1. How much land is set aside for the Quarantine Reserve at Coutts, Alberta?

2. How much stock was quarantined at this reserve during the past year of 1916?

3. Have representations been made to the Government for the opening of this reserve for settlement?

4. Does the Government consider it necessary to retain so much land for the Quarantine Reserve?

5. Is any of this reserve sub-let to ranchers?

6. If so, to whom, and at what rate?

1. The land set aside for the quarantine reserve at Coutts, is that portion bounded by the Milk river on the north, the Alberta Railway Company's right-of-way on the west, the International Boundary on the south, and the dividing line between ranges 14 and 15 on the east, west of the fourth Meridian.

2. The number of animals quarantined at

Coutts during the year of 1916 : 34,364 sheep, 3 goats, 3 swine. .

3. Yes, but as the land was still required for quarantine purposes, no action could be taken with a view to opening up for settlement lands included in the reserve.

4. It is considered necessary to retain our present quarantine reserve at Coutts in order to provide grazing for the large bands of sheep entering this country from the United States and quarantined at that point. Owing to the nature of the soil, it is very difficult for the animals to obtain sufficient grass without wandering over a wide territory. It is also advisable that the land

should be retained in view of changes it may be necessary to make in the Animals Quarantine Regulations as circumstances require.

5. No record of such.

6. Answered by Number 5.

1. The Department of Railways and Canals has no information as to the extent of the

movement of intoxicating liquors by the Canadian Government railways and steamers from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island, and is not aware that any movement has taken place contrary to the provisions of the Act.

2. Instructions in the hands of agents on the Canadian Government Railways recite the clauses of Federal Act May 18, 1916, as to penalty attaching for shipping intoxicating liquors contrary to law.

3. Answered by Number 2.

1. How many ships, of any kind, propelled either by electricity, steam, gasoline or sail, have been built in Canada from September 1, 1911, to date, (a) by the Government for its own service; (b) for other countries, firms or individuals; and (c) by different firms or individuals for the Government or for companies or individuals?

2. What was their respective tonnage, names, ports of register and the names of builders?

Mr. PATEhiAUDE:

Public Works:

1 and 2. Tugs and tenders:

Tonnage.

Name. Port of Registry. Gross Registered. Builder.(a) Mossy River. . . . 30-15 20 -51 Department of Public Works.Le Pas 23 '24 15 -81 Department of Public Works.Friday 38 '93 26 -48 Department of Public Works.Peguis 38 -93 24 -48 Department of Public Works.(b) Vaughan

None. 134 -04 91 -15 Department of Public Works.(c) Roustabout.. .. about ; 5 tons. Vancouver Shipyards, Limited.Runabout 10 " Westminster Marine Railways.Knockabout .. . . ** 11 " W. Menchions.Point Ellice . . . . 162 :67 69 :40 McDougall-J enkins.Point Garry .. . . .... " 19 13 Vancouver Shipyards.Point Grey 238 162 Wallace Shipyards.Fredericton

Maggie K 109 -21 24 -73 46 -76 12-35 Poison Iron Works, Limited. W. H. Kelly.No name Under construction

Naval Service:

1. (a) None, (b) None, (c) Two motor launches.

2. Tonnage, 16 tons; names, Fisheries Patrol Boats " F " and " G Not registered. Builders, H. W. Embree and Sons, Port Hawkeshury, Nova Scotia.

Railways and Canals:

1. Five, (a) For its own service, on the Rideau and Lachine canals and Hudson bay.

2. " Agnes P " built by W. H. Kelly Lumber Co., Buckingham, P.Q. Net registered tonnage 18. Port of register, Ottawa. "Carillon"; net registered tonnage 28. Port of register, Ottawa, built by the department in Lachine Canal yard. Lighters " 1 ", " 2 " and " 3 ", net registered tonnage 120 each. Port of register, Toronto. Built by Poison Iron Works, Limited.

1. How many tons of coal have been purchased by the Canadian Government railways in the United States during the past year to date?

2. What was the actual cost per ton of said coal delivered on board cars at Halifax, St. John or other points on the road?

Mr. COCHRANE:

*

1. 553,856 tons.

2. Bituminous: $4.85 to $5.10 per gross ton, Levis; $4.46 to $4.58 per gross ton, St. Hyachinthe; $4.62 per gross ton, Montreal;

$2.51 (slack coal) per net ton, Fort William; $3.25 to $3.38 per net ton Fort William (run of mine engine coal), $3.79; (blacksmith coal) per net ton $9.24 net Halifax; $9.24 net, St. John. Anthracite: $6.95 to $7.05 per gross ton, St. Hyaeinthe; $7 net, Fort William; $9.75 per gross ton, Charlottetown; $10.23 per gross ton, Halifax, N.S.

1. How much has been expended in the Yukon District for all purposes during the year ending December 31, 1916?

2. What is the present population of the Yukon?

1. Mines-Geological Survey: Mr. D. D. Cairnes, exploration expenses, $5,044,175; purchase of palaeontological specimens, $144.75, total $5,189.50.

Customs: $29,286.69.

Marine: $600 to the Meteorological Officer

at Dawson.

Post Office:

Paid from vote $123,450 88

Salaries and commissions of postmasters paid from revenue 3,860 87

1. Has the Department of Justice or any officer thereof given any opinion as to the right of judges to sit upon commissions enacted by provincial governments?

2. If so, what was said opinion?

3. Was the advice of the Department of Justice asked and obtained by the Minister of Publie Works previous to his charges before Judge Galt, that judges so acting were taking graft?

4. If so, what was the date of asking said advice, and what opinion was given by the Department of Justice?

1. No, except as may appear by the letters, copies of which 'are annexed.

2. Answered by No. 1.

3. The Minister of Public Works did not at any time ask or obtain the advice of the Department of Justice pn the question.

4. Answered by No. 3.

Ottawa, October 11, 1906.

My Dear Sir,-I have your letter of the 6th inst., asking my opinion whether the statutes of 1905, chapter 31, section 7, would interfere with your acting upon a commission for revision and consolidation of the statutes in force in your province.

I am quite aware, as you point out, that it has been usual for judges in Ontario to act upon such commissions, and that some of the judges of the Superior Courts in Ontario are appointed upon a commission, recently constituted for revision of the statutes of that province.

I have not given any very profound consideration to the question whether such a position is or is not opposed to the spirit of the enactment to which you refer. I have thought that was rather a question for the construction, judicially, and by the judge himself, which he might put upon the provision, but I may say that although the language of the section is very sweeping in its provision that judges are not to engage in any occupation or business other than judicial duties, it would occur to my mind that Parliament never could have intended to prohibit a judge from work of the character in question. Such work is offered him by the Crown itself. True, it is not the Crown in the same capacity as that from which his commission as a judge issued ; still, it is an appointment, or mandate, from the Crown itself which he is asked to undertake, and the duties, while possibly not actually judicial, are none the less of a character which demand the exercise of judicial functions and certainly such as in no way conflict with judicial duties, unless possibly to the extent you indicate, that time might be taken which otherwise would be devoted to judicial work.

Whether the acceptance of any particular commission of this character would or would not so occupy the time of the judge as- to interfere materially with his ability properly to discharge his judicial duties must, I think, be decided by each judge for himself, but upon the question whether the enactment was intended to preclude the judge from accepting a commission of this character, my view would be thp,t there was no impropriety in the judge so accepting.

. I remain, yours faithfully,

(Sgd.) A. B. Aylesworth.

The Honourable

Mr. Justice Wetmore,

Moosomin, Sask.

Ottawa, 10th May, 1906.

Dear Judge Harvey,-Referring to your letter of 24th March last, the minister desires me to say that he does not consider that your acting

as commissioner for the revision of the statutes is within the prohibition of the recent Act forbidding judges to engage in business.

Yours very truly,

(Sgd.) E. L. Newcombe.

The Honourable

Mr. Justice Harvey,

Macleod, Alta^.

Ottawa, May 2, 1910.

My Dear Maclean,-I have your letter of the 28th April with reference to your proposal to appoint Judge Drysdale Chairman of the Commission to Administer the Affairs of the Victoria General Hospital at Halifax.

I see no objection from the point of view of this department in the judge acting in this capacity, and the more especially as you state his services will be gratuitous and the position purely honorary.

I remain, yours faithfully,

(Sgd.) A. B. AYLESWORTH. The Honourable

A. K. Maclean,

Attorney General,

Halifax, N.S.

Ottawa, November 10, 1910.

Dear Sir,-I have your letter of the 8th inst., with reference to the question whether section 33 of the Judges' Act (R.S.C., c. 138) prevents a judge from acting as commissioner of the Victoria General Hospital at Halifax.

This is a matter of interpretation of a statute, and therefore one for judicial decision. My opinion in the matter is of no more value than that of any other lawyer, but I have no objection to saying to you that it would not seem to me a judge acting in this capacity was engaging in an ** occupation or business," more especially as the position, I understand, carries with it no salary of any description.

I did not know whether or not any judge of Nc>a Scotia had been in fact appointed to these positions, but some time ago the Attorney General asked me if this department would have any objection to such an appointment being made, and I replied to him that I saw no objection from the point of view of this department, inasmuch as I assumed that the duties of the office would not interfere with the judge effectively discharging his regular judicial duties.

I remain, yours faithfully,

(Sgd.) A. B. Aylesworth. John J. Power, Esq., K.C.,

Halifax, N.S.

Ottawa, 16th October, 1912.

My Dear Chief Justice,-Referring to your letter of 2nd instant, I would prefer not to express an opinion as to the application of the statute to the execution of commissions by the judges. There is, of course, quite a variety of commissions which may be issued, and some may be regarded in a different light from others. Therefore, I do not wish to give a general answer. Moreover, I think that the judges must determine for themselves in the first instance the propriety of accepting any commission, and that I must remain free to consider any case

FMr. Doherty.]

which may arise and require my consideration unembarrassed by a previously stated opinion. With kind regards,

I remain, yours very truly, s (Sgd.) C. J. Doherty.

The Honourable F. L. Lemieux,

Acting Chief Justice Superior Court,

Quebec.

Ottawa, 4th December, 1913.

Sir,-Referring to your letter of 27th ultimo, wherein you ask the Minister of Justice to be good enough to give the leave necessary so that Judge Patterson, of the County Court for District No. 5 may act as a member of the Provincial Commission as to the use of electricity in the coal mines of Nova Scotia, I observe that in your view this would not cause any interference with the discharge of the judge's judicial duties or detriment to the administration of justice within his district. In these circumstances the minister does not perceive that any leave on his part would be necessary or effectual. It is the duty of the judge, of course, to see that he does not infringe the requirements of the Judges' Act, and the minister exercises no dispensing power.

I have the honour to be, sir,

Your obedient servant,

(Sgd.) E. L. Newcombe, Deputy Minister of Justice.

The Honourable

O. T. Daniels, K.C.,

Attorney General,

Halifax, N.S.

Mr. ROSS:

What were the total receipts and expenditures respectively on the Canadian Government railways in the financial year to December 31, 1916?

Mr. COCHRANE:

Receipts, $18,658,956.42; expenditures, $18,342,733.69.

1. How many engines have been taken from the Intercolonial railway to be sent to the National Transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Moncton?

2. How many passenger and freight cars have been taken for the same purpose?

1. Engines are being moved from Intercolonial to Transcontinental and returned as traffic requires. At present there are 32 Intercolonial engines on Transcontinental track, between Moncton and Winnipeg. 4 Transcontinental engines on Intercolonial tracks. 74 Intercolonial engines were sold to Transcontinental.

2. Transcontinental east of Levis is equipped with 11 Intercolonial passenger

cars. All passenger cars west of Quebec are owned by Transcontinental. There are 1,510 Intercolonial freight cars pn Transcontinental from Moncton to Winnipeg and 1,085 Transcontinental freight cars on Intercolonial tracks. 33 Intercolonial passenger cars and 174 freight cars were sold to the Tr an scontinent al.

1. How much has the Government paid from the 1st of April, 1916, to the 1st of December, 1916, for clearing the road and removing the stones fallen into the cuts on the railway division between Hervey Junction and Fitzpatrick?

2. H^>w much has been the cost of the same on the'division between Fitzpatrick and Parent?

3. How much has been paid for the same purpose on the division between Parent and Doucet?