ARCHITECTURAL INSTITUTE OF CANADA.

Mr. J. A. C. ETHIER (Two Mountains) moved :: 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.
He said : As the House asked for further explanation of the nature of this Bill before granting the motion, I beg to state that it has always been the practice to remit, on the recommendation of the committee, the fee of $200 upon charitable private Bills and all such Bills as are of a religious, social, professional and benevolent character. The Architectural Institute Bill is one of a social nature, and is of the same general nature, as, for example, the Bill passed in 1887 to incorporate the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers, the Bill passed in 1904 to incorporate the Collingwood General Marine Hospital, the Bill passed in 1900 to incorporate the Women's Art Association, to incorporate the Canadian Bible Society, the Bill respecting Queen's College, and the Bill passed in 1907-8 respecting the Ministers', Widows' and Orphans' Fund of the Presbyterian Church and the Women's Auxiliary of the Church of England.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: In 1906, an order or this House was passed for a copy of the lease between the Department of Marine and Fisheries and Markey. The department prepared, a return to that order, and the minister brought down in the session of 1900,

what was thought to be a true copy of the lease. It appears that the original lease, which should have been In the department, had been brought before the House in 1904 by the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Mr. Prefontaine, and handed over to a member of the opposition. That hon. member read the whole lease in the House, and it was given to the official reporters to be inserted in ' Hansard.' It is presumed according to the practice followed in the Hansard office that the document was handed back to the hon. member who read it, but there is no positive evidence as to that; at all events, the original has never been returned to the department. When the motion was passed in 1890, there was on file what the officers thought a true duplicate and the lease which was brought down then before this House was a copy of that duplicate of the lease. However, the original in Markey's hands was brought before the Public Accounts Committee this year, and it was then found that the copy produced before the House was not a time copy. The assistant commissioner, Mr. Venning, made a search and made comparisons between the document which had been read in the House in 1904, and the document which Markey had, and it was found that the copy we had brought down in 1906 was not a correct copy, So, I beg to lay on the table a true copy of the lease which was passed between Mar-key and the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and also the report of Mr. Venning, the assistant commissioner, explaining all the circumstances.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY- MONTAGUE BRANCH.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved that the order for the introduction of a Bill intituled ' An Act to authorize the extension of the Montague branch of the Prince Edward Island Railway, and the construction of a branch line from Harmony to Elmira ' be discharged. He said : It is intended to proceed by resolution.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. CLEMENTS.: Before the orders of the day are called-I see the Minister of Militia is in his seat-I noticed a short time ago a report in the press stating that Colonel Rankin, of the 24th Regiment, in my city, had sent in his resignation. I would like to ask if that resignation has been accepted and if it is, why ? While I do not want to discuss the question, I will say that I regret it very much, because Colonel Rankin has been a very active military man. and our friends there feel that the regiment had been discriminated against.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman cannot discuss the matter.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I have no knowledge of this matter except what I have seen in the newspapers. I will be glad to inquire, and will let the hon. gentleman know in a day or two what the facts fire. As to discriminating against the regiment-I do not know that that is a proper matter to discuss now-but as the hon. gentleman has made that inference, I must say that there has been no discrimination against any body.



BOUNTY TO SOUTH AFRICAN VOLUNTEERS.

Mr. HERRON.: I would like to ask the minister when we may expect a Bill providing for military bounty award for the South African volunteers, will be brought down.


Frederick William Borden: I will be able to make a statement about that next week.



ACCIDENT TO THE CORNWALL CANAL

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I would like to ask the Minister of Railways whether he has any further information to give to the House with respect to the unfortunate occurrence at the Cornwall canal ?


Mr. GRAHAM.: I am in constant communication with the chief engineer. As the hon. gentleman has seen in the press, the break is a very serious one. If it were merely the giving away of the embankment, a dam could have been constructed and navigation, in a temporary way, could have been restored within a few days. Unfortunately, the bed of the canal, perhaps it should be called the basin, has washed out in the shape of a horse shoe, within a comparatively few feet of the north bank. A few feet from this horseshoe is a pier of the Ottawa and New York Railway. It has become necessary to build a dam from a point on the south bank, extending around the horseshoe, and again, in the form of a semicircle, touching the south bank at the further end. In order to secure the reopening of navigation as soon as possible, two plans were suggested, one to remove the northern pier of the railway with perhaps a small amount of excavation to the north ; the other plan was to make an excavation north of the pier sufficient to afford temporary relief. That necessitates the moving back of two spans of the bridge on the north side on account of the steel abutments being in the way. After consultation with the railway engineer, the chief engineer of the department and myself, it was decided to adopt the latter plan, and to excavate around behind the north pier. How long that will take, I do not know. I received a message this morning telling me that a staff of 200 men were at work, and with probably a sufficient number of teams. It is to be hoped that the

time will not be too long-I am afraid to mention even an apm'oximate time because I do not know what will happen-but the House can rest assured that the work is being expedited as rapidly as possible. The men are divided into three shifts of 8 hours each, so that the work is continued during the whole 24 hours, extra light being obtained from the power company. .


Robert Laird Borden: Has anything been ascertained as to the immediate cause ?


George Perry Graham: Nothing that can be stated definitely. I will not hazard a guess, many guesses have been made ; I can only say that we have no definite information.



COST OF THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the Minister of Railways whether he is able to give us information respecting the cost of the Transcontinental Railway. I appreciate how busy he has been on account of this accident of the Cornwall canal. At the same time, we would be glad to get the information as soon as it can reasonably be given. I might ask him to let me know at the same time how far the estimate contained in the return brought down is based on the original estimate of the government with respect to the cost of that road. I will illustrate, in order [DOT] to make myself clear. A part of the road is under contract, I have no doubt that the cost of that is known within a reasonably narrow margin. Other portions which may not have been surveyed so carefully, are not now under contract, and it would be impossible In respect to them to make so accurate an estimate. I wish to know particularly, whether, in the statement of the probable cost brought down, the original estimate of the government has been adhered to, and in what respect it has been adhered to.


George Perry Graham: Is that the Transcontinental portion or the whole portion ?


Robert Laird Borden: From Winnipeg to Moncton.


George Perry Graham: I think, speaking from memory, the later estimates are given on the latest information, and are not based on former estimates. I may say that I have had my staff trying to work out that information for which the hou. gentleman asked th,e other day. But when you come to put it in a definite form it is not so easy to locate it. However, I will have all the information in a day or two.



THE LEAD BOUNTY.

Mr. FOSTER.: I would ask the Minister of Finance if the statement that was asked for with reference to the Lead Bounty Bill, is ready yet ?


George Perry Graham: 


Mr. FIELDING.: It is not ready, but instructions have been given to prepare it, and the third reading of the Bill will not be pressed until the information is before the House.



DOMINION LANDS ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 181) to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting the Public Lands of the Dominion-Mr. Oliver.
On section 12 the minister shall settle disputes between persons claiming the right to entry for the same. land.
Robert Laird Borden: This is a pretty large power to refer to the minister. I think we discussed that a little last year. The minister said that he was not anxious to assume the responsibility but he did not know of any other way in which the matter could be settled. Where the rights of these people depend upon an enactment what is the difficulty about leaving a question of this kind to be determined by some tribunal ? I suppose there must be some practical difficulty or this section would not be proposed In other systems with which 1 am more familiar the matter has been left to the courts to determine whether one party or the other has acted according to the law and is therefore entitled


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: The difficulty in leaving it to the courts is, first, that neither party has a legal right that is a right established by .law, and, again, the right is of such an indefinite and, in many cases, trifling monetary value that a reference to the courts would be a denial of justice to the man with the shortest purse. This is merely to arrive at a summary decision in regard to what, at the moment, is a matter of comparatively trifling monetary importance, but in regard to which the different parties to the dispute may have very strong feelings and which may at any time turn out to be of very great value. The main purpose is to get a summary decision so that there may be as little time lost as possible.


George Eulas Foster: Does this resolve itself into a question of the payment of money, or has it always to be settled on the basis of the allocation of land ?


Frank Oliver: The allocation of land.


George Eulas Foster: The minister has not the right to say that one party or the other shall pay a certain amount of money ?


Frank Oliver: No, there is no such right assumed.


George Eulas Foster: But when an entry is cancelled and improvements have been made by the first entrant then the minister takes it upon himself to make an assessment of the value of the improvements made ?
*


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Why does the minister think that he has not a legal right ? I do not see why he has not a legal right.


Frank Oliver: There may he cases in which there would be a legal right but still there are others in which there is not. For instance, we will take the ease of a squatter before survey. Two men, in the exercise of their ordinary rights as citizens, go on the public domain and, without any legal authorization and yet in contravention of no law, enter into occupation of some part of the public domain. It is only upon the survey being made that there is a possibility of their acquiring a legal title to the land. These two men are in occupation of the same quarter-section. They have no legal authorization for the occupancy of that quarter-section and yet we recognize the propriety of giving them a legal right. But, the question as to how much of the quarter-section each one is entitled to, or as to whether one Is entitled and the other is not, is a question of such a nature that it seems to us that a reference to the courts, by reason of the delay and the expense, [DOT] would, in many cases, result rather in a denial than a furtherance of justice. The main, essential point at the beginning of settlement is that there shall be as little delay as possible in deciding any matter in dispute because the delay is of greater financial importance in most cases than the matter in dispute. A man is entitled to earn his homestead in three years' residence. Suppose he gets into dispute with another man, one year's delay in the settlement of that dispute is one-third of the value of his ultimate proiperty. Better for him far to drop his dispute and acquire land elsewhere to which he might earn an undisputed title. I am quite aware that that i)osition is not in accordance with the view of the law generally taken, but it is in accordance with the facts of the case and is in accordance with the practice. The same authority is contained in this section as has been part of the Dominion Lands Act almost from the beginning. There is some variation which I may point out in this from the former Act, but the question of the summary exercise of authority by the minister is something that has been embodied in the Lands Act for many years.


George Eulas Foster: As a matter of fact, what is the modus operandi by which this is worked out ? There is an appeal to the minister and the minister makes his decision. What process takes place before ? I lsnd an idea that there might be provision made for a quick and inexpensive land court conducted by the inspector and one or two other officials, who are in the district and who, having local knowledge, could, in most cases, settle these disputes,
were they so empowered, subject, of course, to an appeal to the minister, I recognize that the thing to be done effectively ought to be done quickly, that there should be no delay and it just struck me while the minister was speaking that an authorized land court, consisting of officers on the spot, might be an inexpensive and speedy way of settling these disputes.


Frank Oliver: That is practically what is done. The dispute comes immediately before the land agent. The land agent, not being clothed with authority to settle the dispute by the terms of the Act, reports it to the head office. The head office orders an inspection and report, if it is a question of fact with regard to the ground, and as soon as the homestead inspector's report is received a decision can be given and is given by the minister. There are, of course, cases in which it is not so much a question of fact upon the ground as in regard to other matters, and in such cases the reference by the minister may be to the laud agent. But, the ordinary case is a case of dispute as to the fact upon the ground and in regard to that the report of the homestead inspector is the deciding influence or evidence.


John Herron: Could such a question as this not be dealt with on the ground better by the laws applying to ordinary arbitration? We know that the questions have to be settled by evidence taken, and in very many instances land agents, while I think they are generally fair in such cases, find it very difficult to get into possession of the facts in the same way as disinterested people i,n !the neighbourhood could. It seems to me that some form of arbitration might be adopted that would settle such disputes as are mentioned in this clause.


George Eulas Foster: Are they very frequent?


Frank Oliver: They are necessarily fairly frequent. In regard to the suggestion of ordinary arbitration, I do not know whether or not my hon. friend was ever concerned in an arbitration, but I think he will find that arbitration is a very expensive method of settling a dispute, especially if the dispute does not involve any large amount of actual money. The whole purpose of this Act and the purpose of the summary authority that is given to the minister is to put the man without means on the same footing as the man with means. With this end in view, summary authority is given in this way. The principle has been recognized in all Lands Acts that we look to the men of lesser means for the actual pioneer work throughout the country. Therefore, we have to provide that they shall have a fair opportunity of maintaining their rights irrespective of their financial means. Under the provisions of this Act as it has been and as it is, we are merely carrying forward that same principle that the man without means

lias exactly tlae same standing as the man with means. It is do reflection upon the administration of justice in Canada, it is simply a matter of fact, that under the expensive processes of law the man with means has a very considerable advantage over the man without means, and it is to get away from that idea that our predecessors, as well as ourselves, have undertaken to administer this question of disputes in a prompt and summary manner.
'Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I admit that there is a great deal of force in what the minister says as to settling in a summary manner disputes that are only trivial. The difficulty is that the words which give you power to bring that about give you power to deal with matters that are of very great moment and to deal with them as the minister or some official in his department may determine, both with respect to the result and with respect to the procedure by which that result is arrived at. Take, for example, the Griffiths case, brought up by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) last year. One man had sold some cattle to another. He did not get paid. He made some pretense about having an interest or claim upon that man's homestead. He entered into possession of the lands and brought what lawyers call a suit for specific performance. The courts decided that he had no case. He brought his case to the attention of the department and the department reversed the decision of the court, holding that he had a lien upon the land, and told the actual owner of the land to get out or settle with the man for his cattle. I think that was a very high-handed course for the department to take after the question had been litigated between the parties, and after the man who had brought the action had been declared by the courts of the land to have no remedy. Then take the Blairmore townsite case. I am not alluding to that in any partisan sense, but there the department had power, and exercised it, involving land of an enormous value. Every citizen of this country is entitled to the ordinary remedies of the court, to avail himself of the ordinary law and procedure of the land under which he has the right to have his case heard, to cross-examine his opponent and his opponent's witnesses upon oath. But to substitute for that in respect of matters that may involve very large amounts of money the summary and, sometimes, rough methods of departmental inquiry is a very serious thing. You have the two difficulties, the necessity of dealing with trivial matters in a summary way and, on the other hand, of avoiding in cases of very great moment the putting aside of the regular law of the land, to which every one is entitled, and administering a different system of law and procedure.


Frank Oliver: There is no doubt about what my hon. friend says that the form of Mr. OLIVER.
words which gives summary authority in a trivial case also gives summary authority in an important case. We are not introducing a new principle, we are simply carrying forward the principle that was adopted many years ago and that has been found, I am bound to say, in practice absolutely necessary. There were in the last three years 100,000 homestead entries in the western country. It is necessarily a fact that in that enormous number of homestead entries there must be some considerable proportion of disputes which require attention. Out of that enormous number of entries and the proportionate number of disputes, the number of cases of what you might call first-class importance, cases that would warrant the expenditure necessary for an appeal to the courts, is almost infinitesimal. So that while we admit the objection to placing matters of large financial moment at the summary disposition of the minister, as would appear to be done by the provisions of this section and by the sections which it amends, we are perfectly satisfied that to provide for the small number of large cases by causing delay and expense in the enormously large number of small cases would not be for the general well-being of the country or the better and more successful administration of the law.


Robert Laird Borden: How would it do to add something like this, although -I am not suggesting these words as a form to be adopted :
And he may in respect of any dispute of difficulty or importance refer the question for determination to the courts.


Frank Oliver: That is really a worse responsibility than the other, because it lays the responsibility upon the minister of saying whether the case is important enough to go to the courts or not. I would hardly like to be charged with that responsibility.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, there is precedent for that idea. For example, in every country where a system of arbitration "is provided for, the arbitrators always have power to reserve any question of law for the determination of the courts, and if it is a difficult question they usually do reserve it. I really think that the minister has power to do it under the law as it is at present.


Frank Oliver: Of course, we have this advantage, that in any case of importance we have recourse to the advice of the Department of Justice. What my friend finds objectionable in this instance is the absolute discretion of the minister. If he will provide some form of words that will relieve the minister from the exercise of the discretion, I will be inclined to agree with him. But the proposal does not relieve the minister the exercise of discretion. It lays upon him the responsibility of exercising the



190B

[Stage Direction]
discretion of referring the matter to another tribunal. That is from my point of view a more objectionable responsibility than the responsibility of actually giving the decision, when it is considered that we have the advantage of the advice of the Department of Justice in regard to any legal question that may arise.
Robert Laird Borden: It does not strike me that it would increase the responsibility of the minister. Trivial disputes would as heretofore be settled by the minister offhand or upon the report of some official of the department. But in a matter of very serious moment the minister may hesitate as to whether he shall determine it himself or send it to the courts. If he decides to leave it to be adjudicated upon by the courts, I do not see how that increases his responsibility. It seems to me that it diminishes it.
* Mr. OLIVER. Of course, my hou. friend is aware that a demand from one of the parties for the opportunity of trying the matter out before the Exchequer Court is usually acceded to; but that is hardly the view of my hon. friend has expressed. Although that is a matter in the discretion of the minister, it becomes a matter of policy, By the demand of one of the parties to take the matter to the Exchequer Court, the minister is relieved of the responsibility of sending the parties there. I want to be relieved of the responsibility of sending people to court who do not want to go to court. That is quite a different matter from permitting people who want to go to court to go there.	,


George Eulas Foster: Does it go to court if only one of the disputants asks that it may, or has there to be an agreement between them?


Frank Oliver: I am speaking of a dispute between the government and an individual, which in the end is one between two individuals. That is to say, there is some interest that is in question between the government and a citizen. The rights of some third person probably depend on whether the rights of No. 1 are conceded or not. If No. 1 considers that his rights are being trespassed upon, and demands that the case go to the court, it is permitted to go to the court.


Mr. KNOWLES.: Is there any machinery by which the decisions may be enforced 1 I have in mind a case in which a decision was given against a party in possession of a homestead and he refused to vacate, and the party who was adjudged to be entitled to the homestead, though a man of small means, was put to a great deal of delay and expense in consequence. I was informed at that time that there was no provision in the former law for the enforcement of the decision. I would like the minister to consider the importance of having such machinery provided in this legislation.


Frank Oliver: The responsbility of enforcing or upholding the rights of a homesteader hardly rests upon the government. The government gives the homesteader the right of possession and occupation, and it seems to me that it is for him to enforce that right in the ordinary manner, which his entry paper enables him to do. I am quite aware that there is the hardship that my hon. friend speaks of, that a homesteader without means is hardly in a position to take the necessary proceedings to procure an ejectment, and it might be right and proper for the government to take the responsibility of ejecting an intruder in such a case; but I would hardly like to take the responsibility of summary ejectment. It would be only right that ejectment should take place on the order of a court.


William Erskine Knowles: It is your land.


Frank Oliver: It is, but we have granted to the homesteader the right of occupation and possession against all. the world, and the courts will uphold him in that right. We may assume the right over land which is government property or under government reservation; but having passed our right of occupation to another, it is for that individual to maintain his rights in the courts. If, however, we should see fit to assume any responsibility, I would be only in favour of doing that by process of the courts.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the department perhaps is inclined to interfere too much. Griffith's case is an illustration. I would have applied for a writ of injunction against the official if I had been that man. If the law of the Northwest is like that of the eastern provinces with regard to the issuing of writs of injunction, any one in the department who would threaten to interfere with the man in possession of the land would probably find himself committed to jail.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend does not quite understand the case. The case is this. A man applies for an entry on a piece of land and he is given the entry. But another has entered into occupation without any authority and refuses to withdraw. The man who holds the entry, being a poor man, does not wish to be at the expense and delay of legal proceedings to eject the intruder. My hon. friend thinks that the government should assume that responsibility and suggests that we should exercise it summarily.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN'. That the department should act as a sheriff ?


Frank Oliver: To some extent, yes. I certainly recognize that the intruder should be ejected, but the ordinary processes of the court are sufficient to enable the homesteader to eject him. If we go beyond that and say that we ought to assume some

responsibility, I say we should only assume it through the processes of the courts, and not undertake to eject summarily when the land has gone out of our possession and is in the possession of another.


John Herron: The minister will acknowledge that those eases are rather frequent. They have been more frequent the last two or three years than formerly. Even if the process of arbitration be very expensive, in many cases the difficulty would be settled that way, but I do not know whether the decision would be a final one or not.
On section 13-time for perfecting entry.


Mr. LAKE.: That matter of extension of time when a man has not perfected his entry within the six months, is a very fruitful source of trouble. The matter apparently has to be referred to headquarters, and the minister, I presume, adjudicates finally as to whether an extension of time should be given. In the meantime the person who has put in the cancellation is kept waiting, not knowing whether an extension is going to be given. An extension may be given up to the end of the twelve months, and in practice it is found that still further extensions are given for cause shown; and the person who has put in the cancellation has no means of knowing whether there is going to be a cancellation or not. The matter should be more positive. The person who has engaged to perfect his entry by permanent residence, should put in an application for extension before the end of the six months, and that application should be in the hands of the land agent, so that any one applying for cancellation would know that the matter was under consideration. Subsequently, after the decision of the minister, the person applying for cancellation should be notified how the matter stands in order that he may be able to recommence his cancellation proceedings. The clause reads ;
Provided that, on satisfactory cause being shown for an entrant failing to perfect his entry within six months from the date thereof. the minister may order that the entry shall be protected from cancellation for a further period of six months; but no entry which is not perfected within twelve months from the date thereof shall be protected from cancellation for any further period.


Frank Oliver: I am quite aware that as the demand for land increases in the west, there becomes a greater necessity to hold the settler more strictly to the terms of the Act. To a certain extent my hon. friend and I are agreed on that point. At the same time we must recognize that the underlying principle of the Dominion Lands Act is to provide for settlement by people of less rather than of greater financial resources. In our policy respecting settlement, we provide specifically that the set-Mr. OLIVER.
tier need not be on his land for more than half the year. The purpose of that Is to enable him to earn money with which to maintain himself and enable him to improve the land during 'the period in which he is required to reside upon it. The settler is expected to create out of the soil wealth without putting anything into it except his own time and labour ; but he must have implements, he must have live stock or he cannot be a successful farmer.
Therefore, unless we are restricting the occupation of the land to people who have capital to begin with, we must give the privileges which the Act gives. Then, if we give these privileges, it is reasonable, as they are privileges and given for a certain purpose, that they should be administered so as to, as far as possible, achieve that purpose. The purpose is not to get a man on the land for a period of six months, the purpose is to give the man an opportunity to make a farm of that land by his residence upon it during the six months. And so we have found it necessary and advisable, and sound public policy, not to adhere too strictly to the letter of the law in regard to the term of non-residence which should cancel the right of a man to his land. There is no doubt that the privileges thus accorded have been abused. There is no way in which they can be accorded and not be subject to abuse. And, as I said in the beginning, as time goes on, as settlement increases, it is right and proper that these privileges should be restricted; but I do not think the time has come, nor do I think that, while we are expecting to settle our country with men of limited means, the time will ever come, when we can afford to draw the line of cancellation at six months, in all cases. But the hon. member says : I do not want that, but I want the homesteader to notify the agent as to his intentions for the six months. We have all kinds of homesteaders; and the fact that a man is of very limited financial means, to a certain extent, presupposes that he has not had those educational advantages that would enable him to keep track of the letter of the law and therefore to comply with the letter of the law in his own protection. Many of the homesteaders are at work in the coal mines, or in the lumber woods, or on the river, or in callings of different kinds in far-distant parts of the country during the part of the year they are permitted to be off their homesteads. Now, if there is to be no leniency, no recognition of the conditions and circumstances, there is going to be a very effectual shutdown of homesteading under these conditions. I do not think that would be advisable; I do not think we have arrived at the point when we can afford to do that. That there are instances of abuse of the privilege there can be no question; but I think there is no question also that we

are restricting the privilege from time to .time as far as the circumstances of the country and sound public policy will permit. We are providing that there shall be no extension of the time beyond twelve months, unless there has been actual residence. That is an important provision, and I think it is one of the provisions that will meet, to some extent, the views of my hon. friend. Whatever the Act may have said in the past, there is no doubt that, some years ago, before settlement became as pressing as it is to-day, there were extensions given beyond the term of a year, but recently we have not been giving such extensions ; and we provide specifically in the Act that no such extensions can be given, unless there has been occupation of the homestead. Then, once a man has gone into occupation, has established the bona fide character of his settlement, we may give such extensions after that as the circumstances require. X am afraid that, if we accept the hon. gentleman's suggestion, the number of cases of hardship of actual settlers will far outnumber the cases of undue exercise of privilege under the Act as it stands and under the administration as it has been.
'Mr. LAKE. I realize that there is a great deal in what the minister (Mr. Oliver) says. But I would sooner see something more definite laid down than appears in this clause, knowing as I do, the way in which the privilege has been abused in the past. I would not stick absolutely to the suggestion made in the first instance. That might be modified to say that the minister might grant an extension of time after the first six months; but I think there should be a limit to the period within which he should give his decision with regard to that matter. There can be no doubt that there are a great many homesteads taken up and held by persons who have no intention of going on the land at all, but hope to obtain possession of it by some means-by some pull or otherwise-later on. When the bona fide homesteader goes and wants to get a particular lot of land, he should be able' to get possession of that land under the regular working of the law, and after the expiration of six months, which is all that is granted for the protection of the entry, he should be able to apply for cancellation and know exactly what time he shall have to wait before the matter is decided, and also exactly what has been decided after the decision is arrived at. I do not know if there is any provision for notifying the man who has applied for cancellation, of the fact that an extension of time has been granted on the land. I have had a good deal of correspondence at different times in regard to this matter of cancellation, and in no case have I seen a letter to the person who applied for cancellation
telling him what decision has been arrived at. I think that should be made a particular point. I would like also to make another suggestion: Presumably, under the circumstances mentioned by the minister, the homesteader may not put in his application for extension of time until after the six months have expired. I presume that then the course is to send notice to him to show cause within a certain time. That period of time should be limited, and, as soon as the decision of the minister is given in the matter, the person applying for cancellation should receive notice what decision has been arrived at. He will then be in a position to continue to wait for the opportunity of cancelling the land at the expiration of twelve months, or for the expiration of the time granted by the minister, or, if he finds it advisable not to wait, he can go on and look for other land. The men should not be kept hanging about hoping they will ultimately get the cancellation of the land and never quite know what their standing is in the matter. In regard to the case which I brought to the minister's attention when the Bill was first under consideration, the man was kept waiting, and waiting, because he never knew what his standing would be. After the expiration of the different extensions of time which were given to the homesteader, he went immediately to the office to make application for cancellation, but he was held off, and found subsequently that another extension of time had been granted. That is a very unsatisfactory condition of affairs. I think that people should know exactly what their rights are in the matter. It is not always the speculator who comes in and tries to cancel an entry; it is often the bona fide farmer who is anxious to get on that land.


William Erskine Knowles: I understand the hon. gentleman to speak as if, in the case of a protection, an applicant for cancellation had to make a new application. As I understand it, an application for cancellation survives the protection, and takes effect only when the protection has lapsed.
iMr. LAKE. That appears to be the rule at the present time, I do not know whether it has always been so. At any rate, in the case I have in mind, the applicant for cancellation did not know how he stood in the matter at all. He simply discovered that an extension of time had been granted, and when he went to ask for cancellation he was refused, without any explanation being given.


Mr. TURRIFF.: It must be borne in mind that probably more than one-half of the entries are made at a time of the year when it is almost impossible to go into residence on the land within the six months. Take, for instance, the entries that are being made in the present month, six

months after the date of these entries would bring them into the winter. I think the provision in the Act that allows for an extension for six months after the first six months is up, that is, a year from the date of entry, is a very good one, especially when it is provided that there can be no further extension of time until the homesteader has gone into actual bona fide residence. It seems to me that provision, when you take into consideration the fact that the six months in many cases bring them into the winter, is about as extreme a limit as you can make it. As the minister has pointed out, the majority of the homesteaders are men of little means. While there is now a big demand for land, and while we have to guard against too much latitude in the way of protection and extension of time, you must also bear in mind that a good deal of consideration is due to the new settler who is beginning under pretty hard circumstances, and he is entitled to as much consideration as the department can reasonably give him.


Richard Stuart Lake: I do not raise any objection to the provisions in this clause. I merely want a further provision in order to define more clearly the right of a man who wants to make an entry on land which is not being used, and to give a man who has applied for cancellation some definite knowledge * as to where he stands in regard to his application.


Frank Oliver: The suggestion of my hon. friend that the applicant for cancellation should be notified if any extension of time has been granted to the homesteader, is perfectly correct. I am informed that has been the practice; if it is not, it ought to be.


Richard Stuart Lake: And further information given to any applicant for cancellation. If he is not in good standing, it should be thoroughly explained to him how the matter stands. If a man makes application for cancellation and there is somebody ahead of him, he should know exactly how that matter stands.


Frank Oliver: If that is not done, it ought to be done. In regard to proceedings for cancellation, it may not be out of place to show what the regulations now are in the case of a homestead, protected either at the time or placed afterwards under protection, so as to show that the applicant for cancellation is not under the difficulty my hon. friend suggests.
Although an entry may he under protection by order of the head office, an application for cancellation must be accepted, and the cancellation will begin, or recommence, as the case may be, at the expiration of the protection period, unless the agent has evidence, which must be recorded, that the duties are being performed.
That is to say, if an application is made to cancel a homestead which is at that time Mr. TURRIFF.
under protection, the application must be accepted, although it is under protection.


Richard Stuart Lake: That is a new regulation.


Frank Oliver: No, that has been in effect since last June, at least, it has been in published form since last June. If the ap-lication for cancellation is made, and die entry is put under protection after that application for cancellation, when the protection expires that cancellation retains its standing, it does not have to he renewed to entitle the applicant to his rights against that homestead. But if, in tile meantime, evidence is given to the agent that the homestead duties are being performed, that is to say, that the homesteader is not in default, then of course the application for cancellation falls to the ground and becomes of non-effect, the application to cancel is cancelled, and in that case only, I find that the suggestion of my hon. friend with regard to applicants for protection at the end of six months, although it does not apply there, does apply in the case of application for protection.
Such homesteader when granted protection is required to satisfy the. agent before the expiration of the protection period that he has complied with the regulations,_ failing which his entry may be cancelled without further notice.
That provision has been in print since October last.
When a homestead entry is cancelled, or proceedings are taken upon an application for cancellation, or when there is an application for cancellation prior to cancellation, the applicant for cancellation shall be given thirty days to make entry, failing which the land will be available to the first eligible applicant thereafter for the same.


Mr. WILBERT McINTYRE.: I would like to call the attention of the minister to what I think is an omission in this section. The first part of the section gives the entrant six months before going on residence, and the third portion of the section also states that he may abandon while he is in good standing. Well, this condition of affairs may occur, and is said to have occurred, where a man simply files on a homestead as a matter of speculation, and at the end of five months and a half, applies for an abandonment. He secures the abandonment and refiles again on the same identical section. Then he becomes a new applicant, and is protected again for an additional six months. This may go on for some time. I would suggest that there should be some provision in this section to prevent that.


Frank Oliver: That is a possibili y. If such a case as that occurs or is liable to occur it should be provided against, but I think it can be provided against in the regulations perhaps to better advantage than in the Act.


Wilbert McIntyre: It is not provided for now.


Richard Stuart Lake: The trouble is that the regulations do not get to the general public.
I was very pleased to see the regulations set forth as clearly and at such great length as they were in the last two issues, but they do not get to the general public. All the public have before them are the provisions of the Act. There are many of these regulations of the department of which the public are not aware. I think it would be advisable, if these regulations cannot be embodied in the Act, to give them more publicity, and I think it would be well that a copy should be given to every applicant for a homestead or for cancellation.


Frank Oliver: As far as publicity is concerned, we are able to give a measure of publicity to the regulations that we are not able to give to the statutes. We have uow four editions of these regulations, and there are 20,000 copies of each edition issued, making 80,000 altogether. We try to keep them for distribution at every land agency and sub-land agency and place them in the hands of every homestead inspector. We use them in reply to correspondence. While it is impossible that everybody should have a copy or be aware of what is contained iu them, we give every publicity we can to the regulations. We publish them for that purpose. The regulations, being iu a more convenient form than the Act, and besides, being drawn in language which is not to be adjudicated ou in the courts, but in language which shall be a direction to the officials and to the public, are more easily understood than the terms of the Act which is drawn rather for the purpose of legal adjudication than as a matter of direction to the officers or of information to the iniblic.


Richard Stuart Lake: I think the minister should take into consideration the suggestion that I made that a copy of these regulations should be given to each applicant for a homestead or for cancellation.


Frank Oliver: These are the instructions to the officers to-day. When a person corresponds with the department in regard to a certain point which is decided by the regulations we mark the section and send him a copy of the regulations.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to ask the minister a question with regard to paragraph 3 of section 13 :
If no cancellation proceedings are pending, the homesteader may abandon his homestead in favour of a father.
Could that be abandoned to a father or son or brother who had already taken a homestead?


Frank Oliver: No.
3G2


Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: The point brought out by the hon. member for East Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff) namely, that the six months allowed to enter into residence upon the land might be during an unfavourable season of the year and that it would only be right and proper that there should be an extension of time for another six months serves to emphasize the unfair position of the man who has made his application by proxy in comparison with the one who has applied in person. The entry of a person who applies by proxy, realizing, of course, that proxies are confined to members of the same family, becomes void automatically at the expiration of six months, if his entry has not been perfected. No matter at what time of the year it may be the proxy entry cannot be protected. I think that if it is a good argument to say that you should protect the entry of the person who applies personally as far as the time of the year is concerned it ought to be equally good with respect to the man who applies by proxy. I believe the regulations set out that a person who has made his entry on the 1st of September shall have it protected to the 1st of June, nine months, in consideration of the strenuous and long winters that we have in that country. Suppose, at the present time a man, by proxy, makes his entry on the 1st of November he must go into residence and perfect his entry by the 1st of May, a period made up of winter months except the month of April. If he has not appeared personally at the land office prior to that time and proved that he has actually been in residence, or is about to go upon the land, his entry becomes void. I think that will entail considerable hardship in some of the very large land districts where the applicant by proxy will be required to expend a great deal of time and, money in order to appear personally, and I think that if a provision were made to allow the person who applies by proxy the same privilege as the applicant who applies in person, the application for an extension of time being supported by a statutory declaration by himself and two other statutory declarations on the part of his neighbours, it would save a great deal of time and money and it would meet the requirements of the case just as well as to compel him at that unfavourable time of the year to appear in person. I wished more particularly to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that a person making application by proxy must complete entry by the 1st of May. There is no protection, by reason of this being the winter season, for a party making application by proxy, and I think it is rather unfair.


Frank Oliver: With regard to that, we found it necessary, a couple of years ago, in view of the abuses which had arisen, to absolutely withdraw the privilege for a time in order to give us a chance to see



how far the abuses has gone. There is no doubt that they had gone very far. After we had an opportunity to take stock of the situation we thought it was fair and reasonable that the privilege should be revived in so far as entries by members of the same family are concerned. Everybody recognizes that it is a proper principle to facilitate the occupation of land in the same vicinity by members of the same family. But we did not think it would be advisable to give the same privilege to an entry by proxy. The right of proxy entry is given for the purpose of saving the expenses of a double trip ; so that the whole family will not be required to go to the locality to select the land and then afterwards return for their stock, effects, or whatever it may be, and go once more. That is the only purpose that is intended to be served by the proxy entry. It is not intended that the proxy entry should mean anything else than die actual occupation of the land, but it is intended to .give the opportunity of acquiring occupation under circumstances that will be as little expensive as possible. But we necessarily feel with regard to the position which has been stated by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that there are difficulties continually arising with regard to the holding of land, or what might be called the over-holding of homestead entry. Where the entrant has complied with the law in the making of his entry and has found it necessary, after making that entry, to go away and earn money in order to enable him to fulfil his duties, we feel that we ought to give every leniency we can. We think that in the case of the proxy entry, the entrant having been given the advantage for a certain specific purpose, we would not be warranted in allowing the same leniency. There is a great deal of difficulty, delay and expense of every kind in securing the cancellation of a homestead entry. We do not feel that we are warranted iu reducing the difficulty in securing the can-cancellation of an ordinary homestead entry, but we feel that in the case of the proxy entry no one concerned in the cancellation should be put to expense or delay. The privilege having been given we think it should be lived up to, and certainly by giving anything like the relaxation of the provision which my hon. friend suggests there will at once arise the same complaint of difficulty and expense and delay that is so prevalent to-day in regard to other entries. If the proxy entrant has never been in the country, the man who is on the spot, who applies at the counter fof that land, feels very hard on being delayed and put to expense because of lienency given to the man who is not here.


Mr. AMES.: I am glad to hear the minister admit so frankly to-day that there were such grave abuses in regard to homestead entries some years ago. When the matter Mr. OLIVER.
was brought up in the House at that time he was not so ready to admit it. As I remember an inspection was made in some of the agencies. Would the minister say what agencies were inspected, the results of those inspections and if those inspections have been repeated since the first one, one or two years ago ?


Frank Oliver: I could not at the moment give the agencies, the number of inspections or the results. I can only say that we have not since that time made a general inspection of that same character.


Herbert Brown Ames: At that time the general inspection corroborated, did it not, the suspicion that had been raised that a very large number of homesteads were being held improperly ?


Frank Oliver: Something in the neighbourhood of 2,000 were cancelled.


Herbert Brown Ames: In consequence of the inspection ?


Frank Oliver: But I cannot say that it was a large number in proportion to the total number of entrants, considering the system of proxy entries which had been allowed as a [DOT] recognized matter of policy by the government. I do not think the number of cancellations at all justifies the statements that had been made in regard to the extent of the abuse. But inasmuch as it was an abuse it was necessary to correct that abuse as we have corrected it to a very great extent.


Herbert Brown Ames: The inspection did not cover the thirteen agencies ?


Frank Oliver: No.


Herbert Brown Ames: Only four or five, if I remember ?


Frank Oliver: I think so.


Herbert Brown Ames: Was it considered unnecessary in the other agencies, those which were supposed to be most defective to be inspected ?


Frank Oliver: The abuse arose because of the principle of speculation in railway lands, that is in lands that have been alienated to private holders, the railway companies as a matter of fact, and which were on sale. The proxy entry abuse had very direct relation to the opportunities for tlie-purchase of railway lands. Therefore, it only existed in large measures in those agencies where this condition of railway land speculation existed. It did not exist in large-measure in the other land agencies.


Herbert Brown Ames: The difficulty was traced' mainly, was it not, to the mistaken energy of private land agents selling railway lands?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Richard Stuart Lake: Referring to subsection 3, is the provision relating to the -abandonment of a homestead in favour of another party during cancellation proceedings new or was that the law in force up to the present ?


Frank Oliver: I think there was no provision in the Act, it was a matter of administration. The administration was not always the same. That is to say, when a line of cases arose they had to be administered. We propose to place this provision in the Act for the purpose of defining on the responsibility of parliament just what we think from our experience should be the rights of the different parties.


Richard Stuart Lake: It never had been the practice to permit abandonment to another person other than a near relative?


Frank Oliver: I could not say whether it has or not. In the beginning, as cases arose they were adjusted on their individual merits, and then as they increased in number of course they had to be classified and the result of that classification was a decision to not allow abandonment except to members of the same family. The House will understand that taking a single case of a homestead there is no harm to any one by permitting the abandonment of the entry in favour of another person. But while that is the fact in regard to a single case it can easily be seen that there are possibilities involved, that when the number of eases increase it is necessary to define a policy in regard to it That has been the history and this section embodies the result of our'experience and our opinion as to what should bo the proper course. This section is new and we are asking parliament to say just in so many words what the rights of the various parties are.


John Herron: I would like the minister's opinion of a case that recently came to my attention. A man entered for a homestead, went into possession and lived there for six months. He then rented his place to a man and has been gone nearly two years. How does he stand ? Has he any rights of any kind ?


Frank Oliver: I would think he has no rights that cannot be cancelled on application, but it may have been considered that there were circumstances that warranted the government in giving him protection. I do not know the case, but the fact that he is not at the present moment in occupation is not in itself a reason for cancellation. He did perfect his entry ; he did make improvements. Then the question is : is he fulfilling tile rem linder of his duties ? That question would come up in the case of an application for cancellation, and would be adjudicated upon by the department ; but unless an application for cancellation is made, the department takes no account of the fact 3624
that the man is not at the present moment in occupation.


John Herron: The fact of a man being on the place will not be a protection to the man who took the entry ?


Frank Oliver: Absolutely not. The only question is whether it would count against him. My own impression is that it would not count against him, but certainly it would not count for him.
On section 14-location of scrip.


John Herron: Why should this be put on a different footing from that of an ordinary homestead entry?


Frank Oliver: It is not put on a different footing. The homestead entry is only made at the agency, not at the subagency. The application is accepted at the subagency and is forwarded to the agency, but it is only made when it arrives at the agency. In the same way an application to locate scrip can only be made at the agency. The application for scrip involves the presence of the applicant, and it is not considered that the subagent is subject to the responsibility that would entitle us to depend upon his identification of the applicant. We think that when the entry can only he made at the agency, it is necessary that the applicant should appear at the agency. Then we have the responsibility of our agent and his credit in the service and the opportunities he has for the identification of the applicant for the selection of the scrip. We think that this is necessary to safeguard all the interests concerned.


Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY.: Has there been any abuse under the old regulations to call for this provision ?


Frank Oliver: I have understood that there were abuses when applications for the location of scrip were accepted at the subagencies. I can easily see how such abuses might arise, and we think it desirable to provide against them specifically in the Act, as we now provide in the regulations. We have already made this provision in the regulations, but we think the matter is of sufficient importance to warrant it being placed in the Act.


John Herron: I wish to draw attention to subsection 8 of section 11 which says : ' or by the location of scrip thereon, shall be deemed to have exhausted his homestead right, and shall not be entitled to obtain another entry for a free homestead.' What sort of scrip does that apply to ? Different sorts of scrip have been issued that are transferable. For instance, would a man exhaust his right after he had purchased half-breed scrip ?


Frank Oliver: The intention has been as my hon. friend has said. When we give the

privilege to the liomsteader to abandon ins homestead and allow a half-breed to locate scrip thereon, we thereby provide that the homesteader exhausts his homestead right. He has taken a homestead on condition that he fulfils certain duties on that homestead in order to get the patent. It does not suit his purpose for some reason to fulfil the conditions. It suits him better to buy half-breed scrip for the land. If his entry is In good standing, we permit him to do that; but by doing so he exhausts his homestead right, just the same as if he fulfilled his homestead duties and got his patent.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to call attention to subsection 4 of section 15:
If entry is obtained for land which, although not reserved at the time, is ascertained to.be valuable on account of merchantable timber upon it, the minister may within six months of the date cancel the entry.
That is very indefinite and might be very arbitrarily exercised. What is merchantable timber ? If there should be a clump of merchantable timber on a piece of land, tlie right of entry might be withdrawn, and that would be manifestly very unfair.


Frank Oliver: The Acts at present provide that land valuable on account of its timber shall not be entered for homesteading. This was very indefinite and arbitrary, and we thought it better to frame a clause in the shape of the one in this Bill. The entry would only be withdrawn on the representation that there was timber of value on the .land. It is impossible to define just what is timber of value.' In the true prairie part of the country, three or four acres of poplar poles is of very great value.


George Eulas Foster: You would not cancel on tli it ground?


Frank Oliver: I am not so sure. The case intended to be met by the clause in the original Act is just such a case, that is to say, where there is a quarter-section in the true prairie covered by timber which, in the nature of things, would only be poplar poles. But the surrounding settlers use that wood and depend on it for fuel, and it was not considered sound public policy to allow one man to homestead this wood, which is of commercial value because of the necessities of his neighbours. Therefore, it was not made permissive at ail, tout if he took such land he lost his entry. Now that settlement is being pushed rapidly in the partially timbered parts of the country, we cannot very well leave the matter outside of discussion and we cannot define it in the Act. Because that same clump of timber which Is of great value on the true prairie would be absolutely of no value at all in that part of the country which is considerably timbered. We cannot define what is merchant-Mr. OLIVER.
able timber, and can only leave that to be decided according to the circumstances of the case in the different sections. If in the prairie country' some homesteader undertakes to hog the timber supply of his neighbours, we can prevent his doing so on the representations of his neighbours. If in a partially timbered country, some homesteader undertakes to homestead a piece of sawing timber, which will be of value to his neighbours, we can stop bim. The proper thing would be for the government to have an inspection of the whole country and decide beforehand what timber lands should not be entered for homestead; but the changes that occur are so frequent that it seems to me the expense will hardly be warranted by the certainty of a satisfactory solution being arrived at. My judgment is, in view of the experience we have had, that this provision will be a notice to any settler that he must not undertake to hog the timber from bis neighbours. If he does, he stands In danger of losing his entry. If lie does actually bog the timber and his neighbours make representations to that effect, we can stop him. if within the six months. But if he holds it longer and no representations are made, it would not be fair to interfere.
At one o'clock, committee took recess
Committee resumed at Three o'clock.
On section 15-cancellation of entry- compensation for improvement.


Richard Stuart Lake: Subsection 2 of section 15 provides that:
Any subsequent entrant for the same land may be required by the minister to pay in cash reasonable compensation for the improvements, if any, of the person whose entry is cancelled, and that the minister may, in his discretion, pay to the latter the amount of such compensation, in whole or in part.
Does not the minister think that that direction ought to be made more positive than in this clause ? I sent word to the minister of a case which came under my notice in which the original homesteader had had to abandon the homestead, and. according to my recollection of the case-it came to my notice about a year ago-the certificates of ill-health were sent in to show that the original homesteader could not possibly go back to continue bis duties. It seemed a hardship that be was not to have any compensation for improvements be bad put on the land. I do not know whether the minister has been able to decide on that particular question.


Frank Oliver: I have not had time to deal with that question. The refusal to pay over the value of the improvements, I understood bim to say, was because the homesteader bad left the country. I do not know whether that should properly be considered a sufficient reason or not. But there are in-

stances occurring in which I do not think the homesteader is entitled to compensation for his improvements. There may have been fraud in connection with his entry, or there may be reasons why he should not receive consideration as set down here. There is no provision at present for the payment of the value of improvements to the homesteader whose entry has been cancelled. It is done as a matter of practice, and now we wish to put the practice on the face of the law; but we do not want to frame the law so that this may grow into an abuse, as it might if the right of the homesteader to his improvements, no matter under what circumstances he put the improvements there, might be held as a bar to future entry. It seems to me a matter that can best be left at discretion. We are exercising our discretion in the way of making the payment, but to say that we must have the payments made to the original homesteader in all cases would, I think, lead to serious difficulties.


Richard Stuart Lake: Is not the subsequent entrant required to pay for improvements as a matter of practice in every case ?


Frank Oliver: In every case where there has been a legitimate cancellation of an ordinary entry; but if there is an illegitimate entry, I do not think it is so. I do not think we should be justified always in giving to a man who it may be, under improper circumstances, placed improvements upon the land, a statutory right to the value of these improvements to the possible exclusion of somebody else who acquired the land under the terms and conditions of the Act.


Richard Stuart Lake: The minister takes discretion to pay for improvements or not as he sees fit ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Richard Stuart Lake: It seems to me that the subsequent entrant ought to pay the reasonable value of the improvements, and not be able at the discretion of the authorities, to acquire possibly very valuable property which he had no part in making.


Frank Oliver: On the other hand, while the improvements might have cost a great, deal and might be of value to the original homesteader yet they might not be of ' any value to the subsequent entrant. Therefore, it is not advisable to tie the matter up by statute. There is such a wide variety of circumstances-and they are generally circumstances in regard to which there is a good deal of argument on both sides-that to absolutely embody in the statute the provision that the man who has placed improvements on the land shall be entitled to the value of those improvements, or that the man who occupies that land must pay the value of those improvements, would not, I think, lend itself to the better settlement of the country.


John Herron: I presume that the minister has provided for a right of way for waterways, which, I see, are dealt with in this section. Where there is a valuable waterway, or one likely to be valuable, there is a provision made for a right of way foi any one to use that water across the land entered for by the homesteader. As the minister is aware, there has been a good deal of friction in some parts of the country on account of such cases. I hope that is provided for.


Richard Stuart Lake: I presume the minister has power to give compensation where he takes the cancelled land under subsection 5 of section 15.


Frank Oliver: Yes, the provision as to compensation is contained in subclause (a) of subsection 6. These subclauses (a) and (b) are properly subclauses of subsection 5.


Richard Stuart Lake: Subsection 3 of section 15 provides :
If the minister is satisfied that an entry for a homestead has been obtained through personation, he shall cancel the entry, and the person so obtaining entry shall not be to obtain another entry unless the minister declare otherwise.
The offence of personation is a very serins one, and the person who has committed ought not to be allowed to make another ntrv I presume the meaning of thjs sub notion is that the minister would require itisfactory proof that there is no intention j commit fraud.


Mr OLIVER.: That is the idea. On the rce of it I would be inclined to take the tew of my hon. friend (Mr. Lake) that entry v personation should be followed y a suite cancellation of the person s right to homestead. But there may possibly ibe ex enuating circumstances, and we do not ,-ant to bar settlers out If there: are sue ircumstances, it is only right that my hould be taken into consideration. Bi t, without these last words of the subsection, "e man would be absolutely debarred from lomesteading.


Mr LAKE.: If you were to put the words unless proof is furnished to the minister hat there was no intention to defraud, hat would take away the apparent animal v of a man who has been guilty of a lerious offence being allowed to homestead it the discretion of the minister.


Mr OLIVER.: Of course, that would be he onlv condition upon which he would ie allowed to enter again. I would not object to the insertion of these words if necessary. But, for my own Part, I would-not think them to be necessary. The idea s intended in the words as they stand though it is not absolutely expressed.

On section 16-requirements to residence and cultivation.


John Herron: I would ask the minister if this section means that a man must reside for the full six months consecutively on the land, or would he be allowed to reside there one month, then leave for a month and come back and reside five months more?


Frank Oliver: That is the way the law is administered now.
On section 18-residence in vicinity.


Richard Stuart Lake: I presume the word ' owner ' may also mean homesteader?


Frank Oliver: Yes. This is a provision which allows of vicinity residence. As it is understood and administered, a homestead is considered to be owned by the homesteader, and, as a matter of fact, the homestead is his as against all the world. But I would like to insert certain words after the word 'homestead.' Under the present administration of the Act the word ' vicinity ' is used, and that word has been variously interpreted, the result of which has been a good deal of misunderstanding amongst the settlers and difficulty in administration. In this section, therefore, and throughofut the Act, wherever that question of non-residence comes in, which, under the old -Act, was defined by the word vicinity,' we desire to define ' vicinity,' and we have defined it as being within a distance of nine miles. In the survey of the country the ordinary person would consider that nine miles meant nine sections. But the width of nine sections is more than nine miles, because road allowances intervene. So, in order that there may be a ready calculation, and that the person may better understand the regulations, we have defined ' vicinity ' as nine miles besides the width of the road allowances crossed in making the distance. Therefore, a person living nine sections away would be entitled to be reckoned as living in the vicinity, whereas if we had not put in a provision with regard to the width of road allowances, the distance of nine miles would not be more than eight and a half sections, approximately. In the regulations we have put in the words ' A distance of nine miles from his homestead in a direct line, ext elusive of the width of road allowances crossed in the measurement.' If the House would agree to the inserting of that provision it would remove a good deal of misunderstanding.


John Gillanders Turriff: I would suggest to the minister that he change that nine miles to twelve miles. The object is to allow of residence at a distance, so that the farmer 'may operate both farms. I know it may be argued that nine miles is a sufficient distance. Under the old regulations, as explained by the minister, it was stated ' any Mr. OLIVER.
residence in the vicinity,' and that was usually interpreted to mean two townships, While the same difficulties might occur if it were made twelve miles, in a certain sense, that is, the man who is thirteen miles away feels it a little harder, in this case a man who is ten miles away feels it is a little hard that he cannot live on purchased land ten miles away while he could live on land nine miles away. I think that what ought to govern is the distance at which a man may live from a place and still work it.


Frank Oliver: This question was threshed out pretty thoroughly last session, and we agreed upon nine miles as a compromise. The idea is that there shall be a defined distance easily measured and counting the road allowances. If there is a strong feeling on this question, I am willing to hold that subsection ' for further consideration. But, for my own part, I am convinced that the distance should not be greater than nine miles.


George Eulas Foster: The minister had better hold to his opinion.


Frank Oliver: There may well be differences of opinion on this matter. I do not wish to be too rigid on a question which is not one of principle, but only of detail. However, I wmuld submit this to the House,
I would move that after the word * homestead,' in the third line of section 18, there be Inserted the words :
In a direct line exclusive of the width of road allowances crossed in the measurement.


George Eulas Foster: That might be a good deal more than nine miles, according to the route he might have to take.


Richard Stuart Lake: What are the grounds for the minister fixing it at nine miles? It is an arbitrary distance.


Frank Oliver: There are no grounds that would make a difference between nine miles, and eight miles, and ten miles. The grounds are those taken by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). The idea is that the two farms shall be near enough together that the man resident on one of them can effectively work the other. It must be a matter of opinion, but it does seem to me that nine miles is as far away as a man can effectively work another farm.


George Eulas Foster: That gives him at least 18 miles of travel a day.


Frank Oliver: In a direction crossing the sections diagonally it would be very much more, but in a straight line it would be nine miles. I am not absolutely set upon it. There is no question of principle as between 9 or 10, and there is not very much principle as between 9 and 12, but I am under the impression that 9 is far enough.


John Gillanders Turriff: Hon. gentlemen will understand that the -working of a farm on the prairies is very different from operating a farm in Ontario or Quebec. Under that section the homesteader is not required to reside on the land, and does not have to put up buildings on the land. He fulfils his residence conditions by residing on his purchased land and all he is called upon to do is to have 30 acres under cultivation. He only needs to make a few trips during the season to comply with the conditions. He will go to his homestead, 9 or 12 miles distant, and put in his crop. He does not need to go back until harvest time. Whether it shall be 12 miles instead of 9 is not a matter of principle but a matter of detail. The reason why 9 miles was fixed was that some wanted only 0 miles, while I, amongst others, advocated 12, and it was compromised, when we were discussing it, at 9 miles.


George Eulas Foster: It is an unfair advantage for you to try to get back your position after you have compromised.
. Mr. TURRIFF. I think the majority were wrong on that occasion and I do not think you can make the conditions to suit everybody. If the settler is not required to reside on the homestead, and if he has only to crop 30 acres he can crop that 30 acres just as easily if he is residing 12 miles away as if he is residing 9 miles away. It is not a matter of any great principle, but it is a matter of a great deal of importance to a large number of settlers who are living outside of the 9 mile limit, but who would come within the law if it were made 12 miles.


Wilbert McIntyre: I would suggest to the minister that his description of the distance might very well have reference to the plotted survey rather than to actual measurement; that is by saying that the homesteader shall reside so many sections from the homestead. The decision of this matter will take place in an office with reference to the plot of the survey and if the description had reference to the survey as plotted, it would be much more workable.


George Eulas Foster: Surely 9 miles could very easily be laid off on the plot.


Frank Oliver: I think there is every facility for arriving practically at the actual distance by the system of surveys that we have. The plan of a township gives the miles in scale, but the trouble is that it gives them with the road allowances extra, and I wish to introduce these words, so that when you take the strip of a township plan and place it on another plan to show the distance it will give you the number of miles exclusive of the width of the road allowance.


Richard Stuart Lake: I quite agree with the amendment suggested by the minister. I quite confess that if I had been making the calculation myself I would have omitted to take into consideration the road allowance. For myself, I very much favour liberality in this matter. When a man can go out Monday morning, put in his crop and return Saturday night I think it is advisable to give every facility in a matter of this kind. The only difficulty is where to draw the line. A man could easily go 16 miles away.


George Eulas Foster: Twenty-five.


Richard Stuart Lake: And more than that. It is a very difficult question.


Frank Oliver: The reason for not allowing an unlimited distance is the desire that is felt in every part of the prairie country, and it is not only a desire, but an absolute necessity to the well being of the country, that there shall be not only cultivation but occupation. AVhile you are giving an advantage to a certain settler who is in a certain school district, in a certain church neighbourhood or in a certain local improvement district by allowing him to hold his homestead at a certain distance away from his own home, you are placing to some extent a corresponding disadvantage upon the locality in -which he holds that homestead without occupation. His non-occupation of the homestead is a disadvantage to the educational interest, to, what I might call, the religious interest, to the social interest and to the general improvement of that particular locality. Therefore, there is a general objection on the part of the people at large to non-resident homesteading which is accentuated the greater the distance that you permit it.


Mr. BRODER.: Could you not arrange it according to the number of settlers in a locality?


Frank Oliver: Oh, dear; I regret we have too many things to arrange now. We are asking the House to give us discretion in many things that, it seems, from the discussion, are objectionable and which are, from our point of view, necessary. In this matter I certainly want to be relieved of the discretion. I want the House to take the responsibility, and while I do not care as a matter of administration whether it is 6, 9 or 12 miles, my own opinion is that 9 is a better distance than 12, but the main point is that I want to be relieved from the responsibility of saying what the word ' vicinity ' shall mean.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 19-issue of patent after death of applicant.


George Eulas Foster: Is there much change in that?


Frank Oliver: Yes, the charges are very considerable. This section provides for dealing with the homestead of a deceased person ; that is a person who has entered for a homestead who has died before he has secured the patent. Under the law as it stands at present the idea of personal residence is very strongly maintained. The law provides that a patent cannot be secured by the heirs of a deceased person unless there has been residence upon the homestead by some person to complete the term of residence of the original homesteader. That is a devotion to the principle of resident homesteading, which, however commendable in itself, has worked and almost always works great hardship in practice to the people who are in no way responsible for the condition, and with 'reference to whom everybody must wish that there shall be the least hardship enforced ; that is to say, the heirs of the deceased person-the widow or children, in many cases. Therefore, we have thought it desirable to present to the House the proposal that inasmuch as there is danger of misfortune arising we dispense with the principle of personal residence and say that, if the improvements are continued, at the end of a proper time the heirs may get the patent. They are allowed another alternative, a privilege which is not permitted to any one else, that of disposing of an interest in the lands and allowing the person who acquires that interest to complete the duties which have been left uncompleted by the death of the homesteader.
On section 20, subsection 2,-special provisions in case of physical disability.
amount of residence or qualification he had performed. If the homesteader seems to be settling in good faith we are ready to give him extensions according to his needs, but if he does not appear to be settling in good faith we do not feel that we are acting in the best interests of the country if we give him extensions even if he should be incapacitated by physical disability.


John Gillanders Turriff: One phase of the ease is not provided for. That is a man may be so ill that he is unable to go into possession, he may not have taken absolute possession of his homestead and in that case the clause w7ould not enable the minister to give him a further extension.
On section 23-issue of patent to disabled volunteer.


John Herron: With reference to the words, ' or from any other cause, after his enrolment as a member of such force and un to the date of his discharge therefrom,' a man might be disabled because of illness contracted during his enrolment. I know cases in which illness has taken place after men were discharged, which entirely disabled them from performing homestead duties, but which had been contracted while they were on active service.


Frank Oliver: There is a good deal of difficulty in establishing the fact in such cases, and there is no doubt that while there might be some deserving cases, such a provision as my hon. friend suggests would be liable to abuse. Therefore I prefer to leave the provision as it is. It has been in the Act for a number of years.


Richard Stuart Lake: It would be a safeguard against abuse to provide for publication of the order in council in the ' Canada Gazette,' giving the reasons.


Frank Oliver: We have had no authority so far to pass such an order, but as minister I would be as much pleased as my hon. friend to have it advertised. If there is no such provision I am quite willing to make it.
On section 21,-leave of absence in case of illness.


Richard Stuart Lake: I had a case the other day in which a homesteader desirous of an extension of leave of absence from his homestead on account of illness was refused the extension although he had sent certificates of his illness. I would suggest that the minister should have a uniform rule to apply to all cases.


Frank Oliver: Of course each case would have to rest upon its merits and the conditions being the same the same consideration should be given. I do not know the case, but it may have been that the person had exhausted all reason for consideration by previous extensions or by the small Mr. FOSTER,
On section 24-hamlets and co-operative farming.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. What is the substitution of cattle raising required under the present regulations?


Frank Oliver: I think it is twenty head of cattle.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I think that the section as it is worded would open the door to fraud. If the substitution is allowed, the cattle should be unencumbered ; otherwise a man, for the purpose of freeing himself from the obligation of cultivating so much land, might buy twenty head of cattle and give a chattel mortgage on them, and not be out a dollar, aud then make application for his patent.


Frank Oliver: I said in introducing the Bill that one reason for it was that we found that certain privileges which were accorded under the Act as it stood at present, appeared to have outlived their usefulness, We do not think these rights should continue; so we have dropped out of this Act the provisions in regard to the substitution of cattle raising for cultivation, the privilege of living in hamlets instead of on the
.TUNE 26. 1908
land, and the privilege of co-operative farming. We do not propose to renew these privileges. The clause in the Bill is merely a saving clause to save the rights that had already begun to exist under the old Act. While the provision to which my hon. friend refers no doubt had a use at one time, like many other provisions, it has been subject to great abuse.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: When was it introduced ?


Frank Oliver: I cannot recollect, but it must have been eisrht years ago.


Richard Stuart Lake: I notice that in a previous clause the minister takes authority to state what improvements shall be accepted beyond the erection of a habitable house. Could he give us any idea as to what he would consider the minimum ?


Frank Oliver: As a matter of fact, as the Act has been administered, we have required the cultivation of 15 acres. Under present conditions, my impression is that that is not sufficient in certain parts of the country, and it is therefore provided in the most recent issue of our regulations that the homesteader who resides on his homestead shall break a total of at least 30 acres of which 20 must be cropped before he acquires the patent. A reasonable portion of the cultivation duties must be done each year. This we bring into effect with regard to all entries made after the 1st of June, but up to the present we have made the general requirements 15 acres of cultivation.


Richard Stuart Lake: Would It not be advisable to make that the minimum under clause 16 ? That clause has been passed, but it struck me at the time that the elimination of these other alternatives may make it possible to have five acres only in certain cases. 15 acres is the minimum which any man, having agricultural land, should cultivate


Frank Oliver: It is hard to say what is agricultural land. Take the low lands of Manitoba and in other places, there are localities where the land is really very valuable and but a small part of it may be agricultural land. But the greater part is valuable because of the hay. We do not want to put a provision in the Act that will absolutely prevent a man getting his patent if he is honestly entitled to it. Under the many varying circumstances throughout the whole range of that country, our experience is that the area of cultivation should not be absolutely defined, as it would be if you put it in the Act. The Act absolutely governs, and there would be no discretion left the minister if the figures are put in it. But if you find Smith, Brown and Robinson are actually entitled to their land as a matter of merit,
with regard to residence and investment, and everything but cultivation, which cannot be performed because it is swampy or for some other reason, you will dispossess these men and not arrive at any good result. This requirement of cultivation has been at the discretion of the government during all the years of the administration of the Land Act; and while there have been abuses under it, I do not think my hon. friend will suggest that any have come to his notice of such a character that would warrant our putting a provision in the Act which would unquestioenably lead to the injustice I have mentioned.
On section 25-issue of patent three years after entry.


John Herron: I have been dealing with a very important ease in my riding, just such a case as the one referred to here. A man died and had no relatives in the vicinity and an administrator was appointed by the late Judge McLeod. Through some irregularity the papers were not left on record, although there is abundant proof to show that the legal representative was properly appointed. Consequently he has not been able to obtain the patent, and within the last thirty days he was given thirty days to go and make the entry as a homesteader, and the land was reserved for him for that length of time. I am afraid the time will expire before he can do so. Is not this a case covered by this clause in the Bill ?


Frank Oliver: I am afraid it is not. The question of establishing who are the right heirs to any property is entirely under provincial jurisdiction. We do not question who the heir is ; but when the heirship is established, -we issue the patent. If this gentleman failed to establish his right in the local court, we have no control and no responsibility, and I do not see that we can do anything.


John Herron: It was established beyond doubt that this man was appointed legal representative at the death of the other man.


Frank Oliver: Of course, it is the judge of the local court who declares who is the legal representative-if he does not tell it, we do not know. I suppose there have been instances such as my hon. friend (Mr. Herron) has mentioned where, failing the possibility of getting such an instruction, we have presumed to deal with the matter by giving the man the entry for the land.


Richard Stuart Lake: This clause is supposed to do way with the issue of the recommend 1


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Richard Stuart Lake: Has the minister been able to make arrangements by which the patent to the homestead can be issued without

delay? It seems to me the same process would have to be gone through as at the present time, the leircumstances inquired into and a decision arrived at as to whether the homesteader is entitled to have his patent, Well, as soon as that is decided, it seems to me, it would not be very much extra labour to send him the recommend. It would save time before the patent is got out and signed by the different parties whose signatures are necessary. It is a matter of great importance to many men when they have completed their duties that they should have the right to deal with their land at the earliest possible moment. My experience of the cases brought before me is that there is often very considerable delay even in issuing the recommend, and I fear very much that if the recommend is cut out and they have to wait for the patent, there may be a great lapse of time before the patent is received. I have a letter this morning in which the writer tells me that he has applied for his patent and he hears it will take from one to six months to get it. He is very anxious to get it immediately in order to deal with his land. I think that the minister will realize that such a lapse of time as that will mean a great deal of inconvenience. There should be some effort to grant the homesteader an instrument as soon as possible under which he will be able to deal with his land.


George Eulas Foster: Are all patents issued from Ottawa?


Frank Oliver: Yes. I am very anxious to arrive at the issue of patents with the least possible delay. At the present time the issue of the recommendation for patent delays to some extent the issue of the patent, as it means duplication of work.


Richard Stuart Lake: Would the minister explain the procedure?
Mr. OLIVER, I do not think it is necessary to explain, I merely state that it is to a certain extent a duplication of work to issue the recommend and afterwards issue the patent. Now, the recommend is not the patent, yet under the law as it stands it is supposed to have the standing of the patent. It seems to me there is something anomalous in a condition that that which is not a patent should be given by law the standing of a patent, to be replaced afterward by the patent itself. The reason for the present system is the delay in the issue of the patent-the undue delay. I hope to minimize that delay in ihe issue of the patent so as to place the owner in possession, not of a certificate of recommendation, but of a patent, without undue dela-. I may not be able to arrive at it


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. What is the average time?


Frank Oliver: I could hardlv give an average. Take an application fcr patent Mr. LAKE.
in regard to which everything is regular and it may go through in a month, possibly less. Where the delay has occurred is in the ease of complications. There may be a railway running through the land and the railway area has to be deducted ; or there may be a dispute about the fulfilment of the duties-there are many things that may hinder the issue of the patent. And they hinder the issue of the recommendation. If we can issue the patent without undue delay, we do something that is desirable for the settler, for the financial interests concerned and for the department as well. I am asking the House to consent to the change of the law this year, at any rate, that we may try the experiment of cutting out this issue of what is held in law to be an absolute security, and yet it is not an absolute security.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. If the settler can get his recommendation, he can rajse money on the land.


Frank Oliver: Still it is not the patent and is not the security to the finanical interest advancing the money to the same degree as the patent is. There have been no large proportion of complications arising from the system, but there have been some, and there is always the possibility of more, and I would like to avoid it if I can.


George Eulas Foster: Does (he homestead Inspector report direct to the department?


Frank Oliver: Direct to the agent, but the agent sends it to the department here.


George Eulas Foster: Why has it to go to the agent?


Frank Oliver: The agent directs the operations of the homestead inspector within his agency. Our orders are sent to the agent and reports are sent through the agent to us, but they are not altered by the agent.


Richard Stuart Lake: The mere fact that the lands are administered from Ottawa, with the great distance and duplication of correspondence, makes for delay in the issue of patents. There is all the more reason to expedite them as much as possible. When I asked the minister to explain the procedure, my idea was that the department has to take into consideration each case and decide on it, and it seemed to me it would not be much duplication of work to grant the recommend at that moment. It would be a small document to make out. while the particulars to be gone into for the patent and the compilation of the patent itself involve a certain delay. The signatures alone, I suppose, involve delay. I am most anxious that the man who has earned his title should have his title at the earliest possible moment. I am sorry the minister cannot make his statement as to the time in which a man may look for a patent after this intermediate issue is stopped.


Frank Oliver: I say without hesitation that if we cannot get patents issued, in cases that are without complication, within a month, I will ask parliament to give us the power to issue recommendations. But if we can get them issued within a month, it is better for all parties that they should be issued than that a temporary security should be sent out.
On section 26-forfeiture of right to homestead.


Richard Stuart Lake: Is this quite necessary ? I am sure there must be many cases in which men who are happy-go-lucky are living on homesteads which they have earned and yet have never taken the steps to obtain a patent. It seems a rather serious matter that their right to the homestead should be forfeited under the provisions of the Act. I should think it advisable that some notice should be given them or some opportunity to make application before forfeiture.


Frank Oliver: I do not think there is any difficulty in that matter. I do not know whether we have ever forfeited any person's homestead right under this section, although the section has been in force for many years. It is necessary, however, that there should be some provision of this kind in order to clear the books and to keep people up to their requirements, otherwise we might have people who did not need their patent, sitting on their land, and our books would show that the land had not been transferred, and yet if some accident occurred there would be a lapse or a failure of right.
On section 27-rights to pre-emption.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: As I understand the section now, it gives the right to a man who has only got a homestead entry, to preempt the adjoining quarter-section.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: But the man who has got his patent must take his pre-emption anywhere, provided that if it is within the nine miles, he has to comply with the residence duties. I pointed out last session, and it occurs to me again, that this is going to handicap a number of settlers. For example, a man takes his homestead next to a school section, next to section 29, or section 11, or next a Hudson bay section, and that man might have his homestead on the northeast quarter of section 30 or on the southeast quarter of section 30. His selection is more limited, he might have taken up that southeast quarter-section as a matter of chance, whereas the northeast quarter might be better land. The section to the west being taken, he is therefore handicapped, section 29 being a school section, A great many men are going to have no right to pre-empt until they have their patent. I see a difficulty here which I would like to see the minister remedy.


Frank Oliver: The case the hon. gentleman has mentioned is dealt with to a certain extent in this provision for pre-emption, or in the following provision in regard to a purchased homestead. If the land is not there we cannot give it. But it is provided in the succeeding section in regard to a purchased homestead, that the man who has acquired only a quarter-section and who by reasonable limitation has only been able to acquire a quarter-section, after having earned a patent to that quarter-section, may acquire another section under the purchased homestead provision anywhere he can find it within the same area. That is the best I have been able to suggest.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: If there is any land left after three years within the nine miles, then he can take the pre-emption.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


John Herron: The hon. member for East Assiniboia pointed out that the restriction to nine miles in order to enable a person living on a farm to secure a homestead should be modified and I think that the same objection applies to this clause. I think this is a case in which it would be very reasonable to extend the distance three or four miles.


Frank Oliver: When he has secured his patent for his first quarter he can take, if there is one remaining, another quarter within a distance of nine miles and prove upon that though remaining upon his homestead. But he can take a quarter anywhere within that area by removing to it and doing the residence duties upon it just the same as we permit the present settler of the west to go into that area and take a quarter-section by residence upon it.


Mr. S. J. JACKSON.: I would like to point out a matter that I do not think the minister has taken into consideration in framing this arbitrary clause laying out a certain portion of the great west for homestead and pre-emption. As I understand that clause, pre-emption is allowed because the feeliug is that a man cannot go into that territory and make a living on 160 acres. I accept the minister's reason for that clause, but I would like to point out that the territory in that portion of Manitoba east of the first principal meridian is really worse than the territory to which this pre-emption is limited. We have on the east shore of Lake Winnipeg a territory about seventy-five miles wide by one hundred and fifty miles long with practically no settlers in it to-day and without any timber of any particular merchantable value except cordwood. You cannot get people to go in there at present, but if you give them a homestead and the right to a pre-emption it will be an inducement to them to settle in that region. I cannot see why that territory should not be included under this clause as

well as the territory in the northwestern part of the province of Manitoba north of the Duck Mountains, which is a poor territory as well. If the minister's reason for laying down an arbitrary line within which pre-emption shall be allowed is a good one, why should not the eastern and northwestern portion of Manitoba be included in this clause? Perhaps half of that land w7ill go to the province as swamp land. The other is not of a sufficiently swampy nature to allow it to be handed over to the province, but still a large portion of it is swamp land. I know a number of people who have settled on the fringe of that country and they tell me that they cannot make a living on 100 acres. If you allow pre-emption you will get $3 an acre for that land which will help to build the Hudson Bay Railway and the country will be developed. Under these circumstances I do not see why this region is not included within the operations of this clause.


John Herron: I think there should be other territory included as well. You should go west of this 21st meridian and allow the pre-emption privilege there. The people there have done as much to settle up the country as the people in any other part; yet, they are excluded from the benefits of this clause.


Frank Oliver: With regard to the remarks of my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Jackson), I can only say that he and I are exactly of one view with regard to that and that his view and mine was embodied in the Bill of last year. I think it was based on sound principles. Certainly the idea lie mentioned was covered by the Bill of last year. However, there seemed to be some objection to the Bill in that form on the ground that its provisions were of such a sweeping character that there was a possibility of it disarranging the ordinary course of settlement and the financial conditions in that country generally. I did not believe at the time that these views ware well founded, but they were held and held strongly and I wished to present the Bill in such a way that it would receive practically the unanimous acceptance, if not the endorsation of the House. I regret, as my hon. friend does, that under these circumstances it was thought better to simply include the single area with regard to which there could be no question from any point of view as to the propriety of pre-emption accompanying the homestead. I think that in so far as the section that my hon. friend speaks of is concerned, it is as little open to question, but it "is a large area "and if it u ere included we might again raise the general objection to the Bill that was presented last year. I do not wish to do so. I would be very glad if it were possible to have the Bill accepted unanimously in its present form. It is, to a certain extent, an experiment and if it were found to work Mr. S. J. JACKSON.
satisfactorily to achieve the object we have in view and that we were justified in the anticipations that we held with regard to the Bill it might be possible another year to induce the assent of parliament to an extension of the provisions of this Bill to the area my hon. friend describes. We could do it in this Bill, and, of course, if the House will agree to it, I shall be very glad to do it in this Bill, but, in view of the position taken by a number of members last year and the desire we have of getting the unanimous endorsement of the Bill, I would ask my hon. friend to forego for this* year the request and give us a year's experience of the Bill. If it justifies our anticipations we will be in a better position to come to the House and ask for an extension of its provisions to the area to which he refers.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I do not see any reason for delay, because I know well that the territory that I am asking to be included in the Bill is of no more value to the Dominion government than the land which is being brought under its operation. As far as any objections to the Bill are concerned, where did we find that they came from?-from the gentlemen who are holding large blocks of land in the good territory of the west. There is practically no speculator's land in this part of Manitoba. My hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Burrows) knows the territory that is in that part of the local constituency of Gimli which is divided between our counties, and he can tell you that it is a territory very similar to the one I have described. If we can get a good settler in there by giving him a preemption at $3 an acre I really see no objection to doing it. There are certain men who would rather go into a country where there is a certain amount of bush than go upon the open prairie.


William James Roche: I do not know if the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) is one of the men who hold large tracts of land in that good territory to which my hon. friend for Selkirk refers, but I know that, if my recollection serves me aright, he was one of the most strenuous opponents of last year's Bill. If there is going to be any departure from this Bill so as to include other areas I would ask the hon. Minister of the Interior if he has taken into consideration that portion of Keewatm north of Manitoba that we expect to have added to our province before the end of the session. I think that with equal justification that territory might be included as well as the territory east of Lake Winnipeg referred to by the hon. member for Selkirk. I do not think 160 acres are sufficient in that territory for any person to make a living and if we are going to enlarge the area at all I would put in the northern portion of Manitoba in prospective where I think it will really be required more than it will be in

the territory referred to by (he lion, member for Selkirk.


Mr. BURROWS.: I was not in the House when my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Jackson) made his remarks with regard to additional territory in Manitoba, which, he said, should be included in the area within which the minister proposes to permit pre-emptions. I quite agree that the district between Bake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg, which has been surveyed now for twenty or twenty-five years, should be administered in this way. There is one settlement in my own county, in the old municipality of Pozen, where some 2,000 people live, but you cannot find one farm there on which there will be a field of ten acres in extent. The consequence is that the people live mostly by cattle raising and dairying. That will not be settled by homesteading for some time. It is a district where 160 acres is certainly not sufficient for any man who wants to raise cattle. These people now make a living by grazing their cattle on the public domain, and if they are prevented from doing that they will be obliged to leave the territory.
As to the territory in Keewatin, which has been spoken of, it may be in a similar situation, but I would point out that it lias not yet been surveyed or opened by railways, while the district to which I refer has long been surveyed. This country is only from forty to sixty miles from Winnipeg. I happen to own a farm there of 160 acres, which I have offered for years at $100, but I cannot get a buyer.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: The Canadian Northern Railway, three or four years ago, issued a map of that territory showing the alternate sections between Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg coloured red, indicating that they had that land for sale. They never located an acre of that land as part of their land grant, but if they find a farmer who wants to buy some of it, they put a . price of about $8 an acre on it, and in that way have sold some of it.


Frank Oliver: I need not say that I have been very strongly in favour of the preemption system being extended to a very much larger area, but, as I said in presenting the Bill, the question of the boundaries of the territory to be dealt with is a matter worthy of consideration. I would suggest that we allow this section dealing with the boundaries to stand until all those who are interested may consider what is best to be done. I will be glad to include the area between the three lakes and the Saskatchewan river on the north. It is an area very well defined, clearly bounded, it interferes with no other area, and it would be very simple to include it under the provisions of this section.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: And the territory east of Lake Winnipeg, in Manitoba?


Frank Oliver: I do not want to press the delimitations to the point of encountering the opposition which the Bill met last year.
I am introducing this as a non-contentious measure.


Richard Stuart Lake: Some years ago certain persons were allowed to purchase a second homestead on the ground that their original homesteads were not sufficient or were unsuited, on account of being subject to frost, or for some other reason. I have in mind particularly a district southeast of Regina, but there are other similar districts. Would these people be entitled to a pre-emption?


Frank Oliver: That question would not arise under this section, but under the succeeding section. I would think they would be entitled to pre-empt, as they were allowed to acquire the second quarter-section on the ground that the first was not sufficient.
Mi-. LAKE. That ground was not well borne out.
Mr. OLIVER, I will not argue that.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I am not clear as to the rights of the man who acquires a title by purchase, say from the Hudson Bay Company or a railway. He would have no right to pre-empt, would he?


Frank Oliver: Yes ; he had no transaction with the government.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. But he would not be an entrant.


Frank Oliver: No ; but he would be entitled to take a homestead if he had not taken one. 'A man who has a homestead entry is entitled to a pre-emption entry if there is vacant land alongside of him, unless he has already had a pre-emption. The ownership of a Hudson bay section could not be construed to be a pre-emption, nor could the instances which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has mentioned. The ownership of a pre-emption could only arise in conformity with the provisions of the Land Act when it contained pre-emption provisions.
Ml- M. S. MCCARTHY. There are men who come into the country who prefer to buy land outright ; and they are a very desirable class of settlers whom we are getting from the United States. They would have no right to pre-empt unless they took a homestead entry ?


Frank Oliver: Certainly not. TVe have no land for sale at the present time ; we do not intend to have any land for sale. All our land is to be given away. If a man comes to our offices with a bag of money, we have nothing to offer hirn for it. He must go elsewhere to spend his money.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. It seems to me that the man who comes Into the country with a little capital and has bought a quar-

ter section should he given the same privilege as the man who has got his land for nothing.


Frank Oliver: The man who has come in may buy as much land as he pleases from the Hudson Bay Companay, or school land, or from the railway company. That does not at all interfere with his right to take a homestead and pre-emption.


John Herron: If he does not wish to homestead, he is prevented from taking a pre-emption.


Frank Oliver: As I have already said, we are not providing that he can take a quarter-section of land under the terms cf our pre-emption provision without taking a homestead, because we caunot conceive of a man who would want to do so. But, as I said the other day, if we find anybody who wants to do so, we will surely deal with him and take his $3 an acre instead of giving him the land for nothing, his cultivation duties being the same ; but he certainly can get a quarter-section from us without paying $3 an acre for it.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I can quite conceive of a man wanting to make his home on the quarter-section that he purchased, and he could not get a homestead entry. The man who obtains his patent by compliance with the homestead duties can select his pre-emption anywhere, but the man who has purchased his land will have to take a homestead entry, if he can get it, within the nine-mile area, or leave his home and live on the new selection.


Frank Oliver: Everybody will have to do that.


Richard Stuart Lake: The point which the minister made just now with respect to the class to which I called his attention, I think is not very well taken. I understand that the theory of this pre-emption provision is that in certain districts of the country a man cannot make a living out of 160 acres.


Frank Oliver: No, it is not a question of making a living ; it is a question of farming to profit. We admit that a man can perhaps make a living on five or ten acres ; but what we say is that we cannot expect to induce the settlement of people who come with capital for the purpose of making money in that area unless we give them up to 320 acres.


Richard Stuart Lake: Well, we will say that people cannot farm at a profit on less than 320 acres. The class of people I mention have each of them got 320 acres, and in certain cases that I know of, 320 acres of the best land. I do not think the minister should make provision to enable them to get an additional 160 acres, making 480 acres in all. I have seen cases in the re-Mr. m. s. McCarthy.
turn brought down by tihe minister in which men were allowed to purchase additional quarter-sections. I think these instances might be very well looked upon as pre-emptions, and be considered to have exhausted the right to pre-emption.


Frank Oliver: I do not see how we can make provision that would be just in all cases. These men ostensibly secured this land because their homestead was not of value. We have allowed them 320 acres in order to give them 160 acres in value ; but as a matter of fact we sold them the additional 160 acres. If we made them an unconditional sale of that land, properly or improperly, I submit that we are not entitled to come back years afterwards and practically impose conditions on that sale. There may be cases that do not rest on the best of justification ; hut I do not think that we ought to do an unwarrantable act to-day, because some years ago we did something that was not perhaps exactly what it ought to have been, or was done under a misapprehension of the facts.


Richard Stuart Lake: I want to bring another point to the minister's attention, with regard to the .proviso that ' when conditions obtaining in any township are such as to make the requirements of fifty acres of cultivation excessive, the Governor in Council may fix a lesser area in respect of that township.' Would that be fixed in advance of the settlement of the country, and would full publicity be given to the amount of land which it would be necessary to cultivate in advance, by publication in the ' Gazette ' or otherwise.


Frank Oliver: Undoubtedly that would be necessary. I may say that that provision is rather inadvertently left in the Act as it is to-day. That provision was in the Act as it was last year when we expected to make the pre-emption provision apply both to the country north of the railway [DOT] land grant and to the country to the south. If we retain the Bill in its present form, applying the pre-emption provision only to the central area, I am not clear that we shall require that provision ; I think it would be as well to drop it out. But if we accept the proposition of the hon. members for Selkirk and Dauphin to include the area between Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba, we would unquestionably need that provision, and it would be only right to advertise what cultivations we required.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Why not substitute the ownrship of so many head of cattle ? In that north country it is absolutely impossible to cultivate any quantity of laud. You will often not be able to cultivate more than two acres on a quarter-section. The land is not suitable for cultivation, but is suitable for raising cattle. It is underlaid with a

hard-pan subsoil, the surface is undulating and covered with water during the spring pf the year, but it raises a good hay crop. The high portions are generally stony. It is now settled by a large number of Icelanders, and each farmer has 50 to 100 head of cattle. They make butter and cheese, but raise absolutely no grain whatever.


Richard Stuart Lake: The minister could not call that agricultural land.


Frank Oliver: That emphasizes the difficulty of defining agricultural land. If the land is producing cattle, I would say it was agricultural land but not good agricultural land.


George Eulas Foster: I am a little troubled about this first clause :
A person who obtains entry for a homestead under this Act and continues to own and to reside upon the land included therein

That is the homestead.
*-and does not hold or has not assigned his rieht to.
What is the meaning of ' does not hold liis right thereto ' ? Does he not hold" a right thereto if he has entered and continues to reside on it ?


Frank Oliver: The person who holds a homestead but who does not hold a preemption, is entitled to a pre-emption entry. That is the sense of the word.


George Eulas Foster: It all runs on to the preemption. It is a little blind.


Frank Oliver: It is not as clear as it should be, but the idea we are trying to convey is that whether a man enters for his pre-emption at the same time that he enters for his homestead or not, he may still enter for his pre-emption if the land is there. He may to-day enter for his homestead and not his pre-emption ; and six months from now, if the land is available for pre-emption, he may take it as a pre-emption.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: In the former Act you had to make application for pre-emption.


George Eulas Foster: It would be clearer to say: ' And does not hold pre-emption or has not assigned his right thereto or received a patent therefor.'


Frank Oliver: The word of this statute is on the responsibility of the Department of Justice, and I fancy the meaning is there though not so clear as the phrase my hon. friend has given.


John Herron: Does the minister not think it is hard on the old settlers, on the even-numbered sections, who have made these odd sections valuable, which have been held under reserve all these years, that these odd sections should be now thrown open to homesteaders who are newcomers, and thus
to a great extent prevent the old settlers from having the privilege of pre-empting them. Very few men who are settled along the locality where I live would think of leaving their homesteads and going to a new place for pre-emption and residing on it three years, but the minister is preventing their pre-empting the odd-numbered sections adjoining by throwing them open for homesteads.


Frank Oliver: That is exactly what I think myself. This year I am getting a great deal of support for the provisions of my Bill of last year, which I would have been glad to get last year. I have already stated the reason why I brought the Bill forward in its present condition, and I feel like retaining those provisions. Under all the circumstances, it is better for us to accept the Bill as it is, and let us demonstrate in the working of the Bill for a year that there is not that danger which was so generally anticipated from the Bill in its provisions of last year. Let us put the matter to the test ; and then if we find those anticipations not likely to be realized, parliament may consent to extend the provisions of the Bill as my hon. friend has suggested.


George Eulas Foster: I hope the minister will come to a stable mind some time or other. What is the meaning of subsection (b) :
Residine oil his homestead on the pre-emption for at least six months in each of six years subsequent to the date of entry for his homestead.
Does that mean he does not have to make any residence on the pre-emption provided he resides for six months on his homestead?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: That is not a liability or burden imposed on him. He takes his homestead and resides there with his family. That is where he would prefer to live.


Frank Oliver: We impose the burden of cultivation.


George Eulas Foster: Not until he resides.


Frank Oliver: No burden of further construction, but his occupation must continue.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think you do. You aliow him to keep the pre-emption provided he cultivates his homestead.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Then, see what you are doing. You give a man a pre-emption ; he is supposed to earn it by effort on his own part. But he can reside for the six years consecutively on the homestead and cultivate that place, as he would naturally do. He does not have to cultivate his pre-emption if he puts the necessary cultivation into his homestead.


Frank Oliver: Precisely.
. 11451


George Eulas Foster: He makes improvements and does work on bis farm, as he probably would do if there were no pre-emption. In order to hold the pre-emption he must cultivate fifty acres a year, but he has to cultivate more than that if he is to be the successful farmer the minister wants. Then, at the end of the time, if he wishes, he can sell out at a profit perhaps getting $20 an acre, making a gain of $2,000 or $3,000 for simply improving and living on his own farm. On the other hand, if you make his ownership of the pre-emption conditional upon his earning it as he does his homestead, then, at the end of six years, it would no longer be a mere vacant prairie farm, but a cultivable place, a habitation, where men live and families are raised. In that way, the educational, social and general life of that community may be made better, which was the minister's whole argument-


Frank Oliver: Oh, no.


George Eulas Foster: Oh, yes. When we were discussing the nine-miles limit, the minister said the great merit was that it would promote the social, educational and especially the church interest. He goes back now on all that. If the minister is burning up with a desire for the advancement of the social, educational and religious interests of the community, he is in this case, taking a most effective way of preventing the realization of his own wishes.


John Gillanders Turriff: It seems to me that the clause is all right as it is. According to the hon. member for North Toronto, the homesteader, having spent three years in putting up buildings and cultivating his homestead, would have to move across to the pre-emption and put another house and a second set of farm buildings upon it besides engaging in its cultivation. That is not going to bring an additional settler into the township or promote the social or religious life of the community. What the Act says is that he shall reside on his homestead for three years and cultivate at least thirty acres. A good many homesteaders, when that is done, if allowed to purchase their pre-emption at $3 an acre would imrchase it and go into town or move away. But the Act provides that he must continue to reside on the homestead for three years more in order to obtain the patent for pre-emption, and he must cultivate fifty acres either on the pre-emption or on the homestead. To my mind, one is as good as the other so far as the interests of the government is concerned. Then, after he has given the additional three years residence and cultivated the fifty acres, he pays $3 an acre and gets his patent for the pre-emption. To my mind, no object can be served by compelling the settler to build a second set of buildings and to put on his pre-emption cultivation that he could put on his homestead. In most cases, cultiva-Mr. OLIVER.
tiou will be on the pre-emption, because most men living for six years on a quarter-section would have the whole of it under cultivation, though the Act does not make it obligatory. In the old days, when the law was changed, and the homesteader who originally had pre-emption was allowed to second-homestead a pre-emption, the Act had to be changed in the same way, to allow the settler to earn his second homestead, which was originally his pre-emption, by residence on the first homestead, thus doing away with the necessity of putting up a second set of buildings. It seems to me the provision is fair enough. Even though, at the end of six years' residence a man has got a farm, for which he pays $3 an acre and can sell for $10, $15 or $20 an acre, that is a good thing for the settler and for the government and for the country. He has bought the land at $3 an acre and has made it valuable by his residence and work.


Richard Stuart Lake: It seems to me that th'e provision of this clause, so far as it affects the older pioneers, the men who have made the country what it is, is not of great value. It cannot be expected, in the ordinary case, that a man will leave his established farm and all its buildings and conveniences and go out into this new country set apart for the pre-emption privilege. It is a tract of country which has been neglected by the railway companies as not of a sufficiently valuable character to fulfil the conditions of the grant made to them, which is that it shall be land ' fairly fit for settlement.' So, I think this gift of the pre-emption right, so far as it concerns the older settlers, is a very poor gift indeed, and is in such a shape that it cannot be taken advantage of by the men who, after all, should really be entitled to our'first consideration. Many men who have had to struggle through the pioneer days in the Northwest, the days when there was not the same knowledge of dry farming as there is at this time, have not made a great deal of money and would be only too thankful, if the conditions were good enough, to go out and take this pre-emption privilege. But I think the privilege in its present form is a very small one, and very few people will be able to take advantage of it. I think that the cultivation conditions in such cases are much more important than the settlement conditions. The country does not gain anything by taking a man from one district, making him root up everything and settle down in another district. No additional man is brought in under those circumstances. But the country is decidedly the gainer if a man, in order to obtain the right to purchase a pre-emption, has to put a very large proportion of that preemption under cultivation, and has to bring it into a condition of productiveness. If the pre-emption is distant from his resi-

dence, he will have to find somebody to go out and cultivate it for him. To my mind, under these circumstances, it would he better to insist upon the cultivation of a large portion of the pre-emption than to insist upon putting in a personal residence on the land.


George Eulas Foster: There is another point I would like to mention, and that is with reference to payment. I understood that the chief stress laid upon this land Bill by the minister was that it was a method by which the Hudson Bay Railway could be paid for. He dilated with a great deal of pride on the new source of revenue that had been found, as if it had ben concealed for many years, but now has been found, namely, the land of the Northwest. He came down to this proposition, that whilst they were entirely opposed to granting lauds to build a railway, they had proposed to use the lands all the same for the building of the railway, and would take this device of selling them at $3 an acre. It takes a philosophic mind to see much distinction between these two. However, the minister fails to come to the logical sequence of his declaration and his action in the Bill. The Hudson Bay Railway is to cost, we will say, $30,000 a mile, and on 500 miles that would be $15,000,000. Five millon acres o<f land at $3 an acre will pay for the railway. But then comes the trouble that the money is not received yet, and is not in hand. But the minister does not want to go to the elections without being able to say :	We have got everything arranged for this Hudson Bay Railway, aud it is going on. Then comes the conflict as to how to get the money to go on with it. The minister makes the declaration that he is going to get the money out of the sale of land, and in the next breath he informed some questioner that they did not propose to keep that money in fund and place it where it was ear-marked and certain to be used for that purpose, but that these moneys, as they came in in driblets from year to year, were going into the consolidated revenue fund, a fund which at the present time does not seem to have a very happy prospect of swelling beyond the needs of the country for the next few years. What follows is that every dollar of money as it comes in and goes into the consolidated fund account will be paid out for other expenditures of the country. So the country itself has really to raise the money which is necessary to build the Hudson Bay Railway by a loan on the foreign market. There is no other way. No money is kept for it. To be logical, and to prove that the minsiter ends with what he started out, and desires to raise money out of these lands to give to the people of the west the boon of an outlet by the Hudson bay, he ought to carry that out by funding every dollar of the money that comes in from these purchased
homesteads and pre-emption homesteads, put it into a fund or invest it where he will receive interest upon the accumulations at a rate equal to what he would [DOT] have to borrow money for in the old country, and keep that as an inviolable fund out of which the Hudson Bay Company expenditures would in time be met, for it will be some time.
I notice here that, with reference to preemptions, one-third is to be paid at the end of the third year and then the remainder of the price, two-thirds, is to be spread over five years : that is, it will be nine years from the present date, or nine years from the date when a man takes a pre-emption entry. If the government is sincere in its desire to build what the people of the west believe they ought to have, and what the people of the east are willing they should have that money will probably be called for within the next two or three years, and I should hope would all be spent before the three years, at which time the first payment upon the land is to come. Then there will be interest upon'that. If the fund which arises from the land payments on interest accumulation is added and the whole is kept intact, then when the 5,000,000 acres of land are bought and the last payment is made, the funds will nearly balance each other. You will have a fund in hand which will, speaking roughly, wipe out the debt and accrued interest upon it, namely, the debt incurred for building the Hudson Bay Railway. I would commend to the minister, if he is really anxious to prove to the country that this policy is adopted because of a desire to find a new source of revenue which is to be devoted to the building of the Hudson Bay Railway Company, that he considers the propriety of placing this as an investment by itself, either to invest it with somebody who will pay 3 or 34 per cent, or by treating it as a trust fund upon which the government will pay what it pays for its general borrowings in the foreign countries. In that way the money will not be frittered away for' incidental expenses of every kind, current expenses of every kind, but will be really kept there, and when the need for it comes it will be found, without adding anything to the debt of the country. Otherwise, coming in by hundreds of dollars, or by tens of thousands of dollars, it goes into the general run of current expenses, and when the time comes to meet the debt for the Hudson Bay Railway that will be added to the general debt of the country, instead of being met by the moneys accrued from the sale of lands.


Frank Oliver: The question that my hon. friend is discussing at the present time is hardly one which is under the consideration of the Department of the Interior, but rather relates to the Department of Finance. Speaking, therefore, in regard to the



question as one who is not an expert in finance, it seems to me that, however desirable or proper the suggestion that my hon. friend has made, it is rather a minor question than a question of importance, it is rather a question of bookkeeping than a question of finance. We desire to secure the construction of the Hudson Bay Railway. The government intend to aid the building of the railway to Hudson bay. They propose to aid that railway by procuring the money by means of a loan and what is of interest to the people is that the burden thereby laid upon the general resources of the country shall not add to the burdens of the people. By our proposal we hope, if it works out as we expect it will, that over, above and outside of the taxes paid by the people of the country in the ordinary manner there will be, in addition to the people now in the country, presumably, new people coming in to add their contributions to the revenue under the provisions of this Bill. So long as the money comes in, in quantities sufficient to meet the outgo for the purpose that we have in view, the question of whether it is kept in a fund by itself or whether it goes into the general treasury does not seem to me, as one who is not an expert in finance, to be really of first class importance. The great question is whether there is a reasonable probability that we will derive enough money by this means to meet the interest and ultimately the principal on the loan that will require to 'be met on behalf of the Hudson Bay Railway. I am under the impression that we will. The committee will recall that the proposition which I placed before the House last year, the purpose of which proposition was the same as that which I placed before the House this year, to provide for the aid to be granted to the Hudson Bay Railway, was very much more comprehensive in its scope-comprehensive in its scope to a degree that it met with the approval of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake), according to the remarks he has recently made, comprehensive enough to meet the views of the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Herron), according to the remarks he has recently made, and so sure of deriving enough money to build the Hudson Bay Railway were we that the hon. member for North Toronto and some of our friends objected to it because of the fear that the provisions of the Bill were going to be taken advantage of to an extent that would upset the business and settlement of the country. It is in deference to their views and not in accordance with my own that I to-day present the Bill in its present restricted form and if it should be that it does not realize our expectations, if it should be that we will not receive an increase of revenue from this source adequate to meet the requirements entailed by the aid to the Hudson Bay Railway, then all I can say is that we can very easily revert to the proposition Mr. OLIVER.
that I placed before the House last year and I have no doubt, and I do not think that any hon. member of the House has any doubt, that that proposition will meet the case. I adhere to the views that I expressed last year that that proposition was sound both from the point of view of settlement and finance. I am of the opinion that the present proposition is a sound proposition from the point of view of settlement and of finance and I believe, that given a reasonable opportunity, if we are not too insistent upon the money being produced in too short a time, it will produce all the revenue that is required, but it certainly will not produce it in the length of time that the proposition which I placed before the House last year would have done it in. So that, I present it to the House this year with this limitation in regard to its financial side which I hope everybody will recognize and should it not produce as much revenue as we might desire I hope that I will not be held responsible for that comparative or measurable lack of revenue, because it is rather by compulsion that I have arrived at that point, or rather by force of circumstances than because of its being the policy that I approve of.


George Eulas Foster: The minister is one of the most accommodating men that I have met in a long while in certain respects. He started out last year with the idea that his policy was absolutely right and that it was necessary from two considerations-one, the promotion of settlement and the other the building of the road. He came in this session with a different proposition, very much limted as compared with that of last year, and he declared by all that was good that this was a proper and sufficient policy. Now he stands up and invites his followers to urge him to throw over this present proposition and bring in last year's. Then he declares that last year's policy was balked because the member for North Toronto uttered some views with regard to some business and financial displacements that might occur from it. That is a wonderful compliment to pay to the member for North Toronto. I have not found that the Minister of the Interior was so accommodating in reference to suggestions that I have made heretofore. However, I noticed that in his speech he did not refer to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway), who, it seemed to me, gave expression to some pretty strong opinions. Let us know where the honour or onus of this lies. Is it with the member for North Toronto or the hon. member for Lisgar, or is it that the conspirators with the hon. member for Lisgar working against the minister made him forego his cherished conviction as to what the proper policy was? I uttered some general objections with respect to the general displacement of financial and settlement interests under the broad scheme proposed by my hon.

friend last year. My sentiments in tliat respect are modified this year by the fact of the much more limited and special area to which it is restricted. Another point that I wish to advert to at the present time is this: The condition of things which brought this about, if not naturally existing, w7as a condition of things which existed because of a preceding operation. Granted that 160 acres is too small an area for profitable farming in the Northwest


Frank Oliver: In that part.


George Eulas Foster: I am open to the judgment of the House on that point. Are there many places in the Northwest in which a man who takes a farm, is living on the land and is endeavouring to make a profitable business, is content to march up to that business with the prospect of only having 160 acres to till? I do not think so. I think that you cannot find many areas in the Northwest excepting in close proximity to some of the big cities in which you can make a farm productive and profitable with a limit of 160 acres. So that whether you go to Manitoba or to the other provinces or down into this district, I think the basic idea is that 320 acres is little enough for good profitable farming, and many farmers require more than that. It is the policy to give 160 acres in other parts, but in these other parts settlers could buy another 160 acres nearby from somebody else. The government give away, but do not sell. Tou are simply transferring to the district in question the right to a man who cannot farm successfully 160 acres to get another 160 acres, and there is no way in which he can get it except by the government taking the place of the company and agreeing to sell to the homesteader 160 acres. I have no objection to the substitution of this plan wherever there is no one else but the government to provide that extra 160 acres.
It has occurred to me that there may be an element of unfairness in the operation of this pre-emption provision, as one man may be able to get near his homestead a preemption which is of some value, which is perhaps worth $10 an acre untilled, while another man may not be able to get near his homestead a pre-emption which he will be able to make valuable even after long cultivation. Would it be possible to grade these pre-emptions according to their qualities? I suppose there would be a difficulty, but there would seem to be an element of fairness and taking away of the element of mere chance if there were some method by which the price might be graded according to the value of the land.


Frank Oliver: There is a great deal of difficulty in that. Even the railway companies, unless in very recent years, have not attempted to grade their large land grants section by section.
363J


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: About what quantity of land have the railways taken in the district which the minister is now setting apart in which to pre-empt?


Frank Oliver: I have not made an estimate, although it could be easily done from the map. I would say that there would be about six or seven million acres included in that area.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Why are we not allowed to pre-empt in those townships in which the railway has at least eight sections?


Frank Oliver: For the reason stated by the hon. member for North Toronto, that where the odd numbered sections are already held for sale it is possible for the homesteader to supplement his free homestead by the purchase of an adjoining quarter-section. On the other hand, if we allow the even numbered sections to be taken in half-section farms, we only get two settlers on each section, when otherwise we would have four. To apply the pre-emption provision within the townships where half the land has already gone to railways would, it seems to us, tend to unduly scatter settlement in those townships and is not necessary in order to enable people to get 320-acre farms, because in those townships they can buy from the railway company.
On section 28-purchased homestead.


John Herron: There does not seem to be very much change in this from the other pre-emption section. It applies to the same area of land. Applications can be made within a radius of nine miles, which is a slight deviation from the previous law. Otherwise I do not consider it as favourable as the present pre-emption law to new settlers.


Richard Stuart Lake: I find in it a very considerable difference, or rather discrimination against the old settler. The new homesteader who comes in now and takes up his homestead and pre-emption does not pay anything until he is three years on the land, while the old homesteader who enters for a pre-emption has to pay one-third of the amount down and the balance in two annual instalments. The new settler has five years in which to pay the remaining two-thirds. I think that is a very unfair and improper discrimination against the pioneer who has made the country what it is, and who should have the advantage if anybody should.


George Eulas Foster: I think that point is a very important one, and I think it must have escaped the attention of the minister -at least I hope it has. The new man comes in and takes up a homestead. He comes in under conditions which are a I great deal more favourable and easy than

the pioneer came under fifteen or ten, or even five or six years ago. He rides almost up to his place on a railway which has been built since the old pioneer came in. The old pioneer has had the burden and heat of the day. This new man comes in from Germany, Austria, Russia or any other country of the world, under these new and better conditions. He takes up his homestead and then you give him advantages which you do not give to the old settler. You do not make him put up a shack or put a plough into the land or pay anything for three years. At the end of three years you make him pay only one-third, and then you give him five years in which to pay the rest. He does not have to do anything but reside on his homestead and improve it. But how do you treat the old pioneer, who has borne the burden and heat of the day? He has to leave his home that he has made, and his family with whom he resides, and has to go hundreds of miles ; and what do you give him then? You give him a chance to buy 160 acres at $3 an acre. You do not say to him that he need not pay the first third of the price for three years ; he has to plank it down when he makes liis entry. When that is done, you do not give him five years in which to pay the balance ; he has to pay it in two years. You do not allow him to stay on his old farm and cultivate fifty acres and tell him that he need not cultivate any of his new homestead. In all these respects you put the old homesteader at a disadvantage as compared with the new man. In every respect, if you compare the two, there is an absolute disadvantage to the old homesteader who has improved the country and an absolute advantage to the new-comer who has no stake in the country until he comes and makes it for himself. That is a pretty serious state of things. As I read the clause over this afternoon, it struck me that the minister must have some grudge against the pioneer. Why does he not give him equal chance with tlie other? If you let the new man take a pre-emption and give it to him right alongside the free homestead, and then do not make your new man put up a shack and cultivate ten or fifty acres, at least you should let the old homesteader have a chance to enter for his purchased homestead and stay in liis own home with his family and cultivate fifty acres there, as you allow the new man to do. But instead you drive the old- settler hundreds of miles away to get a new piece of land. In every respect the hard hand is held out to the old settler who has been the pioneer of the country, and the easier part is given the stranger who lias not contributed a cent to the taxes and has not borne the burden and heat of the day, but comes at the eleventh hour. Is my hon. friend a student of scripture, and has he framed his B41 on the line that the man who comes in at the Mr. FOSTER.
eleventh hour shall get as much as the one who came in at the first hour and worked all day ? The minister goes beyond scripture and gives the 11th hour man far more than the man who has laboured the full 12. I never could quite understand exactly all that is meant by that teaching of scripture, but I am not disposed to put it into force with regard to the new-comer when it weighs heavily on the old settler. The minister has been unjust to the old pioneer, and I mistake the spirit of the old pioneer if he does not resent that treatment.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 179) to incorporate the Synod of the Diocese of Keewatin.-Mr. McCraney.

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

[Stage Direction]
The order for private Bills having been exhausted, House resumed m committee Bill (No. 181) to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting the Public Lands of the Dominion.-Mr. Oliver.
On section 28,
John Herron: Before the committee rose at six o'clock, I made some comment on this section, and said that it was about in line with the previous section on pre-emption. On more careful examination, I find that the conditions under this clause are not as favourable to the purchaser or a purchased homestead as they will be to the new7 settler. I said that I could only see a slight difference under the section and that because there would be a more extended area to choose from. But, while I find that that is right in a sense, I find that the conditions are not nearly as favourable to the purchaser of a homestead as to the man who enters for pre-emption. And I do not think that this should be so. I cannot see anything in this clause that will give the pioneer advantage or that will give him even as favourable terms as the man who enters the country to-day. The land has been reserved from entry for homestead purposes for twenty years or more from the earliest settlement of the country up to the present time; and, now that the government is going to dispose of the land which has been made valuable by the work of the pioneer homesteader, he is debarred from

the privileges that the newcomer will have. In other words, wherever there is much settlement the land is pretty much all taken up, there being only a few sections left, whether odd-numbered or even-numbered, available. The odd-numbered sections have gone up in value with the lands owned by the homesteaders, and there is no way by which the present homesteader can avail himself of the odd-n uinbered sections. In many cases the land has increased from nothing, as it was ten or fifteen years ago, to $10 or $15 an acre. Now they are put on the market and the stranger coming into the country is going to get all the advantages of selecting these as homesteads, while the pioneer who settled in the same district and has made the lands valuable, if he wishes to avail himself of the pre-emption or purchase homestead, will have to leave his place and go to the new belt reserved for homesteads, select a homestead there and reside on it for three years. I find that even the conditions of payment are not as favourable to the homesteader as to the man who takes a pre-emption. The man who purchases a homestead has to pay one-third down when he makes the entry and the other two-thirds in annual payments, but the man who comes in and enters for a homestead pre-emption is exempt for three years from payment, and has five years to make the subsequent payment at the same rate of interest.


Frank Oliver: As to the terms of payment being more favourable under the purchased homestead provisions than under the pre-emption provisions, I notice that that is the case. That is an error that occurred during the change made in the Act from the form of last year to its present form, and that error, or course, needs to be corrected. My hon. friend (Mr. Herron) will remember that last year exception was taken to the general character of the privilege that was accorded to the then homesteader, inasmuch as he was allowed to take his second homestead or purchased homestead-or his pre-emption, as you may call it-anywhere in the railway belt or outside the railway belt, while the new settler could only take his pre-emption outside the railway belt, either north of it or south of it.
I imagine that in consequence of that contention it was thought well last year to make the terms more stringent as against the existing homesteader who was to be entitled to take a purchased homestead anywhere after this year, restricting his privileges to the same area as the holder of a pre-emption. We have no idea of making the terms of sale different from those which are granted to the man who takes a pre-emption. The idea has been right through as far as possible, to put the holder of a pre-emption or of a purchased homestead on an even footing; and while there
was a difference in the terms last year because there was a difference in the conditions restricting the new settler, while the old settler was able to select anywhere, this year when, for the reasons I have given, we restrict the present settler, naturally we would give him the same terms in the way of payments, as we do the new settler. This then is an error which was inadvertently made in changing the conditions, and we will have to correct it
If the circumstances are unfavourable to the old settler we cannot help it, we are doing the best we can for him. Let me say that the prime purpose of the Bill is not to do a favour to anybody ; the prime purpose of the Bill, as I have often said, is to provide a fund which will be adequate to meet the responsibilities to be incurred by the country in building the Hudson Bay Railway Company. We propose to provide that fund in a certain way, and having undertaken to provide it in that certain way we desire to give as fair an opportunity to one settler as we do to another. Therefore we provide the purchased homestead privilege, which may be availed of by the old settler against the pre-emption privilege which may be availed by the new settler, provided both of them confine themselves to that particular area. Last year the Bill was objected to by some of our friends on both sides of the House, because of the alleged undue advantage that was given by its terms to the old settler, the pioneer, the man whose interests my hon. friend has championed so enthusiastically to-night. It was because that man was liable, in the opinion of some of our friends, to get too much advantage under the Bill of last year, that we were compelled against our will to change those provisions in the Bill of this year. During the discussion last year the hon. member for North Toronto took occasion to say :
You can go from one end of the west to the other and you cannot find any plea that the poverty and hardship and disturbance and difficulty of the settler, makes it necessary for this country to say to him: We will give you another large addition by way of benefice, we will add largess to gift. There is no crying need in the northwest, asking this country to add to the already princely inducement given to settlers to make a happy and prosperous home.
He says further on :
If those lands that you propose to give as largess, as bonus, to people who are outside of the area of need, not weighed down by poverty, not encountering difficulties, but so peaceful and happy and prosperous in the enjoyment of a princely gift of 160 acres of good land.
That was the view held by the hon. member for North Toronto last year, and while I would not suggest that he was not the only man of influence in this country who held that view, it was because of that view,

which was expressed so forcibly, being so generally held, that we thought It wise to bring the Bill forward this session in its present shape, which we must admit does not give that same advantage to the present settlers of that country that the Bill of last year did.


John Herron: What is the error the minister mentions here ?


Frank Oliver: Subsection 5 should be amended to conform in its terms to subsection 3 of section 27, that is to say, that a complete payment should be made in five years from the date of entry for the purchased homestead, just as in that subsection 3 of section 27 it is five years from the first payment on the pre-emption.


John Herron: The minister has read an extract from the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto, which sounds pretty strong in the way the hon. gentleman has read it. But I think the speech as a whole is not half as strong against the Bill of last year as was the speech of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway). He is the gentleman who opposed the thing most emphatically.


Mr. McCRANEY.: 
Frank Oliver: consider the extension of the area for the purpose of meeting a case of that kind.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Where would you make it apply ?


George Ewan McCraney: In the description you will notice that north of the Canadian Pacific Railway the line crosses the principal meridian and continues :
Thence following the third principal meridian to the north line of township 24, thence westerly along the said north line of township 24 to the south Saskatchewan river-
Which brings it just to the elbow' of the South Saskatchewan.
-thence down stream along the said south Saskatchewan river to the north line of township 39, thence westerly along the said north line of township 39, to the North Saskatchewan river, thence up stream along the said north Saskatchewan river to the north line of township 44.
My suggestion to the minister would be that when he follows the third meridian northward he should follow it to, say, township 44 w'hich would take it into the old settled district of Duck Lake, Batoclie, and Fish Creek where, I see by the map, there are vacant railway lands and where I am sure from the fact that these have not been selected, the character of the land is such as hardly induces homesteading. If the line w'ere extended to the northern boundary of township 44 and westerly to the North Saskatchewan river that would meet my own view's.


Frank Oliver: It would be very much more convenient to describe the boundary by taking the third meridian, which is the beginning of the numbering of the ranges towards the west. I notice that the north line which my hon. friend suggests, township 44, is the line we have adopted west of the North Saskatchewan river. So that, if it were agreeable to all parties concerned we could much more easily describe the boundary by saying that w'e w'ould follow the railway line to the third meridian, thence northerly bv the third meridian to the north line of township 44, thence w'est along the northern line of township 44 to the Calgary and Edmonton railw'ay line, and then follow the Calgary and Edmonton line until it strikes the west line of range 26. That w'ould practically carry the line down to the boundary. That would be a more convenient description of the boundary than the one I have here, but I adopted this for the purpose of getting a well defined natural boundary. However, if the third meridian is considered suitable from the point of view of my hon. friend, whose constituency it is in, it would be much more easily described and would seem to be quite as satisfactory as the present boundary.


Richard Stuart Lake: Did I understand the minister to say that the terms under which an old settler, who had already obtained the patent for his homestead, would be allowed to acquire a pre-emption were as set out in the Bill of last year? I am just looking up the old Bill, and as far as I can see the terms apply to both parties in just the same way.


Frank Oliver: What are the terms to the old settler iu the old Bill ?


Richard Stuart Lake: There is just one set of terms as far as I can see, and they are the same terms as are given to the new settler under the new Bill.


Frank Oliver: Five years ?


Richard Stuart Lake: Five years.


Frank Oliver: I merely stated to the committee what I supposed was the way In which the error had arisen, but, certainly, it was an error and there was no reason for it. Our intention has been to make the two cases conform as closely as cirsumstances permitted.


Richard Stuart Lake: Of course the minister has not yet replied to the point which was made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) that even now the new settler is going to get very much better terms in connection with his pre-emption than the old settler; that is to say, there is no obligation upon the new settler who takes up a preemption to do any work whatever on that pre-emption. He can do all his work on the homestead and he is permitted to purchase a pre-emption without doing any work upon it. It would be very much better policy, as I have already suggested, to extend the same right to the older settlers on the condition of extensive cultivation in lieu of residence on the land. I believe it would be very much better for the land and you will not meet with the trouble which was suggested by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Gfreenway) last year of making men pick up their goods, leave their present holdings and start out for new districts, depopulating the old districts in order to populate the new. I think it would be better not to force a man to go into residence on a pre-emption.


Frank Oliver: In so far as a reply to the statement made by the hon. member for North Toronto is concerned, I do not think there is any reply to be made. The hon. gentleman stated the facts of the case as set out in the Bill and there is nothing to be said about it. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for Qu'-Appelle that it would be sound public policy to permit the acquisition of purchased land in this area without settlement, while that would be certainly a very popular policy in the part of the country which is already settled, it would be an equally unpopular policy in the part of the country which is to be settled and, although it would be a way of securing popularity with a number of people, it would not be sound public policy with regard to the settlement of the country and, for my part, I do not feel I could endorse it.


Richard Stuart Lake: I cannot see why it should be unpopular in the new districts. A man could not comply with the cultivation conditions which he would be called upon to do in this case without sending some one up to do the work for him. There are many new comers in the country who are unable to go out and take up homesteads for themselves. This is a way in which a man could be sent to a new district to do the work on the homestead and later become a settler himself in that particular district. It is the difference between leaving the hired man at home or sending him out to the new district, instead of going yourself.


Frank Oliver: The most important feature of the land settlement policy is the bodily presence of the man who is interested in the land upon the land. The hon. gentleman himself has been the most vigorous of any member of the House in attacking the government because of alleged, deviation from this policy, absolutely insisting upon its being carried out. That is our policy. We may have failed in this or that particular instance, but it is our policy, we do carry it out and we cannot see that we would be warranted in absolutely departing from it and allowing non-resident ownership in a vast area of 28.000,000 acres. It would be such a radical departure from that which has been considered to be the policy of the government of our predecessors as well as ourselves, as the policy which has been at the very foundation of the true settlement of the west ever since it began, that I would not like to endorse such a very radical departure.


Mr. SPROULE.: Did you always have resident ownership? We so frequently get applications from men in the west who declare that men own homesteads who have not been on them at all. I have a letter from a man near Lloydminster who says that a hotel keeper there who is engaged in the hotel business has a lot on which he has never been at all, but people cannot have the homestead cancelled. The man says there are many others in the same position. You can never get them cancelled.


Frank Oliver: If the facts are as my hon. friend states the government's administration is not in line with its policy. I have no excuse to offer for that condition of affairs, except that it has not come to my personal attention. If it exists it is not because of our policy but contrary to it. I

wish to move the following amendment to subsection 5 of section 28 :
The price payable for land under this section shall be $3 per acre, and such price shall be payable one-third at the time entry is made and the balance in five equal annual instalments, and interest shall be payable at the rate of five per cent per annum at the end of each year from date of the said entry on the amount remaining unpaid at the time; provided that on completion of the requirements under this section for obtaining letters patent for such purchased homestead, payment in full may be made for the same and letters patent therefor may thereupon issue.
That conforms to the section in the corresponding clause,


Richard Stuart Lake: The minister will have to have non-resident ownership any way for any old settler who takes advantage of this clause will have to leave his old homestead. I presume if there is a considerable amount of improvements and cultivationi insisted1 on there would have to be residence by some one.
In subsection 10, I see the words ' who fails to secure a patent for his free homestead.' I think that really means who fails to perform the duties necessary to secure the patent.


Frank Oliver: It is for that reason that we put in the saving clause, ' at the minister's discretion.' My hon. friend knows that it is absolutely necessary in the administration of our homestead law to prevent, so far as we can possibly do so, trafficking in homesteads. Therefore we make the declaration as definite and sweeping as we can. Yet there may be cases in which the act may be done innocently, and there should 1/e some discretion to save the right of property in such cases.


John Herron: It might be done innocently, or it might be done legally with the consent of the government. After a man had made certain improvements on a piece of land, a new man might come along and purchase his improvements.


Frank Oliver: That would be entirely illegal ; we do not recognize that at all.' If we did, we might just as well admit the practice of selling homesteads. We have to set our faces absolutely against anything of that kind. But of course there are cases that are deserving of consideration, and we want to have authority to give them that consideration.
Mr. M, S. McCarthy. Would the section as it is worded cover an agreement for a lease ?


Frank Oliver: No. The idea is that he will get the entry when he has completed his duties on his first homestead. Either we have to deprive him of the privilege of entry prior to the issue of the patent or we must make the holding of the entry subject to the issue of the patent if we are to make the provision effective according to the spirit and intent of the Act.
On section 31-assignments of homesteads.


Frank Oliver: I would not think so.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. A might get B to make a homestead entry on a certain quarter-section, put up a certain amount of money and allow him to go on and do the work necessary to comply with the regulations, and make an agreement with him to lease it for ninety-nine years, which would practically be a title. Would the minister's intention to absolutely prohibit traffic in homesteads forbid a case of that kind ?


Richard Stuart Lake: Under what circumstances would the minister declare that a patent shall not issue?


Frank Oliver: This provision is merely a saving provision. Assuming that there may be such circumstances as my hon. friend suggests, though it is not probable that there are, the act may have been done ignorantly of the provision, and therefore we think it is very desirable that the minister should have this discretion.


Richard Stuart Lake: Has the minister had any such cases since he has been in office ?


Frank Oliver: Such a case may have been dealt with departmentally without having reached me, but I have no knowledge of any such case.


John Herron: A man might in many ways give to another man a consideration to abandon his entry which might be perfeetly legal.


Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: This section would not. I think that the person who homesteaded could never acquire title to his homestead under that agreement.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I think he could, from the affidavit he would be required to make when he proved up on his homestead, unless it has been amended in recent years.


Frank Oliver: Of course, that would be contrary to our intention.


Richard Stuart Lake: There must be cases in which it is quite obvious that there has been some consideration paid for abandonment.


Frank Oliver: Such cases may occur and do occur, but our purpose is to prevent their occurrence so far as we can. I am under the impression that the class of eases mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary would be properly provided for rather in the affidavit of entry and of proof of compliance with the conditions than in this

clause regarding abandonment. The suggestion of my hon. friend is something new, but certainly there are possibilities in it which would have to be met in some way.
On section 8-sale of agricultural lands.


Richard Stuart Lake: I would like to suggest that all these orders in council should be published at once in the ' Gazette ' so that the general public may know what is being done. I have hunted for a good many of these orders in council in the ' Gazette,' and have not been able to And them. I imagine that a good many of them have not been published for some time after they were passed and some not at all.


Frank Oliver: I am under the impression that all sales of land authorized by orders in council are published in the ' Gazette.' If they are not, I think it would be very proper that they should be.


Wilbert McIntyre: May others than homesteaders purchase these fractional quarter-sections ?


Frank Oliver: Under our printed regulations we sell to the owner of the adjoining land whether he is a "homesteader or not.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Would it be possible for the minister to specify in the Act the grounds authorizing the sale of lands? The section leaves him rather a wide discretion.


Frank Oliver: Of course it is pretty hard to make a provision without giving some discretion. In practice, we sell a fraction to the owner of the adjoining land, but there might possibly be an owner who would not be inclined to acquire the land and some other person might want it, and there is no reason why the land should be tied up. Our regulations provide that we must sell to the owner of the adjoining land, but these regulations may be varied from time to time and the Act cannot. So that if we put such a provision in the Act, we might tie up a piece of land without due regard to the public interests.	.


Robert Laird Borden: All these orders in council relating to the disposal of any part of the public domain should be brought down and laid on the table of parliament in the first fifteen days of every session.


Frank Oliver: That might answer the same purpose as publishing in the ' Gazette.' I have no objection to publishing in the ' Gazette ' but that would be fairly cum-berous and perhaps not necessary.


Richard Stuart Lake: Laying on the table is no doubt very necessary, but that does not come to the knowledge of many people. I think it would be a safeguard if such sales and regulations were published in the Canada ' Gazette.' The public would then know what is going on.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister might add a clause at the end of the Bill to that effect.
Mr. OLIVER, As we go through the Bill, we may arrive at a conclusion that will meet all views and embody that in one section.
On section 33,
Land suitable for grazing but not adapted for agriculture, or hay or marsh lands, may be sold or leased under regulations made by the Governor in Council.


Richard Stuart Lake: These regulations ought to be published. How is the minister to differentiate between these three classes of land? For instance, hay or marsh lands during one period may become agricultural lands at a later period.


Frank Oliver: It is for that reason we have left the provision subject to regulation.


Robert Laird Borden: As a matter of fact what is the practice of the department in respect of determining the character of land. On whose report does the minister decide ? Suppose I should apply for a certain area as grazing land, how would the minister deal with it ?


Frank Oliver: That would be dealt with under the regulations regarding grazing. The application must be made in a certain form and state certain facts as to the lands and the ownership of stock, and there being no other rights interfered with. We have an oflieial whose time is entirely devoted to that work. He inspects and reports upon the nature of the land and as to whether there is any one in occupation, and whether there are cattle owned by others than the applicants which are ranging on it or in this vicinity. He reports to us and then we decide whether to issue the lease or not.
On section 34,
Lands unsuitable for cultivation without the aid of irrigation, or lands required in connection with any system of irrigation, may be sold or leased in such manner and under such terms and conditions as are fixed by the Governor in Council, and subject to the provisions of the Irrigation Act.


Richard Stuart Lake: How are you to determine what lands are unsuitable for cultivation without the aid of irrigation ? Irrigation ditches have been dug in the Northwest and then abandoned, because it was found subsequently the lands were suitable for cultivation without irrigation.
Mi-. OLIVER. That is a matter upon which it is difficult to arrive at a fixed conclusion, as conditions change. There may be a series of years, in every one of which a certain tract of country would require irrigation, and then for a succeeding series of years, there would be no need of it. We

have to be guided by the general belief as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of rainfall in the country affected, during sufficient periods to warrant the expenditure on irrigation. Generally speaking, southern Alberta and, western Saskatchewan, east of the foothills and west of the Coteau Missouri may be bettered in some years by irrigation. If any one desires to make an expenditure that will irrigate any particular tract of land, we would feel warranted in giving him the privilege.


Mr.  M. S.@: MCCARTHY. Suppose certain sections of the country would be made fit by drainage ?	-


George Ewan McCraney: Whereabouts ?


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy'. I understand that the local administration of the province of Alberta is undertaking drainage works.


Frank Oliver: Each individual drainage area is comparatively small and therefore the expenditure also small. The drainage would therefore be a provincial rather than a Dominion work. But in the ease of irrigation, the area is large, and the possibility of irrigation depends upon the flow of the streams which flow from one province into another. Therefore, irrigation does not lend itself to provincial control as drainage does.
On section 35-water-power.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. This section was not in the Bill as introduced last year. Would the minister give us some reason why it is inserted in this Bill ?


Frank Oliver: There was a section in the Bill last yeax-, but it was not nearly so com-jxrehensive as this. Both the sections of last year and the one of this year are practically new, that is we have no specific provision in the old Lands Act for dealing with water-power^ There was a provision for the reservation of land on which there was water-powei1, but there was no provision for dealing with the water-power itself. As the waters of the western provinces, which are under the jurisdiction of this Act, are regulated under the control of the Dominion government by the terms of the Irrigation Act, it has been the custom to deal with the development of watei'-powers under the terms of that Act, but it was found in practice, and before the practice had gone very far, that as the Irrigation Act had not been framed for the utilization of the water for power purposes, its provisions were not applicable, and it was necessary, in view of the possibility of water-power developments, and the desirability of having it developed, to make provisions under which the water-powers might be developed under conditions which would, in the first place, be fair to those who desire to make developments, and, in the second place, to the public who had the interest in the wrater and who had an in-Mr. OLIVER.
terest in the ultilization of the water. Therefore, we have placed in the Bill provisions especially for that purpose. The provision has been very carefully drafted, and we believe that on the closest inspection it will be found to be adequate for the purpose. We allow the utilization of the power subject to certain conditions and provide that the utilization may take place subject to such charge as may be made for the privilege of using the water, and that any charges for use of the development may be subject to regulation by the government.


John Herron: Is the minister sui-e that provision is made that there will be no difficulty about carrying the water over the land after it is taken from the stream ? It seems to me there was some difficulty about that in our country, at Middle Fork Falls for instance. The land was purchased by some individual, and he made some exorbitant claim about giving the privilege to take water across the land. I hope that is provided for, as it may be vex*y serious to important interests and to the people at lai'ge.


Frank Oliver: That is exactly the condition as it was. There was no provision that would apply to the case that my lion. tTiend has mentioned. But, if he will notice, subsection 3 of this section, makes provision for that particular instance by applying the provisions of the Railway Act-that is to say, applying the expropriation clauses of the Railway Act to the requirements of the development for water-power.
On section 37-mineral lands.


John Herron: We were dealing with a clause the other evening which dealt, to some degree, with the same subject, lands containing minerals. I still think the homesteader should have first privilege of purchasing. It might not be applicable to say that he should have the whole area of his homestead. That might do In the case of iron or coal, but for gold or other precious metals, it would be cut down to a smaller area. But I see no reason why the homesteader should not have some of the first privileges of buying these mineral rights at the upset price or the price that the government offers them to other people.


Frank Oliver: There is a great deal to be said for the principle my hon. friend has mentioned, and in some of our regulations dealing with these matters at the present time we provide that the settler shall have priority. For instance, in the case of petroleum the settler has the surface right. I am not sure whether the present coal regulations make the same provision, but I know in the recent regulations as to the sale of coal lands we apply that provision, and the homesteader has priority. The principle of giving priority to the homesteader is a very proper one as long as it is not

carried to an abuse. But 1 do not think it is advisable to make the provision the hon. gentleman suggests. The proper way to give the priority of which he speaks is to do it in the regulations dealing with the disposition of minerals. If it should be found, in drafting the regulations, that it is possible to preserve the priority right of. a homesteader it will be done, but I do not think it would be advisable to embody a provision to that effect in the Act.
On section 39-exchange of school lands.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I would like to hear from the minister the reasons why he continues in this Bill to keep control of the school lands and the school fund in the new provinces. It occurs to me that it would be better that the control of these should be handed over to the provinces. Now the lands are sold at public auction by the Dominion and the funds are invested for the benefit of the provinces ; why, therefore, should not the control of them be handed over to the provinces? There can be no reason for the federal government continuing to control the land and the fund.


Frank Oliver: The matter that my hon. friend mentions is one that might come up for consideration. As I have said already, I do not undertake any radical change in the Bill beyond what seemed to me necessary for administration purposes, with the one exception of the pre-emption and purchased homestead clauses, the reasons of which I have already given. The setting apart of lands for higher education and placing the school lands directly under the coptrol of the provinces, are both questions of general policy rather than of departmental administration, and I have not undertaken to deal with either of them. I am merely continuing in this Act the provisions in regard to school lands which existed in the preceding Act.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Does any reason occur to the hon. gentleman why it should not be done ? Unless there is some good reason why the federal administration should continue to control the lands, it seems to me they can be better controlled by the respective provinces. There is another question. Is it the intention to continue setting aside lands in the northern part of the province for school purposes, where the surveys have not been executed at the present time?


Frank Oliver: The provision covers all the townships that may be surveyed where-ever they are.


John Herron: The minister might regard it as almost a certainty that where-ever there is an exchange made for school lands before the survey, the settler invariably takes the best land. I do not think the school fund is likely to get land equally as good.


Frank Oliver: I have had a great deal of experience in the choice of land by the pioneers, and I have not found the facts to be as my hon. friend has stated. The pioneer does not always make the wisest choice. I have already stated the principle we have recently adopted in connection with school lands, which I'think will to some extent balance the condition my hon. friend deplores, if it exists at all to the extent he thinks, that is to say, that where we>
find a piece of land, a quarter-section, under reservation, held out from settlement for one reason or another as a pre-emption, or for timber, or for water supply, or something of that kind, when it is decided no longer to withhold this section, and when settlement has grown up around it, instead of offering it for homesteading we are now scheduling that quarter-section as school lands, so as to give the school fund the benefit in that way of land that has become especially valuable to compensate for land such as the hon. gentleman has spoken of.


Richard Stuart Lake: The minister was speaking of the abandonment of the principle of setting apart school lands in the territory outside the organized provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. It seems to me that the setting apart of a certain amount of surveyed land for educational purposes is one of the best things which could be done for the future of that country. Although the minister says he has not made any changes in principle in this Act, yet I find in a foot note in regard to this section that it is stated that this is a change, that the original provision, was that throughout all Dominion lands which are surveyed certain sections should be set apart for school purposes. The foot note says it is now considered inexpedient to make that provision outside of the three provinces. I would like to hear the minister's reasons for taking that ground. I think that there may be portions of country outside those provinces which will be settled heavily some day, and we ought to provide for public education in them in the future.


Frank Oliver: As a matter of theory, of course, my hon. friend is right. But in drafting the Act it did not seem to be necessary to make a provision for an instance that would not be likely to arise. In the extension of the two new provinces to the 60th parallel, and the expected extension of the province of Manitoba to the same distance north, it seemed to us that we would thereby include practically all the territory that would come under survey, that is, under the system of Dominion land surveys, for a great many years. We thought it would not be sound public policy to make any reierv th n of such limited areas as would be likely, in that far northern country, to be found suit-

able to settlement. The principle of the reservation of two sections in each township is applied under the belief that the whole township, and practically the whole country, is suitable for settlement.


Richard Stuart Lake: Has it not been the practice of the department to set apart certain lands in the railway belt of British Columbia for certain purposes?


Frank Oliver: No.


Richard Stuart Lake: It seems to me to be a very proper provision to set apart a portion of the land in all these new countries for that purpose.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Can the minister tell me if the rate of interest has been reduced recently on the defered payments on school lands bought from the Dominion?


Frank Oliver: I am not aware that it has, but I would rather think that it has not been.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: I do not suggest that is has been since the minister has occupied his present position, but I think that a few years ago the rate was reduced. I would be glad if the minister would find out and let me know before the Bill goes out of committee.


Frank Oliver: Yes. I am just informed that some years ago the general rate of interest on payments to the government was reduced to five per cent.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I suppose, the minister could not tell us what the reduction amounted to annually or the size of the fund at the present time. Some of these lands recently have been sold at very large figures. For instance, land sold for $55 an acre near Saskatoon.


Frank Oliver: I can bring the information to the House later on, as to the present amount of the fund, when the reduction took place, if it did take place, and the amount of the fund at that time.
On section 39, paragraph 2-exchange of sehool lands.


Mr. FOWLER.: Do I understand this section to give the minister power to take Indian reserves for irrigation purposes?


Frank Oliver: No.


John Herron: In line 4 page 27, referring to the sale of a school site it provides that in no case is the amount of land ' to exceed an area of two acres.' Does that mean that you can only take two acres as a site for a school house?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


John Herron: That is not always suitable. Sometimes two acres of Dominion lands may be more suitable for the purpose than two acres of school lands. The school lands are not always situated at the proper place.


Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is taking the argument from the wrong end. Without any legislation we could dispose of any ordinary government lands to the board of school trustees for a school site, but we cannot do that with school lands, and this is to provide that we may do it with school lands.


Richard Stuart Lake: Does the minister think two acres sufficient for a school site? Perhaps it is generally, but there may be circumstances under which a difficulty would arise, because, in addition to the school, you require to have a stable and a well.


John Herron: It should be made five acres in that country.


Frank Oliver: I am not particular as to the amount. Of course, we are administering school lauds as trustees, and we do not wish to make a break upon a quarter-section that would seriously reduce its ordinary value. Two acres oat of 160 will really not reduce its value more than the price of the two acres, but it is easy to suppose that you might increase the area that might be taken out of a quarter-section and thereby seriously depreciate the value of the balance of the quarter-section. I am satisfied that even five acres would be no serious injury to the quarter-section but I desired to place that view before hon. gentleman, and if they still think that five acres might be taken without seriously depleting the value of the balance I am willing to make it five acres.


Richard Stuart Lake: At any rate it should be three acres taking into consideration that you must always have stables and wells'.


Frank Oliver: Suppose we compromise on four?


Richard Stuart Lake: All right.


Frank Oliver: That the word ' two ' where it occurs in the fourth line from the top of page 27 be changed to ' four.'


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that there are a great many unnecessary words in this section, and that it would have been better if 30 per cent of these words had been left out. There are so many words in it that it is almost impossible to understand it. For example, you have five lines in one place that you could leave out.


Frank Oliver: I am not going to dispute my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: I will point out some instances to the minister. Look at line 24, page 2G. If you leave out after the word 1 but ' down to the word ' until,' five lines below, you will have exactly the same sense if you insert the word * not,' so that it would read :

But not until other Dominion lands of equal value as nearly as may be have been' selected in lieu thereof.
It would mean exactly the same ; you simply avoid five lines of vain repetition. Then, on page 27 you deal with price at two different places, making the sentence extremely awkward. It should have been drafted more in this way :
The minister may, forthwith, sell to the board of school trustees for the district for which the same is required, such portion of school lands in no case exceeding an area of four acres at a price of not less than $10 an acre-


Frank Oliver: Which must front on a road allowance.


Robert Laird Borden: You leave that in.


Frank Oliver: Then it would not read as my hon. friend has said.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps not just in that connection, but there is no need of dealing with the price in two different places.


Frank Oliver: I have every confidence In my hon. friend's views as to the drafting of the section but the first part, that is the part before the proviso has passed through the hands of the Justice Department. The proviso, I think, is the work of the law clerk of the Interior Department. I would not like to amend the drafting off-hand.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not suggest that. In a great many statutes introduced this session there is a very great redundancy. The minister can see for himself that if the last half of subsection 2 were reduced in the way I have spoken of, it would mean exactly the same thing and be better expressed.
On section 40-terms of payments for school lands.


Richard Stuart Lake: What is done with the interest on the unpaid principal? Is that payable to the province, or does that go into capital account?


Frank Oliver: All funds, both principal and interest, accruing from the sale of school lands are the property of the province and form part of the trust fund for the jn'ovince.


Richard Stuart Lake: It seems to me the interest on the unpaid balance might fairly go to the province at once.


Frank Oliver: That possibly would be right, but I think it might better be debated as a question of financing and of the relations between the provinces and the Dominion than on the provisions of this Bill, which proposes no alteration in the condition.


Mr.  S. J. JAOICSON@: Clause 42 provides for the interest being paid annually into the province.
On section 42-payment of interest on trust fund.


George William Fowler: That does not cover the point raised by the hon. member for Qu-'Appelle.


Richard Stuart Lake: I cannot help think, as the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) suggested, that it would be advisable that these trust funds for each of the provinces should be in the hands of the provincial authorities. I think it would be a very good step to take, and if I remember rightly, our friends on the other side of the House, who came from Manitoba, believed very strongly in that principle in the days gone by.


George William Fowler: I was pointing out that this section does not cover the point raised as to the payment to the province of the 5 per cent on the unpaid balances. That would mean that the 5 per cent interest on deferred payments goes into the capital account, and that the interest on that 5 per cent is paid over to the province.


Frank Oliver: That is correct.


Robert Laird Borden: Does not the minister think that the interest ought to go to the provinces?


Frank Oliver: I think that the question of the disposition of the money realized from the sale of school lands is a matter rather of finance and adjustment between the provinces and the Dominion than pertaining directly to the administration of Dominion lands. These sections only appear here as an incident. They have to be embodied somewhere, and they are embodied in this Bill; but as this Bill does not make any change in the conditions regarding them, and as the questions raised by my hon. friends are of the character I have mentioned, I would think that the discus* sion of these points might be taken up with profit on another occasion.


Robert Laird Borden: But if the Bill passes in its present form, they cannot be taken up with effect on another occasiou, because the law would be fixed. Take a concrete instance. You sell $10,000 worth of school lands for cash. That sum of $10,000 is at once invested in securities and the interest goes annually to the province for all time to come. You sell the same quantity of school lands, and the payments are deferred-$1,000 a year for ten consecutive years. In that case the interest is paid to the Dominion government. It does not go to the province, but only the interest on the annual interest goes to the province. So that the mere accident of deferring the payments changes altogether the financial situation as between the province and the Dominion. What is suggested on this side of the House is that such an accident should not lessen tlie annual financial benefit which

any province receives from the sale of school lands.


Frank Oliver: I quite appreciate the argument; but, while of course it is quite corn-patent to discuss the matter in dealing with this Bill, it is a matter of general policy involving transactions between the Dominion and the province that I think might very well be taken up as a question by itself.


George William Fowler: But you would have to alter this Act.


Frank Oliver: Certainly, when the time came. But for the present and for the purposes of this Bill we are simply carrying forward the provision that already exists. We are not presenting a new phase of the question. We are simply asking that the present arrangement be continued for the time being until the matter, which has a certain gravity as a first-class question, can be dealt with in the way it deserves.


George William Fowler: It seems to me that it is treating these provinces with a good deal of disrespect for the Dominion government to take charge of these school lands and sell them, and not even trust the provinces with the money to invest for school purposes, but invest it in securities and dole out the proceeds to the provinces. That is treating these provinces as wards o ' the nation, as if they were not able to take care of themselves. This money is intended for school purposes in the provinces, and the Dominion government simply act as trustees. These provinces ought to be fit to be trusted with the management of their own business; they ought to be out of tutelage and wardship. If they had the handling of the money, they could probably invest It in securities that would yield greater interest than the Dominion government can obtain, and be equally good with, the securities in which the Dominion government invests it. It seems to me to be the duty of the Dominion government to hand over to the provinces these school lands, to be disposed of in whatever way would be most advantageous to them; and I should think that they, being on the ground, and having a better and fuller knowledge of the circumstances surrounding these lands than this government can have, could better administer them than the federal government. You have granted a certain measure of selfgovernment to these provinces. I think they ought to be granted a complete measure of self-government and be allowed to administer these school lands for themselves.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree entirely with that view. The Dominion government is simply acting as a trustee for the provinces in respect to the management t>f the school lands and the investment of the proceeds from their sale. You may have trustees for minor and other persons incapable Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
of taking care of their own affairs; but you do not usually have a trustee for a person who is perfectly capable of managing his own affairs. While we have been talking of the minor question of interest, there seems to be no reason why we should continue to manage these lands and hand over to the provinces the interest annually. The provinces might be relied on to administer these lands to the best advantage for their own purposes.


Richard Stuart Lake: I agree strongly with the point that has been taken with regard to the capital account, but still more strongly with the point with regard to the annual interest. This government decides that it will sell the lands in ten annual instalments. The hon. leader of the opposition has pointed out how that works. $10,000 worth of lands were sold, $1,000 received by the government the first year and then paid into the fund, and the province received 3 per cent or $30 a year. The Dominion government, on the other hand, received 5 per cent on the remaining $9,000 or $450 a year. And all they pay to the province for school purposes is $30 the first year. Of course the amount increases slightly the second year and continues to increase as each year's interest is paid in. It seems to me the province should have the benefit of all the interest.


George William Fowler: I would like to know the views of the Minister of the Interior regarding the question I raised as to the transfer of the school lands to the various provinces for which these lands are now held in trust. Does he think that the provinces should remain in that sense the wards of the nation, or does he think they are now fit for selfgovernment ? Does he think they are quite as able to handle these lands and invest the proceeds for school purposes as the federal government ? Does he not think they are better qualified because they are closer to the lands themselves ?


Frank Oliver: The business of the Minister of the Interior is to administer the lands of the west according to the policy of the government. The policy of the government with regard to the school lands is laid down in the Act. The Minister of the Interior is charged with the responsibility of providing the government with a policy regarding the administration of the lands for settlement purposes and generally for the development of the west, but he is not charged with the responsibility of laying down a policy with regard to dealing with the school lands. That is a matter pertaining to the general policy of the government in its relation with (the several provinces. I would not feel warranted in undertaking to state what is the policy of the government as regards the school lands except as it is expressed in the statute. With regard to other branches of the land question. I am quite

ready to state my views ; but as regards tUe school lands, that is a matter for consideration and discussion as one of government policy and not departmental policy.


George William Fowler: The minister is drawing a fine distinction between the various classes of lands, that It is Impossible for me to see it. So far as the provinces are concerned, the administration of the school lands is quite as* important as the administration of any other lands. The educational idea is as important as any other-in fact, more important perhaps than many others. "Therefore, if it is necessary for the Minister of the Interior to find a policy for the government with regard to other lands it is just as necessary for him to define a policy with regard to the school lands and try to get the government to adopt it. I cannot see the distinction which he draws between the two classes of lands.


Frank Oliver: The difference is this, that in the case of the administration of agricultural, mineral, timber and grazing lands, we are dealing with the rights of individuals. That is naturally necessarily a departmental matter; but the general question of the adjustment of school lands accounts between the Dominion government and the provincial government is necessarily not a departmental matter but a matter of government policy, which pertains rather to the Department of Finance and the Department of the Secretary of State than to the Department of the Interior.


George William Fowler: The government provides a policy under which the Minister of the Interior administers fthe other lands. The government provides a policy and crystallizes that policy into the form of law, and it is under that law the minister administers these lands which go to private individuals ; and it is equally by force of a law formulated by the government itself that the minister administers these school lands. He sells them when the circumstances call for a sale; lie administers them just the same as he does the other lands, so that I still fail to see the distinction which the hon. minister draws. I think if we had the minister's real view as to what should be done with the lands, it would not be "very far from what I have expressed.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: There is nothing about the policy of the government with regard to school lands, which is unusual. Our local legislature of Manitoba for twenty years passed resolutions asking that the school lands be handed over to them ; but during the administration of Sir John Macdonald in 1872-3-4, and right along, under succeeding Conservative administrations, to 1890, this same policy was pursued. I was in the local legislation from 1882 up to 1900, and there was hardly a session when we did
not pass resolutions, asking the Dominion government to hand over the school lands to the province. The policy of the previous government has been continued by the present. I am in favour of those lands being handed over to the local governments. I do not see that the federal government are making anything by keeping the administration of those lands in their own possession. They have all the trouble of administering them. One of the arguments against handing them over to the Manitoba government was that that government would have to establish a land department which would entail considerable expense and that the lands could be cheaper administered from Ottawa. I have never held that view, but would like to see the lands handed over to the provinces. I hold the view taken by the leader of the opposition that they would be as carefully administered by the different provinces as they are by this government.


George William Fowler: My hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Jackson) has just pointed to another instance which illustrates the fact that this government has been unable to form any policy itself, but is only able to follow the policy of its predecessors. Unfortunately the hon. gentleman, although he comes from the west, and must know thoroughly the western conditions, and although he has been a member of the local legislature of Manitoba for years, has not sufficient influence on the government to induce it to change its policy and adopt a better one.


Richard Stuart Lake: There is another reason which has just occurred to me, after listening to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Jackson), which makes me think that the administration of the school lands by the provinces in the North-west, would be more in the interests of the school fund than their administration by the Dominion.
The Department of the Interior, as this Bill shows, has not merely to administer the school lands, but also the other lands for purposes of irrigation or other matters of that kind, which sometimes include school lands. Then the Minister of the Interior is to be himself the judge between the interests of the department in its administration for purposes of settlement and so on, and the department as trustees for the school funds. I think it would be much in the interest of the school fund, if negotiations in regard to the exchange of school lands for other lands of equal value, as set forth in the Act, were between two different parties, the authorities of the province on the one hand and the authorities of the Dominion on the other hand. And, after all, the people of the province, are very much more vitally interested in obtaining large endowments for educational purposes than the people of the Dominion generally are.

On section 44-Hudsons Bay Company lands.


John Herron: Has there ever been any dispute over the area of land the Hudson's Bay Company have the right to select from?


Frank Oliver: Not to my knowledge.


John Herron: Have they made all selections ?


Frank Oliver: Their selections are automatic. When surveys are made, their lands are fixed. We do not pass the title to them; they hold the original title.


John Herron: Under this section the company is give certain rights of choice in townships on the northern bank of the North Saskatchewan. Does that apply to the tributaries of the North Saskatchewan or only to a certain area north of the main stream of the North Saskatchewan ?


Frank Oliver: The wording is here, it says the North Saskatchewan river. That means the main stream.
On section 48-revenue from timber limits in unsurveyed lands.


John Herron: I think that section requires a little explanation.


Frank Oliver: The provision is the same as it has been in the present law, except that the words ' the fertile belt ' are not used in the description. A provision that the Hudson Bay Company shall receive one-twentieth of the land is dependent upon a survey, that is, their ability to exercise their rights depends upon a survey being made. However, whether there is a survey or not, in the case of a timber limit which is not in surveyed territory, although there has not been a township survey which will define the land over which they have an absolute and previous right, they are entitled to claim the twentieth of the proceeds of the limit.


George William Fowler: In the case of a forest reserve, do you allow them still to retain their eight and twenty-six, or do you buy them out?


Frank Oliver: In the Forest Reserves Act there is a provision for the exchange of lands. That provision is for the purpose of enabling us to adjust matters with the company so as to relieve the reserve from their ownership of the eight and twenty-six.


George William Fowler: Have you done that in any case?


Frank Oliver: We have not concluded negotiations. I had some negotiations with the commissioner of the company two or three months ago, when he was going to England, and he intended to bring the matter before the board of directors. I hope that within the year we will have a satisfactory arrangement that will clear the Mr. LAKE.
Hudson bay lands out of these reserves. Until that is done our purpose in the reservation cannot be carried out effectually.
On section 50-title to land to pass to Hudson Bay Company.


Mr.   I@: Why do you use the expression ' three-quarter parts of sections ' ?	.


Frank Oliver: In section 44, in some sections they are entitled to the whole of the eight and twenty-six ; in others, they are entitled to only three-fourths of the twenty-six.
On section 51-regulations for disposal of timber.


Robert Laird Borden: What does the minister understand by the expression * public competition ' ? Does it include calls for tender as well as for public auction?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the policy of the department?


Frank Oliver: The regulations under which we are now administering timber lands provided for sale by auction only. Up to that time the sale was by tender.


Richard Stuart Lake: Where would the auction sales be held?


Frank Oliver: At the land agency of the district within which the timber is situated. That applies to the railway belt.


John Herron: Does the government provide for having an estimate made by one of their own officers of the value of timber before offering it for sale?


Frank Oliver: That is a provision of the regulations. Owing to the lull in the lumber business we have not had the same demand for limits that existed a year ago. But when we have reason to believe that it would be in the public interest to offer for sale timber in any part of the country, we first have the locality viewed by an employee of the department, who informs us as to the area covered by timber, the kind of timber, and the probable boundaries that would include the valuable timber. On his report we decide whether it is such a case as would warrant us in putting it up for sale. If we decide that the timber is of such a character, or is so situated, as to warrant us in putting it up for sale, we have the berth surveyed, then we advertise it for sale by auction at the land office of the district in which the limit is situated.


George William Fowler: How do you arrange about the cost of survey? Do you put an upset price which includes the cost of survey?


Frank Oliver: That would be our idea. In any case, the survey has to be paid for. Under the former system the person who

acquired tlie limit paid the cost of the survey, which was an expense to him over and above the bonus he paid. At present we pay the cost of the survey, and, of course, the limit is worth just that much more to the man who buys it. While we do not propose to charge it up as a matter of book-keeping, as it will work out the limit holder will pay the cost of survey, but he will pay it in the bonus he pays for the limit. The difference between the system that we worked under before and the system we work under now, is that formerly any person who wanted to have a timber berth put up, on his application it was put up. We have dropped that system now, and practically all timber is under reservation unless and until the government, in pursuance of its policy and according to the information it has, thinks it sound policy to offer it for sale.


George William Fowler: I think that is a very wise change. But the department has, I understand, adopted a regulation that I do not think is as wise as the regulation the minister has just referred to, that is, the enforcement of the clause in the license which requires the erection of a mill cutting a certain amount. If the minister persists in that regulation, I do not think he will find that it will work out to the advantage of the general public, it certainly will not work out to the advantage of the milling industry, because, as the minister knows, there is now more lumber manufactured than there is sale for. In the interest of the lumbermen, who, after all, have some rights that ought to be considered, I do not think it would be well for the minister to persist in that regulation.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman hardly expresses the case correctly. It is not a regulation.


George William Fowler: It is part of the lease but it is not necessarily enforced. I gather that the department propose to enforce it.


Frank Oliver: Yes, the enforcement will be a matter of policy. We are not insisting upon the letter of the lease. We are not insisting upon the erection of a mill and we are not enforcing the terms of the lease except with regard to limits which have been held without operation for five years. All we are asking is that when a limit has been held without operation for five years some work be performed upon it. We issue an order to erect a mill but we say to the limit holder : If you do not want to erect a mill, if you cut so much lumber from the limit, that will be accepted in lieu of the fulfilment of the terms which require the erection of a mill. We even go further than than and say that if a certain individual, or company, owns several limits we will accept the cutting upon one of these limits of the total amount of lumber that our order requires from the whole of the limits 364
owned by the single individual or company. I think we are going a very considerable distance in accommodating our instructions to the circumstances of the case. I am quite aware that the position in regard to lumbering has changed radically within a year, and I am not going to say that it would not be fair to take that into consideration in dealing with the matter, but, for the present, I just wanted to say, in the first place, that this was not a regulation, but that we are merely acting strictly under the terms of the license.


George William Fowler: I spoke of it as being a clause in the lease.


Frank Oliver: Yes. We are not enforcing it up to the limit, we are giving an alternative from the terms of the license which we think is easier, and we are permitting the operation of one limit by a company owning several in enforcing this regulation.


George William Fowler: It is not possible to cut the lumber except to cut it and pile it up in the-woods and leave it there to rot on account of the distance necessary to haul it to the mill, supposing a man has a limit upon which he has no mill. There might be a mill within ten or twelve miles, but distance would prohibit him from manufacturing except he erected a mill. Then he would be compelled to erect a mill and that would mean the throwing of an additional amount of lumber upon the market which is not able to take care of the lumber which is now upon it under natural conditions. If the policy of the government is to conserve the timber and only to have it manufactured as rapidly as the circumstances of the country required, it would seem to me that if you insisted upon the letter of the license you would be acting in contradiction to that policy. You would be insisting upon the manufacture of more lumber than the country is prepared to take care of, and, under these circumstances, and in view of the fact, as the minister has stated, that the lumber conditions in the west have radically changed within the year, it would seem to me that the strict enforcement of the regulations might be put off for another year at least until the circumstances had changed and there was a greater demand for lumber in the west.


Frank Oliver: There is certainly a great deal to be said on account of the changed conditions of the lumber industry. At the time we issued this order the conditions were quite different from what they are to-day.


Robert Laird Borden: At what date was the order issued ?


Frank Oliver: Some time last fall.


George William Fowler: It was some time in December.


Frank Oliver: Yes, about the same time as we changed the regulations.


George William Fowler: You gave a year's notice.


Frank Oliver: Yes. We have no desire to embarrass the lumber industry. But, of of course we had to consider that there is that section in the lease and the conditions being as they were two years ago, or even a year and a half ago, we felt that with that provision in the lease we would be expected to do something towards its enforcement. We could not very well ignore the fact that it was there and that we were directly responsible for its enforcement. But in view of the changed conditions I am not prepared to say that there will be any further relaxation, but I will say that we are bound to know that there has been a change in the conditions and that will no doubt be given some consideration.


George William Fowler: I can very well see that if there were a combine among the lumbermen to prevent or restrict the manufacture of lumber or to unduly enhance the price, how you would be obliged to issue the order to have a larger amount manufactured, but when these conditions do not exist, as they do not exist at the present time, it would seem to me that it would involve a very great hardship upon the men who have paid, in many cases, large bonuses for these lands, who have carried them for some years, who have paid interest, which has amounted to a very large sum, rental and the cost of fireguards, to force these men to cut their timber when, by cutting that timber the increased amount thrown upon the market would reduce the price thereby entailing a very great loss. It would be a hardship that should not be inflicted on the lumber industry.


Frank Oliver: I might go as far as to say that if the conditions were changed so that the price of lumber had dropped very considerably before the 1st of December, I would feel very much inclined to give greater consideration with regard to the enforcement of the order.


John Herron: While I know that the minister would have us understand that he has made a great effort to protect the country from fraud which might be perpetrated by means of obtaining timber limits, still, I can see that there are opportunities for fraud even in the present regulations. For instance, you send a cruiser to examine the limit and if he wishes to stand in with an intending purchaser he may report one value to the government and an entirely different and perhaps the true value to some friend who might be in collusion with him in order to obtain a valuable limit at a very low rate. The only way I see of further protecting the country would be to have a long period of advertising before the sale of the limit.


George William Fowler: 


Frank Oliver: I quite appreciate that but I think my hon. friend will find that there will be ample time between the date of advertising and the sale.
On section 54-conditions of license, protection of timber.


George William Fowler: That is very important, to see that in taking off the timber the young timber is not destroyed and the timber is not cut too small. I think that cannot be too strongly enforced, particularly in view of the fact that there are a great many American lumbermen in the country now, and in their own country they have been very destructive. I think the department should take very great pains to see that the same destructive methods which have destroyed the timber limits on the other side of the line are not adopted here.
On section 59-permits to cut timber.


John Herron: I wish to direct the minister's attention to the case of a man owning a small mill and getting a permit to cut on a square mile of timber. I know instances in which a mill cuts about double the quantity of timber daily that is consumed in the neighbourhood, and the mill owner would like the privilege of disposing of the surplus lumber to some of the lumber yards. I believe the regulations hold the mill owners down closely to the line, so that they are not allowed to sell to any but actual settlers. I would like an explanation from the minister on that point.


Frank Oliver: This provision is in the regulations now, but we desire to embody it in the Act. We make it to meet a certain condition of affairs that prevails along the foot-hills of the Rockies, and in fact in all the partially wooded sections of the country. Where the prairie is near the edge of the wood, this provision becomes very valuable, because there may be settlers near timber but far from the mill, and to provide for the cutting of the timber by a portable mill is of great advantage to the settlers. So instead of putting this little berth up to competition or requiring any heavy bonus to be paid on it, we provide that the timber shall be cut on a permit granted without competition and at a fixed bonus for the year's work. But we do not think it fair or right that the man who gets that advantage should be allowed to compete with the mill owner who has had to pay for his limit in public competition, and may have had to pay a very large price. The permit is given as a matter of policy for the specific purpose of accommodating the settler, and therefore we do not consider that the mill owner has any grievance in not being in a position to deal with the lumber in the same way as the others. He has a special privilege, which was given to him for a special purpose, and he can always put himself in the position of the other limit hold-

ers by asking for the berth to be put up at public competition.


Mr. STAPLES.: Suppose a settler has not the money to purchase the quantity of lumber he is allowed, and he wishes to turn over a portion of it to pay for the sawing of the other portion. I presume that is what the hon. member for Alberta had in mind when he spoke.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend must know that the settler is not entitled to pay for the cutting of his lumber by toll. He is entitled to get 9,000 odd feet of lumber for his own use; but he is not entitled to take 5,000 feet and allow the balance to go in payment for the cutting of that 5,000 feet.


William D. Staples: Is there anything to prevent him doing that ?


Frank Oliver: Yes, his affidavit requires him to state that the lumber is for his own use.


William D. Staples: Does the affidavit stipulate that he must use the lumber on his premises in the construction of buildings ? Once he has the lumber, can he not dispose of it as he sees tit ?


Frank Oliver: He again has been given a special privilege for a special purpose. That purpose is that he may get the lumber at cost for his own use, and he is of course subject to serious penalties if he traffics in the lumber.
On section 60-forfeiture and recovery of dues.


George William Fowler: By subsection 2 the minister, before making an order for forfeiture, shall cause written notice to be given the licensee of his intention to do so, unless within thirty days after service the licensee show cause to the contrary. This time is too short. It ought to be at least ninety days. The licensee should have reasonable time before his license is forfeited. Many of them have invested very large sums and they ought to have time to turn around. In fact I would suggest six months.


Robert Laird Borden: Ninety days would be fair, but the minister should give notice of the grounds of forfeiture.


Frank Oliver: I imagine that would be given as a matter of practice, but have no objection to inserting words to that effect.


Robert Laird Borden: Insert after the words ' so to do ' the words * upon the grounds set forth in such notice.'


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Ninety days is rather short. If a man is delinquent in paying on real estate, he is subjected to no such drastic treatment as this.


Robert Laird Borden: All he need do within the ninety days is file a petition to a judge.
364}


George William Fowler: He has to show cause why his license should not be forfeited, and if he were given sufficient time he could fulfil the condition. Suppose the condition was to erect a mill and because of the financial stringency he found it impossible to do so. He gets notice that unless the mill is erected, his license will be forfeited. He could not erect a mill in ninety days.


Robert Laird Borden: The erection of a mill would not be any answer. Forfeiture has already taken place, and anything that occurs afterwards, would not save him, unless there is a clause enabling theThinister to discontinue proceedings.


George William Fowler: Before making the order for forfeiture, the minister must give written notice of his intention, and the licensee has thirty days in which to show cause to the contrary. If he had the mill started, that would be cause to the contrary.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: Suppose he made a fraudulent return, you should not let him remain six months and go on cutting the timber.


George William Fowler: If he is guilty of fraud, you can take him at any time.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: I know of many lumbermen notified by the Minister of the Interior to erect a mill, and it would be a hardship to ask them to do so at present, because there is no sale for their manufactured lumber. But the literal interpretation of that clause would leave it open to a minister to take arbitrary action, which would work hardship in the case of a man who had spent a large amount of money on the investment.


Frank Oliver: Section 177 of chapter 55 of the revised statutes provides that a lease shall be liable to forfeiture and the minister may, without action, suit or other proceedings, and without compensation to the lessee, cancel the lease and make a new one. We are trying to get away from that very insensate provision. We want to make a provision that will be fair, equitable and workable, and I think the terms of this section will commend themselves to all parties except that there may be some question as to the time allowed. I think that ninety days is a fair and reasonable time to give the limit holder an opportunity to apply- and that is all this is for.


George William Fowler: I recognize what the minister says as absolutely correct that it is more in the interest of the licensee than the former statute was.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: But the original lease contained clauses something similar to this clause, which gave greater privileges to the licensee than was given by the original Act-


George William Fowler: True, even more leeway than that gives him. I think that is explained in the note ;

If a license is to be forfeited, there is no need of advertising the fact for three months in public print and requiring that proposed executive action should be delayed for four months and then on demand refer it to the Exchequer Court for approval or non-approval.
But the minister expresses his desire of making the thing easy and getting away, from the harshness of the old statute. The only difference between us is that I want him to go a little further away from it then, perhaps, he wants to go. I do not see any injury to the public interest in making this six months instead of ninety days.


Frank Oliver: Unless in the case mentioned by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), where there is a fraudulent return.


George William Fowler: I think that when that is once proved, the leases should be absolutely forfeited.


Frank Oliver: But it must be proven and before that, there must be the accusation, reply and ail that. I think the ninety days is long enough in this case and that it is fair to all parties.


George William Fowler: Why not give some discretion ?


Frank Oliver: I think I have about all the discretion I want in this Bill.
On section 62-timber liable for dues.


George William Fowler: I should think there ought to be even a penalty attached to that. If a man is trying to defraud the department, the dues he should be compelled to pay should be doubled-in New Brunswick, the man cutting on Crown lands is compelled to pay double dues.
On section 64-notes may be taken without affecting lien.


George William Fowler: Does that mean that, after you have taken notes, you can seize the lumber in the hands of an innocent third party ?


Frank Oliver: I think that is wjiat it means.


Robert Laird Borden: A man might find part of his house liable for timber dues ?


Frank Oliver: These sections are carried forward as they were in the old Act. I confess that they seem to be very drastic, but I did not dare to do much with them. I think they are there rather to scare people-


Robert Laird Borden: In terrorem.


Frank Oliver: Yes-rather than be enforced.	-
On section 67-if the timber has been mixed with other timber.


George William Fowler: 


George William Fowler: What is the meaning of the word ' dram ' in the sense in which you use it here ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: In making up timber on the Ottawa river, they have so many cribs to make a dram.
On section 70-disposal of seized timber.


George William Fowler: I have not noticed any place where you provide that the parties seizing timber shall notify the owner or his agent. Timber might be seized and the owner know nothing about it until after the thirty days had expired.


Frank Oliver: The principle of the Act is to throw the burden entirely on the owner of the timber.


George William Fowler: But it would not be fair to seize his timber and not let him know it.


Frank Oliver: There are many things in these regulations in regard to .timber that do not appeal to me as being fair. I have not altered these provisions. I suppose one reason of the provision is that in some cases it would be difficult to find the owner of the timber. The burden of keeping track of the timber rests upon the owner. The timber law takes it for granted that every timber man is a thief until he is proved innocent.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: With the permission of the minister, I would like to refer again to section 52, as I was not here when the minister dealt with it. Has the lumberman any right to cut pulpwood? As a matter of fact, does the license contemplate the cutting of pulpwood?


Frank Oliver: It does not contemplate cutting anything that is smaller than the size mentioned.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: So, in bidding for a timber limit, you do not know what the government is going to do.


George William Fowler: Your license, when you get it, defines the sizes. But the government has the right to change those sizes.
Mr. PUG-SLEY. In advertising it, the description will say whether it is merchantable, and describe the size which the licensee would be allowed to cut.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: The interpretation put on it by lumbermen is that when any pulpwood is cut on that limit it would be cut subject to the regulations made by the department, and the licensee would have the first rights. He has the best right to the timber subject to the regulations.


George William Fowler: If subsequent regulations were made in regard to the cutting of pulpwood he would have the first right.


Frank Oliver: In regard to section 52, I find that the officer in charge of the tim-

ber branch bas suggested some change in the wording. So we might say that section 52 shall stand for further consideration.
In connection with the description of the area within which we desire to have the pre-emption clause applied, the member for Saskatchewan (Mr. McCraney) suggested an adjustment of the eastern boundary. I would like to move a provision that would somewhat alter both the eastern and western boundaries, so that it would be before the committee for consideration when the Bill comes again. That relates to sections 27 and 28. The difference is that on the east side it is desired to use the third meridian. We leave the line of the third meridian going north. As it is proposed in this amendment, we continue on the third meridian instead of changing to the Saskatchewan river, and take the north line of township 44 throughout the whole district, from the third meridian to the Calgary and Edmonton Railway line, then take the Calgary and Edmonton Railway line for the western boundary until we reach the west line of range 26, and then follow the international boundary.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. How much further south ? Does it go to the Calgary and Edmonton line?


Frank Oliver: Down the Calgary and
Edmonton line to Macleod and it then follows the range line due south to the boundary.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: I would like to ask the minister if he intends including the area suggested by my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Jackson) and myself between Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba.


Frank Oliver: I am just asking the committee to take into consideration the proposed amendment of the limits of this area. I was not suggesting the other, but when we take this up it will be open for consideration.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The amendment is as follows :
Commencing where the west line of range 26 west of the fourth principal meridian intersects the international boundary, thence east along the international boundary to its intersection with the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste Marie Railway, thence north west along the said railway line to its junction with the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, thence west along the Canadian Pacific Railway to the third principal meridian, thence north along the third principal meridian to the north line of township U, thence west along the north line of township 44 to the Calgary & Edmonton Railway, thence south along' the Calgary & Edmonton Railway to its intersection with the west line of range 26 west of the fourth principal meridian, thence south along the west line of said range 26 to the international boundary.
Section allowed to stand.


Richard Stuart Lake: Is that the only amendment that the minister intends to move to this section?


Frank Oliver: That is the only amendment I desire to move but my hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Burrows) and my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Jackson) spoke of another amendment which they will have an opportunity of moving, I presume, when we take this up in committee.


Richard Stuart Lake: This section will stand?


Frank Oliver: Yes, I would ask the committee to revert to section 9 for the purpos^ of making, in subsection 3, the same provision with regard to including the width of road allowances in reference to the vicinity as we agreed to make in a section later on. I move that after the word ' miles ' in the seventh line of subsection 3 of section 9 to insert the words ' in a direct line exclusive of the width of the road allowances crossed in the measurement.'
Section as amended agreed to.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-CORRECTION OF ' HANSARD.'

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the House adjourns, I would like to call your attention to the report of my remarks yesterday in connection with the Civil Service Bill. Speaking of the proposed increase in the salaries of the civil service, I am reported as follows :
The present Bill does not deal with that subject except in so far as it may be dealt with in the last section. I do not think it is one which should engage the attention of the government this session.
The last sentence is an entirely inaccurate statement of what I said. I expressly and distinctly stated that this subject should engage the attention of the government this session. May I ask what business will be taken up on Monday?


William Stevens Fielding: We will continue the consideration of the Land Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 29, 1908.