outside of the reserve, or by rearing stock and cultivating land within the reserve. Recently the development of agriculture in Southern Alberta has been such that it has borne in upon the minds of these people the possibilities that there are in the raising of crops upon their reservation, and they have from time to time approached officials of the department with the request that they be outfitted with the necessary implements and seed which would enable them to cultivate on a larger scale than at present.

Although the conditions of farming are perhaps not as arduous in the west as they are in the east, still farming requires capital; there must be motive power and machinery to break up the land, sow the crop and harvest it. The Indians could not be placed in a position to carry on farming operations without an expenditure of money. Their land has become very valuable by reason of the increase of settlement in the vicinity and it did not seem to the department reasonable that parliament should be asked to vote large sums of money to supply the Indians with a farming equipment when these Indians in their own property had ample means to supply their requirements. The matter has been under discussion for some time and naturally there are differences of opinion among the band on the subject. A member of the band who had a good farming outfit, with stock and a house, would naturally not be in favour of disposing of any of the land, whereas a member who had no equipment or cultivation would naturally be inclined to view the proposition with favour. The question was brought before the band as provided by the Indian Act, the proposition being to sell for the benefit of the band, a certain portion of the reserve on the side towards the town of Macleod. That proposition was not received with favour by the band. It was then proposed to surrender another portion of the reserve and this too not received with favour. A third proposition was made for the surrender of a portion of land on the northwest portion of the reserve, which lay across the Old Man river from the portion of the reserve that was principally occupied by the Indians and this proposition was received with favour by the band. On a vote being taken, a majority of 12 of those present voted in favour of the sale of that portion of the reserve. This vote having been taken and it being considered by the department to be in the interests of the band that this land. which was of practically no value to the Indians, should be utilized to outfit them so as to enable them not only to earn their own living but to actually become profitable producers in the country, the surrender was accepted and means were taken to dispose of the property to the best ad

was

vantage. Some 35 sections of land are involved. I visited the land myself. It is to a large extent very desirable land and no doubt will produce at the sale which is advertised to take place on the 24th of this month, a very substantial amount, which will certainly be sufficient to so equip the Indians as to enable them to support themselves on the portion of the reserve which they retain. That is our belief and in that belief we have been prepared to go on with the sale. When the papers are laid before the House they will show that there is no foundation for any suggestion of impropriety on the part of the department in the matter.

There is, as I have said, a difference of opinion between the Indians who have an equipment and the Indians who have not, but apparently the Indians who have not are in the majority, and as the law says that the majority shall rule, I see nothing else but to go on with the sale as has been intended. I held council with the Indians myself for some five hours and heard arguments on both sides very thoroughly threshed out, and I certainly was of the opinion that, the surrender having been made, the sale should be carried out. ST. JOHN RIVER VALLEY RAILWAY. Mr. O. S. CROCKET (York, New Brunswick). Mr. Speaker, before the House idjourns, I would ask the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if the government have yet considered the proposal which was made to a sub-committee of the cabinet consisting of himself, the Minister of Railways (Hon. G. P. Graham), and the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Wm. Pugsley), in April last by a delegation from New Brunswick for the construction of a railroad from Grand Falls to the city of St. John by the valley of the St. John river and, if so, what decision has been arrived at? The right hon gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will remember that there was a very large delegation representing all the river counties of the province and that they represented to the sub-committee of the cabinet that they had the assurance of the government of New Brunswick that the Governor in Council of that province would undertake to guarantee bonds of any company undertaking the construction of that railway to the extent of $25,000 a mile, provided this government would agree to take over the line on completion and operate it as part of the Intercolonial system on the basis of a rental of forty per cent of the gross revenue. The delegation asked for an early reply in order that the necessary legislation might be put through the New Brunswick legislature at the last session, which was then expected to prorogue in the course of a few days. I remember the Prime Min

ister stating that he considered the proposal a very definite one and intimating that a reply would be given in a very short time. Notwithstanding that assurance, I understand that there has since been no official communication to the government of New Brunswick, or to any other authority, in reference to the action of the government, and I would like to know now if the mat

ter has been considered, and if so, what

decision has been arrived at.

Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works). Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has desired that, as this is a matter affecting more particularly the province of New Brunswick, and as I am very familiar with what has taken place, I should reply to the request of my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) for information. I may say to him that no proposal was made to this government by the government of New Brunswick, but a proposal was made on behalf of a company which, we were informed, was incorporated by the legislature of New Brunswick. The members of the company were present, and I think also some officials of the province, particularly the Provincial Secretary, the Hon. Mr. Fleming. It was stated at that time that the company had the assurance of the provincial government that they would ask from the legislature of the province authority to guarantee the bonds of the railway company to the extent of $25,000 a mile, provided the Dominion government would agree that the Intercolo nial railway should operate the line as a part of the government railway system and would pay over to the province forty per cent of the gross earnings. The government took the matter into consideration and a short time afterwards the government were informed that the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvel!) had received a telegram from the company stating that they were desirous of having a reply to the proposals which had been submitted. The member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) interviewed the Prime Minister, the Minister of Railways, and myself, and possibly other members of the government, and as a result of that interview he wired, as he was authorized to wire, to the company, that before giving-I am stating the effect of the telegram, I do Lot profess to give the exact words. Mr. CARVELL. I have the telegram

here.

W

izing guarantee subject to conditions that the Dominion government make satisfactory agreement to operate. F. B. CARVELL.

Mr. CROCKET. By whom was the member for Carleton authorized to convey that information?

Mr. PUGSLEY. I have stated that that for Carleton with the Prime Minister, the was sent after consultation by the member Minister of Railways, and myself, and the member for Carleton was authorized to send that telegram in answer to a telegram from the secretary of the company, addressed not to the government but to the member for Carleton.

Mr. CARVELL. I have the telegram sent to me.

Mr. PUGSLEY. This is the telegram dated April 27, 1909; from the secretary of the company to the member for Carleton:

F. B. Carvell, M.P., Ottawa. 'Fredericton, N.B., April 27, 1909.

We are credibly informed that local government will not introduce legislation guaranteeing bonds Valley railway unless prior assurance is received that Dominion government will operate road on completion. Would it be possible for you to obtain this assurance and wire us at once, as House rises Thursday or Friday.

J. J. F. WINSLOW, Secretary.'

The member for Carleton upon receiving that telegram saw the Prime Minister, the Minister of Railways, and myself, and he was authorized to send to Mr. Winslow the telegram of April the 28th, which I have read to the House. I may say that subsequently I received communications from the mayor of Fredericton, who is the president of the company, and I submitted the correspondence to the Prime Minister and also to the Minister of Railways, and as a result of the interviews I had with my colleagues I made it very plain and clear to the company that before this government could give a definite answer it would be necessary that a definite proposition should be submitted on behalf either of the company or of the provincial government. I called the attention of the company to the fact that an offer to merely construct a road without specifying what was to be the standard of construction, what the grades, what the weight of rails, what the kind of bridges and culverts, what the equipment of the road, and without specifying these, to ask this government to agree that the road should be operated upon the basis of paying over to the provincial government 40 per cent of the gross earnings, was too indefinite a proposition for this government to consider.

Mr. CROCKET. Would the minister allow me a question right there? Does the

minister remember the Prime Minister, the Minister of Railways, or himself, making any intimation to the delegation that such details as these would be required before this government would consider the proposal? Not a question indicating any such suggestion was asked by one of them. On the contrary the Prime Minister as already pointed out, described the proposal as a definite one which would have to be considered by the cabinet and intimated that an answer would be given in the course of a few days.

Mr. PUGSLEY. I have not stated it was asked at the conference referred to, but I have stated that it was asked in a telegram which the member for Carleton sent, and I have also stated that it was asked distinctly and clearly in the letters which I wrote to the secretary and president of the company. These letters I wrote not only upon my responsibility as the minister representing the province, but also after a conference and also a full understanding with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that no legislation was introduced into the New Brunswick legislature by the provincial government, and no proposition has yet been made by the provincial government in response to the suggestions made by the

member for Carleton and which were afterwards made by myself in the letters to which I have referred.

Mr. CROCKET. I would like to ask the minister if the government took the proposition that they would not consider the proposal until it was put in the form of a statute.

Mr. PUGSLEY. Not at all. I hope I made myself clear to the hon. gentleman. What I stated was that before this government would consider the proposal as to whether or not the Intercolonial would operate this railway upon the basis of paying over to the province 40 per cent of the gross earnings, they must know the character of the road which it was proposed to build, what would be the grades, what the description of bridges, what the weight of the rails, and what the equipment, in order that they might determine intelligently whether or not the road could be operated upon the percentage basis proposed.

Mr. CROCKET. One other question: Has not the government of New Brunswick asked for a conference with a sub-committee of the Council to discuss these matters to which the minister has referred?

Mr. PUGSLEY. I may say that the government of New Brunswick has not directly asked for a conference, but the railway company has written to me asking that I would arrange for a conference. I have written back to the president of the com

Mr.

Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). By your leave Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the House to an incident which took place yesterday. On motion to adjourn, a debate was started by my hon. friend from York, N. B., (Mr Crocket) and you, Sir, expressed the opinion that such a debate was irrelevant on a motion to adjourn. This opinion of yours was questioned by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and I agreed with the hon. gentleman in the opinion he expresed. On looking into the matter I find that your opinion was the correct one, and that so far as I am concerned, I was in the wrong. The point has been decided several times. I find. in this parliament. In 1899, Mr. Speaker Edgar ruled as follows, as reported in 'Hansard' of May 29 of that

year:

If the hon. member wishes my ruling, I eral times my view of the motion to adjourn. may say, that I have stated to the House sevThere are three kinds of motion to adjourn the House; I mean to say that they have three different effects. One is a motion to adjourn the House made while a debate is going

on.

That is in order to give a member who has already spoken in that debate, or any other member, an opportunity to speak again on the subject under discussion. Another kind of motion to adjourn the House is the motion that is made by the government to close the sitting of the House. That is really not a debatable motion. The other kind of motion is such a one as has just been made by the hon. member for York, N.B., that is a substantive motion to adjourn the House in the interval of the proceedings, which motion may be moved by an hon. member in order to bring up a particular important or unimportant public question.

all deference to the views which have been expressed by Mr. Speaker Edgar and Mr. Speaker Brodeur, and with all deference to the opinion which has been vouchsafed by the Prime Minister and by Mr. Speaker, I would like to look a little into the Engish authorities to ascertain whether that point cannot be made good.

QUESTIONS.

DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES ON INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.

Mr. PAQUET asked:

I may tell the hon. member that on the motion for the adjournment of the House, the only question to be discussed is whether the House should adjourn now or not. When the orders of the day are called, if a formal motion for adjournment is made, not by a member of the Cabinet, but by some other hon. member, in order to bring up a question for discussion, he has a right to discuss that special question; but on the motion for the adjournment of the House, which is the one made now, I do not think there can be any debate except on the question whether the House should now adjourn or not.

I understand that this opinion has been expressed twice by Speakers of the House, so it was come to after careful consideration with the Clerk of the House, at that time Sir John Bourinot, who, as we know, was quite an authority on the subject. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I questioned your ruling, and I confess that you were in the right and I was in the wrong.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. So far as I am concerned, I am not at all convinced by the Prime Minister.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I am not surprised at that.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I am not surprised that my right hon. friend is not surprised, because he has never been able to convince me. My idea, which I submit with all deference, is that any hon. member can argue that the House should not be adjourned until he has obtained some information upon a public question which he presents. That seems to me to be a very reasonable view. The proposal is that the House shall adjourn. The hon. member who desires to discuss an important subject says: It is not desirable to adjourn the House at present, but it is time for the government to give information upon a particular point as to which I desire information, and I do not consent that the House shall adjourn until I have obtained that information.' In that way he is arguing strictly and definitely upon the point of immediate adjournment; and with

2. How many employees of the Intercolonial have been dismissed at Montreal and Campbellton since the establishment of the commission?

Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals). I want to ask the hon. gentleman to be patient in regard to answers to questions of this character. It will take days to get this information. It has to come from Moncton, and sometimes from various other stations along the line. But I have asked for the information by wire.