1909-02-12

Mr.  E. N.@: LEWIS (West Huron) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 60) to amend the Criminal Code respecting injuries to persons due to motor vehicles.


Right Hon.   S@: Explain.


Mr. LEWIS.: This Bill proposes to deal with a class of offences upon our highways caused by vehicles that were not in common use at the time the Criminal Code was introduced, I refer to automobiles. While I understand that this parliament has no control over the King's highway,

still persons in the rural districts who built the highways for their own use are now very much troubled by automobiles. This Bill proposes to punish drivers of automobiles who are reckless, and who violate the law. It is modelled on the Bill introduced last session in reference to the same matter. I trust that the government, if they do not see fit to allow this Bill to pass, will at least add an amendment to the Criminal Code providing the needed legislation and place on crown officials the duty of finding and prosecuting drivers who break the law. It is true that the owner of an automobile has to keep his vehicle numbered, but when you are tangled up in the ditch with a frightened horse, there is little time given to find the number. I have here an item from the Toronto ' Mail and Empire.' which says that automobiles coming round the corners and dashing through crowds are becoming a menace to people travelling on the streets of Toronto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee to consider the proposed resolution granting an increase of salaries to civil servants.
Horn. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: This resolution has been before the committee for some time, and I do not know whether any further discussion is required. A Bill will be introduced founded upon it, but in the meantime I will be glad to answer any questions.


Mr. FOSTER.: I made an objection to a certain part of this resolution the other day, and asked the minister to look into it:
That all sums of money voted by parliament for the financial year ending on March 31, 1909, and applicable to the payment of salaries or increase of salaries of persons in the inside service shall be applicable to the payment of increases of salary granted under the Act to be founded in this resolution, so far as such sums are not required for the specific purposes for which they were granted; and during the said financial year there may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada such moneys required for the payment of increases of salary hereunder as have not been voted by parliament.
I did not see why it was necessary to have that now when parliament was assembled and it would be quite possible to name the exact amount which is necessary, to bring down an estimate and vote it in the regular way. I pointed out that it is an al-[DOT] together irregular way of arranging for expenditures-to take the whole consolidated revenue and dip into it as is necessary. The whole basis of parliamentary appropriation is a specific request for a specific purpose.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The question is one of convenience in the payments. I do not think there would be any difference at all in the amount which would have to be paid out. This statute, when passed, will define clearly and distinctly what moneys have to be paid out. It would be a mere question of going over the lists of the Civil Service and calculating how much each one would receive and what the aggregate amount would be. It is hoped that this Bill will pass before long and that the payments will then be available for the civil servants. If the procedure of my hon. friend were adopted we would have to have a supplementary item in the estimates, a special item, probaly, put through for that purpose. I would not have any objection to it if there was any particular object to be gained, but I have not seen any object in it. The statute will define what the amount will be in conjunction with the lists which have been presented and which are before the House of all those who are eligible for this increase. I have had statements made up, copies of which I will lay on the table if desired, showing the exact amounts payable to practically every civil servant. Of course my hon. friend might say that with these copies we might at once make up an estimate. But if the Bill passes the money can then be paid over to the Civil Service without any further delay or waiting for a supplementary estimate to be passed. That is the only view I have in regard to the matter. I am not quarrelling at all with my hon. friend's suggestion, but we think that this is the better and the simpler way and the way that would most promptly give that relief to the Civil Service which is the object of the Bill.


George Eulas Foster: Of course, what my hon. friend says, if it has any force in this case, would apply with equal force to every appropriation that is made for every part of the service.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


George Eulas Foster: I think so. He says it will be more convenient because you would not have to come to parliament and ask for it. He says at the same time that he has exactly the amounts that are necessary.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As far as I know.


George Eulas Foster: If the minister has the amounts that are necessary, or, if he has not them and can get them, certainly the basis of parliamentary appropriation is plainly contravened if he receives a general power to take out of the consolidated fund the gross amount that is necessary What I think is objectionable is that there should be any break from what is the acknowledged system and basis unless there is necessity for it. There was a necessity last year because you could not tell what

the increases were. We asked in parliament what amount this would be and the answer was :	You cannot tell. Then,
parliament was proroguing and unless such a convenience as that were allowed at that time you would have to wait for another session of parliament. That was a good reason for it, but if parliament has been going right on last year we would not have submitted to that mode of procedure ; we would have asked the government to bring down specific amounts and have them voted. I do hope that the minister will not allow the plea of convenience to influence him in asking the House to depart from what has heretofore been the b3sis of parliamentary appropriation. He is doing it while parliament is in session and in a position to vote whatever is required.


Mr. SPROULE.: If it is only a matter of convenience why do you not make your statute extend to the whole Civil Service instead of asking us to vote money from year to year to pay their salaries ? It would be more convenient to vote it by statute and not discuss it at all. But, that is not the wisdom of parliament; the wisdom of parliament is to have the money voted from year to year. While we annually vote a portion of the salaries another portion is paid by authority of statute. I do not think it a good principal. I think it is a very bad one. We do pay the judge's salaries by statute, but that is a different thing entirely. Judges are appointed for life and they get a certain specific sum, but we have never allowed the same principle to prevail in relation to votes by parliament for the Civil Service as. far as I know. It is a departure from what has been the established custom and I think the minister is not justified in asking the House to assent to it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I appreciate fully the difference between this Bill and the Bill of last session and I also appreciate what the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has said, that we ought not to depart from the usual practice of voting specific sums for a specific purpose unless there is very good reason for it. 1 am not set by any means against the proposition of my hon. friend. I only wish to discuss it a little and see whether we can work it out properly and satisfactorily. Would my hon. friend consider that we would have to specify all these several items or only take one lump sum to serve the purpose for the whole Civil Service ? I suppose, to follow the general practice, we would have to state that so much was needed for the Department of Agriculture, so much for the Department of Customs and so on. If that line is adopted I think it would be quite unnecessary to go into the details of each individual salary although in our ordinary civil government estimates we come very Mr. FOSTER.
close to that. It hardly seems to me that it will be at all necessary. The general principle of the addition to the pay of the service is laid down definitely and clearly in the statute and it cannot be departed from. The only question that arises is whe-there there will be 25, or 50 or 100 men who shall get $150, whether there will be 200 or 300 who shall get $100, whether so many others shall get $50 and so on. _ I would like, before coming to a conclusion, to go into that a little and see whither it is going to land us. At the same time I recognize the justice and force of what_ the hon. gentleman says with regard to this Bill as being different from the situation of the last Bill.


George Eulas Foster: I think the minister sees the whole difficulty. If you make it a mere matter of the Act and allow the minister to go into the consolidated revenue fund you put it outside of all criticism by parliament. It is true that we adopt the principle of giving a flat increase, but that does not mean that the House is, therefore, giving up all its right to criticise where the money goes or to object _ if in a certain particular instance it thinks the whole $150 should not go to a certain individual. There is a scale under which some will get $150, there are other cases in which $150 will not be got, and in some cases no increase will be got. This is a matter that the House ought to have under its own purview and should be able to criticise. A statement should be submitted to the House for each department showing what the department is getting under this resolution. While nine-tenths of the cases will not call for any criticism, there are instances-I could name some-where we might wish to suggest that a less amount than $150 should be given.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not wish to cavil at what my hon. friend has said, generally it is quite correct; but if this statute is passed the estimate based upon it would be very much of the nature of a statutory estimate and the House could hardly refuse it. Of course, the Bill says that payments may be made on the report of the deputy minister, and it may be that some individuals are of such a character that the deputy minister would not feel justified in recommending this increase. The only way of carrying out my hon. friend's suggestion would be to have an estimate based on the reports of the deputy minister, and if the deputy minister had reported that so and so was entitled to this increase, I do not think that under the statute he could well refuse it.


George Eulas Foster: I should be sorry to have to vote a lump sum and then have it said that it shall be expended on the judgment * of the deputy minister without any chance

for a member of parliament to criticise that judgment. In discussing the Bill I will be prepared to mention some cases in which the payments should not be made.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It has been suggested to me that a schedule might be attached to the Bill setting out the payments.


George Eulas Foster: If that were done we would have a chance to criticise the schedule.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Then we will leave that open and discuss it later. I suppose a schedule giving the amounts for each department or each branch of a department would be quite sufficient P
Mr. FOSTER, That would be acceptable. When we come to discuss it, the question would be, how did the minister arrive at the schedule? The minister would explain and his judgment would be a matter of criticism.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It would practically be the same as an item in the estimates.


George Eulas Foster: With that understanding, I for my part will let the resolution pass, but it is not to be understood that I agree with the resolution itself; for convenience and in order to get the Bill before the House I shall make my critisicms when the Bill itself is up.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If we chop out this part of the resolution we may have to insert something else, for we would have to have another resolution. We would be glad to make as much progress with the resolution as possible, and if any hon. gentlemen wish to bring up points that would require investigation before answering them, it would be an advantage to have them do so now.


George Eulas Foster: I have been more busy gathering information than by digesting it. I have not all the information from all the departments yet. I find this a very complex and knotty question, and I do not know whether we will ever get at the bottom or basis of it. When the resolution is finally passed there will be a basis from which to start; but it is a terror, as the boys say, to get at it in all its bearings. The returns from the minister's own department are explicit. I will pay my hon. friend the compliment of saying that when his clerks send down a return, one can see what it means; but I cannot say that for some of the others, because if there is any way on God's earth for them to make it difficult to find out what they mean, some of these departments know how to do it and do it most religiously.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have tried to make mine plain.


George Eulas Foster: For instance, my hon. friend had a very large number of persons in what is sometimes called the outside inside service and he loyally, I think, to the principle of the new Civil Service Act, transferred these men into the inside service at the ,salaries they were then enjoying. He did not go to the outside list and make preferences and give to scores or hundreds iof them increases of salary just prior to their being transferred into the permanent service. I do not want to say any thing harsh, but the assumption was that the men in the outside service were getting what the government thought was a fair provision for their needs-if they did not get that it was the fault of the minister-but, it does not seem to be carrying out the spirit of the Act that just prior to the fateful September 1, one or more ministers should take the officers of the outside service, give some of them $500 or $600 or $700 increase on their salaries and then throw them in a great heap into the new permanent service. I think that proceeding ought to have been carefully considered, and I think that what has been done by some, at least, of the ministers is open to criticism. Most of the departments took the spirit of the Act in the proper sense and brought in the officers of the outside service at the salaries they enjoyed up to that time, and therefore they did not raise salaries in special instances by amounts more or less large so as to put these particular officers on a footing which they otherwise would not have had. I do not think any government can afford to have a sense of injustice spring up amongst its employees. The Prime Minister is the guardian of his different departments and I do not think he can make it conform with his- sense ,of justice that one department should do for its outside employees that which another department does not do. In this case one department has adhered religiously to the spirit of the Act and the discussion in parliament and it has brought in the outside civil servants at the salaries they previously had, but another department puts 200 or 300 of its outside men on a more favoured basis just prior to the 1st of September and brings them into the permanent service. Two injustices are done by that. In the permanent service there were men who for years had performed their duty well; they received none of these increases and they therefore were placed at a disadvantage in having the outside men drafted into the inside service and placed over them. They do feel that is an injustice which ought not to have been perpetrated. Then there is an injustice as between the outside servants themselves. For instance, in the department of the Minister of Agriculture he thinks he ought not to increase the salaries of his outside servants before they come into the permanent service

bo that they might have higher salaries on the permanent basis. The outside men in that department are discriminated against in favour of the outside men in other departments in which a different course was followed. As I say, a double injutsice is perpetrated. On the face of it it looks like an injustice and no doubt the ministers who have taken this course will give their reasons for it. Then another thing was done. Just prior to the 1st of September new men were appointed to the outside service without any reference to the conditions of the Civil Service Act. They were appointed a few days prior to the 1st of September and then they stepped right in to the permanent service at the salaries allotted to them a few days previously. That does not seem to be fair. To the minister who .'thought there was absolute necessity for the appointment of these men three days before the 1st of September, it may be said that the service would not have been hurt if he had waited for three days longer and had these men appointed in accordance with the spirit of the new Civil Service Act. I am sorry to say there are a great many of these examples and it does not seem to me that they can be justified on the principle of equal justice to all. There is another point, and I present it more especially to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. He is in a sense an employer of labour ; on one side of the street he has a number of men working for him, and on the other side of the street he has in his employment a number of equally good men. The men on both sides of the street are doing the same kind of work for him, they are living under the same conditions, the increased cost of living bears as hardly on one class as on the other, and as an employer of labour how does the First Minister justify himself in raising the salaries of the men on one side of the street and in leaving the men on the other side without any consideration? My right hon. friend increases the salaries of men in the inside service but the men in tlie outside service who are working for him and under the same conditions get no alleviation of their condition. If it is worth while to do a thing at all it is worth while to do it right. This government has money enough, and had money enough, to enable the men in the outside service to cope with the more stringent conditions that have arisen on account of the increased cost of living, and the government should have treated all its employees alike and done even justice to all. There is a sense of injustice which must rankle in the breast of every man who sees his fellow provided for and who finds himself overlooked in that way. These are things that must be taken into .account, and when the proper time comes I shall cite individual instances to show what was done. Then, in the case of Mr. FOSTER.
these outside men whose salaries were raised and dated back in some cases for months and months involving a largely increased expenditure, I would like to know out of what fund this was done. Surely we cannot raise a man's salary unless we have an appropriation therefor, and I have been unable to discover where these appropriations existed. This seems to have been done by order in council and whether in the case of the outside men it goes before the Treasury Board or not I do not know. But at all events there seems substantial ground for criticism and I shall criticise that in detail at a later stage of the Bill. These are some of the points of criticism that I would like to bring to the attention of my hon. friends in general. We can go into them in detail later.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am glad my hon. friend has taken this opportunity of saying what he has said, and I thank him for the compliments to myself.


George Eulas Foster: Compliments to your clerks.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have tried to do what he suggests although there are but few cases in which I have been doing that which he has indicated. Let me explain one or two which may be taken as samples of the others. I have had for a good many years, cerealists at the experimental farm who are scientific men. There is Dr. Charles Saunders, who has qualifications very rare in Canada, and who was appointed on that account. My officers at the experimental farm, under Dr. Saunders, were, I thought, of a character which entitled them to the place in subdivision B of the first division, in which the minimum salary is $2,100. Dr. Charles SaundeTs, who was in receipt of a lower salary, should go, I thought, under the reorganization, into that subdivision at $2,100. Consequently I raised his salary by order in council shortly before the change, and I raised it for that express purpose, to $2,100. If I had not done so, I would have been hampered by the provisions of the Civil Service Act, because they would apply to a gentleman, who, before this Act came into force, was not in the inside service, and therefore had not the laws, regulations, and restrictions of the inside service applied to him. Before the 1st September last I could, by an order in council with my colleague's consent, raise Dr. Saunders' salary in any way I liked without being hampered by any statute. His salary was paid out of the lump vote for the experimental farm, as were all the salaries there, from Dr. Saunders down. My hon. friend asked where the money was got. That is one of a great many instances in which the salaries were paid out of lump votes, and if those lump votes were sufficient in the year to pay an increase, the increase could be given by order in council, or in some cases, by

ministerial order. A good many in the outside service were appointed by ministers, and their salaries could be and were raised at different times by minister's order. This particular instance is one of a kind which has occurred in other cases and which I am prepared to justify as perfectly fair and just. I have no doubt whatever that many ministers, having had the control and the power to raise the salaries in the outside service in Ottawa, took a good deal of pains and trouble, since the coming into force of the Act of last session to go into the adequacy and relative amounts of the salaries of the men who are paid out of these lump votes, knowing that after the first of September last they could not raise the salaries which were paid out of these votes, and which they thought they were justified in raising, without increasing others, because the new Act applied the rules and regulations of the Civil Service Act to those who before the first of last September did not come under those restrictions as to their salaries or appointments.
No doubt whatever a good many instan ces of that kind occurred. I have not examined the reorganization sufficiently in detail to know what my colleagues have been doing, but I know that in my own department there were some instances in which I did that.
My hon. friend has spoken of another class of employees, a class, he says, of employees who are working across the street but not in the same offices, and who did not get the benefit of these increases. That is quite right. There has also been brought to our attention the case of other men in other cities who say that they are in the public service just as much as the civil servants, so called, who are in Ottawa, and that they ought to receive the same consideration and increase. It is only the inside service at Ottawa whose salaries, increases, and classification are regulated by statute. In the vast majority of the other cases, those outside of Ottawa, the officials are either regulated by order in council or ministerial orders, and in most cases are paid out of large votes which are under the control of the minister and the department which utilizes these votes. These votes may be increased any time parliament chooses or whenever the minister brings down an estimate and parliament chooses to pass it. With regard to the inside service at Ottawa, a minister might bring down a vote and parliament might pass it, but if -the vote were not in accord with the provisions of the Civil Service Act, unless the individual officer is specially excepted by these magic words we used to have so often, and which I hope will not appear again in the government estimates, namely, ' Contrary to the Civil Service Act,' no salary could be increased except as provided by that Act. Since the first of September all the officers 31
who were in the outside service at Ottawa, and who previously were eligible for promotion or change or increase in salaries, according to the opinion of the minister, were put out of the vote given by parliament in a lump sum to pay those officers and for other purposes too very often. Those officers will now come under the Act subject to its restrictions and regulations, and their salaries can only be increased under a definite statutory provision.
Mv hon. friend is not aware-never having looked into the matter, I suppose, from that point of view-of the great amount of increases which have already been given the outside service in the way I have indicated. There have been large votes taken in parliament, increases of lump votes out of which those outside services were paid, which have amounted in some cases to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the salaries of the outside services of the country have been increased from time to time fully as much, if not more,-in some instances decidedly more,

 than this Act is going to increase the salaries of the inside service at Ottawa. I have here a statement prepared by the Finance Department, in which I find that in the aggregate, in the last five years, the outside service have had increases given them on their salaries amounting to $1,409,000:
Marine and Fisheries Department	 $ 47,038
Inland Revenue	 5,350
Customs	 345,222
Northwest Mounted	Police ..	50,000
Indian Affairs	 9,300
Railways and Canals	 647,000
Printing Bureau	 50,500
These are the increases which have been voted at the request of ministers, in lump sums, out of which the salaries of these outside officials were paid.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Is that the total amount for a period of years, and, if so, what period?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the total of the increases that have been given at different times during the last five years. These are increases which, when once given, go on every year. If they had been given five years ago, there would have been five times that amount paid out of the public chest to the outside service; but that is not the case. In some instances they have been given by general votes. For instance, I think that two years ago the Minister of Customs got a vote of $100,000 extra for his outside service, and some years ago the Post Office Department got a large sum to increase the pay of the outside service in that department, the aggregate of which amounted to about $250,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the aggregate increase for the Customs Department?



r


Sydney Arthur Fisher: $345,000 in the last five years. I think I am safe in saying that these are increases which were made at certain times, and they have been going on every year since.


Mr. BUREELL.: Are these actual increases to officials, or do they apply to the natural increase in the outside service resulting from the increasing needs of the country?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I asked that question and was told that they were increases to existing officials' salaries, and not increases to the number of offices or officers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are two ways of increasing salaries. For instance, postmasters got 40 per cent of the revenues of the office, and if the revenues of the office went up, their salaries went up correspondingly.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed that their salaries were increased apart from that. If there was an increase to 50 per cent, that would be included in these figures. Now, I take for granted that to, the Post Office Department and the Customs Department would apply my hon. friend's description of a public servant in the city of Ottawa doing work for the government on one side of the street, and another doing work for the government on the other side of the street, and one getting an increase and the other not. I have not details to show how much the clerks in the city of Ottawa Post Office have had their salaries increased during the last five years, but as the Postmaster General has been giving increases throughout the country, I have no doubt the city of Ottawa post office has had its share.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Allow me to explain that the increase to which my hon. friend refers has not been applied to the clerks in the outside service, properly speaking That is covered by the increase which I obtained from parliament for postmasters some years ago. The House may remember that Sir Wm. Mulock, when Postmaster Genera], obtained an increase in the salaries of small postmasters from $12 to $25, and three years ago I obtained a further increase to $35. That acounts for most of that increase. The clerks who are under the statute receive their statutory increases, but there has been no special increase in the salaries of the outside service of the Post Office Department.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These figures indicate that a very great improvement has been made in the pay of the general outside service. There may be portions of the outside service which have not reaped the advantage, while there are other portions which have reaped a very great advantage The figures do not indicate how many there Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
are in each category; but they show that the government has not been unmindful of the needs and desires of the outside service. I want to point out that these increases were possible without an amendment to any particular statute, and are consequently in an entirely different position from the increases made to the inside (service, which are made by a definite statute. That is why in this particular case we have introduced a statute and asked parliament to pass it, while in the other case we do not require to do so, as an annual vote in the estimates of each dep-partment will accomplish the result desired.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the Minister of Customs inform us whether the $345,000 included in the statement read by the Minister of Agriculture represents an actual annual increase to the outside officials of his department?


Mr. PATERSON.: On that point I cannot speak positively. When I take an extra vote, as I did this year, a certain amount <*f it we hope to use in increasing the salaries of the men in the service, and a certain amount we estimate may be required for new offices. Therefore, I cannot tell positively. I would have to inquire.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the minister would be good enough to inquire. I know there have been substantial increases, but I do not think they amounted to so much as the sum mentioned in the statement of the Minister of Agriculture.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have here a copy of the Labour Gazette, which states that the increase of wages granted in 1907 to various employees of the Customs Department amounted to $160,000.


Robert Laird Borden: It is quite possible that the person who compiled the figures for the Labour Gazette may have taken the whole $160,000 to represent increases, while a portion of that may have been utilized by the Customs Department for the payment of new officials.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed not.


William Paterson: There was one year, two or three years ago, when we took an extra amount of $250,000. I remember we took a very large amount; so it is possible that is correct.


Robert Laird Borden: Those amounts have been continued after once being taken?


William Paterson: If they have been given to the same individual. If one died, for instance, and a new man came in, sometimes we started him at a little less.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: To show that what I said was correct, here is another item with regard to the Department of Indian Affairs.

It gives the actual number of employees; it says: 39 had their salaries increased by from $60 to $300 per annum and aggregating $9,360. That refers altogether to the outside service, it gives the number of the employees and the increase of their salaries.


Robert Laird Borden: There is another point to which I would like to direct the attention of the hon. Minister of Agriculture and the Governor General. Section 8 of the Civil Service Act of last year reads as follows:
8. As soon as practicable after the coming into force of the Act, the head of each department should cause the organization of his department to be determined and defined by order in council, due regard being had to the status of each officer or clerk as the case may be.
2.	The order in council shall give the names of the several branches of the department, with the number and character of the offices, clerkships and other positions in each, and the duties, titles and salaries thereafter to pertain thereto.
3.	After being so determined and defined, the organization of a department should not be changed except by order in council.
It does not seem to me that that has been done by many 'of the departments; 'apparently it has been done to some extent by the Department of Inland Revenue; it may have been done by some other departments. It is a statutory provision, it is imperative in its language. It declares that the head of each department shall cause the organization of his department to be determined and defined by order in council, arid that the order in council shall set forth the duties appertaining to each office, clerkship and other position. The provisions of this statute seem to have been almost entirely disregarded in the various departments. I would not like to assert positively that ministers of the Crown who have disregarded it have been guilty of a criminal offence, although there is a law upon the statute-book that any person wilfully disobeying a statute is liable to indictment. Of course I have regard to the language of the statute, which is that this work of reorganization shall be done as soon as practicable after the coming into force of the Act. I am ready to concede that if a minister could show that he had devoted every available portion of his time to this work, and had not completed it, he might be able to escape criminal liability. But as it is, I think there would be a good case at least for calling him before a grand jury on a preliminary investigation. At all events, it is a matter that requires explanation. I consider it a very important part of the provisions of that section. You are to define, not only the salaries, not only the character of the offices, clerkships and other positions, but what is absolutely im-311
portant to a thorough organization of the department, you are to make known by the terms of an order in council the duties which each clerk is called upon to perform as a public servant of Canada. That has not been done; there has heen little pretense of doing it. I would again invite the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture to that, and ask him to explain why the provisions of the statute in that regard have not been complied with.


William Paterson: I have just 'phoned the accountant of the Customs Department in reference to that matter. He tells me that it was he who gave those figures, and that those are the actual increases granted to the men who were in the service, and do not include new offices.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I remember well the remarks of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition which he made with regard to this matter before, and I have looked up a little the orders in council. Perhaps the orders in council might be more full than they are. I have just sent for a copy of the order in council in my own department, and I would like my hon. friend to follow me a little, and I will show him what we have done, which I think is fairly fulfilling the intention of the Act, though I grant that we might go a little further in an elaborate description of the work of a good many offices. Beginning with the first division of subdivision A:	Dr. Montizambert,
Director General of Public Health. I do not know that I could define much more particularly what the duties of Dr. Monti-zamhert are. I might go on to say that he is in charge of the quarantine service of Canada, and give 'other /particulars ,and practically transcribe the order in council appointing him, but I do not think that is intended or desired.


Robert Laird Borden: I would say that where the order in council appointing an officer has prescribed his duties fairly well, the statute would be sufficiently complied with if reference were made to that order in council; in other words, the duties of this officer shall be those set forth in the order in council appointing him on such a day.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Then I pass over Dr. Saunders, Mr. Blue, Dr. Rutherford and so on. We come down to the first division of subdivision B. Dr. James Fletcher, Entomologist and Botanist, Central Experimental Farm; Mr. Shutt, chemist of experimental farm; Mr. St. Denis, secretary of the Census and Statistics office. I should think that was a fairly fair description of the duties of the offices which these gentlemen hold. J. H. Grisdale, agriculturist, Central Experimental Farm. As a matter of fact, in the Treasury Board the descrip-cions of the officers at the experimental farm are just the same as they are put in

the order in council. Dr. Charles Saunders, cerealist. Perhaps that requires some explanation to most people, but it defines the office of the individual. When you come down further to the lower subdivisions, as a general rule, they are simply clerks, sometimes perhaps doing one thing, and sometimes another. I do not think in most of the lower orders of the service we can do much more than define them as clerks, unless they have some particular work. I have here Mr. C. Martin, assistant editor of the Archives. He is the gentleman who helps to edit the bulletins and publications that go out from the Archives. D. Drummond, live stock inspector; Mr. McKae, live stock inspector; Mr. McMurray, French correspondent, experimental farm. Then here is Mr. Watson, stenographer; Mr. Nolan, patent examiner. I hardly think it could be expected that we should go much beyond that. I confess I did think in so doing that I would be free from any likelihood of prosecution under the Criminal Code for dereliction of duty. But would it be well to encumber the orders in council with more graphic descriptions of the work done?


Robert Laird Borden: In some departments the reply is that there is nothing whatever. For example, in the Department of Justice there is no information available of the nature asked for in this address. The Auditor General reports the same thing; other departments report the same thing. The Minister of Inland Revenue seems to have complied with the statute and to have done his work in this connection far better than any other minister, with the exception possibly of the Minister of Agriculture, whose records I have not examined very closely. He has absolutely defined the duties of the heads of each branch and has given a fair indication of the duties of the various officers in the branch. For example, take his organization of the Department of Inland Revenue:
Deputy Minister-The duties of the Deputy
Minister of Inland Revenue shall cover the general supervision and administration of all branches of the Inland Revenue Department.
Then he names his clerks, stenographers and typewriters.
Secretary-The duties of this officer shall be to attend to all correspondence, other than of an administrative character, have charge of all records and supplies, and to have general supervision over the correspondence and supply branches.
Then he goes on to deal with the various officers of the secretary's branch. Dealing with the chief accountant he says:
The duties of this officer shall be to have general control and supervision over all work connected with revenue and expenditure, the work of the statistical branches of all services and the preparation of the financial and statistical reports.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Then he goes on to deal with subdivision A of. the first division and proceeds:
The number and character of the officers in the Accountant's branch to be as follows:
1. Assistant accountant-To have particular charge of accounts relative to receipts and expenditure, to record each deposit of revenue, to have charge of the general journal and ledger and to replace the chief accountant when absent from any cause.
And so on with reference to every important office of his department. Then he has taken up the laboratory branch and dealt with it in the same way very thoroughly. 1 understand from my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), although I have not seen the organization of the Mines Department, that this has been done equally well. The other departments should have devoted the same attention to the statute and observed the same particularity and definiteness in prescribing the duties of the various officers that we find in the organization carried out by the Minister of Inland Revenue and Mines. Otherwise, a great part of the advantage from this statute will be lost.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I perfectly agree with my hon. friend that so far as it is possible and consistent with conciseness the intention of the Act was to indicate these things in the classification. I think it probable that when another classification is issued that will he done to a greater extent.


George Eulas Foster: I do not want to prolong the discussion but there were two points that might be considered as being assented to, made by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, if they were not noted. In the first place he seemed to argue that if the minister had a lump vote he could make any addition to the salaries of officers out of that lump vote that he chose.
I am not sure but that he has the absolute power to do it, but I do not think he has the right. For instance, he comes down with a lump vote, presents it to parliament and says this is to pay officers' salaries. How many officers have you?-so many. What salaries are they getting?- so much. It goes down in ' Hansard '. It is discussed here and parliament says: Yes, that vote is all right, because we know those officers are in the service, we know what they are getting and we think it is not unreasonable. I doubt very much if the minister has the right, after having made that compact with parliament, to go out and, three months afterwards, raise those salaries to any amount he chooses.
I do not think parliament will cavil at a reasonable addition if cause is shown but I should not like to let the theory go unchallenged that a minister has the right after having made the compact with parliament which he did, to add, out of that

lump vote, to the salaries of his officers whatever he chose. The other point is in regard to the elasticity of the Act. This new Act is elastic in this respect that specialists under it can be appointed and may be promoted. I am not at all sure but that my hon. friend would have kept better within the spirit of the Act if he had allowed Mr. Saunders to come in at the salary which he did and then taken the means at his disposal under the Act. If the requirements were reasonable parliament would have assented. I myself, after his presentation of the facts, would have raised no objection to the salary being increased. That could have been done under the Act because we must have the provisions sufficiently elastic as to allow such singular and notable case to be provided for.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are provided for, no doubt. In my organization I was going to put certain officers in a certain classification, which, in my judgment, those officers ought to occupy and I did raise all those salaries to the minimum of the class in which they would come in the exercise of the power which I had. I think my hon. friend is putting an extreme case when he says that a minister, having made a compact with parliament, should not violate it. I quite agree with him but in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred there has been no such compact. A lump vote, it is understood, is going to pay for the service. Part of the payment for the service must be salaries. The distribution of the amount in salaries has never come before parliament and there has been no compact.


George Eulas Foster: Oh, yes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Excuse me, there has been no compact of any kind. The minister is obliged to keep within the vote but judgment is left to him as to how he shall spend that vote. He gives the usual explanations and if he went contrary to any of these explanations he would break the compact. There are a number of instances in which the salary of an individual is asked for and voted and under these circumstances it would not be fair to make a change in that person's salary. I do not think it would be consistent with the rights of parliament. But, in a general way, the details of these salaries never have been passed by parliament.


George Eulas Foster: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. We have the Auditor General and the Auditor General puts upon the pages of his book which comes before us the name of every officer who receives a salary, and when we are going over the estimates, my hon. friend knows that the Auditor General's Report and the estimates go side by side and that we criticise the estimate with the Auditor General's Report in our hands. If we find any officer whom
we think is getting too much we make a protest. I am not going to say it is an actually signed contract, but it is an implied compact. One more point; I have drawn it to the attention of my hon. friend and the other ministers. Is it businesslike to take a lump sum of $200,000, $300,000 or $400,000, covering a dozen different things, and put that through without any itemizing at all, a portion of it for salaries, a portion of it for other things and nodivision at all as to that amount which is properly referable to salaries or as to the amount which it is properly referable to other operations and other things? In my time we had some lump votes, but I would' like my hon. friend to take an estimate of 1890, or from that up, and compare it with the estimate now and he will find that the tendency has been to give lump votes. The whole trouble in connection with the North Atlantic Trading Company business that we discussed so much arose from the fact that it was covered up in a lump vote and that the actual contract was entered into under a lump vote that covered a very large contract as my hon. friend will admit. If the vote had been divided as it ought to have been that could not have happened in the first instance. I do hope, although it may be too much to hope for, that succeeding estimates will show more sub-division so that we can define things a little more accurately. The ministers ought not have too much power. It is a great temptation. If your back bencher comes to you and wants something and you can show him you have a special vote for that and your vote will not allow it you have an answer, but if he shows you a vote of $400,000 out of which you can take whatever you like for any purpose, you are shorn of an argument that I am sure the Minister of Agriculture must often want to have.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I can asure my hon. friend I am glad to have that answer whenever I can get it. In bringing the outside service in Ottawa under the civil government we have taken a long step in the direction of what my hon. friend (Mr. Foster! has said.


George Eulas Foster: That is one of the best features of it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it is quite likely we will take other steps in the course of time.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Shall the resolution carry?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In accordance with the agreement we had better rise and report progress and I will bring down the information.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. GEORGE H. PERLEY (Argenteuil).: Last year a Bill on insurance was submitted to parliament and referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce where it was considered at many sittings, a great many people from all over the country having attended to give their evidence. In the speech from the Throne an insurance Bill is again promised for this session. The Bill introduced last session was based very largely on the report of the Insurance Commission, which adopted in great measure the provisions of the Armstrong Act in the State of New York, and which in its operation since that time has been found to have many defects. This is a question in which the insurance men and the people generally of the country take a great deal of interest. If we are to have such a Bill this session it ought to be brought down immediately and not left to the close of the session when it cannot be properly considered. I give notice that on Monday next before the orders of the day are called I shall question the government as to whether they will bring down an insurance Bill this session and when they will submit it.


Robert Laird Borden: In his speech from the Throne it is promised that we are to have legislation with regard to naturalization. That Bill we also should have as soon as possible.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will inquire of the Minister of Justice about that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Department of Indian Affairs-salaries, $96,762.50.
Department of Indian Affairs-contingencies, $12,550.
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: We have the same staff as last year with the addition that we are asking provision for the appointment of a law clerk, and a messenger. The increase in the vote is caused by the statutory increases and the transfer of certain members of the outside service to the inside service.


Robert Laird Borden: Have you no law clerk now?


Frank Oliver: We have not had one for some years, but we find the need of one and we propose to appoint a law clerk at $2,100.


George Eulas Foster: What changes have been made in your permanent list?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Frank Oliver: We are making provision for promoting the following officers to sub division A of the second division.
	Present	Proposed
Name.	salary.	salary.J. W. Shore	.. $1,487.50	$1,600G. M. Matheson.. ..	, .. 1,470.00	1,600R. B. E. Moffatt.. .	1,600S. W. Hobart	1,600P. J. O'Connor	1,600R. M. Ogilvie	1,600G. L. Chitty	1,600
Mr. Chitty was in the outside service until he was brought in by the operation of the Act on September 1.


George Eulas Foster: How long have they been in the service?


Frank Oliver: Their records are as follows:
Mr. Shore was appointed March, 1884, as third-class clerk; promoted to second-class clerk, July, 1899; at the promotion examination he obtained sufficient marks for a chief clerkship; he has had 24 years' service.
Mr. Matheson was appointed June, ,1888, as third-class clerk; promoted to second class January, 1903; he has had 20 years' in the service and has been in charge of the records since December, 1898; he has a number of clerks under him and his position is a responsible one.
Mr. Moffatt was appointed as an extra clerk in September, 1890; he was promoted to the third class in September, 1891; to the second class at $1,100 in January, 1903; he has been in charge of the special work for the Privy Council, and is an expert stenographer.
Mr. Hobart was appointed temporarily to the Interior Department in January, 1900, at $400; made second-class clerk in December, 1903, at $800; transferred to the Department of Indian Affairs in 1907. and promoted to second class on May 23, 1907.


George Eulas Foster: His rise has been very rapid. What are the reasons for it?


Frank Oliver: The reason assigned is that jhe was competent and deserving, in the estimation of the heads of the department.


George Eulas Foster: In that department there are many clerks who were in the service long before 1900 and who have presumably performed their duties well. It would seem that other things being equal the official of longer service should get the promotion. This clerk's rise was very rapid; the salary increased from $400 to $1,600 in eight years and he is now put at the minimum of a class that allows him still further range at the rate of $100 a year. Is the minister very sure there were no other older employees who might have had claims to that

promotion? On what principle was this man jumped over the others?


Frank Oliver: The only answer that it is possible to give is that his work has been found satisfactory and he has been given work of a character that when properly performed entitled him to this increase of remuneration. My hon. friend, of course, knows that it is impossble to absolutely give every man in a large department the same opportunity of showing the good^ there is in him; the work of one section is not as important as that of another, and the man whose fortune it is to be in the section of less important work, even although he may be a good man, has not the same opportunity to show his ability as the man who, by fortune, has been placed in the section of the department requiring a higher class of work. I presume that this man was fortunate in being placed in the section of the department requiring the greater ability and that he showed the ability and received the remuneration.


George Eulas Foster: I concede that the position of a minister is sometimes difficult; he wants to advance a deserving clerk and at the same time he wants to avoid any injustice to equally deserving clerks in his employ. It would seem, however, that the minister should be able to ascertain the relative capacity of the clerks even in different sections of his department. It is not good for the morale of the department that there should be any sense of injustice among the employees; they want to see a fair deal, and if one clerk is advanced very rapidly, others may feel that they are being treated unjustly. I presume that the minister is pretty sure that he has not done an injustice to any older clerks in that department.


Frank Oliver: In this particular case, I am informed that this gentleman is senior in his class, that is to say he is not being advanced over any one in his class.


George Eulas Foster: All I can do is to call the minister's attention' to it, he is the boss after all.


George Halsey Perley: I see an item providing a salary for a timber inspector. What are the arrangements in regard to timber inspection that you engage an inspector by the year?


Frank Oliver: A great deal of the value of the Indian property in the northern part of the province is in the timber on their lands and in order te get the best results for the Indians, it is necessary that we should employ some one responsible to the department who has a knowledge of timber to make the necessary inspection. Mr. Chitty is the gentleman who discharges that duty.


George Halsey Perley: The department has sufficient work, I suppose, to keep him practically busy all the time.


Frank Oliver: The amount of timber held by the Indians in the northern part of the province is very large and there is ample work for him to do.


George Eulas Foster: Will my hon. friend explain the two remaining clerks to be promoted ?


Frank Oliver: Mr. O'Connor was appointed February 15, 1898. He was promoted to a second class clerkship July 1, 1905. He is employed in the Lands and Timber branch and came in at $400.


George Eulas Foster: What was the particular excellency there-two years longer in, that
is all ?


Frank Oliver: The work in his branch of timber and lands has greatly increased during the past two or three years owing to the amount of Indian lands which have been ^rendered and sold, and in that increase of work this gentleman has borne his part very creditably, and we felt warranted in promoting him from time to time.


George Eulas Foster: How many in his branch?


Frank Oliver: ' Eight.


George Eulas Foster: Has he superseded any who are older than himself ?


Frank Oliver: In that branch there are a number of ladies, and we have not given them that promotion to the higher branches which possibly the merits of their actual work would warrant, because it is not considered that, in the nature of things, they are able to take the higher positions for which we have to train men and promote them. But aside from that point, Mr. O'Connor has the seniority in that branch.


George Eulas Foster: How many ladies in ttiat branch ?


Frank Oliver: Four.


George Eulas Foster: I am sorry _ to hear the opinion expressed by the minister that, in these days of equality, equal merit in a lady does not entitle her to equal payment with a man. He will have to fight that out with the four ladies in that department and may have a pretty _ hard time. Will the hon. gentleman explain the next one ?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Ogilvie entered in 1904 as temporary clerk; he was made permanent second-class on August 25, 1905. He got on entering $1,000. He is an architect and does drafting and arranging for the buildings for the department. He is a trained architect.


George Eulas Foster: And Mr. Chitty ?


Frank Oliver: He came in at $1,000 in 1893. His salary was increased to $1,200 on July 1, 1898 and to $1,500 on July 1, 1905, He is a timber inspector.


George Eulas Foster: Does that account for all the increases in the outside staff ?


Frank Oliver: These are the only increases outside of the statutory.


George Eulas Foster: No other new clerks except the law clerk and promotions?


Frank Oliver: No.


George Eulas Foster: I would like an explanation with regard to the twenty brought in. Were they in the employment outside and for what period ?


Frank Oliver: They were all old employees.


George Eulas Foster: Is the minister pretty well satisfied that the department is insufficiently manned?


Frank Oliver: It is usual to have provision for additional help, if it is required. Under the former Civil Service Act there was provision made for taking on extra clerks. Now we think it is desirable to have at least $1,000 available for that purpose.
Indians, Ontario and Quebec-relief, medical attendance and medicines, Quebec, $6,400.


George Eulas Foster: How much was spent on that last year?


George Eulas Foster: Did they all come in at the same salary they were getting before?


Frank Oliver: Two received increases on July 1. Mr. Reid's salary was $1,800. It was increased to $2,100 on July 1, 1908. Mr. Fabien had $1,200. It was increased to $1,400 on July 1, 1908.


George Eulas Foster: Were these the only increases ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Why were Reid and Fabien increased ?


Frank Oliver: The increase was given Reid on the ground that his professional work entitled him to it and Fabien on the same ground. Fabien was the chief draftsman and Reid the senior surveyor.


George Eulas Foster: How long has Mr. Reid been at work?
Mr. OLIVER, in 1900, and Mr. Mr. Reid was employed Fabien in 1905.


George Eulas Foster: What did they get when they first came in?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Reid at first got $6 a day; in April, 1903, he was appointed at $1,600, and on the 31st of January, 1904, his salary was increased to $1,800. Mr! Fabien was appointed on the 11th of August, 1905, at $1,000; his salary was in-, creased to $1,200 on the 1st of April, 1907 and to $1,400 on July 1, 1908. Mr. Fabien is the chief draftsman of the department.
Department of Indian Affairs-contingencies, $12,550.	6
Mr. FOSTER What is the explanation of these?
Mr. OLIVER There is a net decrease of $3,825. First, there is a decrease of $4,825 by the transfer of extra clerks to the inside service. Then, an addition of $1,000 for occasional clerical assistance, as provided by the Civil Service Amendment Act, and an increase in sundries of $2,000 to cover travelling expenses of officials of the outside service, whose expenses heretofore were paid out of expenses generally.


Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: The expenditure for 1907-8 was: relief, $5,385.56; medical attendance and medicines, $4,558.47; seed, $102; total, $10,046.03.


George Eulas Foster: There is no seed included this year?


Frank Oliver: There was a supplementary vote for seed taken last year.
Relief, medical attendance and medicines, Ontario, $6,450.


George Eulas Foster: There is a slight increase here.


Frank Oliver: This arises from the transfer of an item for Moose Factory, heretofore voted in the Northwest Territories, because Moose Factory is in Ontario and comes within the limits of treaty No. 9.
Blankets and clothing, Ontario and Quebec, $500.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister get any of this clothing made by any of the government departments?


Frank Oliver: We advertise for tenders in the newspapers, and everything is bought by tender. The contract for 1907-8 was $1.95 for 5-lb. blankets. The contractors were Horn Bros, of Lindsay, Ont.
Schools, Maritime provinces, Ontario and Quebec, $73,225.


George Eulas Foster: What makes this increase?


Frank Oliver: It is made by the transfer of five schools from the former vote for Manitoba and the Northwest Territories to the vote for Ontario. The schools for Albany, Moose Factory, Abitibi, Moose House and Fort George. That makes $1,500. The balance is for new school buildings at Res-tigouche and Tobique.


George Eulas Foster: Where is the school in Tobique?


Frank Oliver: At Pointe a la Garde, near Campbellton. The Indians are Micmacs. The old buildings became useless, and this is for new buildings-$2,000 for Resti-gouche and $2,060 for Tobique.


George Eulas Foster: What is the number that gets the advantage in the school of each of these now? Would the minister inform the House shortly as to the progress that is being made through the expenditure upon our schools, and the progress that is being made by the Indian children in the way of education? It is a matter which we have often discussed in this House, and it is well to have a report upon it each year. We would like to know what progress is being made, and whether any change is being introduced in the system of education, and generally, as to the results of the money we are expending.


Frank Oliver: The average attendance at Restigouche is 42, at Tobique 22. Answering the questions of the hon. gentleman, it is not possible to give an answer that would be considered satisfactory. The difficulties of an Indian's education, the difficulties of making an Indian into a white man, were not thoroughly appreciated at the time the work was undertaken. There have been grave difficulties met with that were not expected, and only recently are coming to be realized. While a great responsibility has been incurred, and a fully considered effort has been made to discharge that responsibility satisfactorily, it must be admitted that the expectations that were entertained when the present system of Indian education was undertaken, have not been realized. It is not that the Indians are incapable or even disinclined to education, as we understand it, but the fact is that the environment, the necessary environment, of the Indian in a large majority of cases after he leaves school, is such that the education which he has acquired in the school is not of that benefit to him that was hoped or expected. It is not that our system of education has failed to educate, but the conditions surrounding the Indians are still such that I think it must be admitted that the education is not so beneficial to them as at one time we had hoped. At the same time the burden of the work of Indian education which was assumed jointly by various churches concerned in missionary effort, and by the government, has been found hard to bear by the churches who have undertaken the enterprise. It appears that in the light of the experience of the past twenty years some readjustment of the conditions surrounding Indian education will have to be shortly made, with a view to lightening the burden and to achieving better results, that is to say, results which will tend rather to improving the condition of the Indian as an Indian, than to making the Indian into a white man.


George Eulas Foster: What is the average attendance at these schools for which we paid some $70,000 last year, and how many children have passed through the schools?


Frank Oliver: The average attendance at all the Indian schools the last fiscal year
was 6,451, and the total attendance was about 10,000.


George Eulas Foster: How many Indian children are there altogether in the various provinces?


Frank Oliver: As we find in the annual report, the Indian children from the ages of 6 to 15 years inclusive, numbered 7,665 males and 7,252 females.


George Eulas Foster: Then it would seem that about two-thirds of them pass through the schools, and a little over one-third are _ in average attendance. Can the minister give us an idea as to the trend of this education now? Is it in the larger proportion tending towards education in the trades, what will be useful in after life, or is it the three R's that are being taught?


Frank Oliver: The idea of education in the trades which had such a strong hold a number of years ago is not maintained today. If the Indian who had acquired a first-class trade, such as that of carpenter or blacksmith, did not sever himself entirely from his home associations he had no future in that trade as the opportunity to employ the education that he had acquired did not exist. At the present time there is not so much of an effort to inform the Indians with regard to trades as to give them the rudiments of an ordinary education, to teach the Three R.'s, and where the opportunity exists, as at industrial and boarding schools, to give them education in the line of agriculture. The idea is to make the children acquainted with farm life and farm work.


Mr. A. HAGGART.: I understand that the environment of the Indians nullifies the effect of the school in a large measure, that the effect which the school would have depends entirely on the character or qualifications of the teacher or master. Are there any standard qualifications for the teacher or master?


Frank Oliver: Some of the schools are under the direct control of the Indian Department, but the large majority of the schools are missionary enterprises which are assisted by the government. As far as our control goes, we require a third-class certificate which we think is a sufficient educational standard for the work that is on hand. Our association with the churches in the work of Indian education is because of the expectation and belief that the character of' the people who are engaged in Indian education will be such as it ought to be, looking to the betterment of the character and mind of the Indian.


Mr. BARR.: Are the children brought and placed in the boarding houses or are they just gathered in from the wigwams? What is the policy of the government? Have they

boarding houses in connection with those schools in which they keep the children?


Frank Oliver: These vary in different places. There are three classes of schools -the industrial school, the boarding school and the day school. The industrial school contemplates taking a child absolutely away from his home surroundings, from any connection with his parents or friends and placing him in an establishment where he will live as the white child will live, learn what the white child will learn, and, therefore, it was hoped become as the white child when he has grown up. The boarding school is a school established on or adjacent to the reserve from which the pupils expect to be drawn. In that case connection between the child and his parents is not broken and it is not intended to be broken as it is in the case of the industrial school. Provision is made for the accommodation of the children permanently during the term in the boarding school, but they are visited by their parents from time to time, and, I presume, are allowed to visit their parents as well. Then the day school is just as any day school would be ; the children come to the school and live at home. The number of day schools is very small because it is only an occasional reserve on which the Indians live close enough together permanently to give a regular attendance to the day schools.


John Barr: To what age are the children allowed to remain in the industrial and boarding schools ?


Frank Oliver: Until they are 18


Mr. ROCHE.: When the minister spoke -awhile ago about the effects of the education of the Indian being largely rendered nugatory by their drifting back to their former environment, did he refer merely to the boarding schools, or did he discriminate between boarding and industrial schools in that regard?


Frank Oliver: No, the condition is the same as far as that is concerned.


William James Roche: Does not the minister think that some scheme might be evolved by means of which those Indians would be placed in some employment and thus utilize the education given by the state rather than that they should drift back to their reserves where conditions became worse than they formerly were, because work on the farm becomes undesirable to them. I would imagine that if the efforts of the department had been directed towards utilizing this education, if the department had gone to the extent of placing them in employment, a great portion of this education would not be lost, but that they .would be rendered more valuable citizens.


Frank Oliver: Some efforts have been made along the line that my hon. friend Mr. BARR.
suggests. There seems to have been a very satisfactory measure of success achieved by the experiment of settling pupils in a selfsupporting colony under the supervision of the agent. They have, up to the present time, made a very satisfactory showing. This is only an experiment, and as it succeeds it will no doubt be extended. But as to taking a grown up Indian and placing him here, or there, or yonder, if that is the suggestion


William James Roche: On, no.


Frank Oliver: -that, of course, could not be done, especially when we consider the nature of the Indian. It is not that the Indian will not submit, but he cannot submit. He cannot continue to live under a condition of restrain. He must have liberty of action or he ceases to exist.


William James Roche: I would not suggest that the state should force the Indians into any particular trade or employment, but if they were afforded opportunities of utilizing this education and not allowed to go back to their reserves it would be in their interest as well as in the interest of the country. I would not force them into any particular employment, but I would have the means afforded so that they could utilize their education if they desired. The trouble is that many of these Indians, after they graduate, if I may use the expression, see nothing in store and they probably have not sufficient ambition to look around for themselves and secure employment. When the minister speaks about many of these trades having been done away with, I would like to ask him if his remark applies to industrial schools or has the teaching of the various trades outside of agriculture been done away with in western Canada?


Frank Oliver: In the industrial schools we still teach some of the trades, but there is not the same stress laid on that teaching as formerly, our effort being to get the boys to go out on the land to farm.


George Eulas Foster: The question of the education of our Indians is a mightly difficult one, and of late years we seem to be in a condition of drift with reference to it. It is only once a year that in parliament we can devote half an hour to a talk on the Indian question when these estimates are being considered. I do not think there is any improvement in the last ten years; if improvement there has been it has not at all been comparable with the progress made by us in other respects. We spend about $400,000 a year upon Indian schools and that for forty years makes a very large sum of money, for which in the balance we can find no good result. You bring the young Indians to these industrial schools ; you teach them and they seem to make progress whilst they are in the school, but

when they leave they do not make servants and as a rule they go back to the wild state. In very many cases I fear they are worse than if they had never been in the industrial school. We are spending an immense amount of money and we are doing little good with it. If there is anything that gets in to the Indian it may be a little percolation of religious teaching through the missionaries who build up their moral character somewhat, but when they go back amongst their own people, it is difficult to keep any supervision over them, and I am afraid that even permanent results in that respect are pretty hard to measure. Is it not time we did something else for the Indian? Should we longer spend half a million dollars a year without results? Should we not get some active agency at work to investigate this whole question and give us the result of ripened experience, pointing out our mistakes in the past and blazing out a pathway for us in the future ? Unless we can educate our Indians in a line towards strengthening an esprit de corps among them and opening up a future career for them for which they are adapted, it seems to me it is almost better that we should leave them their natural state where they do a little hunting and a little fishing and a Mttle agriculture and pass their lives in as good a way as they do now after all the money we spend on their education under our present system. It seems to me it would be better for us to leave them as they are in their simple habits and prevent them from being imposed upon by the white man, or else that we should adopt some other system which after they leave the school may fit them for useful occupation. You cannot make a white man out of an Indian and there is no use our trying that. Give the Indian boy a fair education, instill something of purposes and ambition in him and offer to him some sort of useful career. They ought to make splendid fire rangers and forest rangers and scouts. Is there any inherent disability in the Indian character which makes it impossible for them to do that kind of work? Is there no kind of police duty they can do? In the United States they do utilize the Indians in various ways, they make men out of them, not white men it is true, but they instil in the Indians a good deal of nerve and verve and they are fairly successful in several spheres. Is it not time that Canada should do something? The Indians are our wards it is said, and we should do the square thing by them. But, we ought not go on spending a lot of money, pretending to do something and really doing nothing, and coming around this table every year and nodding to each other and all acknowledge we have failed. I would go in very strongly for appointing a commission, not a
partisan commission, but the very best men we can get, to inquire into and to recommend to us the best means for the moral, mental, technical, and industrial education of our Indians. Canada will find the money for that; Canada has never balked at doing her duty by the Indians. We may have taken their lands, sometimes when we should not, but we have always protested our intention to treat them fairly and I believe we have endeavoured to do so.


Frank Oliver: There is no question at all but that the intention of the people of Canada is to deal fairly by the Indians, and that is one reason the House has voted from year to year a large sum of money for Indian education without inquiring too closely as to the results. The people of Canada feel there is an obligation resting on them with respect to the Indians and the people of Canada have been quite willing to discharge that obligation. What my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) has said about the desirability of bettering the conditions so that there shall not be what appears a waste of money is something in which we can all agree. We are not negligent in the matter but we have to deal with a problem which has never yet been solved. It has not been solved in the United States, it has not been solved in Canada; under no approximately parallel conditions has it heen solved in any country. Even if we take the conditions in other countries where there are savage races, there is no other savage race on the same level as the North American Indian. He is in a class by himself and has a persistence of character not possessed by any other race in the world. Having to deal then with such a problem the government of Canada some twenty years ago adopted a certain principle. That principle has been worked to faithfully and well but the event has shown that the principle was not the correct one to furnish a solution. I am not here to say that it was not perhaps the best that could be adopted but it did not give the solution that we hoped for, and I am with my hon. friend in believing that the time has come for us to reconsider our position, if that is not too much to say, and see what better can be done. It is perfectly clear that it is not well advised to occupy the time of the young Indian in learning a trade in which he will never have an opportunity to engage. Having arrived at that idea we are more and more applying education to the land and educating the young men for work upon the land and so far as we have gone in that it seems to me to be the right line. The results achieved tend to show that this work is best suited to the character of the Indian. He has an independence of character that does not allow him to submit to the same dictation, direction and conditions that other races of men will submit to, and

he is more adapted to work on the land than to any other. I have spoken of the colony we have where there has been a very gratifying amount of apparent success. We cannot tell yet whether that is permanent success, but it is apparent success and we have hopes it will be permanent. Again in the case of the Indians of southern Alberta. on the Blood reserve, which is the largest reserve in Canada and of which the Indians were notoriously the most warlike and generally intractable in Canada, we have made very substantial progress. The Indians have irrigated a very considerable tract and in addition to that they are cultivating the ground, raising stock and providing for themselves by cutting hay and working at manual labour for wages amongst the outside community. My own impression is that the progress we are making on the Blood reserve is perhaps more substantial than the progress we are making in the colony of which I spoke, because it is progress that is in the Indians themselves. That is to say they have not lost their individuality and initiative. These qualities are being cultivated or developed and although the progress may be slow, it seems to me that this is the course that will produce the ultimate good result. We are therefore not blind to the necessities of the case. We are using our endeavours on various lines of experiment which must necessarily vary with the varying conditions under which we find the Indians and under which we have to deal with them. While the results of the expenditure have not been such as was anticipated when the policy was first inaugurated, still I believe that we are well warranted in continuing the expenditure to provide education for the Indians, and the Indian Department while it does not profess to have solved a problem that has been found to be impossible by everybody else in the world, are dealing with the problem, and we are making some progress, probably as much progress as is being made anywhere else if not a little more. We are using the knowledge that we have obtained in the past for the purpose of improving our methods and increasing our economy for the future.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister practically admits that the education of the Indian is a failure. I think that can he accepted as a fair interpretation of what he has said.


Frank Oliver: That is hardly a fair statement. I do not want to he understood as saying that the Indians have not been educated. They have been educated, but the result which was hoped from that education has not been achieved. So far as the education is concerned, there is no question that it has been imparted to the Indians, but parliament and the country had hoped that education would amount to civiliza-Mr. 01 TVER.
tion. Unfortunately the event has proven that that is not the case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was about to elaborate what I meant by education. I did not mean simply education by book knowledge, but civilization and education of habits as well as knowledge. Education of the Indian as a whole has been a failure so the minister admits. That being the case, we naturally look into the subject to ascertain what is the explanation and whether any method can be devised that would better accomplish the object. We have in view three objects, first, the civilization of the Indian; second, their education so far as knowledge goes, and, third, the inculcation of habits that would enable them throughout all time in the future to put that knowledge into practical use. It is a pity it has not been as great a success as we had hoped. Could the minister tell us what percentage of the Indians who have been trained in church schools and what percentage in secular schools? Has the minister made any effort to ascertain the comparative success in each?


Frank Oliver: There are something like 315 schools altogether and not more than ten per cent are non-denominational. Most of these are day schools. The boarding and industrial schools are almost entirely under the administration of some religious body, and so there is no opportunity to make a fair comparison.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There must be thirty-one day schools, and there ought to be some data which would enable us to ascertain whether their work has been a success or not. There may be something in the educational system which would account for the failure and which might be avoided by our adopting a better system. You might change the educational system entirely and make a great success of what is a failure now. It would be worth while for the minister to have some of his officers prepare information which would enable us to institute some comparison.


Frank Oliver: I would be glad to give such information as we may be able to secure. My belief is that there is not very much difference in the result in the one case and the other. The differences are due more to other conditions than to the difference between a teacher under the direct control of the department and one under the control of a church. The principle of co-operation between the Indian Department and the churches was accepted by the country some twenty or twenty-five years ago, and I believe wisely, because when the educational institution is under the management and responsibility of a religious body, we have a guarantee in the character and standing of that religious

body, that the teachers will set a good example in conduct and demeanour to the pupils, ard thereby be most likely to advance them towards civilization.


John Barr: What percentage does the government pay in connection with the industrial schools and the boarding schools which, we are informed, are under some religious bodies?


Frank Oliver: The payment is not by percentage, but so much per pupil. The government pays so much per pupil to the church which takes the responsibility of carrying on the educational institution, and the church has to provide whatever other money is required. The Elkhorn industrial school is carried on at the direct cost of the Indian Department. The other industrial and boarding schools are carried on by the various churches, and we contribute so much per pupil. I think we are in this way contributing from 50 to 60 per cent of the cost of carrying them on.


John Barr: Can any religious body open up those schools and carry them on, or must it first get the government's sanction?


Frank Oliver: As we have conducted the business of Indian education so far, whenever any religious body had a mission established amongst the Indians or had acquired authority among them and was sufficiently interested and strong enough to establish a school, they would get permission to do so and they would get the grant per pupil just the same as any other.


Mr. SMYTH.: Might I ask if it is the intention of the government to allow the construction by the Ontario government through the Indian lands of a trunk road between Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury? The hon. minister will remember that last year a large deputation from Sault Ste. Marie interviewed the government on this subject. The Ontario government have spent a large sum of money already in the construction of that road, but they cannot pass through the Indian reserve lying between Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury. I would like to know if it is the intention of the government to enable the Ontario government to complete that much-needed work by giving them the right to pass through the Indian reserve?


Frank Oliver: A number of the municipalities interested in the construction of the trunk road through Algoma interviewed the government on the subject last year, and it was explained to the deputation that it would be necessary for anybody desiring to build this road to let us know by a survey where they wanted the road to be, and that when we were informed on that point, we would take the matter up with the Indians with a view to securing a right of way through the reserve. So far as I am aware,
we have never yet been furnished with the information that would enable us to take the matter up with the Indians, who of course are the owners of the land, and must be dealt with as any other owners would be for a right of way across their property.


William Ross Smyth: As a matter of fact, I know that the surveys have been made, and I understood that the Minister of Public Works of Ontario had been in communication with the Department of Indian Affairs and had sent them the survey and plans of the right of way. Perhaps I have been misinformed.


Frank Oliver: So far as I am aware, we have not yet received the plans. As soon as we receive them, we shall be prepared at once to take up the question with the Indians and if possible secure the right of way. I shall be able to say on another day whether we have received the plans or not.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 11) to incorporate the Canadian Western Railway Company-Mr, Pardee.
On section 7:
Mr. HERRON.: When this Bill was in committee yesterday I omitted having a clause inserted which will make a very slight difference to the conditions of the Bill. I beg to move:
That in subsection (a), line 5, after the word ' meridian ' there be added the words ' passing through the town of Pincher Creek/
This has been agreed to by the promoters of the Bill and a marked Bill has been put in the possession of the chairman, agreed to and initialled by them. Pincher Creek is two and a half miles from the railway station and in exact line with the contour, of the proposed railway.


Mr. GRAHAM.: If the promoters of the Bill have agreed I have no objection.


John Herron: They have agreed.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will remember that we. discussed it a little yesterday, and one of the gentlemen interested said that he was willing to leave it to the Minister of Railways. I have no objection.


John Herron: The solicitor in charge has initialled this amendment and it is agreed to by all parties concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Herron: I propose that the word ' Pincher1 be substituted for the word ' Cowley ' in the 7th line and that the word ' Cowley ' be substituted for the words ' Pincher Creek ' in th 8th line. This road is to extend from the boundary line north. But, although Cowley lies north of Pincher they insert Cowley first. It does not alter the provisions of the Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You want Cowley and Pincher transposed ?


John Herron: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 8,
George Perry Graham: We struck out the words ' notwithstanding anything in the Railway Act.' But it has occurred to me that if we were to strike out the words ' along any highway, street or other public place,' we would be taking chances of striking out a street which, although it might not be used at present as a highway, might nevertheless be laid out as a street. Would there be any danger of that?


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: A street is a highway.


George Perry Graham: I thought we had not the exact words we put in the Bill of last year. I thought possibly that a street might be laid out and dedicated for a street, but not yet used as a highway, and we might get into trouble by striking out the word ' street.' I think it can do no harm to leave it in, and it might do harm to strike it out. I move that the words ' street or other,' wherever they occur in the original Bill, be reinserted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 11,
John Herron: Will there be anything in this amendment to prejudice our local telephone system that was spoken of today in the committee? I thought the minister assured us that this was the usual form of clause on the conditions of telephones-or is it something new?


George Perry Graham: The question was raised in committee as to the connections between this line and some other line. The point I made was that any company chartered by this parliament was under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and the board could make them connect or do whatever they liked, but they could not control another company that was not chartered by this parliament, nor could they compel it to connect on their side. But they could compel this company to connect with the other company if they are willing.


Mr. MAGRATH.: Before this Bill is finally disposed of, I wish to place on record a few words in connection with what has Mr. HERRON.
taken place in the Railway Committee. I represent a section of country through which this railway is supposed to go. We want the railway; we want all the railways we can get in that country. But, as I said in the committee, I do not wish to go back to my constituents and say that the promoters blandly told me in committee that they were going to spend $2,000,000 and build 200 miles of railway; I think my constituents will expect from me something more definite than that. I want it placed on record that the promoter said his company was going to build this railway without waiting for the connecting road which he spoke of from the United States, which was to come up to the international boundary. I want that on record, because I expect these gentlemen will be coming back to this House. I am not particularly concerned as to whether the telephone lines should be carried underground or overhead; it is railways that we want, on the ground, and not on paper. It occurred to me that when gentlemen come here and tell us they are prepared to spend $2,000,000, they should be prepared to put up 5 per cent as a guarantee of their good faith. I mention that now, as I mentioned it in committee. But my object, as I said, is that if these gentlemen come back I shall have something to say to them if I am in this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The chances are that you will have the opportunity.


George Perry Graham: I guess your prognostications will turn out to be correct.
Bill reported, and read the third time and
passed.


SECOND READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 41) respecting the Tilsonburg, Lake Erie and Pacific Railway Company. -Mr. Schell.
Bill (No. 42) respecting the Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Company. Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 43) respecting the Hudson Bay and Pacific Railway Company-Mr. Cash.
Bill (No. 44) to incorporate the Canadian, Liverpool and Western Railway Company. -Mr. Girard.
Bill (No. 46) respecting the Crawford Bay and St. Mary's Railway Company, and to change its name to * The British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba Railway Company.-Mr. Wilbert McIntyre.
Bill (No. 47) respecting the Guelph and Goderich Railway Company.-Mr. Lewis.
Bill (No. 49) respecting the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company. -Mr. Devlin.
Bill (No. 51) to incorporate the Royal Casualty and Surety Company of Canada. -Mr. H. H. McLean.

Bill (No. 52) respecting the Bank of Vancouver.-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 53) respecting the Walkerton and Lucknow Railway Company.-Mr. Donnelly.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No._ 9) respecting the Brandon Transfer Railway Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 12) respecting the Collingwood Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Pardee.
Bill (No. 14) respecting the Huron and Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Pardee.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Indian schools, maritime provinces, Ontario and Quebec, $73,225.
["I do not want it to be inferred for a moment that I intended to cast any reflection on Chief Justice Howell. What I said was that these rumours were circulating around Selkirk and I have it from one of the head men that thev did receive from that commission four or five times more land than the average Indian received. In addition to that, these men were kept constantly in the employment of those who were purchasing this land. I know one man who told me himself that he paid the chief and council $2 per day for attending at his office and helping to negotiate sales. I have a letter here from Chief Prince's son which bears out what I state, namely, that the chief and council received some inducement for agreeing to make that settlement ; an inducement which the band knew nothing at all about but which they have since found out and of course they are very much dissatisfied. I think I know the Indian pretty well, as I have lived among them for 27 years. I know there is a great deal in what the minister has said, that once an Indian parts with something he wants to get it back again. The point I was trying to impress\n\nupon the committee was that there could have been a much better settlement made with the Indians in the interest of the Indian himself and in the interest of Selkirk. The surrender itself was a good one, it was what the people of Selkirk wanted, but I do not think the interests of Selkirk were taken into account in the details of that surrender. We had three or four hundred Indians living along the river, some of them fairly well off and every one of them a wage earner and they spent their money in the town of Selkirk. Now this land has passed into the hands of large owners, the capitalists have got it, and they are holding it for a very high price so that the land will lie idle along that river for many years to come, and when it is settled there will not likely be one settler where there were 100 before. While I am on my feet, I want to say that the minister knows we have on Lake' Winnipeg a _ number of Galicians settled on land which is utterly unfit for any human beings to make a living out of. To my mind the wise policy of the government would have been when they secured that surrender to sell the reserve on 20 year or 30 year payments to these Galicians. These people are developing into an excellent class of settlers and they would have been a credit to that part of the country, and a great help to the town of Selkirk. I regret very much that the surrender was put through in the manner in which it was, and I think if the minister had to put it through again it would not go through on the same lines.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Fisher, House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.", 'Monday, February 15, 1909.']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before six o'clock 1 asked the minister to furnish us with information as to the number of day schools, the number of pupils attending these schools, the location of these schools; the number of the church schools, the number of pupils attending these schools, and the location of these schools.


Frank Oliver: At page 60 of the annual report of the department the information is given out that out of 315 schools 49 are undenominational, 111 Roman Catholics, 93 Church of England, 44 Methodist, 16 Presbyterian, and 2 Salvation Army.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was trying to get information as to whether the denominational schools are more successful in civilizing the Indian than what might be called public or secular schools.


Frank Oliver: I will have collated from the annual _ report the information in the form in which the hon. gentleman asks for it.
Surveys, $10,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are you doing any survey work on the Indian land?


Frank Oliver: This is for surveys of reserves under the new treaty in the northern part of New Ontario. We intend also to pay the cost of subdividing small Indian reserves and resurveying old reserves where the land marks have become obliterated and when the Indians interested have no funds of their own.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are you carrying on any surveys in the islands of the Georgian bay?


Frank Oliver: No, but we had a revaluation made last year.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Who is the surveyor?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Sing was the survevor; the work was finished three years ago.


William Ross Smyth: Is it the intention of the department to continue leasing or selling the timber on the Indian lands?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William Ross Smyth: Has the department issued a letter to certain parties in my riding stating that the department would discontinue allowing them to cut timber. I refer to the Indian lands near Cutler on the Sault Branch in the district of Algoma?


Frank Oliver: I am unable to reply at the moment. Speaking generally, we intend to sell the right to cut timber on the Indian lands from time to time as it may be in the interests of the Indians to do so. '


William Ross Smyth: There is a firm in the district of Algoma which heretofore has had the privilege of cutting timber on the Indian lands on the reserve near the village of Cutler, and I saw a letter written by some official in the department informing them that that right would be discontinued. I may say that the gentleman to whom I refer has been heretofore a very strong Liberal, but in his wisdom he saw fit to help me to be elected to this House, and immediately after the elections were over he got a notice from the department that permission to continue cutting timber on this reserve would be discontinued. When this notice was received, the Indians, as I understand, got up a petition asking the government to continue the right to this gentlman to cut the timber. I wish to ask the minister if he has ever given instructions to any of his officers to send such a letter?


Frank Oliver: I have no recollection of any sale of that kind, and would have to look oyer the records before I could give a definite reply. There are many circumstances in which it would be quite proper to give these instructions, but I can hardly understand how any firm would have a standing license to cut timber on any land.


William Ross Smyth: Their right to cut this timber has always been admitted heretofore. Would that come before the minister or the deputy minister of the Indian Department?


Frank Oliver: It would depend on the circumstances. If it were a matter of detail, it would come before the deputy, but if it were a matter of policy it would come before me. I cannot say which it was without knowing the facts.


William Ross Smyth: You are not in a position to say that notice has been given by the department to this firm that their license will be cancelled on April 31 of this year?


Frank Oliver: I could not just now, but will be able when I have the opportunity to refer to all the files. There will be an opportunity later on.


William Ross Smyth: Who is the deputy superintendent of Indian Affairs?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Frank Pedley.


Mr. DANIEL.: Will the hon. minister explain what becomes of this money, the grant to land managing funds? To whom is it paid and who disburses it, and in what way and what does the item mean?


Frank Oliver: There were two funds which existed previous to confederation out of which the charges of management of Indian lands were paid. After confederation these funds, which were taken over by the Dominion Government, became, in some way or other, improperly depleted, and the Dominion was indebted to them in a certain amount. Later on means were taken to recoup the funds from the Dominion treasury at so much per year, so that in fifteen years the Province of Quebec fund and in twenty years the Land Management fund will be restored to the position in which they would have been, had they not been improperly drawn upon.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Who are the trustees of the funds and who operates them?


Frank Oliver: The Indian Department became the trustee at confederation, and what are now considered to have been improper charges on them began in about 1880 and ran on until the funds were exhausted. Then the matter was reconsidered and it was decided to place the funds back where they were originally.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Then the minister's department is the one that operates the funds now?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With regard to the disposal of the rights to cut timber on Indian lands, could the minister tell us what is to be his policy in the future. We have had several instances brought to our notice of large quantities of timber having been cut on these islands by particularly favoured friends of the government who got that right very cheaply. Had these timber cuts been put up to public competition, no doubt they would have realized a great deal more for the poor Indians. The government might very wisely adopt a different policy from that of disposing of these timber cuts to their private party friends by private sale. When there is timber to be sold on an island or an Indian reserve, that sale ought to be publicly advertised and be made to the highest bidder. That method would realize more for the Indians, whose property it is we are handling in trust, and also give greater satisfaction to the timber trade. What took place on Hope Island was a notable instance given the House last session of this abuse of trust, and there were several other instances of the same kind in the Georgian Bay dis-Mr OIIVER.
trict. Would the government give us any assurance that they will adopt a better policy in the future?


Frank Oliver: I do not know that it would be profitable to discuss the method of disposition of the timber on Indian lands, as it has been followed during the many years that the Indian lands have been under the administration of the Indian Department. It has followed very much the system of disposing of timber on ordinary public lands. Long ago when timber was of little commercial value it was more important that the timber on public lands should be cut than that a high price should be obtained for it. But as timber got more valuable the system of disposition was changed on Indian lands as well as on public lands. As to the present policy of the department with regard to timber on Indian lands, I can give no better illustration than the sale of timber on the Dokis Indian reserve on the French river, which took place late last winter or early last spring, when we sold the timber by public auction at the Russell House, after survey, estimate and advertisement, for something over $800,000, besides the dues of $2 per thousand feet.


John Allister Currie: How much timber was sold this year besides that?


Frank Oliver: I think the returns are in the annual report, but, answering off-hand, I would say that was the only sale during that year.


John Allister Currie: I wanted to know whether there was any sale since that return was published. The return comes down to last March. I want to know if anything has been sold since then?


Frank Oliver: I cannot give that information from memory. It will have to come at a later time. In regard to the questions asked by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Smyth) as to the carrying of a leading road through the Indian reserves north of Lake Huron, our records show that on January 31, 1908, we addressed a letter to the secretary of the advisory union of Algoma municipalities, one paragraph of which is as follows:
Before we can take up the question of the surrender with any degree of satisfaction, it is considered that a plan or sketch should be prepared and forwarded to the department, showing in a general way where the proposed road would enter and leave the reserves in question. If this were done, we would he able to meet the Indians with a fairly definite proposition. Without it, it is considered that much valuable time would be wasted.
That is the last communication we have in regard to the matter.


William Ross Smyth: Has there been any communication between your department and

the Department of Public Works of Ontario?


Frank Oliver: I am not aware of it. Our communications were direct with this union of municipalities, and we, of course, understood that their communications were with the provincial government.


John Allister Currie: I want to know definitely from the minister whether he will before all his items are passed give us the information as to what timber lands were sold and what rights to cut timber were given since the publication of the blue-book.


Frank Oliver: I will give the information on the next sitting day.
Grant for Agricultural society, Munceys of tlie Thames, $90.


Mr. BEATTIE.: That seems to be a very extravagant grant to the Munceys of the Thames to encourage them in agriculture. I think it might be increased.


Frank Oliver: This is a small sum given for the purpose of supplying prizes for the agricultural show which these people hold on their own account. They are self-supporting and are well advanced towards civilization, and this is merely a small contribution towards the purchase of prizes.


Thomas Beattie: There happen to be two societies which hold two fairs a year, and $45 to each society would not encourage agriculture very much. Out of the large sums granted by the government I should think a larger sum than $90 might be granted for that purpose.
General legal expenses, $13,500.


Mr. HENDERSON.: $13,500 for the lawyers and $90 for the farmers! I wonder what the Minister of Agriculture will say about that. During the last election he went through the province of Ontario explaining why cities should represent county municipalities, and why Conservative members representing rural districts should be deposed and somebody living in a town should be put in their places. I am afraid that he has been extending to the Department of the Minister of the Interior his policy of doing everything for the lawyer and nothing for the farmer. I wonder that the Minister of the Interior does not stand up for his own rights and the rights of his own wards and not let the Minister of Agriculture have too much to say in a matter of this kind. It seems to me an explanation is due to show why there should be such an enormous amount of legal expenses in connection with this band.


Frank Oliver: The reason that the grant to the Munceys is so small is that they don't need a large grant. There is, I believe, a principle laid down that to him that hath shall be given. But, in the ad-32
ministration of the Indian Department, it is given to him that hath not. It is to those who need that we give, and to those who don't need we don't give. The Munceys are not in need, and therefore there is no large appropriation for them. I think nobody will suggest that the amount expended in prizes at a small exhibition should be very large.


Alexander Haggart: I want to put the lawyers right on this item. We would like a little explanation. Does it include the enforcement of the Indian Act all over the Dominion, and the prosecution of parties for trespassing upon Indian surveys, and taking charge of the Indians generally as against the white man? I find in the Auditor General's Report, on page 1-9, under the very same heading ' General legal expenses ' payments made to several law yers amounting to $1,093. I do not know whether that is intended to cover all the legal expenses for the last year-sums paid to lawyers in Ottawa, and in Ashcroft, British Columbia, and other places. A little explanation of that would let the lawyers out.


Frank Oliver: This vote is to pay legal expenses necessary in defence of what we believe to be the rights of the Indians in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, not in the Dominion at large. The reason the amount here appears large is because this year we have had an effort to settle a case which has been celebrated in Canada for many years, and we are in hopes of bringing it to a settlement; I refer to the Oka Indian case. Outside of that $10,000, the expenditure in 1907-8 was $1,093.95. That is a normal expenditure. But we estimate a cost in regard to this Oka case, of about $10,000. When we consider that that case has been a source of irritation during so many years, I think everybody will agree that it is desirable to secure a settlement, if we can, by expending this amount.


John Barr: It seems very strange that we should have this item of $1,090 for legal expenses appearing year after year. Are the lawyers employed by the year? Are they on the list like civil servants? I understand this item has been going on for a number of years just the same. There has been one big lawsuit going on for the last twenty years. Do they do the same work year after year, or how is it that we have to pay so large an amount for lawyers' expenses? We know that the Indians are a very peaceable people. I think this is a sum, to a great extent, put down there to be divided amongst the lawyers. If we could increase the agricultural grant and decrease the legal expenses, we would be doing the right thing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the minister give us any information with regard to the pre-

sent stage of the dispute in the Oka Indian case, and along what lines does he hope' to succeed in effecting a settlement?


Frank Oliver: I need not go into the merits of the dispute in the Oka case. But the Indians take the position that they want their rights defended and carried to the highest court, that is the Privy Council m England, and whatever the highest court may decide they are willing to abide by. But they say they will not abide by anything short of that, and they will accept nothing less than a judgment by the highest court in the empire. A test case has' been entered, and proceedings are now in progress in the city of Monreal, and will be carried forward to a finish.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the test case proposed by the government? Is the case based on what the Indians claim is an infringement of their rights?


Frank Oliver: It is a case arranged by the government, but the case is founded upon an alleged infringement of the rights of the Indians. It is a concrete case, and is m the Superior Court of Quebec before Judge Hutchinson.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister has made a reference to the Oka Indian litigation. Was anything paid on that account last year? I find no reference to it under general legal expenses in the Auditor General's Report, although last year $13,500 was asked for legal expenses. The only expense charged in the Auditor General's Report was $1,093. It seems strange that with only $1,000 of expense the minister should be asking for a vote of $13,500. And the same way last year. If this litigation has been going on for several years one would expect to see some charge or payment relating to it in the Auditor General's Report. Has the minister any explanation in regard to the matter? There is nothing in the Auditor General's Report with regard to any payment for the whole year for litigation in connection with the Oka Indians ?
1 have already said that the $3,500 m the vote is the amount estimated for ordinary legal expenses. In addition to that the $10,000 that was taken last year was taken with the expectation that we would have been able to get the case forward last year, hut the circumstances were that is was not possible to get the case forward last year or to make an expenditure beyond the amount that my hon. friend has mentioned. It was only possible to get the case to court quite recently. When I spoke of the case having been in progress for many years I meant to say that the dispute in regard to the Oka reserve was of many years' standing, but this particular case in court by which we hoped to get a final settlement has only had Mr. SPROULE.
its beginning within this last year. It is a new case although it is an old dispute, but we have actually now got to trial. Of course, there will be an appeal and it will be carried to the highest court.


Mr. S. SHARPE..: How much of the $13,500 did you use last year?


George Taylor: That is the year before last.


Frank Oliver: In the year ended March 31, 1908, we expended $1,093.95.


George Taylor: How much have you expended in 1908-9?


Frank Oliver: We have about the same expenditure for this year as for last year up to date.


John Allister Currie: Is there also litigation pending in reference to the Indians of the Grand River reserve? The Brant Indians have been claiming for many years that they were unjustly dealt with in that the government invested their funds in some IVelland canal bonds, or something like that, and lost their money.


Frank Oliver: A claim is being spoken of as being made by or on behalf of the Six Nation Indians with regard to a transaction which took place some time in the 1830's, I think. That matter is under the consideration of the department at the present time.


John Allister Currie: Any hope of doing Justice to these Indians?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


John Allister Currie: The facts are historical, I may say.


Frank Oliver: Of course, this department only takes responsibility to do justice with regard to what rests upon it, and it does not take the responsibility of doing justice with respect to that for which it is not responsible.


John Allister Currie: Quite right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In this Oka Indian
dispute, is the government supplying counsel for both sides of the case and paying the cost out of the Indian fund? Who are the counsel on behalf of the Indians?


Frank Oliver: The government is paying the whole of the costs in order to get a decision that will be satisfactory to the Indians and, it is presumed, equitable. The government is paying the cost of both sides to the suit.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you not think it is a great injustice to the Indians? The Indians claim that these others are trespassing and the litigation is to determine the question between the trespasser and the original owner.. That the costs of the litigation should come out of the fund belong-

ing to the Indians seems to be unfair to the Indians.


Frank Oliver: I am not very familiar with this case myself, but my hon. friend and some of the older members of the House will remember it as a case which has been very celebrated and of long standing. It has been the cause of a great deal of acrimony, and I am sure they will agree with me that it is for the good of the country as well as for the Indians that a settlement shall be procured if possible, and that the price paid for the settlement is not too great if only a settlement can be secured.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think that makes it right. I have some remembrance of this case. It has been going on for a great many years. The Oka Indians were given land in Algoma in lieu of this land as an inducement to move out, but when they got there they did not like the land. They claimed that they were unfairly dealt with. A portion of the band never left the reserve and refused to give up the land. But those who were negotiating to get possession of the land still held on and insisted on taking the land from them. That trouble has gone on for a long time. The Indians still contend that the land is theirs and that they had no right to give it up. The others went to law. Now then, the trespasser comes in, according to the Indians' claim, and, because it is desirable to settle the dispute between the Indians and the others, the government says it is justifiable to take the poor Indians' money and pay the cost of the litigation for the trespasser as well as for the Indian. I am not contending that the Indian is right or that he is wrong because I do not know, but as a matter of principle it would seem to me that if the expenses of the Indians' side were paid out of the Indian fund that would be proper. I cannot see any justifiable reason why the expenses of the trespasser should be paid out of the Indian fund as well, because the portion that is paid for this litigation is taken out of the Indian fund and the Indian loses to that extent. It seems, scarcely fair to the poor Indian.


Frank Oliver: Unfortunately the money is not being taken from the Indian but it is being taken, by this vote, out of the treasury of the Dominion of Canada and the taxpayers who are on one side of the dispute possibly claim that their share of the cost should not be taken to provide counsel and pay the costs for the Indians in trying to oust them from active possession.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The money that we vote for Indian purposes we are supposed to have got out of the property that we originally got from the Indians. The country was recouped for it and now we are voting it because the Indians are the wards of the government. We are voting money for the cost of litigation where the Indians are on 32i
one side and the trespassers on the other. To vote money to pay both sides is not fair.


George Taylor: The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) asked the minister a question which he has not answered yet. Who are the counsel for the Indians in the case?


Frank Oliver: Messrs. Wainwright & Davidson are representing the Indians for the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the suit entered in the Superior Court of Quebec now?


Frank Oliver: The court was sitting yesterday and the day before on that case with Judge Hutchinson presiding.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It will be appealed from that to the Supreme Court and then to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?


Frank Oliver: Yes.
Annuity and administration, treaty 9,


George Taylor: There is a decrease.


Frank Oliver: That is accounted for by the transfer of the salary of the inspector from the outside service vote to civil government.
Indians, N.S.-relief and seed grain, $3,200.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What proportion of this was for seed grain and what for relief?


Frank Oliver: There is between $700 and $800 for seed grain.


George Taylor: How many Indians in Nova Scotia?


Frank Oliver: 2,129.


George Taylor: You are asking $3,000 less than you did a year ago; are there fewer Indians?


Frank Oliver: In that year there was a larger expenditure for relief and land was purchased for the Indians at Colchester to the value of $1,300.
Nova Scotia Indians, medical attendance and medicines, $3,700.


Mr. RHODES.: What services are required from these medical officers?


Frank Oliver: They are expected to visit the reserve on the call of the agent or to prescribe and furnish medicines to the In dians if they call at their office.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think there is an Indian reserve in my county.


Frank Oliver: There are Indians settled in the county of Cumberland, but there is no Indian reserve in that county.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is this salary to the medical officer intended to cover the full cost of medical attendance to the Indians in a particular county?


Frank Oliver: The division is not by counties. Certain reserves are allotted to a certain medical man and he is expected to attend on the Indians at the call of the agent or to prescribe for the Indians of this reserve, or I presume any Indian, who may call at his office, and to give them the medicine his prescription requires.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is the medical officer supposed to do all the medical work within the territory allotted to him?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Then there should be no outside charge for medical services. There is a rather peculiar condition in my county, because the Indian agent is also the medical officer and at page I-13 of the Auditor General's Report there is an item showing" a payment to Dr. F. A. Rand of $16 for medical attendance upon the Indians. Dr. Rand is the agent as well as the medical officer. This is a small item, but I feel it my duty to bring it to the notice of the minister. At I-13 there are items for medical attendance, F. A. Rand, M.D., Parrs-borough, $200 and $16. Dr. Rand, the medical officer for that district is also the Indian agent.


Frank Oliver: I cannot at the moment give my hon. friend an explanation, but at a later date I shall do so. Dr. Rand is medical officer for certain reserves for Indians and receives a salary of $200 as medical officer.
Indians, New Brunswick-salaries, $1,458.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How many reserves are there in New Brunswick and how many Indians?


Frank Oliver: Nineteen reserves and about 150 scattered Indians, 1,861 Indians in all.


John Waterhouse Daniel: There appears to be a similar arrangement in regard to medical attendance in New Brunswick to that existing in Nova Scotia. There are eighteen or twenty medical officers who apparently receive about $200 a year apiece, and then the same medical officers make individual charges for medical attendance. If they are paid an annual salary for medical attendance why is the extra charge put in as well?


Frank Oliver: I am in t.he same position in regard to this question as to the questions relating to Nova Scotia. It, may be that these medical men make charges for attending Indians of other reserves.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Where a medical man attends an Indian from another province a charge is specifically made for it and printed in the Auditor General's Report. I should be very glad to get an explanation in regard to those cases.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Prince Edward Island Indians-medical attendance and medicine, $650.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How many Indians on the island?


Frank Oliver: Two hundred and seventy-six.


John Barr: How many medical men required?


Frank Oliver: One.


George Taylor: The Auditor General's Report, page I-15, shows fifteen or twenty medical men employed. No doubt the reason is that the government has quite a number of political friends there whom they make medical advisers to the Indians and to whom they give from $25 to $50 each. To one they give $200. It looks as if the government were giving these fees to those who will vote for them.


Frank Oliver: I must correct the statement that there is one medical adviser. The call may be given to one or another, as the ease may be, but they are paid by calls at so much per call.


John Barr: No regular doctor?


Frank Oliver: No.
To provide for erection of wharf, Lennox island, P.E.I., Indians, $1,200.


George Taylor: Why is this not done by the Department of Public Works? That department is building wharfs all over the country, why not build one for the Indians ? I suppose it is because the Indian does not vote.


Frank Oliver: This vote is standing from last year. The expenditure was not made, and we are asking for a re-vote. I cannot say why it is not done by the Department of Public Works, but I think there are many cases in which the Indian Department handles its own work with the view of employing the Indians and giving them some little advantage in that way.


George Taylor: This is the first time I ever saw a vote taken in the Indian Department to build a wharf for the Indians.


Frank Oliver: In this case the Indians are living on an island and require some accommodation to get over to the mainland. We had a vote for a ferry to enable them to get to the mainland a year or two ago.


George Taylor: We never criticise the Indian vote very much, but this seems very irregular. We have voted money to the Public Works Department to build wharfs to accommodate private citizens, and they should do it here just as well as ask the Indian Department to do it.


Frank Oliver: In that work we can give the Indians employment and probably the Public Works Department could not do that.


George Taylor: Why not?
_Mr. SPROULE. The minister said some time ago that this expenditure comes out of the consolidated revenue of the country. Is there any account in which the expenditure for the Indians is chargeable against what we get out of the Indians?


Frank Oliver: An exact account is kept of the money which comes from the sales of Indian lands, or other moneys upon which the Indians have a special claim; but that has nothing to do with the votes we are asking. In cases where the Indians have not money of their own to carry on their business or meet their requirements, we ask for money from the consolidated revenue for this purpose. Where the Indians have money of their own we administer so as to meet their requirements as economically as possible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Take the case now in litigation, have the Oka Indians no money of their own?


Frank Oliver: The capital of the Oka band amounts to $4,000. It is so small that it is not of any advantage and would not be sufficient to carry on their suit. In the case of the Oka Indians it is the ownership of the lands themselves which is in question. These Indians have not had the opportunity of acquiring a fund. Should they succeed in their suit, they would shortly be in a position to have a substantial fund, but until they establish their rights they have not that source of revenue.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are roads made in the Manitoulin Islands over what is at present Indian reserve. Application has been made to the department, and I understand that they have granted certain sums for making and improving these roads. Would that not be taken out of the Indian fund?


Frank Oliver: The Manitoulin Island was all Indian land, and of course the Indian fund gets the benefit of any sales of that land. Therefore it was considered reasonable that the fund should bear the charges of the development of the land by the construction of roads.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that different from the erection of a wharf in Prince Edward Island? In the latter case, would the money be taken from consolidated revenue regardless of the source it came from, while in the former case it would be taken from the Indian fund?


Frank Oliver: That is the position exactly. The Indians of Prince Edward Island have no fund; therefore we have to come to their assistance for what they require and what we think they should have. But in the case of the Manitoulin Island the Indians have the benefit of the sale of large tracts of the island, and they still hold considerable tracts which are for sale; so that they have money available for these works. We do not come to parliament for that, but take it out of the fund that belongs to the Indians themselves.


George Taylor: Has the construction of that wharf in Prince Edward Island been begun yet ?


Frank Oliver: No.


George Taylor: Is it the intention to build it this year?


Frank Oliver: Yes.
Indians-Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories-annuities, $173,200; increase, $12,005.


William James Roche: Is this increase due to an increase of the Indian population ?


Frank Oliver: It is due to the adhesion to treaty of the Indians of the territory lying between Manitoba and the Hudson bay, which adhesion was taken last year.
_ Mr. ROCHE. Is the Indian population in these three provinces stationary from year to year ?


Frank Oliver: It is about stationary at the present time.
Implements, tools, &c., $8,432; increase, $3,867.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the explanation of that increase ?


Frank Oliver: It is occasioned by provision being made for a larger number of Indians, who formerly lived by hunting, turning to farming, especially on the reserves near the North Saskatchewan.


Mr. LAKE.: Might I ask the minister as to the responsibility in which the department stands when an agent gives orders to a merchant to sell agricultural implements or other goods to Indians? This is a question which I know has created a good deal of interest amongst local merchants. Usually, when they come at first, they begin to sell to Indians without orders, and as a rule they lose their money. When the Indians bring the orders, does the department assume full responsibility for paying for the goods, and paying for them at an early date ?


Frank Oliver: No. The department does not assume absolute responsibility; but the order is issued in good faith, and it is the business of the agent to use all reasonable measures to collect the money. That is to say, if the Indian has money passing

through the hands of the agent, it will be the business of the agent to see that the order is paid. But if it should be that the Indian has no money passing through the agent's hands, it would not be possible for the agent to make the payment, and of course in that case the government would refuse to take the responsibility.


Richard Stuart Lake: Then I understand from the minister that it is the duty of the agent to take it from the annuity of the Indian ?


Frank Oliver: No, the agent has no right to stop the annuity, but he can take any money earned by the Indian or obtained from the sale of his produce.


Richard Stuart Lake: Or from the sale of his land?


Frank Oliver: No, the Indian cannot sell any land.


Richard Stuart Lake: I understand that, but portions of the reserve are occasionally sold by the department on it being surrendered by the Indians, and a certain portion of the money received from these sales is, I understand, distributed to the Indians themselves. I have had some accounts put into my hand, two of which have written across them: ' to be paid from land moneys.' Am I to understand from the minister that the agent cannot stop any of these moneys ?


Frank Oliver: No, he cannot. When the agent gives orders, he is presumed to have knowledge or belief that the Indian will, at the proper time, have money available to pay the debt, by reason of earning wages or selling produce or stock of his own. The agent has the right to stop that money from going to the Indian, and to pay it to the person who presents the order; but he has no authority to stop annuity money or money accruing from the sale of Indian lands from being paid to the Indian and to pay it to the creditor, except on the order of the Indian. The Indian may order the agent to pay his annuity to the creditor or money coming from the sale of the land to the creditor, but the agent has no authority to take their annuity money, or land money, and pay it to creditors, even though the agent gets an authorization from the Indian who incurred the debt.


Richard Stuart Lake: There must be many cases in which the money the Indian is to receive for the sale of his produce or his work will not pass through* the agent's hand at all. No money coming to them ever passes through the agent's hand. Then if an agent has any order in a case of that sort, all he can do is to exert a moral pressure upon the Indian, he cannot force him in any way to pay the money. In cases of that sort, I should consider it inadvisable that the agent should give orders at all.


Frank Oliver: I am stating the actual position, not as a matter of policy, but as Mr. OLIVER.
a matter of legal right. Of course an agent, in giving orders or authorization, should be sure that the Indian would be both able and willing to pay, or he should not give the order. If it should be within my hon. friend's knowledge that many such orders have been given and are not being paid, by any particular agents, it would be an occasion for us to take the agent to task.


Alexander Haggart: On this item of implements, tools, &e., I find that $68,000 worth of implements and tools were distributed amongst these twenty agencies in Manitoba and the Northwest. Is there any general instructions given to the agents as to where they shall purchase these tools and instruments? Can the agent buy when and where he likes, and give such prices as he likes?


Frank Oliver: The garden seeds are bought in bulk by tender by the department here, but the implements are bought by the local agent, and their orders are to buy at the lowest trade prices.


John Barr: Are tenders asked for these implements?


Frank Oliver: No, not as a rule. The implements are sold at the standard price. Throughout so large an extent of territory the price may vary according to locality.
Seeds, field and garden, $2,177.


William James Roche: While I notice there is a considerable decrease in this item from last year, from $11,000 down to $2,000 odd, still, after so many years of voting seed supplies, even garden seeds, is it a fact that none of these reserves are self-sustaining, and that after getting government assistance for so many years, they cannot even produce their own garden and field seeds?


Frank Oliver: There is a vast extent of territory and a great variety of conditions. Some of the reservations are able to provide their own seed, and some are not. The reason for the large purchase last year was of course the general crop conditions which affected some of the Indian reservations as well as other localities. This year that condition does not exist, therefore we ask for a much smaller vote. The reserves which require assistance to supply seed during the coming year are what might be called the outside points, which are on the verge of cultivation, Norway House, Fort Francis, Clandeboye. There is wanted at Birtle 200 bushels of oats, at Portage la Prairie, garden seeds to the amount of $5; at Clandeboye, $35 for garden seeds and 150 bushels of potatoes.


William James Roche: The minister says oats are wanted at Birtle. I presume he means the Birtle agency. That I think consists of several reserves; they are in my own con-

stituency. The district is an oat growing district. Does the minister know what particular reservation this is for?


Frank Oliver: It is for the Cree reservation.


Mr. BRADBURY.: It is a singular thing that you have to buy potatoes for the Clandeboye reservation, in a district where they raise hundreds of thousands of bushels, one of the finest potato districts in the world.


Frank Oliver: There are 150 bushels wanted at the Clandeboye agency. I cannot say why it is wanted. But it does not follow that because some Indians may have seed the others have it.
Live stock, $6,960.


William James Roche: Is this expenditure purely for the purpose of improving the stock?


Frank Oliver: For the purpose of keeping up the stock and increasing it, with an eye to improving it. They are killing stock from year to year, as permitted by the agent. The stock is increasing and improving.


Richard Stuart Lake: I notice that very large prices are paid for stock which is sent to some of the reservations. I notice one person at Guelph has apparently been shipping up bulls to some of the reservations at an average price of $115. Quite a number of cattle have been sent up by him. I am sure that in the old settlements nearer these reservations, bulls of equally good quality could be got at much lower prices. In fact I notice that many of the reservations are supplied by the local associations. For instance the Alberta Stock Association appears to supply a number at $60 and $70 a piece. The Manitoba Stock Association appears to have supplied some at about the same price. That, I think, is about the price at which good bulls could be got in that country. In the district where I live it has been difficult to dispose of thoroughbred stock. Even yet there is good stock to be got at a much lower price than $115 at which a good deal off the demand appears to have been supplied.


Frank Oliver: I believe in years past there have been some purchases of stock from Mr. McRae at Guelph. I believe he is one of the few breeders of Galloways in the country and it was thought well to experiment with a breed of cattle, that, being supposed to be particularly hardy, would be more likely to do well than other breeds under the possibly not high-class attention that they would receive at the hands of the Indians. But during the past two years the large majority of the thoroughbred horned stock that has been purchased has been bought at the stock sales at Calgary, Regina and Brandon, each province being
supplied from the purchases at its own stock sale. We have found that very satisfactory and propose to continue it, provided the sales are continued successfully.


William James Roche: What is the name of the agent at Portage la Prairie?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Logan.


William James Roche: I noticed his name figuring in the Auditor General's Report for the sale of a great quantity of stock to the Department of Indian Affairs.


Frank Oliver: In last year's report ?


William James Roche: Yes, in the report ending 31st March, 1908.


Frank Oliver: What page?


William James Roche: I noticed one item, page I-20, in connection with the Birtle agency. It says:	'Logan, R., agent, Birtle.' He
is not the agent at Birtle. Mr. Wheatley is the agent. I have seen Mr. Logan's name in several places as disposing of stock in the Portage la Prairie agency to the amount of several hundred dollars.


Frank Oliver: I do not understand the item, but I will inquire into the meaning of it as it appears in the Auditor General's Report, and let my hon. friend have whatever explanation there is in regard to it.


Charles Alexander Magrath: There is a feature in connection with two reserves, with which my hon. friend is familiar, which has been brought to his attention before and which I propose to refer to now briefly. One is the Blood Indian agency and the other the Blackfeet Indian agency. I presume this is about as favourable an opportunity to speak of it as I cannot see any item particularly dealing with agencies. The situation of the Blood agency is this:	They
hold about 345,000 acres of land. They had a population, according to the last report, of 1,178, and the excess of births over deaths in the last year amounts to 10. But by going back to 1897 I find that the population on that reserve was 1,300, or a decrease of practically a little over a hundred. So that these reserves are becoming depopulated as time goes on. Looking over the returns I find that they have 3,100 horses and 5,500 head of horned stock, or about 8,600 head altogether. We know that that amount of stock will not require more than 150,000 acres and these Indians have 345,000 acres. The Indians are disappearing and I believe, and I am satisfied the hon. gentleman himself believes, that there should be something done with a certain amount of the surplus land so that the Indians who are there to-day may get some benefit from it. There happens to be, as the hon. gentleman knows, a settlement on the south boundary of that reserve which cannot extend in any direction except on to the reserve, and I be-

lieve the hon. gentleman has made some efforts to get the Indians to release a certain proportion of their land. I hold probably the same view as the minister that the trust is sacred to the people of Canada. The Indians are our wards and we have to protect them, but I take the position that if they cannot use the land for the reserve and if the disposal of the land would result in the development of the country, the land should be disposed of. I also realize that the Indian has to be controlled. I cannot say that I endorse the methods which are employed in the handling of the Indians. I do not know much about the subject, but I think it is a mistake to try to educate the head and allow the Indian to continue as a savage in the treatment of his stomach. I think that if we worked the other way we would make more of the Indian. However, I do not suppose the minister wants to listen to my theories on that subject. Does the hon. gentleman believe with me that it is in the interest of the settler, and that it is in the interest of the Indian as well, that the land should be sold? 1 understand the hon. gentleman to say that we cannot sell Indian reserves. That is quite true, but the Indian, is an individual that can be controlled. He can be advised as long as he has confidence in the people that he is dealing with. That has been my experience with the Indian. I do not hold to the opinion that a good Indian is a dead Indian. I want to ask the hon. gentleman if he has not made efforts to get these Indians to dispose of some of that land? I understand that he has, but if he would, when he is in the country, endeavour to make it possible himself to see the Indians, I believe that it could be accomplished. There is no use sending a boy on a man's errand to the Indian. He likes to get hold of the chief muck-a-muck of the country when he is going to do anything. I think that if the hon. gentleman would take that into consideration and if, when he is in that section of the country, he would let us know we would endeavour to meet the Indians and see whether that cannot be accomplished. The hon. gentleman goes as far as I do in believing that a portion of this land might be sold and that the settlers should have the opportunity of buying it and paying a proper price for it. I do not believe in taking advantage of the Indian, and I do not believe anybody in Canada wishes to do so. But there is the settler starving for land; there is the Indian without the means of occupying more than probably one-third of his land; he is dying off, and as time goes on, unless we can get the Indian to sell some of his land, he will disappear without having received any benefit from his property and it will revert to the government. I would like to hear Mr. MAGRATH.
what the hon. gentleman has to say with regard to this proposition. As far as the expenditure is concerned I have nothing to say.


Frank Oliver: As the hon. gentleman has said, I am fairly familiar with the conditions connected with the Blood and Black-feet reserves, the two largest reserves in the west, the best situated and of the very greatest value. I am entirely at one with the opinion expressed by my hon. friend that it would be very much in the interest of the Indians that a very considerable portion of these reserves should be disposed of, the money made available to the Indian and the land made available to the man who would use it. That is the policy I have been carrying forward to the best of my ability and in pursuance of which we have secured a number of very substantial surrenders of Indian lands, to the benefit, I think, of the Indians who surrendered, and, of course, to the benefit of the settlers and of the country by reason of the land having become productive, whereas it would have remained unproductive had it remained in the hands of the Indians. We have undertaken to secure surrenders of part of the Blood reserve, and we have had some discussion in regard to the surrender of part of the Blackfoot reserve. We have not been successful in securing the surrender^ I do not know that it is a thing that will be advanced very much by bein?r spoken about.


Charles Alexander Magrath: The Indians do not read ' Hansard.'


Frank Oliver: The Indians are apt to hear what is said and to translate into it their own ideas and possibly to get exaggerated views of their own situation. So far we have found them indisposed to sell at any price; I may say they have practically refused to consider the matter. That of course is the result of the domination of certain individual men of influence in the band and any one who knows the persistence of the Indian character will believe that so long as these men remain it is going to be a very difficult matter to get their assent. An instance of this persistence on the part of the Indians is the case of timber on the Dokis reserve which was sold last year. Here was a reserve small in area, of absolutely no value to the Indians, and yet they held it for years and years while its value was in danger of being absolutely destroyed by the timber being burnt. But although they lived in poverty while they were rich in the value of that reserve, yet for years they would not listen to a proposition of surrender. At long last we secured the surrender of the timber and this little band of 83 Indians at once came into wealth to the amount of over $800,000 in cash, and

not less than $1,000,000 in dues when the timber is cut and sold. When you consider that perhaps all the Dokis band were really not thoroughbred Indians whereas the Bloods and the Blackfeet are not only thoroughbreds but have the reputation of being the most intractable Indians on the North American continent, except perhaps the Apaches of New Mexico, you will see the difficulty. I do not want to say that the task is impossible, but I do want to impress upon the House that it is one of very extraordinary difficulty. I quite appreciate the compliment my hon. friend (Mr. Magrath) has paid me in suggesting that if I should undertake the work I might be successful. I beg to assure him that if I had as much faith in myself as he has attributed to me I would lose no time in undertaking to secure the surrender. Unfortunately I have not that confidence in my own persuasive ability and I am afraid I might fail as others have failed. However, it is the policy of the department as at present administered to secure the surrender of Indian lands when these lands are of no present value to the Indians and when they would be of present value in adding to the productive wealth of the country. That is our policy; we have carried it forward very successfully during the last few years. It is our policy in regard to the Bloods and the Black Feet as it is in regard to all the reserves in the country.


Charles Alexander Magrath: Has the minister any objection to state whom he sent to try and get the Indians to release. I think Mr. Markle was one and possibly the Rev. John MacDougall went also.


Frank Oliver: Mr. MacDougall was negotiating with the Sarsees, but I do not think be went to the Blackfeet or Bloods. Mr. Markle had been trying to deal with the _ Blackfeet with whom he -was well acquainted because he lived for a number of years on the reserve, and I think Mr. James Wilson the former agent on the Blood reserve attempted to get a surrender in the first instance but that attempt was made before I came to the department. Mr. Markle has made one or two attempts but without success.


Charles Alexander Magrath: I believe it would be in the interests of the people of that locality if the Minister of the Interior as head of the Indian Department would go to these Indians himself. I have more faith in the hon. gentleman in that respect than he apparently has in himself, and I believe that the Indian wants to be approached by the head man. I find that the income of these Indians according to the last annual report amounts to about $31,000 which on the basis of five to a family gives them $130 a year each, and the expenditure in connection with these Indians has amounted to
something like $37,000, which is very considerable. In connection with the Black-foot reserve I draw the attention of the minister to the fact that there is an irrigation enterprise being extended in the country adjoining that reserve. There is only enough water for 15 per cent of the semiarid country either in Canada or in the United States, and if you could make an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway to apply water to that land now is the time to do it as it is perhaps the only opportunity you will ever have. If the water is applied to other lands now it will preclude the possibility of the portion of that reserve along the railway ever receiving water.


John Herron: I wish to ask the minister if anything has been done with regard to the surrender of a portion of the Peigan
agency. I believe the department has had applications for the surrender of a portion of that reserve.


Frank Oliver: I do not recall that there have been any efforts with regard to the Peigan agency, at all events they have not been so persistent as with regard to the Bloods and the Blackfeet, if there is a prospect of succeeding we are prepared to undertake it.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE.: Have the Indians of Swan Lake surrendered all their land?


Frank Oliver: No, only about half of it. They had two reserves and have surrendered the whole of their reserve in the Battleford district. The surrendered lands are in process of being surveyed and offered for sale.
Supplies for destitute Indians, $121,105.


William James Roche: The minister stated that the medical men in Nova Scotia attending schools and hospitals and reserves were paid when called upon or when any Indians waited upon them for medical attendance at their offices. Does this hold good in regard to this vote as well? For example, there is a hospital in the Birtle agency. It is attended by a Dr. Wright of Russell. I notice in the Auditor General's Report, page 1-20, that he drew $973 last year for attending at that hospital. Was he paid only for the trips he made when sent for or does he make periodical trips whether sent for or not, in addition to prescribing at his office?


Frank Oliver: I understand he is paid to make a monthly visit whether called upon or not and has to answer calls as well.


William James Roche: Does he get anything in addition to his mileage and regular attendance fees for operations?


Frank Oliver: I understand that this covers all services.


William James Roche: Can the minister say how far Dr. Wright lives from the hospital?


Frank Oliver: I am not able to say. Perhaps my hon. friend could.


William James Roche: Dr. Wright has to travel fully twenty-five miles to this reserve, and there is located in the town of Rossburn, within three or four miles of the hospital, another physician, Dr. Evans, of equally good professional qualifications, and it would be much less expensive for _ the department to employ the physician living nearer the hospital, besides being so convenient in case of emergency. If the two physicians lived in the same town, I would not object. Dr. Wright, who was the Liberal candidate in the last election, is able to hold down the job, which is looked upon by his fellow-practitioners as something of a snap; but I do not think it is at all fair to the other medical man in this district.


Frank Oliver: I am not familiar with the circumstances. Russell is an old town and very likely Dr. Wright was practising there and was given this work before there was a Rossburn, and it is quite possible that Dr. Wright is giving satisfaction and that there is a desire not to make a change.


William James Roche: Since the facts have been laid before the minister I presume he will take them into his consideration and try to save the department as much as possible. I would also refer to another old friend of the minister, Dr. Lafferty of Calgary. The Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Aylesworth) when filling the position of Postmaster General, laid down the principle that no postmaster whose salary was sufficient to maintain him should engage in other business in competition with the business men of the town. This principle was applied in Cannington when it was only suspected that a postmaster had an interest in a grocery business. Why is that principle not applicable to medical men? Dr. Lafferty is practising in Calgary and the other medical men are handicapped by reason of the subsidy he gets from the government for attendance on industrial schools and Indians. He draws the following amounts for attendance of this kind: Indian school at Calgary, $345; Calgary Industrial School, $200 ; Sarcee Agency, $350 ; Blackfoot Agency, $654; Stoney Reserve, $443; or altogether, by way of salary and expenses from this department last year he received $2,000 in round numbers, in addition to his general practice in Calgary. Again I would not object if he was upon all fours with competing medical men in Calgary. It is well known that he is the director of ceremonies in Liberal matters in Calgary. But other medical men are located nearer the Mr. ROCHE.
reserves than he is. The Blackfoot agency is forty or fifty, perhaps seventy, miles from Calgary, and still Dr. Lafferty is brought all that distance to attend the reserves. Dr. Lafferty is taken all the wav out there and is running up expenses in connection with his trips, whereas there are two medical men right at Gleichen where the agency is located. I do not think it right to import a medical man from Calgary to attend the Indians there whose services I do not suppose would be valued any more highly than those of the two medical men who reside at Gleichen and who, by reason of their convenience as well as professional attainments, would give as good satisfaction, to say the least, as Dr. Lafferty. Stoney reserve is some twenty-five miles from Calgary, and for his services and expenses at this reserve Dr. Lafferty drew $443. The Minister of Agriculture laid it down the other day as a principle that in cases of quarantine, where there was a local veterinary surgeon in the locality affected, he should be employed to look after the quarantine. And in one instance in which it was pointed out that there was a local veterinary in the locality, he said he was not aware of that fact or he would not have sent a man there, and he would see that that was not done again. If that principle is applicable in the Agricultural Department, it should be equally applicable in the Department of the Interior. I would ask the minister if he does not think it is rather unfair to give Dr. Lafferty $2,000 practically of a subsidy for attending these four reserves when there are medical men right in the immediate neighbourhood of each ?


Frank Oliver: The case of Dr. Lafferty is much the same as I suggested was probably the case with Dr. Wright. At the time Dr. Lafferty was appointed, I do not think there was any question that he was as conveniently situated as any other medical man for carrying on the work. True, since then other medical men have come in who are no doubt more conveniently situated, but the House will appreciate the undesirability of displacing a man who is giving satisfaction and has been long employed.


George Taylor: You will be saving money for the country.


Frank Oliver: I think that the employment of a medical man is on a somewhat different footing from the employment of other officers, and that in the case of the Indians, the employment of a man who has their confidence, who has had long experience among them and who takes great interest in his work is very desirable. I think it would be a mistake to let such a man go for the difference in cost. A? to the impropriety of Dr. Lafferty practising in

Calgary and at the same time attending the Indian reserve, I can only say that if he is able under the circumstances to retain any practice in Calgary it must be because of his very superior qualifications.


William James Roche: How often has he to visit those reserves?


Frank Oliver: He has to make a regular visit once a month to each, and has to go on call as well, so that his Indian work must take up a good deal of his time.


William James Roche: I notice in the Auditor General's Report an item for the expenses of a trip of Dr. Lafferty to Ottawa, $160.85. What business had he of a public nature that brought him to Ottawa and entitled him to charge up his expenses against the department?


Frank Oliver: There was a medical convention held here with regard to tuberculosis, and as Dr. Lafferty has had special opportunity of studying that disease in the course of his practice on the Indian reserves, it was thought in the public interests that he should be given the opportunity of placing his information at the disposal of the convention.


William James Roche: Is this an annual event?


Frank Oliver: I cannot say, but if it be an annual event I should certainly think it proper that the convention should have the advantage of Dr. Lafferty's experience in dealing with these diseases.


William James Roche: In looking over the reports of this convention, I fail to see any important part taken by Dr. Lafferty in laying his views on this most important subject, before the convention.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister is laying down a very extraordinary principle. We have many medical experts in this country, whose experience and knowledge would be as valuable at that convention as Dr. Lafferty's. If it be in the public interest to pay Dr. Lafferty's expenses to that convention, should not the government pay the expenses of these other men as well?


Frank Oliver: I would think that Dr. Lafferty's experience in dealing with tuberculosis among the Indians would be of considerable va.lue to the convention, and I am bound to suppose also that the experience of other men interested in the same subject would be of considerable value to Dr. Lafferty in his work among the Indians. Even if you say that the information he had acquired was of no value to the convention, I still hold that the information to be there gathered would be of value to Dr. Lafferty and consequently to the Indian Department, and worth all it cost.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Turn the convention into a school for the purpose of improving medical men.


Frank Oliver: I take it that was the purpose of the convention.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If that argument be sound, would it not be equally fair and just to pay other medical men, say those coming from the maritime provinces, where their professional experience brought them much more knowledge of that kind probably than Dr. Lafferty would have? Would it not be fairer that they should be paid than he, because they gave their professional knowledge, not only to the world at large, but to Dr. Lafferty to make use of when he goes back to attend the Indians? It seems to me unfair to pay one and not the other.


Frank Oliver: The difference is this: Dr. Lafferty is working amongst the Indians for the Indian Department, and the Indian Department through the Indians gets the benefit of any additional information he secures, whereas the Indian Department has no interest whatever in the amount of information the other gentlemen get. I do not think there is any person in all Canada who has the same opportunities that Dr. Lafferty has for studying this particular trouble, or who may be presumed to have the opportunity of using to advantage any information that he might acquire; having in charge three Indian reserves, one of them having, if not the largest, the second largest Indian population in the country, and the others having a very considerable population, and with the decreased Indian population which my hon. friend from Medicine Hat has spoken of, everybody must realize that there are very remarkable and melancholy opportunities for studying that particular disease under the notice of Dr. Lafferty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There may be, and there may be other localities where there are five or ten deaths from consumption to every one there is in that country; and supnose a very eminent medical man comes from one of those localities and gives information which Dr. Lafferty would use for the benefit of the Indians and the Indian Department, would it not be reasonable for the country to pay him as to pay for Dr. Lafferty? If it is pretended that Dr. Lafferty is an expert in that line above dozens of other medical men in the country, or has any greater opportunities for studying the disease or treating patients afflicted with it, that may pass with men outside of the profession, but it will not pass with men in the profession who are doing perhaps twice or three times the practice of Dr. Lafferty in the same line.
Triennial clothing, $4,645; increase, $1,969.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the cause of this increase? If the Indians are dying off so rapidly, how is it you want more clothing?

101&


Frank Oliver: This clothing is supplied every three years, and a larger number happened to come in for their clothing this year than the number that came last year.
Indian schools, $276,541; decrease, $9,051.


William James Roche: If my memory serves me correctly, Dr. Bryce made a rather uncomplimentary report-in fact, rather severely reflecting upon the sanitary arrangements of many of these schools which he inspected a year or so ago. Can the minister give us any information as to whether steps have been taken during the past year to remedy the condition of affairs complained of by Dr. Bryce?


Frank Oliver: It is true Dr. Bryce did make a comprehensive report in regard to the health conditions of the Indian schools, and there is no doubt that it was not altogether complimentary. These schools were built many years ago before very much attention was given to this particular trouble, which affects the Indians more especially, and which requires, above all other diseases, the best housing conditions. The buildings were constructed without due regard to what we have so fully in mind today, and of course as time went by they were getting older and less suitable, and it was with a feeling of that fact that we had Dr. Bryce make an examination and report. Since the report has been made there has been some substantial improvement in the conditions, but to put the buildings on a proper footing would require the larger number of them to be absolutely renewed. Therefore, the improvement of the conditions up to the point it is desired to reach is necessarily comparatively slow. Besides, only part of the buildings were constructed by the Indian Department or by the government. The capital expenditure upon a very considerable number of the schools was made by the different missionary societies, but latterly the department has been from time to time assisting these societies to improve the sanitary conditions of the buildings and generally to bring them up to the modern standard.


Charles Alexander Magrath: Who are the inspectors of Indian schools? Is there more than one?


Frank Oliver: The inspectors of agencies inspect the schools.
Indian surveys, $15,000; increase, $4,000.


William James Roche: Where have the surveys been principally carried out during the past year?


Frank Oliver: That part of the survey work was done on St. Peter's reserve, on the Red river below Winnipeg. We secured a surrender of the reserve, and it was necessary to make a new survey of it in order to provide for selling the land. Swan Lake, on which we secured a partial surrender, Mr. SPROULE.
was surveyed, and I believe the reserve Sturgeon Lake.


William James Roche: What is the necessity for the $4,000 increase?


Frank Oliver: Because we have secured several surrenders of reservations, and require to subdivide them in order to sell.


Charles Alexander Magrath: Are those surveys performed by contract or day work?


Frank Oliver: The surveys are done by two salaried surveyors of the department, Mr. Reid and Mr. McLean.
Grist and sawmill, $637.


Richard Stuart Lake: Is the department thinking of giving up the maintenance of these grist and sawmills?


Frank Oliver: Where the conditions have changed, or where settlement has changed the conditions so that it is not necessary to keep up saw or grist mills, I suppose we would dispense with them; but where conditions remain as they were when the mill was established, we intend to maintain it.


Mr SPROULE.: How many grist and saw mills have you running now?


Frank Oliver: About six. They are nort-able mills.
General expenses, $222,324.


William James Roche: I would like to ask the minister if there is anything in the press report of a week or so ago about Mr. J. J. McKenna, Assistant Commissioner, being about to receive another appointment, and to be succeeded by Mr. S. Jackson, the exmember for Selkirk.


Frank Oliver: In regard to that, I may say that for some time it has seemed to the department that the necessity for the Commissioner's office in Winnipeg, at least the necessity which existed in former years, had practically come to an end, and that the staff now employed in the commissioner's office might be employed with some advantage in other parts of the department's work. It is proposed that the office be dispensed with, abolished, and to employ the members of the staff there in other branches of the department.


William James Roche: Without making any addition?


Frank Oliver: There will be no office to make additions to.


William James Roche: On page 1-30 of the Auditor General's Report there is an item:
Ben Rush, Melfort: amount charged on account of increase in cost of material between the time of submitting and awarding contract, $200.50.
This is part of an item of $2,839. It struck me as peculiar that the contractor should be allowed $230 for increase in the

cost of the material after the contract was submitted. That, I presume, means the time between the date when the tenders were asked for and received, and the time the contract was signed. The effect was to raise the amountof the tender by $200. It seems a somewhat unique principle to act upon. I wonder whether, if the material had diminished in value in the meantime, contractor would have consented to diminish his contract by that much.


Frank Oliver: I scarcely think the hon. gentleman can consider the latter suggestion seriously. If he wishes, I will have an inquiry made, and bring the facts to the House.


William James Roche: And bring the ether tenders too.


George Henry Bradbury: I cannot find an item in the Auditor General's Report regarding a boat used on Lake Winnipeg. I know the Indian Department have a boat there, but I do not find an account in this book. [DOT]


Frank Oliver: When an agents is making his annuity payments he must travel by boat, and my information is that he hires a boat when he requires to make payments. We have not a boat of our own.


George Henry Bradbury: That is not the boat I refer to. There was a fisherman's boat employed by the month. The boat was employed for three months, and after the time expired it was engaged again for two months until after the election was over. It was used for election purposes. My opponent used that boat on Lake Winnipeg for two weeks.


Frank Oliver: Of course the use of that boat would not appear in the Auditor Gen-ral s Report for this year, it would appear in the next one. The boat was em Moved in connection with the surrender of the St Peter's reserve. Part of the terms of the surrender was that the Indians should be a* 6t>
*n ,removin8 from the old reserve at St. Peter's to the new reserve at Fisher river, and the boat was employed for some months in that work going back and forward between the two reserves.


George Henry Bradbury: I desire to call the attention of the minister to some facts regarding the surrender of St. Peter's reserve. There is great dissatisfaction over the manner in which that surrender was conducted. There are men who take a great deal of credit for having secured the surrender of the reserve. I am led to understand that the manner in which the surrender was secured was very questionable.
I know the nature of the Indian and I heard the hon. gentleman explain how hard it is to deal with him. When they called the chiefs and council together to secure their consent they refused, and there is a report current in Selkirk since the surrender
was made that the surrender of the chief and council was purchased and that these men were bought to sell the band. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction existing to-day amongst the band with the manner in which the surrender was made. I might call to the attention of the minister the manner in which the land was handled. I heard the minister say a few minutes ago that the Indian had no right to sell land. I have always understood that the Indian, being a ward of the country had no power to convey, but this surrender was unique inasmuch as it made the Indian a land owner. The department gave the Indian sixteen acres of land to dispose of as he saw lit. The consequence was that this land immediately dropped into the hands of a few speculators and about 25,000 acres of land which should have netted the department or Indian from $10 to $15 per acre has been purchased by a few friends of the government because none but a political friend of the agent at Selkirk dare take the chance of purchasing this land because there was no guarantee, when he had negotiated with the Indian for this 16 acres of land, that he would be able to obtain a title. He was at the mercy of the Indian agent. Consequently, the land fell into the hands of friends of the government. The Indians have disposed of the land and have received not more than $3.50 to $4 per acre. There is a great deal of discontent, not only among the Indians but among the people of Selkirk who feel that there was a deal in this transaction. Of course 1 do not suppose that the minister will believe that possible. I am not blaming the minister for it. I am trying to draw his attention to it. But, a deal of this kind did take place at Selkirk. I have a petition from the O jib ways who occupied part of the reserve asking that they be granted another reserve. They are not satisfied with the reserve which you have given them at Fisher river.
With regard to the boat that the minister spoke of, it was in commission for, I think five or six months ol the year, and in addition to that another steamer was engaged for taking the Indians out. While they had the 'Fisherman,' the 'Mikado' was commissioned to take out Indians and supplies. The 'Fisherman' was in active commission by my opponent Mr. Jackson travelling up and down the lake; he was using it for canvassing purposes. I did not object to it, but I do not think that a boat paid for by the people should be used for political purposes.
With regard to the officials of the department, I understand that there was an order issued by the government that no official was supposed to take part in a political campaign. There is not a government appointee in Selkirk that was not actively engaged in the campaign from the Indian

agent down. This practice is deplorable and something ought to be done to stop it.


Frank Oliver: The hour is getting late but I might make a statement in regard to this particuar reserve that may be of_ some interest to the committee. But, principally I want to draw the attention of the_ committee to the difficulties which appertain to the position which I at present happen to hold. A few minutes ago the hon. member representing Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath) voiced the opinion, and voiced it well, that the department should use every endeavour to secure the surrender of a certain reserve or parts of two certain reserves. Now my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury), in whose district the department was successful in securing a surrender last year, complains strongly of the method and of the results of the surrender. The surrender was negotiated by a gentleman who is now the chief justice of Manitoba. He was appointed as the sole commissioner to secure the surrender because of his prominence, of his standing and of his legal ability. It was thoroughly understood that the^ question was a most difficult one, that it was most complicated, that the surrender could not be secured by any ordinary negotiations, and therefore a gentleman in whose legal ability, as well as in whose character, I presume, everybody had confidence, was selected. He carried the surrender through with a great deal of difficulty, after many hitches and after it appeared that it had become impossible. However, he did secure the surrender and it certainly contained many peculiar terms. I do not suppose there ever was a surrender like it before, and I fervently hope that there will never be one like it again. One of the terms was that the Indians should be given title to some part of the reserve. It was a remarkable condition but I place it before the House as an evidence of how far the department is willing to go in order to meet the Indians and in order that the land may be turned to beneficial use. The Indian would only sign the surrender of the reserve as a whole when he got this particular piece of land as his very own to do with it as he pleased, and when he got it as his very own we had no control over him as an Indian Department or as a government. He cculd dispose of it as he pleased and the buyer who wanted that land had to buy it from him under such terms as might be agreed upon and took such chances as any man must take who deals with another man who has not been used to ordinary legal responsibilities in business transactions.


William James Roche: Was it upon Mr. Howell's recommendation the department granted these 16 acres?


Frank Oliver: It was not on his recommendation; it was in accordance with one Mr. BRADBURY.
of the principal terms in the treaty which he made with the Indians, and the term upon which the whole surrender hinged. I regret it should be said that improper means were used to secure this surrender. I cannot imagine that the gentleman who is now Chief Justice Howell would be a party to any improper proceedings.


George Henry Bradbury: I did not say so and would not like to have it inferred that I did.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend did not say it. I say that the surrender was on the responsibility of the present Chief Justice Howell, and I do not think that lie would be a party to anything of that kind. The Indian Department certainly had no knowledge of it because the matter was placed absolutely in Mr. Howell's hands. I regret that the Indians concerned are not satisfied, because in my humble estimation, the Indians got a great deal the best end of the bargain, and if I had been transacting the business in person they certainly would not have got as good terms as Mr. Howell gave them. However, if my hon. friend knows the Indians as well as I do he will know that the fact that an Indian is not satisfied with his bargain is not evidence that he did not get the best of it. I had hoped all along that in securing this surrender it was for the benefit of the Indians themselves, and for the benefit of that part of the country. I believe the Indians will be better off on the new reserve and that the town of Selkirk and the surrounding country will be very greatly benefited by the fact that the surrender was made.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not want it to be inferred for a moment that I intended to cast any reflection on Chief Justice Howell. What I said was that these rumours were circulating around Selkirk and I have it from one of the head men that thev did receive from that commission four or five times more land than the average Indian received. In addition to that, these men were kept constantly in the employment of those who were purchasing this land. I know one man who told me himself that he paid the chief and council $2 per day for attending at his office and helping to negotiate sales. I have a letter here from Chief Prince's son which bears out what I state, namely, that the chief and council received some inducement for agreeing to make that settlement ; an inducement which the band knew nothing at all about but which they have since found out and of course they are very much dissatisfied. I think I know the Indian pretty well, as I have lived among them for 27 years. I know there is a great deal in what the minister has said, that once an Indian parts with something he wants to get it back again. The point I was trying to impress

upon the committee was that there could have been a much better settlement made with the Indians in the interest of the Indian himself and in the interest of Selkirk. The surrender itself was a good one, it was what the people of Selkirk wanted, but I do not think the interests of Selkirk were taken into account in the details of that surrender. We had three or four hundred Indians living along the river, some of them fairly well off and every one of them a wage earner and they spent their money in the town of Selkirk. Now this land has passed into the hands of large owners, the capitalists have got it, and they are holding it for a very high price so that the land will lie idle along that river for many years to come, and when it is settled there will not likely be one settler where there were 100 before. While I am on my feet, I want to say that the minister knows we have on Lake' Winnipeg a _ number of Galicians settled on land which is utterly unfit for any human beings to make a living out of. To my mind the wise policy of the government would have been when they secured that surrender to sell the reserve on 20 year or 30 year payments to these Galicians. These people are developing into an excellent class of settlers and they would have been a credit to that part of the country, and a great help to the town of Selkirk. I regret very much that the surrender was put through in the manner in which it was, and I think if the minister had to put it through again it would not go through on the same lines.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Fisher, House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.

Monday, February 15, 1909.