the railway station ?


Mr. MCLENNAN.: There is a boat plying between the pyrites mine and the railway wharf, and there is a shoal which it is desired to deepen, and it is desired to build protection works on both sides of the channel thus made.


Mr AMES.: Is there any passenger service on Lake Ainslie connecting with the train ?


Angus McLennan: Yes. all along the settlement from East Ainslie.
Margaree river-shear dams, &c., for protection of intervale lands on northeast branch, $1,300.


William Pugsley: This Is expected to complete the two dams.


Herbert Brown Ames: How far are these from the mouth of the river ?


Angus McLennan: About twelve miles.


Herbert Brown Ames: Are we building protection dykes up a river twelve miles from the sea coast ?


Angus McLennan: It would appear that in the heavy freshets the river rushes from the hinterland along its hanks and changes the bend of the river entirely, in many instances destroying it as a salmon ground.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does it not seem strange to spend money on a small river one and a half miles inland to protect its banks from the ocean? This stream is not navigable.


Angus McLennan: It is only four miles from salt water. The salt water runs up to the harbour, some eight miles.


William Pugsley: It is not always easy to draw the line between federal, provincial and local works. The banks of this river being alluvial, the ei'osion of the banks carries down the silt, filling up the harbour, and it is in the interests of navigation to prevent that. Similar work has been done ever since confederation. We have to be careful not to go too far and have to be guided by the extent of the injury.
Mi'. AMES. The hon. minister is creating a dangerous precedent. It will be followed by a large number of demands for the protection of small rivers 'which flow into harbours and which, in the time of freshets, bring down mud. If we are going to follow small rivers to their sources there will be no end of demands made.


William Pugsley: This is only a small distance from the salt water.


Herbert Brown Ames: It is four miles up a rapid stream which is not navigable.
McPherson's cove-Great Bras d'Or lake, wharf, $3,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: Where is McPherson's cove?


William Pugsley: It is on the southern side of East bay.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will this complete the work ?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Middle river (lower)-extension of shear dams, &c., $2,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: This is another case of dikes to prevent the banks of a small river from erosion.


William Pugsley: This is to complete the work.


Herbert Brown Ames: Are the dams in salt or fresh water?


William Pugsley: I am told in fresh water.


Herbert Brown Ames: A little river about six inches deep.


William Pugsley: It goes through alluvial soil and carries the silt down to the harbour.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister will find any number of rivers in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick which require protection if he undertakes to build dikes to a considerable extent to prevent the silt coming down. I know Middle river quite well and was wondering where it was possible to build works of this character which would be of any service to navigation.


William Pugsley: It is a great thing to prevent the harbour filling up with silt.


Herbert Brown Ames: The harbour is three miles loug.
Sydney harbour-wharf on south arm near Whitney pier, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is to complete the work.
Tancook island-breakwater on southwest side of southeast cove, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This is under contract. It is to provide protection. It is to be_ cribb work 321 feet long at the inner end and a breakwater 1,100 feet long. The estimated cost is $20,670.


George Taylor: How much was spent last year.


William Pugsley: Only $700.


Herbert Brown Ames: This is in Lunenburg.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: How many people on Tancook island?


Mr.   A.@: Iv. MACLEAN. About 700 peo-' pie. The inhabitants engage in fishing.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is any of Captain Kidd's treasure there?


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: That is in an island nearby. This island is without harbour protection and this expenditure will be of great value.


Herbert Brown Ames: How much expenditure may be expected all told?


Mr.   A.@: Iv. MACLEAN. A very large amount could be expended, but $20,000 will afford considerable protection. But some time in the future there shou'd be an addition to this.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the nature of the protection?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The fishermen use large boats, too large to haul up on shore,



and consequently in times of storm there is considerable loss of fishing property on that account. The boats will run from different parts of the island to this breakwater, but there should be a considerable sum expended some time in the future.


Richard Blain: Was there,any vote for this last year ?


William Pugsley: There was a vote of $9,500, but only $500 was expended.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The work was only commenced last week, I think.


George Taylor: Last year, $10,000 was voted of which $500 was expended. Now, you are asking a revote of $9,000 and are increasing that by $5,500 ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Mr.   BLAIX@: Will this complete the work ?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Mr. FIELDING moved that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not ask that the committee continue sitting, but I would make a request of the Minister of Public Works, that on going into Supply again, he wni take up the general vote for dredging in the maritime provinces. There is considerable to be done, a large part of it important work.


George Taylor: That will go through as well with the hon. member (Mr. A. K. Maclean) absent as present.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am only asking that the minister take it up at the earliest opportunity.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


George Taylor: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: The Bill relating to the use of tobacco by minors, the Bill relating to the bounties on lead, and, after that, Supply taking up the estimates of the Minister of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 24, 1908. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Eleven o'clock.


Mr. ARMSTRONG asked :: Does the government intend using the yacht owned by the Geological Survey, and at pre-Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.
sent storied at Moose Factory, James bay, during the summer? If so, what use will it be put to, who will have charge of the expedition and for what purposes will said expedition be conducted ?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue).: It is not expected that any one will use the yacht owned by the Geological Survey and at present stored at Moose Factory, during this summer.


INDEPENDENT BANK AUDIT.
Mr. BICKERDIKE asked :: Is it the intention of the government to introduce during the present session a measure providing for the independent audit, under the supervision of the Finance Department of all banks doing business in Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: The question of government inspection of banks is a very much debated one. Financial men are not by any means agreed that such an inspection would accomplish what its advocates desire to bring about. It is a very important question deserving of study and inquiry in connection with a general revision of the Bank Act. but we do not feel that the matter is in such a position as to make it probable that we could introduce such an amendment during the present session.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Wilfrid Laurier: That after this date to the end of the session, rule No. 3, under which Mr. Speaker adjourns this House at six o'clock, p.m., on Wednesdays, shall not apply, but that in this respect the same rule shall apply as on the other sitting days of the House.


Mr. A. A. MARTIN.: Does the premier take into consideration the fact that next Wednesday is the 1st of July ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Of course, if the House does not sit on that day. this rule will not affect it. We have not considered yet whether we will sit on that day or not. As a rule we do not.


George Taylor: I think the motion should be amended to the effect that if we are to sit every night, we should not sit after eleven or twelve o'clock this hot weather. After we have put in twelve hours of hard and faithful work, we ought at any rate to have an understanding that the House will rise at eleven o'clock. That is quite strain enough on the ministers and members.


Wilfrid Laurier: Where reasonable progress has been made during the day with the business of the House, I do not know that that would be very objectionable, but I would not like to bind ourselves to that rule absolutely. I think we can be guided by what progress has been made during the day.


George Eulas Foster: We have to pay the penalty now for the negligence of the right lion, gentleman himself. Here is an enormous Bill of fifty-six pages, the Public Lands Bill, which comes down to this House on the 23rd day of June. It might just as well have been before the House at anytime after the 1st of January and have been disposed of long ago. It is one of the most important Bills that could be brought before the House, and seven months have been allowed to elapse before the House gets into committee on it, and now we have to pay for it.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend may have to pay for it, but if so it is his own fault. The House has not been idle during those seven months, but has been sitting every day.


George Eulas Foster: I did not know I was running the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon.   WM@: PATERSON (Minister of Customs) moved that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Customs Act, chapter forty-eight, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, and to provide that the following provisions be added at the end of section 22 of the said Act:
2. The conductor of every railway train carrying freight arriving at any port in Canada from any foreign port or place, shall, at the time of making his report, if required by the officer, produce to him the way bills of all goods on board his train or true copies thereof.
That the following provisions be added after section 69 of said Act:
Section 70. The equipments or any part thereof, including boats purchased or supplied in a foreign country for, or the expenses of repairs made in a foreign country upon, a vessel intended to be employed, or which is thereafter employed, in the coasting trade of Canada, shall, on the arrival of such vessel in any port of Canada, if arriving within one year after such repairs have been made or equipments purchased or supplied, be liable to entry and the payment of duty on the cost thereof in such foreign country at the following rates, viz.: (a) On the expenses of repairs, twenty-five per cent ad valorem; (b) on equipments, including boats, the same rate of duty .as if the articles were imported into Canada in the ordinary course.
2.	If the owner or master of such vessel shall wilfully and knowingly neglect or fail to report, make entry and pay duties as herein required, such vessel, with her tackle, apparel and furniture, shall be seized and forfeited.
3.	If the owner or master of such vessel shall, however, furnish good and sufficient evidence that such vessel while in the regular course of her voyage, was compelled by stress of weather or casualty to put into such foreign port to make such repairs, to secure the
356J
safety of the vessel to enable her to reach her port of destination, then it shall be competent for the Minister of Customs to authorize the refund of the duties on such repairs, and such vessel shall not be liable to forfeiture under the next preceding section.
That the following provisions be added after subsection 2 of section 287 of the said Act:
3. Officers of customs examining baggage, inspectors of customs and their assistants, and other duly accredited officials of the Department of Customs, with their baggage and their equipment, shall at all times when thereunto required by the Minister of Customs, be carried free of charge on any steamship or steamboat navigating the waters of Canada, and on any railway in Canada, provided such railway, steamboat or steamship participates in the transportation of goods in bond under customs manifests in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. ETHIER.: In the absence of Mr. Walsh, I beg to move :
That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the ninth report of the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, the fee of $200 levied under rule 88 on Bill No. 88 to incorporate the Architectural Institute of Canada, be refunded.


William Stevens Fielding: What is the reason for refunding the fee ?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: It is not a commercial organization, but merely a social organization.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no desire to offer objection. If it is not the practice to exact a fee from a professional society, this motion is all right.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the Bill?


William Stevens Fielding: Respecting the Architects' Institute of Canada. I take it this is an organization of professional gentlemen. This will be anologous in the medical or law society. I have not the practice of the House, and am not aware whether this would establish a precedent or not. If it does not, I would not object.


Robert Laird Borden: There is an established practice, so far as religions and charitable societies are concerned, but I am not aware that this embraces societies for professional purposes.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: This is simply a society for the promotion of social good feeling. It has not power to submit to examinations such as the medical and the law society has. It is simply a social affair, and that was the light in which it was considered by the committee.


William Stevens Fielding: I would ask my hon. friend to let the Bill stand by way of notice. It is not of importance except ns establishing a precedent.


Mr. K. L. BORDEN.: I have no wish to discriminate against the gentlemen who want this, but it is desirable that we should have some uniform practice.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: At the next sitting of the House I shall move the adoption of the report.



THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 173) to restrain the use of tobacco by young persons.-(Mr. Aylesworth).

Hon.  W. S.@: 
George Eulas Foster: How much was that per pound ?


William Stevens Fielding: 
George Eulas Foster: Could the minister tell us what the average price of lead has been for the past two years?


William Stevens Fielding: The price varies from day to day. The figures have not been made up iii the form in which the hon. gentleman asks for them, but that can be prepared and made known at a later stage of the Bill.


George Eulas Foster: What is the price of lead at the present time?


William Stevens Fielding: 
George Eulas Foster: The minister says that some in'ogress has been made. Probably the committee would like to know something of what has been done in the last five years.


William Stevens Fielding: I might mention the amount of the bounty paid year by year, and then my hon. friend from British Columbia (Mr. Templeman) will be able to give some further details of the condition of the industry. The amount of the bounty paid in each year since 1904, the first year of the operation of this law, is as follows :
1904		
1905		
1906		
1907	(9 months).
1908

Total up to March 31, 1908.. .. $667,404
The smallness of the amount paid in 1907 is accounted for by the fact that the price of lead was so high that very little bounty was claimed. The total varies a little from the figures of the preamble of the Bill. The accounts have been readjusted. As to the progress of the industry my hon. friend from British Columbia will be able to say something.


George Eulas Foster: One word of explanation further: To what industries or corporations has this money been paid?


William Stevens Fielding: The payments have been distributed among 166 different producers of lead.


George Eulas Foster: How does the Minister of Finance define ' producers ' ? In what shape is the lead when the bounty is paid ?


William Stevens Fielding: Delivery to the smelter, on certificate that it has been delivered.


George Eulas Foster: After it has passed through the smelter? Or, is the payment made on the lead ore?


Mr. GALLIHER.: On the lead content of the ore.


George Eulas Foster: Determined by assay?


William Alfred Galliher: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: A percentage is paid on the ore when delivered and the balance on the smelter returns. An officer of the Trade and Commerce Department checks the returns daily.


George Eulas Foster: And the bounty goes to the man or company that takes out the lead ore?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: To say that 166 producers share in this bounty does not give a very clear idea of the condition, for two or three, or even one, may receive practically all the bounty. If we had a statement showing the output of each producer for each year during the continuance of the bounty, we could better judge what effect the bounty has had in stimulating the production of ore.


William Stevens Fielding: Those figures can be submitted before the final stages of the Bill.


William Templeman: I can give it partially. I have here a statement of the amount of money received by the representative mines-about seventy-five or eighty in all.


Mr. OSLER.: What proportion of the bounty do these receive?


William Templeman: The St. Eugene, the largest in the province, producing probably fifty or sivty per cent of the total lead product received for the five years, about $290,000. The Sullivan mine received $51,000; the Highland, $42,000; the North Star, $35,000; the South Star. $20,000; the Ivan-hoe, $20,000; the Cariboo, $13,000, and so on down to amounts of $100 or $200. The aggregate shown in this statement is about $600,000. It brings the payments up to some months ago. The distribution of the bounty has been very general. As the Finance Minister has stated it is paid to the producers of the lead on the certificate of the Inspector appointed by the Trade and Commerce Department who checks up every day the lead produced at the smelter from the ore shipped by the mines and calculates the amount of bounty on the daily quotations of prices in London.


George Eulas Foster: 
Mr.   I OSTER@: But I have heard from an intimate source, the information leaked out.
f^at,*!'*? Present cabinet does sometimes fight like blazes.'


William Templeman: When giving figures I did not refer to the yearly lead production. The amount of lead produced during the first bounty year was 12.263 tons, short tons. That is the quantity on which the bounty was paid. The next year of the bounty, 1905, there were 27,838 tons produced ; the third year, 26,200 tons, the fourth year 23,800 tons. I have not thi figures for the fifth year.


William Stevens Fielding: The estimate for tin next year was about 24,000 tons.


William Templeman: 
William Alfred Galliher: I may add to what the Minister of Inland Revenue has said, that in the fiscal year prior to the bounty being applied the conditions of the lead industry were in such a shape that there were only about 6,000 tons produced, that is in the year preceding 1904.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance why he takes the word of the lead men that their industry is not profitable under present conditions, and gives them a bounty, while he ignores altogether the plea of the woollen manufacturers who have been telling him for years that they cannot profitably manufacture woollen goods in this country without increased duties. I would like to know why he should protect some people by giving them bounties, and protect other people by giving them a higher tariff. I do not see why he should pay bounties any way, I am opposed to the whole system of bounties. I think the minister ought to be able to explain the different way he treats these gentlemen, why he gives a full consideration to those who are asking for lead bounties, and ignores the statements and representations of the woollen manufacturers, who tell us they are suffering, and that their profits are almost gone.	,


William Stevens Fielding: We did endeavour to meet the wishes of our friends of the wool-leu industry several years ago, and it is within my knowledge that gentlemen high in authority in the woollen trade stated at that time that the tariff as then arranged was all that the woollen industry could reasonably ask for. There is a difference of opinion amongst gentlemen in the woollen trade to-day. However, I do not wish to argue the matter. If any large industry in Canada is in a depressed condition, it is a matter for our serious consideration. But tlieie is not the unanimity of opinion as to the condition of the woollen industry that the hon. gentleman thinks.


Uriah Wilson: Is not that the nearly unanimous opinion ?


William Stevens Fielding: I have understood that some branches of the industry are doing very well.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to say to the minister that before the Bill is read a third time it would be an advantage for us to have a table prepared giving the amount of lead produced each year, and the amount of bounty that is paid each year, and then sum up the total. That would give us the whole case. We would then get the actual production of each one of the participants in each year and the amount of bounty paid. That would be valuable as helping us to make

up our mind as to the benefits to be derived from the bounty.


William Stevens Fielding: We will endeavour to obtain what the hon. gentleman mentions.


George Eulas Foster: 
William Stevens Fielding: It will increase the amount of bounty.


George Eulas Foster: Now you have mentioned here that the result of the last five years leaves unexpended about $1,788,000 of the total amount authorized. That is true in a way, but there was no fund set apart which was to be devoted to this purpose. Parliament said : We will give, not exceeding $500,000 each year, and not exceeding $2,500,000 in the five years. However, that is a matter of casual criticism. But you have now left for the succeeding five years $1,-SC0.C00 which parliament at the present time does not" propose to exceed, and yet there is no limit, so far as I can see, to the amount which may be paid out in one year.


William Stevens Fielding: There was a fixed limit of $500,000. We left it at that for the reason that it was not likely in any year to exceed $500,000. And, if it happened that-there was particular activity in any year, and that amount was exceeded, so long as it did not exceed the gross sum, we did not think it was important.


George Eulas Foster: and tlien, like the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), they get up and swear that theirs is a revenue tariff and nothing more. It is a very favourite argument for the Minister of Customs to go before a popular audience and say : Our's is a revenue tariff, see the revenue it produces ! -That is the evidence that it is a revenue tariff. That is a fair sample of the cogent and logical reasoning of some of the members of the government, I suppose of all of them, because the Minister of Customs, and equally, the Minister of Finance must voice the opinion and keep the conscience of the government in this respect. There is another question that I would like the Minister of Finance to answer in that statement. I suppose the bounty is practically confined to the province of British Columbia, or does it apply to some other parts of the country?


William Stevens Fielding: I think it is wholly confined to British Columbia. I think the lead industry is only operating in British Columbia. I am told there has been some small operation in Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2-mode of payment.
George Eulas Foster: Would the minister just give us the modus operand! of the examination and payment ?


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Buchanan, the inspector appointed especially for this purpose in British Columbia, visits the various smelters, examines the accounts, checks the whole proceedings and reports to the department. Perhaps my hon. friend from Kootenay (Mr. Galliher) may know what the procedure is ?


William Alfred Galliher: I do not know that I understand all the minutiae incidental to the working out of the matter.


George Eulas Foster: You evidently know more than the minister does.


William Alfred Galliher: I would not presume to say that. When the ore is taken from the mine to the smelter it is sampled. They take a sample of the ore, crush it, then mix it three or four times and then divide it into four different parts. They make an assay of that ore and that assay will give the lead contents in the ore as it will also give the silver, copper, gold or whatever else there may be in the ore if they assay for it. But, for the purpose of this Act it is assayed for the lead contefits. Then, the smelter furnishes a certificate of the amount of the lead contents in the ore, we will say, delivered from some particular mine to the smelter. That ore must be actually in the smelter for the purpose of being smelted in Canada and it must be smelted in Canada; otherwise they are not entitled to the bounty Mr. FOSTER.
paid under this Act. Sixty per cent of the bounty is paid and forty per cent is held back. The object of holding back that forty per cent to the end of the fiscal year instead of paying it all at once is this : If a mine producing a very large quantity of ore per month received payment in full the limit of payment might be reached and three or four of the larger mines might get the full amount that was to be paid leaving some of the mine owners who are producing less during the year in the position that they could not secure the payment of any of the bounty to them. The $500,000 might be used up before the end of the year and in order to protect the smaller miners that forty per cent is held back and the bounty is properly apportioned amongst all of them at the end of the fiscal year.


George Eulas Foster: Then the 60 per cent is paid on the smelter analysis?


William Alfred Galliher: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Do the smelter authorities make the analysis?


William Alfred Galliher: The smelter authorities make the analysis.


George Eulas Foster: Is that the same analysis that they buy upon?


William Alfred Galliher: The same analysis as they buy upon! from thier customers.


George Eulas Foster: Then the (10 per cent is paid upon the analysis upon which the smelter buys? After the smelter goes through with its work it knows exactly what it has got out from that ore?


William Alfred Galliher: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Not by analysis, but by actual smelting?


Duncan Ross: No.


George Eulas Foster: Does it revise its payment to the mine producing the ore according to the result of the smelting test, or does it abide by the first analysis?


George Eulas Foster: If the smelter people had any bias at all it would be a bias towards a very careful and thorough analysis so that they should not overpay the miner who brings the ore ?


George Eulas Foster: If the smelter people had any bias at all it would be a bias towards a very careful and thorough analysis so that they should not overpay the miner who brings the ore?


William Alfred Galliher: Most decidedly.


George Eulas Foster: And whatever margin they eke out over and above the first analysis goes to their own profit in addition to their other profits?


William Alfred Galliher: Of course, there is always a cheek. The mine owners them-

selves have their man present representing them each time when analysis is made of the ore, who cheeks the analysis of the smelter.


George Eulas Foster: Well, now. we have got that far ; we have got the analysis of the smelters. These are secured by the officers of the department?


William Alfred Galliher: Yes, they are given by the smelter to the miner who delivers his ore and then the official of the department, Mr. Buchanan, visits the smelters, checks over all the books, obtains the certificates and the payment is made on the certificates by the department.


George Eulas Foster: Then the work of the inspector is simply a mechanical operation ? He has nothing to do with the analysis?


William Alfred Galliher: No.


George Eulas Foster: And he takes practically the statements of the smelters?


William Alfred Galliher: Yes, as checked by the miners.


George Eulas Foster: How much is that inspector paid ?


William Alfred Galliher: About $2,400 a year.


Mr. HAGGART.: 
William Alfred Galliher: That depends.


John Graham Haggart: For two or three years there were 26,000 or 27,000 tons mined and one year there were 80,000 tons mined. If there is a production of 80,000 tons this year there will not be enough bounty to meet the payments for more than three years.


Duncan Ross: There is a maximum bounty of $15 per ton.


John Graham Haggart: Your bounty is 75 cents per 100 pounds or $15 per ton. Thirty thousand tons woidd call for a bounty of $450,000, and the amount at the disposal of the minister is only $1,500,000.


William Stevens Fielding: $1,700,000 or $1,800,000.


John Graham Haggart: 
William Alfred Galliher: 
John Graham Haggart: to take advantage of the United States market ; so that at present our zinc ores are simply placed on the dump until such time as they can be treated in Canada or until better conditions come about between the two countries. A great deal of importance is attached to the mining of lead in British Columbia, not only for itself, but because the lead mines support many important mineral centres. I will not dilate on that; but I wish to point out that the lead mining of the country is also a great benefit to the mining of the precious metals generally in that part of the countfy, for this reason. For instance take the camp of Kossland, where there is a large tonnage from some of the mines, such as War Eagle, Centre Star, and Leroy. The ores of these mines are of a very refractory nature, and the lead ores of the Slocan, to which this bounty applies, enter largely into the reduction of these refractory ores, being used as a flux. For that reason it becomes very important to the mining of the precious metals, that the lead industry should be retained to as full an extent as possible.


George Eulas Foster: Will the Minister of Finance add to that statement the imports and exports of lead ore and the manufactures of lead for those years ?


Uriah Wilson: IIow many officials does this measure cause you to employ, and at what salaries ?


William Stevens Fielding: There is only one permanent official employed, Mr. Buchanan, who received $2,400 a year. Occasionally an assistant is employed when required, but he is not employed at present. The work is done in the department without any extra charge.
Mr. IvEMP. Can the minister tell us how many camps are affected by this ?


William Alfred Galliher: The Kaslo region, which includes the Trout Lake and Ferguson camps ; the Ainsworth district, the San-don district; the Slocan district, including Slocan city, Silverton and New Denver ; the Nelson district : the East Kootenay district, which includes the town of Moyie; the Marysville district, which includes the Sullivan and the North Star camps, also the Paradise and Ptarmigan at Wilmer.


Mr. KEMP.: They are all producing a certain amount of lead ?


William Alfred Galliher: Yes, and there are some districts in the constituency of my hon. friend from Yale and Cariboo.


Richard Blain: How many men are employed in the lead-mining industry in British Columbia ?


William Alfred Galliher: I should say in round numbers between 2,000 and 3,000, in the silver-lead camps and in the smelting industry.


William Alfred Galliher: Mr.. BERGERON. They could not succeed in carrying on their works without the bounty ?


William Alfred Galliher: Certainly not. at the present prices of lead.


Mr. MACLAREN.: Are they operating those mines now ?


William Alfred Galliher: Yes. In Silverton they are operating more mines than they have done for two or three years. My hon. friend must bear this in mind, that they have been looking forward to this measure being continued. In fact money for development is just hanging in the balance in the case of a number of mines, waiting until this matter is settled.


Albert Edward Kemp: You do not know how many would successfully operate without the bounty 1


William Alfred Galliher: The large producing mines are all low grade and have to reduce their ore six to one, eight to one, and twelve to one. Outside of those big mines,, it might bo possible to find some little mine which is very rich in lead and also in silver, but such mines are a very small proportion of the total. In fact they would not be worth considering. Smelters would not run to smelt all the ore got under those conditions.


Albert Edward Kemp: In all the mines the hon. gentleman thinks that 2,000 or 3.000 men are employed ?


William Alfred Galliher: Yes.


Mr. CLEMENTS.: I want to be fairly understood as always willing to assist any industry and I entirely uphold the bounty system. Since this bounty has been paid the lead miners, is it not the fact that the consumer of lead has paid a much higher price ?


William Alfred Galliher: 
Duncan Ross: The policy which the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) would carry out, exchanging the bounty for a duty, would make the consumer pay far more for his lead than under the bounty system.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But it would be the one who used the lead who would pay.


William Stevens Fielding: I want to change the preamble by making the figures $667,404 instead of $666,922 in the eighth line. I

would like to come back to the question of the limitation to $500,000 per annum. I do not think there is any probability of that limitation being extended, but I have no objection to insert it, so that it will stand exactly as in the existing law.


Mr. LABOR.: I would prefer a higher protection upon the imported lead products to a bounty. This would give the Canadian market to our lead producers. I do not agree with the hon. member for Yale and Cariboo when he says that a higher duty on lead products instead of a bounty would make the consumer pay more. That is a fallacy under which free traders, or those who profess to be free traders, labour to a great extent. I do not agree that higher protection means higher prices. If the Canadian market were protected by a proper duty on lead products and the market given to the Canadian purchaser, competition among the Canadian mining companies would bring the prices down to a proper level and the consumer would not pay more than at present. The most objectionable form of protection-if there is any form objectionable-is that form known as the bounty system. Ret us come out boldly and acknowledge we are protectionists and believe in a fair measure of protection to the producer, and give it in the shape of a higher protective tariff rather than give it in an indirect way by means of a bounty. If a proper duty be placed on lead products, the consumer would not pay more and the Canadian market would be given to Canadian producers.


William Alfred Galliher: The only application I have seen from any one in the lead mining district, since the bounty was granted, has been for a continuation of the bounty. My information from the men who operate this industry is that no method could have been adopted which could have been as effective as this bounty system. My hon friend will see the stimulus given to mining when from 6,000 tons at the end of the fiscal year of 1903, the product increased to 13,000 tons at the end of the fiscal year of 1904 and went on increasing to 24,000, 26,000 and 27,000 tons. I think that, in itself, is fairly strong evidence. I can only repeat that I have had no requests from any one in that district to approach the government in any other way than has been done in asking for a renewal of the bounty.


William Stevens Fielding: I would like to make .a slight change in the preamble, corresponding with the one already made. It says ' about one million seven hundred and seventy-eight thousand and seventy-eight dollars.' I desire to strike out the ' seventy-eight,' for it only professes to be an approximate sum. We cannot tell what will be paid during the remainder of the year, and I do not want to appear to be too exact.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Charles Marcil: When shall this Bill be read the third time ? At the next sitting of the House ?


George Eulas Foster: Not the next sitting. That is pro forma only. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is to bring down the information asked for and we cannot proceed with the Bill to-morrow'.


William Stevens Fielding: ' At the next sitting of the House ' is only the usual form to indicate that we do not proceed to-day.


George Eulas Foster: Before we leave the subject. I want to thank the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Galliher) in the name of the opposition in this House for the valuable information he gave and the remarkably fine essay he made in the duties of a minister in acting for the Minister of Finance.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
['The Civil Service Bill; if there is time the Land Bill, and then Supply in Public Works.']
William Pugsley: Before proceeding with the items I desire to give the committee some information, asked for by my hon. friend from North Toronto, with regard to the cement testing laboratory. I have a memorandum of the way in which the vote of $5,000 is proposed to be expended, which memorandum was prepared by Mr. Perley, the engineer in charge of the laboratory. The items are as follows :
Approximate cost of machinery, apparatus, chemicals, &c., required in connection with the cement laboratory. Public Works Department, Ottawa, Ontario, for the fiscal year 1908-1909.
Expressage on samples of cement to and
from Ottawa	$ 200
Telegrams and telephones		25
Electric power used in connection with
our cement testing	 100
Chemicals used in connection with the analysis of cement bricks, stone and all
building material	 350
Chemical apparatus used for the same
purposes as above-mentioned	 400
Rubber gloves, trowels, graduates, &c., used in testing cement physically..	..	125
Brass moulds used in making briquettes 200 Sample boxes (galvanized iron) used for
getting cement samples	 145
1	alternating current motor	
6501	hot air bath and one freezing	bath..	2501	voltage regulator and one booster motor	365
Travelling expenses: collecting samples, investigating method of manufacture,
&c	1,000
1 lathe to be used in preparing steel bars,
&c., to be tested in our 150,000-pounds
testing machine	 190
Maintenance of machinery, repairs and
contingencies	 615
Standard sand used in making 3 to 1 bri-



Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is that expenditure to be made every year ?


William Pugsley: That is the estimate for this year, but, very probably, I should
thiuk, there would be about the same amount every year. I promised that I would obtain a list of the brands of cement used by the department in 1907-S. They are as follows :


LIST OF BRANDS OF CEMENT USED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DURING THE FISCAL YEAR 1907-1908.
[Stage Direction]
Brand.	Manufactured by	Used atInternational	The International Portland Cement Co., Ltd., Hull, Que. * The Owen Sound Portland Cement Co.. Ltd., Owen Sound, Ont. The Sydney Cement Co., Ltd., Sydney, Nova Scotia. The Lakefield Portland Cement Co., Ltd., Lake-field, Ont. The Canadian Portland Cement Co., Ltd., Toronto, Ont. English Cement, imported from the old country	Quebec City and Haileybury, Ont. St. Andrews Rapids, Manitoba. Cow Bay, Port Morien and Bayfield, N.S. Port Burwell,. Ont., London, Ont., Port Stanley, Ont. Sand Point, Ont. Cow Bay, Port Morien, Gros Nez, N.S., L'Ardoise, N.S.
Monarch			
White Bros
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How many cement plants are there in Canada ?


William Pugsley: I should think there must be ten or a dozen at least.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Do they make different cement, or are they trying to make the same?


William Pugsley: They all are manufacturing what is known as Portland cement, except the works at Sydney, which makes cement from the slag of the steel works.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What do they call the kind made at Hull ?


William Pugsley: That is Portland cement.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is it supposed to be as good as is manufactured?


William Pugsley: First class. I promised also to give a memorandum of small purchases we have made at retail, for which tenders were not asked. The list is as follows :
Place.	Quantity.	From whom purchased.	Address.	Brand.Brls. 96J 225" 40	T. S. Kirby & Co	Sussex St., Ottawa.. II . [DOT]	Experimental Farm	
Ottawa Public Buildings,	II 	ii itgrounds. Ottawa Post Office....	180	Ottawa Fireproof Supply Co. II II . .	II . .	Star.Ottawa Public Buildings	10	II . .	II
The price is not marked. These were the total quantities that were bought without tender, not all at one time, but in small quantities, perhaps ten or twenty barrels.


Mr. SPROULE.: Could the minister give us the number of factories, and where they are located, in Ontario?


William Pugsley: The International Portland Cement Company, at Hull, Quebec; the Owen Sound Company, at Owen Sound; the Sydney Company, at Sydney, N.S. I am only giving the names of those whose cement has been used by the Public Works Department during the past year. I am Mr. PUGSLEY.
quite aware that there are a number of other companies at Owen Sound and in other parts of Canada as well. There is a company at Lakefleld, Ontario, and there is the Canadian Portland Cement Company at Toronto.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Does the minister know how many cement companies there are in all Canada?


William Pugsley: I think there are about a dozen.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: What is the object of this test? .


William Pugsley: The object of the test is to determine the strength of the cement, its durability and the time within which it will set.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Was it found in these tests that the strength of the cement was uniform or otherwise?


William Pugsley: There are considerable differences.


Mr.   POSTER@: It seems to me that for the purpose of examining the cement which goes into public works under contracts the expenses are very large. About $4,000 was spent last year, this year we are asked for $5,000. We bought a considerable amount of machinery last year, probably about $2,000 worth, and this year the minister is preparing to get more machinery. It seems to me this is a large amount of money to spend for the simple purpose of testing cement.


William Pugsley: The testing is a very delicate operation, and requires the best appliances.


George Eulas Foster: But do we need an establishment costing as much as this? The minister knows that it is the tendency of every otlicial to magnify his position, and he will make demands for more machinery up to the limit. At the end of this year we shall have $10,000 invested, though a part of it will be in running expenses. What will be the expense of maintaining it after the appliances are installed?


William Pugsley: I do not profess to be able to form as accurate a judgment of the appliances required as the gentleman who is in charge of the establishment. He is a gentleman of experience, and has been selected because of his ability. It does seem to me that wlieu he asks for these appliances for the purpose of perfecting his laboratory, it would be a mistake on my part to refuse the expenditure which he asks for. The amount is not very large when you consider the great importance of the work he is doing. There is nothing more important than to have a reliable test made of the cement which is used in the public works of the country. If poor cement is used in the abutments of bridges, for instance, or in the foundations of a public building, accidents may occur which would very soon run away with a large amount of money. To show the importance of the work in the past year, I have already stated that in eight months we have tested upwards of 1,100 samples. This means a good deal of work ; and I believe that Mr. Perley has asked for nothing more than is absolutely necessary in order to enable him to do the work properly and efficiently.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Do I understand that whenever cement is bought by the department for any public work, that cement has to be tested ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is there no standard cement that would be accepted without being tested?


William Pugsley: No.


Richard Blain: I do not wish to oppose the item. But I do not understand why the government should not broaden Its policy and allow any man who is using cement in Canada, and who has any doubt as to its quality, the right to send that cement to the department for examination,


William Pugsley: I do not think it is quite fair now to enter into a general discussion of matters. This item has been carried. Still I do not' want to stop my hon. friend if he wants to talk.


Richard Blain: I cannot see any very special value to the public. Here is a department that spent last year $2,759 in a laboratory, in addition to the salary of the gentleman who has charge of it. The minister, says the test is confined to cement used in government works, but I have heard no good reason why any citizen who uses cement would not have the right to have the government test it and publish the result, Certainly the tests made by the government should be published broadcast in the interests of the cement establishments themselves and of the people of the country. The experimental farm circulates bulletins giving the result of their tests.


William Pugsley: Has the hon. gentleman thought what it would mean to test all the cements which are used throughout the Dominion? To be of any value these tests would have to be made every two weeks and it would necessitate ten times the staff and ten times the present expense.


Richard Blain: My contention is that if a man buys Canadian cement and has any doubt as to its quality he should have the right to send it to the department and receive the result of the test.


William Pugsley: He could have that done at McGill College or Toronto University.


Richard Blain: Quite so, but I cannot understand why the policy of the government is so narrow as to confine the results of the tests to themselves.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Is the Department of Public Works guided in the purchase of cement by the tests made, and will these tests be available to members of the House and other public men? If every individual is not allowed to have his cement tested the privilege ought at least be extended to the county councils who use a great deal of cement.


William Pugsley: We specify that Canadian Portland cement shall he usel, but it does not follow that every Portland cement is up to the standard. A manufacturer will produce cement which will stand the test to-day and three weeks hence his product may not stand the test. That we have found from practical experience.


Richard Blain: The Canadian manufacturers of first-class cement will he surprised to hear that because they state that every barrel of cement they send out is up to a certain standard.


William Pugsley: I have no doubt they try to keep it up to a certain standard, but sometimes they fail. It has come to my knowledge that one part of cement purchased may be first-class and another part may have to be rejected. That may result from conditions beyond the control of the manufacturers, but I think it is the experience of all contractors. We have found it necessary to make these tests from time to time and if cement does not stand the test it is the duty of the engineer to reject it.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: This is a very important matter and I am rather surprised at the statement of the minister. Cement is being very generally used now in Canada by private individuals and municipal corporations, and if poor brands of cement are put on the market the public should know it. They have just as much right to have the cement tested as any other manufactured article. For instance, the analyses of the different brands of fertilizers are published. Cement is replacing lumber to a large extent and the public should be enlightened as to the value of the different grades and whether a cement manufacturer puts on the bag an incorrect description. I notice that some sidewalks in different municipalities last for years, while others decay rapidly, which is probably accounted for by the variation in the quality of the cement. With all due respect to the Canadian cement manufacturers and the capital they have invested in the industry. I think their product should be subject to the same tests as are the products of other manufacturers. I am strongly in favour of the government publishing the results of these tests and I think they should do so in order to protect the public.


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: The statement of the minister that inferior cement is put on the market is the strongest argument in favour of having a system of government tests. In the Hull cement factory we test the mix. we test the rock, we test the clay as it goes through the mill, and under our system it is impossible to allow a bag of inferior cement to leave the establishment. Our cement is all uniformly good.


William Pugsley: Is yours the national or the international?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: 


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: It is the intea-national I there is the national also. I can say that the raw material is tested in both these I factories every day. I would suggest that each cement mill in Canada should take a sample of its cement every day, for thirty . days, then take an average sample from these thirty days and have the government make a test from that sample for every month the mill runs. In fact this would be a test of cement made every day in every mill in Canada. If the factories test the raw material going through the mill it is impossible to get an inferior cement if they know their business and attend to it. Before the cement goes through the rotaries all the material that enters into it are tested and examined to see that they are in proper proportion and there can be no such thing as good cement one day and inferior cement another day. We test our rock, we test our clay, we test our clinker and every bag of cement that is sold is "tested and a sample of it kept so that it can be traced afterwards. That can be done in every mill in Canada. An inspector of the government could take samples from these differ-ten factories and have them tested and'the results published, and it would not entail much extra expense or labour on the government.


Mr. MILLER.: Is there not a different result obtained from a test made of new cement and of cement which is, sty, one month old?


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: If it would pass the first test and if it is properly cared for afterwards the quality would improve with age.


William Pugsley: Is it not a fact that some cement gets better with age and some does not?


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: The cement that does not improve with age was not good in the first instance.
Mr. FIELDING, There are very good reasons for the inspection of food products but do the same reasons apply for the inspection of the products of all the industries of the country? If you require a general inspection of all the cement used in Canada where are you to draw the line; why should you not require a general inspection of any other article of commerce?


Samuel Hughes: You don't build bridges and Laurier towers with anything but cement.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the Committee on Debates will have to render a bill to my hon. friend (Mr. Maclaren) for the advertisement he has got to-day. After all, in such matters as this, is it not better to rely upon a well established brand than to resort to a system of paternalism whereby you would put the brand of the govern-

juexit on every thing that is produced ? If you inspect cement would you not have to inspect cotton, and wool, and clothing, and everything else?


Samuel Hughes: If the government used wool they would inspect it.


William Stevens Fielding: The government would inspect it for its own purposes, but the contention of hon. gentlemen opposite is that the government must go into a general system of inspection of everything produced, and that if any one wants to buy a barrel of cement he could send a sample to the department and get it tested. If you are to apply that system all over we would require a large staff indeed.


David Henderson: What is the use of a government if it is not to assist people in matters of this kind? That is what we are paying our money for. I believe that the inspection of cement or any other article of public use generally is a good thing.


William Stevens Fielding: You are advocating additional employees and we are trying to keep down the expense.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.
Public Works, chargeable to income-New Glasgow-extension of wharf, $3,500.


William Pugsley: This is for completing the proposed addition to the northern end of the wharf now under construction on the east side of the east river of Pictou. It is under the control of the rictou Harbour Commission. It is for an additional 200 feet in length along the river front, 24 feet in depth, to be built of timber, ballasted and covered with earth, the space between the cribwork and the bank to be filled in with stones. The amount of the contract is $3,990: the estimated contingencies are $510. making the total probable cost of the extension. $4,500.


Herbert Brown Ames: Has the contract been given out?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Who is the successful contractor ?


Mr. PUGSLEY J. W.@: Dobson of Sydney. Eight tenders were received, of which his was the lowest.


Herbert Brown Ames: Where is this located-above or below the railway bridge ?


William Pugsley: I cannot say whether it is above or below.


Herbert Brown Ames: Can you tell near what properties or part of New Glasgow this is-up by the ship yard or down below?


William Pugsley: I am not sufficiently acquainted with New Glasgow to tell my hon. friend.	I


Herbert Brown Ames: What class of boat is it intended to serve? Is there a passenger service there?


William Pugsley: In a memorandum with regard to this work it is said that at the time of the survey by the resident engineer in December, 1906, vessels were discharging at this wharf and occupying all the available wharf frontage, and it was found that in the spring and fall vessels were lying three tiers deep at the wharf. Two steamers land there during the summer, one the * May Queen,' making two trips a day to Pictou, and the other the ' Almeda,' making three trips a week to the island.
Oyster pond-extension of breakwater and dredging, $1,200.


William Pugsley: This amount is asked to complete some works at Oyster Pond in Guysborough county. The breakwater is to be lengthened 100 feet at the southern end on the west side of the entrance in order to prevent the channel filling up with sand and gravel, and the channel is to be deepened for a length of 300 feet so as to secure a depth of three feet at low water for a minimum width of thirty feet. The total cost of the work is estimated at $2,200.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it to be done by day labour or by contract?


William Pugsley: By day work.


George Taylor: What class of boats navigate there in three feet of water?


William Pugsley: There is quite a rise of tide. This, I believe, is an important little harbour. There is deep water inside the bars and it affords a refuge for from fifteen to twenty fishing boats.


Herbert Brown Ames: When is it expected to complete this work?


William Pugsley: This year. This vote is expected to complete it.
Parker's Cove-improvements, $2,600.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for completing during the present year the breakwater on the west side of the mouth of the stream issuing into Parker's Cove with a view to improving and enlarging the shelter for fishing boats and schooners.


Richard Blain: How much was expended last year on that?


William Pugsley: To March 31. 1907, $5.797.25, and since that time $1,683.50. The estimated additional expenditure is $1,520.25. This is entirely a revote.


Herbert Brown Ames: For this additional work will there be a new contract?


William Pugsley: The contract for $7,100, which was let to Messrs. Thurston and Dur-kee, was for an addition to the eastern breakwater. Now the department is build-

ing a breakwater on tbe west side of the mouth of the stream issuing into Parker's Cove-4,200 feet of cribwork at a cost of $3,600. That makes the cost of both works $10,700, to which has to be added for superintendence and contingencies, $900, making a total cost of $11,600. of which the estimated expenditure up to the end of the fiscal year is $9,000, leaving a balance of $2,600 which we are now asking for as a revote.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is the eastern breakwater all completed?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will this complete the western?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then we may not expect to see this item of Parker's Cove in the estimates again next year?


William Pugsley: I think not, unless something unexpected occurs.
Parrsborough-harbour improvements, $9,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote. It is first for completing the work under contract for the excavation of a channel 100 feet wide extending 3,200 feet in a southeastern direction towards the lighthouse point. For completing this contract. $2,000 will be required. Then there is to be the removal of 8,500 yards of material at a cost of about $7,000. The appropriation last year was $24,700, of which we have expended up to the end of the fiscal year $14,777.50, leaving a balance of $9,000. which is the revote now asked for. I may say that the contract has been completed since the memorandum was made up.


Herbert Brown Ames: How soon does the minister expect to have that work completed? I think it was promised several years ago that it would be completed very speedily.


William Pugsley: The chief engineer informs me that the work is substantially completed. There may perhaps be 3,000 yards of dredging still to be done.


Richard Blain: Who had the contract for dredging?


William Pugsley: Hugh Macdonald of North Sydney.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the price per yard ?


William Pugsley: It is a bulk sum contract for $27,950.


William Humphrey Bennett: To what depth of water is the dredging, and what is the nature of the material and how many yards are taken out?


William Pugsley: I have not the specifications, but the quantity in situ was Mr. PUGSLEY.
carefully estimated by the resident engineer, so that the contractor received exact information as to what he had to do, and tenders were received for both the timber work and the dredging work.


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the estimate of the department, first of the cost of the timber work, and second, of the cost of the dredging work?


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will wait a moment, I want to correct a statement I made. According to the memo, there were 27,000 cubic yards of excavation at 50 cents a cubic yard.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister have brought down one of the forms to be filled by inspectors showing the quantity taken out and his attendance on the work ?


William Pugsley: Certainly.


William Humphrey Bennett: And when we come to the vote on the dredging, will the minister have all the original tenders produced for the last two years-those which were on file in the Public Accounts Committee and were removed.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. I have no objection.
Poirierville-landing pier, $2,000.


William Pugsley: This is in Richmond eouuty and will complete the work now under contract. Mr. Thomas D. Morrison lias the contract for $7,775.
Porter's lake-boat channel to Three Fathom harbour, $4,000.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. This is a revote. We propose to excavate a permanent channel 1,250 feet long between Porter's lake and the mouth of the harbour. The object is to permit navigation by vessels drawing 3 feet of water, at about one-third flood and two-thirds ebb tide.


John Dowsley Reid: Why is that being done?


William Pugsley: To provide a harbour for fishing vessels. A great many fishermen carry on business along the coast and it is of enormous advantage that they should be provided with harbours of refuge.
Mr. AMES, is this work primarily for drainage or harbour purposes ?


William Pugsley: For harbour purposes.


Herbert Brown Ames: You tried three times to drain the lake in different channels.


William Pugsley: I have never heard that it was sought to drain Porter's lake. The object is to afford a harbour of shelter for the fishermen.


Herbert Brown Ames: As explained by the hon. gentleman's predecessor, the object was to drain the lake. Porter's lake has a considerable area of water, the channel at the mouth is frequently blocked up, and the

waters flood the farmers' land. It was proposed to cut a channel out to the sea. Several attempts have been made. $22,000 was expended in trying to get a permanent outlet, $1,800 was expended on a temporary outlet, and a couple of hundred dollars on a new outlet up to the 31st of March, 1907, according to the minister's report. On which outlet are you now spending money?


William Pugsley: 1 am not familiar with the details, but the chief engineer informs me that the primary object is to afford a safe and convenient harbour of refuge for the fishermen. No doubt if the channel is obstructed, one effect would be to flood the surrounding country, and possibly the preventing of that may have been in the mind of those who urged the work, but the primary object is to afford a safe and convenient harbour for small vessels.


Herbert Brown Ames: Inasmuch as the government has spent upwards of $25,000 at this point and has made several unsuccessful attempts to accomplish what their engineers declare to be necessary, and inasmuch as this ancient chestnut bobs up calling for a large expenditure prior to each election, the work to be done by day's work, I think it is quite pertinent to ask the minister to give us an assurance that he believes the time will come when this work will be regarded as completed. We would like to see the work finished in a workmanlike manner and made of general use to the community, for then we could hope to pass some sessions of this House without voting additional sums of money on this account. May we not know from the minister how much longer we shall probably have to give successive votes for this work ? Does he believe that, for the amount now asked, we can get the work completed so that it will serve the purpose for which it is designed ?


William Pugsley: I regret that I am not able to hold out the hope that the $4,000 asked for will complete this work. My information is that it will take about $13,000 to complete it. But I think I can give the committee the assurance that that amount will complete the proposed work and also other improvements that are desired. I am sorry the hon. member (Mr. Ames) speaks so contemptuously about this work as ' bobbing up; from time to time. This is a small expenditure compared with what is expended in other places. And, from the information I have, it is an important work in the interests of safety and as a means of enabling these people to carry on their business.


Herbert Brown Ames: Consulting the report of the Public Works Department, I find that in 1901, about an election year, $8,262 was spent on this work. Then, there was little further until 1904-5 when there was another considerable expenditure of $4,248.
Then followed other lean years, and now, in 1908, another considerable expenditure is called for. One request I will make is that the expenditures in 1908 should appear in the Auditor General's Report of that year. The expenditures made in 1904-5 were not included in the Auditor General's Report until a year behind time. We trust that, if, this year, the government desire to be generous, and1 if the work is done by days' work in the usual way, we may at least have in the Auditor General's Report that immediately follows the full statement of the expenditure.


William Pugsley: What does the hon. gentleman mean by ' days' work in the usual way ' ? The usual way of the department, except for small appropriations, is to do the work by contract.


Herbert Brown Ames: This work has usually been by days' work. We may call this a 'hardy quadrennial '.


William Pugsley: I think I can promise that the hon. gentleman's request will be fulfilled.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand the hon. member, this lake is higher than the sea and when the channel is made, the water of the lake will run out. How much water is there in the lake ?


William Pugsley: I think the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) did not understand the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames). The information I have is that the channel dredged in this way will give three feet of water at about one-third tide. .


Herbert Brown Ames: It would be practically dry at low tide ?


William Pugsley: There would be water in Porter's lake.


Herbert Brown Ames: But the channel would be dry. , Would it not be more serviceable to make a marine railway ?


William Pugsley: I do not know as to that. While it may be inconvenient for the boats to wait until the tide rises, it is much better that they should be afforded at least this opportunity of shelter.


Herbert Brown Ames: The hon. minister must not understand us as being opposed to completing this work. Inasmuch as $25,000 has already been spent, we would like to see the work done in a businesslike way and satisfactorily completed. If this is a public work that is needed, let us reach finality, instead of voting money for it every year in succession for another sixteen years.


John Dowsley Reid: I take it that this is not really a benefit to the fishermen. There will be no water in the channel at less than one-third tide.


William Pugsley: Until this is completed, we are keeping the old channel open by the expenditure of two or three hundred dollars a year. This new channel will be a great benefit and will render Porter's lake accessible.


Samuel Hughes: What county is it in ?


William Pugsley: Halifax. Porter's lake is some fifteen miles in length. It has deep water in the greater part of it. There is a beach between the lake and the ocean, and it is through this beach that the channel is to be made.


John Dowsley Reid: But when this channel is made, as I understand, it can be used only when there is high tide.


William Pugsley: At one-third flood.


John Dowsley Reid: Otherwise, it will be of no use?


William Pugsley: Not when the tide is absolutely out. I may say that it is, perhaps, cur misfortune in the lower provinces that many of our harbours along the coast, even to which a great deal of shipping resorts, are dry at low tide. But, when the tide rises twenty or twenty-five feet-


Samuel Hughes: That is not the case along the outer coast ?


William Pugsley: Along the Bay of Fundy. But shipping resorts to these ports. Now that steamers are taking the place of sailing vessels, we are subjected to much more inconvenience and need to dredge out the harbours.


Samuel Hughes: Does the minister say that much fishing shipping goes out from the little ports along the Bay of Fundy ?


William Pugsley: Quite a lot.


Samuel Hughes: The fishing is along the outer shore, is it not ?


William Pugsley: Not only fishing but lumber, which trade engages many schooners, and these schooners are aground at low tide.


George Eulas Foster: What is the height of one-third tide ?


William Pugsley: It rises there about seven feet, so one-third would be about two and a half feet.


George Eulas Foster: It would be practically dry at low tide.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: How long is this cut ?


William Pugsley: 2,000 feet. It is supposed that |13,000 will complete this new channel, exclusive of the breakwater,


John Dowsley Reid: 


George Eulas Foster: So with an expenditure of $13,000 you will have a channel into this lake which, at one-third tide, will give you three feet of water, and when it is below one-third tide, it will be practically unusable. Has the minister made any arrangement with the master of ceremonies that times of stress shall only come on in that vicinity when there is at least one-third tide or more ? Because it would be a great misfortune if trouble came at any other time.


William Pugsley: That is true, but the fishermen have to do the best they can. They cannot always reach a harbour of refuge. It is important that at times, at all events, they shall be able to do so. Porter's Lake is about 17 miles in length and a quarter to half a mile in width. It has a good depth of water, and there is considerable trafiic on Porter's Lake in timber, cordwood, general farm produce and fish. I am not aware that there are any towns on the lake. Some 25 years ago the channel had a depth of 6 or 7 feet at low tide, and quite large vessels could come in there. That channel filled up, and an effort is now being made to open it out again. As a result of opening the channel the waters will be allowed to flow off.


Samuel Hughes: The channel, he says is 2,000 feet long, and it was filled up six feet deep and four yards wide. It is filled up with soft material,


William Pugsley: That is the old outlet.


Samuel Hughes: But re dredging that place, supposing we allowed 10 cents a cubic yard.


William Pugsley: In the tidal waters of the maritime provinces you cannot get! dredging done for less than 40 to 75 cents.


Samuel Hughes: There is a great deal of dredging done in Ontario for 2 or 3 cents a yard. The ordinary scoop dredge would do it for 25 cents, and make money at it.


William Pugsley: This work has to be done by hand.


Samuel Hughes: $1,200 would have cleaned that whole channel out at a proper estimate. Supposing it is 600 yards long, 4 yards wide and 2 yards deep, that would be about 4,800 yards. Now we will give the Minister $1 a yard, and I think it ought to be done for 25 cents.


William James Roche: I might be able to throw some light on this interesting subject. Porter's Lake is about 20 miles long, and into it pour several large streams, not with a regular flow, but very much increased in the spring of the year. There are two channels forming outlets for the water. The one is this canal, which was a side cut. Notwithstanding that there is

a side cut, tlie ocean throws thousands of tons of gravel, rock and sand into the outlet, and when that outlet is stopped all the roads in the vicinity are flooded, all the roads running eastward from Halifax in the vicinity of this lake are overflowed, sometimes with a foot or two feet of water. The cut already made has been made through solid rook. When I saw it last it was about 15 feet wide, cut through solid rock, and there was running out of it about a foot and a half of water. When the old outlet is stopped up by a storm, the water accumulates and causes the damage of which I have spoken. Sometimes a large force of men has to be employed in an endeavour to restore the old channel in order that the water may be quickly drained off before the damage is done. That is the reason why there has to be a small annual grant to open the original outlet from this lake to the ocean. Besides, it lets off the surface water. It is a most necessary work, and if it were not done annually a large sum in damages would have to be paid. I would advise the hon. gentlemen who talk about this matter to make themselves acquainted witli it. Let these hon. gentlemen who talk so wisely on hydraulics, mechanics and the use of water, go down there and spend a few hours in observation, and all these speeches they have made would perish from their minds.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman reminds me of the ostrich who buries his head in the sand. There is not a single creek that flows into a lake or into the ocean where exactly the same phenomena do not occur. Bars are formed by the backwash of the outer water. It becomes a very peculiar state of affairs when a one-horse creek like this requires the expenditure of such a large sum of money. It is the custom, where you want to get a small boat in, to make an opening for yourself. The hon. member for Halifax talks about the country being flooded. He cannot show me a sand bar or a gravel bar that will produce a flood. The water will break its way out.


William James Roche: I bow to the superior knowledge of my hon. friend when he ex plains a subject with which he is familiar. On the subject of military evolutions, pyrotechnics, gun-powder and all of these combustibles I bow to my hon. friend. In regard to Atlantic storms he knows no more than a child unborn.


Samuel Hughes: Or, when it comes to a windmill run by water-power I give place to the hon. member every time.
Port Hastings-wharf, $1,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision towards the construction of a new wharf at Port Hastings, Inverness county, extending out to a depth of 15 feet at low 357*
tide. This is an important place of call for vessels of the larger class.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is this a revote?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Has anything been spent there ?	.


William Pugsley: No, we are just calling for tenders now.


George Eulas Foster: What is to be the cost of the work ?


William Pugsley: 


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister have to buy a site ?


William Pugsley: I think not. There is an old wharf there.


Angus McLennan: The site belongs to the municipality of Inverness.


George Eulas Foster: I noticed last night that in some of these estimates the minister brought down what was an unusual item- so much to pay the cost of the site of a wharf. It seems that the least a municipality could do would be to provide a site.
I do not see why the minister, with his resources, his diplomacy and his power of negotiation, should not bring that about.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How is that wharf going to be built ?


William Pugsley: By contract.


George Eulas Foster: What are the conditions at Port Hastings ?


William Pugsley: There has been a wharf but it has been rendered useless by the construction of a large coal shipping pier by the Inverness Coal and Railway Company and now we require to locate the new wlmrf in a different place.


George Eulas Foster: Was the old wharf built by the federal government ?


Angus McLennan: It was built by the Nova Scotia government and taken over by the Dominion government.


George Eulas Foster: Why should the Inverness Company encroach on your wharf ?


Angus McLennan: They built their terminals so close to the old wharf that they actually rendered it useless for public purposes.


George Eulas Foster: But they did not build on the site.


Angus McLennan: No, but they built close to it and crowded it so much as to make it utterly useless for public purposes.


Samuel Hughes: Is it to be built of cement ?


William Pugsley: It is to be a timber wharf.


Samuel Hughes: Why not cement ?


William Pugsley: Cement is more perma-ent, but it increases the cost considerably.


Richard Blain: Will there be any revenue from this wharf ?


William Pugsley: That will depend on whether the wharf is transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries and on the amount of business which will be done.


Richard Blain: Is there a large population at that place?


William Pugsley: There is quite a business done there. It is quite close to the coal mines.


Angus McLennan: It is a very important shipping point.
.Air. PUGSLEY. The average number of sailing vessels per year calling tl^re is 70, besides quite' a large number of steamers.
Port Hilford breakwater-protection of, with creosoted sheeting, repairs, Ac., $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is entirely for repairs for the protection of the breakwater which has been badly damaged.


George Eulas Foster: When was it built ?


William Pugsley: It was built some few years ago but it was unfortunately built of native timber which was not creosoted and it was practically destroyed by the teredo. This is an illustration of what I said last night, that it is desirable, if not absolutely necessary, in the construction of wharfs in localities where the teredo is prevalent, that the construction under water should be with creosoted timber.


Samuel Hughes: Concrete.


William Pugsley: Concrete might be used but it is more expensive.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is >
it the universal practice to creosote all timber work ?


William Pugsley: AH the timber work used in waters which are fequented by the teredo.


Samuel Hughes: What is the effect of creosoting ? How long does it protect the timber from the teredo ?


William Pugsley: For all time.


Samuel Hughes: No.


William Pugsley: For a couple of generations at any rate.


Herbert Brown Ames: Where is Port Hilford ?


William Pugsley: In Guysborough ?


George Eulas Foster: What is the total cost ?


William Pugsley: 


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it to be built by contract?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: No, these are repairs and they will have to be done by day's work.
Port Hood harbour-closing northern entrance with brush and stonework, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote. It is to carry on a very important work, namely the closing of the northern entrance of the harbour of Port Hood. There are two entrances and in order to give proper protection one of these entrances must be closed. The northern entrance will be closed by a dam 3,860 feet in length. This will afford a quite safe harbour.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What will be the total cost when completed?


William Pugsley: The total probable cost will be $337,000.


Angus McLennan: Pardon me. If the breakwater is built with brush and stone, the cost would not be more than $175,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: Would the minister state what would be the cost if it is built of brush and stone?


William Pugsley: The information I gave was made from an estimate which has been placed in my hands by mistake. The chief engineer tells me he has modified the plans, and the entire cost he estimates at $90,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: Of that $90,000, how much has been already expended?


William Pugsley: About $50,000 to date.


Herbert Brown Ames: How many lineal feet have been constructed for the $50,000 and how many are to be built with the remaining $40,000?


Angus McLennan: As I know the local conditions, I desire to say that a direct answer to that question might create a wrong impression, because, while not more than one-third of the total distance has been constructed, the work has been done in the deepest part of the channel, where it is more expensive than the remaining work, which is in the shoal water.


Herbert Brown Ames: In June, 1906, Mr. Hyman stated that this work would cost $80,000, and now we are told it will cost $90,000. We have been spending from $10,000 to $20,000 for the last four years at that point. The pertinent question is : How much more will it take to complete the work, and how long will it take to complete it?


William Pugsley: The total length is 3,860 feet, of which about 2,600 feet has been completed, and the idea is to expend about $10,000 each year on the average.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then it will take four years more to complete the work?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it expected that the work will be of a permanent character, that it can be kept in order at reasonable expense for maintenance and that it will serve the purpose for which it is intended?


William Pugsley: The chief engineer says bis experience of the work already completed leads him to believe that_ the work will be permanent, will accomplish its object and will last a long time without an unusual amount of repairs.
Mr. McLennan. I can assure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ames) that this work will be of a permanent character, judging from wliat has already been constructed. The island, which stands over against the coast along the Port Hood shore, forms the harbour of Port Hood. The island, which is about one and a-half miles long, was, about eighty years ago, connected with the mainland by a narrow neck of sandy beach over which wild grass grew. With a view of making a short cut to the fishing grounds in the early days of the settlement of Port Hood, some of the fishermen dug a little channel through this beach, and in about twenty-five years the whole beach was swept away, until to-day Port Hood island stands thus unconnected with the mainland. It is to reinstate this beach that this work is being constructed, and such of it as has been completed is serving that purpose admirably. From year to year the portion constructed gathers up the sand oast up on both sides, so that scarcely anything can be seen at the end of the season but a mound of sand gathered along until near the end of the work. Thus it is that the work promises to be permanent, for it gathers the sand and restores the original mound of sand that connected the island of Port Hood with the mainland. This constitutes an excellent harbour, and seventy-live years ago two hundred sail of American fishermen used to be seen in that harbour any morning during the fishing season.


Richard Blain: When this matter was brought up three years ago the minister stated it would cost so much to build this work ; the following year the minister increased the amount by $20,000, and this year the minister explains that it will take $20,000 in excess of the former year's estimate. In a former statement the minister increases the amount by $20,000, and this year my hon. friend states that it will cost $10,000 in excess of the former year's estimates.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is certainly misquoting the hon. member for St. Antoine, because he said that the then minister mentioned $80,000 as the cost. The total cost will not exceed $90,000, because the work is two-thirds completed and has cost only $5,000, so that I feel quite sure
that the chief engineer is above the mark and that the rest will likely be done for less than $40,000.


Richard Blain: The minister goes into detail to explain figures which are contradictory.


William Pugsley: How are they contradictory ?


Richard Blain: Because the minister of one year makes the statement that the work will cost so much, and the minister of the following year states that it will cost so much in excess of that.


William Pugsley: I do not so understand it.


Herbert Brown Ames: In ' Hansard ' of 1905, volume 4, at page 7414, you will find that Mr. Bro-deur, the acting minister, made this statement.
Port Hood harbour-closing northern entrance with brush and stonework, $10,000.


Mr. BRODEUR.: This is for closing the northern entrance of the harbour of Port Hood by a dam 3,860 feet long. The total cost will be $60,000.
In the next year Mr. Hyman asked for $15,000 and said, as will be found in ' Hansard,' volume 4, at page 6789 :
This is one place in which I acceded to the request of the chief engineer and permitted him to put in a character of work which would have been almost impossible to do by contract, that is, brush and stone work. It is being done by day work, and so far it has been absolutely satisfactory, and I hope to complete the work for about $80,000.
In 1905, the estimate of the department was $60,000; in 1906, the estimate of the-department was $80,000; in 1908, the estimate of the department is $90,000. What will be the estimate of next year?


William Pugsley: I may point out that between 1905 and the present year wages have increased very considerably.


Samuel Hughes: They are down now.


William Pugsley: They may be down temporarily, but I am glad to know that they are not very much dowu, and that they are picking up very well. But as between three or four years ago and last year I am satisfied that there was an increase in wages of at least 40 per cent as well as an increase in the cost of materials.


Samuel Hughes: Has not the minister the pay sheets, which he can show?


William Pugsley: If necessary, I can do so. When you consider that this work, which was to be done by day labour, consisted of a breakwater some 3.860 feet in length, and you find that when Mr. Hyman as minister made the statement that it was likely to cost about $RO.ono. and when the statement made by Mr. Brodeur the year

before was that it would cost about $60,000, and when we find to-day that 2,600 feet out of the 3,800 feet, in other words, two-thirds of the distance, have been actually con-structe 1 for $50,000. and that there remain only 1,200 feet to be constructed, I think any one disposed to be fair would say that the minster's estimate was a pretty accurate one.


Herbert Brown Ames: I am sorry to have to puncture the argument of the hon. minister. I wish we might believe that this additional expenditure went to the labourers of Inverness county, but unfortunately the Auditor General's Report does not bear out that statement.


William Pugsley: I do not say that it went to the labourers of any particular place, but it went to labourers.


Herbert Brown Ames: The Auditor General's Report for 1905 gives the wages of labourers at $1.60, $1.50, $1.45 $1.40, $1.35, $1.30, $1.25 and $1. The Auditor General's Report for 1906 gives the scale at $1.60, $1.50, $1.45, $1.40, $1.30, $1.25 and $1. The Auditor General's Report of last year gives the scale at $1.60, $1.50, $1.45, $1.40, $1.30, $1.25 and $1. The wages are exactly the same in the three years.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman tell me what proportion of labourers were employed at the higher rate of wages last year as compared with 1905?


Herbert Brown Ames: I can give it from the Auditor General's Report. In 1905, there were 1121 days at $1.60; 1.3864 days at $1.50; It days at $1.45; 1,564 days at $1.40; 4131 days at $1.35; 67J days at $1.30; 31 days at $1,25; 85 days at $1. In 1906, there were 131 days at $1.60; 585 days at $1,50; G days at $1.45; 250* days at $1.40; 102 days at $1.30; 35J days at $1.25; 401 days at $1. Last year there were 1951 days at $1.60; 1,109 days at $3.50 ; 25 days at $1.45 ; 5191 days at $1.40; 35* days at $1.35; 14 days at $1.30; 1871 days at $1.25; 1 day at $1. I think you will find that the number employed will average about the same in the three years, so that the additional $30,000, or 50 per cent advance on the original estimate, does not go to the labourers of Inverness county. Where does it go, or is it a miscalculation on the part of the department?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I think the men who sell the stone get the extra money. Is there a very large population in Port Hood?


Angus McLennan: One feature of the population of Port Hood is that there are 500 miners employed in a coal mine within about half a mile of these very works.


Samuel Hughes: Do these men work on the breakwater?


Angus McLennan: No, and hence the greater difficulty in getting vigorous workmen to Mr. PUGSLEY.
work on the breakwater. This revote of $5,000 unfortunately could not be expended on this work last year owing to the illness of the superintendent. I do not see why such a tremendous furore should be raised over the revote of a vote which was discussed and passed by this House a year ago. The population of Port Hood all told at the present time is about 3,000. Let me tell the House how an error might be made by a minister or anybody else looking over these estimates. To my knowledge the resident engineer made three estimates of this work-first, brush and stone ; then part cribwork and part brush and stone ; then, wholly cribwork. These three estimates wrere there and the minister, in looking over them, might very well quote one instead of the other. But the main point is this: Are these votes applied to the purpose for which this parliament passed them. That is the question, and not as to the exact estimate which an engineer may compute of the amount of material necessary to fill the large arm of the Gulf of St. Lawrence reaching in between Port Hood Island and the mainland-an estimate which is a most difficult one at best. No one will fail to see that in a work of this kind, when the isthmus between the Island and the mainland is narrowing and the current is running more swiftly and therefore digging more deeply the channel and requiring a greater amount to fill in, should be considered as affecting the estimates made at various intervals. But the question is, have these votes been applied honestly and carefully to the purposes for which this parliament adopted them ? I have personal knowledge of the gentleman in charge of the work, and I challenge any one to point out where one dollar was unnecessarily expended or lost by an error in the work of construction, ft is one of the most successful works of the kind ever entered upon in the maritime provinces. The population of Port Hood is about 3,000 and increasing in numbers very fast in view of the fact that these very works are affording protection to the very enterprising men who have put their money into the coal enterprises carried on near by. Even now that the breakwater is sufficiently far out into the water to afford protection, not only to the government wharf, which is 400 feet long, jutting out into the harbour of Port Hood and which used to be wrecked every two or three years by the .fall storms-this breakwater protects, not only the government wharf, but also the coal shipping pier at Port Hood. Any gentleman travelling that way on the railway train would pass along these grounds and see around the piers steamers lying in perfect safety-tied up to the coal company's pier.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I am sure the House owes a great deal to my hon. friend for the

explanation he has given, and no doubt he has satisfied the Minister of Public Works that the work is quite justifiable. My object in asking the question was to have an explanation how the stone appears to have been furnished by so many different people. For instance, on page V-142 of the Auditor General's Report, I find stone furnished by J. M. Who is J. M ? Also by J. A. and A. H. There are a great many initials such as these. No doubt the stone was got, but this is not the way to lay information before the House. We want to know where the money goes. It is very extraordinary that an amount of $9,000 for stone should have been divided among a hundred people in small amounts. One would think it was near election time.
Mr. McLennan. If my hon. friend will look back to four years ago, he will find the very same thing, and surely they did not expect an election in those days. As regards the initials of men, there are a good many McDonalds, and to repeat the word ' McDonald ' would be only swelling the volume of the report.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: What is the average price per yard paid for stone there ?


William Pugsley: It depends entirely on the kind of stone used. Larger stone would cost more than the medium stone, running from $2.40 down.


George Eulas Foster: Who makes the price Of the stone ?


William Pugsley: The resident engineer.


George Eulas Foster: What effect has this work had upon the silting of sand ? The storms of the north always caused dredging at the wharfs at the lower end.


Angus McLennan: The sand is arrested by this work ns it proceeds out to sea. And therefore it protects the harbour from the sand flowing in.


George Eulas Foster: There is not the same amount of dredging necessary at' the lower
end ?


Angus McLennan: No, the sand is arrested out towards the mouth of the river.


George Eulas Foster: I am free to say that if every work which the minister was carrying on was really as important as this work, I do not think there would be much objection. But I do not know why the estimate of $337,000 was ever made, when a little bit of reasoning in the department would have brought the item down to $90,000. But 1 want the committee to pay attention to one little episode that has taken place this afternoon. The minister had the task put upon him of explaining why it was that a former minister's estimate of $80,000 was now extended to $90,000, and he was equal to the task ; and without any basis of
foundation he immediately stated that it was due to the fact that there had been 40 per cent of a rise in wages paid to men in the last four years. The Auditor General's Report was placed before him immediately, and what happened? 40 per cent of a rise in wages would give to the $1.00 man $2.24, to the $1.50 man $2.10, to the $1.25 man $1.75 and to the $1 man $1.40. But the actual amounts paid in 1907-8 were almost exactly the amounts that were paid in 1905-6. So the minister's explanation, which otherwise we would have had to accept, rested upon thin air and the hon. gentleman's powers of imagination. Now, if, just by having that document close at hand, the whole position of the minister was turned upside down and made absolutely ridiculous by quotations, what confidence can we have in the minister's explanations otherwise?


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend tell me how many men were employed at $1 in 1895?


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman can take the number of men employed and make a comparison, and he will find that there is not only not 40 per cent of an increase, but there is not 5 per cent of an increase for that class of men.


William Pugsley: I do not think my hon. friend has had much experience in employing labour, by the way he talks. Now, whereas a few years ago you could get labouring men at $1, to-day you cannot get them for that. If I remember correctly the figures which my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) read, there was a considerable larger proportion of men employed at $1.40 and $1.00 last year than there were in 1905. Three or four years ago you could get a gang of men at from $1 to $1.25, and to-day you cannot get those men at less than $1.40 to $1.50 a day. It is a fact that wages have increased in the last three or four years.


Samuel Hughes: There is a lumberman sitting right behind the minister, and if the minister asks him he will tell the 'minister that he started in last year by paying $56 a month to his men in the camp, and he can get them this year for $25, all he wants.


William Pugsley: That may be so for the moment; we know that the wages of lumbermen are less than they were last year, because there is not as great a demand for labour. But we are speaking of work which was done last year. My hon. friend referred to the fact that in the original estimate the cost of this work was placed at a very much higher figure than it is now being constructed for. I may say that the original view of the engineering department was that a breakwater built simply of brush and stone would not be likely to

stand, and it was proposed to protect that work with a slope of quarried stone, which alone would cost $150,000.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The hon. member for Inverness (Mr. McLennan) is surprised at the furore, as he calls it, on this side of the House in connection with this subject. There is no objection on this side of the House to this work being done, the objection is as to the manner in which it is being done and the expenditure. Any one who Is acquainted with the price and purchase of stone, either for his own use or for public works, cannot but realize that the price of stone must vary a great deal at this particular place from the price elsewhere. The parties who sold this stone must have been receiving an extravagant price for it. I notice in one case $2.75 a yard, not a cord, was paid for stone, in another case $2.50, in another case $2.25. Another price was $2 per yard. Then some unfortunate man could only get $1 a yard, and even down to 50 cents, and as low as 20 cents a yard was paid. 20 cents, I imagine, would be very cheap indeed for stone. But when you come to pay a price ranging from $2 to $2.75 per yard, it must strike any one acquainted with the price of stone as most extravagant. I do not know whether this is cut stone. If it is all rough stone, I cannot understand such a price. If this is a sample of the general expenditure in connection with this work, it is time the minister should look into it.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend tell me what would be a fair price for large stone, say one to two cubic yards?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: $4 to $5 per cord would be a large price for stone.


William Pugsley: I am speaking of large stone, stone containing one to two cubic yards. Would my hon. friend say that $2.75 is too much for such stone, delivered at this breakwater?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Yes. In all my experience I never heard of such a price as $2.75.


Angus McLennan: The quarry is quite a distance from the works. In the first place, they have to quarry the stone, and, it has to be less than a cubic yard in size, otherwise it would not be taken on the work. In the second place, the stone has to be carried away to the water's edge, and thence it has to be scowed out to the end of the breakwater, about 2,000 or 2,500 feet, and derricks and other appliances have to be provided to land it. That price is given for large stone delivered, and it is only a small portion of the stone that costs that amount. Field stone is paid for at the rate of from 50 to 60 cents per cubic yard.


William Pugsley: There is a great difference in stone. Quite a large quantity Mr. PUGSLEY.
of it was purchased for 50 cents and some as low as 15 cents a cubic yard. Where you have a large stone which is quarried out, where it is considered desirable to place it in large blocks on this work and where it has to be brought by lighters, I should say that $2.75 per cubic yard is a reasonable price. The quantity is very small. There are only 05 cubic yards at $2.75. I am informed by the chief engineer that in Prince Edward Island, where large stone has been purchased by public tender, the lowest tender was $3.75 per cubic yard. I do not think the hon. gentleman is for a moment justified in making the statement that he has.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: 
William Pugsley: For that kind of stone these people only get 50 cents a yard.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: It is not brown stone.


Mr. A. MARTIN (Queens, P.E.I.).: I understood the minister to say that $3.75 a yard was paid in Prince Edward Island. I would like to know what kind of stone it is and where it is being used.	.


William Pugsley: It is being used in the Souris breakwater.


Alexander Martin: What kind is it ?


William Pugsley: Large quarried stone.


Alexander Martin: Freestone or red sandstone ?


William Pugsley: Freestone.


Alexander Martin: Does any one believe that you are building the Souris breakwater with freestone ?


William Pugsley: This is for rip-rapping.


Mr. CARYELL.: Hon. gentlemen opposite are all astray as to the cost of stone in the maritime provinces. I have had a little experience. A company with which I am

associated, in the years 1904 and 1905, purchased somewhere between 7,000 and 8,000 yards of stone for a work they were building. We hired the teams, we had a competent man on the work, we saw that every man earned the dollars that he got and the stone we used cost us over a dollar a yard procured in that way. In the rip-rapping of bridges, which is a very common thing over the rapid flowing streams of New Brunswick, the common price of stone one foot and upwards in thickness is from $2 to $2.50 a yard. Some of this stone would be ordinary field stone for filling in purposes. The top of the embankment would be covered with big stones such as are used for rip-rapping and the prices charged there are as moderate as the prices of any stone I ever heard of in the maritime provinces. The ordinary price for rough field stone used for backing up stone walls is 75 cents to $1 a yard. At 50 cents a yard it seems to me that the government are getting more than good value for the money they are expending.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) said that he spoke from his knowledge of the cost of stone in Ontario. At Port Colborne tenders were called for quarried stone and the lowest tender was $3.25 a yard.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Per yard or per cord ?


William Pugsley: Per yard.


Alexander Martin: With regard to the Souris breakwater the minister has said that freestone was used. There is no freestone in Prince Edward Island. If you use freestone in the construction of a public building in Prince Edward Island you have to bring it from Nova Scotia.


William Pugsley: It was brought from Wallace by water.


Alexander Martin: I never thought that you used any freestone in the construction of any wharf in Prince Edward Island.


William Pugsley: It is not a wharf but a breakwater.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: As to the price of $3.25 at Port Colborne I would like to ask the minister what that was for.


William Pugsley: $3.25 a yard was the lowest tender for large quarried stone.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: This is a different class.


William Pugsley: No.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: That would be stone finished front for building the pier ?


William Pugsley: No, not finished stone, but large quarried stone for rip-rapping.


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the length, height and breadth ?


William Pugsley: From 5 to 6 feet long and 3 or 4 feet through.


George Taylor: Did my hon. friend ever see stone 3 or 4 feet thick ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Taylor: Where ?
Port Royal (Madame Island)-wharf, $2,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote asked to make provision for the completion of a block and span wharf at Port Royal. The work is under contract and this vote will complete it.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: What percentage of the wharfs throughout the Dominion are built of timber and what percentage of cement ?


William Pugsley: A cement or concrete wharf is the exception. The bulk of the wharfs throughout the Dominion are built of timber. Latterly there has been a disposition in some quarters to top out the wharfs with concrete. I am inclined to think this is a practice which might with advantage be extended. The wharf will be of a more permanent character while the first cost will be greater.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Are the cement wharfs giving satisfaction ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: The reason I ask is that there are some concrete wharfs in my district which are not giving satisfaction to the people.


William Pugsley: What wharfs are they?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Jeannette's creek, River Thames and the breakwater at Tecumseb park. I believe cement wharfs, properly built and under a proper plan, are a good thing to build, for they ought to be very substantial wharfs; but in the cases I speak of either the plans were not good or they were not properly carried out.


William Pugsley: The information of my deputy is quite to the contrary.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I can assure the minister I know what I am talking about. I know these works have not been satisfactory, and I care not what the head engineer of the department or anybody else may say.


William Pugsley: What is the matter with them ?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: The breakwater at Te-cumseh park cost $6,000, and it toppled over this spring. The department went to great expense pulliug it together, and it is one of the most horrible looking jobs you will see in this country. Why, it was a public disgrace.


William Pugsley: Has the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clements) seen it himself ?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I see it every time I go home. I say it is a public disgrace-

And the other wharfs I speak of have been almost of no use.


William Pugsley: What is the matter with them ?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: They were built on piles improperly driven. So when they* tilled in at the back and then attempted to dredge in the channel to get a sufficient depth, the cement split open. It has been patched up, but boats of any great draught cannot stop at these wharfs. I suppose these three works cost $20,000 or $25,000.


William Pugsley: My information is quite the contrary of that of the hon. gentleman, but I will make further inquiries.
' Mr. CLEMENTS. I want the minister to understand that I am not objecting to these works. I advocated them. But they have not been properly constructed. I do not pretend to say where the fault lies.
Portuguese cove-breakwater and improvements, $8,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote of $5,000. It is to continue removing boulders from the cove and to proceed with the construction under contract of the breakwater on the south side. The total cost of the proposed works is $9,000. The people to be accommodated are fishermen and this is to afford them shelter. The coast is quite exposed and this improvement is needed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the total estimated cost ?


William Pugsley: Eleven thousand dollars.


Richard Blain: Are all these expenditures made on property owned by the government ?


William Pugsley: The direction from the department is that, before proceeding with any of these works, the title shall be vested in the Crown.


Richard Blain: Does the minister carry out that rule. ?


William Pugsley: I am not aware of any case in which it is not carried out.
Port Joli West (Herring Rocks)-breakwater, $3,000.


William Pugsley: This is entirely a revote.


George Taylor: Nothing done there yet ?


William Pugsley: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is this done by days' work X


William Pugsley: Yes, it is a certain quantity of rock and cribwork.
Pugwash-wharf, $5,000.


George William Fowler: Is that in Cumberland ?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: 


William Pugsley: Yes. This is needed for the purpose of improving and repairing a wharf.


George William Fowler: I felt confident it was not a new work, for1 there is not a point in Cumberland for a new work to be begun.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the total cost ?


William Pugsley: The contract is $11,495, and there is some additional work required.


William Humphrey Bennett: Let us understand what the whole cost will be.


William Pugsley: The additional work will be about $4,500.


Herbert Brown Ames: Who is the contractor ?


William Pugsley: Messrs. Elliott & Co., of Pugwash.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is the minister aware that the head of this firm is Mr. H. F. Elliott, customs collector at Pugwash ?


William Pugsley: No. In this case, eleven tenders were received in answer to public advertisement, and the contract was given to the lowest tenderer.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it customary for the department to allow civil servants in the Customs department to act as contractors for public wharfs ?


William Pugsley: If the customs officer is engaged in other business as well as being employed by the department, I do not now see any objection to his tendering for the building of a government wharf.


Herbert Brown Ames: What salary does Mr. Elliott receive as customs collector ?


William Pugsley: I do not know.


Herbert Brown Ames: It must be a fairly good salary ; I understand that Pugwash is a considerable place.


William Pugsley: The question would depend on whether the salary is sufficiently large to justify the Minister of Customs requiring the officer to give all his time to the duties of his office. But if he is engaged in other business as a contractor, I d* not see why he should not tender for a public work. I am informed that Mr. Elliott is sub-collector.


Herbert Brown Ames: I think the principle is one that it would be well to discuss. When a man takes a position in the civil service, he, presumably, is no longer a contractor. He should be either a contractor or collector of customs, but not both.


Mr. LOGAN.: Mr. Elliott is sub-collector at the munificent salary, if I mistake not, of $400. Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ames) for that preclude him from tendering on a public work ? There were eleven tenders ranging from $11,000 to $18,000 and Mr. Elliott's firm was the lowest tenderer.

It is one of the largest firms in that part of the country. I cannot see any reason why it should be precluded from tendering.


Herbert Brown Ames: Has there been any complaint of the quality of the material that went in there ? I understand that a great deal of fir, spruce and poplar went in, that were wholly unfit for such a work.


William Pugsley: Now, from whom did the hon. gentleman learn that? It is in my interest and in the interest of the public that if there is anything of that kind going on I should be informed of it and I would ask my hon. friend to give me the information.


Herbert Brown Ames: I shall if inquiry is made.


William Pugsley: I am informed that no complaint has come to the department.


George William Fowler: Who is the inspector?


William Pugsley: Mr. E. Demings.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: If the minister sends an officer down there he will find timber on the ground of an inferior quality.


William Pugsley: I am in error, Mr. Col-borne is the inspector.


Hance James Logan: Mr. Colborne is more than ordinarily qualified for that work. He was first a carpenter by trade and has had large experience in culvert and wharf inspection in the United States.


George William Fowler: He must have been appointed by mistake if he is qualified.


Hance James Logan: That remark does not apply to Cumberland county. We were most fortunate in securing such a man as Mr. Colborne as inspector. I must say that I have no information with regard to material being used that was of inferior quality. I am informed that Mr. Colborne did refuse to accept some material that was landed there and it was taken by private parties and used by them, and they paid as much or more for it than the government is paying for its timber. I know that no inferior timber was used in that wharf, for I know that Mr. Colborne would not allow it.


Herbert Brown Ames: That fairly well bears out my statement that there had been delivered on the ground a considerable quantity of inferior material.


William Pugsley: But it was rejected.


Herbert Brown Ames: If it was rejected that explains the situation.


William Pugsley: Did the hon. gentleman know it had been rejected?


Herbert Brown Ames: I did not.


George William Fowler: Why did you change Mr. Demings as inspector?


William Pugsley: I do not know why.


George William Fowler: Was not Mr. Demings a well known Liberal worker and without any experience for that sort of work?


William Pugsley: I am not aware of that.
Round Hill-wharf, $450.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is this new ?


William Pugsley: This is a small amount required to complete. The work was done by day labour and at a total cost of $3,429.67.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Round Hill is a considerable distance up the river?


William Pugsley: It is a farming district about eight miles up the river from Auna-polis.


George William Fowler: Why is it that New Brunswick is discriminated against in a matter of these wharfs? The St. John river is quite as important as this river to say the least, and yet the local government has to pay one half the cost of the wharfs on that river; in fact more than one half of the cost because the Dominion government does not pay the amount it contracts to pay. In all other provinces these wharfs on island waters are built by the federal government.


William Pugsley: No.


George William Fowler: Oh, yes; the minister was not attending to the doings of this government when they built the Disraeli wharf in the province of Quebec which was really built as a bridge on ground which is high and dry in the summer. Two years ago we voted $4,000 for a highway in the province of Quebec, and yet the New Brunswick government has to pay half the cost of wharfs on the River St. John, one of the most important inland waters of Canada. That is harsh treatment for the province of New Brunswick. I have unavailingly protested against it every year, but now that the Minister of Public Works comes from New Brunswick, I trust he will see his duty in the matter as his predecessors should have seen it, and that he will build wharfs on the inland waters of New Brunswick just the same as they are built in every other part of Canada by the federal government.


Mr. BLACK.: The wharf at Round Hill is an ocean port and in direct communication with the ocean.


George William Fowler: So is every wharf on the River St. John.


Judson Burpee Black: You cannot get from the ocean up the St. John river unless you remove Reversible falls.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Black) is entirely mistaken.


George William Fowler: We do not very often hear from the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black) but when we do he does not stick

very closely to the facts. He speaks of this little bit of a stream on which Round Hill is located, a stream that you could jump across, and he compares it with the St. John river. He also says you cannot go up the St. John river from the ocean. The Minister of Public Works has lived in St. John for some years and he knows that if I characterized the statement of the member for Hants as it ought to be characterized the chairman would rule me out of order.


William Pugsley: It is without foundation to say the least.


George William Fowler: Absolutely without foundation. We will have to take the member for Hants to the city of St. John and let him see that magnificent river.


Judson Burpee Black: I would like to ask: What ocean boat ever went through the St. John falls and up that river. I know what I am talking about because I was born there.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Judson Burpee Black: Although there are steamers navigating the St. John river there is no connection for any ocean boat from the Bay of Fundy up the St. John river. The Reversible falls prevent anything of that kind.


George William Fowler: Go away back and sit down.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the expenditure to date on Round Hill?


William Pugsley: Expenditure 1906-7, $1,997.41 ; 1907-8, $982.20 ; estimated to complete the wharf, $450 ; total, $3,429.67.


Herbert Brown Ames: We are asked to vote certain sums for these works on the understanding that the estimates have been accurately made and here is another case where the estimate was erroneous. On July 14, 1905, a vote of $2,000 was asked for this work, and Mr. Hyman, then minister, stated: ' The estimated cost is $2,500.' The work has cost $3,429 or about $1,000 more than was expected on a $2,000 work. That is a very large margin. If all the expenditures of the government were on that ratio, we would find ourselves in for a considerable sum.


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: I may say that the former wharf cost over $7,000, and at present it is of no earthly use to any one, and it will be necessary to appropriate an amount to remove it. This vote is for the purpose of replacing that wharf.


Herbert Brown Ames: That is not exactly the point I am raising. The point I am raising is the inaccuracy of the estimates submitted to this House.


William Pugsley: The hon. member for St. Antoine started out with another statement, in which he was finding fault with the esti-Mr. FOWLER.
mate. But I think that hon. gentlemen will agree that considering that this wharf is 175 feet long and fifty feet wide at the outer end, and that it is built in tidal water, the cost is very moderate. We propose to expend $3,429.67 to replace a wharf built by the previous government at a cost of $7,000.


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: And it is a pile wharf.


William Pugsley: The question raised by my hon. friend from Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) is one of so much importance to the people of New Brunswick that I may be pardoned for making reference to it. I have never been able to understand why the federal government has not felt it to be its duty to construct wharfs on the St. John river and its tributaries to a greater extent than it has done. But this is no new idea. Apparently from the very commencement of confederation the federal government took the view that while they might properly construct wharfs on the Ottawa, the St. Lawrence and the Sague-ney rivers, upon the great lakes, and upon the tidal waters of Nova Scotia, Quebec and Prince Edward Island, they ought not to build wharfs on the St. John river, although that river is one of the most important rivers in Canada, whose banks are thickly populated, and on which there have been lines of steamers running ever since we have had steamers in Canada. My attention *was called to this question very particularly as much as fifteen years ago, when I was in the provincial government, and when my hon. friend who now represents North Toronto (Mr. Foster) occupied a commanding position in the federal government. I believed at that time that the St. John river ought to be provided with wharfs at the expense of the federal government. I was one of those who made application to the hon. member for North Toronto, then Minister of Finance, and he took the ground very strongly


George Taylor: This is obstruction.


William Pugsley: No, it is not obstruction; it is very important to the people of New Brunswick. He took the ground that it was no part of the duty of the federal government to construct wharfs on the St. John river, and he and his government refused to expend one dollar for that purpose. At last, after great pressure, he consented to contribute one-half of the cost of a few Wharfs. After Mr. Blair entered the federal government, it contributed a larger amount. During the last two or three years the government has gone still further, and has built two or three wharfs entirely at the expense of the federal government. At all events, I take the ground that this government, which expends money for the building of wharfs on such rivers as the Saguenay, the Ottawa and the Montreal,

and on such lakes as the Temiskaming and Nipissing, should also give reasonable attention to the claims of the people living along the St. John river. I trust that before the session Is over, in addition to the ordinary grant that has been made for paying half the cost of building wharfs on that river, I may be able to have placed in the supplementary estimates a respectable amount for the purpose of giving much needed accommodation in the way of wharfs to the people living along the St. John river and its tributaries.


George William Fowler: Why does not the minister pay the amount that has already been earned ?


William Pugsley: If it has not been paid, it is owing entirely to technical objections that would be raised by the Auditor General, such as the giving of necessary vouchers. the approval by the minister and the chief engineer of the plans and specifications before the construction of the work. Where these things have been done, I am sure the money will be paid without the slightest objection.


Richard Blain: 
William Pugsley: I regret that I am unable to explain it. It is just possible that the foremen, a carpenter himself, worked on the wharf, and was not a mere overseer.


Richard Blain: Perhaps my hon. friend would tell us what a subcontractor and a conductor mean.


William Pugsley: I am inclined to think that the foreman and the sub-conductor did actually work upon the construction of the wharf, as they were expert workmen.


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: This wharf is a pile wharf out at a certain distance. At the extreme end it is piled, and cribwork is built on the piles. It took 40 to 50 days to put these piles in and two days would not be anything for an engineer.
Mr. FOWLEiR. I want to revert again to the question of wharfs on the St. John river. The minister has gone quite fully into the history of that matter, and seems to recognize to the utmost the injustice hitherto done the province of New Brunswick. I would suggest to him that while recognizing that injustice, he should not
only prevent future injustice, but remedy that which has already been done. He should put in the estimates a vote sufficient to indemnify New Brunswick for the expenses incurred during the past fifteen or twenty years by that province on account of the different treatment meted out to her from that meted out to the other provinces.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would you be satisfied if we went on and built wharfs?


George William Fowler: That only affects the future ; but look at what New Brunswick spent in the past, and which no other province was called on to spend. We are entitled to be repaid for that when the government recognize that they have been pursuing a wrong policy. It is only doing half justice when the government say that in the future we will be treated the same as the other provinces. If the government want to do the right thing, they should repay the money that has been taken out of the provincial funds improperly. Will the minister not make a statement?


William Pugsley: I am not prepared to say anything with regard to that at present. In the distribution of public works we know that certain federal works have been built in the past by certain provincial governments, and we know also that the federal government has built works which might be regarded as provincial. It is difficult always to draw a clear cut line through what is federal and what is provincial. I am prepared, as Minister of Public Works, to go to a certain extent in building wharfs on the St. John river, and that is as far as I should be asked to go. But as upon the St. John river a good many wharfs are required and the federal government could not be expected, for some years to come, to give all the accommodation needed, I would hope that the provincial government would not wholly depart from the practice pursued in the past of expending a certain amount in building wharfs and keeping them in repair. There are many places in the rest of Canada where we cannot give the immediate wharf accommodation demanded. There are demands from the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers, and the Richelieu and Saguenay, for much needed accommodation, but it must be years before I can give the accommodation needed. I shall do as much as I reasonably can to give to the people along the St. John and its tributaries the wharfs they require. With regard to any claim from the province, it will be time enough to consider that when it is presented. So far the provincial government has not made any claim.


George William Fowler: I thought we were getting half enough at least when the minister made his first statement, but he has taken away more than the half. Now,

we are only occasionally to get a wharf built by the federal authorities. The federal government does not really intend to build wharfs on the St. John, hut the provincial government is still expected to build them. We are thus not making any considerable departure from the custom in the past. True, one wharf was built entirely by the federal authorities, but that was previous to the hon. gentleman's taking office. We hoped, when we had a Minister of Public Works from our own province, that a full measure of justice would be meted out to it. The hon. minister tried to make an attack on my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), when he said that a very grave injustice had been done Nova Scotia, in as much ns that province was required to build wharfs which the federal parliament built in other provinces. But now the minister says he will only occasionally build a wharf, and he expects the provincial authorities to build them for the most part. I do not see that we have gained anything by the minister's incumbency. He said that during fifteen years the province of New Brunswick had built wharfs which it was not bound to build, because in other provinces these wharfs were built by the federal government, but still the hon. gentleman says that this gives us no claim for the past. The minister is not cutting a very good figure, and the constituencies along the St. John river will not be very well satisfied with . his statement. As a matter of justice and right, he is not doing his full duty. Instead of standing up for his province, he is allowing it still to be discriminated against.


Mr. PUGS  FRY@: If I were to undertake at this session to get an appropriation for all the wharfs required in the public interest on the St. John river and tributaries, there would be no persons in this country more ready to condemn my extravagance than hon. gentlemen opposite. I am not going* to take advantage of my position as Minister of Public Works to give to my province anything more than I think at this time she is justly entitled to. I propose to give the people of St. John river and other sections of my province reasonable accommodation. But I do not propose to make an appropriation sufficient to give all the accommodation required. While I am Minister of Public Works I shall give the people of the St. John river and those who live along the waters flowing into it greater accommodation than ever before.


George William Fowler: Did any one ever hear anything more absurd than the plea of the hon. gentleman, that he does not propose, in this one year, to give all the wharfs that might be required along the St. John ? Who would expect him to give in one year all the wharfs along the St. John, or throughout New Brunswick, or throughout any Mr. FOWLER.
other province ? Such a ridiculous statement ! It does not answer my contention. Yet that is the only answer he can make to my plea for justice to New Brunswick.


William Pugsley: Better wait and see what I am doing.


George William Fowler: What is the good of waiting ? We want to know now. This is the time for the hon. gentleman to state what his policy is going to be.


William Pugsley: I can tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) that he is not assisting the province of New Brunswick in the way of getting better accommodation by taking the attitude that he does.


George William Fowler: Now we have it. By such a statement the minister can mean only one thing


William Pugsley: We have not reached the New Brunswick votes yet


George William Fowler: Wait till I get through. You will have your opportunity, and I will have mine. I say that by such a statement the minister could mean only one thing, and that is that, because I have had the temerity-d, a humble representative of a district in New Brunswick and a member of the opposition-because 1 have dared to stand up and criticise this heavenly-inspired Minister of Public Works, therefore, the province of New Brunswick is to suffer. There shall be no more wharfs along the River St. John if the member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) dares to criticise the doings of the Minister of Public Works. He proposes to muzzle me by holding out that threat


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is impossible.


George William Fowler: The hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) is right-that is impossible; when I feel upon me the necessity of speech, I give utterance; and no man, or combination of men, can muzzle me. I shall have great pleasure in repeating the threat of the Minister of Public Works to the good people of New Brunswick in the campaign that is soon to open. I shall have great pleasure in telling them the sort of Minister of Public Works they have, a man so sensitive to criticism that because a member of the opposition dares to criticise a statement he makes, therefore, knowing that he cannot punish the member, knowing that the member is beyond his power to punish, he will take it out of the constituency and out of the province. Surely, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) on reflection will regret, and deeply regret, the statement he has just made, the threat he has just made, the lash he proposes to lay upon the backs of the good people of New Brunswick-because I happened to be a little bit obstreperous, because the hon. gentleman cannot muzzle me, cannot prevent

me from saying what I think with regard to him and his policy and his course and conduct, therefore the whole province of New Brunswick is to suffer; they shall do without wharfs and public works until they get rid of me. Let me say to the hon. gentleman that if he carries out his threat, the province of New Brunswick will remain without wharfs, because I am sure they will not remain without me.


William Pugsley: It is very surprising to me


George Taylor: I think we had better get on with the item.


George William Fowler: Let him say what he wants to.


An hon. MEMBER.: Let him go on, he will put his foot in it.


William Pugsley: One cannot but be amazed at the instincts of the hon. gentleman talking of one ' putting his foot in it ' and that sort of thing. I am not aware of anything that I have said to call forth observations of that character. I try to discuss questions in a gentlemanly way and to treat my opponents with courtesy:


George William Fowler: If the hon. gentleman will pardon me, in what way have I failed in courtesy to him ?


William Pugsley: I speak not so much of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) as of the hon. gentleman who talks of letting me go on, that I would put my foot in it. 'I think it better to discuss these questions in a reasonable manner. My hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) is not so innocent as he pretends to be. He spoke this afternoon in order to ingratiate himself with the people of New Brunswick who are interested in wharfs, to show the great interest he was taking in securing for them desired accommodation. What I had in mind was that, instead of taking up time on an item for a wharf in Nova Scotia to put forth the claims of New Brunswick, it would be better for the hon. gentleman to wait until he saw what it was proposed to do with regard to New Brunswick ; when I bring down my estimates and he seps what I am doing for New Brunswick, if the amount was not sufficient, then will be the time for him to criticise and show what is needed. Another way in which I wish to remind him that he was not assisting was that he was holding out encouragement to the provincial government to refuse to take part in building more wharfs, he was encouraging them to depend wholly upon this government for the work of building wharfs along the St. John river and its tributaries. I say that that is not a wise or patriotic course, because the result will be that, if the provincial government gives up altogether the building of wharfs, and contributing their one-half to the cost, it will mean that the public will
not get the accommodation to which they are entitled; for, as I said, no matter what may be my disposition as Minister of Public Works, we cannot give-because we have not the money to enable us to do so-all the accommodation at once, or even in the course of a few years, to which the people are fairly entitled. I propose to spend a certain amount in the way of building wharfs. I hope the provincial government will continue its policy of contributing one-half. My department will contribute one-half, and in that way we shall be able to give the public more accommodation. I did not hold out any threat as to what I would do if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) pursued a certain course. I may say to the hon. gentleman that nothing that he may say and nothing that he may do will influence me in the slightest degree as to the treatment I shall accord to the people of the province of New Brunswick. I have made up my mind to a certain policy with regard to the building of wharfs. I intend to ask parliament for certain appropriations for the building of wharfs on tie St. John and its tributaries, and nothing he can say or do will cause me to depart one iota from the policy I intend to pursue.


George William Fowler: Mr. Chairman


Charles Marcil: I think that, as both sides have been heard, and as this discussion is not relevant, we should get back to the item under discussion. I may mention that the second vote from this includes an item for the River St. John and its tributaries.


George William Fowler: I will defer until the item for the River St. John is before us; but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) has you to thank, Mr. Chairman


Charles Marcil: I think I have been very lenient. The discussion was clearly not relevant and both sides have been heard.
Scotch cove (White Point)-breakwater, $15,000.


William Pugsley: There is a revote of $10,-
000.	It is for a breakwater at Scotch Cove, in Cape B; eton North. It is for the purpose of affording protection for vessels, particularly fishing vessels. It is a new work, and is under contract. Of the $10,000 voted last year, nothing has been spent. It will take about $17,000 more to finish it. The total cost will be $32,000.
Skinner's cove-brush and stone protection work at inner end of piers and dredging channel, $6,500.


William Pugsley: This is a revote for reopening the channel. This sum will complete the work.
Tatamagouche bay-wharf, $1,000.


Mr. STANFIELD.: A very small amount lias been spent on the wharfs in Colchester county. A few days ago I called attention to much needed repairs to wharf at Great Tillage. The minister asked me to write him a letter stating the facts, which I did. I hope he will give that matter his attention.


William Pugsley: I received the hon. gentleman's letter, and sent it to the engineer with a view to have an Inquiry made at once*


John Stanfield: I had a letter to-day from one of the head officials of the company at Bass River Furniture Company calling attention to much needed repairs at the wharf at Bass River. I would like the minister, when he sends his engineer down to Great Tillage, to instruct him to examine the wharf at Bass River. My correspondent says that if repairs are not made this summer another winter's storm will wash it all away.
Yarmouth harbour-improvements, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote of $10,-[DOT]000, which it is proposed to apply to improving the channel so as to allow of deep dnaught vessels entering it. It is also to be used in deepening the approaches to a *depth of eighteen feet below the water in spring-tides, and to improving the approaches along the wharfs. The dredging will be done by contract, but there is a certain part of the work will have to be done by days' work. There are two classes of dredging to be done in Yarmouth harbour. One is to give immediate accommodation for steamers which now come to Yarmouth in increasing numbers, larger passenger steamers, and also to widen the turning basin for them. If we were to go on and make all improvements which are needed in the way of dredging, they would probably reach up to $400,000 or $500,000 altogether.


Samuel Hughes: What is the depth of low tidal water at Yarmouth ?


William Pugsley: About eighteen feet.


George William Fowler: Was any portion of that $10,000 voted last year expended ?


William Pugsley: No. I am told that sixteen feet is the depth at low water, but these larger steamers draw more water. We have not really got the depth nor the room which are needed. Yarmouth may be made an admirable harbour. The contractors are the Dominion Dredging Company, who are the lowest tenderers. They have not started work yet. We have had the government dredge ' Canada ' there.


George William Fowler: Is that the Stewart company ?


William Pugsley: I do not know if it is the Stewart company, but Mr. Stewart is Mr. PUGSLEY.
connected with it. It is called the Dominion Dredging Company.


George William Fowler: Where is the Maritime Dredging Company working ?


William Pugsley: In a lake in the constituency of Sunbury and Queens.
Prince Edward Island-harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $8,000.


Alexander Martin: I see that you use the expression in the estimates ' Harbours, rivers and bridges.' Are there any bridges under the control of the government 1


William Pugsley: No, but I may say that this is the usual expression which has been in the estimates year after year. Really the only bridges with which this government have to do are what are known as interprovincial bridges. I do not think there are any bridges in Prince Edward Island.


Alexander Martin: Yes, there is the Hillsborough bridge.


William Pugsley: I think the Railway Department keeps that in repair and that the Prince Edward Island government contribute a portion of the cost.
McPherson's cove wharf-extension, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This Is under contract and is to extend the present wharf 200 feet.
New London-repairs to breakwater, &c., $2,500.


William Pugsley: These are repairs and this amount is asked to cover the .gost of the work which will be done by day's labour.


Alexander Martin: This is a very important harbour. The department are spending a few thousands every year without making any permanent improvement. Is the minister doing the work by tender or by day labour and will sufficient accommodation be provided at New London by the expenditure of this comparatively small amount of money ?


William Pugsley: It is intended out of this money to build 500 lineal feet of crib-work to be fully ballasted, to be 15 feet wide and of a mean height of 10 feet. This is really the rebuilding of cribwork which has been destroyed by storms. I do not know that we contemplate doing any further work.


Alexander Martin: Is it to be done by tender or day's work ?


William Pugsley: By day labour.


Alexander Martin: This is what you have been doing for a number of years. What you are doing this year you will repair next year. The minister says that 500 feet is to be built for $2,500.


William Pugsley: This is not a wharf at all ; it is ballasting cribworfc costing $5 per lineal foot.


Alexander Martin: Does the minister think that he will complete the work for' $2,500 ?


William Pugsley: Yes.
llustico harbour-breakwater on Robinson's island, south side of entrance to harbour, $1,500.


Alexander Martin: I know something about all these harbours. I would like to know the condition in which this harbour is, how much money has been spent, the depth of water at the head of this breakwater at present and the depth of water the department expect to have after spending this small sum of $1,500.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. The department has completed, under contract, a breakwater there 750 feet in length, extending from the island shore in a northeasterly direction so as to leave a clear space of 1,400 feet between its outer end and the northern breakwater. What we propose to do is to protect the outer end of the breakwater. The work which has been done is very Important and it has cost a considerable amount of money.


George Taylor: Will this complete It ?


William Pugsley: This will complete.


George Taylor: What depth of water is there ?


William Pugsley: I do not know the depth of water in the harbour.


Alexander Martin: I want to know the depth of water at the head of the breakwater ?


William Pugsley: I do not know the depth in the harbour. The hon. gentleman should know that better than I.


Alexander Martin: Has the minister any idea at all from his department what they are doing there ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Alexander Martin: Surely the department could tell him the depth of water at the breakwater.


William Pugsley: I can get that information but 1 do not have It now.


Alexander Martin: My information Is that the money you are spending there will be of very little service unless you extend the work very much farther. The idea of coming before this House for a tu'penny ha'penny $1,500 when you require about $15,000 before you cau make a satisfactory harbour there is absurd. Surely the minister's officers can tell what depth of water there is at the head of the breakwater ?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman professed to know all about Rustico harbour and if he does he will know what the depth of water is.


Alexander Martin: I am not performing the duties of the Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: I know what the duties of the Minister of Public Works are just as well as the hon. gentleman does and just at the present time the hon. gentleman is not giving evidence of a very close study of the Public Works Report as to what has been done at Rustico, because, as I have said to-day, we have just completed a breakwater 750 feet in length at a cost of about $52,000. That is not a tu'penny ha'penny matter as the hon. gentleman suggests and this small amount that we are asking for to-day is to protect the outer end of this breakwater.


Alexander Martin: Surely the minister can tell me what service it is to be when completed, what water there will be at the head of the breakwater ?


William Pugsley: The service is to protect the harbour.


Alexander Martin: You must have a harbour into which vessels can go.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman say that vessels cannot go into the harbour now ?


Alexander Martin: The information is that there is not very much water and I would like to know actually what water there is.


William Pugsley: I am told that over the bar there is a depth at the lowest water of about 7 feet.


Alexander Martin: Does that refer to where this breakwater Is located or to some other harbour? There are two harbours there.


William Pugsley: I am speaking of the Rustico harbour and my information is that at the lowest tide there are 7 feet over the bar.


Alexander Martin: At this breakwater ?


Mr. PUGSLEY  .@: Next item, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Marcil: Carried.


Alexander Martin: No.


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman is opposed to the item why not strike it out?


Alexander Martin: I am not opposed to it, but I am pointing out its inadequacy. My information is you would have to extend the wharf at least 500 feet before it would be of any great service to navigation. Leaving these works in a half finished condition is not helping the progress of the province.


William Pugsley: If there is no harbour 1 there capable of accommodating vessels and



no depth of water, a breakwater would be of no use, no matter how many miles you would extend it. I understand Rustico has a very good harbour.


Alexander Martin: No.


William Pugsley: At the lowest tide vessels drawing seven feet may pass 'over the bar into the harbour. The trouble is that the hon. gentleman seems to think that breakwaters are wharfs.


Alexander Martin: There is not a season in which there is not a vessel stranded on Rustico Harbour bar. There was better accommodation there years ago than there is to-day. I remember when twelve or fifteen vessels were trading on the north side of the province, but they have disappeared one by one and there are not more than two or three now; a fact which proves there are no good harbours there. The minister tries to blame me for not passing this item.


William Pugsley: I do not catch the hon. gentleman's meaning.


Alexander Martin: I cannot help that. Let me call his attention to the fact that a few years ago the government began to build a wharf at Point Prim. Does he know about that?


William Pugsley: No.


Alexander Martin: I have to furnish the minister with all the information.


William Pugsley: We are speaking of Rustico harbour now.


Alexander Martin: I do not see an item in
the estimates for Point Pz*im. You were supposed to finish the work there by day labour, but after spending a good deal of money you have three feet of water at high tide and at low tide you can walk one hundred yards on dry sand. Do you propose to leave it in that condition?


William Pugsley: In the harbour there is ten feet of water, and it does not make any difference what depth there is at the breakwater. The hon. gentleman is confounding a breakwater with a wharf.


Alexander Martin: In. my province breakwaters are used for shipping.,


William Pugsley: Sometimes they are, but not in this case.


Alexander Martin: When you compare the coast line of Nova Scotia with the coast line of Prince Edward Island the difference is not very much, but yet you have sixty-six items for Nova Scotia and only nine for Prince Edward Island. I call the minister's attention to the wharf at Vernon. A few years ago the bridge that spans the Vernon river was used for shipping purposes. That bridge has been replaced by a steel bridge and I ask the minister if there will be anything in the Supplementary esti-Mr. PUGSLEY.
mates for improved accommodation at Vernon river.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Six o'clock.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I do not want all the Prince Edward Island items carried because I have some remarks to make.


William Pugsley: Wait for the Supplementary Estimates, or will five minutes do you now?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It will take me fifteen minutes and if the member for Kings and the Minister of Public Works did not get into a wordy warfare about the St. John river the Prince Edward Island items would be through now.


William Pugsley: We will carry all the Prince Edward Island items.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I want them to be carried, but I want to speak.


William Pugsley: I will allow the hon. gentleman to speak on any other item.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Six o'clock.
Some resolutions reported.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: The Civil Service Bill; if there is time the Land Bill, and then Supply in Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at six o'clock.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 25, 1908.