1910-04-14

Mr. LENNOX :: 1.	What sums of money were paid to counsel, and to whom, separately, for professional services in connection with the Hodgins investigation?
2.	Who were paid as witnesses and what sum was paid to each?
3.	What was the total cost, including stenographers, printing, &c., of the Hodgins investigation?


Hon.   G@: I have the following memo, from the Accountant:
1908.	Witnesses.
June 2 Major A. E. Hodgins	$ 156 50
"19	"	"	
255 00"	19	J. A. Heaman	
178	00"	19	J. Armstrong	
100	75"	19	W.	E. Mann	
125	60"	24 Messrs. C. S. Blue and H.Banks (stenographers).. ..	114 34July	16 C.	Le B. Miles	
61	20"	16	M.	C. Macfarlane	
103	05"	16	Geo. Scott	
103	85**	16	E. R. Blackwell	
103	05"	16	G. L. Mattice	
96	85"	24	A. P. Miller	
100	85"	24	E. R. Milledge	
101	45"	24	G. H. Sumstrum	
114	20"	24	W. W. Bell	
100	85
Counsel.
Aug. 6 Charles Murphy, K.C... . 1,938 00 "	6	F. E. Hodgins	 1,562	85

The following shows the cost of printing to April 5, 1910 :
Evidence No. 1	$ 171 85
"	2	
193	51"	3	! !	
67 10"	4	
70	24"	5	
45	39"	6	
96	72"	7	
144	50
70G5

Evidence No 8	$ 77 89
"	9	 11 54
Synopsis	 5 22
Journals, English	 792 44

The French journals are not completed. They should cost about the same as the English.



SOURIS LIFE-SAVING STATION.

Mr. FRASER :: 1.	Upon whose land is the government lifesaving station house at Souris, P.E.I., built?
2.	Did the government have the title of this site searched?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to pay for the land occupied by this station house?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: .
1.	The land belongs to Mr. J. J. Hughes.
2.	No.
3.	The department has the option of paying $1.00 a year rental or purchasing.



MAGDALEN ISLAND STEAMSHIP SERVICE.

Mr. STANFIELD :: 1.	Were tenders called for steamship service between Pietou and Magdalen Islands in 1909?
2.	If so, who were the tenderers and amount of each tender?
3.	Has the subsidy been increased since? If so, how much and what was the reason for such increase?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	First series of tenders:
Holliday Bros., Quebec	$12,500


Magdalen Island S.S.: Co., Halifax, N.S	 20,000
Wm. McLure, Pietou, N.S	15,000
Bouchard Bros., Quebec	14,500
Second series :


Magdalen Island S.S.: Co., Halifax, N.S	10,000


Magdalen Island S.S.: Co., Halifax, N.S	15,000
Wm. McLure, Pietou, N.S	12,000
Bouchard Bros., Quebec	10,995
3.	Not as yet.



ST. PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.

Mr. BRADBURY :: Has there been any offer or negotiations from Mr. Wm. Frank, of Winnipeg, or from any of the other men who secured the Indian allotment of St. Peter's Indian Reserve, to return said lands to the government on receipt of money paid for lands by th6m? If so, does the government intend accepting the offer and secure a return of these lands?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER.: The department is not aware of such offer or negotiations.



MAIL CONTRACTS IN FRONTENAC COUNTY.

Mr. EDWARDS :: 1.	What was the contract price for carrying the mail on the Kingston and Perth road stage route for the years 1908 and 1909?
2.	What was the revenue last year from Latimer post office?
3.	Has the Post Office Department received
petitions asking for a daily mail service for Latimer post office?	_
4.	Has the inspector of the Kingtson district reported against a daily service for Latimer? If so, for what reasons?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	1908. $450 per annum.
1909.	$350 per annum, dating from the 1st July.
2.	$71.25 per annum.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes, in February, 1909, the Inspector reported that the amount of postal business was not sufficient to warrant the additional expenditure.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

[Stage Direction]
An Act to amend the CIVIL SERVICE.
Mr. A. M. BEAUPARLANT (St, Hya-cinthe).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are proceeded with, I wish to give some explanations in order to dispel a misinterpretation prevailing in the public at large about the Bill I have laid before the House. Some newspapers have made remarks on that Bill concerning the seizure of the salary of the officers of parliament which I have introduced a short while ago. I would not have pointed out those remarks if some people had not persisted to make them repeatedly, falling into the same mistake and if that question did not concern to an enormous extent all the persons employed in the civil service I am bound therefore to set right that misrepresentation and to explain as matters stand.
I am not to take the time of the House to explain what are those mistakes. I will go straight to the point and say that this Bill is intended to make liable to seizure the salary of the officers of the federal government without distinction nor exception, from the ministers-if some of them have any debts-judges and members, to the last of the messengers. There is no distinction made. The intention is to reach the employees which have debts unpaid. The obligation of paying one's debts is a strict duty laid before everybody. I do not see why a federal servant should be more than any other citizen dispensed with that obligation.
The fairness require that everybody should be on an equal footing and it is an act of liberalism to replace a privilege by the parity of condition.

However, many of the public officers do not need the interference of the legislator to do honour to their engagements, but the number of those who neglect this duty is enough notable to justify the Bill.'
Some newspapers assert that not only a part, but the whole salary shall be liable to seizure. That is another mistake. A part only shall be liable to seizure. Indeed to seize the. whole salary of a heavily entangled servant should not be human. For such a man, having no more means of living, it should be better to resign. The intention of the Bill is to make only one part of the salary liable to seizure which is determined by the law of each province.
It is only the carrying our of the principle of seizability of salaries as regards civil servants as well as other debtors.
As I am pointing out the mistakes made by certain newspapers, allow me to recall the fact that the day after that on which I made my remarks on the Naval Bill, some newspapers credited me with having made statements which I never made. No remarks of mine, either in the French or English version of the ' Hansard,' whether in the revised or unrevised edition, justify them in stating that I ever made such assertions. In fact, these errors have not been made in bad faith and may be explained by the fact that the press reporters are not always near enough to hear distinctly the utterances of the member who is speaking.
One third and last point fn regard to which a plea of good faith can not be maintained is the following: A certain Quebec newspaper has a good deal to say about me. It is true that two or three years ago, I had the misfortune, which it considers as a very evil deed on my part, to have it condemned for libel.


An hon. MEMBER.: Name it.


Aimé Majorique Beauparlant: I shall name it at once. That newspaper was repeatedly condemned in the same year for slander; twenty-one times, I believe-it will be seen that, as far as insulting is concerned, it has reached its majority-however, its name is 1 L'Evenement,' which shows that its name itself is a falsehood. I shall not take up the time of the House in dealing with that newspaper, nor with any other papers whose idea of politics seems to be that it merely consists in the cutlivation of public mud throwing. Fortunately such papers are not numerous. This journal,
' L'Evenement ' not onlv does not give fair play to the members sitting on the government side of the House, _ but it does not even act fairlv towards its own political friends. What is to be regretted is that this newspaper is not well known by all its Mr. BEAUPARLANT.
readers. If it was, it would do no harm. It would be as harmless as the one who controls it.



FENIAN RAID VETERANS.

Mr. THOBURN.: I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the following article which appears in the Almonte
' Times ':



[Stage Direction]
Montreal ' Witness '-Mr. F. Hamilton, who has just returned from Ottawa, stated last night to a largely attended meeting of the Fenian Raid Veterans, held in the Armoury, Craig street, that the Minister of Militia has expressed himself as willing to recognize the services of those who did active duty in the Fenian raids. Captain Joseph H. Patterson, accompanied by Mr. Hamilton, had interviewed Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Hon. Frank Oliver, Minister of the Interior, both of whom expressed their willingness to discuss the question on its merits, and said it would be brought before the House during the present session.
I am continually being asked by veterans if action is to be taken this year or not and I would like to be in a position to say yes or no.
Wilfrid Laurier: Capt, Patterson was evidently under a misapprehension when he stated as much as he did. He was right in stating that the government have the matter under advisement but the government did not say they would bring the question up during the present session.



RELEASE OF TWO PRISONERS.

Mr. BOYCE.: I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to an article in the issue of the Canadian Municipal Journal and Telephone Building News for April, as follows :
WHERE WAS THE PULL?
Two months ago Judge Winchester, Toronto, sentenced L. J. Skellie and J. G. King to one year's imprisonment in the Central Prison for distributing obscene literature and post cards. The judge spoke vefy severely in giving the sentence, saying that if the youth of this country was to grow up in the right way, scoundrels who acted as the prisoners had done must be severely punished. Both prisoners pleaded guilty, and two stenographers gave evidence that they have refused to work for the prisoners, so filthy was the business.
Needless to say, the sentence of Judge Winchester gave great satisfaction.
On the 4th of March, these two prisoners, after serving only two months-or one-sixth -of their sentence, were released with an absolutely free pardon by the order of the Minister of Justice .
The question that is now being asked is,
' where is the pull ?'

Mr. Robinette, K.C., defended the prisoners -though it seems strange that an eminent lawyer should stoop to such a dirty case- and he, it is understood, is a personal friend of the minister.
Some of the few fearless members of the House of Commons should ask the minister on what grounds he set aside the decision of such a careful judge as Judge Winchester; and how he considers it consistent with the justice, for the department to let loose two such offenders.
Such an action is not only a blot on the administration of justice-for if the minister is right, Judge Winchester is wrong-but it is a tremendous discouragement to those who are charged with catching criminals; the police. What on earth is the good of a line police force, such as that of Toronto, when their successful efforts to trace, arrest and secure the conviction of a public nuisance is set aside by the head of the Department of Justice?
The whole thing is a pure farce. If the Minister of Justice condoned dealing in obscene literature, let him secure an amendment to the Criminal Code, so that the public and the police may know that it is legal in Canada.


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH.: I have a fairly accurate memory of the circumstances of the case to which the hon. gentleman has referred but the matter is one of considerable importance and I would therefore prefer, before making any statement in regard to it, to refer again to the file in order that I may not, by possibility, make any slip in stating the facts of the case. But I want to take this earliest possible opportunity to deny and to repudiate with whatever indignation and resentment I am capable of, the absurd and utterly untrue insinuation of the article in question that the gentleman named in the article, Mr. Robinette of Toronto, or any other man has the slightest influence or pull, as it is called, with the Department of Justice in connection with applications of this character. My memory is, and 1 think I am not mistaken, that in this particular case Mr. Robinette did not figure in any way whatever. I am certain that the solicitor who represented the principal defendant, a man named Skill, not Skelly, was of the opposite political party to Mr. Robinette and so far as I can now recall Mr. Robinette had no connection whatever with either of the prisoners nor did his name appear in any way in connection with the application. Certainly he never saw me in connection with the matter and if he had anything to do with it it was limited to the writing of a letter or something of that character. I stated when I rose I should prefer not going into the circumstances in the case upon this occasion, but with the permission of the House I would like to take an early opportunity to do so, because although I deprecate, as on previous occasions I have repeatedly deprecated, a public discussion
in this House or elsewhere of the action which, in the exercise of his prerogative and under the advice of his minister, His Excellency takes in matters of this character, this particular case is one, especially in view of the canards which the hon. gentleman has brought to the attention of the House, in which I think it would be well that the facts should be known to the public.


Mr. SPROULE.: It would be well that the minister should bring down any letters or papers in connection with it. 1 know he has sometimes refused to bring them down.



PERSONAL EXPLANATION-MR. BLAIN

Mr. BLAIN.: I wish to call attention to an article from the Ottawa ' Free Press ' referring to myself personally. It is as follows :



TORY WHIP ON PATRONAGE LIST.

[Stage Direction]
Richard Blain, the Conservative member for Peel, and one of the whips for Ontario, was exposed in the House of Commons wes-terday as being on a patronage list of the government. It was all his own doing, at that. If he had kept quiet nobody would have known anything about his private dealings with the government, but the fatal blow came at about 5 o'clock.
The House was in Committee of Supply on a Post Office Department vote of more than $500,000.
Mr. Blain, as usual, began harping on the question of patronage, and incidently asked the Postmaster General if he had a patronage list in his department.
' So far as I am aware,' replied Mr. Le-mieux, ' there is no patronage list in my department. But I remember the member for Peel coming to me once and asking for a post office in some part of his county. And I think I granted him his request and built the post office for him.'
' Then,' cried Hon. Wm. Pugsley, Minister of Public Works, in evident glee, ' the member for Peel is on the patronage list.'
' Oh, yes,' answered Mr. Lemieux, ' he's on the patronage list.'
Mr. Blain could not withdraw, and had to admit that he was guilty of accepting patronage from the other side of the House.
I think I may say this is the first time I ever directed the attention of the House to any newspaper criticism of myself, but I thought this was so villainous that 1 would not allow it to pass.
Mr. EMMERSON.: Don't you mean humorous instead of villainous?


Richard Blain: I see the humorous side of it, too. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I never at any time, either publicly or privately, made a request to the government for a post office to be erected in the county of Peel, I make that statement without fear of contradiction. I did ask on two occasions that a post office be opened at a very small village, not a village, but at the junc-

tion of two cross roads in my county, and I am frank when I say that my hon. friend the Postmaster General acceded to my request, and two post offices were opened up, But never a dollar was expended in the county of Peel by any department of this government since I have had the honour of representing it in the way of public works. I say this because it is unfair that I should be charged with asking the government for a post office that I know they would not build.



CLASSIFICATION OF OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask a question. Several days ago the Prime Minister laid on the table of this House a report on a new classification of the officers of this House, signed by the learned gentleman who sits at the head of the table. I have looked carefully over the Votes and Proceedings, and I find that the report has not been adopted or discussed by this House. I would like to ask the Prime Minister when the motion to adopt will be moved, or if the report will be discussed, so that we may have an opportunity of offering some observations.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know much about the report myself; I will have to inquire and let my hon. friend know.



THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 103) to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.-Mr. Pugsley.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Fielding: ' That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply,' and the proposed amendment of Mr. Bradbury thereto.
['My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) will give, I believe, a general explanation of his estimates, and then the House will take them up in detail.']
Frank Oliver: I am sure the House will not expect me-at this stage of the session, would not wish me,-to make a detailed criticism of the four hours' speech made by my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) at the close of the last sitting of the House. My hon. friend is entitled to the credit, if credit it be, of having made the longest speech of the session. May I add my humble appreciation by saying that I believe never, since this chamber was erected, has there been delivered in its walls such a persistent and sustained tirade of unfounded assertion, of unwarranted insinuation; a tirade that, in its gratuitous inexactitude, is an offience against the privilege of parliament and an insult to its intelligence.


Richard Blain: 


George Henry Bradbury: I rise to a question of order. I hold that no hon. gentleman, especially a man occupying the position the hon. gentleman does on the treasury benches, has any right to make such a charge against me. He accuses me of using language that is insulting to the intelligence of this House, which I deny, and the hon. gentleman ought to withdraw- it.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I do not think there is a point of order there.


Frank Oliver: I said that in my estimation the gratuitous inexactitudes of my hon. friend's address constituted an offence against the privilege of parliament and an insult to the intelligence of the House, in which my hon. Mend excelled even himself. I have no means of expressing a greater appreciation of the speech and the peculiar talents to which my hon. friend owes the larger measure of his fame. _ The question that he has dealt with is not in itself of such importance at to warrant me in claiming the attention of the House at any great length. But there is involved m this question certain matters of public policy that are worthy of the fullest and most careful consideration of the House. The first question of policy relates to the surrender of Indian reservations. I may remind the House that my hon. friend, in the whole of his four hours' speech, in dealing with that very point, never found that the government was right once. It would strike almost any one that in such a lengthy and complicated transaction as the surrender of the St. Peter's reserve, it is peculiar that even this government should not be right once, at any rate. But my hon. friend proved to his own satisfaction that it was not right at any stage of the proceedings. To begin at the beginning, he was strong on the impropriety of attempting to secure a surrender of Indian lands unless the Indians ' themselves asked for that surrender.


George Henry Bradbury: Would my hon. friend allow me to correct him? He has misunderstood me, either deliberately or unwittingly. I did not say that the land should only be surrendered on the request of the Indians themselves, but I charged the minister with making that surrender without receiving any request from any person in or around Selkirk, excepting Mr. S. J. Jackson, a former member of this House. I did not say that the Indians had asked for it.


Frank Oliver: Well, in view of the line of argument pursued by my hon. friend in his address, I do not think it is possible that he and I, in view of his present statement, are going to take the same meaning out of the words he has used. If I may be permitted to place my case belore the House as the hon. member was permitted yester-

day, may I be permitted to do it with the explanation that I do so as I understood the purport of the remarks of the hon. gentleman? What I want to say is. that the government of this country is charged with the responsibility of adminstering its affairs in the best interests of the people, and the responsibility for that administration does not rest upon the individual here or there who may be most intimately concerned. In administering Indian affairs, whenever and wherever the Indians are holding land which they are not using for their own benefit, or which they are occupying to their own detriment, because of its geographical or other situation, and wherever such land may be turned into money which would be of more benefit to the Indians than the land, then it is the policy of the government to secure the surrender of the land by the Indians and the exchange of that land into money that would be for the benefit of the Indians, and to change the condition of that land from lying dormant and useless under the ownership of the Indians to that of productive and tax-paying land under the ownership of white people who are willing to pay a fair market price for it. I hope I have succeeded in making the policy of the government on that question clear. I want to impress upon the House that in so far as I understood the hon. gentleman, and in so far as I understood him to be supported by his friends on the other side of the House, they were against that policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Frank Oliver: So that we have a clear cut issue on that point. I wish to make a clear and concise statement. I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the House than is absolutely necessary; there-' fore, I may be pardoned for not always responding to suggestions from the other side of the House, but in this case I make an exception? My hon. friend and his friends protest against the interpretation that I place upon his remarks.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: Now, Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to this, that if the honest and successful attempt by the government to carry out that policy in a most noted instance receives only such consideration at the hands of parliament as my hon. friend has offered the government in regard to the surrender of this St. Peter's reserve, I would ask you, can it be expected that- such a policy will be carried forward and made effective. Surely, such a tirade as my hon. friend saw fit to spread upon the pages of Hansard yesterday would cause a" self-resnecting government to hesitate in taking action in such matters, even if in their estimation it would be for the benefit of the Indians and the people interested. 1 have no hesitation in saying in connection with St. Peter's reserve that was exactly and absolutely what was done.
Now, with regard to the merits of the surrender itself; if I forget any of the large number of insinuations that my hon. friend made, the very large number of assertions that he made in condemnation of this transaction, I will be delighted if he should be good enough to remind me of them while I am speaking, because, as I followed his remarks, I could not see that one of them was founded on fact. Let me take first what I think he will admit he said and repeated, that the project of the surrender was planned deliberately, premeditatedly by the government for the purpose of unduly advantaging party friends of the government.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: I think my hon. friend said that.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not think there is any doubt about that.


Frank Oliver: There is no doubt he said it. Perhaps the facts, although I know mv hon. friend has very little regard for facts


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.
Mr. OLIVER

perhaps the facts-


George Henry Bradbury: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you against language such as this.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think it is going a little too far.


Frank Oliver: Instead of saying that my lion. friend had no regard for facts, I corrected myself by saying he had very little regard for facts.


George Henry Bradbury: I have treated the hon. gentleman fairly, and I expect similar treatment from him.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think that the expression, ' no regard for facts ' is not parliamentary.


Mr OLIVER.: We need not interrupt upon these little points of difference; what we want to do is to get at the facts. Now
f.Vip fnp.t.s are-
Mr. BRADBURY Be fair and it will be all right.


Mr OLIVER.: The facts in regard to this case are all on the table of the House. My hon friend has asked for returns from time to time and every return that he has asked for has been laid on the table. If there is anything more that ne wants he should ask for it. Tf his case, as substantiated by the documents before the House, is not complete it is his fault and not ours. But the case is complete, he has asked for

everything and he has received it. Now, the documents on the table of the House show that the surrender of the lands of the Indians was the result and grew out of the attempt that was being made to secure the rights of whites and half-breeds who held lands individually within the area occupied by the reserve. There was no premeditation in regard to the surrender of the reserve.
May I give an explanation to the House as to the condition of this reserve so as to make it absolutely clear that what I state is the fact and so that the House may draw its own conclusions as to what my hon. friend stated. This reserve is situated on the Red river. The Red river, as the House knows, empties into Lake Winnipeg and the valley of the Red river, being very low, at the entrance of the river into Lake Winnipeg, there is a considerable area of what may be called debatable ground, land which, under certain circumstances, is dry and under other circumstances, wet. Sometimes it is an impassable marsh, and sometimes it is good hay land.
The northern limit of settlement along the valley of the Red river occurs within the limits of this reserve. Let me emphasize the point. The northern limit of settlement in {he valley of the Red river occurs within the limits of the St Peter's Indian reserve From the international boundary to this northern boundary of settlement, along both sides of the river when the transfer from the Hudson Bay Company to Canada occurred, the territory was occupied by settlers to the end of the arable country at the edge of the marsh which forms the southern end of Lake Winnipeg, and one of the first acts ol the Canadian government on taking possession of the country was to cause a survey to these lands in what was called the river settlement extending from the 49th parallel to Lake Winnipeg, and what afterwards became the St. Peter's Indian reserve was surveyed into river lots just the same as all the rest of the valley This was done because it was in the occupation of a settled population whose rights were exactly the same as of all the rest of the people who were settled ahum the Red river. After this river lot survey had been made, a certain portion of the people who occupied these river lots in what is now the reserve, decided that they would, as it is called there, enter the treaty. There was a very large admixture of Indian blood and as also of white blood in the people settled in that area, tout, the Indian blood I presume predominated, and as a result those occupants of these river lots, for one reason or another, whether owing to the predominance of Indian blood or for what other reason I am not here to


Frank Oliver: say, decided that they would enter the treaty and that this portion of the Red river valley surveyed into river settlements should be declared an Indian reserve. But although some of the people who were settled in that area wished to toe classed as Indians there were certain others who did not, who refused to surrender their citizenship and insisted on retaining their individual property as individuals and this they were allowed to do, while the so-called Indians, although they got the benefit of treaty payments, although they had the benefit of the presence of an agent, although in law they , were only Indians, still continued to occupy the same river lots, they and their families, until the recent arrangement was made with them. So that so far from these people toeing Indians in the ordinary sense of the word, or this being an Indian reserve in the ordinary sense of the word, the statement that this was the fact, if my hon. friend made it, was, as I said, an inexactitude. After these people had decided to be classed as Indians, being entitled under the Indian treaty to a larger area of land than was included in the river lots which they occupied, there was set apart as an Indian reserve for their benefit a certain surrounding area of land, making in all some 50,000 acres roughly speaking, which was placed under the jurisdiction of the Indian Department with an agent at Selkirk. This Indian reserve adjoined, either actually or approximately, the- town of Selkirk which had (been founded there, I think I am correct in saying, before this land was set apart as an Indian reserve.


George Henry Bradbury: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the town of Selkirk takes in the first 15 lots of St. Peter's reserve?


Frank Oliver: Then my hon. friend and I are in agreement as to the proximity of the town and the reserve. I am glad to find a point of agreement in the remarks I made, although I was not able to find any such point in the remarks of my hon. friend. This area was set apart as an Indian reserve, with all the advantages and all the disabilities of such a reserve, and I need not point out to those members who are familiar with the conditions existing where there is an Indian reserve, near a town that that condition is not good either for the town of Selkirk, or for the Indians occupying the reserve. I need not go into details, every member who knows anything about the circumstances connected with an Indian reserve in proximity to a town knows the facts to be as I have stated. What made the matter worse, however, was that these river lots which had not become part of the Indian reserve, but which were occupied by people, either whites or halfbreeds, who claimed the rights of citizenship, w'ere included in that area, alternat-

ing with the lots that belonged to ordinary Indians, and the result was that there was no possibility of enforcing the liquor law in regard to Indians in that area, because intervening lots that belonged to white people or half-hreeds, were not under the Indian Act, and the fact that they were there, intermingled with the lots which belonged to the Indians, made it a simple, actual, physical impossibility to preserve law and order in all particulars upon that reserve, as it can be preserved on a reserve where there is no such intermingling of private property and band property. Whatever may be the claims of the Indians upon the consideration of the government, I suppose everybody will admit that the people who are not Indians are entitled to consideration, to claim the attention of the government, and so from time to time, from the setting apart of the reserve, complaint was made by citizens who held property within the reserve, who asked title to their property. I shall not take time to explain the conditions that surround the granting of title in such cases, I will only say that there were such difficulties, and that they occurred not in all cases, but in a very considerable number of the cases. From time to time the effort was made by the government of Canada, by commissioners sent there, to secure a settlement as between the Indian band and the individual holders of land within the limits of what is called the St. Peter's reserve. Up to a certain date some 5,000 acres of these private properties had been patented; but there still remained a number of claims that had not been settled, where private owners occupy river lots in the reserve claimed that they were entitled to patents, and the Indian band objected to the patents being granted. It was to secure a settlement of that condition of affairs, to secure the citizens of Canada who own the land within the limits of that reserve their legal title to their own land, that the commission in the person of Chief Justice Howell was appointed. Chief Justice Howell was asked to act as commissioner for the purpose of adjusting the claims of the white and halfbreed occupants of river lots in the St. Peter's reserve.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: May I ask if that was the only object for which he was appointed ?


Frank Oliver: The only object of his appointment is set out in the papers before the House. It is not necessary to question me on these points-the papers are here for hon. members to see for themselves. Do not ask me; do not depend on what I say; go to the record. I am not asking that my word be taken on any of these matters. I am simply placing before the House in brief form the information contained in the papers before the House, brought here at
the request of the hon. member for Selkirk, and in regard to which he should have fully informed himself if he did not.


George Henry Bradbury: I think I did.


Frank Oliver: Then my hon. friend should have informed the House.


George Henry Bradbury: I think I informed the House.


Frank Oliver: He took plenty of time. There was no lack of time, whatever other lack there might have been. Chief Justice Howell was given a commission to adjust these claims of the white or half-breed settlers, and when he went there and undertook to get that adjustment, he found the condition to be such as to make it almost impossible for him to secure a settlement that would be mutually satisfactory to the settlers and the Indians, and he then suggested, or the reasons that I have given, that there should be a surrender of the Indian reserve secured.


George Henry Bradbury: Did the suggestion come from Chief Justice Howell to secure that surrender, or from the Minister or the Department ?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend can answer the question for himself. Chief Justice Howell's instructions from the department are on the table. I ask the hon. gentleman, did the suggestion come from the department or from the Chief Justice ?


George Henry Bradbury: I ask you; you are the head of the department.


Frank Oliver: I have stated what I have stated.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Will the hon. gentleman deny that in the body of these instructions there is the suggestion that Chief Justice Howell obtain a surrender from the Indians ?


Frank Oliver: Does my hon. friend say there is. ?


Arthur Meighen: I so read the papers, that the suggestion was embodied in the instructions from the Deptartment of the Interior.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend states that there was a suggestion contained in the body of the instructions. There was not an instruction to secure the surrender.


William Sora Middlebro: May I point out to the minister this clause from the instructions :
It may also become necessary to consider the advisability and necessity of obtaining from the members of the band a surrender of all ungranted lands in the reserve.


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friends can translate those words into an instruction, they are welcome to their interpretation. I

said that Chief Justice Howell was instructed to secure the rights of the citizens who held lands in the reserve. I gave it to be understood by the House that he had not been instructed to secure the surrender. The House has heard the instructions, and is the judge as to whether I stated what was correct or not. There is no hope, Mr. Speaker, of my hon. friend and myself understanding these things alike. I said at the beginning, in order to reach a conclusion let us have the records on the table of the House, and then we will know whether facts are as stated or not. In this case the fact was stated. It was challenged and the fact was proven from the records.
I say that when Chief Justice Howell, acting on his instructions, visited the reserve and attempted to make an arrangement that would protect the rights of the individual owners of property there, he found that it would be necessary, in order to reach a conclusion satisfactory to all parties, to secure the surrender from the Indians. Now, the charge of my hon. friend from Selkirk was that the department had deliberately planned to secure that surrender for the purpose of improperly benefiting their party friends. I have stated the facts as to how the negotiations came to be entered into, and I ask the House, is there a shadow ot foundation for the suggestion my hon. friend has made ? Does he suggest to this House that the hon. the Chief Justice of Manitoba, who was aum-orized to settle certain conflicting claims on the reserve, went on and negotiated the terms of a surrender upon the instructions of this government and with the view of advantaging the party friends of this government there? That is what my hon. friend insinuated in his address of last night. The facts that I have stated justify every word that I have used in regard to my hon. friend and his remarks. Here was a condition of affairs that required adjustment, required to be dealt with, in the interest of the town of Selkirk, in the interest of the Indians and in the interest of the private holders of land in the reserve; and Chief Justice Howell, having been appointed commissioner to settle one side of the question, went on and made negotiations that resulted in the settlement of the whole question. So far, therefore, as that insinuation of my hon. friend is concerned, I leave it to the House to judge what foundation he has for it.
In regard to granting land to the individual Indians in their own right, let me give the reason why that was done. These Indians were occupants of these lands in severalty at the time of the transfer. They did not become Indians in law until some years after the transfer. It is held, and the documents on the table will show how and to what extent it is held, that as residents of Manitoba in occupation of lands at that Mr. OLIVER.
time, they might reasonably claim consideration under the settlement that was made with the settlers of Manitoba of that date, in addition to their claims as Indians. That is to say, the claims which they held as Indians would not necessarily debar them from asserting claims for lands as original settlers in the province of Manitoba; and in order that that question might be settled, they were dealt with on the basis of giving out of this reserve 16 acres to each person in each family on condition that they signed away any rights they might have as original settlers in the province of Manitoba. It was for the purpose of quieting their title to land as original settlers that this arrangement was made with them, and it is so set out in the papers on the table and in the receipts for patents signed by all of those who received patents.
As t'o the providence or improvidence of this particular feature of the transaction,
I submit that in dealing with men who were individual owners of lands in 1871 and who were in individual occupation of that land down to the time of the negotiations for the surrender, it was not on the face of it an improvident transaction to place these men in individual ownership of that amount of land as a settlement of their title, not as Indians, but as white men or half-breeds. They had their rights as Indians, they were entitled to other rights as half-breeds, and it does not seem unreasonable that they should say: So far as our rights as Indians are concerned, the department shall administer them, but so far as our rights as half-breeds are concerned, we will administer them ourselves. That was_ the position of affairs. It was a condition of the surrender without which the surrender could not have been secured. It was considered by the commissioner who negotiated the surrender to be sound law and sound policy, and it was embodied in the terms of the surrender. Now, it is a fact that when the terms of the surrender were first drawn, a provision was made that the handling by the Indians of this land individually granted would be by the Department of Indian Affairs; but the people who were to sign the surrender, the people who owned the land, either as Indians or halfbreeds, were the people to say what terms were to be contained in the deed of surrender before they would sign it, and they said they would not sign it with that condition in it, and it had to be struck out.
As to the disposition that these people made of their lands after they had been granted to them, in a large number of cases they sold the land to whomsoever would buy at the price they were willing to take. I do not know what my hon friend or the other critics of the government in the House would have in regard to such a matter; but any assertion or insinuation that there was any pressure or

any possibility of pressure on the part of the government or any body connected with the government to compel one of these men to sell any portion of this land to any certain person or to take any certain price, is absolutely without foundation, as the records show.


George Henry Bradbury: Putting up a straw man to knock him down. Nobody said that.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend says he did not say that. There was a great deal that my hon. friend did not say that he insinuated. I am not insinuating; I am saying, and I hope my hon. friend understands what I have said. The land that was apportioned to these people they were permitted to select themselves; they selected it where it suited them best, some in the river lots and some in the surrounding section survey; they sold to whomsoever they pleased and took whatever prices they saw fit to take. My hon. friend read to the House certain prices at which certain of these lands "were sold to individual buyers, and he claimed that there had been impropriety in dealing with the transaction. Without unduly delaying the House, I will read a very short list that will, I think demonstrate that these men sold at whatever they saw fit to whomsoever they saw fit. Last night my hon. friend laid a great deal of stress on certain affidavits of one William Asham, and the House was informed that this William Asham was a man of exceptional abilities and attainments-a John Norquay, in fact. Anybody who knows anything of the history of Manitoba knows that John Norquay was the premier of that province for many years, and filled the office with a great deal of credit to himself, his province, and the race of people to which he belonged; so that when my hon. friend states to the House that William Asham is a man of the calibre of John Norquay, he assured the House that he is a man who knows how to handle his own business; and the records show that William Asham, who was a participant m these grants, sold 40 acres of land to G. H. Funk at $4 an acre. Now, if William Asham is the man my hon. friend said he was, and I take for granted that he is-I know nothing about him personally-and he sold his land to G. H. Funk for $4 an acre, I prfesume he took that price because that was its value. From what my hon. friend said here last night, I presume Mr. Asham had all the assistance he could give him, all the advice he could give him that would prevent him selling his land at anything less than its value, and the record shows that William Asham sold a certain amount of the land he owned at $4 an acre. I submit this to the House as evidence that the land was sold at the absolute discretion of 225	-
the Indian and at a price that was satisfactory to him, and when my hon. friend suggests to the House that because in a large number of cases this land was sold at $4 an acre, it was sold below its value, I say he has no evidence whatever in support of such a contention. But it was not all sold at $4 an acre. I find that Henry Cook sold 25 acres to George H. Funk for $430, or at the rate of $17.50 an acre.


George Henry Bradbury: Who is Funk?


Frank Oliver: I do not know anything about him except his name. He seems-to have bought a good deal of this land and to have paid for it, and so far as I know, to 'be on good terms with the owners who sold him the land. I take it for granted, however, that he is not a friend of my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury).
I find that John James Flett sold 48 acres to the Northwest Land Company for $728, or $16.20 an acre. I find that Baptiste Leclair sold 32 acres to Leonard for $540 at the rate of $16.50 an acre.


William Sora Middlebro: From what is my hon. friend reading?


Frank Oliver: From Mr. Williams' report. Chief William Prince, the chief of the band who was said to have been bribed and 'bought and to have" generally disgraced himself, and who at the same time might be supposed to be fairly sharp at making a bargain, sold 147-25 acres for $7.25 an acre. Alfred Spence sold two lots of land, one of 20 acres to the Northwest Land Company for $240, at the rate of $12 an acre, and one of 12 acres to F. Heap for $32, at the rate of $2.70 an acre.
It would seem to me that the figures I have read are evidence that the Indians to whom this land was given exercised their free right to dispose of it if they pleased, as they pleased, to whom they pleased, and at whatever price they pleased to take.
In view of the assertions that had been made, in view of the rumours that had come to me in regard to improprieties in the transactions between the people who had bought t'he lands and the Indians, contrary again to what my hon. friend suggested last night, as I told the House I contemplated doing, I sent the law clerk of the department to Selkirk with instructions to see the Indians who had sold land, and to find out whether they had been paid or not, the rumour being that they had not been paid, and that they were 'being cheated out of the money they were entitled to receive at the price at which they had sold. I told the House at the time the matter was in question that the government did not pretend to control the Indian in the price at which he sold the land or the person to whom he sold, that was a part of his right under the surrender; but as to whether he was getting the payment for it



or not, that was a matter that we might very well consider, and 1 proposed to consider it, although 1 did not hold the department responsible lor the price at which the Indian sold or the person to whom he sold. The law clerk was sent there, and 1 have placed on the table his report from which I read. In that report will he found the name of every Indian to whom land was given and the disposition that was made of the land. My hon. friend had that report in his hand, he knew that the lands which I have mentioned had been sold at the prices I have given, hut he saw fit last night in discussing this matter before the House to create the impression that the land had been sold at a price of some $4 an acre, without exceptions such as this, exceptions which absolutely prove that the Indian had the free right of sale and that he' got value for what he had to sell.
In regard to the taking of the surrender, my hon. friend was strong on the point that there had not been a sufficient advertisement or notice that the surrender was about to be asked. It is a fact which the records will bear out that the negotiations in regard to the surrender were in progress for the greater part of a year at intervals. Every Indian on the reserve knew that these negotiations were in progress. There are no people in the world who gather news quite as quickly as the Indians, especially news of direct interest to themselves, and there is no manner of doubt that they all knew and discussed the terms that were proposed, and that when Mr. Pedley went there on the completion of the negotiations, or the presumed completion of the negotiations by Chief Justice Howell, to take the formal surrender, the Indians thoroughly knew what proposition was being put before them and had their minds made up as to whether they would agree to it or not. My hon. friend said last night that only one day's notice was given for the gathering of the band. My information in that regard, as I am sorry to say in so many other matters, is quite different, it is that some three or four day's notice was given, and that there was an attendance of the band at the surrender of 205, out of a possible 289. It seems to me that the proportion of voting members of the band in attendance is ample evidence that ample notice was given, and that those who were not there were absent not because they did not know but because they did not care to be there. It is true that the surrender was carried by onlv a small majority: the vote, I am informed, was 107 to 98. But it *was a majority of thp voting members of the band who were present there, and the Indian Act recognizes that a surrender agreed to bv a majority of the voting members of thp band is a lerral surrender.


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. gentleman savs that the Indian Act provides that a Mr. OLIVER.
majority present at the meeting may dispose of the Indian reserve. Now, if that is a proper interpretation of the Act, and if there were only 20 Indians present out of 289, would the hon. gentleman say that the majority of these 20 had a right to vote away the inherited rights of all the other Indians?


Frank Oliver: As I understand the law, they would have the legal right, but I would not consider they had the equitable right. But 1 do think that under the law, when there are 205 out of 289 present, they have not only the legal but the equitable right to decide, especially when it is a matter which had been under discussion for so long a time. As to the actual moment of taking the vote, as to what was done then, or how it was done, my hon. friend admits there was a fair division between the people who were voting for and against, those who stood on one side and those who stood on the other side. His suggestion that they did not know what they were voting on, is not worthy even of himself or of the Indians. They knew perfectly well. After a matter has been under discussion by them for a whole year, and they are asked to come and vote on a question, I say it is an insult even to an Indian to suggest that he does not know what he is doing or why he is doing it. From my acquaintance of the Indians, I think there are no people in the world who are quicker to appreciate their own side of the question than the Indians. So I say that the surrender was secured in a legal form, after due notice, in presence of a sufficient number of members of the band to constitute an equitable as well as a legal right. I say it would not be proper, it would not be sound policy in any sense, if, when it was absolutely in the interest of the public, absolutelv in the interest of the Indians, and absolutely in the interest of the surrounding settlements and of the settler within the limits of the reserve, that this settlement should not take place, that it should not be accepted and acceded to when a clear majority of those present voted for it.


Mr. HUGHES.: If I heard the hon. member for Selkirk aright, he pointed out that the call was not to those who were for selling the lands and those who wepe against it, but the call was for those who wanted the $90 to take one side, and those who didn't want it to take the other side. I know the minister has overlooked that.


Frank Oliver: No, I have not overlooked it. I can only say that I did not wish to be discourteous to the hon. gentleman, and question the validity of the statement he put forward. I am merely generalizing in order to save his feelings, and I may be pardoned, I presume, for again generalizing, and again saying that after a question

such as that had been under discussion for so long a time, when it was a question of such importance, it did not matter what was said in regard to the vote. Those Indians knew what the vote was for, and they voted for or against with full knowledge of what they were doing, and why they were doing it. I do not wish to bring in personal matters, but my hon. friend, followed by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) has seen fit to mention the name of Mr. Semmons.


Samuel Hughes: I never heard of him.


Frank Oliver: If he had listened to the speech of the hon. member for Selkirk last night he would have heard of him, because it was Mr. Semmons who was said to have made this announcement. Now, the suggestion is that Mr. Semmons was a party to an impropriety in which the interest of the Indians was not preserved. Now, I may go, perhaps, so far as to say who Mr. Semmons is. I happen to know Mr. Semmons ever since 1873, when he was a Methodist minister in the -city of Winnipeg, and at that time he was considered to be a young man of very considerable promise in the ministry, and ever since then he has devoted his life to the advancement and the betterment of the Indians.


An hon. MEMBER.: He is in the employ of your department?


Frank Oliver: He is at the present time, but only since a comparatively recent period. During the greater part of Mr. Semmons' life since I knew him in Winnipeg in 1873, his life and everything he has have been at the service of the Indians, for their benefit and improvement ever since. No man who knows Mr. Semmons will deny that, and no one who knows him will deny that Mr. Semmons can be now any less a Christian gentleman and an honest man than he was when he was a Methodist minister.
Now, in regard to the auction sale. My hon. friend suggests that there had not been sufficient advertising done to give due notice, and that consequently there was a small sale, and low prices were secured. The records show that the sale was advertised in the Manitoba 'Free Press' at Winnipeg, in the 'Daily Graphic' of Portage la Prairie, in the 'Expositor' of Selkirk, in the Brandon 'Sun,' in the Winnipeg 'Log-burg,' and in the Toronto 'Globe.' The advertisement appeared for six insertions in the Winnipeg 'Free Press,' for three in the 'Daily Graphic' of Portage la Prairie, for three weeks in the 'Expositor' of Selkirk, for six insertions in the Brandon 'Sun,' three weekly insertions in the 'Log-burg' of Winnipeg, and six insertions in the Toronto 'Globe.' I may point out that the 'Logburg' of Winnipeg is printed chiefly for the information of the Icelanders 225}	j
who are settled on the shores of Lake Winnipeg further north than the mouth of the Red river. So there was unquestionably ample notice by advertisement of the sale and its terms.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Would the minister say of what complexion of politics those papers are?


Frank Oliver: I do not know, but I am under the impression that the 'Expositor' of Selkirk is a Conservative paper. My hon. friend from Selkirk will know that better than I do.


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. gentleman knows that the 'Expositor' is a Liberal paper, for he has had business with it.


Frank Oliver: The point there was that it was a local paper, and the advertisement appeared in the local paper for three weeks. It appeared six times in the Winnipeg ' Free Press ', a paper which is read more than any other paper west of Lake Superior. It appeared in these papers and besides there were 100 handbills distributed at the time of the sale. The sale was held in the town of Selkirk, absolutely adjacent to the reserve and within twenty-five miles of the city of Winnipeg, the greatest centre of real estate speculation in the known world to-day. Yet, my hon. friend says that it was not sufficiently advertised.


George Henry Bradbury: Would the hon. gentleman tell us at what time of the year the sale took place?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) told the House last night. The record is before the House. It took place on the 16th December.


George Henry Bradbury: In the middle of a Manitoba winter?


Frank Oliver: Sure. It took place in the month of December for one reason, and that was that in the month of December, when the early crop returns for the season are in, the people have more money than they have at other times in the year.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE.: I would like to ask the minister why he sells school lands in June and July, then?


Frank Oliver: I would be glad if I might be permitted to continue my remarks without interruption, but seeing that my hon. friend (Mr. Sharpe) has asked the question, I feel bound to answer it. I would ask hon. members, unless they wish to elucidate some point which is actually under discussion, not to interrupt, because I would like to get through without undue delay. The reason that we advertise school lands in June and July, or in the summer time, is because the school lands are scattered far and wide in the purely agricultural country, and it is neces-

sary for people to travel to see wliat the land is like, whereas, in this case, the land was situated within twenty miles of Winnipeg, it was land that anybody, who was at all likely to purchase, that is the people of Winnipeg and Selkirk, had no doubt made themselves familiar with in due course, knowing that it was going to be sold. Unquestionably they had made themselves familiar with it during the summer. It was desirable that the sale should take place and nobody was prevented from buying by holding it on the 16th December. The date of the sale of school lands has no bearing on the question whatever. This sale took place at a time when money would be plentiful if ever it was plentiful at any time in Manitoba. However, as my hon. friend has mentioned the subject of school lands, I might perhaps give him some information with regard to the sale of school lands which may have some bearing on this question. My hon. friend has suggested that the course taken with regard to school lands would be a proper course regarding these Indian lands, the supposition being that, thereby and therefore, the price would be better either because of better advertising or of holding the sale at a better season, or because there is no suggestion of attempting to benefit friends of the government in connection with the sale of school lands.


William Henry Sharpe: I think the minister is trying to twist this thing. What I want to know is why the minister sold this land in the winter time when he sells school lands in the summer time?


Frank Oliver: I told the hon. gentleman. Now, I am going to tell him something else if he will permit me. I might remind the House that the terms of the sale of school lands are considerably more favourable to the buyer, as they do not call for such a large amount of money, than were the terms of sale of these Indian lands.


William Sora Middlebro: Why?


Frank Oliver: I do not know that I need answer that question-need I? I will not use a word because it would be unparliamentary, but any person can ask a question that even Solomon could not answer.


William Sora Middlebro: I asked the question in no spirit at all of antagonism to the minister, but it just occurred to me that the minister might explain to the House why there should be a difference in giving easier terms in the disposal of school lands than in the disposal of this land, if the result would be to get higher prices.


Frank Oliver: The reason was, if the hon. gentleman does really insist upon it, is because in the case of the Indians we de-Mr. OLIVER.
sired to realize at an earlier date for the sake of the Indians than in the case of the school lands which are sold chiefly and largely as agricultural lands in the hope of inducing settlement upon them. We had to close out this transaction, and therefore by giving a reasonable time we thought we were doing what was best in the interests of the country. In regard to the school lands it may not be out of place to inform my hon. friend that we held several school land sales on June 10, 1909, the lands being situated largely in townships 12, 13, 14 and 15, ranges 6 and 7, east of the 1st meridian; that is to say in the Selkirk area of Manitoba, east of the Red river, and in a northerly and easterly part of the province. We find that ten quarter-sections sold at $5 an acre. With the favourable terms that are accorded school lands, under the satisfactory advertising that is given school lands, under all the favourable circumstances that go with the sale of school lands, these school lands in that part of the country only brought $5 an acre. In a number of cases lands that were put up as school lands at an upset price of $5 an acre were not sold at all. This sale was in June, 1909, a year and a half after the sale of the reserve lands, after there had been a season of great prosperity, and at the beginning of a season which turned out to be even more prosperous, and still we were only able to secure the same average price for these lands that we secured for the lands in the Selkirk reserve.


Mr. A. HAGGART.: Where were these lands?


Frank Oliver: I have been trying to tell my hon. friend.


Alexander Haggart: I never heard you.


Frank Oliver: Well, my hon. friend has not been listening; that is all. I might give the numbers for the benefit of my hon. friend. First there was the S.W. I 11-14-6-E.


Alexander Haggart: Where is that?


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend will take a note of the figures I will give him he can look at the map and find out. As I have no map here I cannot show him.


Alexander Haggart: The minister should know something of the geography of the country.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is a resident of Winnipeg; he has lived there a lifetime, he has (been concerned in public and business affairs in that vicinity for many years. If the hon. member does not know where township 14, range 6, east of the firsti meridian, is, I cannot pretend to tell him.' Other cases were: Southwest quarter of 11, 14, 6, $5; northeast quarter 11, 14, 6, $5; northwest quarter 11, 14, 6, $5.50; south-

east quarter 29, 14, 6, $5; east half of southwest quarter 29, 14, 6, $5; northeast quarter 29, 14, 6, $5; east half of northwest quarter 29, 14, 6, $5; southeast quarter 29, 15, 6, $5; southwest quarter 29, 15, 6, $5. They all sold at $5 an acre.


Alexander Haggart: Does the minister compare those lands with the lands of the St. Peter's reserve? Why they are not worth one-tenth of the value.


Frank Oliver: Then my hon. friend has found out suddenly where these lands are? I am glad he has secured the information, but again I am afraid he is not correct. His inexactitude resembles very much that of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury). I am afraid it is a case of the result of proximity, because on the St. Peter's reserve there are some 7,000 acres of land that could not be sold at all at any price, that was not offered for sale because it was not suitable for sale.


Alexander Haggart: Because it is marsh.


George Henry Bradbury: It is the best hay land in the country, and the minister ought to know it.	.


Frank Oliver: Very well. If it is the
best hay land in the country, we have reserved that for the benefit of the hon. member's friends, and we may hope to get still higher prices for it, but I still maintain that my information and my knowledge is that a part of the St. Peter's reserve is of so little value it would not bring a price at all.
I have dealt with the auction sale and the prices received at it. Does my hon. friend suggest that at this auction sale there was not a fair opportunity for every man to buy if he wanted to buy? Does he suggest that friends of the government in any way had any advantage at that sale?


Alexander Haggart: He charges it straight. .


Frank Oliver: He charges it straight. Then I can only repeat what I said in the beginning, that in that case and on the evidence that I have placed before the House-


An hon. MEMBER.: We have not got any, we are waiting for it-


Frank Oliver: The hon. member has given us one of those inexactitudes which are an insult to the intelligence of the House. The idea that at an auction sale of lands said to be valuable, within 25 miles of Winnipeg, whose sale had been under consideration, within the knowledge of the public for over a .year, at a sale which had been advertised in the public press for three weeks, there was anything but a fair, square opportunity for any man with money to invest, is an insult to the intelligence of the House.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Does the minister say that the lands sold by auction were similar to those owned by the Indians?


Frank Oliver: I exhibit a map of the reserve and the surrounding country. That which is in white is the land selected by the Indians, either held or sold by each individual. What is in red is the land sold by auction. My hon. friend can see for himself.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That may be one way of putting it. but in the report of the department for 1909, at page 83, the Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs, says-
The lands apportioned to the Indians comprise the best lands in the reserve, and the remainder sold by auction only low and swampy lands.
When the minister holds up a map, he cannot claim in the face of his deputy's words that the lands sold by auction were anything like the lands disposed of by the Indians.


Frank Oliver: I am afraid it is another case in which my hon. friend and I cannot agree.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Here are the words.


Frank Oliver: And heTe are the facts; my hon. friend can take his choice. In regard to the number of people who bought land, my hon. friend was very emphatic that only so many men bought so much land. As a matter of fact, 24 men bought land at the sale, and I submit that there is no evidence Whatever that any of the 24 could not have bought as much more as he wanted if he had the money to pay for it and was willing to bid on it. The idea that there was any restriction or that any man was at a disadvantage in regard to this auction sale is absolutely without foundation. My hon. friend was very insistent that this land should be preserved for a class of settlers in whom he seems to have been very much interested, the Galicians, that the government should in some way have taken the land from the Indians and given it to the Galicians. That is not the policy of the government. We deal with the Indians as trustees, and we deal with the Galicians as we do with other citizens of the country, we make no difference. But I notice upon the list of sales that were made that, if I am any judge of the names, ,two of my hon. friend's friends who were present at the sale, and bought land there. If two of them were there and could buy land, why could not all the rest have been there and have bought land at the same price? If his suggestion was that in any way the Galicians of that part of the country were excluded from the sale, were not able to get the benefit of it, all I can say is that two of them were there and bought at the same prices as other people, and all

the rest, of them might have been there and taken the same chance and bought at the same price My hon. firend was very insistent that none of these Indians to whom land had been deeded by patent had seen the patents.


George Henry Bradbury: I said that of the patents that were issued, at least 90 per cent of the Indians had never seen their patents.


Frank Oliver: Of course, my hon. friend asked for the return, and it was brought down, showing the receipts that were given by these people for their patents.


George Henry Bradbury: I stated very clearly, and I wish to state now, that those receipts purporting to be signed toy the Indians were not signed by the Indians.


Frank Oliver: That is the point I wanted to get at. I have brought here, not to be made a part of the records of the House, but to be placed upon the table in the custody of the clerk, for the information of any person who chooses to examine them, the original receipts for some 338 patents. The remainder of the patents for which receipts, are not here may be accounted for in several ways. Some of them are still in the department, some are still in the hands of the agent and have not been called for by the Indians, some were issued by the agent before he understood his instructions that he must take a receipt. These receipts all purport to be signed toy. the Indians, and where a mark is made, it is witnessed by another person. My hon. friend has said here within the last five minutes that these Indians never signed these documents. That is to say, my hon. friend has said that there have been 338 forgeries committed. This is a serious charge, and it is not for the Department of the Interior to decide whether it is true or not. The administration of criminal law is in the hands of the governments of the provinces, and when my hon. friend


Mr. SMYTH.: Is this government not the trustee of those Indians?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William Ross Smyth: Was it not your duty to see that they were properly signed.


Frank Oliver: We say that they were properly signed. My hon. friend controverts that.	He has, on his responsibility as a member of this House, declared that 90 per cent of these signatures are forgeries. The administration of the criminal law is in the hands of the provinciai government of Manitoba, who, I understood from what he said, have interested themselves very largely in regard to these lands.


George Henry Bradbury: I made no such statement in this House, that the Manitoba gov Mr. OLIVER.
ernment 'had interfered directly or indirectly. What I said was that the Registrar General, Mr. Macara, at the request of two of the hon. gentleman's friends, justices of the King's Bench, had refused to issue the titles or to allow them to pass through the office-not the government.


Frank Oliver: I will say an officer of the Manitoba government, I presume with the sanction of the Manitoba government. At any rate, this is a question outside of the question of what has been done with these lands. This is a question as regards the administration of criminal law. This is a question as to whether we are to have charges of wholesale forgery bandied across the floor of this House or not, and I ask the hon. member to use his influence with his friends the Manitoba government to make the charge good.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Frank Oliver: When the House rose at one o'clock, I had just made the statement that I had here 338 original receipts given in Teturn for the patents for land in this Indian reserve delivered to Indians, and I commented on the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) that 90 per cent of the signatures were not genuine, but were in fact forgeries. As we were leaving the Chamber at recess, I saw my hon. friend rise to make some remark, and I am repeating what I said in order to give him the opportunity of making any comment he may see fit.


George Henry Bradbury: What I said was that 90 per cent of those receipts were not signed by the Indians knowingly, that the Indians alleged that they never signed receipts for their patents and had never seen their patents, and that consequently, if there are receipts on file in the department, they must be forgeries.


Frank Oliver: I can only repeat what I said before recess, that we believe these signatures to be genuine just as we believe that the patents were delivered in accordance with the terms of these receipts. My hon. friend contradicts that contention. He says that these patents were not delivered, and has repeated that the signatures were forgeries. The only way then to bring this matter to an issue is for my hon. friend, since he has taken the responsibility of making the statement that 90 per cent of the signatures were forgeries, to take such steps, as the representative of the people whose names he alleges were forged, as will have the effect of causing those responsible for the administration of criminal law to bring the law into action.


George Henry Bradbury: If that be my duty as a representative, how much more must it be

the duty of the minister responsible for the care and protection of those Indians who are the wards of the government?


Frank Oliver: If the minister responsible believes what my hon. friend does, that would certainly be his duty, but he does not. That duty does not devolve on the minister who believes that the signatures were genuine, and that the patents were delivered as those receipts purport. That duty instead rests on my hon. friend who says that he believes the signatures were forged and the patents were not delivered. I do not think it is necessary that I should continue the discussion on this point any further. It is up to my hon. friend to make good what he has said.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If an hon. member for this House, upon his responsibility as such,
' makes such a charge before the minister responsible and the House, is it not the duty of the minister to institute, either by commission or otherwise, an inquiry so as to determine whether these allegations are correct or not?


Frank Oliver: I have no desire to be too blunt, but I must say that if I were able to accept the statement of my hon. friend, I would consider that to be my duty. I regret very much, however, to say that I am not able to accept it. According to my humble judgment, it is not warranted, and the only thing that remains to be done is for my hon. friend to take the matter before a tribunal whose business is to try out such allegations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for Selkirk has deliberately made tne charge on his responsibility as a member of this House.


Frank Oliver: If it were the business of the Minister of the Interior to try charges of criminal or dishonest conduct, it would be my business to take action. But that is not the business of the Minister of the Interior. If there were criminality in any branch of the department by any of its officers, I would certainly have it punished, but I am not going to assert that there has been any when there is absolutely no evidence before the House to warrant any such supposition to be found in any of the documents lying on the table.
My hon. friend was not only very emphatic on the question of forgery, but also on the question of bribery, and it would not be fair to the House to drop the discussion without doing him the courtesy of dealing with his assertion on that point. His assertion, if I remember it rightly, was that the chief of the band, William Prince, and his four councillors, were bribed to sign the document of surrender.


Frank Oliver: Then that they were bribed to induce other members of the band to sign the document of surrender.


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. gentleman, all through this debate, has shown his utter ignorance of the facts in connection with this transaction. He must know that the Indians never signed that surrender, and that the only names attached to it are those of the chief and the three councillors. The band never signed it and never were asked to sign it.


Frank Oliver: Then the allegation wa3 that they were bribed to induce the band to vote for the surrender. If not, to what purpose were they bribed. My hon. friend, I understand, stands by the statement that they were bribed by the officers of the Interior Department to do something that was hot in the best interests of the band. Is that the case?


George Henry Bradbury: Yes.


Frank Oliver: The terms of the surrender contained a provision as to how much land should go to each individual Indian of the band, and how much to the chief, and how much to the councillors. Now, the Indians knew, before they voted, what they were voting for. The terms of the surrender had been discussed by them time and again. They were discussed on that day and the majority of the members of the band then present themselves voted to give the chief, William Prince and the several councillors a major share of that land, and how that can be construed into a bribe by the officers of the Department of the Interior or the Indian Department, I am at loss to understand. The members of the band voted the money, or the land, away from theipselves to the chief and councillors, knowing what they were doing. The officials of the Department of Indian Affairs who had charge of the surrender could not, under any circumstances, have given the chief, or councillors a foot of land except the Indians voted as they did that that land should be given in that way My hon. friend last night said something about a man named Rayner who had a bill against the government for $500 which bill was not paid by the government, and Mr. Rayner has not pressed for payment. I do not know anything about Mr. Rayner, who he is, or what he is, or on what ground he presented such a demand. All I know is that his bill was not paid, and therefore if Mr. Rayner bribed any of the Indians he bribed them at his own expense and at his own cost. My hon. friend explained that Mr. Rayner had got back the extra money that he had paid to the Indians, because the chiefs had got a certain proportion more land than they were entitled to under the terms of the surrender. That is to say that Chief William Prince


George Henry Bradbury: No.

got 20 acres more, and the several councillors a certain number of acres more, in the neighbourhood of 20 apiece over and above what the terms of surrender called for. Chief William Prince was entitled to 212 acres by reason of his extra allowance as chief, and by reason of the number of members in his family, and he received actually 215-53, that is 3i acres more than his allowance. Councillor Harper was entitled to 232 acres, and he got 233 -16. Councillor James was entitled to 200 acres, and he got 206-88. Councillor Henry Prince was entitled to 168 acres, and he got 172-.50. John Prince was entitled to 136 acres, and he got 136 acres. The explanation is that in the laying out of the lands when the survey was made, the lots ran into one or two acres more than the allowance called for, and the block was allowed to go as it was surveyed. My hon. friend stated last night that these people received in the neighbourhood of 20 acres at least more than they were entitled to, and that this extra allowance of land wa3 in some way, which he did not explain, used to repay Rayner the money that he said it was rumoured had been paid to the Indians.


George Henry Bradbury: The minister has given the amount of acreage. I would like him to tell the House how many of a family each man had.


Frank Oliver: Chief William Prince had two of a family, Councillor Harper seven, James William five, Henry Prince three, and John Prince one. My hon. friend said last night that these men got about an average of 20 acres apiece more than they were entitled to. The figures I have given the House are the figures given to me by the officers of the department, and I am sure my hon. friend will pardon me if I say I am rather willing to accept their figures than the figures he has given, and that I ask the House to do the same.


George Henry Bradbury: I want to tell the House that I derive my information from the very same source, and the information that I got is correct, because I got it off the books. I saw the book myself, with the entries in it, and when the minister states that the chief had two of a family it shows how the whole statement is misleading him. Chief Williams had no family, but his wife. That accounts for the 16 acres, and I am satisfied that the statement he has read includes in each case one more of a family than those Indians really had. I got the statement from one of his own officers, off the book, and what I stated is absolutely correct.


Frank Oliver: This emphasizes what I said that it is impossible for my friend, and me to agree. I allowed him to make any statement he pleased last night, although I am sure he gathered from my Mr. OLIVER.
remarks that I did not agree with him. He will have to allow me to make the statement I have to-day, and the less he criticises the sooner we will be through. I have made a statement as to the amount of land to which these people were entitled. I gave the authority on which I make that statement. My hon. friend says they were not entitled to that much land. It is a matter then between himself, and the officers of the department, and for my part I am asking the House to take the word of the officers of the department. If the word of the officers of the department is to be taken, then the statement which my hon. friend made last night was- one of the many inexactitudes with which he favoured the House in his remarks. The assertion that there was bribery even in the roundabout and circuitous way he suggested falls absolutely to the ground, because how in common sense was Mr. Rayner to get any benefit from the land Chief William Prince got? If Chief William Prince could be shown to have given up anything he had that he did not have to give up, I could understand, but I think it will be difficult to prove that Chief William Prince or any other of the chiefs, councillors, or members of the band ever gave back anything to anybody that they did not have to, and certainly they would not have to give it to Mr. Rayner unless they wanted to.
It may be worth while taking the time required to place before the House the actual terms of this surrender so that there shall be no question about what its terms were. The document is as follows:
Know all men by these presents:
That we, the undersigned chief and principal men of the hand of Chippewa and Saul-teaux and Cree Indians, owning and resident on our reserve at St. Peter's, in the province of Manitoba, and Dominion of Canada, for and acting on behalf of the whole people of our said band in council assembled, do hereby release, remise, surrender, quit claim and yield up unto our Sovereign Lord the King, his heirs and successors forever, all and singular, that certain parcel or tract of land and premises, situate, lying and being in the county of Selkirk and province of Manitoba, containing by admeasurement 48,000 acres, be the same more or less, and being composed of the whole of the St. Peter's Indian reserve.
To have and to hold the same unto His said Majesty the King, his heirs and successors forever, in trust to dispose of the same to such person or persons, upon such terms as the government of Canada may deem most conducive to our welfare and that of our people, and upon the further condition that all moneys received from the sale thereof shall, after deducting the usual proportion for expenses of management, be paid as follows: one-half of said sum so remaining to be paid to us the year following the receipt of same by the government after sale of such lands, the balance of said proceeds of sale to be funded for our benefit and the interest paid

to us annually. At each payment as aforesaid the sum so paid shall he divided so that the chief shall receive each year the sum of $10 and each councillor the sum of $6 more than that to which the individual members of the band shall be entitled.
And upon the further conditions that out of the said St. Peter's reserve now surrendered there shall be granted an area not exceeding 21,000 acres to the members of the band as follows: to the chief 180 acres, to the ex-ehief and each councillor 120 acres, and to the other members of the band in the proportion of about 80 acres to each head of a family of five; grants to be made also in similar proportion to widows and to unmarried men and women over twenty-one years of age. A list of those entitled to grants and the patents thereof, and the area covered by each, as indicated in the above proportions, shall be made by the chief and councillors and a representative of the Department of Indian Affairs. The list shall be signed by the chief and councillors and by the Indian Department representative, and shall be the final settlement of the land to be patented, and of the parties to receive the same. In addition to the said 21,000 acres above mentioned there shall be set aside 3,000 acres of hay land for the members of the band having land in the present reserve or entitled to receive land under this agreement, it being understood that the Department of Indian Affairs mav from time to time reduce the quantity of hay land as the patentees sell the land so granted, and any land so taken off the land set aside for haying purposes shall be disposed of by the department for the benefit of the band.
A new reserve for this band shall be selected on Lake Winnipeg to the extent of 75,000 acres of available land, but shall not include more than ten miles water frontage.
The department is to make necessary survey of the lands to be patented and the lands sold as soon as expedient after surrender, and the patents to issue upon application of the individual Indian after the land is selected and properly designated.
My hon. friend from North Grey asked why we did not give the same length of time in selling these lands as in selling school lands. I have read him the answer.
The department shall advance at the time of surrender the sum of $5,000 to be repaid out of the first moneys received from the sale of the lands.
The treaty payments now made shall be continued, and also the yearly rations at treaty time.
A reasonable supply of agricultural implements and tools for use on the new reserve shall be supplied and distributed at the discretion of the department.
The department is to render reasonable assistance in removing to the new reserve in summer time in any year within five years of the date of this surrender.
Reasonable assistance in building on the new reserve shall be rendered by and at the discretion of the department; but any assistance so given is to be once and for all.
This surrender shall release lands in the present reserve from all claims of the band and of each individual member thereof from
all or any claims under the Manitoba Act or the Indian Act, and each member of the band shall sign a release to this effect when he receives his patent. Provided that such release shall not operate to exclude the band or any member thereof from participation in the proceeds or benefits of any lands held or disposed of by the government under the provisions of this surrender or according to law.
In the event of the representative of the Indian Department and the representatives of the band failing to agree upon the list of the lands to be patented, the matter will be referred to one of the .judges of the eastern judicial district of Manitoba, whose decision shall be final and binding on all parties.
And we, the said chief and principal men of the said bands of Chippewa and Salteaux Indians do on behalf of our people and for ourselves, thereby ratify and confirm, and promise to ratify and confirm, whatever the said government may do, or cause to be lawfully done, in connection with the said lands and this surrender.
In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands and affixed our seals this 24th day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seven.
CHIEF WILLIAM PRINCE, (Seal.)
CR. W. D. HARPER,	(Seal.)
W. H. PRINCE,	(Seal.)
His
JOHN X PRINCE,	(Seal.)
mark.
His
JAMES X WILLIAMS,	(Seal.)
WILLIAM ASHAM, SR.	(Seal.)
Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of Frank Pedley,
John Semmons,
O. J. Grain,
Ernest Rayner.
The House will remember that last night my hon. friend read a number of affidavits from one William Asham, of whom I spoke before the House rose at one o'clock, and in regard to whom I have nothing to say, except to call to the mind of the House the tenor of the affidavit which was read by the member for Selkirk, in which Mr. Asham declared himself to be absolutely, unalterably, always and forever against this surrender of the St. Peter's Indian reserve. I am afraid that Mr. Asham has suffered by reason of his association with the member for Selkirk, because I find that in addition to the signatures of the chief and councillors to this surrender, there is the signature of William Asham sr., ex-chief


George Henry Bradbury: I stated that Mr. Speaker.
Mr. OLIVER-placed there because he was an ex-chief. Now I want to call the attention of the House to this fact for the purpose of enabling the House to weigh at its true value the character of the affidavits with which my hon. friend favoured the House yesterday. I also wish to call

attention to the assertion he made that this surrender was secured for the especial benefit, and for the purpose of advantaging certain Liberal friends of the Liberal government. I would take it for granted, then, that no opponent of a Liberal government would identify himself in any way with this surrender. But I find amongst the signatures of the witnesses to that surrender the following names: Frank Pedley, John Semmons, Ernest Eayner, 0. J. Grain. Dr. Grain happens to be the Conservative member in the provincial legislature for the locality in which this surrender took place. I do not know Dr. Grain, I assume however that he is as reputable as my hon. friend the member for Selkirk, and that he has just as much at stake in putting his signature to this document as Mr. Ernest Eayner, or Frank Pedley, or Mr. Semmons, or anybody else. Now I do not wish in any way to shelter the department or any officer of the department behind any political consideration, but I do want to point out that the assertion which the hon. member has made as to the partisan character of this transaction is exactly in line with the rest of his very lengthy discourse, and the signatures, _ and documents are evidence on the subject. The question was raised as to what instructions had been given Judge Howell regarding the surrender of the Indian reserve. I said no instructions had been given Judge Howell, but in the instructions which were issued to him in regard to the settlement of the rights of individual citizens, mention was made of the desirability of securing a surrender. The foundation of the suggestion will be found in a report that Mr. Rothwell, law clerk of the Department of Interior, made on the 3rd of August, 1900, surely long enough ago to relieve us from the imputation that the reason of the surrender was the result of a plot. Mr. Rothwell had been sent to report on this same matter that Judge Howell was afterwards asked to deal with. Mr. Rothwell said:
From what I have been informed as to the reserve and its present members I consider, however, that it would he in their interest and in the public interest if an arrangement could be made with them in accordance with which they would surrender all lands in the reserve to Her Majesty, those of them who would accept separate grants of land, and scrip for say $160 to heads and $240 to children to be given such grants.
The report of 1900 contemplated this very matter at issue, of land being held in severalty, and the disposition which actually took place under the negotiaions conducted by Chief Justice Howell:
And the few who T understand will prefer to remain Indians, to be given reserves elsewhere and to be given such wagons, animals Mr. OLIVER.
and other presents as may be a fair consideration for their joining in the surrender. All claims to land outside of a few I will report upon separately which I think can be dealt with at once, from the evidence on file here, can then be easily settled, and what lands remain could then be disposed of, the proceeds derived from their sale to form a fund for those members of the band who prefer to remain in treaty. In this way the few old people amongst them would receive very generous treatment, to which they are of course entitled.
So that in the year 1900, arising out of exactly the same circumstances, we have a report from an officer of the department at that time almost identically in line with the action that was afterwards taken.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: I do not understand that report clearly. Is that a recommendation from one of the officers of the department that tribal ownership should cease and that the land should pass into the individual hands of the Indians.


Frank Oliver: He says 'partially'.


John Graham Haggart: Do you approve of that?


Frank Oliver: That is what was done. All I am trying to make clear is that what was done was not the result of a conspiracy, as my hon. friend has suggested, but the result of consideration by officers of the government who could not possibly, under any circumstances, have had any interest or object in making such a report unless it was in the best interests of the country and of the Indians according to their belief and judgment.
Might I trouble the House for a few minutes to give a few words contained in the report of Chief Justice Howell on this transaction, first, to show the necessity for the surrender which was secured, and for the removal of the Indians in their own interests. He says:
The evidence of Mr. Vaughan-
That is the surveyor who made the first survey of the settlement in 1874.
-shows that at the time of his survey the people of this Indian settlement were then quite thrifty, the most of them could speak English, they were largely crossed with white; they had horses, cattfe and poultry; their houses were well built, better even than now, and their homes were those of whitemen rather than Indians. His map shows the houses by black dots, and the pink colouring shows the extent of ground then cultivated.
The evidence was that these people were retrograding instead of advancing, and the belief was that it was because of their situation, and that their own interest required that they should surrender their lands and be transferred to another location. Further on Judge Howell says:
Early in the investigation these claims-

That is of the Indians:
-and matters were brought before me. Out of about 50,000 acres, which remains of the reserve after deducting the area already patented, not more than 250 acres are cultivated.
Out of 48,000 or 50,000 acres only 250 acres were cultivated after an occupation in severalty 'by these people from 1874 to 1906. Surely that was a condition that called for some effort on the part of a government that had some regard for the interests of the Indians, and the progress of the country. It goes on to say:
Without (giving further reasons for my urging the surrender and without further description of the negotiations I can only say that they were the best I could get. Best for the government and best for the Indians, and without any hesitation I recommend the carrying out of the same.
That is to say the Chief Justice of Manitoba, who took a deep personal interest in this matter, and who had been familiar with it by reason of long residence in Manitoba, places himself on record as recommending this transfer as being the best that could be secured. It is true that Chief Justice Howell did not carry it out. My hon. friend laid great stress last night upon that fact. Truly, the surrender had actually, in form, to be conducted by the proper officer of the department, but Chief Justice Howell takes the full responsibility for the terms of the surrender in the words I have read, and I do not know where I could go, as minister of the department, to get better information or advice or more impartial or intelligent treatment of this question than to the gentlemen who penned that report. He says:
The new reserve is accepted by the band in full satisfaction of all damages claimed and of all rights, individual or tribal, asserted as above set forth:
It might not be improper for me to add that in my view of the matter the government by granting a new reserve of 75,009 acres have readily and cheaply got out of a nasty tangle and have greatly benefited the band, and have taken a step which in the near future will relieve the locality of an undesirable element, to say the least.
. I might mention that in the area of the reserve the number of claims occupied by people who were not Indians was 30 on the river lots, and one in the township survey with an approximate population of 157. It was the rights of these people that were the first consideration of the government in sending the commission. The transaction with the Indians by which the surrender was secured was an after, subsequent and subsidiary consideration, but as it turned out, was necessary in carrying out the first idea that we had and was generally to the benefit of all concerned.
My hon. friend drew attention last night to the fact that some of this land which had been sold at $5 an acre has since been sold at $50 an acre, and he asks the House and the country to believe that the government has in some way damaged either the Indians or the country by its course, of which this is the result. I can only say that the avowed purpose of the government in securing the surrender of the land in this reserve was that it might be enhanced in value, and that it could and would become enhanced in value by reason of the surrender they secured. And if my hon. friend thinks that the fact that this land has since appreciated in value is a condemnation of the government. I am here to claim that it is a justification of the government, and an endorsement of their policy in securing the surrender.


George Henry Bradbury: The band has not changed in value. The land was sold since its surrender at its actual value; it was sold before by the government at a value that was ridiculously too low.


Frank Oliver: I do not know that we need waste the time of the House discussing that feature at any great length. The value of the land does not depend solely upon the quality of the land itself, it depends upon the conditions of social life surrounding the land, and anybody-unless it might be my hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) -can understand that land within an Indian reserve occupied by people who are not subject to the same rules of life and law in many ways as other people; anybody can understand that such land, no matter what its quality, could not have a merchantable value equal.to what it would if the conditions of settlement and social life were absolutely the reverse. Everybody knows that the value of the land depends as much upon the character of the settlement upon the land and its surroundings as it does upon the quality of the soil. It dees not do any good to say that this land is in-the fertile Red River valley, for, let it be a si fertile as the land of Egypt and let it be peopled by those who are not subject to the laws of civilization, it will not and cannot have its real value because people of progressive mind and tendency- the only people who have money to buy land at a high price-are the people who will not live in such conditions and do not want such land at any price. That was the condition on that reserve, and it was to change that condition that we secured the surrender, and the town of Selkirk and that section of the province of Manitoba are the gainers by the action the government took, in proportion as the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) is correct.


Mr. BARKER.: Was there any difficulty at all in the government obtaining the sur-

render and then selling directly to the people who wanted the land at its value instead of using middlemen?


Frank Oliver: According to the terms of the surrender I read, part of the land on the reserve had to be handed over to the Indians in severalty in submission of the claim they had under the Manitoba Act. The balance of the land was dealt with by the government and sold by public auction, and there was no middleman in the transaction. The sale was advertised, it was within 25 miles of the greatest centre of real estate speculation in the known world, and the man who suggests that that land was sold below its actual value at that time is simply trifling with the people who hear him.


Samuel Hughes: When was the sale?


Frank Oliver: December 16, 1907.


Samuel Hughes: What price?


Frank Oliver: The average price of the land sold at auction was between $5 and $6 an acre. Now, it does not make any difference whether the land was sold at $1, or $10, or $50 an acre; it was sold at public auction after due advertising, and it brought every dollar there was in it at that time.
Mr. BRADI5URV- Does the hon. gentlemen mean to tell this House that he considers 6 days advertising 18 days before the sale took place in the middle of winter due advertising? Why, it is ridiculous.


Frank Oliver: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I was as tender as my hon. friend is I would ask your ruling on the use of that word, but when it comes to a question of that kind I am quite ready to leave myself in the judgment of the House. The sale was advertised for three weeks in a paper that was published Jn the town in which the sale was made; it,was advertised for three weeks in a paper published in Winnipeg which circulates chiefly among the people who live near the town of Selkirk. I will not allude to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bradbury), but any man who says that the public of Manitoba did not have full and ample notice of that sale is-you must understand, Mr. Speaker, that I am not referring in any way to the hon. member or to any member in this House-but I say that such a person is absolutely disregardful of the truth. The allegation may be that the land which was handed over to the Indians in severalty in extinguishment of their right under the Manitoba Act was sold to middlemen, and that the public did not have a fair opportunity to bid for it or that the Indians did not get a fair price, but as a matter of fact that land sold at practically the same price as the land that was sold by auction. That is to say, that the average price was about Mr. OLIVER.
the same, but the actual price varied from $2 per acre to $20 per acre. So, I say the transaction was in the open light of- day, that every opportunity was given for everybody who wished to benefit by the rise that must necessarily take place in the value by reason of the surrender being taken, and those who did not see fit to take advantage of the opportunity that existed at that time have no right to come to this House for sympathy or to make complaints, because they did not take advantage of an opportunity that they now see was a good one.


Mr. GERMAN.: What sized blocks were they sold in?


Frank Oliver: I have here a list of the land sold by auction and the areas in which it was sold, and the areas vary on one page of the statement from 20 acres to 195 acres, and on another page from 61 acres to 76 acres, on another page from 6-31 to 137 acres, and so on. These were all sold in separate parcels, so that there was every opportunity for any man who wanted to buy a large quantity or a small quantity. Everything was done that could be done to give every opportunity to those who wished to invest in these lands, so that the Indians would receive the greatest possible amount of benefit from the sale of these lands.


John Graham Haggart: Had the government any control or supervision over the lands which were given to the indvidual Indians and which they disposed of?


Frank Oliver: No, the government had no supervision of the private sales. The surrender as drafted provided for control by the Indian Department of the sales, but the Indians refused to sign with that provision in, and it had to be struck out. Therefore the sales of individual property which took place were without control of the government; but on complaint being made that the Indians were not being properly dealt with by the buyers, we sent the law clerk of the Indian Department to Selkirk to see that the Indians got what was coming to them. My hon. friend suggested that this was a secret mission and that this was an innocent young man. Well, I am satisfied that the man is innocent, and he is certainly comparatively young; but he has been a practising barrister of the province of Ontario for a number of years.


Samuel Hughes: What is his name?


Frank Oliver: Williams; and in sending a man of that ability and position, whose connection with the department was quite recent, and who could not be considered to be associated in any shape or manner with this transaction, we surely were doing everything that could be done to get any difficulties that might have arisen between

the Indians and the buyers settled on a fair basis; and, as a matter of fact, we have placed on the table of the House a report which states in detail what has become of every parcel of land that has been handed over-to whom it has been sold-the price paid for it, whether there have been any complaints or not with regard to the sale and everything about it; and any care that may be taken in looking over this list will demonstrate that the matter has been closed up satisfactorily to all concerned. However, it is not a matter that is free from difficulty. As an illustration, I will just mention a case of one of my hon. friend's particular friends, one of the Asham family-not the budding John Nor-quay, but possibly his brother or his son James Asham, No. 8 in the band. He had a general complaint about the surrender and the low price the Indians got for their land. Our report says that he sold 88 acres, that is, the whole of his right in severalty, to the Northwest Land Company for $449; but, believing that the price was too low, he sold 40 acres again to George Tracy for $160. He sold another 40 acres, or the same, I am not sure which, for a yoke of oxen. When I give the House this information, they will understand the difficulty that necessarily surrounds these transactions with the Indians, and the difficulty of getting them straightened up to the satisfaction of the Indians, and will know at what value to place the numerous affidavits, principally from the Asham family, -which my hon. friend brought to the attention of the House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I have replied to every insinuation that my hon. friend made during his four or five hours speech; but I shall be glad to deal with any others that he or any other member may bring to my attention; because, as I said before, as I followed his address, he did not, in the whole four hours of its duration, make a single statement or insinuation with which I could agree or which to my mind was borne out by the documents on the table of the House.
If I may, I will try to give a short statement of the ease from our point of view. In pursuance of our policy of administering Indian lands for the benefit of the Indians and for the development of the country, we entered upon the effort to secure the surrender of this reserve. It was in peculiar circumstances in the many ways which I have detailed to the House. It was not an ordinary reserve; the circumstances were extraordinary in many particulars, and, therefore, extraordinary measures had to be taken in connection with the surrender. But so that these measures should be beyond question, the highest authority that could be got in the province of Manitoba was engaged to do the work. The attempt was successful. The
Indians have received their land in severalty; they have received a large sum of money as the result of the sale of land that was surrendered; they will have the marsh land to be sold as it comes into value; they have received a new reserve, very much better suited to, the particular life of the Indians, of 75,060 acres in area; they have received assistance at the hands of the department to remove to that reserve and to establish themselves upon it. As a result, the Indians have benefited. Instead of their having lost anything by the transaction, they have gained very greatly; and the only criticism of the arrangement that can be made, from my point of view, is that they were too liberally dealt with, that they got more than the country could afford to give to another band. But, as I say, the circumstances were exceptional, and the public interest and the interest of the Indians were so benefited in securing the surrender that the circumstances and the conditions are, in my humble judgment, justified and more than justified.


Samuel Hughes: Where are they located now?


Frank Oliver: The new reserve is on Fisher river, on the west side of Lake Winnipeg, about 100 miles north of Selkirk.


Samuel Hughes: It is away north of the Icelandic settlement?


Frank Oliver: Yes, and is, I understand, a very suitable location. The Indians are not expected to go there at once; we have to remove them gradually; but a number are already settled there, and we hope soon to get the most of them removed. As a result of the action taken in this case, the value of the land on the reserve, on the evidence of my hon. friend, has appreciated tremendously, and the Red River valley and the locality of Selkirk has been put in line for improvement and development, and in a better social condition than it could possibly be in with this great reserve situated as it was, and under the conditions that surrounded it. Every step of the negotiations, and every step of the transaction, has been taken in such a way as to safeguard, as far as possible, the reputation of the department andjthe interests of the Indians. The details of the transaction have been laid on the table and have been before the House for months. Everything done, has been done absolutely in the light of day, with the full knowledge of everybody interested, or who chose to inquire. The department has absolutely nothing to conceal or apologize for. We ask hon. members to declare, not only that our policy in dealing with the Indian reserves generally but with this St. Peter's reserve in particular, has been, both in its inception and its conduct and its results in the best interests of the Indians and of the ' country.


William Sora Middlebro: I do not intend to tollow ad seriatim the statements made hy the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), bnt I propose to deal with them as I proceed with my argument. Before going farther, however, I cannot let the occasion pass without saying that I find it impossible to understand the proposition that when an hon. member on this side makes charges of malfeasance in any department of the government, there is no duty whatever devolving upon the government to investigate that charge unless, in the opinion of the minister directly responsible, he believes there is some foundation for it. If that proposition be true, no government would grant a commission to investigate into any charge unless the minister were willing to admit that he believed the charge made was well founded. But my hon. friend himself (Mr. Oliver) contravened that principle for he has in-formeu us that, in consequence of the statements made by the hon. member for Selkirk, he himself appointed a commission to investigate into some of the charges made. The very appointment of that commission, the sending of Mr. Swinborn and Mr. Williams there to make an investigation, is an admission that, in the minister's opinion, there is some truth in the allegations of my hon. friend. The doctrine I would lay down is that when a charge is made by an hon. member of this House, especially when that charge is backed up by some 25 or 26 statutory declarations, it is the duty of the minister, whose department is implicated, to make some kind of an investigation, because, if a prima facie case has been made out, the country is entitled to know whether or not there is anything in the charges made. As a general proposition-and if the hon. minister does not think it right, I would ask him to express his dissent-I say that the government are acting in all these matters affecting the Indians as their trustees and protectors. The poor Indian has been unwittingly and unwillingly placed in that position by reason of the march of white civilization. He is in that position against his will; and because we have placed him in that unfortunate position, and because we cannot expect of him those business characteristics which are foreign to his nature and training, we are obliged to protect him. And having assumed that guardianship, the government cannot contract itself out of the natural relations existing between the guardian and his ward. If the hon. minister dissents from that proposition, I would ask him to say so, because my argument is going to be based on it. If by any means you like, if by bringing a satchel before the Indians with $5,000 of money into it, and the temptation thereby created, or by any other means, you get them to consent to a transaction which is Mr. OLIVER.
not in their interests, you are committing a breach of your duty as guardian towards your ward.	[DOT]
Approaching the subject from that standpoint, I start- out with ascertaining what the land in question is worth. If it be worth only $5 per acre, the case against the government falls to the ground, so far as the financial interests of the Indians are concerned, but how do you judge the value of land? Will any one say that lands on this Indian reserve, situated within 25 miles of Winnipeg, on a branch line of the Canadian Pacific railway, because Selkirk is on a branch of that railway, with an electric railway from Winnipeg to Selkrk, do not occupy the first position in the province of Manitoba, so far as situation is concerned? Situation is the first consideration in determining the value of land; the second is the character of the soil itself. If you get good situation and good soil, as you do in this instance, you must admit that this St. Peter's reserve is the best land in the province of Manitoba. What evidence have I of that? I shall not ask the hon. minister to accept my statement, but I will take the records of the department itself. Those records were under the hands of the minister, and if he had given this case proper consideration, he could have, just as well as hon. members on this side, put himself in possession of that information; and if he had, he would not be here to-day ratifying and supporting a transaction which is a disgrace to the administration of his department.
Take the reports from his own agents on the very land in question. Here is the report of Inspector E. McColl, made in July, 1902:
Rich in black alluvial soil of the Red River valley, and extending through a fringe of poplar, ash leaf maple and elm. back to the prairies and hay lands. St. Peter's reserve is an ideal place for mixed farming.
Let me take the next year, The report for 1903 of the Indian agent for the same reserve, who happens to be Mr. John Sem-mons, the same man who was given such an excellent character by the hon. minister a few minutes ago. He says:
St. Peter's has an area of eighty square miles. All of these reserves are situated in areas of excellent land, suitable for farming and stock raising purposes, while at the same time they are adjacent to the water, and the natives may enjoy all the advantage of sailing and fishing. All conditions appear to contribute to the welfare and happiness of the people. . . . Some of the best soil in Manitoba is to be found in St. Peter's. All this is protected bv a fringe of wood to the west and northward. There is no reason why ten thousand bushels of wheat should not be raised here.
I come to the next year, the report of Mr. Semmons again for 1904. He says:

St. Peter's reserve has some of the best land in the province of Manitoba. It has the advantage of being very near to an excellent market. It also has the best shelter from north and west winds offered to any locality. lt_ is safe to say that properly cultivated it might produce one hundred thousand bushels of best wheat per year.
For 1905 there is no report, but for 1906, and this is the year the government issued a commission for the purpose of securing the surrender of the reserve, Mr. J. O. Lewis, Indian land agent, reports as follows:
St. Peter's reserve lies along the Red river, extending back 4 miles on each side, has a frontage of about 12 miles on the river. The inner two miles is divided into lots varying in width, &c. The land is a loam with a clay subsoil.
These evidences as to the value of the land were extracted from the records of the department and were just as available to the minister as to any member in this House. I now come to Chief Justice Howell, who was sent out there at the request of the department. What does he say as to the value of the land? He says:
The reserve is, in the main, excellent farm [DOT]lands, and the adjoining lands are fairly *well settled and cultivated, and the town of Selkirk joins it at the south side.
Then I take information furnished by the assessor of the municipality of St. Andrews, and this information is in the department also.
This department itself, in the very year it issued a commission to Chief Justice Howell, fixed the value of lands in this reservation by the sale of some lands by the department to the municipality of St. Andrews adjoining this reserve and I ask the government if there could be any more conclusive proof as to the value which they then set upon these lands than the fact that they charged and received $20 an acre in 1906 for these very lands. They sold $813 worth of land which figures out at $20 an acre. Then take land immediately adjoining the reservation owned by Mr. Funk. The evidence as given by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) is that that land is now selling for from $40 to $60 an acre. Then we have the evidence of the assessor of the municipality of St. Andrews, who says that at the very time these lands were being sold, part of these very lands were within the municipality of Selkirk, and as such were assessed, on the basis of one third of their value, at $7 an acre. He explains how they were assessed at $7 and how all lands of that class are assessed at. one-third of their value, in accordance with a graded scheme adopted in that municipality making the value of the land $21. Then I take the letter from Mr. Hudson, a partner of the son of the Chief
Justice of Manitoba, a man thoroughly familiar with values in that locality. His letter to the department shows that he values these lands at from $20 to $25. He says:
The land which has been bought at $5 an acre, is worth in the neighbourhood of from $20 to $25 an acre. The Indians are quite incompetent to look after their own interests, and none of them can afford the money necessary to carry on lawsuits to retrieve their possessions.
The next evidence is the case of Swan Lake Indian lands. I discussed this with some reserve, because I conceive that the arguments of the Minister of the Interior when quoting the value of other lands without knowing where they were situated were wholly irrelevant.


Frank Oliver: I gave the place, and the actual numbers of the land. I gave all particulars as to its situation. .


William Sora Middlebro: He gave the positions by meridians, ranges and townships, but he had no conception of where the lands were.


Frank Oliver: I was merely sparring with my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. A. Haggart). Both my hon. friend from Winnipeg and myself knew very well where the lands are by townships, ranges and sections, as my hon. friend afterwards admitted.


William Sora Middlebro: Perhaps the minister will say where the lands that sold at $5 an acre are situated?


Frank Oliver: East of the Red river, and approximately north of a line that would run eastward from the town of Selkirk. That is they are further north than Selkirk, and east of the Red river.


William Sora Middlebro: Has the minister ever seen the lands?


Frank Oliver: No.


William Sora Middlebro: Does he know the character of the soil?


Frank Oliver: No.


William Sora Middlebro: Then it is not competent for him to say whether the lands were worth more or less than $5?


Frank Oliver: Then as the hon. member has not seen the lands sold in the St. Peter's reserve he is in no better position


William Sora Middlebro: My point is that having taken from the records of the hon. gentleman's department that the lands are the best to be found in Manitoba, and knowing that the reserve is within 22 miles of Winnipeg, situated on an electric railroad and a branch of the Canadian Paci-

fie railway, I think I am justified in saying that they are the best in Manitoba.
Then the Swan Lake Indian reserve was sold in the summer of 1909 at from $15 to $20 an acre, and according to a statement of the hon. member for Macdonald, these lands which sold at from $15 to $20 an acre were not as valuable as those that sold for $5.50 by auction at Selkirk.
Then the next case is the Shoal Lake Indian reserve. The lands there were sold in the spring of 1909, and averaged $17.60 an acre. They are situated, I understand in the constituency of Marquette, and according to the evidence I have, they are not as valuable as the lands in question. These are the records from the hon. gentleman's own department, which it was his duty to observe before he allowed this great reserve to be sacrificed as we believe it was. Then these Beausejour school lands sold in 1909 to speculators1, and they cannot be any better than the St. Peter's lands, because the latter they are the best in Manitoba. They sold at $22 an acre to some of the very gentlemen who bought the St. Peter's lands. They are 35 miles from Winnipeg without electric communication.
Again I find on looking up the assessment of that portion of the St. Peter's reserve situated in Selkirk, that they were assessed at the time this sale was made at $24 an acre. This year, at a mortgage sale, for a portion of these lands, $22 an acre was refused. Having all this evidence before him, taken almost entirely from his own records-and the evidence of the assessor and the clerk was as available to him as to us- if those lands sold for anything less than $20 an acre, that very fact is conclusive proof that there was something wrong, and if the minister did not see any of these records in his department it was his duty to do as an ordinary trustee would do and should do, to seek out some person or persons to make competent examinations and not depend on one man or officer. He should have obtained independent, competent men from that country who knew the value of lands. That much is due to the country and not having done that the minister is open to the charge that the lands were sold for one-third to one-fourth of their value.
What was the necessity for the sale of this reserve? As my hon. friend from Selkirk says, there was no petition from the town of Selkirk, from the board of trade of Selkirk, from any public body, from any provincial authority or any private individual as far as the evidence before us shows, except the late Liberal member for that riding, and it would be very interesting to know, if there was a written com-Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
munication from that gentleman requesting the sale of that reserve, what reasons he urged in it for the sale. It would he interesting to know what it was.


Frank Oliver: It was understood that the advantage was mutual.


William Sora Middlebro: Well, we will see. The hon. minister now admits that it was upon the recommendation of his commissioner whom he sent there, not, he says, for the purpose of obtaining a surrender, but for another purpose, of giving titles to land to certain white persons who were claiming titles to certain lands within the reserve. But the minister now admits that it was in consequence of a recommendation made by his commissioner that a surrender was secured. That being the case it was due to the Indians, it was due to the public, it was due to this House that the commissioner should have taken evidence showing conclusively that it was in the interest of the Indians, and that it was in the interest of the white population that the surrender should be made. But there is not one tittle of evidence in all the documents produced which goes to show that it would be advisable, either in the interest of the Indians or the interest of the public, that the reserve should be surrendered. The minister will say that it all depends upon the recommendation, he is taking entirely the word of the commissioner without having heard the facts, and I say that is not a fair position to take.
Now let us inquire into the moral and social condition of the Indians upon the reserve, and I suppose it is somewhat upon that basis that the minister proceeded to secure the release of this reserve. I will come back to the reports again. In the report of 1902 I find that Inspector McColl says this:
Throughout this agency the Indians are tteadily progressing, their mode of living is improving and they are becoming less dependent on others for their livilihood-*

The better class of Indians in this reserve will have nothing to do with intoxicants but there are always a few who are willing to get liquor whenever it is available, and it is these together with the unscrupulous dealers who sell it to them that cause all the trouble.
In the report of 1903, Mr. John Semmons, Indian inspector, the same gentleman upon whom the minister placed so much confidence said:
All conditions appear to contribute to the welfare and happiness of the Indians.
Then I take the report, of Mr. J. O. Lewis, Indian agent at Selkirk, the agent who was there in 1906, the very year the commission was appointed to make this recommendation, and this recommendation is made only three months prior to the issuing of the commission. Mr. Lewis says:

There are many old people on this reserve, two women who have overtaken the century mark, a large number of both men and women have passed the allotted span of life of three score and ten. They require attention from the medical officer and agent. Of a population of 1,300 there are not many drunkards and the band may be said to'be temperate-
Now if it is upon the ground of intemperance that the minister says this band should be removed, here is a report of his own agent who says that the band is not intemperate. I venture to say that he cannot find 1,300 white people among whom he would not find one or two who were intemperate. So I say, accepting the report of the department's own agent three months before he made the recommendation for the appointment -of a commission to consider surrender, the minister must have learned that the band were temperate and were very steadily progressing. Therefore it cannot be upon these reports that the recommendation was made. He savs further:
At a confirmation service in the Anglican churoh a year ago over 60 young men and women were confirmed, and over 300 people present.
Now what did the Indians themselves think? There is not a bit of evidence, I do not think it will be contended, that the Indians themselves desired the surrender. The commissioner himself says:
From time to time I approached the Indians for the purpose of inducing them to surrender the reserve and take a new one, and our negotiations continued for many months.
I gather from that the Indians were not willing to surrender, and only after negotiations continued for several months were they finally induced to surrender, by means which my hon. friend from Selkirk has disclosed to this House.


Samuel Hughes: What reason does the commissioner give?


William Sora Middlebro: No reason whatever for wishing the surrender, except that he says in his report that by reason of these white settlers having land within the reserve _ ' there can be liquor sold.' Those are his words, he does not say liquor was sold. That is the only indication he gives for selling the reserve, that there might be trouble, because of these white settlers having land within the reserve. Now at first the Indians were opposed to the surrender, and apparently the chief and council as well. Then there comes a time when, [DOT]for some unknown reason, the chief and councillors appear to have been won over, and a notice is posted up to ascertain whether these poor Indians, some of whom have lived on that reserve for over a hundred 226
years, shall divest themselves of their inheritance, their houses and their homes, and it is contended by the department that one day s notice is sufficient for that purpose. I do not care whether that is a legal notice or not. I come back to this fact, the government is trustee for the Indians, and it is for the government to say whether one day's notice is sufficient to notify a whole band to decide whether they wish to dispose of their inheritance. I say it was not a sufficient notice, and it is not enough for the minister to say that there were a certain number of Indians present at that meeting, and therefore they had not sufficient notice. The notice is given, not only for the purpose of calling the Indians together, but to give them time to consider what they shall do, and they had only one day from Sunday to the following day to consider what to do. Now I understand that the minister claims that there was a sufficient number of Indians present at that meeting to constitute a valid surrender of the reserve. I would ask him to look at section 49 of the Indian Act, and let him see whether there has been a compliance with that Act. If the contention of the minister is correct, if there were three members of the whole band of 1,300 present, and if two out of three voted for a surrender, then, according to the contention of the minister, that would constitute an absolutely binding surrender of the Indian reserve, containing some 48,000 acres, and valued at three-quarters of a million dollars. Now I say it was never intended by parliament that the majority of those present at a meeting should have the right to decide as to the disposal of the inheritance of the whole band. Let us read the words of section 49 of the Act:
Except in this part otherwise provided no release or surrender of a reserve or a portion of a reserve held for the use of the Indians of any band or of any individual Indian, shall be binding unless the release or surrender shall be assented to by a majority of the male members of the band of the full age of 21 years-
Now there would be no doubt about the question if the section stopped there, but it goes on to say:
-at a meeting or council thereof summoned for that purpose.
Now that seems to me as clear as day, that you must have not only a majority of the male members of the band entitled to vote, but you must get that majority-[DOT] where?-at a meeting; not by private subscription, not by petition, and you have to get a majority of the other members of the band at the meeting, so that the Indian will get the opinions of the other members of the band who are present which will better enable him to decide whether he shall con-


Frank Oliver: Is the hon. gentleman asking a question?


William Sora Middlebro: I am.


Frank Oliver: The reason I did not make preparation was that I did not know when it was coming up; and the reason I did not bave any affidavits from Mr. Semmons on this subject was because the allegation in regard to Mr. Semmons was not made until last night.


William Sora Middlebro: This matter has been on the tapis for three or four months, and the minister was informed three or four weeks ago that at the first opportunity on going into supply the hon. gentleman '(Mr Bradbury) would move a resolution.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bradbury) did not move on the first opportunity on going into supply.


William Sora Middlebro: The government claim they got a surrender of this reserve for the purpose of getting rid of the Indians in that locality. If, as the minister said, 226i
he expected these lands would be more valuable after he got rid of the Indians and by reason of that expectation the lands advanced in value subsequently, how does he make that square with the fact that he gave 400 patents of land in fee simple to these Indians to stay right there on the reserve. Did he not expect that they were going to stay there? If he did not why did he give them the patents. If he was honest and bona fide in his belief that it was for the benefit of the Indians to surrender in order that they might become owners in fee simple of the land "and having given 400 patents for that purpose, does it not show that he intended the Indians to stay there. If he did not so intend, then he deceived the Indians, and this would be another allurement held out to the poor Indian for the purpose of getting him to consent to surrender. I say that" the government had no more right to give thise Indians a title to the land in fee simple, without adopting protective measures to safeguard them against speculators, than they had to put the cash into the hands of the Indians without control. I say the government cannot rid itself by any contractual obligation at any stage of their duties as trustee, to continue to look after the welfare of the Indians, and if the government, expected the Indians were going to sell these lands they had no more right to issue them the patents than they had to give them the actual money. The government either gave these lands knowing they were going to be disposed of by the Indians-in which case they left the Indian at the mercy of the speculators-or they gave the 400 patents intending that the Indians should stay on the land, and in that case the argument of the minister that the land had increased in value because he got rid of the Indians, falls to the ground.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman appears to be addressing his remarks to me and. as it were he challenges my assent to them. I do not wish to interrupt him, but I do not wish to have it understood that because I do not interrupt, I assent. I may say that I do not at all assent to the proposition he has laid down.


William Sora Middlebro: The hon. gentleman being head of the Indian Department, J must naturally address myself to him. Whatever was the intention of the government there is no doubt that the result is that these lands have passed into the hands of speculators at prices varying from $3 to $5 an acre. The minister said that some of these lands sold for more than $5 an acre and that may be because one Indian would naturally be more experienced and better able to take care of himself than another, but if the minister averages the sales he will find they were about $5 an acre. Is that not correct?


Frank Oliver: That is correct.


William Sora Middlebro: Therefore, I am right in saying that these lands patented to the Indians were also sold by them at about $5 an acre. Then, if I have proved that these lands were worth $20 an acre, it follows conclusively that $15 an acre has been lost by the sale of this Indian reserve containing 48,000 acres. Was that in the public interest? Was it in the interest of the public or in the interest of the Indians that land worth $20 an acre should be frittered away for $5 an acre; not for the purpose of augmenting the Indian fund, but for the purpose of placing money in the hands of speculators who happened to be friends of the administration-perhaps I should not say friends of the administration-but who happened to be of the same political nersuasion as the ministry.


Mr. TURRIFF.: The hon. gentleman seems to be very much astray as to the value of land in that part of the country.
I do not say that there may not be a certain small piece of land that may be worth $20 an acre, but I want to say that within the last two months I have been told by two parties from Manitoba that they had bought in that vicinity of the country, that is northeast of Winnipeg, at $6.25 an acre, and these were selected lands.


Samuel Hughes: What part of t)ie country?


John Gillanders Turriff: Northeast of Winnipeg.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, 150 miles from civilization.


William Sora Middlebro: Let me put this question to the hon. gentleman (.Mr. Turriff). These lands were sold at $5 an acre, and would he consider the fact that in 1906 the assessor of the municipality valued the lands at $20 an acre; would he consider the fact that part of these very lands in the municipality of Selkirk itself at the very time this sale was made was assessed at $22 an acre; would he consider the fact that lands put up for sale at public auction, part of these very lands _we are discussing, were withdrawn on a bid of $22 an acre; would he consider all these facts any evidence at all that the land was worth more than $5 an acre? In fairness would not the hon. gentleman take that as pretty conclusive proof that the land was worth more than $5 an acre?


John Gillanders Turriff: My experience has always been that land sold by auction brings all it is worth.


William Sora Middlebro: That Is not an answer to my question. Now, as to the duty of the government to protect the Indian with respect to the patented lands. We all know that the Indian Act provides that even in the case of chattels the gov-Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
ernment shall protect the Indians. Section 57 of the Indian Act says:
No agent for the sale of Indian lands shall, within his division, directly or indirectly, except under an order of the Governor in Council, purchase any land which he is appointed to sell, or become proprietor of, or interested in any such land, during the time of his agency; and every such purchase, or interest sliall he void.
I do not say that that section technically applies to the case in question because these Indian lands were patented to the individual. Still, the principle is the same and there is the fiduciary character of the department and of the Indian agent as representing the department, and if I can prove that the Indian agent himself who had the confidence of these Indians because of the fiduciary relation in which he stood to them; if I can prove that he availed himself of his fiduciary character for the purpose of obtaining lands from these very Indians, I think the minister will agree with me that I have given sufficient proof to justify him in making an inquiry into the' acts' of that man. Section 42, for the purpose of carrying out this idea, provided:
No official, or employee connected with the inside, or outside service of the Department of Indian Affairs, and* no missionary _ m the employ of any religious denomination, or otherwise employed in mission work among the Indians, and no school teacher, on an Indian reserve, shall, without the special license in writing of the Superintendent General, trade with any Indian, or sell to him directly or indirectly, any goods or supplies, cattle or other animals.
That is an entire prohibition of anybody dealing with the Indian except through the intervention of the Indian agent. That places the Indian agent in a very confidential fiduciary relation to the Indian, which is a further reason why there should not be any dealing between the agent and the Indian. Carrying out that very idea, the department has issued regulations which say:
No band, or irregular band of Indians, and no Indians of any band or irregular band of Indians in the* provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or Alberta, or in the Northwest Territories, may, without the consent of the Indian agent for the locality, sell, barter, exchange or give to any person, or persons whatsoever, any grain, or root crops, or any produce grown on any Indian reserve in the said provinces, or territories, or on any part of such reserve, and that any such sale, barter, exchange or gift shall be absolutely null and void unless the same be made with such consent:
If the department saw fit to make such a regulation for the protection of the In- . dian in the sale of root crops and other personal property, how much more was it their duty, when they placed in the hands

of the Indian the absolute sale of these lands, to guard him with restrictions so that he would not be taken advantage of 'by speculators? Let us see what Mr. Lewis, the Indian agent, himself says as to the capacity of these Indians. In his letter of the 5th of July, 1909, to the department he says:
As agent I have refrained from any interference in the bargaining, but as some of the Indians are old and illiterate, and called upon me to assist in the accounts afterwards, I have rendered what assistance 1 was able. While a large percentage of the St. Peter's Indians resent interference in their business, there is, I believe, a majority of them too illiterate and helpless to manage a real estate sale, especially where the payment of the land extended, as in most cases it did, over a period of one year, and was made by orders on stores, and with truck and small cash payments. The Indians sold only in small parcels, and at different prices, and not always to the same buyer. The Indian gave a statutory deed as soon as he sold, setting forth the price, and description of the land. He received a small payment down with the promise of the balance as soon as he was able to deliver the patent. The selling began as soon as the locating started. Thus a year elapsed between some of the sales, and the receiving of the patent. There was nothing expressed in the deeds as to future payments, in fact, as far as anything was set forth in the deed, the Indian was paid in full. He was dependent entirely upon the honour of the buyer for the fulfilment of the verbal contract. You can readily understand that the accounts extending over so long a period have become long and complicated.
Now, I propose to prove a sale to the [DOT] Indian agent himself by a widow who was illiterate, and another from a man who was 90 _ years of age. The Minister of Interior said in his speech of the 29bh of November, that if we could prove that the Indian agent had been trafficking in these lands, he would soon see whether or not the agent would he dismissed from the service. I have before me a certified copy of a deed, dated the 8th day of April, 1908, eight months before the patent was issued. It is from Flora Bella Wesley, widow, and is to the agent himself, James Oscar Lewis. The consideration purports to be $235, and the land 23-57 acres, so that the price was $10 an acre. The woman swears that she did not get $10 an acre, and that she thinks she did not get more than $5 an acre, and she got that part in cash and part in goods. 1 find that Inspector Swiftford made an inspection of this matter, and wrote to the department on the 22nd of November last, as follows:
It must be remembered that all the laud buyers used the chief and councillors of the band as interpreters and as agents to bring Indians to them to induce them, if possible, to sell their lands, and in return these interpreters or agents were rewarded with $5 or more for each transaction in which a transfer of land took place.
The price usually paid them for allotments was about $5 an acre.
The white man predominates in the interpreter and witness, W. D. Harper, and it is quite possible that he may be induced to remember evidence iu favour of the buyer.
The inspector himself intimates that the witnesses and the interpreters take advantage of the Indians because they are employed by speculators, and get $5 for every piece of land they sell. In this case I find that the grantor is illiterate, as she makes her mark. The witness to the deed is W. D. Harper, one of the councillors who got 120 acres of land, ten times as much as any of the other Indians, for consenting to the surrender, and one of the men, the inspector says, who got $5 for every sale they made. The agent took advantage of his position as agent to obtain from this widow a deed of land for a consideration which he knew was away under its value. The other case is that of a man 90 years of age, also illiterate, who made his mark instead of signing his name. His land was also sold to the agent. For 32 acres he was to get $10 an acre, or $320 in all. This was to be paid at the rate of $6 a month. He said that when he was paid for 20 months, or in all $120, the payments stopped. His Statement is corroborated by Mr. Swinford. In both of these cases the Indian agent was trafficking in land with persons who were illiterate, both of whom say they did not get the consideration that they expected and that was agreed to; and this is proved by the certified copy of the deed Obtained from the Land Titles Office. I leave these cases with the minister, to der cide whether some inquiry should not be made into them.
With regard to another point, section 89 of the Indian Act says:
With the exception of such sum not exceeding fifty per centum of the proceeds of any lands, and not exceeding ten per centum of the proceeds of any timber or other property, as is agreed at the time of the surrender to he paid to the members of the band interested therein, the Governor in Council may, subject to the provisions of this parliament, direct how and in what manner, and by whom, the moneys arising from the disposal of Indian lands, or of property held or to be held in trust for Indians, or timber on Indian lands or reserves, or from any other source for the benefit of the Indians, shall be invested from time to time, and how the payments or assistance to which the Indians are entitled shall be made or given.
In other words, the section says that in any -disposition of an Indian reserve you cannot give the Indian more than one half of the proceeds. I grant you that the minister can point to the use of the word ' land '.

With the exception of such sum not exceeding 50 per cent of the proceeds of that land.
I take the proceeds of the ' land ' to mean the proceeds of the ' reserve/ In other words the government is not entitled to hand over to the Indians, for his own absolute use and disposal, even if the government thought it advisable, more than one half of the proceeds of the reserve. But what did the government do here? It handed over 23,000 acres of land, and there you have remaining 25,000 acres to be disposed of. Some of that had been sold by public auction and some of that will no doubt be sold in the same way later on. But they agreed in the surrender that of the balance over and above what they are entitled to by patent the Indians are to get one half of the proceeds. Therefore, the Indian has got 23,000 acres in fee simple and is entitled to get half the proceeds of the remaining 25,000 acres. Therefore, according to the hon. minister, he gets 23,000 patented plus proceeds of 12,500 acres or 37,500 acres in all, out of a total of 48,000, in contravention of the section which says that the Indian is not entitled, even if the government think it advisable, to more than one half the proceeds of the sale of the reserve. I think that is a good argument against the legality of the sale.
Now we come to the sale by public auction of a further portion of this reserve amounting to 15,000 acres. In view of the indisputable evidence as to the value of the land which I have just given, the mere fact that these lands were sold at anything less than $20 an acre should be conclusive evidence that they were sold under value. Would it not have been better to have offered these lands for sale when they were not covered by snow? Why was it not advisable to extend the period of payment to ten years annual instalments just as the hon. minister has done with respect to school lands? The hon. minister has replied that one reason why he -would not give ten years for payment of these lands was that he wanted to close the transaction and get rid of the Indians from that locality.


Frank Oliver: That was one feature of the case.


William Sora Middlebro: 
Mr. J. P. MOLLOY (Provencher).: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take up the time of the House at any length as the ground has been well covered. I understand the hon. member has1 made the statement that Mr. G. T. Norris conducted the auction sale. As a matter of fact, it was conducted by Mr. C. R. Mollard, of Stonewall.
I	happen to know something about the St. Peter's reserve, as I have been in that locality, and also because it is in close proximity to the town of Selkirk. I believe that every man in this House will admit that it was good policy on the part of the government to endeavour by fair means, which I believe were employed, to bring about the surrender for the simple reason that it was an injury to the Indians to live in that neighbourhood, and the

same thing applies to all Indians in the northwest who live close to towns.


William Sora Middlebro: I find I have inadvertently made a misstatement. It was a man named Walters who conducted the sale. He was Liberal organizer at that time, and is now a member of the legislature of Manitoba.


John Patrick Molloy: My information is it was Mr. C. E. Mollard, of Stonewall. I am going to ask that the Indians in Proven-cher on the Rosser reserve near Dominion City, nine miles from the international boundary, be transferred to another reserve, that their land be thrown open for settlement, and that the settlers in that locality, who are progressive and are prepared to buy the land, should have an opportunity of doing so. The people are asking to have this done on the ground that intoxicating liquors are used on the reserve, which one can easily understand, as it is situated between Latelier and Dominion City. The same thing applies to the Indians who remain on the reserve at St. Peter's. Every dollar they earned was spent in liquor in one way or another in the town of Selkirk. Objection was also taken by settlers in that district. I have heard complaints from Selkirk and the request that the surrender should be made. People in Selkirk asked that the Indians be removed and a surrender be made, and I understand the Indians asked that some arrangement should be made whereby they could leave the district and make a settlement which would be entirely satisfactory. I believe that has been done to the satisfaction, not only of the settlers among them, but of the people of Selkirk and of the Indians themselves. The hon. member has asked 'who in the town of Selkirk was anxious that a surrender should be made. The mayor of the town, Mr. Simpson, the ex-mayor, Mr. Mackenzie, who I believe is now dead; members of the council, members of the board of trade, and among them no less a citizen than Dr. 0. F. Grain, M.P.P.


Mr. BEADBIJEY.: The hon. gentleman seems to be in possession of more facts than the minister. The minister could give us no such information as the hon. gentleman is giving here to-day. The hon. Mr. Mackenzie, of whom the hon. gentleman speaks, died two years ago.


John Patrick Molloy: I mentioned that fact and that he was anxious for this surrender came to my personal knowledge. I say that Dr. Grain, the member for the local constituency of Selkirk, favoured the surrender. I say also that Dr. Grain, who was one of the first citizens in the prov-' ince of Manitoba, and one of the first gentlemen in the province of Manitoba, sanctioned this surrender in every way, so Mr. MOLLOY.
far as I know. He had the confidence of the people, and he should have the confidence of the hon. member for Selkirk; for I will make this blunt statement, that had it not been for the influence of Dr. Grain, he would not occupy a seat in this House today, that is to say, that his influence more than that of any other man in the county of Selkirk helped to elect him.


George Henry Bradbury: I want to correct the hon. gentleman, he is labouring under a very serious delusion in making that statement.


John Patrick Molloy: Well, I make that statement believing it to be true. Will the hon. gentleman deny that Dr. Grain is one of the most influential men in the county of Selkirk? Will he deny that he is not as good a Conservative as himself? Will he deny that he has not the respect of every man, woman and child in the county of Selkirk? Is there a more popular man in the county of Selkirk? There is not a more popular man than Dr. Grain, or a more honourable man, in the whole county of Selkirk. Now, Dr. Grain was anxious that this should be done. Dr. Grain was one of a syndicate that purchased land from John Bruce, the land known as the Point and sugar island, near the town of Selkirk, a lot of 136 acres. He has just as much right to invest his money in Indian lands as any other man, and I understand that the hon. member for Selkirk himself endeavoured to buy land in that reserve.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I want to give the most emphatic denial to that statement. I have never, directly or indirectly, offered to buy one acre of that land. I have had the opportunity offered to me to secure this *land, but I never invested one cent in it, nor in any way made it known that I was interested in any way in these lands.


John Patrick Molloy: Well, my information is that the hon. gentleman tried to buy some of that land, and I hold he had a perfect right to do so. I understand that he tried to buy a lot from J. E.-Sanderson, a treaty Indian through a hardware merchant in the town of Selkirk.


George Henry Bradbury: Mr. Speaker, I ask for your ruling.


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: The hon. member will have to accept the statement of the hon. member for Selkirk.


John Patrick Molloy: I simply mentioned the fact. I have such information. I am willing to withdraw the statement if the hon. gentleman says he did not. My information was that before this surrender was_ actually made he tried to purchase a piece of land. Now, with regard to the price of land, I am in a position to say something

about that too. He has given us to understand that the maximum price was about $5. My information is that the land was sold for from $8, $15 to $21, and I think as high as $25. That lot 107 brought $20 an acre. I am interested in 26J acres of land in the town of Selkirk, which was purchased about ten years ago for $150, which is a trifle over $5 an acre, and it remains on our hands at the present time. For the information of the hon. gentleman for Selkirk,
I can tell him that the land was purchased from Mr. Jas. Colcleugh, who was a druggist in that town, an old resident of the province of Manitoba, and that land is there yet. There were twenty-six and a half acres practically in the centre of the town of Selkirk that was purchased for $150.


George Henry Bradbury: You would not like to take that for it now.


John Patrick Molloy: I would expect to make a little out of it after ten years. Now. as regards the quality of this land, I went to the trouble to get a report on the land as to its exact character, and I have this information which I believe to be correct. I will read to the House the statement I have received:
Going down the Red river from Winnipeg one cannot but be struck with the appearance of the country. The banks are high and literally lined with small houses, surrounded by gardens, and the trees in the distance give the country a beautiful appearance. It looks to be most desirable laud. The same character of country continues from Winnipeg to about 8 miles between Selkirk and the reserve. But disenchantment begins as soon as one goes one-quarter to one-half a mile back from the river. The land along the river banks is high but recedes from the river. One mile from the river the land is low, swampy, covered with black poplar and willow, or is open marsh. These lands have never been in use only as hay lands. In the parish of St. Peter's these features are more pronounced. The reserve runs practically through two townships, viz., 11 and 15 in ranges 1, 5 and 6 east. The river lots take up about all of range 5 in township 11. The land in township 14, on the west side of the river, at the rear of the river lots, or as it is known in the ' outer two miles ' is, as I have said, swampy, no timber, the only wood growth is willow and poplar brush, and this is diversified by open swamps and hay land. The soil is a heavy clay, known in the west as 'gumbo.' There was scarcely any competition at the sale for the land. No one who knew it wanted it. On the east side of the river, in township 11, range 6. east, the country is open with some scrub, but it is stony and gravelly, so stony that one cannot drive through on the trail without a great deal of care. The river lots on the east side are all covered with black and white poplar and willow. Everything that would make firewood or could be used has been taken off, as it has furnished the wood for the town of Selkirk and the immediate neighbourhood for 60 years. In township 15, ranges 4, 5 and 6, range 5 is all a floating marsh, ranges 4 and 6
ere covered with white poplar, interspersed with willow and marshes. The soil is good, but generally low, so low that the provincial government about 14 years ago built, by permission of the Indian Department, two miles of corduroy road, for the use of the people who live adjoining the reserve in the Poplar Park district, two miles of corduroy In this beautiful reserve.
Now, so far as advertising is concerned, the land was advertised as every other Indian land has been advertised, and it was well advertised. The usual rule was followed, the rule which has been followed since 1894. The advertisement was 'inserted in the press according to the order in council of May 8, 1894, and December 12, 1896. the latter of which says:
Advertisements should not be inserted in any books, pamphlets or periodicals other than newspapers published weekly or more frequently, and all advertisements should be limited to the maximum of six insertions in daily or weekly papers.
The Minister of the Interior gave the House the names of the papers in which this advertisement was inserted. Besides those papers, there were a number of hand bills sent out. There were 200 slips mailed to the parties who applied for this land. There were one or two hundred hand bills put around the town of Selkirk. Now, the town of Selkirk is the fifth largest town in the province of Manitoba. It is from 22 to 24 miles from the city of Winnipeg. It is served by the Canadian Pacific railway on the west side, by the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway on the east side, which is about three miles from the centre of the town of West Selkirk. It is also served by an electric railway giving a splendid service between there and the city of Winnipeg. It is centrally located, it is easy of access, and anybody who wished to purchase would have been very little inconvenienced by going from his home in any part of Manitoba to the town of Selkirk. The sale was well attended. There were from 100 to 200 present, if my information is correct. I attended a sale of school lands at Arnaud, in the county of Provencher, that year, and some of that land was sold at $27 an acre. There were about 150 people present, which was considered a good turn out, and it was considered to be one of the best school land sales held in western Canada. But the remarkable feature of that sale, as compared with this sale, was that for the cheap lands the upset price was fixed at $5, and there was only one-quarter section sold at $5 an acre. People preferred land for which they paid $15, $20, $22, $26 and $27 per acre to cheap land. There was only one-quarter section of cheap land sold. Then, as to the point raised by the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) regarding the price of the land; it was pointed out

by the minister that it was the poorest land on this reserve that was sold by auction, and that it was the best land that was allotted to the Indians. As to the numbers that purchased, I understood the hon. member for Selkirk last night to say that there were about six, that it was a party deal from start to finish, and that a man who was a good Grit could get all the land he wanted, while the man who was a good Conservative was barred. That is not possible at a public auction. As my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior stated to-day, the number of those who purchased was 24. Who were some of those men and what are their politics, if politics must enter into this as politics have entered into it contrary to the statement of the hon. member for Selkirk that this was a non-political question? One of the purchasers of this land was Mr. G. H. Funk. I know Mr. Funk, he was at the' sale at Arnaud to which I have referred; he is a wealthy man, and he is straightforward, honest and fair in his dealings. He is doing what I would do myself if I had some of his resources. He is buying western land because he is going to make money out of it. He purchased land at the St. Peter's Indian reserve. When Mr. Funk purchased this land he did not know when the surrender was made. He read the advertisement, went to Selkirk and entered into competition with those and got the portion of the land for which he had bid. Another was the Hon. Abraham Funk, an ex-senator of the United States. He is also an investor in northwest land. These gentlemen are both Americans, one of whom lives on the other side, and one lives in Winnipeg. Another man who bought land to the extent, I understand of $35,000, was Mr. J. L. Hyland, a contractor, who takes contracts for the Canadian Northern Railway Company. As far as anybody knows he has no politics, and perhaps if he could be persuaded by the corporation for which he works its inclination would lean him to the Conservative side. Another was Capt. Pollock, who has been a resident of Selkirk for many years. I know that gentleman, and he is a Tory of the Tories. He had .iust as much right to buy land there as anybody else. Believing that he had such a right, and having the money, he purchased the land and nobody could prevent him from doing that. But he is not a Liberal. Mr. Finkleman, a merchant of Selkirk and a member of the executive of the Conservative Association of Selkirk, or he was up to a short time ago, was another. He entered, as he had a right to do, into open competition and bought the amount of land that he thought he had a right to buy. Mr. J. C. Simpson, Conservative and ex-member of the Manitoba legislature, was another who purchased land there. His brother is now a member Mr. MOLLOY.
of the local legislature of Manitoba. He is what might be termed a blue-blooded Tory, just as good a Tory as sits on the other side of the House, just as good a Tory as there is in Canada. He bought land, as he had a right to, and he paid for it, or he will pay for it. As far as the political end of it is concerned it was just the same as it is at any other public auction- the man who bid the highest price got the land regardless of his political affiliations.
As far as the ignorance of the Indian is concerned, we were led to believe last night that you could almost do what you liked with the poor Indian. That has not been the experience of the majority of people, as the Minister of the Interior stated. The Indian is just about as clever and cute, when it comes to a question of dollars and cents, as the ordinary white man. I believe that the hon. member for Selkirk said that he did not believe that there were twenty Indians on the reserve who could read and write. I make the statement that there are not twenty between the age of from ten to forty tnat cannot read and write. I am not going to be positive as to that, but I know that the missionaries, such as Mr. Semmons, have done all they could to promote the education of the indian. They have had every opportunity to do that. There are seven day schools on that reserve-South St. Peter's, North St. Peter's, East St. Peter's, Muckle's Creek school, Peguis' school, Roman Catholic school, all under the Indian Department, and one public school, and the children are taken every year from there to the Industrial schools at Elkhorn, Kenora, Brandon, &c. There are six churches and chapels; one of the churches will seat over 400 people. At the last confirmation service of the English church two years ago, held there by Bishop Matheson, over sixty were confirmed. As far as the Indians are concerned they are just as well educated as any in the northwest provinces or the Dominion.
Now, I propose to say a word as to the charge made by the hon. gentleman that 90 per cent of the receipts for the 338 patents which were issued were forgeries. This is a very series charge and, for my part, I do not care to accept it until it is proved. I do not care to accept it because it is such an easy thing to prove. I think the point was well taken by the Minister of the Interior that it was a criminal offence, and as such it should be dealt with by the Justice Department in Manitoba. That being so, and it also being true that any political caper on the part of the Liberal party would lead them into trouble-the Attorney General of Manitoba could be counted on to look after these gentlemen, particularly if they were Liberals. That has been

my experience, that has been the experience of every Liberal in Manitoba that he could bother in the least degree no matter whether there was a case or not. The hon. member for Selkirk has made a serious charge, he knows the remedy, he knows where his friends are, the machinery is there, the money is there, (public opinion is there, and public opinion will be behind him and will be behind the Attorney General, no matter whether we agree with him politically ox not, if he takes the proper course, which I think it is his duty to take and put where they belong the man or men who were parties to such a thing as that the rights of the Indians should be taken from them through forged deals. If this statement that 90 per cent of 338 patents were forged be true, it is sufficiently serious to call for action on the part of the law department of the government of Manitoba.
As far as the affidavits are concerned, I notice that they are * all those of Indians and not of white men. I mention this only for the reason that the hon. member would have us understand that this was away from politics, that it was a matter only of the poor, down-trodden, suffei-ing Indian and particularly of the Indian in his county. If it were as independent of politics as he would have us believe, my information is that he spent all of the Christmas holidays getting these affidavits, which he had a right to do and I do not object to it, with the commissioner, who was just as good a Tory as he was, land who acted as the hon. gentleman's agent in the last general election. I think [DOT]that it is apparent that it is a party move *on the part of the hon. gentleman. If he ban make any move whereby he can 'strengthen himself in the eyes of his constituents that would only be fair and, as 'far as that is concerned, I would do anything that would strengthen myself in the eyes of my constituents; but I believe he is on the wrong track, and I believe that the Indians of,St. Peter's reserve 'were fairly and honestly dealt with at that time in the interest of the settlers, in the interests of the townspeople, and in the interests of the Indians themselves, in taking them away from influences which were detrimental to their welfare and prosperity and placing them in a better position to make a living than where they were adjacent to the town of Selkirk. And above all, that the price of the land was just as good and, as has been proven, better than was paid the following June for school land just alongside of it and in some cases with only the road allowance between.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. T. W. CROTHERS (West Elgin).: Mr. Speaker, last night from my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) we listened, at some length, to what in my judgment was one of the most forcible, most convincing and most damaging arraignment of the government which it has yet been my privilege to hear in this House; and to-day the government has substantially pleaded guilty to the indictment. As spokesman for the government, the hon. Minister of the Interior .(Mr. Oliver) addressed this House at some length to-day, but his remarks were so feeble that the broadest charity would fail to dignify them into an argument. His efforts were so feeble indeed as to be positively pitiable to all his friends in this House. The case goes substantially undefended. All the principal facts brought out by my hon. friend from Selkirk have gone unanswered. It is true, the Minister of the Interior took up some time in dealing with matters which were comparatively immaterial. It is true, my hon. friend from Provencher (Mr. Molloy) made some remarks just before dinner which, owing to the defective accoustics of this House and the distance between him and me, I was unable to catch distinctly. He may have brought forward some arguments which I was unable to hear. But I was close enough to the Minister of the Interior to hear all that he said, and I repeat that the material facts charged against the government last night by my hon. friend from Selkirk have remained unanswered; and, with your permission and kindness, Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to substantiate that before I sit down. What were the conditions which 'confronted the government of this country in the fall of 1907, respecting the St. Peter's band of Indians? In the year 1871, under treaty, a number of Crees, Chippewas and Saultaux were gathered together on this reserve, situated on the Red river about 25 miles below the city of Winnipeg, a strip of land 4 miles wide on either side of the river, and extending 10 or 12 miles in length. In the fall of 1907, about 1,300 Indians were living on that reserve. They, or their ancestors, had lived on it as a separate location since the year 1871. The whole reserve contains about 55,000 acres-, of which about 5,000 acres were patented to whites either prior or subsequent to 1871. A trolley line runs between Winnipeg and Selkirk, and a steam railway Tuns on either side of the river. Selkirk is a thriving town of about 3,000 inhabitants. This reserve extends right up to the boundary of the town of Selkirk. Selkirk was at the head of navigation on the Red river, but now, owing to artificial

structures, navigation has been extended to the city of Winnipeg. So that we have here about 50,000 acres of land situated within 25 miles of a city which in a very few years will contain half a million of inhabitants, and is destined to be the metropolis of Canada. All the 50,000 acres is as good land as the sun shines on. 1 venture to think that if the hon. Minister of the Interior owned that strip in his individual right, looking forward to the possibilities of its value in the near future, he would not sell an acre of it for less than $50. Let me read a few words of some of the Indian agents of this government and of former governments. I want to read first a few lines from the l'atei Ebenezer MeColl. He was a Liberal of the old school, a resident of the constituency which I have the honour to represent. He was appointed by the Liberal administration in power here prior to 1878. During the 18 years of the late Conservative regime he enioyed the fullest confidence of Sir John A. Macdonald and those who succeeded him in the premiership of Canada-a man whose honour and integrity could not be questioned by any one who knew him. I want to read a few words from his report, written at Winnipeg, on July 31, 1900. He was at that time, and had been for many years, inspector of Indian agencies. I want-to read this especially in answer to a remark of the hon. Minister of the Interior to the effect that these Indians were degenerating. Mr. MeColl said among other things:
There seems to be a growing tendency amongst the Indians to attend divine service. Their interest in sncli matters was quite evident to me at St. Peter's during the time we_ were there paying the annuities, when religions _ services were held every evening in 1he adjoining chanel. These services, I noticed, were all well attended and were attentively and hespectfullyl listened to. It is almost a quarter of a century since I first visited these reserves, and in that time I have seen some marked changes. Twenty-five years ago St. Peter's was nothing hut a string of huts and tepees scattered along the hanks of the Red river. The people were living upon fish, and spent their time hunting and trapping small game. There most pretentious vehicle was the Red River cart, whose creaking could be heard for miles crossing the silent prairie. To-day there are very few, if any, thatched-roofed houses. The buildings are shingled, well fenced, surrounded by gardens, with stables and storehouses adjoining.
Twenty-five years ago the small houses had but one room in which all lived and slept regardless of relationship. Now the houses are divided into compartments. There has been an almost incredible advance made along the line of moral reform.
I would like my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior to take the trouble to read some of the reports sent him from the agents and inspectors of these Indian agencies.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: There has been an almost incredible advance made along the line of moral reform. Nearly all are united by our ceremony of marriage. I had not a single case of drunkenness while on my round. The fact that there is so little drunkenness among them generally speaks well for the Indians.
Then we have some remarks from Mr. John Semmons, Indian agent. He says:
All three of these places-St. Peter's reserve is one-are situated in areas of excel- * lent land, suitable for farming and stockraising purposes, while at the same time they are adjacent to water, so that the natives may enjoy all the advantages of sailing and fishing. All the conditions are there to contribute to the welfare and happiness of the people.
That was in the year 1903.
We have tried to teach them to observe the regulations of the department which have reference to the preservation of health, and for the most part have had their co-operation.
Some of the best soil in Manitoba is to be found in St. Peter's. All this is protected by a fringe of wood to the west and northwest. The three larger bodies have beautiful churches, resident clergymen, and organized work. The Indian, as I find him, is a religious person and well disposed towards that which is good.
I have another report from the inspector of the Indian agencies, dated 28th December, 1903, in which, speaking of St. Peter's reserve, he says:
It is all first-class land. The area is about 48,000 acres or nearly two townships, and is oil first-class land, rich black soil of great depth. It is a mixed open and bush country with some very fine hay land on the north part of the reserve.
So that I hope we shall not hear any more about large portions of this reserve being worthless, when we have this inspector saying it is all first-class land, rich, black soil of great depth. The last report we have was in 1907 from a gentleman called Lewis. In that report, which is very lengthy, he says:
The land is a loam with a clay subsoil. During the winter of 1906 the market of Selkirk was almost entirely supplied with hay brought in by the St. Peter's Indians, from which they derive a large revenue. During the winter of 1906, permission was given by the department to cut and sell dry wood. 3,500 cords were cut and marketed. There are five day schools in this reserve. Out of a population of about 1,300, there are not many drunkards, and the band may be said to be temperate.
I listened to the remarks of the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) this afternoon with a great deal of interest, and I am sure that every one who heard him must have reached the conclusion that he has not the faintest conception of the duties of a guardian towards his ward. It has been defined on good authority what

those duties are, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall quote from that authority:
The duties of a guardian towards his ward are generally to exercise the same prudence and foresight which a good business man would use in the management of his o\*n fortune, though under more guarded restraint.
Let us look a little further to ascertain what parliament and the people of this country have defined the duties of the guardians of these wards to be. Parliament has declared that the government of Canada shall be the guardians of the Indians of this country, and I want to say here that I have been unable to find any authority whatever for this or any other government in Canada making a present of public lands to the unenfranchised Indians. I do not believe that authority exists, in any law or statute in this country, for the government making a grant in fee I simple to the non-enfranchised Ilfidian. Let us look at a few sections of the Indian Act and see what we can gather from them. Every line of this statute, composed! of 195 sections, declares that the government of Canada shall be the guardians of these Indians and that these Indians shall be the wards of the government. Every line of this statute declares that it is the duty of the government to look after these wards as a guardian would look after the interests of the infant left to his care These Indians are but infants. The hon. gentleman a few weeks ago spoke of them as understanding business transactions just as well as the average member of this House, and he spoke as if he expected some one to believe him. But the facts set forth last night by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) and not denied, have satisfied every one in this House that the Indians on that reserve had not reached that state of intelligence to enable them to look after themselves. We have in the fourth section of the Indian Act these words:
The Minister of the Interior or the head of any other department appointed for that purpose by the Governor in Council shall be the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, and shall as such have control and management of all the lands and property of tile Indians in Canada.
So that the people of Canada have placed in the hands of the government the management and control of all the lands and property of the Indians in Canada, and the Minister of the Interior, as Superintendent General of the Indian Affairs, is the man under whose control the lands and properties of all the Indians in Canada are. And the Minister of the Interior, as Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, is the man who is primarily liable to the people of
Canada to-day, and the government, through him, is responsible for what I regard as one of the most contemptible schemes and swindles that the people of this country ever witnessed.
The Indian Act does give the power to make patents to Indians in certain instances, but let me show what is required of an Indian before he can become entitled to a patent in fee simple of any land in this country, and you will see from this statute how carefully the interests of the Indian have been protected by the parliament of Canada.
Seo. 108. Whenever any male Indian or unmarried Indian woman, of the full age of 21 years, makes application to the Superintendent General to be enfranchised, the Superintendent General should instruct the agent of the band of which the applicant is a member, to call upon the latter to furnish a certificate, under oath, before a judge of any court of justice, by the priest, clergyman or minister of the religious denomination to which the applicant belongs, or by a stipendiary magistrate, or two justices of the peace, to the effect that to the best of the knowledge and belief of the deponent or deponents, the applicant for enfranchisement is, and has been for at least five years previously, a person of good moral character, temperate in his or her habits, and of sufficient intelligence to be qualified to hold land in fee simple, and otherwise to exercise all the rights and privileges of an enfranchised person.
That first section requires an affidavit sworn before a judge by a priest, clergyman or minister that the applicant for enfranchisement has for five years been a person of good moral character, that he has for five years been temperate in his habits, and that he has sufficient intelligence to be qualified to hold land in fee simple and otherwise to exercise all the rights and privileges of an enfranchised person. Without any of these safeguards, the government, on the representation of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, deeded 21,000 acres of land to these Indians without any inquiry from priest or minister or any one else as to whether they were men of good moral character, who had been temperate for five years and had sufficient intelligence to entitle them to obtain their deed in fee simple. Other sections are:
109.	Upon receipt of such certificate, the agent shall, with the least possible delay, submit the same to a council of the band of which the applicant is a member, and he should then inform the Indians assembled at such council, that thirty days will be given within which affidavits made before a judge or a stipendiary magistrate will be received, containing reasons if there are any of a personal character affecting the applicant, why such enfranchisement should not be granted to the applicant.
110.	At the expiration of the thirty days aforesaid, the agent shall forward to the

Superintendent General all affidavits which have been filed with him in the case, as well as one made by himself before a judge or a stipendiary magistrate, containing his reasons for or against the enfranchisement of the applicant.
2. If the Superintendent General, after examining the evidence, decides in favour of the applicant, he may grant to the applicant a location ticket for the land occupied by him or her as a probationary Indian, or for such proportion thereof as appears to the Superintendent General clear and proper.
112.	After the expiration of three years, or if the conduct of such Indian has not been satisfactory, after such longer period as the Superintendent General deems necessary, the Governor in Council may, on the report of the Superintendent General, order the issue of letters patent granting to such Indian the land in fee simple, which has been allotted to him by location ticket.
2.	Such letters patent shall contain a provision that such Indian shall not have power to sell, lease or otherwise alienate the land except with the sanction of the Governor in Counoil.
3.	In such case9, compliance with provisions of this part respecting leases or surrender of lands in a reserve shall not be neoessary.
113.	Every such Indian shall, before the issue of such letters patent, declare to the Superintendent General the name and surname by which he wishes to be enfranchised and thereafter known, and on his receiving such letters patent in such name and surname, he shall be held to be enfranchised, and he shall thereafter be known as such name or surname; and, if such Indian is a married man, his wife and minor unmarried children shall also be held to be enfranchised.
2. From the date of such letters patent the provisions of this part and of any Act or law making any distinction between the legal rights, privileges, disabilities and liabilities of Indians and those of His Majesty's other subjects, shall cease to apply to such Indian, or hi9 wife, or his minor unmarried children, and he and they shall no longer be deemed Indians within the meaning of the laws relating to Indians, except in so far as regards their right to participate in the annuities and interest moneys, and rents and councils of the band to which they belong.
117. Whenever any member of a band, for three years immediately succeeding the date on which he was granted letters patent from his enfranchisement as aforesaid, or for any longer period that the Superintendent General deems necessary, by his exemplary good conduct and management of property proves that he is qualified to receive his share of the moneys of such band, the Governor in Council may on the report of the Superintendent General to that effect, order that the said Indian be paid his share of the capital funds at the credit of the band, or his share of the principal of the annuities of the band, estimated as yielding five per cent of such moneys as are provided for the purpose by parliament.
2. If such Indian is a married man, he shall be paid his wife's and minor unmarried children's shares of such funds and principal moneys, and if such Indian is a widow, she shall also be paid her minor unmarried children's shares.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: So that the people have declared that before an Indian, shall be entitled to receive a title in fee simple to a piece of land, the priest or clergyman and the agent shall make affidavits that they have known the man for five years to be a man of good moral character, of temperate habits and of sufficient intelligence to be entrusted with the management of real estate. Then the band has to be called together and notified that application has been made and the band are given thirty days to show why the applicant should not get a patent, to show that he is not an Indian of good moral character, that he is of intemperate habits, that he is not an Indian of sufficient intelligence to be entrusted with the handling of realty. Then the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs may locate him on a lot as a probationer for three years longer before he is entitled to his patent. Thus he must have been a man of good moral character for eight years, a man of temperate habits for eight years, a man who has displayed intelligence in his private affairs for eight years, before he will become entitled to a patent, and in addition to that he must add on three years more before he is entitled to receive as an individual freeman his share of the money in the Indian fund. The people of this country, guardians of the Indians, who are mere children, have surrounded these children, children of nature, by these safeguards. How in the world did the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, the government of this country, surround these men with safeguards when they gave patents to lands amounting to 21,000 acres, knowing full well, as Mr. Frank Pedley, the Deputy Minister, wrote to his chief, that they would, in a very short time, alienate all these lands?
Are we fair in drawing the inference that when this government undertook to secure a surrender of that reserve which had belonged to these Indians, and to deed to them 21,000 acres of land, no evidence of their moral character, no evidence of their temperate habits, no evidence of their intelligence to handle their own affairs, no probation for three years as required by the parliament of Canada-are we right, I say, in inferring that when these 21,000 acres of land were, by the government of this country deeded over to these children of nature, the government knew and understood that in a very short time they would become an easy prey to the unscrupulous whites, more advanced in intelligence, while less amenable to conscience? Is it a fair inference, yea, is it not rather expressly proved by the deputy minister when he writes to the Minister of the Interior saying, I anticipate that in a very short time these Indians will alienate their land to the whites? So I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this government, when they determined to con-

vey 21,000 acres of land to men of whom they knew nothing as to their moral character, as to their temperate habits, as to their thrift, as to their intelligence, the government became a party to the dissipation of 21,000 acres of the public domain of this country? The Minister of the Interior tries to shelter himself behind Chief Justice Howell, of Manitoba. Well, I am not very much concerned about Chief Justice Howell, I have not had the advantage, or disadvantage of an acquaintance with him. But I have lived long enough to know that a chief justiceship bestowed by this administration carries no guarantee against partisanship, or for wisdom, humanity, or common, every day honesty. So we do not propose to deal with the Chief Justice of Manitoba, 'we propose to deal with the government of this country who is responsible for what has been done in this regard. Let me read to you a few more sections to show in some more detail the way in which the government looks after these Indians, or are supposed to look after them, because in this case they did not look after them at all. Those Indians were by this government treated with a callous indifference and cruelty that excites the sympathy and indignation of every man capable of distinguishing Tight from wrong. I will read section 38:
38.	The Governor in Council may make regulations for prohibiting the sale, barter, exchange or gift by any band or irregular band of Indians, or by any Indian of any band or irregular band, in the province of Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta, or the Territories, of any grain or root crops, or other produce grown upon any reserve, and may further provide that such sale, barter, exchange or gift shall be null and void, unless the same are made in accordance with such regulations.
39.	No person shall buy or otherwise acquire from any band or irregular band of Indians, or from any Indian, any grain, root crops, or other produce from upon any reserve in the province of Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta, or the Territories.
40.	If any such grain or root crops, or other produce as aforesaid, are unlawfully in the possession of any person within the intent and meaning of this part, or of any regulations made by the Governor m Council under this part, any person acting under the authority, either general or special, of the Superintendent General, may, with such assistance in that behalf as he thinks necessary, seize and take possession of the same; and he shall deal therewith as the Superintendent General, or any officer or person thereunto by him authorized, directs.
41.	The Governor in Council may make regulations for prohibiting the cutting, carrying away or removing from any reserve or special reserve, of any hard or sugar maple tree or sapling.
43. No person shall barter directly or indirectly with any Indian on a reseive in the j rovince of Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta, or in the Territories, or sell to any
such Indian any goods or supplies, cattle or ether animals without the special license in writing of the Superintendent General.
2.	The Superintendent General may, at any time, revoke the license by him given.
3.	Upon prosecution of any ofiender against the provisions of this and last preceding section, the evidence of the Indian to whom the sale was made, and the production to, or view by, the magistrate or Indian agent of the article or animal sold, shall be sufficient evidence on which to convict.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think I have read enough from this Act to show that the parliament of this country has declared in every section of it, indeed in every line of it, that in the opinion of this country the unenfrachised Indians are not capable of protecting themselves against the schemes and tricks of the unscrupulous whites; and I charge here that the government of this country have grossly neglected their duty with reference to the St. Peter's band of Indians. Now, in 1907 it seems that some one desired that this reserve should be surrendered. The evidence, so far as we have heard it, goes to show that only one man requested that the Indians should be asked to surrender their reserve, and that was the man who represented that constituency in this House as a supporter of the present government. He had been an Indian agent for some years, he resigned, became a candidate, was elected, and sat in this House and supported our friends on the other side; and when he was subsequently defeated they returned him to his office as Indian agent. He is the man who made some of these reports I have read to you. I have not been able to find any authority in this statute, or anywhere else-there may be some, but I have not been able to find any authority for this or any government of Canada to deed in fee simple to an unenfranchised Indian any part of this country. Here the government deeded 21,000 acres of land to these men, knowing, expressly anticipating that they would become the easy prey of land speculators, and that they would speedily dissipate the small pittance that they would get from this land. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to every man in this House, whether he sits on this side, or on the other side of it, can he, in his judgment, and in his conscience say that the government was right in deeding 21,000 acres of land to these children of nature who knew not how to take care of it, and who, they anticipated, would immediately sell and dissipate it?
The motion before the House to-day is that the members of this House should express condemnation of the conduct of the government in that regard. Two questions arise, as I understand it. The first one is the policy of the government in desiring to get a surrender from these Indians

and to send them back 150 or 200 miles into the wilderness again. That is one question. There may be some argument in favour of it. There have been five schools and many churches maintained on* that reserve for years. Many of us are asked to contribute. To do what? To guide, if possible, these children of nature to a higher intelligence, to self-control, to good citizenship and the evidence of -Ebenezer McColl is that these Indians had made satisfactory progress, slow, of course, as the progress in such matters always must be, but that they were making progress in intelligence, in the line of moral reform and temperance. Then, the first question is as to what we think of the policy of gathering up these men and women who have been living there for generations and driving them and their children from the rude but happy homes of their childhood away back into the wilderness-no friends, no home, no house, no wigwam! Does that strike us as treating these people as we profess to treat them as Christian people, striving to lead them higher in intelligence, higher in morality, striving to lead them to a higher life of self-control and good citizenship. Is that the way to do it? After you have kept on for fifty or sixty years, teaching them in schools and churches, educating them, bringing them along gradually you send them away 200 miles into the wilderness. Begin all over again, build more schools and churches and send more missionaries there! That is one view of it. But, that is not the more serious question. The more serious question is the manner in which this surrender was secured. The Minister of Interior to-day dwelt largely on the word ' bribery '-not so strong on that point as he was five months ago, but still he showed considerable strength in his objection to the idea of these men being bribed. What was it if it was not bribery? You sometimes give a child five cents if it will take some disagreeable medicine. Bribery ! You give it a candy and cause it to do something. Bribery! What is bribery? Something given to pervert the judgment and get an individual to do that which he otherwise would not do. That is what bribery is and I say that every one who had anything to do with this transaction that is presented here to-night and not denied by any one from the Minister of the Interior and Chief Justice Howell, all the way down, was guilty of bribery in inducing these Indians to give up their homes. We had it stated here last night in several affidavits how they were induced to surrender their reserve. It was stated in affidavits here last) night that they were given but one day's notice. That has not been denied. The Minister of the Interior said something this afternoon-


Thomas Wilson Crothers: 


Frank Oliver: If that is one of the statements that has not been denied, I wish to deny it now.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It would be interesting to know on what ground the Minister of the Interior makes the denial. I would very much prefer to have the denial of some one who was there and knows the facts. It was stated here upon an affidavit that there was but one day's notice given, which was Sunday, and that the meeting was held on Monday in a room so small that only a small portion of the Indians who gathered together could get in. It was stated on affidavit that the Deputy Minister told the Indians that he had $5,000 in his satchel, and that if they vrould consent to the surrender they would get that $5,000, and that if they would not consent to it he would gather up his grip and go back to Ottawa, Where did the money come from? It was your money and mine they took away to buy up these poor children of the forest, to surrender their homes, the homes of their wives and their little ones, the rude huts in which their children were born and in which their children had grown up. Still, he says that we must not call that bribery. If I could find a word of ten times the strength of bribery, I would use it on this occasion and use it with the greatest justification. It was stated here last night in a sworn statement that a gentleman went out of the little school house and, in the Cree language, said to the Indians: Those who want $90, go over with the chief and councillors, and those who do not want $90 go over on the other side. Now, Mr. Speaker, that was stated here last night under oath, but that was not the first time it was stated. It was stated in this House, in the presence of the Minister of the Interior, nearly five months ago. If that statement were not true, the Minister of the Interior would have some affidavits here to deny it. Chief Justice Howell was there on that occasion more than two years ago. The minister knew this charge of bribery was made, this charge about the $90, this charge that only a few Indians knew what was going on in this little building, because being outside they did not hear anything, because five months ago it had been brought to his attention in this House by Mr. Bradbury. If it were not true, how is it that we have not an affidavit from Chief Justice Howell denying it? The minister stated this afternoon that he had not heard anything about some of these things until he heard it last night. Well, suppose he had not, tne Deputy Minister, Frank Pedley, is in the city to-day. How is it that he has not an affidavit from him to the effect that what was stated here last night is not correct, because Mr. Pedley is the man who was stated to have told the Indians that: I have a grip here with

$5,000 in it; if you vote for the surrender you will get $5,000; if you do not I will go back to Ottawa, take it with me, and you will not get a cent. Bribery! He is indignant because we say they bribed these poor Indians who sacrificed their homes, friends, teachers, priests, everything that they had been taught to prize most highly in life. Bribery! Then they gave them the deed of 80 acres of land that they knew they were going to sell. The Minister of the Interior has the courage to sit in his seat now and laugh at the idea that these poor Indians were bribed. Could he go further than that? My friend from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) dissected the 49th section, which he thought required a majority of all the male Indians of a band at a meeting assembled, of the full age of 21 years, to surrender.
Now, Sir, I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Middlebro) that that 'is the meaning of that section, although I _ do not say that it is so beyond all question. But there have been decisions in our courts on statutes worded in substance as this statute is worded, holding that the majority of the whole people are required to express their opinion under such conditions, and not merely a majority of those present at a meeting. I believe that to be the meaning of this section. I believe it is to be fair according to the spirit of the law even if it be not according to the letter of the law. Who, for one moment, with a particle of humanity in his soul would get a few Indians together and by offering them $90 a piece, and 16 acres of land a piece, would induce them to sign away the rights of their neighbours, their wives, and their children? It makes the blood in one's veins boil with indignaton when we think of the manner in which these simple people were cheated, and yet the government professes to be indignant because we say they bribed them. This land was deeded to the Indians, and you have heard the evidence. It was sold here and there and elsewhere, a few acres at a time, just as we would expect a child or an Indian to do it. If the Indian wanted $5 or $10 he would sign anything to gratify his present requirements. If !he had a good big dinner he would lie down and sleep for a few days never thinking of how he would get a dinner for the morrow. We all know that is the nature of the Indian. No one knew that better than the Minister of the Interior, no one knew that better than Chief Justice Howell; no one knew better than these two gentlemen when they gave these children of nature a deed of land _ that they would dissipate it within a few ' days. The Indians parted with the lands at $5 an acre taken out in truck-land situated as it is, all the very .best of land, land which I venture to say neither the 227
Minister of the Interior nor the hon. member from Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) would have sold for less than $50 an acre if they had a patent for it. That is the land that was dissipated at $5 an acre by the Indian. The Indian has squandered the money and the Indian is on our hands now. Well, Sir, it simply meant taking 21,000 acres of the peoples' land and giving it to a few land sharks. That is the substance of the whole matter. What more did we have? We had this sale. The Minister of the Interior was asked two or three times why the advertisement was not continued in the newspapers up to the date of the sale, and we heard no answer. I have said that it is the duty of a guardian in the management of an estate to exercise the same prudence and foresight that he would use in managing his own fortune. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. gentlemen of this House, if, the Minister of the Interior had been the owner in his own individual right of these 48,000 acres, he would have advertised them for sale and sold them for whatever was offered? No, he is one of the last men in this House to do a thing of that kind. What do we do when we have a piece of land to sell under mortgage, or for an infant?. We offer it for sale at public auction in the older parts of the country, we get at least three men who have no personal interest to serve to value that land and make an affidavit as to its value, and when we tell the auctioneer that unless the bid reaches a certain price he is not to declare the land sold. Is not that what the Minister of the Interior would have done if this land had been his own? Is there a man [DOT]in this House who believes he would not have done that very thing were it his own case? And Sir, if he would do it in his .own case, he has been guilty of a breach of trust for not doing it in this case. We have an official in the province of Ontario who is called the official guardian, and whose duty it is to look after the interests of infants. That official never allows the land of an infant to be sold unless he has affidavits as to its value from three independent men whom he knows to be reliable and who have no personal interest in the matter. Then there is a reserve bid fixed. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. members of this House if the government of this country in this transaction have discharged their plain duty. as guardians of the Indian wards of the country? Is there a man in this House who can say they have? Is there a man in this House who would not vote condemnation of this transaction if he were to follow the dictates of his judgment, and his conscience? I don't think there , is a single one.

7J47


Mr. CLARK.: Mr. Speaker. I rise to a point of order. I believe the hon member (Mr. Crothers) should resume his seat while I am stating my point of order.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Certainly.


Michael Clark: The point of order I wish to raise is: How far is the hon. member for Elgin in order in charging the majority of this House with voting against their conscience?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have not made any such charge. I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that every member of this House, were he to follow the dictates of his judgment and his conscience, would vote condemnaton of the government * for their conduct in this transaction, and if *my hon. friend from Red Deer has any regard for my good opinion I hope he will vote that way when the vote is taken. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Interior in a very ostentatious manner declared that these Indians were not compelled to sell their land. .He actually said it was no concern of his if they sold that land for $1 an acre or for $100 an acre. Would you believe it, Mr. Speaker; would my hon. friends sitting around me here believe that the man whom. the people of this country have appointed guardian of these children of nature, would get up in this House and say that he was utterly indifferent whether the Indian sold his land or did not sell his land, or, whether he got $1 an acre for it or $100 an acre for it?
Why, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me to be monstrous. It seems to me that the Minister of the Interior has never read the Indian Act, or, if he has read it, he has never appreciated the meaning of it. It seems to me that if he had read the Act, he would have known what was necessary to entitle an Indian to a deed of land in fee simple. This land was sold on the 16th of December, if I remember rightly, when it was covered with snow-no advertisement of the sale for twenty days before -and sold for $5.60 an acre. $86,000 was got for the land, and of that amount $28,000 was spent in expenses up to a year ago; Chief Justice Howell getting $25 a day for the time he was settling up this matter at Selkirk, and the two lawyers employed by the government getting $50 a day each. A year ago $28,000 of the $86,000 had been squandered, and I do not know how much has been squandered since; but I venture, to think that by the time they get all the Indians moved back 150 or 200 miles to where they have sent them, there will not be a single dollar left to put into the Indian fund. The Minister of the Interior told us in November last that 24,000 acres had been sold and 21,000 acres had been given to the Indians, and Mr. CROTHERS.	,
of this I believe all but a few acres has been sold. The sum total of the whole transaction is that somewhere between 45,000 and 50,000 acres of land as good as the sun shines on, situated within 25 miles of a city which in a few years will have a population of half a million and is destined to become the metropolis of Canada-land worth $50 an acre, which would give you over $2,000,000-has been sold, and yet there will be absolutely nothing left for the Indians or for anybody else. I am surprised to find so few here to-night to listen to a matter of this kind. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here. He was here last night, and during this, in my judgment, most damaging arraignment of this government that has been brought before this House since I have been a member of it, he found it consistent with his- duties to be sitting on the back benches chatting and joking with his followers, while the Minister of Finance found it convenient to sit reading the newspapers during that most convincing-and most damaging arraignment of the government. Nero fiddles while Rome burns. I notice that the Minister of the Interior is uneasy. It is no wonder he sits restless in his seat; yes he sits there having written across his features in indelible characters, characters too deep and dark for blushes to conceal, the word guilty-guilty of the most contemptible and nefarious transaction that has taken place


Mr. FIELDING.: I rise to a point of order. I object to the hon. member characterizing a member of this House as being guilty of contemptible conduct.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: This is beyond the limits of debate.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to conform to the rules of this House in every respect as interpreted by you.


Mr. CONMEE.: Withdraw the statement.


An hon. MEMBER.: Withdraw the Bill.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you rule that that expression should not be used, and of course, I withdraw it at once, and I will say that it is the most outrageous conduct, the greatest breach of public trust, that has yet been disclosed against a government already on the eve of moral bankruptcy and tottering to its fall. I appeal to the members of the House on both sides to express their condemnation of this transaction, and I repeat that I believe that if they were to follow the dictates of their judgment and conscience they would condemn it. But, Mr. Speaker, while experience gives^ no hope that, with the majority, conscience will prevail, still I feel certain that this burning outrage will arouse indignation and

receive the' well-merited condemnation of all moderate men throughout this country.


Mr. GEORGE E. McCRANEY (Saskatoon).: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has told the House that this is the most serious matter that has come to the attention of parliament since he has been a member.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I did not sa,y that.


George Ewan McCraney: I want to treat the hon. member fairly; I hope I have not misinterpreted him. At any rate, I think I may say for myself, if the hon. gentleman repudiates it, that it is the most serious charge which has been brought against this government since this parliament was elected. It is the first opportunity that the opposition has had of attacking the Minister of the Interior in regard to the administration of his department. The very bitterness which they have shown in their speeches and their vehemence of utterance show that they do not expect to have another chance for a very long time. Let me direct the attention of the House, as my hon. friend has done, to the original conditions under which this reserve of St. Peter's was laid out. In the year 1871 a treaty was made with the Chippewa and Cree tribes, of Indians for setting aside the reserve which is now known -as the St. Peter's reserve. In that treaty there was this term:
If at tlie date of the execution of this treaty there are any settlers within, the hounds of any of the lands reserved, Her Majesty reserves the right to deal with such settlers as she deems just so as not to diminish the extent of land allotted to the Indians.
I think that clause in the original treaty explains to a great degree the reasons for the surrender which we are discussing tonight. It is a matter of record that from time to time claims were made by those who had already settled in this tract set aside for the reserve prior to the makine-of the treaty. Some of them were halfbreeds, some of them were Indians, and I suppose some of them were whites. At any rate when this whole tract of land was set aside, there were claims admitted by the government between 1871 and 1906, when the Hon. Chief Justice Howell was appointed commissioner, which amounted to some 5,400 acres. As I understand it, these small parcels of land scattered throughout the reserve and occupied by enfranchised Indians and whites, were a menace to the administration of the reserve by the Indian Department. In this clause I have just read you will see that the Crown was to deal with such settlers as had obtained rights within this area in such manner as the Crown might think just, so as not to diminish the extent of 227J .	*	-
land allowed to the Indians. There were many claims placed before the government by those who had their rights before they became members of the band which subsequently settled upon these lands, and Mr. Chief Justice Howell was appointed commissioner. The very fact that claims to the extent of 5,400 acres had already been dealt with shows that they were considerable and that Chief Justice Howell had evidently a very considerable Work cut out for him. His investigation resulted in the agreement to surrender, which has been read by the Minister of the Interior. The reasons for obtaining such surrender are easily seen. It was to extinguish these claims which were before the government and which were held by members of the band who were on this land. There was also the general reason, which no doubt has always prevailed, for the removal of any Indian band when civilization encroaches upon them, and when it is better for themselves that they should be removed, and a great deal better for the settlers who live near the reserves that these reserves should be thrown open for settlement and the land cultivated, as white people know how to .cultivate.
I want to point out that this 48,000 acres includes not only lands which were set apart as a reserve for the Indian band, but also whatever lands were in dispute between the Indians or half breeds and the government, and which claims arose prior to the setting aside of this tract in 1871, under the treaty I have just referred to. I would also point out that the agreement specially provides that there shall be no diminishing of land allowed to the Indians by virtue of any land being granted out of the reserve to those who have proper claims. In the subsequent settlement, in which the Indians obtained a reserve of 75,000 acres towards Lake Winnipeg, they got this additional land so that if their reserve should be diminished by reason of the admission of any further claims, this new reserve would compensate them for this diminution.
There are three points upon which the opposition criticise the agreement of surrender obtained from the Indians during the negotiations of Chief Justice Howell. They criticise the grant in severalty. I would point out that if any of these people who liye upon this reserve were entitled to any rights whatever in severalty, they were entitled to them before they became members of the band under the treaty of 1871, and consequently they were entitled to them in severalty; and if they were entitled to them in severalty, then, I think, it is a fair conclusion that, being the same people, they were entitled to them in severalty at the time this new arrangement was made.
There is also this objection taken to the

terms of the surrender, and that is that the sale of the land granted in severalty should have been conducted under government supervision. So far as I am aware this was not one of the terms in the agreement made at the instance of Chief Justice Howell. I understand it was in the original agreement; and having been in the original agreement was submitted to the Indians, who refused to accede to it and insisted that they should be seized of the lands in severalty without any interference whatever on the part of the government. For the reasons I have pointed out, it does seem to me that the government was justified in adjusting claims which should have been made prior to 1871 in severalty and in settling these claims in severalty in 1907.
The third objection made to this agreement is the provision for an advance of $5j000 on account of half of the proceeds. Let me read this extract from the agreement :
The department shall advance, at the time of the surrender, the sum of $5,000 to be repaid out of the first money received from the sale of the land.
This evidently is the $5,000 which Mr. Pedley had in his grip and which was referred to by my hon. friend in very vehement terms as bribery. That is a very strong term to use. .It is one which should not be used except under the greatest provocation, and I wish to point out that, under the Indian Act, the government is authorized to pay over to the Indians a sum not exceeding 50 per cent of the proceeds of any lands sold. So my hon. friends opposite use the term bribery with reference to a matter which is authorized by Act of parliament.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. gentleman contend that the statute authorizes the government to pay $5,000 before the sale in connection with the consent to the bargain that was being made?
Mr. MeCRANEY. I think that the statute authorizes the payment of the 50 per cent, it does not say anything as to the time of payment.


Samuel Barker: 
George Henry Bradbury: I would make a suggestion to the hon. member. It would be that he should try to induce the man responsible for the protection of these Indians to take proceedings.


George Ewan McCraney: If I believed the statement the hon. member has put before the House, I certainly would, and I am certain the Minister of the Interior would do so without any suggestion from my hon. friend.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: I regret exceedingly that I was not able to closely follow the argument, if you may call it such, of the hon. member for Saskatoon. However, there was a significance to his last remark which at least deserves reply. Apparently by that remark he wished to enunicate a new doctrine that a government are in no case bound to investigate any charge unless first of all they believe that charge is true, because he says that unless he believed the charge made and substantiated by evidence by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury), he would not recommend it to be investigated; and in that of course he only follows the cue of the Minister of the Interior himself, who enunciated that doctrine. If we are to follow any such theory as that we might just as well start out by enunciating that there are to be no more investigations under this government, because no government I ever heard of would first of all announce that they believed the charges against themselves. But that statement of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Mc-Craney) was not one whit more absurb than has been the whole theory of the government in their defence against these charges. As my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) said, the only skill that has characterized the members who have spoke on behalf of the Minister of
the Interior, and the minister himself, has been in evading the charges levelled against his department. His department is charged with resorting to improper means in procuring this surrender. They stand charged with having procured that surrender by dangling dollars before the Indian chiefs and before the Indians themselves, and by improperly putting a vote to the Indian band. If it is proper to dangle $5,000 before the eyes of the Indians in order to induce them to vote away their heritage, then there can be no charge on that score against this government. If it is proper to 'put a vote as to the surrender of a band by offering $90 to all who voted for it, then on that score also there is no charge against the government, and there is nothing to investigate. It is proven and admitted that the man who put the vote indicated to the band that those who voted for it would get the $90.
Now there are two things that emerge clear from this discussion. The first is that a band of Indians were in possession of 48,000 acres of land in St. Peter's reserve, and that the government desired to move them further north, and did so at a cost to this country of 95,000 acres of land, and many, many "thousands of dollars. The second is that a band of speculators is now safely sheltered on the other side of the ledger and rich for life. Now those are two premises that must go undisputed; if any *one wishes to dispute them, let him stand up. Now the government say. That may be the case, the speculators may be rich and the country may be out, but we are not responsible. And why? First of all, they put the august personage of the Chief Justice of Manitoba between them and harm. The Minister of the Interior, when this charge was first levelled at him last fall, struggled for a considerable time to assert that the man responsible was the Chief Justice of Manitoba, and that if we dared say a word about this transaction, we were impugning the honesty of the chief justice. I have sometimes had something to do with the Chief Justice of Manitoba, but I have nothing to do with him now. We are not concerned with the Chief Justice of Manitoba, we are concerned with the parties who carried out the transaction and who are responsible to us and to the people of this country. If the chief justice, or some other person by his instruction, recommend that deal as a matter of business that does not absolve the minister for putting through the deal as a matter of policy. 'Now to procure the surrender of that reserve it was necessary, first -of all, to use the means I have outlined, it was necessary to send a responsible officer of this govem-fment, the man who sits next to the minister himself, out there with a bag of $5,000 to bribe them by the looks of the green.

The minister smiles when that is mentioned. Why does he smile?


Frank Oliver: I do not know whether my hon. friend is indulging in rhetoric for rhetoric's sake, but I beg to say that I did not smile on that particular occasion.


Arthur Meighen: I always had some respect for the Minister of the Interior, and I have a little more now. But I certainly did understand him to assume that attitude during the speech on that point of my hon. friend from West Elgin, and I imagined I heard him say: Surely this innocent hon. member for West Elgin is not shocked at that, surely it is time he knew that this is not the first election we have carried by means very similar, by means exactly the same. The member for West Elgin should have known that this government would not be in power to-day if they had not adopted those very means at elections that they adopted to secure a majority of the Indians of St. Peter's band to consent to this alienation.


Frank Oliver: I would like to have it understood that when the hon. gentleman attributes certain attitudes to me, or certain ideas to me, he does it entirely on his own responsibility, and without any justification.


Arthur Meighen: I am not at all shirking responsibility. The attitude of the minister shows that he is uneasy under this charge, and I think that does credit to his honour. Now, I said the result was that the country was out the land, the country was out the money, and that the speculators were rich for life. But where is the Indian? The Indian was left to be the prey of the speculators. By what authority have the government abandoned him? By what authority did the government flee from its position as their guardian for a matter of commercial advantage? Does the Minister of the Interior claim that he is justified in abdicating his position as guardian of the Indians of this country? Is he their guardian when he places in the hands of an Indian 16, or 100, or 180 acres of land, as he has done. Is he their guardian when he allows them to dispose of that land, contrary to law, to a band of greedy speculators? Where does the minister get his authority for abandoning the trust, for fleeing away from his duty as he did in this case? The Minister of the Interior has not answered that, nor has the member for Saskatoon, who is a lawyer; neither of them have answered the charge made to-night that they illegally granted those lands to the Indians. Is there any authority in the Indian Act for granting land to an unenfranchised Indian? The Indian Act is the statute of this country, framed in order to fortify these helpless people against speculators and greedy whites. By what author-Mr. MEIGHEN
ity does the Minister of the Interior throw down these fortifications and leave him a victim to the invader? Why does not the member for Saskatoon, instead of quoting what some adjoining lands formerly sold for, answer the real charge against the government? If there is one duty, if there is one office more sacred to the government of any country than another, it is the office and the duty of guarding the tew as it is written. The government's first duty is to administer the law and to see that it is obeyed. How do they expect the people to hold sacred the law or to obey it if they themselves are the first to violate it? Of what value is it that this parliament, as the representative of the people, should construct a fortification guarding these helpless people from speculators, if the minister can throw it down at his will, or at the behest of his friends the speculators? Why are we sitting here to-night to legislate if he, at his will, can violate our legislation? I cannot see any authority, I cannot conceive that there could be any legal authority, for the grant that was made.
The law of the country in the Indian Act is the only reference to Indians as far as I know, and that law distinctly says that the Indian cannot be granted land. The Indian is described as a person who is not only incompetent to hold land, but he is incompetent to buy chattels. Section after section of the Act forbids individuals to buy chattels from Indians, and to sell them chattels except under the supervision of the minister. A man is not allowed to go to an Indian, and sell him two chickens: unless he has authority by license from the Governor in Council. By what authority then does the minister not only permit men to sell them oxen, and hay and everything that they imagine an Indian wants, but also to go to them and dicker with them, drunk or sober, for their land? Surely no justification has been made out. No justification can be made out. There can be no exigencies, there can be no difficulty, there can be no commercial advantage sufficiently pressing to warrant the minister in violating this law. I would like, before this debate ends, that that point should be answered. I would like to see the authority under any statute of this country for granting lands to unenfranchised Indians. If there is such authority the Indian Act is a nullity. What was the result of all this? What was the result of leaving these Indians the prey of speculators? There was a man by the name of Tracy, who got hundreds and thousands of acres of these lands and he paid on the average of $5.55 an acre. I have figured up most of the return brought down by the minister, and indeed it is not complete, as to these sales, and the figures show that the average was $5.55 an acre. And how did Tracy pay them? He paid them by selling them their own hay, he

paid them by selling them cattle at fabulous prices, and everything else on an equal scale, contrary to the provisions of the Indian Act, and the minister has absolutely refused to interfere, and protect them or prosecute Tracy for his violation of the Act. The minister, first of all, asked the Indian agent or inspector, Mr. Swin-ford, to look into this matter, and what did Swinford do*1 I do not know what his instructions, at least- his verbal instructions, were, but I want to point out one thing. Mr. Swinford reported that all this charge about Tracy palming off goods on the Indians instead of paying them their money, was false. He says in his report, and let the Minister of the Interior note this, that over 80 per cent of the moneys that Tracy agreed to pay were paid in cash, or orders on stores. I thought that was rather strange looking at Tracy's accounts which are fearfully and wonderfully made. I figured them up, and they certainly show no such result as that which Mr. Swinford states. They show that instead of Tracy paying them 80 per cent in money and orders on stores he paid them less than 30' per cent. He paid them 72 per cent of their money in hay, and such like. Only 28 per cent of that $5 per acre ever reached the Indian at all in the form of cash or orders. That is the accuracy with which Mr. Swinford reported. That is a remarkable thing, but what more do we find? What was the condition of the Indian under this treaty? I find one case of Mr. Tracy's dealings which I can give the minister. There was a poor fellow who had sold Tracy land for which he was to receive $420. Tracy sold him his own hay, etc., until he made up $260 of the $420. Then he gave him $46 in cash, and orders on stores. The Indian proceeded to get drunk on the $46, and then Tracy paid $58.40, and $96, and all for plate glass windows and police court fines on account of the drunk that the Indian got out of the $46. That is only a sample. Moneys that these Indians have been paid have been paid by Tracy, and other speculators in the police court fines for plate glass windows, and other damage that these men have caused while under the influence of liquor. Could anything within the conception of the minister justify the leaving of these Indians to treatment of that sort? Let the minister look through Tracy's accounts and see what the fruits of his policy are, and by its fruits ye shall know it. The minister will know whether they are bitter or sweet. Let him see what Tracy's accounts will bring forth. Why, it is impossible to imagine that that man meant to deal honestly with these people. What did Tracy want with thousands of tons of hay? This was hay that he got these Indians to put up, and in the fall he told them that he did not need it, and he paid them with
their own hay. Then the minister says: I will send up my law clerk to see if everything is all right. Mr. Williams goes up, and he conceives that he has done his whole duty if he sees that Tracy has kept his books rightly. He conceives, that so long as he finds that Tracy's and Funk's books show that the Indian was paid, it is all well and good. It does not matter how he was paid, it does not matter whether the mark on the back of the cheque is the Indian's or not; so long as the books are all right, everything is O.K., and the government is satisfied.


Frank Oliver: Might I ask the hon. gentleman if he is quoting from Mr. Williams' report in his last remark?


Arthur Meighen: No, I was just about to quote. If the minister is in a hurry I will start now. I am giving the only conclusion I can gather from Mr. Williams' report.


Frank Oliver: It was a conclusion which my hon. friend drew; he was not quoting?


Arthur Meighen: I did not purport to be quoting, but I am going to quote. Here is the way the Minister of the Interior conceives it to be proper to investigate a matter of this sort:
Janet Child sold 16 acres to G. Tracy for $80. Claims $10 balance on this. Says she was informed that she had conveyed 33 acres. Found that she had been paid $80 and had conveyed 33 acres. We secured for her a Further sum of $105 for the land unintentionally conveyed, and with which she was perfectly satisfied.
Here is a poor squaw who thought she sold 16 acres to Tracy for $80, and after investigation it was found that she sold 33 acres, and the Indian Department thinks it has done full justice when it has got $105 more for her than had been paid by Tracy, and thinks that Tracy had been dealing in perfect honesty. Surely the minister can see more in it than that.


Frank Oliver: May I ask my hon. friend what he sees in it more than that?


Arthur Meighen: I can tell the minister what I see in it. I see in it evidence, I think, plain enough for me, that Tracy took the deed in blank from this poor woman and filled it in to suit himself. I cannot tell what was in Tracy's mind any more than I can tell what is in the minister's mind. But, I am not, unlike him, absolutely blind to the evidence:
Kappow Esqua, absent from the reserve, ascertained that he sold 32 acres for $80 to G. H. Funk.
That was $2.50 an acre. And there ends the report. And as soon as Mr. Williams found that out he did not think he should go and see this Indian at all wherever he was, but he reported, and that ended the

whole transaction. Two and a half dollars an acre for prime land in Manitoba. Then, there is Mrs. James Fiddler, and this squaw sold 16-22 acres to the Northwest Land Company-that is Mr. Frank, and did not know what price, and did not know whether paid in full. But, Mr. Williams says, and here his heart must have leaped with joy: The purchaser's books show 16 acres bought for $80 and that she had been paid over $45 in addition. What a state of affairs. He is a very good book-keeper this man, and the minister conceives that his investigation is complete, and that all has been honest, when his official investigates this far enough to know that the woman sold and did not know what on earth she sold for and did not know whether she had been paid or not, but the purchaser's book shows she had been overpaid $45. That, the minister thinks, shows that everything was honest and upright with these Indians. Then we have the record:
William Henderson, unable to see him, books of the purchaser, the Northwest Land Company show 68 acres bought for $220.
And there the investigation ended so far as poor William is concerned. This poor Indian got $3 an acre for prime land in Manitoba. And the minister and his followers think they answer that by telling us that some swamp or low alkali land,: not so very far away from this, was sold for $9 an acre. William Henderson apparently has a brother, and the report shows that this brother claims he sold 41 acres at $5 per acre now and more when the patent came, and there w'as no satisfactory corroboration the report says. Poor Indian; he had no satisfactory corroboration, although he claimed that he was to get $5 an acre when he signed something he knew not what, and the balance, he did not know what, when the patent came. That was the extent of the investigation into this poor Indian's treatment. Oh, no, Mr. Williams went a step further; he looked up the books and he found that- the purchaser had a receipt from Andersons showing that the purchase price was $4 an acre all told, so that as soon as Investigate Williams found out that the poor Indian thought he was getting $5 down and the balance, he knew not what, when the patent issued, and that the purchaser's books showed that he sold for $4 all told, there the investigation closed. The report simply teems with cases of that sort. Here is the case of Mrs. David Prince, and it looks as though the sciuaws were not so businesslike as the Indians and did not fare so well. This investigator was unable to see Mrs. David Prince, but he says that the books of the purchaser, George Funk, show 32 acres bought for $100. That ended it, neither in this case, nor in any other, did these investigators think it was any busi-Mr. MEIGHFN.
ness of theirs to take a look at the land and see whether it was worth $1.00 or $200 an acre. They did not care whether the land was sold for one-twentieth of its value or not, but they were deeply concerned to look at the books of the purchaser and take their statement for the facts. There was al man by the name of William Pahkoo, and he sold 74 acres to the Northwest Land Company for $460. He must have felt good. He claims he was to get at the time of sale $5 per acre and the balance when the department valued the land, but Mr. Williams had no corroboration, and he says he found acknowledgment for the above amount in full for the land. And the commissioner, because there was no corroboration, drops the whole thing, and he deems the books of the purchaser sufficient evidence. Is that an investigation?! Let me suggest to the minister that whether it is right or whether it is not for the Department of Justice in Manitoba to investigate this case or any other case that has been suggested, the very same condition of affairs would confront them as confronted Mr. Williams-the poor Indian would be staked on the one hand and the speculator on the other, and where would be the Indian and where would be the prosecution? Let us take the case of William Starr. He sold 10 acres to William Kayner for $45, and 69 acres to George Tracy for $490. And the commissioner finds that there is a counter claim of $482, and that Starr disputed $64 of this, and he found that StaTr's contention was justified, but even so, that he was overpaid. Now, Mr. Speaker, here is a transaction, that the minister deems perfectly satisfactory, and still Mr. Williams found that this honest man, Mr. Tracy, had a false counter claim against him of $64, so false that even the Indian himself was believed, but because the purchaser's books showed him overpaid the whole thing is dropped. Such an investigation. Then, Mrs. Julia Stevenson sold 16 acres to W. D. Harper for $40, claimed that no price at all was mentioned and that she was entitled to $10 more, and that the purchaser had deeds signed and witnessed by her son. That is how they contrived to get that deed. They got the squaw to sign the deed and the Indian to witness it, and everything was all right. Then we have this report:
Consideration, $40. Has now paid $10 more to satisfy this old woman, and assumes a charge of $12 for improvement against the lot.
Fancy these poor people not knowing what they sold, hut in case of dispute, -taking a mere pittance from the purchaser; and these are the people whom the minister says are as competent to deal with land as are the members of this House. And these are the poor people that

the minister left complacently to their fate and literally threw into the jaws of the speculator. George Sanderson sold 98 acres, a nice sized farm, to George H. Funk for $500, and the report says he had no complaint at all, he also says that he sold 16 acres to a brother-in-law. Then there was the ease of Jessie Sanderson, and the commissioner says he was unable to see her, but the books of the purchaser, the Northwest Land Company, showed that 16 acres were bought for $50, or about- $3 an acre. And there was no investigation as to whether that land was worth $1 an acre or $50 an acre, but they could not see this poor squaw, and that was all they did about it. In the case of J ames Settee, he was absent from the reserve, but the report says that the books of the purchaser, the Northwest Land Company, showed 131 -60 acres bought for $400, or about $3 an acre. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, $3 an acre for prime farm land 25 miles from Winnipeg. It is all very well for the hon. member for Provencher, or for the Minister of the Interior, to talk to parties in this House who do not know anything about values of western lands; but those of us who have lived there are not children. Does the Minitser of the Interior imagine for a moment that land within 25 miles-of the city of Winnipeg, on the line of an electric railway, and admittedly good land -not sand, not swamp, not alkali, not even scrub-is worth only $3 an acre, or even five times $3-nay, seven times $3 an acre? There is no land in Manitoba that can be placed in that position, and the Minister of the Interior knows it as well as I do. Tell the people of Selkirk or the people of Winnipeg that good land, well situated on the river bank, is worth, only $20 an acre even. It would be ridiculously cheao at $20 an acre; it would- be cheap at $30 an acre. I challenge any member from western Canada to say that that statement is not true.


Frank Oliver: The hon. member is asking for opinions, and I would say that it is "absolutely untrue.


Arthur Meighen: Unfortunately the minister is in such a position that he must make statements that I do not think he would make elsewhere, and on other occasions.


Samuel Hughes: May I ask what is the price of good land, the same distance from Edmonton that this is from Winnipeg? I do not think it would be less than $40 an acre.


Frank Oliver: I do not think that has anything to do with the question. The price of land depends on the quality and situation, but it does not depend on quality or situation alone.


Arthur Meighen: The minister will not say that where the quality is first-class, and the situation unsurpassed, land is sold at $3 an acre, without fraud. It is perfectly absurd. I take these instances from the reports of his own officials. Here is another : ' Alexander Slater; absent from reserve; sold 16 acres to G. H. Fox (evidently a mistake for Funk) for $50 '. Three dollars an acre again, and he was absent from the reserve. ' Thomas Stevenson sold 92 acres to G. H. Funk for $404. Claims he was t-o get $5 per acre; found receipt for the price of 56 acres to be $4 per acre, and for 36 acres at $5 per acre, and balance still due of $10 It is very strange that the Indian would sign a receipt for $4 an acre, when he was under the impression that he was to get $5 an acre for everything he had.
' Thomas Spence sold 64 acres to the Northwest Land Company for $224 ', or a little over $3 an acre. I might read more, but I will stop with this instance-they are all pretty much the same. In some cases, as the minister said, very few, however, the price went as high as $15 an acre; but I do not hesitate for a moment to say, on my responsibility as a man of common sense, and as a member of this House, that there was not a single parcel of that land sold by those Indians for anything like half its real value; and this sale, at the highest price that can be picked out from that return, is a sale so ridiculous that fraud is depicted on its very face. 'Jacob Reslow sold 18 acres to the Northwest Land Company; claims valuation to be made when patent came. He received $50 only. Purchaser says price was $4 per acre. Found $45 still due. Sold 28 acres to F. Heap, the price to be fixed when patent came. Got $84. Found no corroboration, and signed agreement for $3 per acre.'
That is a nice way to sell land; and here is a law clerk, a man who has been a reputable lawyer, according to the Minister of the Interior, and whose character has been in no way impaired by association with his department, a man who goes out, and reports that a -sale was made of 28 acres, and that the price was to be fixed when the patent issued. Did ever man hear in the history of law a sale of that sort? The Indian got $84, but unfortunately for him, the report goes on to say, that he had no corroboration, and he signed an agreement for $3 an acre when it was produced. The Indian thought he had made a very discreet sale of his homestead at a price which neither he nor the purchaser knew anything about at the time, but which was to be fixed by Divine Providence when the patent issued, and actually s i g i) o c 1 an agreement for $3 an acre. These are the fruits of the course deliberately adopted by this department, with the result of making the Indians drunk, and the

speculators rich. These are the fruits of the course they adopted, and in regard to which they put between themselves, and harm the robes of Chief Justice Howell.
There is certainly an important issue at stake in this matter. If this House votes nay to the resolution of the hon. member for Selkirk, it votes approval of that manner of treating the wards of this country. If this House votes nay to that resolution, it votes that the laws of this country can be tossed to and fro at will by any department of this government. The manhood of this country i3 at stake. Will the manhood of this country, as represented in this House, vote approval of conduct on the part of this government, which consists in their fleeing from their responsibility to the wards of this country, which is the most sacred responsibility resting upon them as a government.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I should not think of intervening in this debate but for one circumstance, and I do not intend to take any part in the discussion of the principal question which is before the House for consideration. But a remark was made by the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) a short time ago which I think ought not to pass at any time in this House without having attention called to it. Speaking of the Chief Justice of Manitoba, the hon. gentleman said, I am told, that he had lived long enough to know that chief justiceships bestowed by this administration carried no guarantee against partisanship and no guaranty for wisdom, humanity or common every-day honesty. Now, I can quite understand any man in the heat of debate saying things which perhaps in his cooler moments he would not say, and saying things which he does not in reality believe or mean; but even making all allowance for the warmth of discussion over a party political question, I think my hon. friend, if he will do himself the justice of reflecting for a moment upon his own language, will recognize the propriety and the duty not merely of modifying it, but of unequivocally withdrawing it and apologizing for it. My hon. friend belongs to a profession, the members of which are often proud of saying ' that all of its members are honourable men; and at all events wnen a member of the legal profession has been distinguished by elevation to the bench, by being made the chief justice of his province, that circumstance alone, it seems to me,' without regard to his previous political activities or sympathies, ought to afford some guaranty that he possesses the confidence and the respect of people whq know him. The very fact that he liasf been placed in a judicial position ought to make him, to a certain extent at all events, im-


Arthur Meighen: mune from attack. I do not pretend that he should be free from criticism, but I think that he ought to be accorded the ordinary respect which men pay to each other and should not be accused, at any rate in the parliament of Canada, of lacking common every-day honesty.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: If my hon. friend will allow me, I did not make that observation at all with reference to Chief Justice Howell. It was a general observation. I said that I did not know Chief Justice Howell at all.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I am afraid my hon. friend does not better the thing by that remark. I was only going to add that we have in the nine provinces of Canada something more than nine chief justices, because in some provinces they have a chief justice of the Superior Court, a chief justice of the High Court and also a chief justice of the Court of Appeals; and I think I am safe in saying that more than half that number of men who are adorning the Canadian bench are gentlemen who were ap-po'nted, not by the present government, but by the previous administration. And I ask my hon. friend, I ask every member of this House, whether on this side or the opposition, to think how he would feel if some one on this side, speaking of the chief justices appointed by the late administration, should use words identical with those which have fallen from the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) with regard to the chief justices selected by this administration. I would ask him to reflect for a moment on his own personal relations with the, respected chief justice of Ontario, a chief justice appointed by this administration, and to say whether he means the language he used to apply to that gentleman. In the four years during which I have occupied the position of Minister, of Justice, it has been my lot and responsibility to nominate four chief justices in this Dominion-the present chief justice of Nova Scotia, the present chief justice of New Brunswick, the present chief justice' of Manitoba, and the present chief justice of Saskatchewan. And out of these four chief justices, three had all their sympathies and affiliations with the Conservative party before they became occupants of the bench.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: My hon. friend did not quite understand what I said. My remarks were not confined to the chief justices he has named. He has spoken of the four appointed since he became minister, but this government has existed since 1896, and I said that the appointment of chief justices did not necessarily carry with it certain qualities, and I have nothing to retract in that regard.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sliame.
House divided on amendment of Mr. Bradbury.
YEAS:
Messieurs.
Armstrong,
Arthurs,
Barker,
Best,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Boyce,
Bradbury,
Bristol,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Cowan,
Crosby,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Currie (Simcoe), Daniel,
Doherty,
Donnelly,
Edwards,
Elson,
Eraser,
Haggart (Winnipe; Henderson,
Herron,
Hughes,
Jameson,
Kidd,
Lennox,
Lortie,
McCall,
Magrath,
Meighen,
Middlebro,
Nantel,
Northrup,
Owen,
Paquet,
Porter,
Rhodes,
Roche,
Russell,
Schaffner,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster), Thoburn,
, Thornton,
Wallace,
White (Renfrew), Wilcox (Essex), Wilson (Lennox & Addington), Wright.-57.
++NAYS
Messieurs.
Allard,
Allen,
Aylesworth,
Be land,
Bickerdike,
Borden
(Sir Frederick), Boyer,
Brown,
Bureau,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash,
Chew,
Chisholm
(Antigonish), Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
Conmee,
Currie (Prince
Edward),
Demers,
Douglas,
Ecrement,
Emmerson,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Fowke,
Gauvreau,
McGiverin,
McIntyre,
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McLean (Sunbury), Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal,
Ste. Mary's), Martin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Meigs,
Michaud,
Miller,
Molloy,
Murphy,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Oliver,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Parent,
Paterson,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Prowse,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Richards,
Rivet,
Robb,
Ross (Middlesex), Ross (Rimouski),
Geoffrion,
Girard,
Gladu,
Graham,
llarty,
Hodgins,
King,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lafortune,
Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville),
Lanctot (Richelieu), Laurier (Sir Wilfrid) Lavergne,
Law,
LeBlanc,
Loggie,
Lovell,
MacNutt,
McCoig,
McColl,
Roy (Montmagny), Rutan,
Savoie,
Schell,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Stormont), Sperry,
Talbot,
Templeman,
Tobin,
Todd,
, Tolmie,
Turcotte (Nicolet), Turcotte (Quebeo County),
Turriff,
Verville,
Warburton,
White (Victoria, Alta), Wilson (Laval).-107.
McCraney,	PAJRS. Messieurs
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Lemieux,	Haggart (Lanark),
Brodeur,	Maddin,
Sifton,	Worthington,
German,	Fester,
Low,	Smyth,
Stratton,	Gordon (Nipissing)
Macdonald,	Lewis,
Guthrie,	Stewart,
Gordon (Kent),	Osier,
Harris,	Beattie,
Devlin,	McCarthy.
Sinclair,	Monk,
Reid (Restigoucke), Broder,	
Hunt,	Lancaster,
Black,	Chisholm (Huron),
Major,	Sexsmith,
McMillan,	Reid (Grenville),
Turgeon,	Lake,
Lapointe,	Ames,
Dubeau,	Clare,
Delisle,	Macdonell,
McAllister,	Perley,
Roy (Dorchester),	Forget,
Gervais,	Price,
Beauparlant,	Marshall,
Champagne,	Lalor,
Amendment negatived.
Motion agreed to and House went into Committee of Supply.
Public works-capital-new departmental buildings, Ottawa, $300,000.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: Public buildings, chargeable to capital account, were all disposed of except the new departmental buildings which stood pver at the request of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) who said that he desired me to prepare a statement showing the different buildings now being occupied, the rents which are being paid, the number of people who are being accommodated, and that 1 would also

produce, a plan of the proposed new buildings. I had a statement made up and sent to the hon. member for North Toronto who I regret exceedingly is unable to be in his place by reason of illness. That statement, of course, is in his possession and I am not able to submit it to the committee. I have a summary of all the different buildings occupied and the rents which I should be glad to read for the information of the committee if they desire it. I have also a photograph showing the character in a general way of the new biTildings. Of course it does not show the interior arrangement. That would not be possible, as we are at present laying out the building in large rooms with a view to having the rooms ve.ry much larger than those in the present departmental buildings and they will be divided up after very full consultation with the heads and deputy heads of the different departments. I have also a summary of the space occupied in the present departmental buildings.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: I would suggest that the minister supplement that with the rentals in each case.


William Pugsley: The hon. member would hardly ask for that information at this hour. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) asked for the information which has been prepared, and I caused my officials to go to a great deal of trouble to get this information. It took about two weeks. If my hon. friend who has just spoken had said he desired the rentals, I would have been glad to get them. It all appears in the public accounts, and as 1 said my officials took two weeks to prepare the information, a summary of which is now submitted to the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought all this information was specifically asked from the minister.


William Pugsley: No, I had a careful note made at the time and we sent the detailed information to the hon. member for North Toronto, saying that we proposed to go on with the estimates the next day. The hon. member (Mr. Foster) wrote me thanking me for sending this information, but he said he was obliged to be absent and asked if I would let it stand over. But he gave me no intimation that he desired any further information. If I had been asked for a statement of the rentals, I would have been glad to furnish it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood a question was put across the floor for this information. I do not know if a question was put on the order paper intended to bring out the same information, but at any rate that is information that several members on this side desire and would like to have. It is , not enough to say that the information is 1 Mr. jPUGSLEY.
in the Auditor General's Report, because that report contains thousands of pages, and even though you went over it for hours, still you might overlook some items relative to these buildings. The minister has in his department, clerks who could get the information and furnish it to. the House. I suggest that if he is not prepared to furnish it now, he might get it ready and furnish it to us when some other estimates are going through.	.


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to do so. It would have been only reasonable that, when the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) requested me to furnish certain information, if he or any other hon. member rvanted more information, he should have mentioned it at that time. But I do not find any fault with that. I will have one of the officials of my department get the information and submit it to the committee. I understand my hon. friend wants the names of all the lessors, together rvith the rents which are being paid, when the occupancy began, and the terms of the leases. I will get that information.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And also whether the government pay any taxes upon these buildings, because in the consideration of the lease that would be one of the elements.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: 1 would also suggest that the minister prepare information as to any capital expenditure made on the buildings by reason of the terms of the lease.


William Pugsley: I wall furnish all the information mentioned.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has there been a contract let for this new building?


William Pugsley: No contract has yet been let. In due course tenders will be called for by public advertisement, probably some time during the early part of the summer. The estimated cost is something over $3,000,000 all complete.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know whether my aesthetic taste with regard to the architectural design is defective, but it seems to me that the design of the geological survey building is rather that of an old country private castle than of a business building where a great many people are employed in various occupations. It seems to me that the geological building is defective in that respect. I would suppose that those who are charged with the responsibility of drawing up the plans for the new building *would keep in view the fact that there are other buildings on these grounds, and that the design of the new building should be somewhat in harmony with those already erected. I do not think it adds to the favourable effect to have buildings of vari-

ous architectural designs standing in the same neighbourhood. I always thought that the Langevin block was defective in that respect, inasmuch as it was out of harmony with the parliament building and the east and west blocks.


William Pugsley: It is curious how people's taste differ. I have heard some very good judges say that it would be a great mistake to have all the buildings of the same design, that there should be diversity of design as well as harmony. My own view is that this is an admirable design. Anybody who looks at it will see that a building erected upon that design will be exceedingly handsome.


Mr. LENNOX.: What style of architecture?


William Pugsley: I do not profess to be a judge of architecture, but I would say that it partakes of the Norman style.


Mr. CROCKET.: By whom was the design prepared?


William Pugsley: By Mr. Ewart, the chief architect of the department.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister says that $3,000,000 is the estimated cost of the building; does that include the furnishing as well?


William Pugsley: That includes everything that could be fairly considered as a part of the building, heating, lighting, ventilation and so forth. Of course it would not include the furniture.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I suppose it is the intention to let the contract for heating and lighting, and everything of that kind, at the same time as the main building?


William Pugsley: That is the intention.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it intended to make a crossing over the canal to enable persons to pass from these buildings to the new buildings on Sussex street?


William Pugsley: We have been thinking of the question of erecting a bridge, but that need not be considered for a couple of years yet. I think it would be very convenient to have a bridge, not an ordinary highway bridge, but a graceful foot bridge thrown across which would answer all purposes.


Richard Blain: Was it for these buildings that the government offered prizes for plans?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: Were the prizes paid?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: Are the plans the property of the government?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: To be used for what purpose?


William Pugsley: We have not adopted the plans, as none of them seemed to be entirely suitable.


Richard Blain: What were the prizes?


William Pugsley: I think there were four prizes awarded, and I think they amounted to $15,000 altogether.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Were the prizes awarded, and none of the plans adopted?


William Pugsley: Yes, because in the terms of the competition it was provided that there would be four prizes awarded to the four sets which met the approval of the board of experts-, they being considered the best of those submitted, but it was distinctly specified that the department would not be bound to accept any of the plans.


Richard Blain: What -good purpose has been served?


William Pugsley: It was supposed when the late minister, Mr. Hyman, decided to offer prizes for designs from Canadian architects that it would result in the submission of plans which would be approved, and accepted and upon which the building would be erected. No action had been taken upon the plans when I became minister, and after looking them over very carefully, and having others, in whose judgment I had confidence, look them over also with very great care, and after they were inspected by other gentlemen, because +hey were placed in the railway committee room where they were seen by a great many people, we came to the conclusion that none was satisfactory and we decided to have plans prepared by the chief architect of the department. It may be that the chief architect has taken certain ideas from these plans-as to that I am not aware, but the plans are the property of the department, and it was quite open to him to utilize any features that might commend themselves to him.


Richard Blain: Does the minister expect that $3,000,000 will complete the building?


William Pugsley: A little over $3,000,000. The chief architect expects that will complete the building, and provide heating, elevators, lighting and plumbing.


Richard Blain: What about the inspector and the clerk of works?


William Pugsley: He has not been appointed yet.


Mr. EDWARDS.: Is the land included?


William Pugsley: No, that is outside of the land.


William Cameron Edwards: How much did the land cost?

7172'


William Pugsley: In the vicinity of $600,-
000.


Richard Blain: When will the work be commenced?


William Pugsley: We hope to call for tenders during the coming summer.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When does the minister expect to have the building completed?


William Pugsley: I should think in four or five years at the very inside.


Richard Blain: What kind of a man will be employed as inspector of this work?


William Pugsley: We will employ none, but first-class men. Of course, we have our own staff. We will have an expert upon each class of work, and we will employ the members of our own staff.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the experts upon these plans make any report to the department as to their suitability?


William Pugsley: No they simply awarded the prizes.	,


Oswald Smith Crocket: Without determining whether the plans would be suitable for the purpose for which the building was designed?


William Pugsley: No.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And the ..department held that none of the plans was suitable?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: After paying $15,000 for them?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the superficial area of this building?


William Pugsley: As near as may be my deputv informs me that it is 100,000 square feet on each floor.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many floors?


William Pugsley: There are six stories facing Major Hill Park and seven facing upon Sussex street.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the Supreme Court to be placed in the building?


William Pugsley: No.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I thought I saw that in the press the other day. It is to be entirely a departmental building?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: What is the provision, if any, in reference to the Supreme Court?


William Pugsley: There is no provision.


Haughton Lennox: It was intended when this matter was broached first, to provide quarters for the Supreme Court.
Mr. EDWARDS


William Pugsley: That was by a separate building entirely.


Haughton Lennox: It may have been a separate building, but I understood that one of the main objects that the government had in view was to supply proper accommodation for the Supreme Court. I do not think it would be desirable to have it in the same building. I think it would be undesirable, but on the other hand I had expected _ that this government would have determined upon something in reference to proper accommodation for the Supreme Court. I am not in favour of extravagant expenditure, but I think that the accommodation of the Supreme Court is not at all in accordance with the position that Canada occupies. I think it is rather a disgrace to Canada to have the Supreme Court housed as it is down at foot of the hill. I do not know what the minister can say about it, or whether he proposes soon to provide accommodation for the Supreme Court, and, if so, where?
Mr/ PUGSLEY. I may say that it certainly -would not be at all desirable to have the Supreme Court housed in the departmental building. The matter of erecting a palace of justice, or supreme court building has not been considered, certainly not since I have been minister. I have understood, however, that the judges would prefer the present location. I think that in all probability, in the course of a few years, the question will necessarily be taken up of erecting a suitable building, which, as suggested by my hon. friend would be a credit to Canada, and I would think that it would be desirable that in that building accommodation should be furnished, not only for the Supreme Court of Canada, but also for the Exchequer Court and for the Board of Railway Commissioners, which is one of the most important courts in the country. That, of course, would require quite a large building, but at the present time the matter is not under consideration.


Haughton Lennox: Will the new building cover all the land on Sussex street?


William Pugsley: No, we will have room, for quite an extension to this building in the future.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is it intended that this will do away with the renting of buildings by the government for offices?


William Pugsley: I cannot speak for the future, but if the new buildings were erected at the present time, it would not be necessary for us to rent buildings in the city.


Haughton Lennox: I have a communication from the mayor of Barrie in which he points out that the post office square in the town, which is partly owned b.y the-

government, is in a very bad condition, and personally I know that to be the case. I will forward the letter to the minister and ask him to deal with the question before parliament prorogues!. Only a small expenditure will be required.


William Pugsley: How much?


Haughton Lennox: The amount mentioned in the letter is $500, and the mayor has many good qualifications, including that of being a supporter of this goverment. You will also notice that he is very moderate in his demands, as you would expect a good Liberal ought to be, and he states the town would be. prepared to bear a portion of the expense This square is opposite the railway station, and in its present condition, it leaves a bad impression on visitors as to the good management of the town of Barrie. There has been a stone wall built there, and I think that ought to be removed. I would suggest to the minister that he should send an official to make a report, so that we may know what is best to be done. The mayor points out that the time is now suitable for doing the work, and I would ask the minister to put the government property there in reasonably proper condition, and at an early date.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will send me the letter, I will direct an examination and report to be made. As- the amount does not exceed $500, the work can be done out of the general vote.


Haughton Lennox: I will send the letter to the department and speak personally about the matter to the minister.


Richard Blain: Is there any danger that my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) will be put' on the patronage list?


Haughton Lennox: I will be able to assume the burden of any patronage that will be visited on me by this government.
Chester-public buildinsr. $11,250.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is quite an important place with a population of between 1,700 and 2,000.


Richard Blain: In what county is- it?


William Pugsley: In South Bruce, which is represented by one of our good Conservative friends.	[DOT]


Richard Blain: I thought it was Mr. Tolmie?


William Pugsley: No, Mr. Donnelly.


William Cameron Edwards: What will be the total cost of this building?


William Pugsley: Our hope is that it will not cost more than $15,000.


Richard Blain: Has the site been purchased?


William Pugsley: It wag purchased in February, 1909, 104 square feet, at a cost of $3,800.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Any buildings on it?


William Pugsley: Not that I am aware of.
Dresden-public building, $15,000.


William Pugsley: The site has been purchased for the sum of $2,000, a lot having 60 feet on one street, and 103 feet on the other. The building is for a post office and custom house.
Dundas-public building, $15,000.


William Pugsley: The site has been purchased for the sum of $5,000. It consists of five lots having a total frontage of 125 feet by a depth of 100 feet. This building is to be for a post office and custom house. We are endeavouring to secure .these public buildings, in towns having a population not exceeding 3,000, at a cost not exceeding from $15,000 to $20,000. We hope to get the cost down to $15,000 including the land, in some cases down to $12,000.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: When did you adopt that policy?


William Pugsley: Quite lately. I have been urging it on the chief architect.
Elora-public building, $5,000.


William Pugsley: A site has been purchased for $380. Elora has a population of about 1,500. We expect to get 'this building, including the site for $10,000, or $12,000.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: There seems to be a great discrepancy in the prices paid for lots.


William Pugsley: Everything depends on local conditions.


Mr. HENDERSON.: What special reasons were assigned for erecting a public building in Elora, when other places of greater population throughout the country are not equally favoured?


William Pugsley: There has been for a considerable time, as it was represented to us, a demand on the part of the people of Elora for a public building. They are also anxious to have the town made a customs outport, and have asked for accommoda- * tion for a customs official there. I do not know that I can say anything further than this, that Elora is quite a thriving town. Its population is not as large as some othera which have not public buildings as yet.


David Henderson: I live in a town that has a considerably larger population, and I have no doubt that if it were made a customs outport the collections there would be five times, perhaps ten times, as much as they would be in Elora; yet

we have not a building there, either for a post office, or a custom house. I would like to know what grounds the people of Elora expect that the Minister of Customs will make it an outport. I do not know of any industrial institutions there that would require imports of any great extent. I understand that the policy of the Minister of Customs is to open outports, not for the convenience of the people, but for the collection of revenue. I do not see why the minister should erect a building for an outport at Elora, when his colleague does not approve of opening more customs outports. There have been very few customs ports opened by the present government. When the late govern-mejit went out of power, I think there were only 45 customs ports in Ontario. Now there are 52, and probably'seven or eight of the increases are caused by raising outports to ports. I am satisfied that the policy of the government, and the present Minister of Customs, at any rate, is not to increase the number of ports, or the number of outports, because the government can get the revenue just as well with the present number as if they had twice as many. I understand that we in Canada^ have as many custom houses as the whole of the United States.


William Pugsley: We are ahead of them in many ways.


David Henderson: Yes, in extravagance particularly. The cities of New York and Brooklyn combined have only one customs port, and through that port 70 per cent of the entire revenue of the United States is collected.


William Pugsley: How does my hon. friend know that about New York?


David Henderson: From an officer of this governement who knows all about it.. I got -the information from him recently, and I believe it to be correct. 70 per cent of the entire customs revenue of the United States is collected from the port of New York and Brooklyn combined, and the United States have practically no greater number of customs houses than we in Canada. We have in Ontario at present 52 ports, and about 89 outports, and I am satisfied that the policy of the Minister of Customs is not increase the number of outports. If the minister wants to establish outports for the convenience of the people, I am satisfied he can find other towns where a great deal more business is done than is done in the town of Elora. I am not saying anything against Elora having a public building for a post office or a customs house, but I simply rise to ascertain what special reasons can be assigned why this town should be favoured as against larger towns in which very much larger business is carried on. We have learned from Mr. HENDERSON.
the hon. minister that this is due to the continued importunities of the citizens. They have persistently asked for this and finally got it. Now we know how to get the attention and favour of the minister. The best way is to keep on asking, and by and by he will get tired of refusing, and will provide the accommodation asked for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: More than that is required.


David Henderson: That I do not know. I take the minister at his word, and the only reason he has given practically is that these people had persistently asked for it. In future hon. members will know just how to proceed when they want to get a public building. However, I do not want to be placed on the patronage list at present. It is a little dangerous. But I have got all the information I wanted and know how to proceed.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend does not desire that any public buildings should be erected in his county, it would be unkindness for him to press any such improvement on his people. I would be very loath to do such a thing. I want to say with regard to Elora


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How far is it from Guelph?


David Henderson: About twelve miles.


William Pugsley: A little more than that. There are two railways which come to Elora, the Grand Trunk railway, and the Canadian Pacific railway, and there has been very urgent demand from the people for an official of the customs to go there from Guelph once or twice a week for the purpose of receiving entries. That would only mean an extra room in the building, and I think that would be a great convenience. It must be a hardship for merchants, who receive goods by rail, to be obliged to go fifteen or twenty miles to another town to make their entries. Elora is an important place, there are saw mills, and grist mills there, two branches of banks, some thirty stores, a carriage, sash and door factory, and a factory of agricultural implements.


William Cameron Edwards: What is the postal revenue?	[DOT]


William Pugsley: In 1889 it was $3,275, the money orders issued were $16,501, and the money orders paid $20,539.


Haughton Lennox: What is the population?


William Pugsley: In 1901 it was nearly
1,200.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It would be less now I suppose. The small towns are going back.


William Pugsley: Not necessarily, only those which have lost heart and hope, and

Elora is not one of them. It is a progressive place, making headway.


Mr. RUSSELL.: Would this mean the employ of extra officials?


William Pugsley: There would be a caretaker of course.


Joseph Russell: Have they a postmaster?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Joseph Russell: The same postmaster would do the work?


William Pugsley: Yes. The idea would be to have an official from Guelph visit there once a week.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister has said that it would be a hardship for importers to go twelve miles to Guelph. I live where there are importers who have to go forty-five miles to have their entries passed, and there has been no move yet to erect a public building in that town, which is a much larger place than Elora.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend not think it would be reasonable to have a customs official go there once a week?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, but we have never been able to press the minister with sufficiently strong arguments to induce him to consider it.


David Henderson: I want to remind the minister that when he made the statement that I did not want any public building in my town and he was not going to press one upon me, let me tell him that I made no such statement.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend said he did not want to be on the patronage list.


David Henderson: No, 1 am one of those who believe that when a public building is necessary the government should erect it. If they thought a public building w-as necessary in the town of Milton for a post office, it would be the duty of the government to erect one there; and the fact that they have not done so satisfies me that they do not consider it necessary. In my town I have no doubt there is ten to twenty times as much duty collected in a year as in Elora. One firm employing a large number of hands and using a lot of material which has to pass customs, has to either send a representative or communicate with Guelph every day, and the manager told me he would be glad to pay $500 towards the salay of a customs officer if he could have one stationed in Acton.


William Pugsley: How far is that from Guelph?


David Henderson: About 15 miles.


William Pugsley: Does not my hon. friend think it would be reasonable to have an officer there?
Mr, HENDERSON. I think it would be.


William Pugsley: Then, would it not be reasonable to go to Elora as well?


David Henderson: It is not the policy of the government to open these ports for the public convenience, but for the collection of revenue.


William Pugsley: I thought it was for the convenience of the people.
Mr. HENDERSON The minister is behind the times. The primary object of customs houses is to collect revenue. The policy of the government is a tariff for revenue only, not for the convenience of the people. If the revenue can be collected with fewer ports, the minister 'will not open new ports, even although it might be a greater convenience to the public. I am not going to press to-night for a custom house in Acton or in Milton, because I have no idea that if I stayed all night it would be obtained.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will, I am sure, agree that it would be a very desirable thing if they succeed in getting it at Elora.


David Henderson: I certainly do, and would be delighted. But either of these towns is larger than Elora, and I am sure one of them would furnish the government with 10 times as much revenue as would be furnished by Elora in a yeaT. Apparently a building is to be obtained by persistent appeals to the minister. My idea would be rather to leave such matters to the intelligence and good judgment or the minister. I do not want the minister to think that because I am not asking for a public building I do not want one.


John Gillanders Turriff: I can assure the hon. gentleman that we on this side do not fare any better as regards custom houses than he has done, we do not get them any more than he does. I have several times endeavoured to get one or two custom offices opened in my constituency at places from 50 to 100 miles away from existing custom houses, and have not been able to do so, although there is considerable business.
Fergus-public building, $5,000.


Richard Blain: Is there any correspondence with respect to the purchase of the site?


William Pugsley: It was purchased from James Watt for $700. It is a large lot, 70 x 132 feet.


Richard Blain: I have here a clipping from a newspaper, reading as follows:



Fergus Post Office-Liberals bold a meeting to decide on the site.
A public meeting of local Liberals was- held last night for the purpose of recommending to the government a site for the proposed poist office. Four sites were decided on. The final vote gave the Murray property a majority of six over the Watt property.


William Pugsley: The vote gave a majority of six for the Murray property over the Watt property, but the government bought the property from Mr. Watt, who is a Conservative, although it was not approved at the meeting. The Murray site would have cost $3,000, whereas we bought this site from a Conservative for $700. We thought it was in the public interest. It shows how we do our business on business principles.


Richard Blain: Would the minister bring down the correspondence between the people in this town and the department with respect to the purchase of this site and the proposed building as well?


William Pugsley: If there is any I will be very glad to bring it down.


David Henderson: How far is Fergus from Elora?


William Pugsley: I cannot say. They are two separate and distinct towns in the county of South Wellington.


David Henderson: Is it the intention to provide for a customs house in Fergus as well as in Elora?


William Pugsley: No. We are not urged to provide accommodation for customs in Fergus. The Fergus building is to cost between $10,000 and $12,000.


David Henderson: I am glad to hear the minister speak about erecting cheaper buildings in small towns, because unless a policy of that kind is adopted, we can never hope to get public buildings in towns ranging from 1,500 up to 2,500 of a population. Years ago I commended that policy to the Hon. Mr. Tarte, when he was Minister of Public Works, and he did undertake to. carry that policy into effect. He started with the town of Clinton, with the idea of erecting a building for a post office that-would cost under $10,000. Building was cheaper in those days than it is at the present time. But I was informed, I think by the member of the county at that time, Mr. Holmes, that the chief architect told him that they would not draw plans for a building to cost less than $10,000. Mr. Tarte attempted to get a cheaper building, and I remember that before it was completed the cost went up to $15,000. Now, the minister will require to exercise a great deal of care, otherwise this $12,000 will likely Teach $20,000 before the building is completed. His officers will require to keep a close watch, and if the.y do so, I Mr. BLAIN.
think the cost can be kept down. But there is a danger that the officers of the government will give greater latitude, and that the whole purpose of the minister will fail. His purpose is a good one, I approve of it. It is oniy by erecting cheaper buildings that we can hope to have more of them. A good building to-day can be erected no doubt for $15,000 as a post office; yes, and for less, giving ample ac-, commodation, for any town the size of Elora and Fergus, with all the fittings required. The minister, in answer to the hon. member for East Toronto, stated that in Elora an additional official would be required as a caretaker. I do not think that should be the policy of the minister. The postmaster, I think, ought to be responsible for the care of that building. In erecting a building the minister should provide a residence for the postmaster as well as the post office. Let the postmaster live in the same building and be the caretaker of the building, and thereby save considerable expense. When Mr. Tarte decided to erect the building in Clinton I understood that that was the policy, that he was going to make it a residence for the postmaster as well as a post office. That is a policy the present minister mighu adopt with a areat deal of advantage. The use of the building^ as a residence would be ample compensation for looking after it.


William Cameron Edwards: How many post office officials will be required in Fergus, and how many in Elora?


William Pugsley: I do not have that information, because the postmaster at present is paid on the revenue basis, by a percentage of the receipts, and if he has an assistant, that assistant would be paid by himself, and not by the department. The only additional officer that will be required here is The caretaker. _ Of course there is a good deal to be said in favour of the policy advocated by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), but there is a good deal to be said the other way. If the policy were generally adopted of erecting post offices in such a manner as to provide a residence for the postmaster, it would mean a good deal of additional expense. The postmaster is quite an important man in a town, and he would want a good deal better residence than would be suitable for the caretaker. It would mean having larger rooms, and a greater number. Our experience has not been that providing a residence for a postmaster in a public building has resulted in a saving to the public.


William Cameron Edwards: What is the population of Fergus?


William Pugsley: The population pf Fergus in 1901 was 1,396. I presume it has considerably increased since then.


William Cameron Edwards: I am not going to enter any strong objection to the passing of this item. But I wish to say that there are many places throughout the country, with a population almost as great as these two, towns, where the post office is in a part of the residence of the postmaster himself, and where the revenue runs from $700 up to $1,000 or over. Now, I do not think it is fair to expend $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 in erecting post offices in comparatively small villages such as these, while there are a great many rural sections where the people have a mail service only twice or three times a week, or perhaps where they have no service at all, and have to go several miles for their mail. I think there is too great a tendency to erect buildings, and expend money in villages and town3, that these places are getting more than their share, and I think more of the pub-lie money should go to improve postal facilities in rural districts.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrrow?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) will give, I believe, a general explanation of his estimates, and then the House will take them up in detail.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.05 a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 15, 1910.