1905-05-25

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a notification that a vacancy has occurred in the representation of the electoral district of Levis, by the death of Mr. Louis J. Demers. I have accordingly issued my warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.
salary ?


Mr. PREFONTAINE.: He gets $1,800 a year, and every one knows that a man would not spend seven months in that isolated country without receiving something. Captain Wakeham and Captain Gordon, who were both employees of the government, and who were sent to the Hudson bay, were each voted an honorarium.


Mr. INGRAM.: This is given as an extra on account of his taking the trip ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes ; he is in the employ of the Department of the Interior as a technical officer.


Mr. SPROULE.: As the House sat late last night and as to-morrow is a holiday, I suggest we should adjourn now.


Mr. FIELDING.: I think that is a reasonable suggestion.
Some resolutions reported.



VACANCY IN LONDON.

Robert Franklin Sutherland: I have the honour to inform the House that I have been notified



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SMITH-by Mr. Louis Lavergneisked :
1 What are the reasons for the disallowance )f the British Columbia statute entitled ' An let to regulate Immigration into British Colum-)icL f ?
2.	Was there any mention of any race discrim-nation in the Act ?
3.	What are the reasons for the disallowance )f the British Columbia statute entitled An (Vet relating to the Employment on Works carried on under Franchises granted by Private
&.cts * ?
4.	Was there any mention of any race far discrimination in the Act ?
5 What are the reasons for the disallowance of the British Columbia statute entitled ' An Act to further amend the Coal Miners' Regulation Act' ?	T	_
6.	Did the Act prohibit Japanese from employment in mines ?
7.	Was any discrimination made except uu-
8.	Was the statute intended to safeguard the lives of English-speaking miners ?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: These Acts were similar to Acts that have been passed already during the last few years, and have been disallowed for the reason that they were ultra vires and not in accordance with Dominion policy.


R. AIMS TISON.
Mr. DESJARDINS (Translation) asked :: 1.	Did one R. AimS Tison obtain from the Government a position in the Dominion Printing Bureau ?
2.	If so, at what date ?
3.	What is his salary ?
4.	On whose recommendation was he so appointed ?
5.	Has the said Tison passed the Civil Service examinations ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Translation) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	On the first of May, 1905.
3.	$18 a week.
4.	The Secretary of State.


LOBSTERS IN JAMES BAY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Has the government made any investigation as to the existence of lobsters in James bay, or any of the waters of Hudson bay ? If so, what have been the results ?
2.	Has the government any information from private individuals as to the existence of lobsters in the waters of James bay, or any of the waters of Hudson bay ?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	Yes ; the investigations carried on in these localities involved inquiries into fish life, and no trace of the existence of lobsters was found.
2.	No.


LIGHT AND WHISTLE AT POINT LEPREAUX, NEW BRUNSWICK.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Who is at present in charge of the light and whistle at Point Lepreaux, New Brunswick?
2.	When was he appointed ?
3.	Who had charge of this light and whistle prior to the appointment of the present incumbent ?
4.	How long has he been in office ?
5.	What amount had he contributed to the superannuation fund, and during how many years ?
6.	Why was the late incumbent dismissed ?
7.	Was there any investigation ? If so, by whom was it held ?
8.	Has any superannuation been paid ? If not, why not ?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	George H. Thomas is lightkeeper ; Robert Lewis Belding is the engineer of the fog whistle.
2.	The keeper was appointed.in 1884 and
Robert Lewis Belding was appointed engineer by Order in Council of April 11th, 1904.	1


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: 3.	George Thomas was the former light-keeper. Frank Frauley was the engineer of the fog whistle.
4.	The lightkeeper has over twenty years' service. Robert Lewis Belding, the engineer, took charge on the 1st January, 1904, and has had over seventeen months' service at the station.
5.	George Thomas, the former keeper, paid about $125. Frank Frauley, the former engineer, did not contribute to the superannuation fund.
6.	The lightkeeper and the engineer were not dismissed.
7.	There was no investigation in either case.
8.	The former keeper was in the service in 1898, when he died. Frank Frauley, the engineer Is still in the service of the government, but does not contribute to the superannuation fund, as lightkeepers entering the service after 1st July, 1882, are not eligible for superannuation.


PATENT MEADOW CREEK RANCHING COMPANY.
Mr. BOYCE.: -by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Has any lease or patent of lands in the Northwest Territories been granted to the Meadow Creek Ranching Company ? If so, when, and upon what terms ? If a lease, for what period, and upon what conditions ?
2.	How much land was granted or leased ?
3.	What is the annual rental charged therefor ?
4.	What is the class of land covered by such lease or patent ?
5.	Who applied for such lease or patent, and when ?
6.	Where, when and how was the Meadow Creek Ranching Company incorporated ?
7.	Who are the incorporators so far as known?
8.	Have the lessees or patentees any cattle on such lands_? If so, how many ?
9.	Is such transaction in accordance with the policy of the Department of the Interior ?
10.	If not, what, if any, exceptional circumstances existed to justify the transaction ?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	An application has been made in the name of the Meadow Creek Ranching Company for a grazing lease. The conditions have been complied with, and a lease will be issued in due course.
2.	4,800 acres.
3.	The regulation rental of 2 cents per
acre per annum.	[DOT]
4.	The report of the inspector shows that the land is not fitted for agricultural purposes.
5.	John R. Craig, as manager of the company, 18th April, 1904, and 27th December, 1904.
6.	Have no information as to the incorporation of the company.
7.	The names of the members of the company are not known by the department.
8.	The inspector's report showed that the applicant had stock on the land, but did not give the number.

9.	Instructions have been issued not to grant further applications for grazing leases pending an examination into and possible revision of the regulations.
10.	The lease is being granted under the regulations then in force, there being no exceptional circumstances.


ISLANDS IN THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER.
Mr. WALSH asked :: 1.	Has this government the right to dispose
of and grant titles to the islands lying in the St. Lawrence river opposite the Indian Reserve of St. Regis ?	.	,
2.	Has any correspondence taken place _ between this government and the Quebec legislature on the matter ?
3.	Has any understanding been reached in regard to it ? If so, what is the arrangement or understanding ?


Hon. PRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	The islands in the St. Lawrence river, opposite the St. Regis Indian Reserve, are under the control of this government for the benefit of the Iroquois band of St. Regis, and the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs has the right, under the Indian Act, to sell or lease after surrender by the Indians ; or, in the case of an Indian who occupies an island with the consent of the band, the same may be leased at his request, without surrender.
2.	No correspondence has taken place between this government and the Quebec legislature in the matter.
3.	No understanding has been had with the Quebec government or legislature regarding the disposition of these islands.


POSTMASTER AT STE. MARGUERITE DE DORCHESTER.
Mr. MORIN asked :: 1.	What were the reasons for the dismissal of Louis LaFlamme, postmaster at Ste. Marguerite, Dorchester county, province of Quebec, by the Post Office Department ?
2.	Who recommended his dismissal 7


Hon.   S@: It was discovered that the postmaster at Ste. Marguerite de Dorchester had during a considerable period of time improperly disposed of postage stamps, with a view to the illegal inflation of the revenue of his office and to his thereby obtaining payment of a larger salary than he was legitimately entitled to. For this reason he was dismissed from office. The dismissal was purely departmental and not made on the recommendation of any person outside of the department.



SUPPLY-'SALE OF ISLANDS IN GEORGIAN BAY.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['We shall proceed with suddIv taking up the supplementary estimates for the current year, and attempting " dispose of them if possible, reserving the main estimates for future consideration.']
Mr. W. WRIGHT (Muskoka).: I would
like to draw the attention of the government
to the condition of affairs in relation to some islands in the Georgian bay adjacent to the shores of the districts of Muskoka and Parry Sound. I understand that there have been some differences of opinion between the Dominion government and the Ontario provincial government as to jurisdiction in reference to these islands, and I would like to know whether any arrangement has been arrived at. If they are under the jurisdiction of this government I would point out that some of these islands adjacent to the township of Baxter and in that neighbourhood are assuming some considerable commercial importance. There has been a demand for these islands for summer hotel and summer residence purposes. The development of this territory is of considerable importance to some of my constituents who live [DOT] on the mainland adjacent to these islands. These people find work there and also find a market for commodities which they are in a position to supply. It is of very great importance to them that these islands should not find their way into the hands of people who will hold them for speculative purposes ; it is important to them that this district should be developed and opportunities given to those who wish to build there and develop that section of country. I think the question is of sufficient importance to justify me asking the government whether they have any settled policy with regard to the disposition of these and other islands that may be under the control of the Dominion government which are somewhat similarly situated. There should be some fixed policy and I wish to ask the government what that policy is.


Hon. FRANK OLIYER (Minister of the Interior).: 
William Wright: About how many ?


Frank Oliver: The list of sales extends over the period from March 24th, 1884 to May 11, 1905.
Mi. A - H. BENNETT. I think it was aboiit the year 1S95 that my attention was called to these islands by a number of jier-sons who wished to become purchasers, and I at that time saw the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, or the Deputy Minister, in reference thereto. It was then decided as the minister states to withdraw all these islands from sale. I had never understood that in 1901 the then minister had made any announcement that there would be a sale of these islands either publicly or by tender, and I was rather surprised to learn later- because I live in the neighbourhood-that the government had commenced to dispose of these islands in a manner detrimental to the interests of the Indian Department which is mostly ^ interested.	To-day the minister
"ted that mJ:be case of the St. Regis reserve he would not make any sales unless with the consent of the Indians, and vet Mr. OLIVER.
liis department is selling these islands now without any consent on the part of the Indians. The department is simply throwing them away, and I need hardly say that they are thrown away to party friends. In looking over this list I see that lot 38 Island 144 Baxter township is sold to F. W. Grant for $140. May I ask the minister is that Mr. Grant a brother of the hon. member for North Ontario-well I may tell the minister that he is. I can tell the minister further that if this valuable island which is sold to this Mr. Grant for $140 were to be put lip tor public auction now, I have no doubt it would bring $800 or $1,000. There is about 40 acres in the portion of tile island sold to Mr. Grant, and I know that islands not nearly so advantageously situated, and also points on the mainland are being sold for $To to $100 per quarter acre. And vet here is the pmk and choice of the whole'of these islands given away to the brother of a mem-f0l' the paltry consideration of $140. Has the minister any applications in his office for this very island ?
Mr. OLI1ER. i did not make inquiry on that point ; I merely made inquiries as to the points covered by the question I would imagine that applications in the othee have been dealt with. I understand from the information given that the islands were surveyed by the surveyors mentioned and a valuation placed upon them, and that the applications for the purchase of the islands were dealt with in the order of priority and tile islands sold at the prices hxed by the surveyors when thev made the surveys.


Mr. BENNETT.: Had it not been for the political upset in Ontario the minister would never have been troubled about these islands, because I find from inquiries made at Toronto that this Mr. Grant and other gentlemen of the same political faith had been endeavouring to steer deals through the Crown Lands Department, but that when the political change took place in Ontario it drove them to come to Ottawa.
I am going to ask the minister :	Has the
patent issued for the grant of this lot 38 to Mr. Grant at $140 ?


Frank Oliver: I cannot answer that at the moment, hut I will find out and give an answer later.


William Humphrey Bennett: I made inquiry at the department the other day and over the signature of Mr. Pedley, I got this answer :
Letters patent have issued to Messrs James Hall Teifer and Pringle Kerr Perry for lot 38 concession 4, township of Baxter, situate on Baxter Inland, and a sale has been made to Mr. F. W. Grant of lot 38, concession 13, Baxter Island.
Might I ask the minister : Have the In- ' dians consented to these sales being made, as he stated to-day was required in the St. Regis case ?


Frank Oliver: I am not aware of the facts of the matter, hut X take it for granted there must have been a general consent given by the Indians to these sales as far back as some time previous to 1884, or, the sales which have been made since that time would not have been made. I have not asked for that information, but of course I can get it. I would certainly say that the system of dealing with these islands which has been continued for 21 years may fairly be considered to be in accordance with the usual policy of considering the washes of the Indians before it was acted upon.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister is unfortunate in this, that that policy was departed from, because on the remonstrance of myself and others in the year 1895, the islands were withdrawn from that process of giving them away for almost nothing. They were then advertised and bids asked for, and no one objected to that system of open sale.
I remember that several friends of mine went up there and looked over the islands, and I can tell the minister that had the islands been sold when the sale was advertised an honest price would have been obtained, because there would have been keen competition. That was in 1897 before a single hotel had been built in that neighbourhood whore there are now three or four ; before a house had been built where there are now several splendid houses, and when there was no regular boat service while to-day there is a good boat service. The minister will see that in 1897 the then minister withdrew these islands from sale and was intending to make an honest sale of them. Then came the protest of the Ontario government and in 1901 the minister announced that the policy to be followed was that persons who made prior applications would first be considered. That was fair. If a man had gone on to these islands and built a house it was only fair that he should have the first chance to tender. The minister (Mr. Oliver) cannot go back to what happened twenty years ago, because his own predecessor said in 1897 that the poliev of dealing with the islands was unfair and 'that there should be an open sale. It is also unfortunate for the minister that most of these purchases are strong political friends. D. S. Pratt, figures for island 35, I do not know what island that is and I cannot conjecture its worth. It is a rather striking thing that from the 23rd February down there have been some five grants of these islands. There was a perfect real estate business done'by this Mr. Grant who is now an applicant for this island and I regret to see that it is handed over to him. They were stopped with the Ontario government from getting these islands, and of course they had to follow down here to-Ottawa with the rest of the army of grafters. Here we have forty acres sold for $140, when I met a gentleman here yesterday who had paid at the rate of $75 for a
quarter of an acre on the mainland which in point of position was very inferior to this valuable island. Might I ask if the minister made this grant of island 38 on the 11th May ?


Frank Oliver: I cannot answer at the moment; if I did I must be responsible for it.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was the minister in office on the 11th May ?


Frank Oliver: Certainly I was in office and acting at that time.


William Humphrey Bennett: Had the minister made inquiries of his department he would find that in 1897 the then Minister of the Interior stated that there was to be an honest sale of the islands, free from political pull and that they should be sold open and above board. Then came the conflict of authority between the local and Dominion government. Then came the principle laid down in 1901, that any person who had made a prior application for any of these islands would be entitled to the first chance of purchase. Now, I will state, and it cannot be contradicted, that this Mr. Grant had made no application in 1901, and that the minister was acting against all the precedents in his department. This is a particularly desirable island, one of the very choicest, as is borne out by the fact that here and at Toronto, I am informed from a search that was made, about half a dozen people were after this island; and from some of the names, I know that they were people who would be prepared to pay a large price for it. The minister has in his department to-day an offer of $450 for this island which he is selling for $140. I met a friend in my town a few days ago who asked me if these islands were being sold. There is a suspicion around that they are being sold in this underhanded manner, and at prices which are not fair and honest. I would ask the minister, was not application made to him personally by Mr. Grant, the hon. member for North Ontario ?


Frank Oliver: I answer most unreservedly there was not. I had no knowledge of Mr. Grant in the transaction. If the sale went turough since I took office, I suppose I must be responsible for it.


William Humphrey Bennett: Since the minister cannot unreservedly say whether or not the application was made to him personally by Mr. Grant, I assume that is the way it came about.


Mr OLIVER.: Excuse me. I said most unreservedly that there was no interview between Mr. Grant and myself in regard to this matter.


William Humphrey Bennett: Nor correspondence?


Frank Oliver: There was no correspondence between Mr. Grant and myself either

personally, toy letter or in any other way. My first knowledge of it is from what the hon. gentleman has said.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, the minister came into office and found that his predecessors had laid it down that there were to be no grants of sales of these islands in this manner, and yet he overrides this decision. I believe the minister has an offer for this very portion at an increased price; and yet he is selling it, in defiance of the Indian law-because I think I am within the facts when I say that there have been no surrenders on the part of the Indians of these islands. May I ask the minister finally, in regard to lot 38 on island 144, sold to F. W. Grant for $140, whether, if the patent has not been issued, he will cancel the sale, and cause this and other islands to be offered for sale publicly and above board ?


Frank Oliver: I can hardly be expected to make a definite answer to a question like that on a legal point at such very short notice; but I would think that, the arrangements having been made before I took office, it would be only proper that I should carry out those arrangements. If I find that to be the correct state of the case on inquiry, I will certainly not cancel the sale to Mr. Grant.


William Humphrey Bennett: If that is the stand the minister is going to take, I am rather surprised. I had expected different from the hon. gentleman. When his attention is called to the fact that he has in his department to-day a letter offering three times the price for this island at which it is being sold to Mr. Grant, he proposes to carry out and consummate this deal. Whether the minister wants to accept my assurance or not, I can tell him that if these forty-five acres were put up to public sale today, I believe over $1,000 could be realized for them. It is unfortunate if the hon. gentleman should start the work of his department with actions of this kind in that part of the country. In the Public Works Department, as I said before, nobody up there expects anything straightforward, above board or honest; in the Marine and Fisheries Department it is the same; and if the Minister of the Interior is going to make a record for himself in that part of the country which will be on a par with the records of these other departments, he will pretty nearly excel the conduct of the Ontario government in regard to the Grown lands there. While there may not toe as speedy an investigation of these matters as there has been of the Crown lands affairs in that part of Ontario, I can tell the hon. gentleman, from what I have seen of some of the revelations, that they are going to be rery spicy indeed, as to how the province has been defrauded for years of its Crown timber dues, and how the Crown authorities have endeavoured to cover up the frauds.


Frank Oliver: I expected better things of the hon. gentleman; and yet he is going to hand over this island for $140 to the brother of an hon. gentleman who has already made inroads on the Department of Marine. The hon. gentleman was in the House last session when it was shown that through the influence of the hon. member for North Ontario and this very applicant, the timber on Hope Island to the value of $3,000 or $4,000 had been given away to a party friend for a paltry $100. It is true, this is perhaps not as big a steal as that was ; but I am sorry to see that the minister has no disposition to nip in the bud transactions of this kind when they are pointed out to him as plainly as this has been. His conduct will not commend itself to his political friends in that neighbourhood ; and I need not say it will not commend itself to his political opponents. I know of Liberals who are anxious to buy these islands, and all they ask is that they shall be sold openlv and above board, instead of being disposed of in the way this has been, at the cost of the general public for the benefit of some party hangers-on.
Mr. OLIVER, Mr. Speaker, if I have the privilege, I will only say that my hon. friend has taken care to leave upon the House the.impression that there have been improper transactions in connection with these lands in general, and this island in particular, and has as far as possible connected myself with these alleged improper transactions. I will not follow him in that line of argument. I merely want to place the rights of the case, as I understand them, before the House. My hon. friend has seen fit to say that the department was trespassing upon the rights of the Indians in selling these lands. That is a very serious allegation, to which I certainly would not wish to be subject; but I would point out to the House that if the department of to-day is guilty of that offence, the department" of 1S84 was the one which in the first place was guilty ccf it and continued to be guilty of it until 1896. My hon. friend will notice, in the list of sales, a series of sales which took place in March, 1896. As to the statement made by my hon. friend that a special case is made of this particular island, part of which is being sold to Mr. Grant, I do not think the .record will bear out his statement. I think the list of sales which has been placed in his hands demonstrates very clearly that his statement was absolutely and utterly unwarranted, and that there have been sales to others under similar circumstances.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister allow me to state that I find that Mr. Telfer was granted part of the same island for $240 and I would give twice as much for the part which Mr. Grant is getting.


Frank Oliver: That is not the point I was dealing with at the moment. I hope

I shall be allowed to make my statement continuously. What I said was that the hon. member, in making the statement that Mr. Grant was being dealt with in an exceptional manner in that a sale was being made to him under circumstances under which sales were not being made to other people, was making a statement of which he had the proof to the contrary actually in his hands and under his eyes at the time.


William Humphrey Bennett: I call attention to the fact that there was another political friend, Mr. Pratt, given an island for a paltry $30.
I do not know this particular island, so that I cannot express an opinion upon it.


Frank Oliver: I say the hon. gentleman is absolutely unwarranted in making the statement because he had the proof to the contrary in his hands and under his eyes. As to the method of sale, I have not been administering the department long enough to become familiar with all the details, but when I find that a certain system has been in vogue for a number of years I do not feel free to change it before making fair and reasonable inquiry. According to the memo, put into my hands, the method par-sued in selling the islands is this : A valuation was placed upon them by the surveyor at the time of the survey, and sales are being made at the price so fixed, and the applicants get the preference according to priority. That may not be the best way but it may very well be accepted as a fair way, and had it not been for exceptional circumstances, such as the establishment of summer hotels on these islands, that valuation would probably stand good to-day. But, possibly, owing to these exceptional circumstances, it has varied to such a degree as to make desirable a revaluation and a revision of the system. In 1897, the minister then administering the department made preparations for a general sale of these islands by auction. At that time the government of Ontario intervened and successfully intervened, though on what grounds my memo, does not say. The intervention of the Ontario government prevented the sale. I submit that the administrator of the department is in a somewhat difficult position. If he should wish to sell the islands by auction, there comes an objection from the government of Ontario which claims to have some right in the islands. Then when he proceeds to sell them at private sale, at the price fixed by surveyors, to applicants in order of priority, he is met with objection. I would respectfully ask what hon. gentlemen opposite suggest should be done with the islands ?


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Is it considered that the government of Ontario had any right to intervene ?


Frank Oliver: According to the memo, in my hands, the government of Ontario
intervened to prevent sale by auction, I do not know the reason.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. minister should have full opportunity of making himself acquainted with this subject. I would suggest that when he comes down again, he should be prepared to answer all reasonable questions. Why is it now the policy of the department to sell these islands by private sale when up to a certain time the policy was to sell by public tender. I do not see that the intervention of the Ontario government has anything at all to do with that question. The government can come to a conclusion as to the extent to which it will regard the wishes of the province of Ontario, but surely it cannot allow that province to control it. What we are concerned with is that these islands should not be disposed of to friends of the administration at one-third or one-quarter of what other people are willing to give. That is what I would like my hon. friend to explain when bringing down further information.


Frank Oliver: I was proceeding to say that after the Ontario government intervened and stopped the sale by auction, the department afterwards offered them at private sale at the public schedule prices, with the consent of the Ontario government, and that again is objected to. I ask how are the islands to be disposed of ?


William Humphrey Bennett: In 1897 they were not put on the basis of so much an acre. I remember several of them were tendered for by friends of my own and they wer^ put up to the highest bidder. Nobody has any cause to complain of that. And had this been put up to the highest bidder, though it was not worth one quarter as much then, it would have brought $400 or $500. To-day it is worth twice as much.


Mr. TAYLOR.: When was the valuation made by the surveyor ? If it was about fifteen or twenty years ago, they were then worthless whereas now they are most valuable If the government have gone on selling on the valuation of the engineers made twenty or thirty years ago, they are not selling them at anything reasonable compared with their value to-day.


Frank Oliver: The survey was made in 1895 or 1897.


Robert Laird Borden: The surveys of the islands in question were made under instructions given June 14, 1896.


William Wright: I understood that the policy of the department was to put these islands up in small lots of not more than five acres. I would like to know the cause of the departure from that policy ?


Frank Oliver: The papers state that the regulation, adopted in 1887, was that the lots should not be larger than twenty

acres each ; that is if an island was larger than twenty acres, it was divided into lots and the price was fixed accordingly. Of the smaller, those islands, down to five acres, were sold separately. And where there were two islands of less than five acres near together, they might be sold together. What I wanted to say was that, apparently, there is some claim to a right in these islands on the part of the Ontario government.


William Humphrey Bennett: They have given up their claim.


Frank Oliver: I would not so understand it from the terms of this memorandum ; for it says specifically that all these sales that have been made have been made subject to the approval of the Ontario government. So, I should fancy there still remains some claim as to the ownership of the islands and that, while that question of ownership remains, it is not possible for the Indian Department to dispose of the islands except with the concurrence of the Ontario government. If that is the fact, of course, this department may be to blame for not having arrived at a conclusion in regard to absolute ownership- there may be some fault to be found on that ground. But I submit that there is evidence before the House that the department have made reasonable efforts to secure the disposal of the islands at prices in the best interest of all parties.


Mr. EDWARD COCHRANE.: Will the hon. minister allow me one question ? He appears to be somewhat confused why we should find fault when the Ontario government steps in and interferes with a sale by private auction. Now, somebody interferes when the minister sells by private sale. What I would like to ask is this : If he has power to sell by private sale, why has he not power to sell by public auction ?


Frank Oliver: The sale by public auction was the sale of all the islands. And, in that case, of course, the Ontario government's rights would have been


Edward Cochrane: But if the minister has power to sell one island by private sale, has be not full power to sell them all by public auction ?


Frank Oliver: The difference is that the Ontario government might forego their rights in one island, but if the sale of the whole


Edward Cochrane: Why don't you answer my question ?


Frank Oliver: I am answering it.


Edward Cochrane: You are going a long way around, so that nobody can understand you.


Wilfrid Laurier: With reference to the question asked a moment ago, Mr. OLIVER.
by the leader of the opposition as to the interest of the Ontario government in these islands, I cannot say that I can give an explanation that will be absolutely satisfactory even to myself, because I speak from recollection and it is some time since I have refreshed my memory on the subject. I believe that in this case is involved the same question that was settled in the case of the St. Catharines Milling Company. I do not know whether my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) remembers that case. It involved a conflict of jurisdiction between the Ontario government and the Dominion government as to which could sell the timber on certain lands. It was claimed by the government of Ontario because all the lands belonged to the government of the province. On the other hand, it was claimed by the government of the Dominion because this was land reserved for the Indians and the Dominion has the management of the Indians. So there will be the same case here, and that probably is the basis of the Ontario government's claim that they were the owners of the land though that land was occupied by and administered for the Indiaus.


Robert Laird Borden: I would suggest that there cannot be any good reason which would enable us to dispose of these lands at private sale for apparently much less than they can be disposed of at public auction, and yet would prevent us from disposing of them in the regular way.
Sir WILFRID L^uxilER. That is a part of the question. That is another aspect of the question


Robert Laird Borden: The practical aspect.


Wilfrid Laurier: That mav be the more practical side of the case. At present, I would not be prepared to give +1? 8	on ^Je subject. My hon. friend
the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) will have to inform himself on the sub-jeet. At one time these islands had very little value. If they have increased it is only of late. The Minister of the Interior will look into the matter and give an explanation. ^


Hon. JOHN HAGGART.: When the Minister of the Interior brings down the papers on this subject, I hope he will include the correspondence between the Ontario government and this government in reference to the ownership of the island. I think that perhaps the same objection was made by the Ontario government as they made to the sale of certain islands of the St. Lawrence. I remember perfectly well that their objection was not that the Dominion government had not jurisdiction over the islands at all, but that, in the interest of the public of Ontario, all these islands should be reserved for common use. They made application, I remember, to the Dom-



[Stage Direction]
inion government to make an offer of what the government would take for the whole of them. Their intention-not stated, but easily understood-was to reserve the islands as a park for the use of the general public. I am not in a position to state with certainty that the same point is involved in this case of the Georgian bay islands. But there is no answer to my bon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. ' Cochrane)-if you have the power to sell at all why have not you power to sell by auction as well as by any other way ?
Frank Oliver: That was not his point at all.


John Graham Haggart: That is the statement he made. The minister shelters himself bejiind the statement that these islands were offered at an upset price and given to applicants in the order of their application. But he must remember that the statement was made in this House by the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) that that state of affairs should no longer continue, that the public would have the right to purchase the islands by competition. That was set aside as the Minister of Interior (Mr. Oliver) says, because of any protest in the Ontario government. But since that he has exercised the power to sell without informing the House as to the altered disposition of the department in reference to these lands. We had the statement made in the House that these lands would no longer be sold by public competition. Nothing has happened since that statement was made that prevents the minister from carrying out that promise. There has been no interference of the government of Ontario that would cause or excuse any such change. The minister says that we make the sales with the consent of the Ontario government. The consent of the Ontario government would only be as to the fact of sales. If the people of Ontario have any right in these islands, their interest must be, like that of the Indian Department, that the largest sum possible should be received from the- sale of them. But, instead of that, the Minister of the Interior leaves himself open to the charge of favouritism by selling to a brother of one of the members of this House one of these islands at a price, as my hon. friend has said, only one-tenth of what should have been paid for it.


Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER.: If that matter is disposed of I would like to bring to the attention of the government another question-the scrip of non-resident halfbreeds. My remarks on this subject the other day were intended to bring out information and not to take a one-sided or partisan view of the matter. To-day, my remarks shall be in the same strain. I am going to ask the minister to bring down certain papers in order to show up the whole transaction, so that we may And out the facts.	,


Wilfrid Laurier: In a strictly non-partisan way.


George Eulas Foster: My right hon. friend (Sir U ufrid Laurier) looks rather quizzical when I make that statement ; but if he will watch, he will see that I do not go tar beyond the strictly business aspect of it to-day. My right hon. friend will remember that in 1900 or 1901, this *whole question of giving money-scrip and land-scrip to the half-breeds who had not been served before was debated in this House. That is the first point I make-that after the policy of the government was clearly stated, after objection to it by members on this side- and probably by some on the other side, though I do not remember,-and after a thorough discussion of that policy, the government's policy prevailed.
Now as a result of the conference with parliament-for that is what it was-the government got the right to dispose of a certain amount of the public domain towards the satisfaction of the claims of the half-breeds. It was upon that conference and public discussion in parliament that the first commission was appointed, of which Mr. McKenna was a x>rominent member, though I think the commission consisted of three, or four, or five, and I am quite certain there were others besides civil servants or employees of the government on it. It was a general commission. That commission went all over the ground-that is the second point I want to make-they visited the localities they conferred, after due notification was given with all and sundry who were interested, heard the evidence, made their investigation and came to their conclusions. That report was handed in in 1901, it was approved by Order in Council on the 6th of June, 1901. Now what were the principles laid down, after discussion in parliament and the revelation of the government's policy, and after that policy prevailed ? I am not going to take up every point of it, but on one point it was explicit, that with reference to certain half-breeds, those, for instance, who were not resident in Canada, who had gone to the United States and had gone upon the Indian or half-breed reservations there, and were supposed to participate in the advantages of the residence in the United States on those reservations- it was absolute in this respect that their claims were not to be allowed. I will read a summary of the report:
The claims of such half-breeds, namely, halfbreeds who were born in the Northwest Territories between the 16th of July, 1870, and the end of the year 1885, the claims of such halfbreeds were not prejudiced on account of their residence outside of the Northwest Territories, provided their parents had been permanent residents of the Northwest Territories at the time of their birth, but under clause 6 of the regulations subsequently established and approved by Order in Council of the 6th June,

1901, half-breeds who had left Canada and taken up their residence on Indian reservations in the United States and participated in the benefits of Indian life thereon, as well as all half-breed children admitted to the United States Indian schools, were excluded from participating in the grant of scrip.
That is an excerpt from the report which was approved by Order in Council. Well, now, commencing after this public avowal of the government's policy, after consulting parliament with reference to it, and after the acquiescence of parliament, the government got the right to dispose of public moneys to the amount of $240 to each half-breed, and to give scrip to the amount of 240 acres of land to each halfbreed entitled to it, to dispose of the public domain up to that amount. Now this went on for three years or thereabouts, when a change is made, and in 1904 this policy was absolutely reversed, and under the reversal of policy, the very class of claims which had been excluded, after discussion in parliament, after the investigation of the half-breed commission. after the approval of	Council-that very policy
and that very class of claims were reversed absolutely. On whose authority ? Not on the authority of parliament, not even after a consultation with parliament that it was proposed to reverse that policy. Parliament was not consulted at all in the matter ; but the minister himself, off his own bat, undertook to recommend that money and public domain which had not been authorized to be disposed of by this parliament, by conference or by acquiescence in any way, should be dispensed to a class of claims that both parliament and the government had declared should not participate in it. That is the second fact that I want lion, gentlemen to keep in their minds as we discuss it.


John Graham Haggart: How did parliament declare it ?


George Eulas Foster: I take the ground that parliament declared it in this way : That the government did what was right before they undertook to dispose of a lot of the domain of the country and of the money of the country, and they brought the matter before parliament, and we discussed it fully. Now it was an acquiescence by parliament ; whether any motion against it was moved. I do not know. If a motion against it was not moved, parliament approved of it. If there was no motion against it, then, after discussion, even though dissent was made, there was an acquiescence by parliament. It was not in the form of an enactment, because the Dominion Lands Act, I believe, is wide enough to cover even that, though I do not believe it ought to be-that is a point I will come to a little later. So I say it was really by authorization made, I am correct in saying it was with the acquiescence and assent of parlia-Mr. FOSTER.
ment at least. Now for three years that went on, when suddenly this change took place, on the initiative of the minister himself, on the 13th of August 1904. Now there might be sufficient reasons why a change should be made. There might be an agitation by those whose claims had been disallowed, thinking they had been unjustly treated, and that consequently their case should be taken up again. In the Order in Council authorizing it that is not given as a reason. It might be that friends of the half-breeds interesting themselves for the benefit of the half-breeds, would bring the matter before the government and make a plea with that old idea that the policy should be reversed and that these people should get their claims satisfied. That is not given as a reason in the Order in Council. The chief reason that is given by the minister himself is this, that it was an interference with vested interests which he did not believe ought to he any longer persisted in. Well, now, is not vested interests one of the most apparent forms of property which, from time immemorial, almost, under constitutional governments, has been discussed and is absolutely well known by governments, by members of governments and by members of parliament ? The minister himself in the very Council and in the very parliament in which this former policy was avowed and in which it was sanctioned, the very members of the government, the keenest minded of them, were there then just as they are now ; and other members of the government at that time, like Sir Oliver Mowat, like the Hon. David Mills and other men, legal men, well versed and old politicians, were there. The question of vested rights had no force in parliament in 1901, had no force in the cabinet in 1901, had no force all the time that this policy was being discussed and was being formulated and carried out. But suddenly, in August, 1904, the Minister of the Interior makes the discovery that there has been a gross abuse and violation of vested interests, and in his report to Council he recommends that this be reversed, and he opens a way by his recommendation to have all these claims taken up. Now what is the way in which he opens up the road to these claims ?	.	,
Whtn in 1900 it was proposed to give away the public domain or the public money and a commission was mooted, found favour and was adopted, it was a public commission which was appointed. Did the minister propose to appoint a public commission ! No, in the Order in Council he recommends that an officer of his department, a private employee of the department, shall have the same power that the commission had in 1900, shall traverse this question and shall take up the claims which were disallowed under that commission, investigate them and report upon them. His name is Cote and I believe he was on the former commission or

secretary of it ; I am saying nothing against him, my point is that when the minister proposes to open a way to the giving away of a large portion of the public domain or public money he does not follow the precedent in the former case but appoints an employee of his own department and obtains authority to start him on examination. It does not appear from these papers that the employee so given such powers ever advertised to the public interested that he was going to undertake another investigation, ever travelled through the portions of country where these men would be found, assembled them together, took evidence or anything of the kind. I believe from what I get from these papers that all he did was to take the disallowed claims, go over the evidence that had been submitted and make his report therefrom. It does not appear from these papers that he advertised the claimants or the holdings of meetings at which to take evidence or that he took any new evidence and then he reports, and it is on this report of his that this action is taken. The minister has not brought that report down and I do not know whether it was ever given to the minister or to the council in the shape of a formal report or whether he simply gave his conclusions to the minister and to the council, but the conclusions are all that are embodied in the papers which I have. By the former commission I think 468 claims were allowed, and 388 were rejected. Mr. Cote takes up 375 of these 388 rejected claims and his conclusions are that of those 136 are to be allowed, 09 are to be held over for further consideration and are still pending, and the remainder about 170 are to be rejected. This is the new commission, a private party, an employee of the department who without advertising, without taking new evidence, seemingly without any authorization of any public investigation so far as we can tell other than that which I have mentioned, brings in the number that I have mentioned out of the claims disallowed by the former commission and reports them as having been allowed. Now what is the next thing that takes place. So far as I can learn that, was done in August, 1904, but no notification of this was given in the ' Canada Gazette ' until October. 1904. I think it was on October 15 1904, that the Order in Council was published in the ' Canada Gazette.' The work was done in August, 1904. The resolution was confirmed, by the Order in Conn-cil in August, 1904, but no public notice of it was allowed until October 15, of the same year. That is a point which is worth while taking into consideration as well. So far as I can learn-and. I want to draw the attention of the minister to this-no notification was ever given to the half-breeds interested and no notification was given to the land agents ; there is no evidence so far as this intimation goes that the land agents were notified until March 10th. 1905. Now the most important circumstance comes in just
here. As the memorandum states, as the Order in Council states, it has been the invariable rule of the department which was embodied in a regulation and passed by Order in Council that no land scrip of these half-breeds could be located without the personal attendance of the scrip holder himself. This is a most important thing to bear in mind because with people with traits of characted such as these have, amiable in many ways, but not of the most thrifty and frugal kind, it was, I suppose, found to be the only way in which they could be safeguarded from giving up their scrip improperly, or having it taken from them improperly and so the regulation of the department, authorized and approved by Order in Council, was that there should be no assignments, no powers of attorney with reference to this land scrip, that it should not be located unless located in person by the man to whom the scrip belonged and was granted and the most stringent conditions were imposed to insure that even if his scrip were transmitted to him it should be transmitted to him in a way which would ensure its being safely carried into his very presence and given into his very hand. But shortly after the passage of this Order in Council in August, 1904, in the month of December-no I do not see that there has been any letting up of that condition which I have stated in any other way than the way that I am about to bring to the attention of the committee. The only information, the first information which comes out in these papers, is that on the 10th day of March, 1905, a departmental letter was written to the Indian agents informing them that now and from that time on this land bearing scrip could be located without the personal attendance of the person to whom it was granted.
I want the Prime Minister to pay attention to this because I think it is a grave thing for us to consider, unless other information takes away from its gravity, and I am not going to say that there is not other information to be brought down, while the invariable rule was made so by a regulation approved by Council, there does not appear to have been any approval of Council to the reversal of that rule and to the carrying out of the policy of the departmental letter written -in March, 1905. If I am correct and if this is all the information there is ifl this respect, the Minister of the Interior himself turned down the regulation made by Order in Council for the purpose of guarding the rights of the half-breed, and bv his own ministerial will reversed that policy and intimated to his land agents that personal attendance was not longer a necessity If that is so it is rather a grave matter [DOT] there may be information which would make that different and if there is we would like to have it brought down. It was an Order in Council too, that in the matter or the assignments of scrip-referring to money

scrip I suppose largely but made generally- if there was one assignment and after it another came in and then another from different parties, it was an Order in Council that the first assignment was to be the legal one. On the 17th December, 1904, the Minister of the Interior had that rescinded by Order in Council and had left the whole matter as to which of these applications should receive his assent to his own will or his own whim. It was taken out from the Order in Council which would make it go before the council ; taken out from the order which would rule him, and left entirely indefinite in his own hands. Now, I come to this other point. What reason was there why, after this policy had been settled on and carried out for three years, that in August of 1904, without a scintilla of evidence to show there was pressure by these half-breeds, the minister comes in and changes this whole policy. Why ? No pressure, no public interests, no anything ; nothing shown except the minister's scrupulous desire that vested rights should not be any longer violated as they had been. Nothing other than that his innate sense of justice and his burning indignation which after three or four years got to the bursting out point made it impossible for him any longer to sit in Council under the idea that the vested rights of these non-resident halfbreeds should not be satisfied. The uncharitable view might be, and may be a view not uncharitable, that it was the near approach of the election that stirred the^ matter. The elections were held in November, 1904 ; on August 31, 1904,'the pipe-line was commenced to be laid. What else happened ? If it is true that any notification was given to the -half-breeds'themselves who were primarily and solely interested, that their claims disallowed in 1900 bad been taken up again and were now allowed ; if there was any notification by the government or by the department to the halfbreeds, it does not appear. But it does appear that there was notification ; if not notification that information percolated to various interested persons not half-breeds : persons not interested in the welfare of the halt-breeds, not caring a bawbee for all the haif-breeds put altogether, but who belong to that class of people that are always clinging on the skirts of the government trying to find out something to get on to that they may make a penny Out of it.
XS ell they got on to it evidently, for about that time-after August and between August	and October	when the first
public	intimation of this went out
in the ' Gazette '-various things were tak-piace- A man turned up somewhere in oakota affirming that he was an agent of nL?rml0n government; having various Donnmon papers and forms about him.
a notabl? thing about it was that although he said he had come to investigate half-breed claims, the thing he wanted and Mr. FOSTER.
the only thing he tried to get was an assignment from those who formerly had rejected claims, for his own person and in his own name. I cannot do better than read an item which I find in a newspaper, which states :
Dunseith, North Dakota, May 13.-One of the most interesting sights North Dakota has been treated to for some time occurred a few days ago between this town and St. Johns, on the highway. Early last fall

hands of knowing and friendly speculators within six months of the time -that the commission sat. What is being done in these cases ? 32,640 acres of land, 240 acres for each scrip, that have to be located-for whose benefit ? The half-breeds ? Not a whit. For the benefit of the lucky one who got the information. How much has he paid for the scrip ? I do not believe on the average he has paid $100 for each certificate. Suppose he has, there are 32,640 acres of land which to-day is worth at least $6 per acre. In many sections of the country the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is not to-day selling a bit of land except to settlers at less than $6 an acre ; and the settler has to pay $5 an acre at the minimum, and $0 in a large part of the country. That land then represents a cash value of $200,000 ; and suppose that the minister, bold, audacious and unscrupulous, as he was-not my hon. friend who is sitting there, but his predecessor. My hon. friend cannot have all the honey without having some of the gall. If he takes the benefit of the office, he must take on his shoulders -the iniquities of the previous minister. If the minister, audacious and unscrupulous, as he was known to be, had come down with a proposition to take $200,000 of the people's money, and had got past the Auditor General, and had given it away to his friends, there would be something like a mild riot, though not on that side of the House. There might be some dissent on that side, but I verily believe the minister would look to his supporters to see him through. He would swear that vested rights were in question and that $200,000 was not too much to pay under the circumstances. But is it worse to take $200,000 in hard cash, unauthorized by parliament, than to take $200,000 worth of the public domain and alienate it without any parliamentary warrant ? My right hon. friend and the Minister of the Interior may plead that this is legalized by the Dominion Lands Act; but if that power is there, ought it to be exercised by a government whose duty it is to guard the public domain and the interests of this country ? That is the way the matter stands. I am not going to condemn the Minister of the Interior ; I am not going to say anything harsher than I have just said, but what I want is to get the papers down and all of them. I want the three Orders in Council which are still missing. I want that departmental letter discussed March 10, usurping the authority of the government. I want all the applications for those scrip and the lands they represent and all the correspondence in that connection, so as to ascertain what force was brought on the minister from the outside to stir him up, if he was stirred up from the outside at all. In fact I want everything concerning this transaction. If the transaction turns out to be right, the department shall have the benefit of the Mr. FOSTER.
adjudication, but it is now lying under grave suspicion. If this transaction is anything like what it is stated to be, it is time for this House and country to do a little serious thinking regarding the manner _ in which our public affairs are being carried on.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish at all to impede progress but I think it is only fair that a request for papers should be made in definite form so that we may know exactly what we are called on to produce.


George Eulas Foster: I have made out a memo, of what I think ought to be brought down. If the minister thinks I am asking too much, let him say so. If he thinks I am not asking enough, he can supply what is wanting.


Frank Oliver: I merely make this request because on several occasions recently I have been asked off-hand for information, and the department is put at considerable disadvantage when such requests are not definite. No doubt it is the privilege of the hon. gentleman to criticise as severely as he can the conduct of the government and represent the action of any department in as unfavourable a light as possible, but in connection with this matter let me make this explanation. The first Order in Council defining the rights of the half-breeds to scrip was definite and comprehensive. ' But in giving effect to it, the commissioner saw fit to put restrictions upon the issue of scrip which had never been imposed before. There have been several issues of scrip in the Northwest. In 1885 there was an issue. Again in 1899 in the Athabaska district; again in 1900 and 1901. It was only in, 1901 that the commissioner saw fit to make this restriction debarring half-breeds, who otherwise had a right to the scrip, from participating in the grant because of their status in a foreign country. I have never been able to understand the justice of that decision. However it was given and acted upon ; but instead of the half-breeds letting the matter drop from their minds, as my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has said, they kept it very strongly in their minds. If my hon. friend knew the half-breeds as well as I do, he would know that they are a people who retain in their minds a long time a sense of injury suffered. In their opinion, the decision of the commissioner was unjust. What reason may have actuated the late Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) in moving for a new Order in Council and remedying that injustice, I am not prepared to say ; but if a substantial injustice was done, the fact that an election was approaching, was no reason why it should not be remedied. That might give grounds for the suggestion of improper motives ; but if the business of the country is to stand still because of an election, we are about to create a most re-1 markable and unwarranted condition of af-

fairs. From the standpoint of the halfbreeds at any rate and of the people of the west, who are more or less intimately acquainted with them, there was a general belief that the decision of the commission was unjust and that the remedying of that injustice was very proper. That remedy affected lands to the amount of 32,640 acres.


George Eulas Foster: That is all land scrip.


Frank Oliver: I take it for granted that it is.


John Graham Haggart: In what respect was the decision of the commissioner unjust ? And why does the hon. minister differ from him ?


Frank Oliver: In my opinion, if these people had certain rights by reason of their birth, these rights were not vitiated by the fact of their removing to the United States. Until they had become citizens of the United States they still were considered as entitled to the rights they had acquired by birth. It was only such of these half-breeds as had become, in fact, through a greater or less degree, Indians of the United States that were held to have lost their rights as Northwest half-breeds.


John Graham Haggart: If I understood the minister correctly, the mere fact that they were considered Indians in the United Stated was not sufficient, but the point was that some of them had participated in the reservations set aside for the Indians of the United States, were receiving the annual grants and getting the benefit of the Indian schools. Was that not the reason ?


Frank Oliver: As I understand, it was not confined to that. Any half-breed who had placed himself, directly or indirectly, partially or wholly in the position of an Indian in the United States, was debarred. The view taken by the half-breed himself-


John Graham Haggart: I would like to get the minister's view. That view was different (from the views of the commission. I would like the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) to give reasons ?


Frank Oliver: I have tried to state the reasons already, but I will repeat them. The reason why I hold a different view is the same as that which governs the opinion of the half-breed himself-that the birth of a half-breed was his title, and that his action after his removal to the United States did not in any way violate his birthright. That birthright could not be affected by his subsequent action in a foreign country. That was the view subsequently taken by the Minister of the Interior, I believe, after a full review and consideration of all the circumstances of the case-an^, I believe a just and fair view. And the Order in Council of the 13th August last, was passed in consequence of that view having been taken.
Now, again I say, the result of this Order in Council and of granting to these halfbreeds what they and a large number of the people of the west believed to be the right, has resulted or will result, in the alienation of 32,640 acres of land. Now, whatever wrong is done to the Dominion of Canada, whatever alienation of that public domain *has taken place, whatever disadvantage may accrue to this country has occurred because of this Act of, what we will say is, justice to these people, and not because of any subsequent action that has been taken. Either these half-breeds had to be refused the scrip to which they believed they were entitled as their birthright, or else that land must be alienated. There is no choice, and my hon. friend who is so very logical must take either one position or the other. That being established, I do not know that there is much more to be said. The fact that departmental instructions were issued to the land agencies to permit of entry for the land without the presence of the person to whom the scrip was issued is certainly a departure from the rule that has hitherto been allowed.


George Eulas Foster: Do all the minister's regulations have to be approved by Order in Council ?


Frank Oliver: Oh, yes. But this, I understand, was not a regulation, but an order of the minister to the land agent.
I am not able to answer for the minister as to the reasons for taking that action, nor am I responsible to the same degree as in the case of the Order in Council. But I take it for granted that the reasons for this permission, quoted in this case were : The non-residence of these people in Canada ; there residence at a very great distance from the office at which they must locate; their residence under the jurisdiction of a foreign country ; and, possibly, the fact that, being conuected as they were supposed to be connected, with the Indian Department of the United States, and deprived them, the privilege of removal that they would otherwise have. I cannot say what the reason was ; but I will say tills-that to have required these people to come from their residence in the United States to make their location in the land office in which they have been compelled to make it would not have relieved the country from the alienation of this land, nor would it in any way have assisted the half-breeds in holding their title to that land. It would not have inured in any way to benefit either the country or the half-breeds, it would simply have been that much money that the half-breeds would not have had in connection with the handling of his scrip. It is the half-breed, who, in one way or another, would have had to pay this cost of transportation from his residence to the
land office.	.
Now, I am not, at the moment, going

to say that it was a proper policy or that it was not a proper policy, to give this order. I am simply trying to remove the impression that was created, or attempted to be created, by the hon. member tor North Toronto (Mr. Foster) that in some way this permission resulted in injury to the halfbreeds or loss to the country. It resulted in neither injury to the half-breed nor loss to the country. There is another point to which the hon. member alluded. I think he was under a wrong impression, and I am sure he will be glad to be corrected in regard to it. In the Order in Council of the 13th of August, to which he refers, the concluding paragraph as to the assignment of scrip, is as follows :
The minister further recommends that in case of conflicting claims from assignees of such scrip, the assignee whose assignment is filed in the department first in order of time shall be held to he the legal assignee.
My information from the officials of the department is that in this paragraph, that word ' assignment ' is used in error, and that the department has never recognized assignments of land scrip.


George Eulas Foster: But of money-scrip they have ?
(Mr OLIVER. There is no assignment necessary in the' case of money-scrip, I understand ; it passes from hand to hand the same as money.


George Eulas Foster: Then, why was it put in the Order in Council ?


Frank Oliver: I am explaining. It was not intended to be put in the Order in Council as recognizing assignments ; it was put in the Order in Council, as I am informed by the officers of the department, in mistake. The intention was to state that orders for scrip would be accepted in the order in which they came in. And the necessity for that arises from this fact-supposing an order has come in and a subsequent order comes in in regard to the same matter. The ordinary rule is that the last order cancels all the previous orders. Now the intention in inserting this paragraph was to provide that the orders should be dealt with in the order in which they came in, that the first order should be considered first, the second order next, and so on, instead of in the way such things are usually handled, namely, that the last order cancels the previous order. But the word ' assignment ' is improperly used instead of the word ' order.'


George Eulas Foster: If that is so, of course it explains the matter in hand, but it is not an endorsement of the efficiency of the departmental officers and of the minister himself.


Frank Oliver: Now to prove what I say that there was in some sense an error, I may say that under that paragraph, which evidently contemplated assignments of scrip, Mr. OLIVER.
there have been no assignments recognized. It was in force from the 5th of November, 1904, until the publication of the cancellation in February, 1905, but during that time no assignments were accepted. The cancellation took place in September, but the publication was not made until some time afterwards. It was cancelled in December because it was recognized as being an error. If the hon. member will give me a memo, of the papers he requires I will be glad to have them brought down if possible.


Mr. J. HERRON.: I would ask the minister if he is aware of the fact that there are a number of half-breeds in the Northwest at the present moment who think they have not been justly dealt with, and who think they still have claims for scrip or land. In the section where I live, there are quite a number of people with such claims. They went before the commission, but they think they were not properly dealt with in some way, that their representations were not given due weight, that their claims were rejected without proper consideration. I believe that they expect even yet that a commission will go up again and take up these unsettled claims. During the winter I have received several requests to bring this matter before the government.


Frank Oliver: I could not give an answer to that question at the moment, but I take it for granted that if It shall be shown that substantial injustice has been done, an effort will be made to remedy that injustice. But I do not think there is any probability that a new issue1 of half-breed scrip will be made on any other terms than issues have already been made.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course there are reasons I suppose, set out in these Orders in Council-which I have not had an opportunity to examine very carefully-upon which is founded the decision of the department to set apart by means of this scrip a certain amount of the public domain of this country for half-breeds residing in the United States and proposing to make the United Stakes their permanent place of abode. Unless there is something in the statutes or in the compact of by-gone days which makes that necessary, I would not think it a very desirable policy. I would think it far better to restrict the allotment to such of the half-breeds of the United States as propose to return to this country to take up their permanent residence ; otherwise I think that it might not he an unfair mode of dealing with the subject, to take those portions of the public domain which otherwise would have gone to these men who have left this country and gone to the United States, and allot them to such as have chosen to remain in Canada and make this country their home. Under the statement of facts made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), it looks as if it were not so much the interest of the half-breeds that

was being regarded as tbe interest of friends of this government ; and that after all, probably not 10 per cent of the land, at least, which has been allotted under this arrangement ever benefited the halfbreeds in any respect whatever ; and I would infer from the facts laid before this House, that at least nine-tenths of it have gone to the comfort and sustenance of certain gentlemen who happen to be very close in touch with one or more departments of this government, and who have been enabled, by means of this arrangement undertaken in tbe month of August last on the eve of a general election, very considerably to improve their financial condition. However, we will have the rest of the papers down, and we will have a discussion on the subject. This seems to me to belong to the same class of cases as the wire fence case we discussed the other day, the fishing privileges which were mentioned not long ago, the islands in the Georgian bay which have been discussed this afternoon, and the bitulithic pavement contract which was also mentioned in this House a few days ago. These all seem to be very much in the same category. But of course, as the minister is not yet very familiar with his department, and as he has not yet been able to ascertain exactly what the House demands, it is only right that he should have an opportunity of bringing down the papers, when we shall make any criticism which may be called for by the additional information.


George Eulas Foster: I would ask the minister in this connection as to whether the Nixon papers are approaching completion ?


Frank Oliver: They are ready, I have been negligent in bringing them down.


Mr. R. BLAIN.: I wish to refer a moment to the sale of islands in the Georgian bay.
I think the minister should be able to give to the House a statement of the policy of hi.s department in future as to the sale of islands not only in the Georgian bay but in other parts of Canada. When this government came into power they put an advertisement in the papers offering to sell 1,000 islands in the Georgian bay, by public tender. I have a copy of the advertisement in my hand, bearing date, Ottawa, 16 July, 1897. Tenders were received up to noon of the 2nd day of August in that year, for about 1.000 islands situate in the Georgian bay. Without reading the whole of the advertisement, it says :
The highest or any tender *will not necessarily he accepted.
For myself I wish to say that I do not think this is the best mode of selling islands in this country at the present time. While it may be thought better to sell them by tender rather than to sell them by private sale, yet I am of opinion that the proper way to sell islands and other parts of the public domain is by public auction. I think the 207	.
minister should make it clear to the House this afternoon that, whatever the policy has been in the past, for the future no islands will be disposed of in the Georgian bay district except they are weli advertised in different newspapers in this country, and a day fixed so that every man may have an opportunity of coming in and giving his highest price. A survey was made of these islands in 1896

Surveys of the islands in question were made by Mr. Charles E. Fitton, Ontario Land Surveyor, Orillia, and Mr. J. G. Sing, Ontario Land Surveyor, Meaford, under instructions given them on the 4th and 17th of June, 1896.
This advertisement was published asking for tenders, and a protest was entered by the Ontario government, showing that the latter did not agree with that policy, and therefore no sale was made. But the matter was revived in 1901, and from 1901 down to the present time several sales have been made. Since this parliament has been in session, five sales have been made to friends of the government, one sale on the 23rd of February, 1905, to Robert Wood, for 8105 ; another sale on the 23rd of February to S. G'rozelle, for $45 ; another made on the 25th of March to Emma Poole, for $20 ; another on the 12th of April to A. W. Mitchell, for $50 ; another on the 11th of May to F. W. Grant, for $140.
My hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) who is familiar with the island purchased by Mr. T. W. Grant, a brother of the sitting member in this House for North Ontario, who is well acquainted with that section of the country and is conversant with its values has made the statement this afternoon that if that island had been sold by public competition it would have brought in the neighbourhood of $1,000 to the treasury of this country instead of $140 when sold to a political supporter for $140. If those five islands that I have referred to had been put up for sale by public competition and the value of the other four were equal to the value of the one referred to by the hon. member for East Simcoe, then instead of $360 being found in the treasury for these five islands, the sum of $2,160 would have been paid into the treasury and every man in this country would have been satisfied were he a supporter of the government or a supporter of the opposition. I do not wish to enter into a further discussion now as some other .papers are to be brought down. I wish to direct my remarks for a moment to my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior. While we do not wish to hold him altogether responsible for the sins of his predecessor in office yet my hon. friend has- had due notice of this question because the hon. member for East Simcoe wnote him on May 18, saying that he wished to bring this matter up at the first opportunity. My hon. friend has since that date had this matter under his consid-



eration. The hon. member for East Simcoe objected and said that in his opinion the sales should be made by public competition and now that this matter is before the minister, before the House and before the country as well-because the country takes a very deep interest in this matter and there have been charges from every province in Canada, and particularly from the province of Ontario against this government that there are certain public domains being sold to political supporters of the government in power-I thought my hon. friend would be anxious to clear the government of that condemnation if it is possible for them to clear themselves, and therefore I ask the minister if he is prepared this afternoon, and if not this afternoon if he will be prepared within a few days, to make a statement to the House that hereafter no islands in the Georgian bay district will be offered for sale by private tender or sold to a political supporter, but that every island in future shall be advertised and sold by public auction at a fixed date that may be advertised to the public.


Frank Oliver: If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I do not know that it is perhaps well to use the time of the country at the expense which is entailed by the sitting of parliament, in the discussion at very much greater length of the sale of these islands. The hon. member for Pee] has suggested a hope that I will later on make a statement according to the suggestion that he makes. Let me point out that while on one hand that may be a good suggestion in the administration of these lands, on the other hand it may not.


William Humphrey Bennett: Hear, hear, for the boys.


Frank Oliver: There are there, islands I understand, varying in size from an acre or less up to thirty or forty acres. They are not, if I understand the matter aright, of any value agriculturally, but they are valuable as summer resorts to put it mildly. Now while one or two or a few of those islands may be especially valuable as sites for summer resorts, I think everybody will admit that there is not a demand for a'thousand valuable summer resorts on the shores of the Georgian bay.


William Humphrey Bennett: You try a sale.


Frank Oliver: I am suggesting the idea that if some person comes along and wishes to build a cottage upon an island in the Georgian bay that has an area of an acre, and the soil of which is as nearly pure rock as it can be, then if the country is compelled to go to the expense of advertising the sale of that island, hiring an auctioneer and selling it by auction, the system will be open to very grave objections from the point of view of the man who wants to buy an island to build a cot- I


Richard Blain: tage on. The attempt of the government in 1897 was to sell all the islands at a single auction or rather by tender.


George Eulas Foster: One or more?


Frank Oliver: I understood it was to sell them all. They were all offered for sale.


William Humphrey Bennett: The advertisement was read and the minister said no tender will necessarily be accepted.


Frank Oliver: Surely all advertisements read in that way.	.


Richard Blain: That is one of the chief objections, that the highest or any tender may not necessarily be accepted.


Frank Oliver: All government advertisements asking for tenders for supplies of any kind say that the lowest or any tender shall not necessarily be accepted and I presume the same rule is quite as applicable in the case of islands that the highest or any tender shall not necessarily be accepted because the tender may not be high enough to warrant the government in disposing of the island. That is a saving clause that must necessarily be inserted if the public interest is to be protected. I know I am not justified in taking up time to point out these details to the House, but I think since so much has been said it may be worth while considering whether there shall be an invariable rule of advertising and selling by auction every island for wicli an application may be made. Let me briefly sketch the facts of the case. The islands were surveyed and they were valued by the surveyors. This schedule and these prices, as I understand, were available to applicants for the islands. Applications have been dealt with in the order in which they were made and I submit that however improvident the action of the government or whatever loss may have resulted to the country by their adopting that principle the charge of political favouritism does not lie against the government if that is the system and it has been followed.


William Humphrey Bennett: In 1897, the hon. gentleman's predecessor laid it down that the highest bidder would get them.


Frank Oliver: I think the hon. member will not say for an instant that the government should advertise a sale of islands and say that the highest bidder should get them.


William Humphrey Bennett: Not if you want your friends to get them. It is all they have left now, it is their only graft.
Some hon. members. Order, order.


Frank Oliver: I think I have fairly pointed out that there is no graft in this transaction.


William Humphrey Bennett: Try a sale and see.


Frank Oliver: Tlie arrangement has been open and above board ; and if it is a fact that owing to the circumstance of the increased value of some of these islands the revenue of the Indians is suffering, that of course is a matter to be fairly taken into consideration and some arrangement possibly made, but I submit that the fact that one or two islands may have achieved a value of $140 or $400 is not sufficient ground under the circumstances of these various sales to make a charge of political favouritism. 1 will go so far as to say that I do not think that in this country or any other country, a man is to be debarred from ordinary business transactions because he happens to be related to a member of parliament who happens to be supporting the government.


George Eulas Foster: Nobody contends that.


Frank Oliver: I may say that since these islands began to be sold, since the question of the Indian rights in the islands was settled by the action of the government in 1884, there have been altogether 104 islands sold. Prior to July, 1S96, 69 sales were made of islands, or parts of islands, of a total area of 1,012'.'10 acres, and the price realized was $1,846.95. Subsequent to July, 1896, 35 islands have been sold, with a total area of 438-74 acres, and the price realized was $3,002.75.


Richard Blain: You would not compare the value of the islands fifteen years ago with their value to-day ?	[DOT]


Frank Oliver: I am only giving the facts ;
I am not making any comparison. Of these islands which have been sold since July, 1890, seven were sold for the benefit of the Indians to the Marine Department for sites for lighthouses or other marine improvements, with an area of 189-60 acres and at the price of $1,377.75. I submit that the facts and figures do not show that this government has been negligent of the interests of the Indians.


YUKON TERRITORY.
Mr. A. THOMPSON (Yukon Territory).: Mr. Speaker, some days ago a question arose here as to the disposition of our Canadian territories after the proposed provinces have been established, and on that occasion the right bon. the Prime Minister suggested that it would be perhaps good policy if the provinces when erected would take care of the territories that remained ; the idea being that the territories referred to would be allotted to tbe various provinces. The newspapers of British Columbia seized upon this incident to discuss the position of the Yukon Territory, and I wish upon this occasion to go upon record, as the representative of the Yukon, against any idea of that sort. I avail myself of this the first opportunity to refer to the matter, because were I to remain silent my silence might be construed to mean that the people of the Yukon, 207*
whom I have the honour to represent, were indifferent as to the disposition of their territory. I hope on another occasion to have the honour of submitting the reasons why the Yukon Territory, at any rate, should not be annexed to any province of the Dominion. We in the Yukon hope to have a future of our own.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Militia-pay and allowances-further amount required, $110,000.
Hon.   S@: This vote is for the permanent force, which has been increased by some 200 or 300 men, and, in addition to which fact, under the Act of last session, there has been an increase in the pay, amounting to something like 20 or 25 per cent beyond the preveious rate. I may say that under an arrangement, which is not now absolutely complete, but which will be within a few days, between the imperial government and this government, by which the Militia Department is to take over the garrison at Halifax, some 400 men have been recently enlisted, and $25,000 of this vote is to pay for these men prior to the 1st July. *


Robert Laird Borden: It was announced some time ago that the imperial troops were to be withdrawn from Halifax and "that their place was to be taken by men enrolled by the Militia Department. I mentioned the matter before, but the Minister of Militia was not then able to give full particulars. About ten days ago there was an announcement in the public press-I do not know whether it was authoritative or not-whiefe declared that the imperial troops are to be retained in Halifax for about two years longer, and that the contemplated change is not to be carried out on account of the difficulty of enlisting men here.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: There is no authority whatever for that statement. There is no difficulty in enlisting men so far as the infantry is concerned, which composes at least two-thirds of the garrison. There will be perhaps some difficulty in enlisting artillery, and very considerable difficulty in enlisting engineers, but we expect to overcome this difficulty by obtaining permission from |the imperial authorities-I may say this permission has been to some extent already secured-to enlist reservists of the imperial army. In addition to that, we hope to be allowed to enlist some of the men in the artillery and engineers now at Halifax, whose time is about to expire. It is believed by General Lake that the department will be able to assume full responsibility on the 1st July, or as soon thereafter as the imperial troops may be ready to vacate Halifax.


Robert Laird Borden: Some six or eight weeks ago, when I brought the question of the defence of Halifax and Esquimalt

to the attention of the hon. Minister of Militia, he said that he purposed to make a general statement as to the intention of the government on that subject. When are we to expect that ?


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend knows that there has not been an opportunity during the last six or eight weeks; but I am ready to make the statement whenever the opportunity offers and I hope to do so within a few days. I though! it would be more convenient to make it upon the item in the main estimates which was left over for that purpose, as that was a sort of notice given to hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House who are interested in military matters. I hope within a few days to make a full statement.


Robert Laird Borden: Why do you require $85,000 more than you thought you would require last year ? Is it because more men are to undergo a system of drill ?


Frederick William Borden: This does not refer to drill. It refers to the permanent force, which I explained has been increased by about 200 beyond what was expected, and whose pay has been-increased from 20 per cent to 25 per cent by Act of Parliament passed last session ; and since then the matter of talcing over the Halifax garrison has come up, and some 400 men have been enlisted for that purpose.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN How many men do you expect to enroll at Halifax and Esqui-malt ?
J3ir FREDERICK BORDEN. The present number at Halifax is about 2,000 and at Esquimalt between 300 and 400. I am led to understand that we shall be able to reduce the number at Halifax to some extent.


George Eulas Foster: Is there to be the same equipment at Halifax in the way of guns and munitions of war ?


Frederick William Borden: I am not in a position yet to make a positive statement in reference to that.


George Eulas Foster: I hope, when the minister makes his statement, that he will make it full enough to cover that point. By some it is argued that we are doing a very large thing in taking upon ourselves the defence of Canada as regards these two forts. It is important to know whether the defence will be a complete and full one or not, or whether we are to have simply a company of soldiers occupying the vacant space from which the real and sufficient warriors have gone ; whether it is to be a mere station or a defensible and defending portion of our protection ; what it will entail, that is, how much load we are lifting, which may be we should have lifted long ago, in this matter of imperial defence.


Frederick William Borden: I may say that it is the intention of the government .Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
to preserve these garrisons in a state of efficiency. It may be that a smaller garrison will be sufficient owing to some changes which have been made by the imperial authorities -with reference to the requirements of Halifax and Esquimau as naval bases.
Annual drill-further amount required, $100,000.


George Eulas Foster: What was the main vote?


Frederick William Borden: The main vote was $600,000, and this makes the total $700,000. This is for the camps that are to come on between now and the 1st of July.


Mr.   I@: Why did you not ask
for it last year ?


Frederick William Borden: There is always some uncertainty as to the dates at which these camps will take place. It has been the custom, ever since I have been a minister, to take a supplementary vote during the session of the year during which some of the camps take place. That is one reason, viz.:-the uncertainty as to the dates. Another is that the pay was considerably increased by the Act of last year, and we could not tell exactly what that increase would amount to. The increase depends upon the number of years the militiaman has served. A militiaman who has served one year receives 20 cents a day additional. One who has served two years receives forty cents a day additional ; and one who has served three years receives fifty cents a day additional. The experience of last year was necessary in order to enable us to estimate at all correctly the amount involved in the increase. We are drilling more men and are getting a very large percentage who have been drilled before. A man who has had three years previous training is now getting a dollar a day. The man who has served two years is getting ninety cents a day. The man who has only served one year gets 70 cents a day. Twenty cents per day is added each year, and it is added on the ground of efficiency. The pay of the militiaman is still 50 cents. That is all the country agrees to give him unless he is efficient, but during his first year, if he proves efficient, he gets seventy cents ; during his second year he gets 90 cents, and the third year a dollar. And if he chooses to reenlist he has a dollar a day.


George Eulas Foster: Who is the judge of efficiency ?


Frederick William Borden: The captain and officers. We have never had as good camps, as good order and as good results in every way as last year.


George Eulas Foster: How many days drill now ?


Frederick William Borden: Twelve days, including the day coming to camp and the day going.


HAY 25. 1905
Richard Blain: I suppose none who went out last year received only 50 cents per day ?


Frederick William Borden: Yery few. They were all so efficient that they all received the additional pay.


George Eulas Foster: Or the officers were so indulgent.


Robert Laird Borden: How many men do you expect to drill this summer ?


Frederick William Borden: About 35,-
000. .
Militia stores-further amount required, $25,-00*0.


Frederick William Borden: These are stores for the camps.


Frederick William Borden: The cartridge factory. It is turning out now ten million rounds a year instead of something less than a million. We are increasing Colonel Gaudet's salary from $2,500 to $3.200.
Mr. Fu*TER. How long has he been appointed ?


Frederick William Borden: For many years. I found him there when I came in. He is a graduate of the Royal Military College and a most excellent man. The position is a most dangerous one. You cannot get life insurance in it, and we thought as he had done excellent service for a number of years, he was entitled to the increase.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
Transport and freight-further amount required, $5,000.


Frederick William Borden: The vote is $50,000. Of this amount $34,500 had been expended to the 30tli January last as follows : Staff A, $8,440.


George Eulas Foster: Is that the staff here ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, and at district headquarters.


George Eulas Foster: Has it always been the custom to take travelling expenses for headquarters staff out of the general vote i


Frederick William Borden: This is a special vote out of which is paid the travelling expenses of the headquarters staff. The largest item is freight. There are some other items. The inspector general and the inspecting officer are paid travelling expenses out of this vote. Also the district staff officer and the officer who comes from England.


George Eulas Foster: Has that been the usual practice ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Richard Blain: What was the total amount paid last year for annual drill ? Could the hon. gentleman give us the total for the last two or three years ?


Frederick William Borden: They are all in the report. The annual drill, including supplies and transport, 1902-03, cost $385,190. For the year ending 30th June, 1904. it was $749,985, out of which there should be a deduction of about $142,000.


Mr.   BRAIN@: What will be the amount for 1905 ?


Frederick William Borden: About $700,000, largely due to increase in pay.
Dominion arsenal-to increase the pay of Lieut.-Col. F. M. Gaudet, superintendent to $3,200 per annum, $700.


George Eulas Foster: What is the Dominion arsenal ?
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Indians-Nova Scotia, $7,925.


Frank Oliver: This is a decrease of $1,250 Tom the estimates of the current year. Of his reduction, $1,000 is due to the fact hat in the previous year that amount was spent to provide shelters for indigent members of the band, which expense need not be *epeated this year. There is also a reduction of $250 through the omission this year 3f an estimate for repair of roads made last year.


Robert Laird Borden: I do^not imagine that the minister will be able to give the information I desire at once, but I would ask him to make note of the case that I call to his attention. I have a communication from a thoroughly responsible correspondent. I know nothing personally of the circumstances, but the facts as stated in this communication are in effect these: In the fall of 1903, Mr. J. L. McDonald was appointed teacher of the Indians at Barra Head or Salmon River, being recommended to the Indian Department by the Indian agent. He conducted the school weil and the Indians had great regard for him. witn-out warning, about the end of March last he received a letter from the Indian agent stating tliat lie had heard bad reports ol him and that he understood these reports had been sent to the Indian Department and that the teacher would undoubtedly be dismissed unless he resigned. The agent advised him to tender his resignation, letter was dated March 23rd, 1905. This was followed two days later by abetter which dismissed him from bis position as teacher. This letter contained some very harsh adjectives in regard to this young man's character and told him to go home and never show his face again m Salmon river where he had created such a scandal. The young man was entirely ignorant of what the offence charged against him was. He became alarmed and sent in his resigna-

tion and desired to know the cause of his dismissal. He has not had any explanation since but, in consequence of his dismissal and of what has been said, reports have been circulated against him which are very prejudicial to his character. It seems that afterwards the agent sent a letter, dated April 3rd, in which he told the young man that he felt that he would be re-instated provided he could get a certificate of good moral character. This he procured. It was forwarded to the agent. But no further notice has been taken of the matter. Another teacher has been appointed. Mr. McDonald, who is a very young man, desired an investigation and still desires it. He does not wish to begin life under the stigma of having been dismissed in disgrace by the Indian Department, especially as he has no idea of the cause of his dismissal. What I would like to know is :	Why Mr. McDonald was dismissed ;
whether there were any charges made against him ; if so, what was the nature of the charges; why he was dismissed without the holding of an investigation [DOT] whether it is or is not true that he was threatened with dismissal before he resigned, and,i generally, all the information to cover the matter as I have referred to it. If the minister will be good enough to have one of his officials make a note of this matter and will give the information on some subsequent occasion when his estmates are before the House, I shall be very glad. I have every confidence that my correspondent, who is a man in very high position*, would not make these representations to me unless he felt absolutely that the facts are as stated. Of courge, it is possible that he may have been deceived ; but so far as he is concerned, I am sure that everything has been stated exactly as he believes the facts to be.	*


Frank Oliver: Note will be taken of the case, and the officials will also have the opportunity of consulting what appears in ' Hansard.' An inquiry will be made and the result laid before the House.


Richard Blain: Is the amount spent for these Indians increasing or decreasing ?


Frank Oliver: As I explained, this is a decrease.


Richard Blain: Yes, but how is it as compared with five or ten years ago ?


Frank Oliver: The expenditure, taken for a period of ten years, is about stationary.


Richard Blain: What is the policy in these matters ?	.


Frank Oliver: The Indians are dependent upon the Indian Department, and that tact is recognized, in this case there were a number of widows and other destitute pei sons who were not provided with shelter. To prevent suffering it was deemed advis-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
able that shelter should be provided for them.
Indians-New Brunswick-salaries, $1,308.


Richard Blain: How many officers receive payment from this amount ?
Mr. OLIVER, Ten.


Richard Blain: What are the duties of the leading officers ?


Frank Oliver: The ordinary duties of an Indian agent. The province of New Brunswick is divided into two agencies under superintendents. The Indians are grouped in small bands in different parts of the province. The northwest part is under Mr. Carter and the southeast part under Mr. Farrell. Their duties are merely to oversee the bands on the different reservations.
Relief and seed grain, $2,500.


Mr. BARKER.: There is an increase here, while there is a decrease in a similar item in Nova Scotia.


Frank Oliver: The explanation of the increase for relief and seed grain is that the circumstances governing the requirements vary from year to year, and it happens that in this case certain bands in New Brunswick require a small increase, whereas in Nova Scotia circumstances have permitted a small decrease.


Samuel Barker: I suppose the minister knows the peculiar circumstances that justify a decrease of $1,000 in one case and an increase in the other ?


Frank Oliver: I bave already explained the reason for the increase of $1,000 in Nova Scotia ; it was to provide shelter for certain indigent members of the band last year ; it was a special provision which does not require to be repeated this year, and therefore does not appear in the estimates this year. But in the case of New Brunswick there was nothing special of that kind, and this increase of $200 is merely because of small requirements, both in the matter of relief and seed grain.
Medical attendance and medicine, $3,500.


George Taylor: Would the minister kindly tell us how many Indians there are altogether in New Brunswick ?


Frank Oliver: 1,694.


George Taylor: Will the minister please explain this increase of $500 over last year ?


Frank Oliver: The explanation is that the demands in previous years have been rather more than the estimates, and this year it is desired to provide fully for the requirements.


Samuel Barker: If the demands have been greater in previous years, how have they been met ? Has the hon. gentleman been paying without authority ?

-Mr. OjLIYE-R. I am informed that the original vote in previous years has generally been added to by a supplementary vote. This year the desire is to take the full requirements in the first vote, so that no supplementary will be required.


George Taylor: How many -physicians does the hon. gentleman employ altogether in looking after the Indians in New Brunswick ?


Frank Oliver: There are thirteen physicians employed, whose payments amount to $1,915.


Richard Blain: Has there been any dismissals during the past year or new appointments ?


Frank Oliver: There have been no changes in the staff during the year.
Miscellaneous and unforeseen, $600.


Frank Oliver: There is an increase of $300, the reason of which is the same as in the case of the medical atendance vote, that is, that the requirements have not been met by the ordinary vote of previous years and had to be supplemented. It is desired now to make the main estimates of the present year cover the total expenditure.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman will see that that hardly amounts to an explanation, because all the grants of last year, including supplementaries, were only $300 ; in the other item he refers to all the grants were only $3,000. He is now taking more in both cases than the total of last year, so the supplementary explanation does not quite meet the case.
Mr. OLIVER, in the appropriation accounts for 1903-4 the amount for miscellaneous and unforeseen in New Brunswick is $600, and the amount actually expended was $503.77, leaving a balance of $96.23. It is desired to have the total amount available that was voted last year.


Samuel Barker: But the hon. gentleman will see that in 1904 the vote of $300 sufficed ; why does he want to double it this year ?


Frank Oliver: I have pointed out that in the year ending June 30, f904, there was a total expenditure of something over $500, and there was a vote last year of $600 in the main and supplementary estimates. For the current year, now about to close, the vote was $300, but that will not be sufficient to meet the expenditure of the year, and some of the expenditure will have to be carried forward and paid out of the appropriation for the current year.


Samuel Barker: Some of this $600 will be taken to pay last year's debts. Is that it?


Frank Oliver: It will have to be.


Samuel Barker: That seems to be a rather general feature of the administration of
this government. We had on Tuesday several instances when the government were granted a certain sum of money to carry on the department, they spent just what they pleased and then they come in this year and ask for a vote to cover the deficiency.


Frank Oliver: Of course the fact is evident from the figures I have given that the department have asked for a sufficient appropriation for the year ending June 30, 1904. They have a small balance to the good of some $90 odd. Then last year, in the hope I presume of still further reducing the expenditure, they only asked for $300. I am informed that this will probably not be sufficient to pay all the bills and therefore an amount equal to what was asked in previous years is asked for the coming year in order that we may have enough money to pay the bills.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: Why not put it in the supplementaries ?


Frank Oliver: We have not put in any supplementaries.
Mr. BARKER, You asked during the last day or two for a lot of supplementary votes to cover money that you required to meet last year's expenditure, and why not do the same thing here, why have a different system?


Frank Oliver: The other votes were for different departments. The reason for this is that medical expenses are not a fixed amount. Medical expenditure of course depends a good deal on circumstances which are not within control, and I am given to understand that the expenditures have not been so under control as to be kept within the amount, but the bills are not in and we cannot tell how much the bills will be yet. As the amount was not great and the bills were not available, as the vote was evidently very small, it seems to be not unreasonable that the bills should be paid out of the vote for the year in which the bills came in.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I think this thing is getting altogther too common. How are we on this side of the House to keep track of expenditures if the minister is going to permit one year's business to run into another, to simply take money that we vote to meet this service for 1905-6 and pay liabilities incurred in 1904-5. It seems to me that the minister is getting very far away from what is right and proper in the expenditure of public money. ' Do I understand that the Auditor General permits that sort of thing or who.se fault is it? Possibly he cannot help himself but surely some restriction is placed upon the minister that will prevent this proceeding. We are voting money for 1905-6. I tell the minister that he has no right to put his hand on one dollar of that to pay any expend!-

ture .incurred in 1904-5. If lie does he is committing an outrage on this parliament. He has his remedy. We have before us supplementaries for nearly every department. Why did he not see that a sufficient amount was placed in the supplementaries of 1904-5 to meet any possible balance that was not provided for in the main estimates of last year? Certainly that was his duty. As I said a night or two ago, we do not want to be repeating these things day after day but we certainly want the business of *the country carried on in a business way. We understand that this is a business government, a government of business men. I am afraid that their reputation as business men and their business practices have all disappeared, because certainly they do not adopt business methods. 1 tell the Minister of the Interior that he has no more right to put his hand in the public chest and take one dollar for the purpose of meeting a balance or meeting accounts incurred in 1904-5, out of the appropriations which he is now asking, then I have a right to do it- and I am positively sure that I have no right nor has any other member of this House. It is a miserable practice, a bad practice, and if such a practice is to continue, I fail to see how any man can keep a check on the expenditure of this country. I hope and trust that even yet before the 1st of July the minister will see that a supplementary estimate is brought down containing a sufficient amount to meet what was unprovided for in the last year's estimates and that he will come down to the House and will obtain its sanction and then he will have a right to expend that money for the purposes for which we vote it. But he must be careful not to put his hand on a single dollar that we vote now to meet any expenditure incurred prior to the 1st of July. I think I have made myself plain to -the minister and I regret that I am obliged 4o repeat these things day after day, but I Intend to raise my voice in protest every time this occurs. It is occurring altogether loo frequently, and surely when the minister has the opportunity before him, as he has yet over a mouth in which to secure the sanction of His Excellency to a further supplementary estimate to meet just the very items that he tells us are unprovided for. If he asks for too much, the balance unused will simply lapse on the 1st of July and drop out of sight. There will be no money lost, let him ask for plenty, but let him do it in a constitutional way. The House has never refused to cheerfully vote money for the support of Indians and their medical attendance and so forth, but we want to know exactly what we are doing and that the money we vote is applied for the purpose we vote it. I trust this will be the last time I shall have to call the minister to account for this thing.


David Henderson: 


Samuel Barker: I would like to ask the minister to explain-and I would point out to the minister that this is not a matter for amusement either for the minister himself or for his department whether it is $300 as it is here or $300,000 as it was the day before yesterday, the matter is a matter of business and of system and we want to know just about where we are about these things-I would like to ask the minister how he expects to pay one dollar of last year's accounts out of money that we are granting for the coming year. I want an explicit answer to that because he is asking this money for that purpose. The only way I can see in which he intends to do it is by the abuse, the intentional, deliberate abuse of the credit account system which has been the subject of so much discussion and complaint on the part of the Auditor General, a system by which departments get a credit account of very many thousands of dollars and pay just what they please, and after the horse is stolen we expect the Auditor General to lock the stable door. Now we want to stop that. I can tell the new Minister of the Interior that there- has been a great deal of this going on, especially, as we believe, in his department. We had an item of $300,000, some days ago, for immigration of which a similar explanation was given. That money granted last year had been partly appropriated for debts of the preceding year, an absolutely illegal thing to do. Because this is a very little item of $300, the hon. gentleman laughs and seems to think our criticism is a matter for amusement. It is not the amount we are criticising, it is the act. If inquiry had not been made we would have supposed we were voting this money for next year. How does the minister intend to use this money to pay his accounts of last year ?


Frank Oliver: I am glad to see that when the Auditor General's resignation is accepted. as it may be before long, we will not have far to go to get other equally able and useful critics of expenditure. The hon. gentlemen have asked me many questions, and I would ask them, how they expect a vote in the supplementary estimates for the current year would be used to pay medical accounts which were not presented until that year had expired. Do they think the Auditor General would allow the money voted in the supplementaries this year which expires on the 30th of June, to be applied to pay-accounts that did not come up for payment until some time in July ?


Samuel Barker: I would suggest that you should ask the Minister of Finance how that could be done.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend from Hal-!on was fairer than the hon. member for

Hamilton. He said that he would not ask that the estimate should be within liossib $100 of the expenditure, and it he will rea this* estimate in that light he will find we are not asking tor anything more than that amount of latitude. The hon. member (Mr Barker) accused me of treating this item with levity because it was small. 1 was not treating the item with levity but I was treating with levity the idea that we could control an expenditure for medical assistance. If we could get some arrangement with the Indians and the Auditor General, that the Indians would not get sick more than up to a certain amount and writhin a certain time then we could control the expenditure ; but unless we can do that, if we are going to give the Indians medical assistance, we have to treat them when they are sick and we have to pay for that treatment. Instead ol the hon. members accusing the department of outrunning the estimates they would do well to turn their guns upon the Indians who get ill without regard to whether the estimate is large or small. It is of course very inconsiderate on their part and certainly it is leaving the department in an unfortunate position, but so far we have been unable to reason them out of that attitude.


William Wright: I called the minister's attention to the fact that we are discussing ' miscellaneous and unforseen expenditure ' and I would ask him what is that expendi ture generally fo '


Mr OLIVER.: The memorandum given to me is [DOT] for some time past the money appropriated fox this service has not exceeded S300. It frequently has to be supplemented in order to meet the ordinary demands foi contingencies and travel. For last year the expenditure under this sub-head is $503.71 the greater portion of which was spent fo the ordinary contingencies ot travel to agents. It will therefore be seen that the in crease in the main appropriation of $300 is demanded by the circumstances of the case.


Mr. J. D. REID.: This is not for medical attendance ?	,


Frank Oliver: It includes medical attendance.


Mr TAYLOR.: I understood the minister to "say that there were some thirteen physicians employed, and the cost was $900.


Frank Oliver: I said $1,915. That is the allowance paid to the physicians to attend the different bands scattered around the province.


George Taylor: I find from the Auditor General's Report of last year that some twelve physicians drew pay, whether they earned it or not, amounting to $1,874. I do not see a dollar charged for medicine, but 1 find that J. S. Benson M.D Chatham got Sl*>5 J F. Desmond. M.D., Newcastle, $->0 and so on up to $1,874. I am sure that each
and every one of these physicians is a poli-ticial friend of the Minister of the tetmmi and just got these snaps. I wouldi hkeMo see a detailed account of any of these phj si cians, the number of trips they made and the number of patients they attended because out of the total vote of $2,339 there was paid to physicians $1,874.


Mr LENNOX.: 
Air OLIVER.: May I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon ; I did not make any such announcement.


Mr. LENNOX.: What did the hon. minister say ?


Frank Oliver: I say I did not make any such announcement.


Haughton Lennox: What did the minister say ?


Frank Oliver: The hon. minister will see in 'Hansard' what I said.


Haughton Lennox: I will take it for the present that the minister, whether he said i in so many words or not, did mtimal >
a good deal of glee that we would pioba blv soon have another Auditor General. J do not suppose he said that without knowing something of what he was talking about, and it is aufte in line with what we have seen of the workings of the present administration, including the Minister of the Interior that there is on their part a cheeitu looking forward to the time when they will o"dof the Auditor General, But I want to tell the Minister of the Interior, and particularly the Minister of f^^dRor although they may get rid of the A

General and refuse to bring in a law which will give that efficient officer an opportunity to perform his duties efficiently in the inteiest of the public, they will not get rid of the public sentiment which is abroad in this country that the government have a desire to keep the law in a state of inefficiency, and if possible force the Auditor General out of the position of watchfulness which he has assumed in the interest of the public It is just as well that the people should know it. We have time in this House for-almost everything except the financial interests of this country. The Minister of Agriculture is a notable instance of that He has time for everything except the business of the department over which he presides. We have time for every corporation which wishes to exploit anything, but we have not yet had time to take into consideration the finances of tliis country, which represent an expenditure which is climbing up by leaps and bounds every year the very supplementary estimates now be-tore the House being a notable evidence of this. I want to warn the ministry that they have not heard half as much as they will hear from the public about this very question of the Auditor General ; but the Minister of the Interior has probably done a public service in announcing definitely and distinctly, if not in so many words, yet in substance, that the government are likely to get rid of the Auditor General ; and he Is probable saying to himself, oh, let it be soon-the sooner the better, in the estimate of the ministry.


William Stevens Fielding: As the hon. gentleman has stated that the government are very anxious to get rid of the Auditor General, perhaps it would be as well for me to remind him that the Auditor General tendered his resignation some months ago and the government declined to accept it. As for the rest, the speech which my hon. friend made about the tremendous feeling in the country in regard to the Auditor General is simply a repetition of what he said some mouths ago in a more extended manner. He had the assistance of the Auditor General, who expounded his views from time to time in public interviews, in the public press and in other ways, and the result of it all was that the hon. gentleman failed to satisfy the public mind that there was any grievance against the government in that respect. The situation has not changed.


Andrew B. Ingram: I hope my hon. friend is not going to lose his temper.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think I did. I thought I was very amiable.


Andrew B. Ingram: I was asking my hon. friend if-the Auditor General did not tender his resignation because the government revised to amend the Audit Act ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think the hon. gentleman had better ask the Auditor General.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand that the Auditor General makes tliat statement.


William Stevens Fielding: Very well, I do not object to it.


Andrew B. Ingram: And that is the reason the Auditor General is resigning. But the Minister of Finance wanted the House and the country to believe something altogether different, in reply to the hon. member for South Simeoe.


William Stevens Fielding: I stated that the hon. member for South Simeoe remarked that the government were very anxious to get rid of the Auditor General, but that as the Auditor General had some months ago tendered his resignation, the government could have accepted it if they wished. Thev did not do so, and the Auditor General remained in office.


Andrew B. Ingram: And the government had a very good reason for not accepting his resignation.


William Stevens Fielding: The government have no desire to interfere with the Auditor General. Whether he resigns or remains in office is entirely his own business.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the Minister of 1'inance be kind enough to say that the Auditor General's resignation was brought down by the refusal of the government to amend the Audit Act ?	.
... YIELDING. The Auditor General
country eTbneSt [DOT]llMlge of tlle P<*Hcy of tllis countiy. The government of Canada with
the advice of this parliament, will decide when the Audit Act needs amendment Mr. LENNOX.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman will remember that at the time of the general election the government were not so indifferent to the Auditor General. Thev were particularly eager that he should remain in office until after the general election.
FIELDING. My hon. friend has no wanant whatever for that statement. The Auditor General is free to resign or remain just as he thinks fit. No effort is made to interfere with his freedom of action in that respect. The statement that the government were trying to get rid of the Auditor General is entirely unwarranted.


Andrew B. Ingram: I did not say that.
Mjr. FIELDING* The hon. gentleman did not, but the hon. gentleman who started the discussion did.


Andrew B. Ingram: The government could have prevented the resignation of the Auditor General by agreeing to amend the Audit Act ?


William Stevens Fielding: Why ought we ?


George Taylor: To guard the treasury.


William Stevens Fielding: The treasury Is all right.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think the country is under the impression that the Auditor General has a better knowledge of what is necessary in the administration of his department than even some members of the cabinet.


William Stevens Fielding: The country did not indicate that.


Andrew B. Ingram: The question of the Auditor General was not in issue during the last general election.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend tried to make it so.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the government had shown as much independence as the hon. gentleman has shown to-night, and had accepted the resignation of the Auditor General before the last general election, the country would have expressed their opinion in strong language. The government knew that, and were only too eager to keep him.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member for South Simcoe says we are trying to get rid of the Auditor General, and the hon. member for East Elgin tells us that we were trying to keep him.


Haughton Lennox: I am sorry that the Minister of Finance has lost his temper ; but it always points in the same direction. The hon. gentleman is probably one of the mildest speakers in the House except when he gets into a tight box ; but whenever he does, I am sorry to say that hon. gentleman loses his temper, and his voice rises, as it did to-night. The hon. gentleman said he wanted to instruct me that the Auditor General had tendered his resignation. If the hon. minister had informed me and the other members of this House weeks ago of that circumstance, he would have discharged his duty according to British parliamentary traditions and according to the fundamental principles of government in a British country. But he has not seen fit to do so. Weeks ago the Auditor General sent in a report pointing out the difficulties which exist to-day, and the Minister of Finance, knowing that the Auditor General is not the servant of the cabinet, but an officer of parliament, should have immediately laid that report before the House. But the minister kept perfectly silent on that question until his hand was forced to-night. He comes very late in the day indeed to instruct me that the Auditor General has tendered his resignation. But the minister cannot get away from the fact that the reason the Auditor General is tendering his resignation is that the government will not make such amendments in the law and bring about such changes as will enable
him to have the proper means of curbing extravagant and in many cases dishonest expenditure of the public funds. Instead of working on that line, as I said, there was a prayer in the heart of the Minister of Finance, not this session or last session, but before that, to get rid of the Auditor General, the watch-dog- of the treasury. That was evidenced by the fact that two or three years ago he brought in an Act, not to enlarge the powers of the Auditor General, but to make his position virtually a name, and nothing more. If the Minister of Finance would bring about that state of things, he would be happy. But we had a perfect right, from what was said by the First Minister at the opening of this session to anticipate that there would be a consideration of this question, with the view of making the Audit Act more efficient, having regard to the changed conditions which have been brought about in the last twenty-five or twenty-six years.
We had a perfect right to have this matter considered in a frank and candid way by the minister, instead of which we have been treated to a lecture. The hon. minister taunts me with having spoken on this subject last session and says it did not bring about a change of government. Perfectly true, these things require time to work. But if the government had accepted the resignation of the Auditor General last session, as it was thought they would, if they had not eaten humble pie as they did, they would have found a different story ; and although it might not have driven them from power, would at least have weakened their position. Whenever they do accept the resignation of the Auditor General, they will be condemned for their action, not because of the personality of the Auditor General, but of the causes which brought about his resignation. Whether such condemnation would drive them from power is another question. That, however, is evidently the only thing the hon. minister thinks about. But he can take warning that this matter and these various scandles which force themselves on the public notice from time to time, and the way the electorate are being treated with regard to the great question before the House-all these things combined may prove too strong even for the government s tenure of office, which seems to be the only thing they take any interest in.


William Stevens Fielding: In my wildest dreams I did not attempt to picture any such possibility as that of the Tories coming to power ; and nothing was further from my mind than to attempt to lecture my hon. friend. All I did was to point out that some of his statements were incorrect, and I am not aware that I went beyond that. He said that the Auditor General resigned and that it was my duty to inform the House some weeks or months ago, and I I failed to do it. When did the Auditor Gen-

eral resign ? I do not understand ^wliat the hon. gentleman means.
'Mr. LENNOX. I did not say that the Auditor General had resigned. I did not understand that he had.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman did say so.


Haughton Lennox: If I did, I certainly did not give expression to what I intended to say. I intended to convey the idea that the Auditor General had sent a report, and 1 think that ' Hansard ' will show to-morrow that that is pretty nearly what I did say. He suggested amendments to the Audit Act, lie pointed out the difficulties which existed, and said that about the 1st July, if improvements were not brought about or promised, he would resign. I said-and I repeat it-that it was the duty of the administration and particularly the duty of the Minister of Finance, when he got that report from a public official, a public document, a supplementary report of the Auditor General, to have laid it on the table and not let the House become aware of it merely through the press.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid that my hon. friend will now be open to the charge of doing the lecturing. He is telling me what is my duty, so that he is the sinner in that line. Let me say, however, that the Auditor General has presented no report which it was my duty to present to the House. He has beeu engaged in some public discussion of the question and has gone to the press for that purpose. I have no objection to his doing so. The document to which my hon. friend referred was given the public press before there was an opportunity to present it -to parliament, if it were a proper document to bring before parliament, and every lion, gentleman interested in it is in possession of it now.


Andrew B. Ingram: A short time ago the Minister of Finance said the government was in a better position to judge as to the amendments which should be made to the Audit Act. Well, two years ago he mustered up courage to bring in amendments to the Audit Act, but he had not the courage to force them through the House. The reason was the people gave him due notice they would not stand that kind of thing. Consequently he did not force through the amendment notwithstanding his big majority behind him. That is -an indication of how the Auditor General controls this government in the matter of legislation. The elections are now over, and I suppose the government will take up again the amendments to the Audit Act which the Finance Minister proposed on a previous occasion. We had another instance of a prominent official, and ex-member of the cabinet, resigning. He was appointed to a very high position ; he knew the election was coming on. Why did he resign ? Because it was Mr. FIELDING.
said that if the government were returned to power, he would get notice to quit, and he thought he would anticipate that notice. The Auditor General, however, is in a different position. He has asked parliament to make certain amendments to the Audit Act, and this side of the House approve of his policy. It is not unusual for an Auditor General to prepare documents and submit them to members of the opposition. He did it previous to 1896. Prominent members of the opposition in those days received very lengthy documents calling on the government and parliament to do certain things so that it was not unusual.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say it was unusual. I did not even say the Auditor General had done so. I did not refer to the Auditor General furnishing the hon. gentlemen opposite with any documents. I made no allusion to anything of the sort.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman said he furnished the press.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman spoke of documents being furnished to the opposition. I did not make any allusion of that sort. I am not raising any question as to what the Auditor General did. I am only answering observations as to what we had done or left undone. My answer to the first observation of the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Ingram) was that the amendment to the Audit Act was a matter of policy, and that in questions of that kind the government must take the responsibility of guiding and directing the House with regard to whatever action may be taken. It is not the business of the Auditor General to make amendments to the Audit Act. He may make suggestions, and the responsibility of acting must rest on the government. If they do not think the suggestions wise, they will not act upon them, and must take the responsibility at the proper time.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. minister has not said why the government withdrew the amendments they did propose to the Audit Act. If these amendments were so important, why did they not carry out their ideas ?


William Stevens Fielding: The proposed legislation was intended to facilitate public business and overcome some difficulty which the Auditor General was placing in the way of carrying on public business, We hoped that these difficulties might be removed by the voluntary act of the Auditor General. Whether he has fully removed them or not is a debateable question'. That is percisely the situation. We have no desire to interfere with him and would be much pleased if he would facilitate the transaction of public business in a way we thought he was not following. It was in order to facilitate the disposal of public business that these amendments were prepared.


Mr INGRAM.: Does not the same difficulty' exist to-day that existed when these amendments were introduced ?


William Stevens Fielding: I would not say Jhe same hut I am bound to say that things are not moving as happily as they might; but at that time we had in the House to call attention to some things in which the Auditor General had not facilitated the transaction of business. He took a different view. I am not questioning the pro-nrietv of his course, but it was a course that did not facilitate the prosecution ot public business. I thiuk that since that time the differences with him have been fewer. But I suppose that so long as there are Auditors General there will be ministers in parliament who are not always in accord with them.


Samuel Barker: I understand the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to take the position that the government are the best judges, as a matter of policy, as to what should be comprised in the Audit Act.


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly, I say that.
ill-. BARKER. I differ from the hon. gentleman, and I desire to say why. He seems to overlook the fact that he and his colleagues are the ones to be audited. The public, who desire the audit, are in a diametrically opposite position to that of the hon. gentleman. I can quite understand not imputing any impropriety to the hon. minister and his colleagues-that if some little blunder or irregularity took place, the hon. gentleman might be inclined to look with a little indulgence upon an Auditor General who did not point it out to the public. It would be most surprising to the shareholders of a great company to be told bv their treasurer that he did not think an audit was necessary, or that he was the best judge of how far the audit should go. The public of this country want to audit even the Finance Minister ; and the public, and certainly the opposition in this .House, should have quite as much to say m that regard as the hon. gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches and who are to be audited. Now. this is an example of extreme irregularity in the different branches of the government in bringing down the estimates. We have a perfect right to point out, and, as the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has said, we should continue to point out, so long as that irregularity continues, in what it consists. This session the government have brought down supplementary estimates for the year 1904-5, amounting tc>
$6,379,342-an expenditure for the fiscal year which they had not provided for. amount included items for the year 1903-4, to which the Auditor General called attention, amounting to $280,551.


Mr FIELDING.: What were the items to "which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker)
refers ? I think he is referring to a purely formal item at the close which appears


Samuel Barker: I am pointing that out. We have the right to assume, in the absence of any remark in these estimates, that this $280,551 included everything for the year 1903-4 that had been overlooked. But two days ago the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), in giving us some of his very candid admissions, referring to item 32 for the year 1904-5, the amount of which was $300,000, said that had to be provided, because he had used the money granted last year, to pay for 1903-4. Surely that was an irregularity. When we come to the main estimates for the coming year, we have a right to assume that we are now getting truthfully and straightforwardly just what is required for the year. But when we ask the Minister of the luterior to explain increases, he laughs and tells us . Oh, we could not tell exactly last year what we wanted for particular services, and this item includes expenses for both years. But when, a few days ago, the government asked a supplementary vote of over $6,000,000 to cover the expenditure of last yeai, they have erred on the safe side and asked enough. What we find fault with is that we do not know for what year the money is actually being voted. How, then, can v e criticise the accounts ? The time lost m the explanation given hv the Minister of the Integer of this small item will cost nearly as much as is involved in the question. And we could avoid all this if a straightfoiwaid statement were given of the items as they come before us.


Ur FIELDING.: I am afraid I fail to see the connection between the hon gentleman s (Mr. Barker's) last criticism and the general statement he has made with regard to the Audit Act. If I understood aright the discussion the complaint ot h [DOT] 8
men opposite was that. sums beiongmg to
the service of the previous yeai had been paid out of this year's appropriation and that this was illegal and improper. Am I right ?


Samuel Barker: Yes, that was one complaint.


Mr FIELDING.: The Auditor General,
who,'according to hon. always does right as against this g ment who always does wron^ has passed these illegal and improper items.


Mr BARKER.: I explained that.
Sor SnSfSSS
illegal^ I do "not join in the condemnation of the Auditor General. But I ampomting out that if these statements correct^^y are a condemnation of the Auditor


Andrew B. Ingram: Tire ton. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) wants to deceive this House by stating that the Auditor General was prepared to pass these items


William Stevens Fielding: 
Samuel Barker: 
Andrew B. Ingram: 
William Stevens Fielding: I did not make any reflection on the Auditor General. That'was done by hon. gentlemen oposite.


Andrew B. Ingram: But I want to consider the correctness of what the minister has said the other evening, when the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) was explaining his estimates, concerning one
A'fmit118 r<al(i tllat St was put in because the Auditor Genera] would not pass the account and it was necessary for him to ask for an Act of parliament.


Mr. FIELDING  .@: There are such cases.


Andrew B. Ingram: And why ? Because the government are not complying with the law.
GenovS hardIy fair to say that the Auditor Genera] passes these items so freely.


William Stevens Fielding: 
William Stevens Fielding: 
Frank Oliver: I want to take the remarks of the hon. member in the best possible spirit, and assure him that, as I understand it, the general vote of the Indian Department is not open to his criticisms. In regard to this particular vote for miscellaneous and unforeseen items, these things are not 'of a class that are capable of being accurately estimated for. Bast year, as I have pointed out, there was an effort to bring that vote to a reasonable limit: but if it should turn out that owing to unforeseen occurrences. the amount was overrun to a smal1 extent, as it may have been, though
I am not sure that it has, I am sure the hon. gentleman will not place the expenditure under that head in exactly the same category as he would an expenditure for definite and fixed purposes that could be foreseen. I plead for that much latitude in regard to this particular item, and beg to assure him that I think he will find in the general bookkeeping of the department, if he goes through the items, that his requirements are fully met. As far as the Indian Department is concerned, where a vote covers expenditures that can be foreseen, they are absolutely provided for, and there is no carrying forward from one year to another.


David Henderson: Does the minister not think that he can foresee practically all the expenditure that he will be called upon to meet under this head between the present day and the 1st of July? Does he suspect any extraordinary expenditure, or is there something that he is unable to anticipate? If he has not in his mind's eye any extraordinary expenditure, let him simply bring down an estimate of what, under ordinary circumstances, would meet the case. I am quite sure that if some accident occurred, something extraordinary occurred, there would be some means of meeting the case. There are means of meeting emergencies of that kind by the Governor General's warrant. I do not mean to say that it would be applicable to this particular case. But if some extraordinary epidemic was to occur among the Indians during the coming month and it was necessary to expend a very large sum of money, I do not think there is an hon. member in this House who would find fault if the expenditure was found to exceed the estimate. That is a matter that could be explained, but there is no explanation and no attempt to explain this case. It is a common thing in the estimates to have an item for unforeseen expenses, and it applies so plainly and so specially that a minister, putting together the items for ten, fifteen or twenty years, and striking an average, can certainly get very little astray in arriving at what would be a reasonable correct estimate. I wish to take this firm stand on this question, because I believe it would be in the interest of economy, in the interest of the country, in the interest of careful administration and careful expenditure. But if we are to allow the matter to go on hap-hazard year after year without having any safeguards thrown around it, as I have already said, we lose all control of the expenditure of the country, and practically know nothing about it, allowing the expenditure to grow on us year after year, wondering indeed what has become of the money of the country.


Andrew B. Ingram: How many bands are there in New Brunswick? I understand there are about 1,600 Indians.


Frank Oliver: There were twenty bands.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does that include the Indians that were not settled on reserves ?


Frank Oliver: There were twenty bands located but all the Indians are not settled in those particular settlements ; that is some Indians are not in the band settlements but there are twenty bands.


Andrew B. Ingram: Some of them are not settled on reserves ?


Frank Oliver: Exactly.


Andrew B. Ingram: What does the government do with those not on the reserves that are included in those 1,600 !


Frank Oliver: They are dealt with as though they were on reserves but of course they are not restrained to the reserve.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is no restriction made between those settled on the reserves and those not settled on reserves ?


Frank Oliver: No, there is no difference. Their proper home is on the reserves, but I am given to understand they are not compelled to remain there and some of them choose to rather .make their permanent residence elsewhere than on the reserve ; others prefer to make their permanent home on the reserve, but to spend the greater part of the time travelling about the province in their usual vocations of hunting, fishing and basket making.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are those under the care of the doctors appointed by the department to look after. the Indians of those several bands ?


Frank Oliver: They have the same claim upon the assistance of the medical department whether they are on the reserve or off it.
tendance, and the argument would not hold good for the last item for ' miscellaneous and unforeseen.'


Frank Oliver: The miscellaneous as will be understood is not all for medical service, but is mostly taken up in the travelling about of agents and contingencies and in case of sickness the agents have to travel about more and exercise closer supervision.


Andrew B. Ingram: You have eleven doctors controlling twenty bands and the greatest difficulty, I apprehend, among those not settled on regular reserves, and the causes that brought about the increased sickness among the Indians not on the settled reserves, was the bad sanitary condition of their buildings. The same attention is not given to the Indians that are settled on other places than the regular reserves and that may account for the increased cost of medical attendance.


Frank Oliver: Under the treaty arrangement with the Indians it is not within the power of the department to compel them to live within the reserves. They have the privilege of living around where they please.


Andrew B. Ingram: Surely Indians desiring to have the rights given to Indians must comply with the instructions of the Department of the Interior. They must reside on the reserves to be entitled to what the department grants them. Take at Munsey or any of the other Ontario reserves if the Indians will not remain on the reserves surely the department does not have to grant them what it gives to those who are on the reserves. If an Indian desires his freedom and wants to roam at will he must do it at his own expense and cost, and the department should not be called upon to treat him the san* as they would Indians, who are on the regular reserves.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is it not a fact that where they are not on the regular reserves the death rate is higher, the sickness greater than on the reserves in New Brunswick ?


Frank Oliver: Such is not the information of the department.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think there is a reference to this in the repoPt. The death rate was higher yeur report says last year from various diseases. The argument used by the minister is that the reason why you are increasing the item this year is on account of the incra|R.se of sickness among the Indians and in the last item, ' Miscellaneous and Unforeseen' where you have an increase of $300 over last year you are giving as a reason that greater sickness may prevail and for that reason you are increasing the item. You have forgotten that you have increased the item above that by $500 more than last year ; it was $3,000 last year and now it is $3,500. Therefore the argument used by the minister with respect to the increased sickness on the reserve is already attended to by reason of the $500 increase for medical at-


Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: The conditions in the maritime provinces are not the same as in the Northwest ; in fact the Indians in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia do not receive any treaty payments and the government does not take the responsibility of their support as is the case with the Indians of the Northwest. The Indians of the Northwest were deprived of their livelihood by the destruction of the buffalo. In the case of the maritime province Indians they are expected practically to make their own living. The government recognizes their responsibility towards them in various ways, and one of the ways is in giving medical attendance, but the able-bodied Indian of New Brunswick is expected to provide for his own support, and as every one knows a sedentary life does not agree with the mind or inclination of the Indian, and possibly does not give him tiie best opportunities. Therefore it is in the securing of a livelihood fnat the Indians wander from their reserves, and I would take it that if the government exercised pressure to keep them on the reserve the- government would thereby incur a moral responsi-

653S
bility to provide for tbeir support to a degree that it is not called upon to do at the present time ?


Andrew B. Ingram: That is not the point at ail. If an Indian roams around at will and through his negligence becomes siclc, surely it is not the intention of the department to follow that Indian around and provide medical attendance for him ?


Richard Blain: The Indian report shows that the Indians of New Brunswick are divided into several bands, and there does not appear to be very much progress made by them. The inspector of the Eel river band reports :
They have no stock or farm implements ; they pay no attention whatever to education ; they are not making much progress.
The government should give some little attention to educating these Indians and especially so as the effort appears to be a success in the Northwest. Nobody objects to spending money for the welfare of the Indians, but some of it should be devoted to educating the younger Indians so that they may become self-supporting and cease to be a'burden on us. The report as to the Bathurst band says :
They pay no attention to education ; they are not making any progress.
The report with reference to the Burnt Church band is more encouraging and it says :
There is a school house on this reserve and the school has been kept open for several years past. Many of the younger Indians can read and write. More interest is taken by them in education than in former years.
If the Indians of this band can be induced to educate themselves surely the same thing can be done with reference to other bands in the same province. The report as to the Red Bank band says :
Very little attention is given to education. These Indians are amongst the most progressive in this agency.
It looks as if these reports were stereotyped from year to year, and that the agent does very much as assessors do, namely look up last year's report to see what it anid and then write the same thing for the current year. I hope that when the minister is installed in his office he will attend to these things, and that next year we will see a change. Some attention should be paid to educating the Indians on every one of these reserves.


Frank Oliver: A vote of $1,800 has already been passed for schools on Indian reserves in New Brunswick.
Prince Edward Island Indians-medical attendance, $650.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are there any more doctors engaged this year than last ?


Frank Oliver: There are only two reserves on the island and the doctors are paid by fees according to attendance.


Andrew B. Ingram: They seem to be paid a pretty fair fee ?


Frank Oliver: The expenditure last year was $562.80.


David Henderson: How many Indians are there in Prince Edward Island ?


Frank Oliver: 292.	.


David Henderson: May I ask if there is any grant made to the Indians at Indian Lorette in the province of Quebec ?


Frank Oliver: There is an agent there. They have medical attendance and relief is furnished to those who are destitute. They do not receive treaty money as do the Indians in the west, but in other respects they are dealt with in much the same way.


David Henderson: I am not finding fault with the expenditure and my question was merely a matter of curiosity. I had occasion to visit Indian Lorette not long ago and I was impressed with the comfortable conditions under which the Indians were living. Were it not that I was told it was an Indian village I never w'ould have suspected they were Indians at all, with the exception of one or two people I saw there. They are certainly a very respectable looking class of people, and I presume that under the arrangement made with them long ago they are entitled to receive this consideration. I am glad to testify to the comfortable conditions in which the Lorette Indians appear to be.


Frank Oliver: They are practically selfsupporting.
Indians-Manitoba and the Northwest-annul-ties, $141,365.


Frank Oliver: This item shows a net decrease of $52,307. There is a decrease in annuities, supplies of implements, seed, live stock, provisions, clothing, special clothing for chiefs, special grant to the Sault Indians, and in the expenditure on saw and grist mills and general expenses of management. There is an increase in the estimate for schools, day, boarding and industrial, of $5,910 ; a total net decrease of $52,307.


William James Roche: Is the decrease in the annuities owing to a decrease in the number of Indians ?	-


Frank Oliver: No ; it was found that the vote in the estimates was a little larger than was necessary, and the estimate of this year is reduced accordingly.


Mr. LAKE.: Has there been a decrease in the number of Indians in the last year or two ?


Frank Oliver: No ; they are just about at a standstill.



Indians-Manitoba and the Northwest Territories-seeds, field and garden, $1,864.


Andrew B. Ingram: How are these distributed ?


Frank Oliver: I understand that they are distributed from the commissioner's office at Winnipeg to the different agencies, and the distribution to the individual Indians on the reserve is at the discretion of the agent.


Andrew B. Ingram: Without any interference from any other officer?


Frank Oliver: I understand so.
Indians-Manitoba and the Northwest Territories-live stock, $25,253.


William James Roche: I would like to ask the minister to explain the method by which this live stock is purchased for the department. Is any particular stockman asked to supply a certain number of head at a stipulated price, or have all stockmen an opportunity of competing ?


Frank Oliver: The purchase of cattle is accomplished in various ways. This year Inspector Markle has purchased the greater number of cattle required, particularly the bulls. Some of the other stock has been purchased by other officers of the department under inspection by a veterinary. All stock is subject to inspection before it is paid for.


William James Roche: Is the stock inspected before it is shipped ? Does Inspector Markle go around and inspect it before it is placed on the cars to be shipped to different reserves ?


Frank Oliver: He inspects and is responsible for the condition .of that part of the stock which he purchases. The stock are subject to an inspection by a veterinary when they arrive at the different agencies, to see that they arrive in proper condition.


William James Roche: The reason I ask this is that I think the government have been paying an exorbitant price for a good deal of the stock they purchase. For instance, I know a stockman who gets $125 apiece for so-called thoroughbred cattle, which he sells to the government for the Indian reserves, and he sold about $9,000 worth last year; yet those who have sold animals to this stockman have informd me that they sold them to him for $45, $50 and $55 per head. One gentleman, whose veracity I can vouch for, informed me that he was.offered by this same stockman his own selection of fifteen animals at $60 per head. It is common talk in that part of the country that the government has_ been imposed upon by the manner in which this stock has been sold to it. I have a little delicacy in mentioning this gentleman's name, but lie himself has rather made a boast as to the amount of money he has made in selling this stock to the government at $125 per head, while it is well known to all the farmers of the neighbour-


Frank Oliver: hood that he purchased the animals at $45, $50 and $55 a head.


Frank Oliver: I can understand that there is a great difference of opinion as to the value of alleged thoroughbred stock, without the different valuators being in any way dishonest. I can easily imagine than the department may on occasions have paid more than a clever stock buyer would have been able to get the animals for ; but the desire of the department is rather to procure good tanimiais than cheap animals, while, of course, not paying improper prices. But I am pointing out that in the one case the object of the buyer is to get the animal as cheap as he can, while the object of the department is to get the animal as good as possible within a fixed limit of price.


Edward Cochrane: By paying $120 when you could have got them for $60.


Frank Oliver: I am merely stating a fact, which is in the knowledge of every man in Canada, that the value of a thorough bred animal is very largely a matter of opinion and judgment.
Mi-. BARKER. The hon. gentleman is not answering the statement. The statement was that a stock owner sold 15 head of cattle to the government at $125 a head and had offered them to a merchant at $60 a head.


Frank Oliver: I am not disputing the statement at all, but I am merely pointing out that there is the possibility of a very wide margin of difference between two perfectly honest estimates of the value of the same animals, when the question of breeding is in issue.


Edward Cochrane: Everybody who knows anything about stock knows that if an animal is well bred, the breeding will show on the animal.


William James Roche: No one will know better than the original owner, and when an animal has been purchased for less than $60 from the original owner and then is offered to another party for $60, and is subsequently sold to the government for $125, there is something radically wrong. It is evidently a case of favouring a political friend. I do not know whether the particular inspector or Indian agent was a good judge of an animal as to breeding or not ; but i'f he is limited to purchasing from men of a certain political complexion, he will have to pay correspondingly increased prices. Some other method of purchasing should be followed rather than that of going to certain political friends and asking them to supply so many head of cattle at so much per head.


Frank Oliver: If there be a discrepancy between the actual value of the animal and the price paid, some means will have to be taken to prevent future purchases of

that kind. The object of the department Is to secure good animals and we have limited the price to a figure which should he sufficient for a good animal. Beyond that figure the purchaser cannot go, and he is bound to get the best animal he can for the price. That may not be the best way. It is said that the agent was instructed to purchase from certain firms or dealers. Well, there are certain people who make a specialty of thoroughbred stock, and the buyer might very well be instructed to go to such. For my part I think that in the western country, there is an opporunity to purchase thoroughbred stock on terms which do not leave the matter open to question from any point of view. There is a thoroughbred stock sale at Calgary every year, where thoroughbreds are brought from all parts, and are offered for sale at public competition. I have instructed my officers to attend that sale this year and purchase whatever animals might be required.


William James Roche: That would be a much preferable way to buying them from the middlemen. All these animals were purchased in Manitoba for shipment to the Territories. If you have stock sales at Calgary, you could buy them there and save freight and you could buy very much better where you have competition. As regards the other suggestion of the minister, it would be better for the superintendent of Indian agencies to go direct to the stock raisers, who are known to have a number of thoroughbred stock, and save the great profits of the. middleman.


John Herron: In our country it is well known that the different Indian reserves pay three or four times the value for the stock they buy. I know of another instance where 100 head of cattle were put upon one of the reserves by a speculative friend of the government. He charged for these cattle $26 a head. They would not sell in the district where they were delivered for $10 a head. That fact I know personally, because I had something to do with their delivery and inspection. The agent refused to accept the cattle and the stockman and contractor simply sent for a very important member of the government and he instructed the agent to take them over. All the cattle supplied the reserves in that part of the country have been charged at the same rate.


Mr. LABOR.: I think the Minister of the Interior made a rather candid statement when he said these mistakes were not to be repeated. That is the kind of statement this country wants. If the minister will follow that precedent, he will be act

ing more in the interests of the department than in trying to condone its acts of the past. Judging by the criticism of that department both in and out of the House, it would keep him rather busy to do that.
And I hope that, when these questions come before the department he will be candid enough with the people not to condone the acts of the department in the past. I hope also that in the future such acts will not be repeated. I think the country will have confidence that under the hon. gentleman they will not be repeated. I think the people believe that they have an honest man at the head of the department at the present time, whatever they may have had in the past. I am glad to believe that the hon. gentleman will not repeat the mistakes made by his predecessors and buy cattle from the man who happens to be the Liberal candidate, at twice the price of what they are worth. I think that the explanation made that these cattle, bought from the farmers at $45 and $50 a head were sold to this government at $120 per head shows to some extent the extravagance of the department in the past-. I do not think it should be repeated even though the gentleman selling the cattle happens to be the Liberal candidate.
Mr. W, J. ROCHE. We have in this item a reduction from $53,895 for the current year to $25,253 for the coming year. Surely the fact of having had a general election last November had nothing to do with this.


Frank Oliver: I am told that the reason for the reduction this year is that the purchases of previous years have brought the amount of stock on the reserves up to about what is considered reasonable. Of course, it is not the policy of the department to continue buying breeding stock for the reserves. The intention is to buy a certain amount and depend upon the Indians themselves to take care of that stock and look after the increase. The whole intention of the purchase in years past was that these purchases should not continue in the future; but it is hoped that the difference between the estimate of the current year and that of the coming year on this account can be continued, and that with the purchases that have already been made, there will be an increase of stock on the reserves. In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) I do not know that it is any part of my business either to admit mistakes on the part of the department or to condone any mistakes they may have made. I have undertaken a very serious responsibility in my present office, and shall hope to discharge that responsibility so as to meet the approval of my hon. friends on the other side of the House. At the same time, I must say, that though I am of a sanguine disposition, and however great my hopes, my expectation does not by any means reach such a height as that. With regard to this item, I think it can be no question that for the requirements of the reserves in the west, at least, so long as the Calgary sale is continued, it will be the best and most economical place to purchase

the thoroughbred stock. It is not the sale for other than thoroughbred stock-that other will hare to be purchased elsewhere. I do not know now how this system of purchase can be improved upon, though if complaints made are well founded, perhaps its administration could be improved upon. But, in the case of thoroughbred stock, we can hardly hope to purchase the requirements for the eastern part of Canada at the western stock sale. We will try to devise something, possibly if the sale is kept up to the high standard and run on as good a basis.


William James Roche: The hon minister has an estimate here of over $25,000 for the coming year. I assume that he has details of the class of animals he will purchase with this money. Could he tell how many thoroughbreds and how many of the ordinary class of stock he intends to purchase?


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman wants to know what animals are to be purchased and for what reserves?


William James Roche: And at what price.


Frank Oliver: The following is the estimate:
Manitoba.
Portage La Prairie Agency-
1	bull for Swan Lake Band	
Manitowapah Agency-
1 bull for Water Hen River Band..
The Pas Agency-
1 bull (grade) for Grand Rapids Band	
Northwest Territories.
Crooked Lake Agency-
1 bull (Shorthorn) at $100.. ..$ 100 10 work oxen at $50	 500
Touchwood Hills Agency-
2	bulls (Shorthorn) at $100	
Saddle Lake Agency-
2 bulls (Shorthorn) at $125	
Hobbema Agency-
2 bulls (Shorthorn) at $125	
Stoney Agency-
100 heifers at $28 and
2	stallions (range bred) at $175 ...
Blackfoot Agency-
12 bulls at $125	$1,500
200 heifers at $28	 5,600
3	stallions at $175	 525
Pelgan Agency-
10 bulls at $125	 1,250
400 heifers at $28	 11,200
2 stallions at $150	 300

	12,750
Total	25,253


John Herron: At what age are heifers required say for Stoney agency or the Pie-gan agency?


Frank Oliver: Two years old.


John Herron: Surely the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) does not think that two-year old heifers are worth $28 apiece in that country?	1


Frank Oliver: 


David Henderson: I notice, with reference to the Blackfoot agency that he said he intended to purchase during the coming year twelve males at $125 each.


Frank Oliver: Scarcely that. We are asking for that amount of money so that we may purchase at that price. We will purchase them at a lower price if we can. But we are anxious to keep within the hon. gentleman's restrictions as to overrunning our vote.


David Henderson: At the same time, we expect the hon. gentleman, who is going to give $125 each, to buy a good animal for the Indians, and that he will not put them off with a poorer animal and use the balance of the money for something else. That would be getting back to the old system. In the same agency the department purchased twelve males only last year. Can it be possible that it is necessary to keep on renewing the thoroughbred stock at this excessive rate ? If so, it seems to me that something is wrong. I do not know much about the Blackfoot agency but it seems to me that the purchases are pretty large. There is also a supply of heifers at $28. It would appear that this is the standard price for heifers. It strikes me as very extraordinary that heifers raised in the Northwest Territories are so much alike that they are worth just $28, no more and no less. That seems to be the standing price. It looks to me as if the agent goes out and says, I want some good heifers, $28 is my price, turn out your heifers. They may be worth $20, they may be worth $15, hut $28 seems to be the standard price for heifers, the same as $125 is for the male animal. Now does the minister really think, after purchasing 12 thoroughbreds, male animals for this agency last year, that it is absolutely necessary that twelve more should be purchased next year? It seems to me there is a good deal of uncalled for extravagance and waste of money. I think the Indians should be taught to make better use of what is provided for them; they should be trained to habits of economy and industry, to take care of what is given to them. It may be that some disease has crept in and the animals have died; but unless there are some extraordinary conditions, certainly there seems to be something wrong in the appropriation we are asked for.


Frank Oliver: This is a very large reservation, comprising 470 square miles, and containing 850 Indians. By treaty made with these India life the government is under obligation to provide them with support. These Indians were formerly dependent upon the buffalo, and the treaty stipulated that when the buffalo disappeared, as they must disappear with the settlement of the country by white people, the government should provide for the support of these Indians. The government has carried out that part of the bargain, but at the same time it has been

our constant effort to get the Indians to be self-supporting. Although the reserve is a large one it Is not generally agricultural, neither are the Indians agriculturally inclined ; so you would have almost to make over the reserve and to make over the Indians before you could get them to support themselves by farming as we understand it. The only chance of getting them to be selfsupporting is to encourage them to raise stock. Now the department has entered into this enterprise of providing these people with stock so that they may ultimately become self-supporting. It is still a difficult process to some extent, but that seems to be the onlv way by which we can bring them to that condition. I think it will be generally agreed that it would be a good policy to pursue towards the Indians to induce them to become self-supporting, and to that end we are providing them with stock by this vote.


William Wright: I would ask the hon. gentleman whether the Indians are in the habit of eating up their stock in the winter when they are pinched with hunger ?


Frank Oliver: Of course, the department retains a certain control over the stock, and the Indian is only allowed to kill and sell with the premission of the agent. Very-strict care is exercised in that respect, and although stock is handed over to the Indians to he dealt with exactly as he pleases, at the same time certain control is retained by the agent, so far as is consistent with the encouragement of the idea of independence and of property in the mind of the Indian.


John Herron: I may tell the minister that these cattle are not worth $28, $22 to $23 would be a good price for them. You can get almost the best cattle in the Northwest Territories for that price.


Frank Oliver: Of course the hon. gentleman is thoroughly posted in that matter, and I will request the officers of the department to take notice of his opinion. But as I have pointed out, we are not_ asking this money necessarily with tire intention of paying that price for cattle, but we are asking it for the purpose of covering all contingencies, so that we may not have to overrun our estimate.


Richard Stuart Lake: In connection with these items I desire to make a remark regarding the practice of allowing Indian agents to act as magistrates. They do so under the statutes of 1886, ex-officio an Indian agent is a justice of the peace. Then he has the power of two justices of the peace in certain cases which are enumerated in that Act. He deals not only with the Indians hut also with white people. A little excitement has been created in a portion of the district which I represent in regard to this matter. Now that settlements have become fairly thick throughout the Territories, and there are likely to be a good many cases in which
both whites and Indians are mixed up, 1 think it would be just as well to have that provision removed ; and if it is considered advisable that special authority should be given to the agents in respect to the Indians, then it should be confined to those agencies in the more remote districts. It will be readily understood that an Indian agent, if he is any good as such, looks upon the Indians as his especial charge, as his wards, and in any cases which come before him where Indians and whites are concerned, his judgment is likely to be biased in favour of the Indians. For instance, there are the cases where some one has taken wood or timber off an Indian reserve. The agent in (he first place sets on foot inquiries as to who is likely to have taken the wood. After he thinks he has discovered the guilty' parties he takes the necessary proceedings to summon them before him ; so that after having acted as prosecutor he also becomes the judge. It seems to me absolutely wrong in principle that the same person should be both prosecutor and judge. In the older established settlements there are many gentlemen who are capable of acting as magistrates, and could act in all cases in which whites and Indians are concerned. So far as I can see in the Act there is no provision for an Indian agent to take an oath of office ; I do not know whether he takes an oath to act in the capacity of justice of the peace, perhaps the minister will be able to tell me. Further than that, every justice of the peace who is appointed by the local government in the Northwest has to make regular returns to the Attorney General of cases which come before him, also returns to the Supreme Court of cases heard and convictions made. I would like to know whether the Indian agent acting as two-for he has the power of two-justices of the peace, makes regular reports to the Department of Justice or to the Supreme Court; what check there is upon him in that respect.
I may say that I am strongly of opinion that he should not act in cases of this nature and that it would be advisable to have the act changed in this respect this session.


Frank Oliver: The agent is ex-officio a magistrate ; he does not take an oath of office and makes his report to the head of the Indian Department. The idea of course is that the Indians are not in a position to protect themselves in law and that it is desirable they should have adequate protection within the limits of their reserve. Of course the jurisdiction of the agent only applies within the limits of the reserve and therefore can only be exercised in Connection with matters that are entirely under the Indian Act or disputes between Indians and other people under that Act. While my friend admits that this is still necessary on reserves which are situated in a thinly settled cQuntry


Richard Stuart Lake: I do not admit it.


Frank Oliver: Well, if my friend does not admit the propriety of this provision in any case, I am quite prepared to admit that with the settlement of the country and the change of conditions it is quite possible that what may have been a necessary provision at one time is not a necessary provision now and the subject is very well worthy of consideration. But at the same time, even though we do consider the changed conditions, there is one condition that is not changed, that the Indians are as has always been said the wards of the government. They are a special responsibility on the Dominion government and therefore under its special protection and it is something to be considered very carefully before a conclusion is arrived at as to whether it would be desirable to withdraw from the Indians that protection which this government is now able to accord them through the position of the agent as a justice of the peace in administering the special legal provisions which are applicable only within the limits of the reserve and which are generally considered necessary to the well being of the Indians on the reserve.


Richard Stuart Lake: Let me put a specific case before the minister. A number of white settlers take wood off a reserve. They may have done it deliberately or they may have done it inadvertently. It is very difficult, as the minister knows, sometimes to know where an Indian reserve begins and where it ends ; there is nothing particular to show. The agent, if he is a good agent, having the interest of the Indians thoroughly at heart, immediately that this matter is reported to him by the Indians sets to work to try and find who has been guilty of taking the wood. As soon as he thinks he has located the guilty parties he issues summonses and they appear before him. Now I contend that he is not a proper person under those circumstances to judge the white settlers, it may be, who have been brought before him in this way. He has been the man Who has started out to find the offenders and then he becomes the judge as to whether those are the offenders whom he has caught, and the judge as to the extent to which they shall be punished for the offence, if he finds he has been successful in capturing the right persons. Certainly it seems to me that in all places where there are civilian justices of the peace within reach it becomes his duty to take that matter before the civilian justices of the peace. Surely the minister will not contend that the agent cannot get as full justice for the Indians before the ordinary justices of the peace as he could by taking the case himself. I agree that the Indians are the wards of the government and should be well looked after and their rights preserved to them, but we have the agents who


Frank Oliver: are in a position to look after these rights and see that they are preserved to the Indians and they can do it, in my opinion, perfectly well without acting as justices of the peace between them and the neighbouring settlers.


Andrew B. Ingram: 
Andrew B. Ingram: Take the Assiniboine agency and the Moose Mountain agency for instance. Would the inspector inspect those and if he did would his report be submitted to the department and would it be published m this report here ?


Frank Oliver: He is inspector of the two agencies mentioned, and his report would be printed in the next report of the department.


Andrew B. Ingram: What I want to get at is who inspected it previous to the date of this report, and where is the report to be found that ought to be included in this report ?


Frank Oliver: I am informed that the former inspector named Leveque. died, after a long illness, and did not make the usual annual report as inspector. The agent's report appears as usual. Mr. Graham was appointed, but he has only reported in regard to the schools, as he has not been long enough in office to make a full report.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the minister make further inquiry into this matter and give us a little better explanation a little later ? It seems a very remarkable thing that a report should not have been submitted. Is it not a fact that the report was suppressed ?


Frank Oliver: I am informed I have given the only explanation there is.


Andrew B. Ingram: We are perfectly satisfied to allow that explanation to go for the present. At a later period we will perhaps be able to make some explanation too ; we are informed the minister's explanation is hardly in accordance with the facts.


John Herron: 

I do not think people in this part of the country are in the habit of haring 3i cent ineal made into porridge. Then we have 24 cans of salmon at 15 cents. If it is British Columbia salmon, it seems to get cheaper the further east it comes. Then we have 900 pounds of sugar at 6 cents. We in this part of the country were satisfied to pay 4 cents a pound for standard granulated at the time this was bought. Then we have 4 gallons of vinegar at 80 cents a gallon. That must be a very superior quality ; possibly it was adulterated with some kind of alcohol. These are a few illustrations. It seems to me that these prices are altogether out of the ordinary, and I am surprised to learn that these goods are bought by tender. I notice that 75 cwt. of lime was bought at 75 cents per cwt. Is there no stone in that part of the country ? To my mind that is an extraordinary price. In the Edmonton agency, I notice that a very high price was paid for the same article-55 cents a bushel.


Mr. P. TALBOT.: I have paid 75 cents a bushel for it.


David Henderson: That must be a splendid place to sell lime. Some energetic, pushing man selling lime there could make a fortune in a few years. This is freight paid, and I have no doubt that for half the price some sensible business man would have taken hold of the matter. I am surprised at the government paying those extravagant prices. My hon. friend gets big prices for what he sells. I notice here that he sold four bulls at $125 each. A man who gets that price for liis bulls can well afford to pay 75 cents for lime.


Peter Talbot: I supplied five bulls but one of them died after being taken down there and I did not get paid for it. I lost $75 on the transaction.


David Henderson: Perhaps it was sick when sold and the hon. gentleman was not entitled to be paid for it. I regret very much that he lost his bull.


Peter Talbot: The price was $40 less than the average price I received at the Calgary sale for three yeas.


David Henderson: I notice that $125 is the ordinary price. I am not saying that the hon. gentleman got any more for his bulls than did other stockmen. From $80 up to $125 seems to he the common price. I am not accusing the hon. gentleman of having done anything unfair. I do not believe be would be capable of doing anything of tlie kind because he comes from pretty near the same section as myself, and I know something of his family, and I am not charging him with any dishonesty at all. But I am pointing out that there is something peculiar about these prices. Why had such laige figures to be paid? Had heavy freights to be paid, it would be different but i" un-Mr. HENDERSON.
derstand the Canadian Pacific Railway is paid for conveying those articles to their destination, and consequently they should be laid down there as cheaply as at Ottawa or Toronto.


Frank Oliver: During the visit of His Excellency to that part of the country, at his special request, these animals werepur-chased, and they were paid for at the ordinary retail price of the locality.


George Taylor: But the great bulk of supplies were bought by tender?


Frank Oliver: Certainly. The hon. gentleman was in error when he said that the price paid is the price less freight. The tenders all called for prices delivered.
Surveys, $7,000.


Richard Stuart Lake: I would like to ask whether the hou. minister has any idea that the Indians will sell any portion of their reserves. I know that for some time past, that question has been raised with regard to the Crooked lakes agency. There is a very large extent of territory in that agency quite close to the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is not used by Indians, and is quite in excess of their requirements. The Indians might be persuaded to sell that territory. I presume it is their property which they can sell or not if they choose. Could the department encourage them in any way to give up any of the land which they really do not require in order to promote" settlement? There would be a large settlement there if the Indians would dispose of any of their land.


Frank Oliver: I am informed that there is an arrangement for the surrender of 5,000 acres of the Assiniboia reserve south of the Siutaluta. That will be dealt with during the coming summer. At other places also efforts are being made to induce the Indians to part with portions of their reserves which they do not need, and for which they will receive the full price that may be received by the government acting as their trustees. It is not possible for the government to enforce a surrender because the land is absolutely the property of the Indians.


Richard Stuart Lake: Is there any idea of selling any portion of the Pasqua's reserve?


Frank Oliver: Up to the present I have had no communications with regard to that.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the explanation of paying $15 a day to Dr. Jamieson in connection with the Berens river agency?-


Frank Oliver: The medical attendant accompanies the agent in making the annual treaty payments.	'


Andrew B. Ingram: Why should the doctor be paid $15 a day and $162.50 for expenses ?


Frank Oliver: It has been the custom for many years to take the opportunity of the gathering of the Indians at the treaty points to make a medical examination of them and render them such medical assistance as may be possible at the time.


Andrew B. Ingram: We had a similar case last year. I find $162.50 charged up for expenses of the same Dr. Jamieson. Does he accompany the Rev. J. Semmens ?


Frank Oliver: He did the last year. The Rev. Mr. Semmens was agent.


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, and this Dr. Jamieson gets $15 a day, and he has $160 in addition for expenses. He travelled around with this man for a trip I suppose to enjoy himself in this particular agency. The same rule does not apply in any other place. And then these gentlemen have rather an exalted idea of their duties, they charter boats and go into this thing very liberally.


George Taylor: There are no special cars?


Andrew B. Ingram: There are no special cars but here we have schooners $73. I do not know whether they are lager beer schooners or not. Then they have ' entertaining a party, $3.50,' 'expert interpreter, $11.' There are several items here that should be looked into as they really are very liberal and I think this Dr. Thompson has had a very good thing now for a couple of years and he should give some one else a chance. It should not be confined to this one particular agency.


Mr. DERBYSHIRE.: We will have that looked right into.


Frank Oliver: I do not know what can be said in regard to this more than to repeat that it has been the custom for many years to make a medical inspection of the treaty bands at the time of making the treaty payments. It is usual to have the services of a physician. I do not know what the ordinary stipend of the position is, but fancy that $15 a day is not more than most of those talented professional gentlemen would ask especially for a trip such as this around the Berens River agency, the reserves of which are situated around the shores of Lake Winnipeg, and the chartering of boats is a necessity if the trip is to be made unless the agent and the medical man either swim or wade. There are no railroads or roads of any kind between several of the agencies, and the only means of communication is by boat and it is natural to suppose that the medical man if he is of good standing and his services are worth anything will not make such a trip as that for anything but a very fair consideration.


Richard Blain: Is such a medical inspection made of all the different bands of the province of Manitoba ?	*
Mr. OLIVER, I understand so.


Andrew B. Ingram: Oh, nonsense. On this page there are several other agencies and will the minister be good enough to turn over his report and find such an inspection for the Clandeboye reserve, the Birtle reserve, the Blackfoot reserve, or the Blood or any of them. There is not a single doctor mentioned in his report as receiving $15 a day and his expenses included.


David Henderson: Perhaps the shooting was not as good at the other agencies. There was not the same inducement for a doctor to go out for a holiday.


Frank Oliver: The medical service on the reserve of the Clandeboye .agency is done by a Dr. Steep who receives a yearly salary of $900.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think I can say there is not another agency in the whole list in which there can be found a doctor receiving $15 a day either by the year or any other way. I understand now that the Minister of the Interior support this, and thinks it is a proper payment and that it should be paid and continued. That is what I understand from his justification of this item.


Frank Oliver: I have no hesitation whatever in saying that accoriling to the custom of the department and the principle which has guided the department in dealing with the Indians for the last 20 years it is certainly a proper principle, and I fully believe it is a proper payment. At any rate if it is not a proper payment the impropriety is not in the amount of the payment or for the services supposed to be rendered, or it would only be in the qualification of the physician whose services are engaged. H he" is a properly qualified physician he is worth that money.


Andrew B. Ingram: I wish to point out again that in this report here the health of the band is stated to have been fairly good throughout the year. It makes a good report in that respect and the other cases are more or less like that, but there is no doctor going around and getting such high fees. It would be far better to pay a permanent doctor $600 a year so that he could be available every day in the year if necessary. But this man, for only 45 days, gets $lt>
a day and $150 odd for expenses.


Frank Oliver: A little while ago the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) ed me of finding fault with members of the committee on improper grounds , Reused me of trying to arouse sympathy m favour of the unfortunate immigrants or Indians a, against the members of the opposition Now I hone he will not accuse me In this instance when I say tint in this particular case the geographical circumstances are such that it would be useless to appoint a salaried Indian medical attendant such as "ives the medical attendance on ail otnei reserve?, I am given to understand, through-

out Manitoba and the Northwest. This particular agency is in a peculiar geographical position. It is situated along the shores of Lake Winnipeg and various agencies can only be reached by boat in the summer and for practical purposes * cannot be reached in the winter, and I think when a member such as the member for East Elgin has seen fit to do, takes the ground of strongly objecting to the medical attendance that is given to those Indians, which has been the custom of the department all the time, it is only fair that the hon. member who makes that objection and takes that position should accept and take full responsibility for it.
Industrial and boarding schools, $81,500.


Frank Oliver: There is an increase of $5,950. That is occasioned by establishing a new industrial school at Kootenay ; renewing tools for carpenter and blacksmith ; protection against fire for industrial school at Metlakatla ; to pay balance of cost of erection of a new school at Schelt; providing grant for 50 pupils at $00 each ; unforeseen expenses, of which a large amount is required to provide stationery and school material.


Richard Blain: How many teachers are engaged, and what are their qualifications ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I accept the responsibility for everything I say in the House. I do not seek to shelter myself behind any person. I say that if the Indians on that reserve have health so good that the doctor's services are not required for more than 45 days in the whole year and the department pays $600, I say the department is not taking a wise course or doing a wise thing, and I understand the minister is defending this. This doctor is engaged for only 45 days out of the 365 days in the year, but is paid $15 a day and the poor Indians suffer without a doctor for the remaining 320 days, and these 45 days are all on the one trip. As my hon. friend beside me suggests, he fixed them so well in the 45 days that they have been in good health for the balance of the days.
Indians-British Columbia-medical attendance and medicines, $20,000.


Richard Blain: The minister might give some explanation of that medicine.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to point out that when the next general election comes round the hon. gentleman from Brockville will be on record as objecting to a proper criticism of these items.


Daniel Derbyshire: No; I am not finding a word of fault. I asked the minister myself for further explanation of the medicine.


Frank Oliver: The expenditure during the past few years has been as follows .-1901-2 $20 46S; 1902-3, $18,341; 1903-4, $15,534. Medical attendance and medicines are provided for the Indians who cannot afford to pay for them. The physicians are either upon salaries, which represent a fair remuneration for their services, the medicines being supplied ; or, when paid by grants, they are allowed the lowest charges made to poor white patients. The medicines are supplied to medical missionaries, who distribute them to Indians under their charge. Although there was a balance of $4,456 unexpended m 1903-4, it is thought inadvisable to i educe the appropriation, as some doctors are asking for an increased salary, and some provision is always necessary for a possible outbreak of small-pox or other infectious disease amongst the Indians.


Frank Oliver: Mr. O LI \ II It. There are thirty-two day schools. The teachers have the -equivalent of a third-class Ontario certificate. These are not industrial schools, and do not teach trades ; they are merely day schools.


Richard Blain: Are they subject to general inspection ?
Mr. 0I7I \ ER. Yes ; the department has a school inspector, to whom they are subject.


David Henderson: Are these schools attended exclusively by children of Indian parents ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


David Henderson: Vi hat is the experience of the department in regard to these children when they arrive at an age to leave school? Do they go back to their old haunts, or do they take advantage of the education they have received and enter into industrial pursuits, prompted by the education given to them in these schools ? Are we really getting any material advantage from this work ?


Frank Oliver: In regard to the British Columbia industrial schools, I am informed by the officers of the department that it is believed considerable benefit results to the Indians from their education in these schools. The Indians of the coast and in ' the interior have, owing to their environment and other considerations, more of an industrial turn than have the Indians on the plains, who have no tendency in that way whatever. Probably we have better results from the industrial schools in British Columbia than from a similar class of schools on the plains.
Travelling expenses, $6,600.
s/iSa ^AYL05; There is an increase of $1,000 here. Who took that trip costing $1,000 ? *-
Mr. OLfI\ EiR. This increase is on account of the travelling expenses of the school in-pector. He has to travel all over British Columbia, and visit forty or fifty schools. He was only recently appointed. He is the Reverend Mr. Green, of Vancouver.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand there was no inspector heretofore ?


Mr OLIVER.: No regular inspector. The schools were subject to the Inspection of the agents in that locality.


Richard Blain: As I understand the hou. minister, until the Rev. Mr. Green was appointed the schools were inspected by agents in charge of the different schools. I suppose this new appointment was made on the recommendation of some one who was conversant with the wants of the schools. May I ask if such recommendation was made, who this gentleman is and what qualifications he has for this position ?


Mr OLIVER.: The Rev. Mr. Green has been a Methodist preacher, but was a school teacher formerly, and is considered to be a very suitable man as inspector of these schools. It was thought desirable, where the government is handling so many of the said schools, that they should be under the inspection of a person educationally qualified and also with the knowledge of what a school should be, which the Indian agent would not necessarily have. Through the work of this inspector the government hope to secure more uniform efficiency in the Indian schools throughout the province.


David Henderson: What is the inspector's salary ?	.


Frank Oliver: It is 81,000 and travelling
expenses.


Mr HENDERSON.: I know nothing ot this Rev. Mr. Green, who may be a thoroughly good man. I would like to ask if he is qualified to speak all the various dialects in use throughout British Columbia .


Frank Oliver: These schools are all taught English, that being one of the great objects of these schools. There are many dialects among the Indians of British Columbia, I understand, but, as most people know, theie is a common Indian language, the Chinook.


David Henderson: To my mind it is very commendable to teach the Indians the English language as soon as possible and not have half a dozen languages spoken by them. I believe that this course will mure to their advantage and to the advantage of the people generally.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is the Rev. Mr. Green originally from Bruce county ?


Frank Oliver: I am not able to say where he came from originally, but I am informed that he has been a resident of British Columbia for a considerable time. He is recognized as a British Columbian.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did the hon. gentleman sav that this inspector had been teaching school previous' to his appointment ?


Frank Oliver: 
Andrew B. Ingram: What Bryce is that 1


Frank Oliver: He was at one time in the service of the Ontario government. This is in payment of part of his salary. The Indian Department and the Interior Department combine to pay his salary.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is he still an officer of the Ontario government ?


Frank Oliver: No.
Indians-general-printing and stationery-outside service, &c., $6,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who does this printing l


Mr OLIVER.: I am informed that it is afi done at the King's Printing Bureau.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Mr LAKE.: May I ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) if he will bring down the return which I asked for on the 6th o March showing the residents 1U ^he NoHh-west who have been authorized to pui chase land under certain conditions ?


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


William Stevens Fielding: We shall proceed with suddIv taking up the supplementary estimates for the current year, and attempting " dispose of them if possible, reserving the main estimates for future consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 26, 1905.