1909-02-16

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 61) respecting the Burrard, Westminster Boundary Railway and Navigation Company.-Mr. Ralph Smith.
Bill (No. 62) to incorporate the Prince Albert and Hudson Bay Railway Company. -Mr. Neely.
Bill (No. 63) to incorporate the Royal Canadian Accident Insurance Company.- Mr. Ames.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Mr. LENNOX.: I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to an item in the Evening 'Citizen' of yesterday in connection with level crossings. The minister will recall that on January 25 an order was made for information to be brought down to the House concerning the number of accidents at level crossings, and on subsequent occasions I inquired of the minister about it and I think I had virtually his promise that the return would be facilitated and brought down at the earliest possible moment in order that this question might be discussed. It has not yet been brought down but I see that the information has been given to the press before it has been given to this House. While it is very desirable that the press should have knowledge of these matters, the first to be acquainted with them should be the members of this House. The article in the ' Citizen ' would indicate that the information contained in it had been in the possession of

the Railway Board all the time. It says so in fact, and so I suggest to the minister that it is hardly treating us fairly not to bring this return down and present the information to the House before it goes to the public. This is in a sense a repetition because a little while ago we had it in the press that the minister was taking certain action and that correspondence had passed between the minister and the Chairman of the Railway Board. I requested the minister to bring down the information he had, but the minister thought it was not wise to do so. I hope this return will be brought down to-day as I wish to discuss this question at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. GRAHAM.: My hon. friend is right; information of this kind when asked for as a return should come to the House first. This return has been prepared and it is somewhere between the Secretary of State's Department and the House. I thought we would have it this afternoon but we will have it to-morrow at least. The other matter to which my hon. friend refers was not information that I obtained from the board but a private letter from the chairman of the board.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: It would be a convenience if it could be brought down at a later stage of to-day's sitting as it is desired to discuss this to-morrow.


George Perry Graham: This is the first intimation the hon. gentleman gave me that he was going on to-morrow.


Haughton Lennox: I was going on yesterday but the information was not here.


George Perry Graham: I shall ask the Secretary of State to telephone his department and have the return brought down as rapidly as possible.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 21) to amend the Railway Act- Hon. Geo. P. Graham-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Robert Laird Borden: Before we take up the Bill clause by clause, the minister will perhaps give an explanation of the Bill as a whole, so that we may the better understand it as we take up each section.


George Perry Graham: The first section, 360a, is for the purpose of giving the Board of Railway Commissioners power to regulate the rates for electrical power developed by companies to whom we may lease water-powers. There are some peculiar instances in which it would be impossible to provide for this in the contract, but wherever it is possible, in case of any dispute, the rates are to be submitted to the board. The other clauses are in reference to returns to be made by the different companies.
Section 370 of the Act provides for annual returns. The forms approved by the department vary considerably, and we want to furnish forms on which the returns shall be made, as some of the old forms are really valueless. Then, we are extending the time for the returns from July to August. The companies complain that they cannot get all their information compiled by the first of July. The remaining clauses of the Bill are designed to secure more complete returns, to get them in better shape, and to compel the companies to give them to us within the time specified.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Does this Bill cover a case in which the government have, formerly leased water-power without specifying the purpose for which it was to be used?


George Perry Graham: I have a great reluctance to doing anything to interfere with existing contracts. I do not think we could do that very well. For instance, a company owns at present a large share of water-power, and under their contract they have the right to sub-let without any hindrance. We take over all their property and re-elect the power to them; but we cannot interfere with the contracts they have already made. But wherever possible we make provision in contracts that the Board of Railway Commissioners shall regulate the rates.


Mr. HAGGART.: In a great many railway charters, the company is given power to develop water-power along its line of road, and power to let for commercial purposes the surplus water-power over that used by the railway. Does this apply to that case?


George Perry Graham: That is not really the object of this Bill, though possibly the Bill might apply to a case of that kind. In all the railway charters we give now, containing that power, we are providing that these matters must be referred to the Railway Commission. I do not wish however to put anything in the law to interfere with existing contracts.
On section 1-in disputes between lessee of water-power and applicant for electricity, the board may fix price.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand this section, it imports into the Railway Act a new clause conferring upon the board the statutory power to determine rates where under lease from the Crown of water-power to a private corporation, the rates charged by such corporation are, according to the terms of the lease, to be determined by the board. In other words the board in such cases already has a quasi jurisdiction by virtue of the contract between the Crown and the lessee. It is desired to implement that by this

statutory enactment, which declares that the board shall have its usual power in respect to the adjustment of rates in such cases.


George Perry Graham: Yes, that is the object, clearly stated.


Samuel Hughes: Take, for instance, a company or an individual which has leased from the government water-power to run a saw mill or for any purpose other than the development of electricity. They have a perpetual lease, or a lease for a long period, but they have ceased using this power for mill purposes. Would they require to go to the government and get a new lease in order to entitle them to use that water-power for the development of electricity, and would this section apply to them?


George Perry Graham: It would depend upon the conditions of their contract. If their lease was limited to certain purposes, I suppose they could not go outside those purposes; or if they did, their lease might be cancelled or a new lease executed.


Mr. SPROULE.: Why not apply this to all leases from the Crown of water-power, and not leave it so that if that provision was omitted from the lease, the board would not have jurisdiction?


George Perry Graham: I explained when we went into committee that, owing to the very technical conditions arising and which will continue to arise every day with reference to powers that are being increased by public works, such as the building of the Trent canal, it is impossible, in some cases, on account of existing contracts, for us to apply this provision without interfering with these contracts. But in all new contracts where we at all have the power, we are putting this in.


Robert Laird Borden: Ordinarily speaking, this condition should go into all new contracts, but the minister explains that some contracts, which might be regarded as new, are in reality merely a continuation of old contracts, although the new contracts may give an increased amount of power. Then inasmuch as that description of new contracts merely continues old conditions, and as the old conditions include contracts already made between the lessees and other persons-for instance between a town or a village and its inhabitants-the minister has not found himself able to include this new condition in new contracts of that description for the reason that to do so would seem to interfere with existing vested rights under contracts created years ago. But except in those cases, this condition is included in all new leases or contracts for the use of water belonging to the Crown.


George Perry Graham: That is the case stated.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) inquired whether in these cases the lessee gets more power. I understand from the minister that, in some cases at least, he does. Inasmuch as a new contract includes the old power, which is already under lease to private individuals, he does not want to interfere with that contract?


George Perry Graham: It is a difficult situation to work out exactly. In a great many cases the policy we are trying to adopt is to take over the property altogether of these people and re-lease them certain powers. It is a matter of arrangement. Where they have subleases with which this provision would interfere, we cannot very well apply it, but in every new lease we do.


Samuel Hughes: Here is a company which has the right to develop 100 horse power, but under the changed conditions, the water develops 1,000 horse power. Does that company get the 1,000 horse power for the same sum as it did the 100?


George Perry Graham: It might become possessed of all the power, but it would have to pay a good deal more. We take over its rights altogether and make a new contract, but we have to protect any contracts which are existing under the old lease.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the case of contracts now running and which are terminable at a certain time, if you renew that contract, do you regard it as a new contract and insert this provision?


George Perry Graham: Most of the leases are 'for twenty-one years and renewable. The conditions are generally retained when the leases are renewed, but the prices may be changed; and I assure my hon. friend that if I had a new lease to make, unless I were precluded altogether on account of existing contracts under the old lease, I would put this clause in the new one.


Mr. PORTER.: Take the case where a municipality has already, under lease from the Crown, acquired certain rights, such as the case of the town of Trenton. I can quite understand why the provisions of this Bill should not apply to the conditions existing under that old lease. But, if I understand the minister correctly, by the work that is going on in the Trent canal the power will be developed to a greater extent and the municipality of Trenton will be able to generate a greater amount of power than under the old conditions. While clause 1 of the Act should not apply to the municipality of Trenton to the extent of the power they developed under the old condition, why should it not apply to the extent of the additional power that is generated under the new conditions. In other words, the town of Trenton will be getting an additional amount of

power to sell to their customers-say in the city of Belleville or the town of Trenton-and they will be under no control at all. They can impose any terms they like, and having control of that power they can use it very much to the disadvantage of the people surrounding if they should be so disposed. It seems to me the clause might be made to apply to the extent of any additional power generated under the new conditions.


George Perry Graham: As I have explained several times to deputations, I have had it in mind that where we could assist the municipalities by giving them the power under a fair arrangement we were rather inclined to do so. I have never thought of putting any restrictions directly upon the municipality in dealing with its own power, particularly as Trenton has acquired rights there that we have to get before we can proceed with our work. Unless expropriation proceedings were taken in a great many of these cases, it has to be a matter of arrangement, and it is a good deal better for the department to make agreements than it would be to expropriate. The town of Trenton has acquired rights in the stream, and speaking from memory the arrangement is that we should take over all the rights they have and .re-lease to them at a certain rate the power that will be developed.


Edward Guss Porter: But not the supply of power in excess of the old power?


George Perry Graham: All the power, and mark you, we have to get the consent of the town of Trenton to release to us the title to what they now have. There are two sides to it; they concede us that and we concede to them the right to the use of all the power at a certain rate. In a lease of that kind it was not my intention to put any restriction on the municipality.


Mr. OWEN.: I agree with the minister and I approve of the Bill so far as the municipality of Campbellford is concerned. I do not think that any municipality isho owns the water-power, or has leased the water-power, or had any rights upon the Trent river previous to the building of the canal should be interfered with. I think these municipalities should be allowed to sell their power within their own limits at whatever price they sarw fit. With regard to developing a greater number of horse-power, we must not forget that the lessees are only entitled to the surplus water and we never can tell exactly how many horse-power will be developed because the waters in these rivers are not always the same height, and in a dry season there will be less water and less power developed than in another season in which there may be rain I agree with 36
the Bill in so far as it restricts the lessees of power from the Crown forming a combine as to price. Under this Bill they cannot combine to put the price up high, and therefore those making applications for power will not be prevented from establishing industries in a municipality. I approve of the clause which puts the lessees under the Railway Commission and I approve of the Bill as a whole.
Substituted section 372, semi-annual return of accidents.


Mr. FOSTER.: ' Every company, if required by the minister so to do,' shall make a return of accidents and casualties. Why should not that be compulsory? That should not be left discretionary with the minister.


George Perry Graham: I am inclined to think there is something in that. The return is only made every six months. With the consent of the committee-it is quite a radical change in the Bill-I move that we drop that section. In that case the old clause will stand.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 31) to prevent the payment or acceptance of illicit or secret commissions and other like practices.-Mr. Aylesworth - read a second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2: Definitions.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) why this Bill is confined to secret commissions. Suppose the consideration were given in the way of a bonus or in some other way and not as a commission, would it then be outside of this Act? There are many ways in which you can give a consideration.


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: The reason why this is limited to secret commissions is that a commission which is open and disclosed, known to the principal, is not an illegal thing. If any person chooses to pay to my agent a commission and I am aware of it there is no offence on the part either of the agent who receives such commission or of the man who pays it. The whole offence is in the secrecy of it and in the betrayal which would therefore probably be caused of the interests of the employer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not the feature of it that I am referring to. It is the question whether you could not give something in lieu of a commission, say a bonus, that would be a consideration the same as a commission would be and do it secretly.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The definition of ' consideration ' is that it ' includes valuable consideration of any kind.'
On section 3,
3. Every one is guilty of an offence and liable upon conviction on indictment to two years' imprisonment, or to a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars, or to both, and, upon summary conviction, to imprisonment for six months, with or without hard labour, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or to both, who,-
(a)	being an agent, corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gift or consideration as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having after the passing of this Act done or forborne to do, any act relating to his principal's affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person with relation to his principal's affairs or business; or
(b)	corruptly gives or agrees to give or offers any gift or consideration to any agent as an inducement or reward or consideration to such agent for doing or forbearing to do, or for having after the passing of this Act done or forborne to do, any act relating to his principal's affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person with relation to his principal's affairs or business; or
(c)	knowingly gives to any agent, or, being an agent, knowingly uses with intent to deceive his principal, any receipt, account, or other document in respect of which the principal is interested, and which contains any statement which is false or erroneous or defective in any material particular, and which, to his knowledge, is intended to mislead the principal.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this the exact language of the English statute?
Mr. AYLESWORTH, The language is not identical, but is practically indistinguishable and is certainly indistinguishable in meaning. I cannot point out the exact differences very well without comparing the sections line by line, but in substance the wording is identical.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the minister read the English corresponding section?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Yes, I will read the English section.
If any agent corruptly accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gift or consideration as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do or for having, after the passing of this Act, done, or forborne to do any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business.
And so on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Mr.   POSTER@: May we have the English section corresponding with paragraph (b) ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The corresponding section in the English Act is in these words:
If any person corruptly gives or agrees to give or offers any gift or consideration to any agent as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having, after the passing of this Act, done or forborne to do any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business-1
&c.


Edward Guss Porter: If I may be permitted to go back to the first clause of section 3; do I understand that the offence under this Act is punishable either upon indictment or by summary conviction? I notice that section 3 provides, in the first place, for punishment upon indictment and that the latter part of the same clause provides for punishment upon summary conviction. If an offence under this Act can be tried by a police magistrate or justices of the peace and punishment inflicted, why make the same offence punishable upon indictment? Why have these two provisions instead of one?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The intention was that the offence, when it took place, might be prosecuted either upon indictment or by way of summary conviction, depending, of course, upon the seriousness of the offence. If, for instance, I find that my butcher is paying a few cents daily to my cook for the sake of securing my business that would scarcely be an offence which would be thought serious enough to prosecute upon indictment. On the other hand, if it were in larger matters of business, it might be ridiculous to proceed by way of summary prosecution, and the intention was, in framing the Act, that either course might be adopted according to the judgment of the prosecutor and of the tribunal before whom the prosecution might come for hearing. If the magistrate having the defendant summoned before him, upon investigating the circumstances, found the case, in his judgment, so serious that it would not be met by the lesser punishment which is provided in the section of imprisonment for six months, or a fine not exceeding $100, or both, he would decline to proceed and commit the person charged for trial upon indictment. On the other hand, if a person was found guilty and indicted for an offence which under the circumstances seemed comparatively trivial, the judge would no doubt sentence to the punishment which might have been imposed on a summary proceeding.


Edward Guss Porter: The objection I see is that no provision is made for determining,

and by whom, whether the prosecution shall be on an indictment or in a summary manner. Would it not be possible to provide that certain offences shall be tried by summary process and others more grave by indictment? It is now left to the discretion of the magistrate as to whether he shall try an offence or not, no matter how grave that offence may be. If the complainant should stand in with a magistrate the magistrate might try the case and dispose of it in any way he saw fit, whereas if it were taken to the Superior Court on an indictment it might be dealt with in an altogether different way.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: It would be quite practicable to frame language which would draw a hard and fast line and make the place where the prosecution should be dependent upon the amount of money involved, but I think that would not be desirable. The more trivial offence graduates into the more serious by imperceptible degrees. It would be scarcely possible to lay down any definite rule as to amount which would gov ern every case that might conceivably arise. I would think it would be preferable to leave that to the sound sense of the magis trate or judge before whom the prosecution might come. It would be, in the first instance, for the good judgment of the prosecuting attorney or those before whom the charge is laid, and it would be a no more important duty to determine that than it would be to determine the amount of punishment which ought to be imposed.


Mr. CROTHERS.: Are there any general provisions in the Criminal Code which would assign cases of this kind? Surely it is not intended to leave it open to have such charges brought before an ordinary justice of the peace? It should be defined whether a police magistrate should try the case or whether it should be tried before a county court judge or in the high court. Other crimes are assigned by the code to one court or the other. If a case comes before an ordinary justice of the peace in the country and objection is taken that he has not jurisdiction to try it, where is there anything to determine whether or not he would have the right?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: There are already provided for in the Criminal Code many classes of offences which may be tried either upon indictment or upon summary proceeding. I do not think there has been any practical difficulty in administering the law, and this would be of precisely similar character. The magistrate would have jurisdiction undoubtedly, and if he wishes to misbehave-if magistrates ever do misbehave- I suppose there would be nothing to prevent his trying a very important case and nothing but public opinion to correct him 361
if for a very serious offence he imposed a very trifling punishment.


Edward Guss Porter: When we can guard against that why should we not do so? It seems to me that the amount involved in a transaction of this kind ought not to determine the question of jurisdiction. A man who fraudulently cheats a widow out of $2 is just as much a criminal as the man who cheats the government out of $2,000, and the magistrate might think he would try the widow's case but not the other. It seems to me it would be wise to define it now.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The imperial statute is precisely in the same shape as this. The proceedings there are either upon indictment or upon summary prosecution with a slight difference in the amount of punishment. I have not heard of any practical difficulty that has been met with, and it did not occur to me that there was any occasion to differentiate this legislation from our general laws on the subject.


Robert Laird Borden: Have there been any cases tried under the imperial statute which would throw any light upon this?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: There have not been many, but some. A very interesting article appeared on the subject in the'Times' newspaper in which reference is made to the number of cases. I cannot exactly say how many prosecutions there have been under the imperial statute, but in the two years during which it has been in force I do not think there have been altogether as many as a dozen.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the minister aware of what special interpretation or significance has been given to the word ' corruptly ' in these cases? Has the meaning of that word been brought into question at'all? The statute provides against any person who corruptly accepts any gift or consideration, &c., and the use of that word coupled with the possibility that a very important case might be tried before a magistrate (and perhaps brought before that magistrate having regard to the imminence of proceedings of another character), would seem to indicate that some little care should be taken in the consideration of the language which we should employ. It might be quite possible that more attention should be given to the exact language of the statute in this country than in Great Britain. I am not sure that would be the case, but possibly it might, having regard to the qualifications of persons who might be called upon to adjudicate in such matters.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: A great part of the debate on this Bill in the imperial parliament was on the absence or presence of the word ' corruptly.' After very full discussion

and consideration it was thought better to retain it in the clauses, and I have retained it in the Bill now under consideration. As I understand the significance of the word from a legal point of view, it can perhaps be best paraphrased by the expression ' intending to do that which the Act means to forbid.' It carries with it the idea certainly of an evil intent as opposed to an innocent transaction, and requires, to satisfy this meaning, that there shall have been conduct by the person accused which proceeded from a wicked intention, an evil mind, an intention to do the thing which the law forbids. I do not know that I could state in better language what I understand the meaning of the word to be. It is a word of very general use in similar legislation. All our election legislation against bribery is accompanied by the use of the word, and in that connection it has been much discussed by judges, both in the old country and in Canada. I think it would be preferable to retain the word; no harm can be done by retaining it; because if there could be an infraction of this legislation which does not proceed from evil intent, it ought not to be punishable.


Mr. CARVELL.: It seems to me that the objection urged by the hon. gentleman opposite is well taken. I have no fault to find with the principle of this Bill. I think it is good. Unfortunately, the justices of the peace all over Canada are not appointed as they are in England. We have in the different provinces a large number who are appointed for political reasons, and we have many whom I do not think the Minister of Justice would want to sit in judgment over him or over any person in whom he had any interest. I am glad to say that we have very many excellent justices of the peace all over Canada. Now, you could easily imagine that an unfair justice of the peace might take upon himself jurisdiction to try a very serious offence, and impose a very slight punishment for it; or, on the other hand, a very trilling offence might be treated by him as a very serious one, and he might send the accused up for trial. In my opinion, there should be some election provided for the accused, because he must be considered innocent until he is proven guilty. Therefore, I think we should follow to some extent the idea laid down in the Criminal Code of Canada regarding assaults of a serious nature, that is, that the accused shall have the right to elect whether he shall be tried summarily by the magistrate, or go. before the grand jury. I am not sure whether or not the right of appeal would be allowed the accused in case the magistrate tried him summarily. But it seems to me that we are giving too much power to an unscrupulous justice of the peace in leaving the section as it is. I am not saying this for the purpose of finding Mr. AYLESWORTH.	,
fault with the Bill, but only with the view of making it perfect. If the Bill passes as it stands, I think a great deal of injustice may be done in working it out.


Robert Laird Borden: I can understand that the word ' corruptly ' has been left in the English statute without any definition, perhaps for very much the same reason that courts of equity have always refused to undertake an exhaustive definition fraud. But there is a difference, as the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) has just pointed out, when a word of such wide interpretation must be construed by a justice of the peace, very often without very much legal or technical knowledge. I entirely agree that a great many of the justices of the peace are very capable of dealing with these matters, but you occasionally find those who are not. I remember in my own province some years ago of a justice of the peace undertaking to administer the criminal law of Canada, and the only information he had at his command was that contained in an obsolete volume of the Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia of about 1857; but he was quite confident in his power to administer the criminal law of Canada under the forms and instructions contained in that volume. Then, there is another consideration, the converse of that mentioned by the hon. member for Carle-ton. Suppose that a very serious offence had been committed against the provisions of this statute, and that proceedings (were imminent to indict the person accused. Suppose that person, through the intervention of some friend, had proceedings instituted before a magistrate, who might not be bound by any very definite authorities as to the manner in which he would construe the word ' corruptly.' It seems to me quite possible that by means of that kind a person who really had been guilty of a very serious offence against the law, might escape with either no punishment or a very light punishment. I do not understand from the Minister of Justice that there is any especial duty cast upon the magistrate to declare that the offence is of so serious a character that he shall not proceed. In fact, I am not sufficiently familiar with the present procedure to know whether it is possible for him, after information has once been laid before him for the purpose, to decline to proceed. I think there is a good deal in these considerations which requires the attention of the Minister of Justice and of the committee before we pass the measure in exactly the form in which it is now presented.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Of course, this legislation is along the line of the criminal law. It might, without any impropriety, have been introduced by way of amendment to the Criminal Code. The intention was

always that the general provisions of the Criminal Code, as to procedure and as to every point which would have application, should govern under this statute, and there is no objection to a clause being introduced providing that the general provisions of the Code shall apply, or that this Act shall be read as a part of the Criminal Code. So far as the retention of the word ' corruptly ' is concerned, I certainly would attach a great deal of importance to it. This legislation would prevent, for instance, any secret present which might be given by a tradesman or a customer to any person in the employment of another with whom he was dealing. It is a common enough thing, I suppose, for customers of the Bell Telephone Company to send a pair of gloves or some other trifle by way of a present at Christmas to the operator who receives their messages in the central office. If that is done secretly, with the corrupt intention of securing favours thereby at the expense of the company or at the expense of other customers, it is an improper thing. But if that is done openly and above board, there is no impropriety in it. Perhaps the best idea can be conveyed by an illustration, of the meaning to be attached to the word 'corruptly' in the statutes. If the butcher wants to make a present to the cook of one of his customers, and the customer is aware of it, there is not the slightest impropriety; but if he does that secretly and for the purpose of securing custom, then it .becomes a transaction of an entirely different nature. With regard to the gravity of different transactions, let me refer to the article to which I have already alluded in the London 'Times', which gives some instances of prosecutions under the imperial statutes. A fine of one pound was imposed upon a warehouse clerk for having given money to a carter to carry parcels. Of course I am giving a mere statement of the case, as I have not the details, but that was the case of a very trifling offence punished by a fine of one pound. A butcher for sending meals to a cook was fined two pounds. A traveller, for offering a bribe to a hotel keeper for the names of visitors, was fined five pounds -and so on, in increasing severity, according to the gravity of the offence. After all, in the administration of all statutes, a good deal must depend on the good judgment of the official who determines the case, whether he be a justice of the high court or a justice of the peace. It may very possibly happen that justices of the peace are not always men of the soundest judgment, but, when all is said and done, a judge is a judge, and a justice of the peace, no matter how illiterate, may be called upon to pronounce an Act of this parliament ultra vires. We have to take things as we find them, and it would seem impossible to guard beforehand, by any
device of legislation, against the possibility of some one who lacks sound sense and judgment being called on to act under this statute. I may say further that, so far as public officials are concerned, this is no new legislation. We have already, in part four of the Criminal Code, general provisions against bribing or attempting to bribe officials of the government or municipal councils by any form of transaction. Those offences are similar in character, whether committed against the public interest or merely against private individuals. The object of this legislation is not to declare transactions of the character of those struck at illegal. They were always illegal. They were illicit and improper and contrary to the law, but the purpose is to make them punishable as criminal offences in cases between individuals as well as in transactions in which public officials are concerned.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Speaking from memory
and without having the Criminal Code before me, I do not think there are any provisions in it which give a single justice of the peace acting alone, jurisdiction to impose punishment to the extent of six months in prison. There are several provisions in the Criminal Code providing for jurisdiction in such cases by two justices of the peace or a police magistrate, but I cannot think of any which gives such power to a single justice of the peace. I would suggest, as a proper safeguard, that some few words should be added after the words 'summary convictions' which would limit the jurisdiction to a police magistrate or two justices of the peace or a judge of a higher court. We know that there are several sections in the Criminal Code which provide for the jurisdiction being in the hands of two justices of the peace or a police magistrate, and some such provision should be inserted here. I also quite agree with my hon. friend for Carleton, N.B., (Mr. Carvell) who spoke in favour of their being some provision for bringing the case before a jury instead of leaving it within the power of a justice of the peace, acting singly, to send a man to prison for six months.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: To the suggestion that these cases should come before two justices of the peace I make no'objection. There would certainly be some security in that if it be thought that this legislation is so much more drastic than ordinary legislation that it requires to be safeguarded by exceptional provisions. I think that today one justice of the peace, in many cases, tries just as important charges as some might be under this legislation; and it has always to be borne in mind that this is peculiarly the kind of prosecution in which it is quite possible charges may be made out of some vindictive feeling and where
113]

*the public interest is not the motive actuating the accuser.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Notwithstanding the concession made by the Minister of Justice, it does not seem to me to go far enough. No doubt, in his very distinguished career, the Minister of Justice has had the good fortune, to a greater extent than many of us, of dealing with judges rather than justices of the peace. I make no distinction between a j ustice of the peace and a police magistrate, although I know there is a distinction in the statute. I have in my mind police magistrates appointed to certain courts, who are not half as well qualified as^ some justices of the peace. A police magistrate is appointed under exactly the same influence as an ordinary justice of the peace, and we will be going a long way towards jeopardizing the liberty of the public if we place the trial of so important a matter either in the hands of a justice of the peace or a police magistrate. I submit further that the accused should have the right to elect whether he shall be tried before a police magistrate or a jury. From my experience as a lawyer, if you get a case before a jury of twelve men, who must agree on a conviction, you are pretty sure to have a common sense decision, for there is a good deal of common sense in average humanity. If a prisoner has the right to elect for trial by jury, he can have no fault to find if he be found guilty, and he is not likely to be convicted unless the finding is justifiable. I hope that the minister will consent to have some safeguard thrown around the accused and not leave him simply to the tender mercies of even a police, magistrate.


Mr. AMES.: If that phase of the question is exhausted, here is another question I would like to ask, and that is whether this Act would cover the case of a government employee who undertook to solicit subscriptions, let us say, for campaign purposes from persons who are either selling supplies to the government or have contracts with the government, and to whom these officials represent that a lively sense of favours to come or recognition of favours passed, should be sufficient reason to cause them to give subscriptions. Even supposing these subscriptions were used for proper purposes, would they still, under this Act, be a crime?


Mr. CONMEE.: Will the hon. gentleman not include the agents of the opposition who would write to certain persons that if they wanted appointments or favours or certain measures passed, they could only gain their object by taking a certain course. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will include such agents in his motion.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I would think that any such transaction as the hon. member Mr. AYLESWORTH.
for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) has referred to would be very thoroughly covered by our present legislation without reference to whether or not it would be covered by the Bill now under consideration. In the Bill under consideration the presence of the .word ' corruptly ' might relieve that man from the punishment of this particular statute if the benefit which he was offering was not to go to the person who received it but to some other person and was for perfectly legitimate purposes. But under the existing law, section 158 of the Code, the word ' corruptly ' is not used and any man who
Makes any offer, proposal, gift, loan or promise, or gives or offers any compensation or consideration, directly or indirectly, to any official or person in the employment of the government, or to any member of his family, or to any person under his control or for his benefit, with intent to obtain the assistance or influence of such official or person to promote either the procuring of any contract with the government for the performance of any work, the doing of anything, or the furnishing of any goods, effects, food or materials, the execution of any such contract, or the payment of the price or consideration stipulated therein, or any part thereof, or of any aid or subsidy payable in respect thereof;
Is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine of not less than one hundred dollars, and not exceeding one thousand dollars, and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and not less than one month and in default of payment of such fine to imprisonment for a further time not exceeding six months.
That definition it seems to me would cover entirely the case the hon. gentleman puts. It would not be any the less on offence, for instance, to give money to a government official in order to procure favours from him because it was a stipulation that the receiver of that money should use it not for his own purposes but for some other purpose. If it is given for the purpose of securing a favour which that official is in a position to bestow it is in itself an offence against the provision of the code I have read.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister has not dealt with the case I had in mind. He has taken an instance where the contractor approaches an official to induce the official not to do his duty, for a consideration. The point I had was where the official approaches the contractor in order to secure from the contractor a contribution which he will not use for himself but will pass on to other parties but which those men who subscribed understand is a subscription given because they have been faithful in the past or will be in the future.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I possibly misunderstood the hon. gentleman's question but under the statute not only is the giver but the recipient liable to the punishment I have mentioned. The statute goes on in a

separate subsection to provide that any one is liable who
Being an official or person in the employment of the government, directly or indirectly, accepts or agrees to accept, or allows to he accepted by any person under his control or for his benefit, any such offer, proposal, gift, loan, promise, compensation or consideration.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This latter discussion only emphasizes the point I have been trying to make. The minister takes it for granted that somebody must decide whether or not this is a corrupt act. In that I agree, the difficulty that I see is leaving the decision in the hands of an illiterate country magistrate to make that distinction. If the country magistrate makes up his mind that he is going to try such a case summarily, and as I read the Bill he has the power to do this, he may send the accused to jail for six months. There is no appeal, and according to the practice in that portion of Canada from which I come his only recourse would be by certiorari and as a rule certiorari only goes to jurisdiction and if the justices of the peace have jurisdiction as they have under this section the defendant certiorari is of no use to him and he goes to jail and stays there six months. If the defendant has the right to full election and he goes before the jury he may be convicted by that jury but you have a judge who charges the jury and must state the law and if he misstates the law there is an appeal to the higher court. So the discussion here about the meaning of the word ' corrupt '	&c., emphasizes the
necessity of giving the defendant the right to say whether the matter shall be tried summarily or whether he will go to the grand jury. I hope the minister will at least consider this before asking to have the legislation passed.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I think it would be very dangerous to give to the accused an absolute right of election which would ensure his being tried perhaps before a friendly magistrate. The effect of such a provision would seem to me to be that if there were magistrates who were willing to lend themselves to the purposes of the accused, care would always be taken to have a prosecution of that sort arranged and disposed of before any other charge could be laid. After all, while the danger of trial before a man who may not be qualified undoubtedly exists, as my hon. friend points out, is that danger any greater in the case of an offence struck at by this measure than under the existing law? In that part of the code which deals with summary trials by magistrates we have all manner of minor offences covered and there are already every day in the week all over Canada cases being disposed of by magistrates which are of very great practical consequence to the individuals concerned. I suggest to my
hon. friend whether if these clauses appeared in the code or if the proposition to legislate here were in the shape of a proposed amendment to the code to insert this clause, it would occur to him that there was any greater danger in regard to prosecutions affected by this legislation than with regard to transactions covered by existing legislation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think there would be any greater danger. I think there is too much danger already and if this parliament has in the past enacted legislation which has perhaps been ill-advised and ill-considered, that is no reason to continue that condition of affairs; if it can be pointed out that this is a case that should be treated differently, around which greater protection should be thrown, I think it is the duty of this parliament to throw protection around the accused in this case. I would not think for a moment that the accused should have the right to say that he shall be tried either summarily or as on an indictable offence, because I would leave some discretion in the hands of the magistrate. But I would go so far as to say that if the accused says he wants this matter to be tried as an indictable affair, then he should have the right to have it tried in that way. But if he says, I want it tried summarily, and the magistrate says, no, it is too grave a matter, of course the magistrate should have the power to send him up for trial. But when I use the word 'election' I mean that he cannot be forced to take his trial at the hands of an illiterate magistrate, perhaps, but he ought to have the right to appeal to a higher court where he can get justice.


Haughton Lennox: It is always understood that he has the right to go before a jury.


Mr. McKENZIE.: I think it will be conceded by lawyers that uniformity in procedures is highly desirable, and that in all criminal matters, as the criminal law is uniform in Canada, is the only statutory law perhaps that is purely uniform, we should have a uniform procedure. I think therefore that so far as procedure is concerned-and it is procedure we are discussing now-the code of criminal procedure should be made in its entirety to apply to this law, which is a criminal law. If the Minister of Justice will make the procedue of the code apply absolutely and unequivocally to this law, I do not think that the lawyers in this House, particularly those who are versed in criminal law, would have any fault to find. I have had something to do, both as a lawyer and a little as a judge, with the administration of the criminal law, and I have not heard much fault found with the present conditions of the criminal law, as laid down in the criminal code. I think it is conceded by all criminal lawyers that tho

accused is sufficiently protected, that he has every right that he could possibly expect to a fair trial, if he has a right to elect in some instances to be tried before a magistrate. It is only in very rare instances that he must be tried before a magistrate on a criminal offence. There are a few cases, I think, which apply distinctly to sailors and other parties who commit offences, and who are about to leave the town, and must leave the town, in a short time; I think there are a few cases in which they must be tried before the magistrate, and the jurisdiction of the magistrate is absolute Apart from these, there are few instances indeed where you can force a man to be tried before a magistrate without his consent. I think, therefore, the procedure, so far as this Bill is concerned, should be in every particular the same as the procedure applying to every section of the code, no more and no less, and great care should be taken that no ingenuity can show that there is any difference, because this is really a thing that should be a part of the code, and to which of course all the safeguards of the code should apply. If this is a criminal offence, it is certainly not the intention of the Minister of Justice that a man caught under this law, should have less protection than a man who is caught under some section of the code. If therefore, we have absolute certainty of a uniform procedure, and that the same safeguards are provided under this law as under the code generally, I do not think the profession or the country will have any fault to find.
Mr, AYLESWORTH. Perhaps the best course to meet the views of hon. gentlemen would be, before the preamble is put to the committee, that the committee should rise, and in the interval before the Bill is taken up again, clauses can be framed to meet the suggestion which has been made.
Progress reported.



CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee to consider the proposed resolution to grant an increase of salary to certain members of the Civil Service.
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Secretary of State).: When this resolution was last before the committee, an understanding was reached between the leader of the opposition, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), that the resolution would be amended so as to cover the suggestions that were then made regarding the manner in which the moneys to be paid under this Bill, when finally adopted, should be provided. The Minister of Agriculture is obliged to be absent for a) short time, and he has asked me to present the amendment which meets the views that were expressed Mr. McKenzie.
when the discussion, to which I have referred, took place. I may say that in order to give full effect to the suggestions of my hon. friends opposite, it is proposed to prepare schedules detailing the expenditure that will be detailed under this Bill in each department. These schedules will be printed with the Bill, and will form part of the Bill ; so that full information will be afforded, and thusi the views expressed by the hon. member for North Toronto will be fully met. I understand it is not intended to do more to-day than move this amendment and ask that the resolution as amended be reported. I therefore beg to move that the resolution be amended by striking out all the words following the word 'granted ' in the nineteenth line and substituting therefor the following:
And during the 'financial years ending March 31, 1909 and 1910 respectively, there may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada such further moneys as may be required for the payment of increases of salary under the Act to be founded on this resolution, as have not been voted by parliament, the whole not to exceed the amounts as set forth in the schedules to the Act to be founded on this resolution.


George Eulas Foster: The objection that was made was that the resolution as submitted to the House gave the government the power to take whatever money might be necessary out of the consolidated revenue fund without specifying the amount in any more definite way. There was some talk across the floor in reference to it and this amendment fairly meets the view that was held by gentlemen on this side of the House and obviates that difficulty. Under this amendment schedules will be attached to the Act, a schedule which will give, for each department, the number of officers and the amounts in each division which are to be voted as an increase and consequently Will be just as explicit and just as full as would the items put through in the form of a vote in the estimates. As far as I can see that would be perfectly satisfactory. With that we agreed the other day to allow the resolution to be reported, but I stated expressly that we reserved the right, on the second reading of the Bill, to criticise the principle of the resolution. Just before the resolution is passed I want to invite the attention of the House for a moment to two or three salient points, with regard to which, for myself, I consider the resolution is not a wise one. They can be thought over, and hon. gentlemen, exercising each his own judgment, may be able to express their own thoughts with regard to them. I may be wrong in the view I take of the matter. It is rather complex but this seems to be what this resolution aims at. It gives into the hands of

the government a sum of money equal to $150 for each clerk employed or each official under the present Civil Service Act. These clerks are divided roughly into three clagses as they are combined now and have been since the first of September. There is the class of outside insiders, who were not part of the permanent service but who, under this Act, were drafted into the Civil Service and became thereby permanent with all the rights and privileges of the permanent service. There was also a class of official possible of creation by appointment and paid out of lump votes and civil government contingencies who, being appointed previous to the first day of September, became thereby eligible to be transferred into the permanent list with all its rights and privileges. There was the third class, the old permanent civil servants, who, of course, remain in the Civil Service. What this resolution does is this: It puts no bar to the class that I have mentioned, who were formerly the outside insiders, paid for out of lump sums or out of civil government contingencies, receiving, each one, the flat increase of $150 even though three days previous to the time set for the Act coming into force, the first day of September, a person in this class may have received an increase of $100, or $200, or $500, or $700. There is no bar; each one of these may have the $150 flat increase. There is no bar also to the person who was a late new appointee and who, being appointed late, stepped over into the permanent list as it is organized and established under the provisions of the Civil Service Act amendments. These also are not barred from receiving the $150 increase. But when you come to the old permanent service, those who had to scratch gravel to get into the service, who had to pass the examination, and had to submit themselves to all the rules, you find there are bars. What are these bars? They are these: First, if it so happens, under a set of circumstances, that the old servant was within less than $150 of the maximum of his class, whatever his class might be, say for example that he was within $50 of his maximum, he cannot receive the $150 increase.	He can receive only the difference between the $150 flat increase and his unappronriated maximum which, in the case to which I refer, would be $50. Here is, to my mind, the injustice. There is 'the man who was in the outside inside service who, on the first of September received his increase of $200 or $300, or $500 to compensate for hard times, straightened circumstances and the increased cost of living. There is no bar to him, he gets his $150 out of this sum that we are going to vote, but the man who had been in the permanent service, who got in by passing the examination, who submitted to the regulations,
proved himself fit and who struggled up for fifteen or twenty years under these conditions^ of increased cost of living gets none of this flat increase if he is at his maximum and gets only $50 if he is within $50 of it, according to the circumstances. That does not appeal to me as being fair, and it is against that that I protest. There seems to be an undue preference given to the outsider and the man who has borne the heat and burden of the day as regards the principle of the Act, who has submitted to its regulations and rules, is discriminated against in the manner that I have stated. When we come to the second reading of the Bill, I intend to adduce a great many instances of this kind and to try and plead with the House for some amelioration of the condition of those whom I consider are worthy servants and are being used somewhat unfairly, under the arbitrary principle which has been introduced into the resolution.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I understand the criticism of my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) but I do not understand the remedy which he has in his own mind. I do not know whether the remedy which he suggested was that we should decrease the bounty! given by parliament to those in the inside outside service, or whether we should increase the bounty given to the permanent servants. I take it that his suggestion is that he should increase the bounty given by parliament to the permanent regular service, that is to those who have reached the limit of their class and that we should! in some way compensate them by giving them more than they would receive under this measure. I am not prepared to express any opinion at the present time, but I suppose we shall have to examine the criticism of my hon. friend in due time, but l would like to know from my hon. friend as to the schedule to be attached to this Bill. I understood that it was the intention of the Minister of Agriculture that the schedule should provide for each department the maximum or the total amount which it is intended to give.


George Eulas Foster: It does.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Minister of Agriculture stated also that he expected to have a list of the names of those who leceived additions to their salary. That is not the way we prepare our estimates; we say so many in eacti class and so on. It is immaterial to me how it is done, but I understood that the totals were to be given in the schedule, the details being communicated to the House.


George Eulas Foster: That is what I intended to say. I made my criticism so tha.t my right hon. friend and others could think it over. If there was an injustice there is some way by which it can be remedied.

Sir WILFRID LAIlRlER. Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: And when we come to the second reading of the Bill, we will probably have wisdom enough to know how it can be remedied.
Resolution reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Indians, British Columbia-Salaries, $26,020.
Relief of destitute Indians, British Columbia, $9,000.
['This will also have to stand for the same reason.']
Mr. BRADBURY.: In the settlement of St. Peter's reserve, was there any arrangement made by which minors could transfer the land. My reason for asking that question is that a number of young men under twenty-one years of age, some only eighteen years of age, have sold their land and I have several complaints from parents regarding that matter.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: I am informed that the land did not go to the minors; it went to the parent and the parent had the right of disposition.


George Henry Bradbury: There is some mistake in that, because these young men have parted with their rights. I know of one case in particular where a young man twenty-one years old had the patent issued in his name, as I understand, and he sold his land.


Frank Oliver: The terms of the surrender did not provide for grants being given to minors, and if there are any such transactions they are outside of the arrangement and are of course of no effect.


Mr. BLAIN.: This is rather an important item and the minister ^hould give some explanation.


Frank Oliver: Assistance is given to the hospitals at the rate of $1 per day for Indians, only up to 1,000 days and 75 cents per day over that number. The expenditure for 1907-8 was $26,989.43. Medical and hospital attendance and medicines, are provided for Indians who cannot afford to pay. The physicians are either upon salaries, which represent a fair remuneration according to the number of Indians and for services and medicine supplied, or, when paid by accounts, they are allowed the lowest possible charges made to poor white cases. Medicines are supplied to medical missionaries and distributed to Indians under their charge. The following are the hospitals and the amount granted : Lytton $1,500 ; Kincolith, $1,500 ; Port Simpson, $2,000 ; Hazelton, $2,000 ; Bella Bella, $2,000; Clayoquot, $1,500; Telegraph Creek, $2,000 ; Alert Bay, $1,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are these private hospitals?


George Eulas Foster: 


Frank Oliver: They are supported jointly by the department, the province and the mission.


Mr. BARR.: How do the missionaries distribute the medicines if they do not understand drugs?


Frank Oliver: The medicines are supplied to medical missionaries. Only those who have medical qualifications are permitted to distribute the medicines.


John Barr: I have been up through that country, and I have not found among the missionaries any who have medi#al qualifications.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who control the hospitals with regard to determining their efficiency for the purpose intended and what fees shall be charged? And are these hospitals inspected?


Frank Oliver: These hospitals were originally missionary enterprises, but they draw support from the province and the Indian Department. We have our own medical men upon whose certificate as to the hospital and its work we make payments. We make no payments without such certificate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that the Indians are charged a smaller fee than white people?


Frank Oliver: When physicians outside of the hospitals are called to treat the Indians, we pay them the lowest scale that is allowed in the case of poor white patients. The hospitals are free to the Indians.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What proportion does each contribute approximately to the support of these hospitals?


Frank Oliver: The basis of payment on the part of the province and the department respectively is not the same, but we pay approximately about the same amount.


Herbert Brown Ames: In the general hospitals in British Columbia, I suppose the Indians are paid for by the government at the rate of so much per day ?


Frank Oliver: The Indian hospitals are free to the Indians. In the hospitals which are not Indian, we pay the ordinary charge, which amounts to about a dollar a day.


Herbert Brown Ames: You pay, then, only for what you receive?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: You pay no subsidy to these other hospitals at all?


Frank Oliver: No.


Herbert Brown Ames: And those of which you have given the list are exclusively Indian hospitals?


Frank Oliver: Not exclusively. In the beginning they were for the most nart missionary enterprises, intended especially for the benefit of the Indians, but they do not absolutely exclude white patients.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand, then, that there are two kinds of hospital care given to the Indians. One is in general hospitals in centres like Victoria and New Westminster, where the regular rate of a dollar a day is paid for each Indian patient, and the other is in these missionary hospitals at different points which are subsidized by the government without reference to the number of Indians in them.


Frank Oliver: No. We pay in them the same rate of a dollar a day until the total number of days reaches one thousand, and after that we pay 75 cents a day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister state what denominations own or control these hospitals and the amount each received last year?


Frank Oliver: Two of them are Church of England-Lytton and Kincolith; Hazleton, Bella Bella, Clayoquot and Port Simpson are Methodist ; Telegraph Creek is Presbyterian. Then there is Alert Bay, B.C., Coast Mission, which is practically in connection with the Church of England. The amounts which we estimate we will require are practically the same as the amounts we have paid in the past year.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: If the minister will turn to pages J-59 and 60, he will find that the expenditure in connection with the Northwest Coast and West Coast agencies of British Columbia totals $20,751, but that out of that amount there has been paid $11,571 for salaries to agents and travelling expenses, leaving only $9,180 to the poor Indians. How does he explain that ?


Frank Oliver: The figures of expenditure represent the amounts which have to be paid to the officers whose names are given in the report, and the remainder is what the Indians receive. The Indians of British Columbia do not receive any annuity payments. Our dealings with them are simply in the way of supervision and direction and not in the way of support as in the prairie country or under some of the treaties in eastern Canada.


George Taylor: It appears to me there is a good deal more going to the agent than to the Indians?


Frank Oliver: We are paying the agents of course to direct and protect the Indians.
Schools, $93,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: Would the minister give us some general idea of what has been the result of our educational efforts among the Indians of British Columbia ?


Frank Oliver: The conditions in British Columbia differ somewhat from those prevailing in the prairie provinces, both as regards the surroundings of the Indians and the nature of the Indians themselves. The consequence is that the Indians there derive more benefit from education than do those in the prairie provinces. There is, however, a very large Indian population in British Columbia. By reason of the nature of the country, that population exists in small communities widely separated from one another, so that although we have quite a large number of schools and although we expend on them a large sum, we still reach only a small proportion of the total population. Owing to the conditions, our educational efforts have been more successful in British Columbia than in the prairie provinces, but have not been applied to nearly as large a proportion of the population.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In what respect have our schools been more successful in British Columbia? Is the educational work there different ?


Frank Oliver: The education is pretty much the same but in British Columbia, where the Indians are compelled, by the force of circumstances, to adopt to a considerable extent the ways of civilization, living close to civilized communities, restricted to very much the same means of livelihood as white people would be, they are brought to a great extent in line with the conditions which would govern a white settlement. We find in the Indian settlements of British Columbia that the people live in very decent houses and that the men are employed in useful labour and frequently are very well dressed and show the evidence of civilization very much the same as their white neighbours do.


Herbert Brown Ames: What proportion of the known Indian population comes under educational influence ?


Frank Oliver: Possibly fifty per cent.


John Barr: Would not the climatic conditions have considerable influence ? In British Columbia the temperature is so mild that the Indians do not die off so fast as in the prairie provinces, where they suffer to a far greater extent from cold and hunger during the severe winter, and consequently cannot give the same attendance to the schools. They could also attend the schools in winter in British Columbia more readily than in the prairie provinces.


Frank Oliver: The British Columbia Indians certainly live under more advantageous circumstances than those on the prairie.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are the British Columbia Indians of the same tribes as the prairie Indians and are their schools conducted on the same lines?


Frank Oliver: The schools are of the same classes as in the prairie provinces, industrial, day and boarding schools. The British Columbia Indians are of different tribes from those on the prairies and of somewhat different disposition and character. They take more naturally to the ordinary ways and conditions of civilization; they will take employment to a degree that the prairie Indian will not and are of course more likely to benefit by education. The Indian of the plains is essentially an aristocrat; he looks upon labour, as we understand it, as beneath him, as degrading. That is his essential idea of life and it takes generations to cause him to break away from that idea; whereas the Indian of British Columbia has always been able to secure his livelihood while living in communities and under conditions which, while they required labour did not require labour of a severe or exhausting character. It was, however, sufficient to make the Indian of British Columbia take more naturally to civilization than the prairie Indian. On the prairies civilization absolutely kills off the Indians whereas in British Columbia they survive it much better.


John Barr: Are the Indian tribes of British Columbia increasing or decreasing? I saw a statement that the Siwashes are increasing.


Frank Oliver: In British Columbia the Indian population as a whole is about stationary; on the prairies it is decreasing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could the minister give us any information as to the percentage of Indian children educated in the different classes of schools, so that we may judge if there is any difference in the schools which would account for the practical failure of education among them, of which the minister spoke the other night and as to which most of us are inclined to agree with him.


Frank Oliver: We find as I said that there is practically no difference in results. The results are not the fault of educational effort but the consequence of the nature of the Indian and of his environment.


George Taylor: Last year we voted $97,300 and this year the vote is $93,000. How much of that vote was expended last year?


Frank Oliver: 


George Taylor: The minister is taking a vote for salaries of $26,020. The same vote wa3 taken last year but I find from the figures at page 1-65 that the salaries for the different Indian agencies in British Columbia amount to $56,975, so it would Mr. OLIVER.
look as if money voted for other purposes had been used for salaries.


Frank Oliver: The Auditor General has not made the distinction between salaries of officials and salaries paid to medical attendants and to teachers in schools.


George Taylor: Medical attendance is all separated.


Frank Oliver: As I read the item on page I-66 the Auditor General gives the salaries of agents, and then the salaries of medical attendants and then the salaries of teachers, and all these together give the figure my hon. friend read. This bears out what I say. We are asking for a vote separating the salaries and medical attendance, and the schools.


George Taylor: I notice in the item the names of a number of teachers, so I fancy that some of the moneys voted for schools have gone on salary account. We ought to be able to trace how this $85,000 spent last year has been paid. The accounts are mixed.


Frank Oliver: The totals are not made up that way. But if my hon. friend will look at page I-66, Northwest Coast Agency, the first lines give the salaries of agents, then follow other lines giving the salaries of medical officers. Then in the balance of the paragraph appears the salaries of teachers. They are all there, but the classifications are not totalled.


George Taylor: I think the minister ought to have them classified so that we can check the expenditure. It is very misleading as it is now.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman's experience in parliament must convince him that the Auditor General is a law unto himself. We cannot compel him to give figures in any other way than he chooses.


George Taylor: I presume he keeps the accounts as he gets them from the department. .


Frank Oliver: On page 164 Part II of
the report of the Department of Indian Affairs, the figures are classified just as we are asking the House to vote them.
Surveys and Reserve Commission, $2,500.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: Would the minister give us some information of that item?


Frank Oliver: This amount is to provide for delimiting the boundaries of the reserves and for the expenses of the commissioner who is employed on that work.


James Davis Taylor: Might I ask the minister if there has been a conference between the Dominion government and the provincial government regarding the' disposition of the Indian reserves?


Frank Oliver: The question as to the rights of the Indians is under discussion between the Indian Department and the government of British Columbia, and has been under discussion for some time. The latest phase of the matter is that the government of the province saw fit to take the case into the provincial courts to decide the jurisdiction of the province. That is as far as the matter has gone.


James Davis Taylor: Could the minister sta/te whether the Dominion government was represented in those proceedings, or what is the attitude of the Dominion government?


Frank Oliver: 
Mr. BARNARD.: Was not this government notified that a case was going before the courts?


Frank Oliver: I understand that the Justice Department was notified by the provincial government that such action was being taken. But I am informed that the Justice Department viewed the case as I have stated.


George Henry Barnard: If the minister would look up the files in connection with this matter I think he would find that there are one or two communications from the provincial government, dating some time back, which have not been replied to. He will find at least one communication from the Chief Commissioner of Lands in connection with this matter, now several months old, and which has not yet been replied to. It was dated before the proceedings taken by the provincial government.


Frank Oliver: Of course the Justice Department handles legal questions. If our department received such a communication I presume it was transferred to the Justice Department to take action. I am not able to give my hon. friend any further information in regard to it.


George Henry Barnard: As a matter of fact, I think the minister will find that there is an agreement practically ratified by order in council between the province and the Dominion, which provides that the reserves should be decreased as the population of the Indians decreased, proportionately; that the provincial government has taken up the question with the Dominion government and has shown them that the population
of the reserves has decreased, and has asked them to release certain lands which are now contained in the reserve. Has not such a communication been made to the department?


Frank Oliver: The question my hon. friend mentions has been under consideration. But preliminary to any action being taken upon that question, it was felt by this government that it was necessary, first, to know what the rights of the Indians were, which rights were the subject of dispute between this government and the government of British Columbia. The provincial government took the position that the Indians had no right except the right of occupation. The government, which is the trustee and guardian of the Indians, could not admit that proposition and could not go into any discussion as to whether the' Indians had too much or too little land until it was decided whether they had any rights or not. That is the question that it is the desire of this government to have settled by a higher authority. It is something more than a year ago that the proposition was made by this government to British Columbia that there should be a submission of this question as to what right or title the Indians had. Up to the present time the government of the province has not agreed to that and therefore no progress has been made.


James Davis Taylor: Pending the decision of the larger question, I would like to invite the attention of the minister to the possibility of dealing with some individual instances. I have in mind particularly the case of the Indian reserve on Maria island in the riding of New Westminster closely adjoining Agassiz. The area of land suitable for agriculture in that valley is very small. A large tract is taken up by the experimental farm and other large tracts are monopolized by Indian reserves, held in the names of Indian tribes that are almost extinct, at least in so far as these particular reserves are concerned, where they carry on no agriculture and give very little sign of occupation. It has been urgently represented to me that the government should be moved to take into consideration the inconvenience it is to settlers to have the settlements so circumscribed as they are by the fact of these large Indian holdings and there is a very great desire that the government should take possession of this land and put it up for sale. I may say that there are people willing to pay good prices for the land in question with the idea of bringing in a larger number of families, making their community stronger and enabling them to handle local affairs more efficiently than they can be handled at the present time.
I would like to ask the minister whether he thinks it at all feasible for such a pro-

position to be entertained in advance of a general settlement.


Frank Oliver: There is hardly time to deal with the question before six o'clock.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEOFFRION-by Mr. Proulx-moved the second reading of Bill (No. 48) respecting the Montreal Terminal Railway Company.
Mr. J. D. REID.: Explain.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. member (Mr. Geoffrion) is not present.


John Dowsley Reid: We cannot pass it if it is not explained.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stands.


BRITISH COLUMBIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. COWAN-by Mr. Taylor-moved second reading of Bill (No. 55) to incorporate the British Columbia Life Insurance Company.
James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Mr. Cowan being absent this order will have to stand also, on the same principle.


CANADA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for the second reading of Bill (No. 56) respecting the Canadian Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Clarke (Essex).
James Kirkpatrick Kerr: This will also have to stand for the same reason.



[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Idians, British Columbia-Surveys and Reserve Commissions, $2,500.
['I cannot say exactly, but possibly the items in the Department of Railways and Canals.']
Frank Oliver: When the committee rose at six o'clock the hon. gentleman from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) was asking for an expression of opinion from the department in regard to making special arrangements for the surrender of an Indian reserve situated in the valley of the Fraser near the experimental farm at Agassiz, and close to the Canadian Pacific Railway line, and in what might be called the very heart of the best agricultural district in British Columbia. He was anxious to know if special arrangements might not be made in regard to the surrender of this reserve, Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.
while awaiting a decision on the general question of dealing with reserves throughout the province. The Indian Department is very well aware of the conditions surrounding this particular reserve. One objection to making a special case of this reserve is that it is almost identical in circumstances with many other reserves throughout the province, and that so far from being a special case it is rather a specimen case. In the opinion of the department it is not desirable under such circumstances to make special arrangements in regard to a single case when that arrangement cannot be made applicable to all similar cases. The natural conditions in the province of British Columbia are such that in securing lands for the settlement of the Indian bands in that province and permitting them the right of selection, it has come about that in almost every valley, and adjoining almost every white settlement in every valley, and it might almost be said adjoining almost every point at which there is white settlement in every valley, there is an Indian reserve. This comes about by reason of the topographical conditions which naturally separated the Indians into small bands, each band being resident in a single valley or in a single part of a certain valley. And so, we have in the province of British Columbia, 1,000 Indian reserves scattered about through the valleys and naturally quite as numerous in the parts of the province that are occupied by white settlers as in the parts which are not. This question of the Indian reserves in British Columbia is of paramount importance in the development of that province. It will be understood that in a country so mountainous as British Columbia the valleys have special value, and so it is that where these reserves are situated, at the present time (within the last few years particularly under the development that has taken place) these lands have become of extra special value, so that while there was a question arising about the location of these reserves a few years ago that question has now become a burning one and I might say a dominant question in the development of the province. It may seem strange that such a small area should be so very important in a province with such a stupendous total area, but when you take that area and split it up into a thousand parcels and place each of these parcels in a locality which has been selected by those who knew the province best, you have certainly a very serious bar to the settlement and development of that province. The tenure of Indian lands in British Columbia is somewhat different from that prevailing in other parts of Canada. In all other parts of Canada the Indian is held to be the absolute owner of the land; he is the absolute proprietor not as an individual but as a community. In British Columbia, however, that

is not the position as it has been understood. I need not go into any lengthy explanation at the moment, but in the ease of Indian reserves in British Columbia until the administration of this government, up to a certain point it was understood that while the Indian owned the land he occupied, and while that land was administered by the Dominion government as the guardian and trustee of the Indian, the government of the province had what was called a reversionary interest in all those Indian reserves.
The Indian Department recognized this as being the position; and so, in any disposition that was attempted to be made of Indian lands for the benefit of the Indians, the reversionary interest of the province of British Columbia was always considered. What the value of that reversionary interest might be was not a matter that could very well be settled; but it was always recognized and kept in view in any transactions in Indian lands. Therefore, Indian lands in British Columbia had not the same value to the Indians that they would have had had they been held under the same tenure as lands in the northwest provinces or in Ontario. But it was always considered that the interest of the Indians was paramount to that of the province. Now, recognizing the desirability of bringing those lands which were not in use by the Indians into profitable occupation, and at the same time securing for the Indians the full benefit of their interest in them, which is in accordance with the principle of administration of Indian lands observed by the Canadian government ever since it undertook to handle Indian lands-when an application was made by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for a certain part of the Metla-katla reserve for the purpose of a terminus for the railroad on the Pacific coast, the Indian Department approached the Indians occupying the reserve, and negotiated a surrender of their rights in some 13,000 acres of the reserve, for which the Grand Trunk Pacific Company paid something like $100, 000, which is at the credit of the Metla-katla Indian band. In the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, it was especially stipulated under seal that the reversionary interest of the province of British Columbia was not in any way prejudiced by this transfer of Indian rights. The Indian Department, I may say, believed that the transaction was in the interest of the Indians, in the interest of the province, and in the interest of all Canada, as well as in the interest of the railway company; and believed that to such a degree that before entering into the arrangement with the railway company, the Dominion government asked the province to waive its reversionary interest in those lands, believing that the province would
benefit sufficiently by the proposed transaction to warrant it in doing so. The provincial government, however, in their wisdom declined to waive the reversionary interest, and so the sale was made subject to that reversionary interest. A little later certain communications passed between the government of the province and the government of the Dominion in regard to this particular transaction, and in regard to the general question of dealing with these Indian reserves, with a view of getting the question into such a position as would enable the Indian Department to dispose of unused or unneeded Indian lands for the benefit of the Indians, and for the benefit of the settlement of the province. In the course of the correspondence, the government of British Columbia saw fit to take a position which had not previously been contemplated-a position different from that which it formerly held, as we understood it; and in an order in council dated the 28th of February, 1907, the provincial government states its position in these words:
It follows, then, that the Dominion government has no right or power to make or grant a lease or transfer of any Indian reserve, or portion of a reserve, in this province, and that where any lease or transfer has been made, the reserve or portion of a reserve so leased or transferred now belongs absolutely to the province. It would appear that in at least three instances transfers or leases have been made by the Dominion government of portions of Indian reserves, namely 3'21 acres of the Myuke reserve in Kootenay, 7 acres of the False Creek reserve1 in Vancouver, and 13 -567 acres of the Port Simpson reserve. These lands now belong to and should be claimed by the province.
That is to say, the provincial government, instead of claiming a reversionary interest, claimed an absolutely proprietary interest in the lands, declaring that the Indians were merely the occupants, and not in any sense the owners of the lands. It must be evident that this declaration on the part of the province absolutely prohibited the Dominion government from taking any further action in regard to the alienation of Indian lands. The Dominion government could not undertake to dispossess the Indians without securing value to^ them for their interest, whatever it might be. I presume that the committee will recognize that as being the correct position. It is the traditional position of the British government in Canada, and has been the unaltered position of the Canadian government ever since it has been handling Indian affairs. Therefore the Indian Department, in undertaking to deal with Indian lands in the province of British Columbia, could only be a party to their alienation when assured that the Indians were receiving full value for what-

ever interest they had in the lands. It must be evident that unless a title can be given for the land, no man will pay his money for it. The position therefore is this:
A cloud is placed on the title to Indian land by the government of the province of British Columbia which prevents any one from investing his money in it, and thus causes a tie-up in the situation unless the Dominion government is prepared to take, the ground that the Indian has no right in these lands.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where the Indians abandon their reserve, as they did around Kaien Island, and the reversionary right brings that back to the Crown, you could not interfere with the title then.


Frank Oliver: The Indians did not abandon their reserve, but sold a part and retained the remainder.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As long as the Indians were settled on that land and the tribe remained, it was theirs, but if they vacated it and went away, it reverted to the Crown; and the contention was that the band abandoned their reserve and went to the United States. Afterwards, however, a portion of another band came and squatted on this reserve and took possession of it, but the province, under the reversionary right, owned the land and pretended that the others were only squatters.


Frank Oliver: The province did- not make any pretention with regard to abandonment, but simply claimed that if the Indians either sold the land or ceased to occupy any portion of the reserve, it became vested in the province. I am not arguing the question of the validity of that contention, but I am saying that such a declaration by the British Columbia government necessarily tied up the land and prevented this government disposing of it and at the same time discharging its trust to the Indians. That being the case, and we did not in any way wish to take any action which would bring us into conflict with the province, but still, not considering that we would be warranted in acceding to their position, we stated that we would be willing to facilitate a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction. It seemed to us that by reference to the proper court, we would obtain a decision either acknowledging the rights of the Indians or stating that they had no rights, and in the latter case relieve the Indian Department of all responsibility in the matter. We have not since been able to come to an arrangement with the province for the submission of the matter to the decision of the courts, and consequently the land is absolutely tied up, and the Indian Department is prevented from dealing with it with the view of releasing such portion to Mr. OLIVER,
settlement as is not needed by the Indians, and giving the Indians the benefit of whatever legal rights they have in the property. The fact that an arrangement has not yet been come to is not due to any laxity on the part of this government. On September 24, 1906, the Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs wrote the premier of British Columbia making a certain suggestion as to the settlement of the dispute. On December 5, 1906, no answer having up to that date been received, another letter was sent asking a reply, and on March 13, 1907, the following reply was received by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs:
Adverting to your letter of Dec. 5, 1906 and other correspondence with reference to the Indian reserve question in this province, I bee to state that the action of the federal government in connection with the Indian reserve in British Columbia has been so unsatisfactory of late that this government does not intend to enter into any further arrangement with the Dominion authorities.
Yours truly,
WiM. McBRIDE.
It is only fair that the House should be made aware of the facts in this case. It is of the highest importance to the province of British Columbia that where these reserves are not beneficially occupied by the , Indians, they should be available for disposition, so that they could be occupied by those who would turn them to good ac-i count; but the responsibility for the pre-
*	sent position rests absolutely with the pro: vmce of British Columbia and not with i the Indian Department, as the latter has
*	not shown any lack of legitimate and per; sistent effort to bring about a satisfactory ; conclusion.
1 Mr. WRIGHT. Was there any dispute I between this government and the province of British Columbia prior to the corres-. pondence just read?
I Mr. OLIVER. There was always a ques-' tion between the two governments with b regard to these Indian reserves. It will
-	be easily seen how such a condition of af-
-	fairs will exist, the tenure being so dif! ferent in British Columbia from what it is r in any other part of the country. The
-	government of British Columbia took one : view and the Dominion government an c entirely different view. There was always r more or less conflict of opinion, but in 3 1876 an arrangement was arrived at. In t the carrying out of that arrangement there e was of course room for differences of opin-i ion, which occurred from time to time. 3 And it was because there was more or less i friction that the Deputy Superintendent s General of Indian Affairs wrote the pro;- vincial government in March, 1906, in order t to secure a working arrangement which o would enable these lands to be dealt with.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it not a fact that when the lands for the terminals of the Grand Trunk Pacific were sold to that company the federal government took the ground that they and they alone had the right to sell the land and that the provinces had no right in them? That contention was continued for some time, and I think it was said in this House by some one representing the government that they and they alone had the right to sell and the province had no right to refuse.


Frank Oliver: I think there was an impression in the minds of some members of the House that the government had taken that position; but the government never took that position. Their position was stated in the House, but in order to make, the matter perfectly clear, I shall take the' liberty of reading an undertaking given by the Grand Trunk Pacific before the government would undertake to deal with the Indians for this land. The undertaking reads:



[Stage Direction]
That we, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Town and Development Company, Ltd., are jointly and severally prepared to accept letters patent from the Dominion government to the Grand Trunk Pacific Town find Development Com-ranr. Ltd., for the lands in Kaien island, Dig-by island and Tsimpsean peninsula, applied for by the G. T. P. Railway Company upon the terms contained in letter of June 27, 1906, addressed to Mr. D'Arcy Tate, assistant solicitor of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company (which last mentioned company by instrument dated June 18, 1907, didt assign, transfer and set over all its right, title and interest in the said lands to the Grand Trunk Pacific Town and Development Company, Ltd.), that is the patent to be issued and accepted without recourse against the Dominion in case of the establishment of any claim on the part of the province of British Columbia to the said lands or any interest therein.
In witness whereof, each of the said companies has hereunto set its corporate seal, countersigned by the proper officers in that behalf, June 24, A.D., 1907.
The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, (Seal G.T.P.R.Co.),
FRANK W. MORSE, Vice-president and general manager.
HENRY PHILIPS, Secretary.
The Grand Trunk Pacific Town and Development Company, Ltd.
(Seal G.T.P.T. & D. Co., Ltd.)
FRANK W. MORSE, Vice-president.
HENRY PHILIPS, Secretary.
In the presence of: D'Arcy Tate.
Mr. WRIGHT.: The minister took the ground that there had been a change of base on the part of the British Columbia government As I understand, the govern-37
ment of British Columbia have claimed the inherent right in the property, they still take the same position and I fail to see any change of base on their part.


Frank Oliver: That is not as it is understood here. Of course I am not suggesting that the government of British Columbia has in its own knowledge changed its position, but its position has been changed as we understood it. Formerly we understood, as I have already said, that thel Indians owned these lands subject to the reversionary interest of the province of British Columbia, that is to say that the Indians had the right of occupation, the right to use, lease or sell the lands, subject to that reversionary interest.


William Wright: How did it come about in the first place that the position of the Indians in British Columbia is different from their position in the rest of the Dominion?


Frank Oliver: The reason is that in the greater part, at any rate, of the rest of the Dominion the lands were acquired by treaty from the Indians on certain fixed terms. It is true that some lands in British Columbia were acquired in the same way by treaty, but as far as the greater part of the province was concerned, no treaty was made with the Indians, the right of the Crown was asserted without regard to the rights of the Indians and occupation was taken of the lands by the white people without treaty with the Indians, except in a limited number of cases in the early part of the-British occupation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did not British Columbia by an Act of the legislature, cede these lands to the Indians or for the Indians, inserting in their Act a provision that in the event of their abandoning occupation or transferring it to others the reversionary interest of the province in the lands would bring them back to the province?


Frank Oliver: I think that is right. When the provincial government was organized, I think they passed an Act of parliament taking authority/ to set apart certain lands for the occupation of the Indians; the difference was that it was not by treaty with the Indians as was the case here in Ontario and in the prairie provinces; it was an Act of dominant authority. There are some lands in British Columbia in regard to which a treaty was made with the Indians, but that is only a small part.


Alexander Haggart: From the explanation of the minister I understand that the government have practically given a quit claim to the G. T. P. Railway Company; they have given no obligation or covenant tG furnish title.


Frank Oliver: That is it.


Alexander Haggart: If you had given, a quit claim, is it not entirely a matter between the railway company and the local government?


Frank Oliver: Entirely.


Alexander Haggart: We would be out of it then?	i


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Alexander Haggart: And you have the $100,000 consideration?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Alexander Haggart: Well that should not concern this House very much.


Frank Oliver: No. That question is settled, that deal is closed. My hon. friend, as a member of the legal profession, will see that when the Grand Trunk Pacific came forward and paid their $100,000 for the right of the Indians in those lands and then had to buy the lands from the province of British Columbia, they had practically thrown away their $100,000, which we have to-day in the treasury for the benefit of the Indians, and that experience is what I am trying to emphasize to the House. Certainly no other person having money would go through the same experience. It absolutely prevents the sale of any more land.


George Henry Barnard: Would not the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Company paid a considerable sum of money for this reversionary interest of the province of British Columbia in addition to giving them a 25 per cent interest in the townsite,, suggest to the minister that the legal advisers | of the Grand Trunk Pacific had come to the conclusion that the Grand Trunk Pacific had a pretty strong claim.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


James Davis Taylor: I desire to express my appreciation of the courtesy of the Minister of the Interior in making his interesting explanation of the position of the Indian lands in my province. Until I heard him to-night I had not understood that it was the fixed policy of the Dominion government to reduce the areas of the Indian reserves whenever the condition of affairs with respect to the title to the lands would warrant them in so doing. I am sure the announcement of this policy will be received with a great deal of pleasure all through British Columbia, where, as the minister has informed this committee, the fact of so large a quantity of land being locked up in Indian reserves is the cause of a great deal of annoyance. I think his announcement ought to stimulate the movement in the province for arranging an amicable settlement of this question. I had understood that the provincial government had made a bona fide attempt to submit a Mr. OLIVER.
case to the courts in which the Dominion government were invited.to join issue with them. We had the impression that the Dominion government were disinclined to put the matter to the test. But the statement made to the committee to-night encourages us to believe that the hon. the minister, recognizing how important it is for us that this matter should be settled, will use his best endeavour to facilitate such a settlement as the province desires to make. There is one more question I would like to ask, to come back to my starting point. In the event of the people of Agassiz being able to arrange with the provincial government with respect to a disposition of Maria island, will the Department of Indian Affairs here facilitate the sale of that island?


Frank Oliver: It depends entirely on the character of the arrangement. We would very much prefer to have the question settled as a whole rather than deal with it by piecemeal; but for the reason I have already mentioned, there are so many cases practically alike that we would certainly be accused of favouritism or unfairness if we undertake to deal with one here and one there rather than with the whole of them together.


George Henry Barnard: Do I understand from the remarks of the minister that the government is ready to sell any land on these reserves in cases where the reserve is larger than is required? According to the agreement made with the province in 1876, that could be done provided an arrangement could be made with the provincial government. If that is the case, I think tfiis matter might be arranged without much trouble.


Frank Oliver: Our policy is to bring into use the land that the Indians are not now using, and to secure to them the financial benefit from the transfer of the land.


George Henry Barnard: According to the basis
of the agreement which was made between the provinces of the Dominion in 1876, and which was set forth in an order in council by the Dominion government, and accepted by the provincial government.


Frank Oliver: There appears to be a wide difference of opinion between the province and the Dominion as to the purport of that agreement, and I do not wish to say anything further than that we would be glad to secure a settlement by the highest authority.


George Henry Barnard: Then would it not be advisable for the minister to take some part in this discussion that is going on before the courts at the present time? That might facilitate a settlement.	.
1X57


Frank Oliver: As I understand the matter, when there are two parties to a dispute and a settlement before the courts is desired, a stated case is agreed upon by the parties for submission to the courts. But as I understand this matter, the British Columbia government did not give us an opportunity to unite with them in stating the case. They stated a ease of their o\yn and submitted it to their own court, which, of course, they had a perfect right to do. But unless we had an opportunity to agree to the statement of the case, we could hardly be considered as parties to the decision.


George Henry Barnard: There must be some misunderstanding. The minister has read some communications between the two governments with respect to this matter. Would he bring down all the papers in connection with it, because the information I have is that there are communications later than those referred to by the minister Ifrom the provincial government to this government which probably would throw some light on this question. If the minister will bring them down we would be in a better position to understand the situation. It is a matter of great importance to the people of British Columbia; it is a question which I think all parties are anxious to settle.


Frank Oliver: The papers, as I have said, are in the Justice Department and not in my department. The hon. gentleman is aware of the means he must take to secure them. It is not within my power to bring them down.


George Henry Barnard: The minister has thrown out the suggestion that the government is anxious to sell these lands that were not required on the reserve. Does that apply to all the lands reserved for the Indians or only a portion of them?


Frank Oliver: The principle applies to all the reserves in every part of the country.


George Henry Barnard: I understood the minister to make a distinction between some Indians who had what he called treaty rights and others.


Frank Oliver: No, I did not make any distinction between them in discussing this question. But in regard to another matter I said that some Indians were under treaty and the balance were not. But so far that point has not been raised in the discussion, although no doubt if a case came before the courts it would be raised.


George Henry Barnard: Is the department of the opinion that it could sell the lands on any of these Indian reserves, putting the provincial government altogether aside, for the sake of argument? Could the department dispose of the Indian lands? If not, is there 371
any distinction between the different reservations?


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to be drawn into a statement that I have no proper authority to make. Given the condition that there was a reserve which was the result of a treaty between the British government, we will say, and the Indians, then whatever the terms of that treaty were of course they would prevail. I do not know whether there are any such cases, but that is the case in this part of the country, and possibly it is the case in some parts of British Columbia. I may say that we have never rdlsed that question at all. We have assumed in all our discussions with the provincial government that they held a reversionary interest in all the Indian lands.


George Henry Barnard: I read in one of the coast papers a reference to the fact that a reserve close to Vancouver, if not actually within the limits of that city, that situated at Greer's beach, or Kitsilano, had been transferred to the city of Vancouver. Can the minister tell me if he knows of any transaction of that kind?


Frank Oliver: No, that reserve has not been transferred to the city of Vancouver. Seven acres of the False Creek reserve at Vancouver were, some years ago, leased to a lumber company and that is one of the cases that the British Columbia government takes exception to holding that the land belongs to the province.


George Henry Barnard: What I want to get at is whether or not quite recently the Kitsilano reserve has been done away with, and whether the land has become the property of the city of Vancouver or any body besides the Indians.


Frank Oliver: No.


George Henry Barnard: I would like to know if the minister can tell us anything about the Songhees reserve situated in the city of Victoria. That is a burning question at Victoria. These Indians own 112 acres practically in the middle of the city of Victoria. They have half of the water frontage on the harbour and the land held by them is practically of no use. It increases the cost of municipal administration very considerably by reason of the fact that roads and telephone poles have to be built around this reserve and very seriously retards the development of _ the city. I would like to know if the minister can hold out any hope of a settlement of this question.


Frank Oliver: The Indian Department has a very vivid remembrance of the Songhees reserve. Everything that my hon. friend has said in regard to the Songhees reserve is on the records of the department. There have been several attempts made to

secure a surrender of this land. In 1897 a commissioner went out and negotiated with the Indians, and again in 1906 the present deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs went with the fullest possible powers to negotiate a surrender. He made satisfactory arrangements with the British Columbia government with regard to their reversionary interest, but he found it impossible to secure the surrender by the Indians. We quite appreciate the desire that exists to procure it from every point of view, and we have exhausted every effort to secure the surrender of the reserve. I am sure my hon. friend knows what the difficulties are and it is not necessary that I should detail them to the committee but they have so far been impossible to overcome.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Why does not the department exercise the rights of the Crown, expropriate this land and settle this difficulty?


Frank Oliver: That is a matter for consideration but I presume parliament would only consent to that being done as a last resort. Certainly, as a member of the government I would not advise that the government should undertake the responsibility; because it would be so radical a departure from the accepted and traditional policy of British rule in this country that it should not and would not be undertaken without the fullest sanction of parliament which would have to take the responsibility. I am not prepared to say whether such a proposition may be submitted to parliament or not but in such a case I would certainly say that parliament would have to take the full responsibility.


George Henry Barnard: I think the minister will admit this is very nearly a case for the last resort. The minister said that the department had exhausted every effort to settle the question. I am not blaming the department because I think they have made some effort to settle it, but it is a matter that must be settled in the near future.


John Allister Currie: Is it not a fact that a portion of British Columbia was taken possession of by the Crown and that any rights the Indians have to that portion of the coast are not sovereign rights in any sense of the term but that the Indians are simply occupants, leaseholders or users of the soil? We have had cases in Ontario where the sovereign rights of the Crown were exercised, a man's property was taken away from him and the court decided that the Crown could do no wrong. If this property is within the city limits of Victoria, if it is necessary that the Indians should be moved out and if provision is made by which they will receive a sufficient amount of land elsewhere, suitable to their habits, condition Mr. OLIVER.
and mode of life, why should not the government transfer them to another location? Is it not a fact that the government have removed Indians from several reserves to other reserves in order that the lands occupied by them might be made available for a white population? Would it not be possible to assist the city of Victoria to introduce a Bill into this House making provision for the disposition of these lands, letting any money benefit accrue to the department for the Indians, or to the province when the matter is settled?


Frank Oliver: As far as I am aware the government has never done as my hon. friend has suggested. We have secured surrenders from the Indians and we have secured exchanges but always with the consent of the majority of the band. That has been a fundamental principle and the suggestion that my hon. friend makes would be a departure from the traditional policy. I do not say that it should not be done but I am pointing out that it would be a departure from the traditional policy and it would require to be very carefully considered before being undertaken. With regard to the tenure of the land, as far as the greater part of the area of British Columbia is concerned it is in the position that my hon. friend has stated, but I am informed that this particular reserve happens to be subject to a treaty between the Crown and the Indians. I may be mistaken but I am given to understand that such is the case.


George Henry Barnard: With the Hudson Bay
Company?


Frank Oliver: With the Hudson Bay Company as representing the Crown.
Cleansing Indian orchards, $1,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have they the San Jose scale there?


Frank Oliver: I do not think it is the San Jose scale but it is a fungus pest.
Yukon Indian Schools, $15,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many Indians in the Yukon?


Frank Oliver: About 3,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many of school age?


Frank Oliver: It is impossible to tell the number of children of school age, but there are schools at Moosehide, Carcross and Selkirk.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is a large expenditure for a few pupils.


Frank Oliver: We took a vote last year but we did not expend the money and this is a revote. We wish to erect a small boarding school at Carcross which is a Church of England mission, with a view of doing the best we can for the Indian

children. The bands are small and scattered oyer an immense area and a boarding school is practically the only way in which to give any of the Indians education.
Timber inspector and valuator, $1,200.


William Wright: Who is the timber inspector and where is he located?


Frank Oliver: Mr. John Fraser, of Gore Bay, Manitoulin.
Travelling expenses and clerical services for inspectors, $2,700.


William Wright: I call the attention of the minister to some of the items included in these travelling expenses. For instance, there is a Mr. J. D. Ramsden, inspector, for whom we bought a travelling bag at $11.25, a coat for $6, and one pair of shoes for $10.50. For a gentleman named Stewart we bought a pair of boots at $10.50. Again, we find that there was purchased an air bed at $30, three pairs of boots $25, sundry clothing $20.30, kit bags $29.50, dunnage bags at $8.50, blankets and so on. I protested last year very strongly against the government buying clothing and boots and travelling bags for these officials. I think they are pretty well paid. We let them travel just as comfortably as possible in Pullman cars; we furnish all the help that is necessary at high wages, and we pay all their expenses of every kind. I protest against the department continuing the system of buying travelling bags and trunks for men who go out for a week or two. I don't think we should buy a $30 bed for any of these officials. 1 suppose these things become their personal property and that we never see them again. I would suggest that the minister should consider the matter and see if he cannot cut out some of these items.


Frank Oliver: These inspectors are employed in the treaty which lies to the north of the height of land in northern Ontario, towards Hudson bay. The trip they have to make is altogether out of the ordinary, and it requires an extraordinary outfit in the way of clothing and camp; equipment. As these men only receive the same salaries as the men who do their work under ordinary conditions if has not been thought unfair to the country that they should get in addition the special camp appliance and special clothing they require for this extra service.


William Wright: I draw the attention of the minister to the fact that a large numj ber of these Indian reserves are not above the height of land, but in Northern Ontario. I think we paid out for this one trip to the Indians, nearly $8,000 in expenses of one kind and another. It seems to me that the amount of money spent in this way is altoether too large and that it might be cut
own very considerably if it is looked after.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does Mr. Fraser report on the value of Indian land timber in the Georgian bay district when it is about to be sold?


Frank Oliver: His work is inspecting and valuing on the Manitoulin Islands and along the north shore of the Georgian bay.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was it Mr. Fraser who valued the timber on Hope Island a couple of years ago when it was sold?


Frank Oliver: That was valued by Mr. Chitty.


William Wright: What reserves are being surrendered by the Indians on the north shore of the Georgian bay ?


Frank Oliver: All the bands on the north shore of the Georgian bay have surrendered large areas of their lands, and it is in carrying on the sales of timber and lands that these men are employed.


Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE.: Is it the policy of the government to induce the Indians to surrender their lands in settled parts of the country, And move further back to the unsettled districts?


Frank Oliver: It is our policy, not so much to induce the Indians to move away, as to induce them to surrender lands which they are not using and which other people would use, securing for the Indians the difference inwalue.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Does not the experience of the minister show that the Indians do not follow agricultural pursuits to any advantage, and that it is better to move them from settled municipalities back to unsettled districts where there is hunting and fishing? For instance, we have a band of Chippewa Indians in North Ontario whose presence is complained of as retarding the progress of the municipality in which they are settled. Would it not he better to get them to exchange their lands for lands in the unsettled portions of the country? Does the government contribute anything towards the upkeep of the roads in that municipality?


Frank Oliver: It is our policy to secure the removal of the Indians, but it is also our policy to recognize the sacred right of the Indian to his land. He has an absolute right to the ownership and occupation of his lands just as any other proprietor; and while we are quite willing to use what inducements we may to secure his removal, we do not recognize any responsibility to secure it and are not deserving of any blame should they not be removed. In regard to the contributions by the Indian Department, I think there is in the constituency represented by the hon. gentleman a reserve which is very peculiarly situated, in which the Indian land is intermixed in

some way with land of ordinary occupants; and representations were made to the government that this resulted in an unfairness to the settlers. Therefore a small contribution was made on behalf of the Indians towards the roads of the municipality. But that was an entirely extraordinary condition, which I do not think exists anywhere else.	t


Mr. WEIGHT.: Has the department made any attempt to induce the Indians to take up their individual holdings and assume the responsibilities of citizenship? I think an effort should be made in that direction wherever the Indians manifest sufficient progress. In the riding which I represent, we have a small band of Indians, part of. the Oka tribe, who came up there a few years ago and took up individual holdings. These Indians are becoming fair average farmers, some of them doing as well as the average white man and becoming very good citizens. We see very little difference between these Indians and their ordinary white neighbours. The Indians in my district do not participate in the government grant, and therefore exercise the franchise, and I believe they exercise it as well as other people. I believe that wherever there is a reasonable hope of inducing the Indians to take up their individual holdings and assume the responsibilities of citizenship, the government should, make the attempt to induce them to do so.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Are these Indian lands liable for municipal rates or statute labour?


Frank Oliver: No.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Will the hon. gentleman say whether it is the policy of the government to continue these grants in my constituency or not? Are they to be annual, or periodical, just on the eve of an election? I am afraid that the hon. gentleman allowed political considerations to influence him in making the grant, because it was made in September or the beginning of October last. About $2,000 was put into the hands of active political workers on the assumption that it was payment from the Indian Department to this muni-cipalty; and these political workers spent the money for the advantage of their own political friends, for upbuilding roads and bridges in the municipality. I am not objecting to the grant at all. I am calling the minister's attention to the extraordinary circumstances that it was made on the eve of an election, and I understood him to say that it was the only grant ever made to a municipality by his department. I ask the hon. gentleman to say whether it is the policy of the department to continue such payments, and whether we may expect the bounty of the govern-Mr. OLIVER.
ment to be bestowed on this municipality in the future.


Frank Oliver: I am afraid that we can hardly promise it annually, or even periodically; my hon. friend had better say semi-occasionally. There have been grants made on two occasions; and though my hon. friend connects the election with the payment, I think the fact is that when the need for roads or bridges has become pressing, then the money has been contributed. If there was any election work in the handling of that money, it was not on the part of the Indian Department, either directly or indirectly, but by the officers of the municipality, to whom the money was paid, and who had its entire expenditure.


Mr. CROSBY.: As the item for travelling expenses and clerical services for Messrs. Boyd and Fraser amounts to $2,700, I would like to ask the hon. minister how often -these gentlemen leave their homes, how long they are away from their homes, and who draws the money for the clerical expenses?


Frank Oliver: I can bring down a detailed report of the amounts paid to these men if my hon. friend wants it, but I suppose it will be sufficient for me to say that they are travelling the greater part of their time and (that the greater part of this amount is for travelling expenses. The amount for clerical assistance is only a small part of the whole, and is for the making up of the reports which they have to forward to the department from time to time.


Adam Brown Crosby: It does not seem to me it makes much difference what salary you give a man if you give him all his expenses and all the money for clerical expenses he makes on you, and if he makes more than double his salary in travelling and clerical expenses. I would like to know how long they are away on those journeys. Are they away long enough to wear out an $8 pair of boots every trip they make?


Frank Oliver: If the hon. member desires a- detailed statement I can easily bring it to the House, but cannot possibly furnish it at this sitting. Speaking generally, these men are employed for the purpose of travelling, and are travelling practically the whole year. If they were not travelling, they would not be doing the work they were hired to do. Of course when men are travelling their expenses are paid besides their salary; and if they travel enough it is not to be wondered at if their expenses should be as much as or more than their salary.


Adam Brown Crosby: If the minister will bring down a statement I will be satisfied.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: As the hon. minister says that these agencies in my constituency are peculiarly situated, and practically acknowledges the liability on the part of the government to assist in keeping up the municipal roads and bridges, would it not be advisable to open up negotiations in order to induce the Indians to exchange their lands for lands further back? There is a great deal of complaint on their score. They retard progress and do not contribute towards the roads. Would it not be better for the government to get rid of the liability by having them change their lands and go further back?


Frank Oliver: That is quite in line with our policy, but we do not undertake to exercise compulsion. The most we can do is to exercise persuasion.


John Allister Currie: The hon. minister promised the other evening to bring down a statement of the Indian lands which had been placed under lease or sold or the cutting rights given on them since March last.


Frank Oliver: I have the statement here. The following sales of timber were made by the Indian Department since the last report published:
Dokis reserve, French river, 8 berths, namely:-
4 and 6	$265,000
1		 178,000
3 and 5	 126,500
8	 102,000
7	 131,000
2		 69,000

Chiefs point, Georgian Bav, burned timber: Prices tendered by Mr. N. D. Seaman, of Sauble Falls, Ont.:
Hemlock		. $ 7 per M. ft. B.M.
Pine		. 10 " "
Elm		. 8 " "
Birch		. 6 " "
Ash		. 8 " "
Tamarack		7 " "
Cedar		ij tt tt
These prices are over	and above Crown dues
at tariff rates.
Kettle and Stony Point reserves, Lake Huron, burned timber.
Prices tendered by Mr. T. W. Mitchell, Arkona, Ont.:
Hemlock, tamarack, soft elm, maple, beech, birch, black ash, $4 per M. ft. B.M.
Basswood, $6 per M. ft. B.M.
White ash, $10 per M. ft. B.M.
Cordwood, 15 cents per cord.
And Crown dues at tariff rates.
Giants Tomb island, Georgian bay.
Timber sold to Mr. C. Beck, Penetan-guishene, for $3,750 and Crown dues at tariff rates.
Permits issued to Indians to cut and sell timber were authorized as follows:
Cape Croker Band.
Sold Kastner and Newman, Wiarton, Ont., at prices tendered, namely:
Maple	 $10.25 per M. ft. B.M.
Beech	
7.00	"Elm	
12.25	"	"Basswood	
13.25	"Hemlock	
10.00	"Cedar	
11.00	"	"
Quantity estimated about 500,000 feet in all. Sold George Niebergall, Wiarton, the previous year about 1 million feet, B.M.
The Indians only furnished about half the quantity and they are to supply the difference this season; the prices tendered by Mr. Niebergall are as follow:
Maple	 $10
Beech	 6
Elm	 11
Basswood	 13
Hemlock	 9
Cedar	  11
Garden River Band.
Railway ties sold Harris Tie and Timber Company, Ottawa, at shipping point, cedar and tamarack ties 25 cents each; hemlock ties, 20 cents each; on right of way Canadian Pacific Railway, cedar and tamarack ties, 33 cents each; hemlock ties, 28 cents each.
Shesheguaning Band.
Sold to B. S. Graham, Silverwater, Ont.
Cedar ties, No. 1, 32 cents each; cedar ties, 1*1 o. 2, 16 cents each; posts, 6 cents each.
West bay band.
Sold to R. L. Graham.
Ties, No. 1, 30 cents each; ties No. 2, 15 cents each; posts, 5J cents each.
Sold to Rixon, Ainslie and Stoddarts:
Oak, $10 par M. ft.; basswood and elm, $8.
Manitoulin island, unceded part:
Ties sold to Wm. J. Pulling and Co., Windsor, at 34J cents each.
Watha reserve.
Sold to F. McGibbon and Sous, Penetan-guishene, about 150,000 feet B.M., of burned hemlock, at $1.71 per M. ft. B.M., and Crown dues.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Would the minister be good enough to take into consideration the desirability of giving some annual sum in payment of our liability to the municipalities instead of making large grants, as he says, semi-occasionally. That would meet the necessities of the case and relieve the department of the suspicion of political partisanship and, as my hon. friend beside me suggests, of the worry of pull. Two thousand dollars in one municipality cannot be spent to advantage in one month, and we had some $1,500 spent in the four weeks just prior to the elections. If an annual sum were distributed to this municipality they could spend it to much greater advantage and that would be also in the interests of the department.
Payments to Indians surrendering their lands under provisions of section 70 of the

116&
Indian Act, which will afterwards be repaid from the avails of the lands, $50,000.


Mr. LAKE.: What are the arrangements for payments to the Indians out of the money obtained from land surrendered by them?


Frank Oliver: Roughly speaking an upset price is placed upon the lands. That is, the Indians agree to surrender the land for sale provided the land is not sold at a less figure than that agreed on, which of course varies in different reserves. On signing the surrender an arbitrary sum of so much per head is paid down to bind the bargain. Then a certain percentage of the total price received, varying from 20 per cent up to 50 per cent, is paidl to the Indians as it is received. That is for every dollar that is paid in on the purchase price of the land 50 cents may be paid direct to the Indians. From that 50 cents of course, is deducted the first payment made to bind the bargain. The balance, 50 cents, is funded and the interest on that is paid to the Indians each year, generally speaking at the same time as the treaty payments, an equal amount per head.


Richard Stuart Lake: What interest is paid?


Frank Oliver: Three per cent, the government rate of interest. That is 3 per cent annually, on 50 per cent of the total price for which the reserve has been sold.


Richard Stuart Lake: I had a letter suggesting that interest is not being paid to the Indians on the Assiniboine reserve.


Frank Oliver: I fancy that in that case the annual payment has not yet accrued. The interest does not begin until the land is sold.


Richard Stuart Lake: I think the land was sold some time ago. There are moneys credited in the Auditor General's Report.


Frank Oliver: My impression is that the first payment of interest upon the sales in that reserve is not yet due.


Richard Stuart Lake: Have all the lands which were surrendered been sold yet, and if not, what proportion still remain unsold?


Frank Oliver: I cannot say just how much, there have been two sales and some of the land is still unsold. I shall obtain the information and give it to the hon. member.
Relief to destitute Indians in remote districts, $10,000.


Adam Brown Crosby: How much was spent last year, how long has this vote been running and is it increasing or decreasing?


Frank Oliver: Last year $9,900 was spent. This is for the relief of Indians outside the treaty limits in the far north, practically in the Mackenzie River country, in Keewatin and in the Yukon. A grant of Mr. SHARPE.
this character has been made fer the last fifteen or twenty years and the tendency is for it to increase rather than decrease.


Adam Brown Crosby: Could the minister say how much of this is spent in getting the* money into the Indians' hands?


Frank Oliver: This is to pay for supplies actually given to the Indians. I presume the reason of the difference between the amount of ten years ago and the amount to-day, is that ten years ago when the season of scarcity came the Indian simply died, whereas now his life is preserved by the relief he gets.


Mr. GEO. GORDON.: In that item is there included any relief money expended in Northern Ontario?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Gordon: I think that is one of the most humane items in the whole estimates, and every member of the House should be well satisfied to let that item go through, and even to increase it. I had occasion a few days after the election to wire the department about an Indian woman and some children who were starving in northern Ontario, and I want to thank the minister publicly, and the department, for the prompt manner in which they wired back to have relief extended to these starving people. I was struck with the generosity and promptness of the de partment at the time, and I have much pleasure now in endorsing this item and would be glad indeed to see it increased.


Frank Oliver: The Indian items now being passed, I wish to say that on Friday last a number of questions were asked me and I promised to bring down the answers. Some of the gentlemen who asked the questions are not here, but I have the answers ready. First, I have an answer to the question of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche). The item for a bull shown in the Auditor's Report as being purchased for the Birtle agency from ' R. Logan, agent ' has not been detailed properly. It was, together with others, purchased at the Brandon sale of bulls out of funds advanced for the purpose, and Mr. Logan, who is the agent at Portage la Prairie, accounted for the money advanced. Nine bulls were bought at this sale; three for the Birtle agency (one charged to cattle vote and twe to bull fund) from the Cattle Breeders' Association, whose receipt is held by the Auditor General, at a cost of $261.20, delivered at Birtle, including transportation and other charges, and six for Portage la Prairie agency for $619.40, including transportation.
Then the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) asked a question about the payment of $16 to Dr. F. A. Rand, medical

officer for the Indians of Cumberland county, N.S. This was due to an outbreak of small-pox amongst the Indians. The payment was for special services rendered by the doctor in vaccinating the Indians at the different places where they are located in the county, viz.:
1907, Jan. 7. To visit to Halfway River
10 miles to vaccinate Indians	 $5 00
1907. Jan. 7. To vaccinate fourteen Indians at 25 cents each	 3 50
1907, Jan. 11. To visit to Springhill Junction to vaccinate Indians (25 miles) and vaccinating four at 25c..	3 50
1907, Jan. 30. To visit to Southampton
to vaccinate Indians (20 miles) and vaccinating nine at 25c	 4 00


Mr. RHODES.: That reply simply means that it is not the duty of the officer to attend small-pox cases.


Frank Oliver: Where they are not on the reserve. I understand these Indians were scattered about. There is, of course, a difference between small-pox and an ordinary disease. This is a special allowance for vaccination, but it is not the treatment of disease.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is the medical officer paid on a yearly salary?


Frank Oliver: Some are and some are not.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: In connection with the Chippewa Indians of Rama township in my constituency, there is an item of $250 to Dr. McLean, 12 months; another item, hospital attendance, Dr. McLean, $61, in I-84.


Frank Oliver: Dr. McLean gets $300 a year, $250 from the appropriation and $50 from the funds of the band. The special claim mentioned there is, I think, a hill for attendance on some Indian who was not a member of the band.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Then there is another item: Medical attendance, Dr. A. P. Ardagh, $25; Dr. W. A. Henderson, $47.


Frank Oliver: I assume those are for medical attendance on Indians who are nor members of the band, but who have come into the district and require medical attend ance. Then I have another answer to a question of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche). In regard to the payment of $200.50 to H. B. Rush, over and above the contract price for the erection of buildings at Kinistino reserve, the facts are that the department called for tenders in July, 1906. and Mr. Rush's tender was the lowest received. The contract, however, was not awarded at that time as a question had arisen as to whether it would not be advisable to erect the buildings at Nut Lake reserve instead of Kinistino, and this question was not decided until too late to build that year. The following spring, on March 15, 1907, Mr. Rush: was notified to proceed with the work and almost at once, on May 4, he drew the attention of the inspector to the fact that prices had increased and that he would like to he allowed the difference. Upon completion of the work, he put in a claim of $200.50 to cover the difference between the advance in the cost of materials between the date of his tender in 1906 and when he was notified to proceed with the work. The matter was referred to Mr. Inspector Chisholm for his report (copy of which is attached hereto) and payment was made upon his recommendation, as it was considered the contractor had a just claim, according to the facts and figures submitted.
The Auditor General made some inquiries in regard to this payment and the facts were placed before him. The tenders were as follows:	A. N. Claggett, $3,780; W.
Wortley, $3,575; H. B. Rush, $2,600.
Then, a question was asked with regard to the notice given to the lessees of a timber limit that their license would be terminated.


John Allister Currie: That is the question of the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr Smyth).


Frank Oliver: Yes. The Indians of ths Spanish river reserve petitioned the department in November, 1907, to terminate the license as the licensees had held it over twenty-one years,, that they were only cutting small quantities annually, that it is contrary to agreement to hold the limit indefinitely and allow timber to become merchantable which was not merchantable when the license issued, but has since grown to be merchantable, that no bonus was paid for such and it never was surrendered for sale, that the licensees do not employ Indians and only work the limit with one contractor, and they have had ample time to remove the timber. The matter was referred to the Department of Justice, which replied that the surrender of the timber by the Indians only included timber that was merchantable at the time and not what became merchantable since; that the license is confined to timber then licensed and the licensees may be required to remove what remains of the timber covered by the license within a reasonable time at the end of which the license will be determined. The licensees were advised accordingly, on November 24, 1908, and notified that as ample time had been given for the removal of the timber actually covered by their license, the department is obliged to terminate it on April 30 next.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have the Indians of Manitoulin island the right to_ lease land for the purpose of boring for oil?


Frank Oliver: They are the absolute owners of the reserve and of the minerals and natural resources as well. Therefore, I think there can be no question that they have the right to lease. Of course, the Indian Department, as their guardians, negotiates the lease so that any lease that is made is subject to the consideration and approval of the department. The Indian Department is responsible for the lease being in due form and provident.
Government of Northwest Territories- Salary of Geo. D. Pope, as accountant to the Commissioner, $300.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are these all the salaries that these people get or have they salaries from another source?


Frank Oliver: This is for a very small service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are they under the Civil Service Act?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Civil Service Act provides that where a civil servant receives a salary from one source he is not entitled to receive anything from any other source unless subject to the provision ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act to the contrary.' You are paying a salary from two sources, contrary to the Civil Service Act.


Frank Oliver: I understand that under the Civil Service Act all that is necessary is that the persons receiving these salaries shall be named in the estimates.
Miscellaneous-Maintenance, construction of roads, bridges and other necessary works in connection with the Hot Springs reservation, near Banff station, Alberta, $45,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You just continue the same amount from year to year?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was the amount voted last year all spent?


Frank Oliver: It is not all spent yet, but it will be during the year.


Samuel Hughes: Is it the intention to connect Banff and Field by a driveway? It would be a good idea to have that work carried out.


Frank Oliver: That is a very good idea, but it is quite expensive. At present we are connecting the prairie with Banff by a road and we will no doubt continue it to make the connection my friend speaks of.
Banff water works and sewerage, $10,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that to complete?


Frank Oliver: We will spend $10,000 the current year and this is a revote of $10,000 to complete the works.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Samuel Hughes: Has the government any plans regarding proposals to develop these springs for curative purposes?


Frank Oliver: No.


Samuel Hughes: We know that the Spas in the Old Country are visited by hundreds of thousands of people and if we develop these resorts in the mountains, while it would primarily benefit the railway companies, it would indirectly benefit the country to a certain extent. Perhaps it is not one of the functions of the government to undertake this, but I am surprised the railway companies have not done more.


Frank Oliver: The number of visitors to Banff and other resorts has greatly increased in recent years, and I think we have reason to congratulate ourselves on the progress made, considering the distance these resorts are from the centres of population. No doubt the flow of travel will increase as the time goes on.
Costs of litigation, $11,000.


Mr. ROCHE.: How much was expended
last year for this purpose?


Frank Oliver: About $9,000 will be spent during the current year.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Does the government employ local solicitors?


Frank Oliver: The Justice Department engages the solicitors, and we pay the law costs.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: You pay solicitors fees out of this vote?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What are the functions of the Solicitor General? why does he not take charge of the litigation for this department?


Frank Oliver: Although the Solicitor General is very competent and versatile he is not able to cover all the ground.


Samuel Hughes: Is he a lawyer?


Frank Oliver: Yes.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. PATERSON moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If we reach government orders to-morrow, what business will be taken up?


Mr. PATERSON.: I cannot say exactly, but possibly the items in the Department of Railways and Canals.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 17, 1909.