1910-04-13

SAINT JOHN HARBOUR.

Hon.   WM@: PUGSLEY moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 204 to authorize the erection of certain wharfs and buildings in the harbour of St. John. He said: the city of St. John has quite recently made an agreement with Mr. Frederick C. Durant for the erection of a very large sugar refinery in the city, and with a view to giving him encouragement in the erection of what is regarded as likely to prove a very important undertaking, the city has agreed to convey to him some of the property which it owns facing on the harbour, and a part of which is covered with water. As a part of the arrangement the Department of Railways has agreed also to convey to Mr. Durant a portion of its property near the ballast wharf. Then, I believe it has been agreed that either the whole or a part of the property received from the government shall be substituted for that which ha3 been conveyed by the| city. The agreement that has been come to has been confirmed by the legislature of the province of New Brunswick. The Recorder of the city is of the opinion that as this land, although within the harbour lines as defined in the statute, forms, so far as a portion of it, at least, is concerned, a part of the harbour, it is necessary to come to this parliament in order to have the authority given by the legislature of New Brunswick to make the conveyance, confirmed and ratified, and also to authorize Mr. Durant to erect wharfs and buildings upon that part of the property which is covered with water, but which is to the eastward of the harbour line. The sole object of this Bill is to carry out the agreement which has been made between the city of St. John and Mr. Durant.


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


Mr. SPROULE.: As the hon. minister has referred to certain memorials and correspondence which are in his hands, I would ask him to lay them on the table so that other members of the House may have the benefit of reading them. That he is obliged to do under the rule.


Mr. KING.: I shall do so with pleasure
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.


Mr. HERRON:: 1.	Was scrip issued by the Department of the Interior for the land which Mrs. Cuth-bert Gervais, formerly the widow of Urbain Delorme, Jr., was entitled to as a half-breed on her own behalf ?
2.	If so, to whom was such 6crip issued and when ?
3.	Has the land been located at any Dominion Lands Office ? If so, at what office and at what date ?
I. xs the said Mrs. Gervais also entitled to serin for lands as widow of the said Delorme ?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 1.	No land scrip issued; her claim was satisfied by an issue of scrip for $160.
2.	Such scrip was delivered to her attorney, Cuthbert Gervais, on the 2-3rd June, 1877.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	No. This claim was satisfied by an issue of money scrip for $160, which was divided between his four children- Elise, Marie Rose, Madeline and Urbain Delorme. The shares of Elise and Marie Rose-$40 each, were delivered to them personally and the shares of Madeline and Urbain, $40 each, were delivered to their mother, Marie Gervais as guarantee. All were delivered in 1878.


Mr. HERRON:: 1.	Was scrip issued by the Department of the Interior to James Wliitford, half-breed, for lands ?
2.	If so, when was such scrip issued, who obtained the same, and by whose order or authority ?
3.	Has the land been located under such scrip ? If so, at what office and at what date?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	As there are several persons by the name of James Whitford in the records of Half-breed claims, the names of the parents of the claimant referred to will have to be furnished in order to establish his identity.


Mr. MAGRATH:: 1.	Was the N.E. J Sec. 31, Tp. 30, Range 24, W. 4th M. applied for in September, 1908, as a pre-emption by the homesteaders of the adjoining land ?
2.	Was it reserved and not available for settlement during that month ? If so, for what purpose and when did it become available for settlement thereafter ?
3.	What opportunity, if any, was given to the homesteaders of adjoining land to obtain it as his rightful pre-emption ?
4.	When and by whom was it obtained and under what conditions ?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Yes, by Lester B. Haley, the homesteader of the N.W. \ of section 32, adjoining. Other applications may have been made to the Agent of Dominion Lands of which there is no record in the Department.
2.	This quarter section appeared in error as ' Disposed of ' in the list of odd-sections sent to the Agent of Dominion Lands, prior to the 1st September, 1908.
On the 22nd May, 1909, the Agent of Dominion Lands at Calgary was instructed to post a notice in his office setting forth that the whole of section 31, township 30, Range 24, west 4th meridian, would be available for homestead entry by the first eligible applicant over the counter, at the Mr. HERRON.
expiration of 10 days from the date of such notice. The sub-agent was also instructed to post a notice in his office.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	On 21st June, 1909, by Alton David Irvine as a homestead.
He was permitted on the 30th August, 1909, to abandon his entry for the purpose of having Half-breed scrip located on the land.
Under date of 19th October, 1909, Harold F. McDonald located Half-breed scrip on this quarter section, which he subsequently assigned to Alton David Irvine, to whom patent therefor was issued on the 16th November, 1909.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	To whom has patent issued for S.W. J 18 -19-20-W 4th meridian, and when?
2.	Did the patentee receive same as a homestead ? If so, when did he enter, and what hometead duties had he performed when patent issued ?
3.	What proof had the department that such duties were so performed ?
4.	If same was not granted as a homestead under the Dominion Lands Act, why was it granted; under what statutory authority, for what reasons and on what terms ?
5.	Was the department in receipt of applications from others for this land as a homestead ? If so, from whom, under what dates and why was each refused ?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Patent has not been issued.
2.	S.W. i 18-19-20-W. 4th is held as a homestead by M. B. O'Connor. The- entry was made on the 9th of October, 1906. Land still unpatented.
3.	See answer to question 1.
4.	Land held as a homestead under the Dominion Lands Act. (See answer to question 2.)
5.	So far as the file shows, the department is not aware of any application from other parties for this land as a homestead.


Mr. STAPLES:: Does the S.W. J 32-7-5, W. 1st belong to the government? If so, is it open for homesteading or for sale ? If not, to whom has title been issued and when ?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1. No. Patented 5th June, 1884 to William Lilly, who had made pre-emption entry therefor. [DOT]


Mr. HERRON:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to throw open in the near future any portion of the Peigan Reserve for homesteading, purchased homesteads, or pre-emptions ?
2.	If so, will the lands be disposed of by public auction or private 6ale ? If by the latter method, at what price ?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1. No.
it

2.	The remaining unsold surrendered lands on the Peigan Indian reserve 'will be offered for sale by public auction in June next.


Mr. BRADBURY:: 1.	Is the government aware that some time since January, 1910, a number of half-breed scrip is said to have been located without the half-breed to whom the scrip was issued being present and presented to the Dominion Lands agent as required ?
2.	Is the government aware that the scrip issued to Jean Riel, son of the famous Louis Riel, is said to have been located since January, 1910, and that the said Jean Riel died at St. Boniface some time in July, 1908 ?
3.	By whom was said scrip located and under what authority?
1.	No.
2.	Scrip notes for 160 acres and 80 acres were issued to Jean Riel, son of Louis Riel. The 160 acre scrip note was located on the 1.7th March, 1902, by the grantee, on the northwest quarter of section 12, township 10, range 12, west 2nd meridian, which he subsequently assigned to William S. Stewart, of Charlottetown, P.E.I., to whom patent therefor was issued on the 27th June, 1903.
No report of the location of the 80-acre scrip note issued to Jean Riel has as yet been received in the department,
3.	Answered by No. 2.


INCORPORATED COMPANIES.
[Stage Direction]
J.	P. TURCOTTE:
1.	About the 29th day of March, 1910, was there had, between the authorized representatives of the federal government and the authorized representatives of several of the provincial governments of Canada, an exchange of views on the question of the respective jurisdiction of the legislature of each of the provinces and of the parliament of Canada in the matter of the civil constitution of companies and as to the rights of companies 60 constituted ?
2.	If so, where was this conference held and at whose request ?
3.	Who were the respective representatives of the federal and the provincial governments at this conference ?
4.	Wa6 there an agreement at this conference on the question of its object ?
5.	Has the federal government official communication from the provincial representatives at this conference of the following resolutions adopted by them: ' Whereas, the government of Canada has proposed to submit to the Supreme Court of Canada, the question of the respective jurisdiction of the provinces and of the federal parliament in the matter of the civil constitution of companies and as to the rights of companies so constituted. And whereas the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Ottawa Eire Insurance Company, has already maintained the claims of the provinces in that regard, it is therefore resolved, that in accordance with this judgment, the provinces deem it neither
opportune nor desirable to consent to any other reference implying substantially the same questions. That they are of the opinion that it is not in the public interest to put in question the powers exercised by the provinces for more than forty years. That they believe that foreign corporations should not be empowered to enjoy within the limits of any province greater privileges than the companies incorporated by the sister provinces. That they say they are well disposed to take part in a conference to consider the drawing up of an amendment to the British North America Act in order to define more clearly and in a definite manner the respective rights of the Dominion and the provinces in that regard ? J
6.	Is it the intention of the federal government to amend the British North America Act as it concerns the civil constitution of companies and the extent of the rights conferred on them, as they are constituted by the government of Canada or by each of the provinces ?
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Railway Committee room of the Senate, Ottawa. At the request of six of the provincial governments.
3.	Dominion.-The Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Honourable Mr. Ayles-worth, the Honourable Mr. Lemieux, and the Honourable Mr. Murphy.
Ontario.-The Honourable Mr. Hanna, C. H. Ritchie, K.C., and Edward Bayly, solicitor to the Attorney General's Department.
Quebec.-The Honourable Mr. Tasche-reau, the Honourable Mr. Mackenzie and C. Lanctot, K.C., Deputy Attorney General.
Manitoba.-The Honourable Air. Campbell and the Honourable Air. Howden.
New Brunswick.-The Honourable Air. Hazen and the Honourable Air. AlcLeod.
British Columbia.-Mr. H. A. Maclean,
K.C., Deputy Attorney General.
Saskatchewan.-The Honourable Air. Tur-geon.
4.	No.
5.	A resolution was presented at the conference by the chairman of the representatives of the provinces, but not in the words set out in the question. The language of the resolution was as follows:
The delegates of the provinces assembled at Ottawa, on the 29th day of March, 1910, have adopted unanimously the following resolutions : Whereas it has been proposed by the government of Canada to submit to the Supreme Court of Canada the question of the jurisdiction of the provinces and the federal parliament respectively in reference to the incorporation of companies and of the rights of companies so incorporated; and whereas the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of The Canadian Pacific Railway Company vs. The Ottawa Fire Insurance Company, has already upheld the contention of the provinces in this behalf; it is therefore resolved:	(1)
That the provinces in view of this judgment do not think it expedient or advisable to consent to another or further submission, in-

volving substantially the same issue. (2) That they are of opinion that it is not in the public interest that the powers exercised by the provinces for over forty yeans should again be brought in question. (3) That they believe that foreign corporations should not be accorded or enjoy, within any province, greater powers than companies incorporated by sister provinces. (4) That they express their willingness to join in a Conference to draft an amendment to the British North America Act, to more clearly define and set at rest the respective rights of the Dominion and the provinces in this respect.
The Honourable Mr. Aylesworth, immediately after the presentation of the resolution, stated that before the conference dissolved he desired to call attention to a statement therein that the powers under discussion had been exercised by the provinces for over forty years without question. On the contrary, successive Ministers of Justice from the time of confederation to the present day had repeatedly called the attention of the provinces to Acts incorporating companies wherein the provinces had gone beyond their jurisdiction in assuming to confer on provincially incorporated companies powers not within their jurisdiction, which is ' the incorporation of companies with provincial objects,' under the British North America Act. In many cases such Acts were amended after comment of the Minister of Justice, and several of such Acts have been disallowed. He also stated that in the early days of confederation the provinces had not gone beyond the powers which various Ministers of Justice considered they possessed as they have been doing during more recent years. It is only when companies are incorporated by provincial legislation that their constitution comes before the Minister of Justice for consideration. There is no opportunity to question the validity of the incorporation of provincial companies which takes place under the general Companies Acts of the provinces. The statement that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Canadian Pacific railway v. Ottawa Fire Insurance Company had upheld the contention of the provinces, which is repeated in the resolution, had been commented upon at an earlier stage of the proceedings, prior to the presentation of the resolution, and the remarks then made indicated that this statement was not correct. Two judges of the Supreme Court upheld the contention of the provinces, two upheld the directly opposite view, one did not express an opinion on the general question, but restricted his judgment to the case between the private litigants before the court, and the sixth judge did not take part in the judgment, stating that it was not a proper case in which to dispose of a serious constitutional question.
6.	The federal government has no such power.


Mr. MURPHY.: 


QUEBEC FISHERIES.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	After the adoption of Special Fishery Regulations on or about the 12th day of September, 1907, on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and in virtue of the provisions of chapter 45 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, by His Excellency in Council, respecting fishing in the province of Quebec, was it lawful for the government of that province to issue licenses for fishing in the localities where fishing is prohibited by these Special Fishery Regulations ?
2.	Does the government know that the provincial government of Quebec, by its inspectors, has, it is alleged, granted such licenses ?
3.	If that was brought to its knowledge, would it have been able to prevent it, on being informed that the government of Quebec pretends to be itself the proprietor of the fish in inland waters P
4.	Has the government one or more paid
inspectors, charged with having inspected those Special Fishery Regulations in the province of Quebec ?	.
5.	Who are they and what is the salary attached to the position ?
6.	Does the engagement of such officer charge him also with other duties inherent to his office ?
7.	Could 6uch officer, for example, occupy a position of fishing inspector for the government of Ottawa and that of Quebec at the same time and receive a separate salary from each government?
8.	Does the government believe that in this alternative, such inspecting officer is in a position to equitably perform hie duty, if it be true that a conflict exists between the two governments, one the federal government, which regulates the fishing in fresh waters, and the other the provincial government, which pretends to be the sole proprietor of the fish which live in the same waters ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 1.	No.
2.	Yes; but on the attention of the local government being called to the incident, the licenses were immediately cancelled.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Yes.
5.	Joseph Riendean, of Montreal, $1,100; from the eastern boundary of Portneuf west, including all the counties north of the River St. Lawrence and embracing the river itself. C. A. Bernard, St. Cesaire, $1,000; alljhe counties on the south shore of the River St. Lawrence, west of the western boundary of the county of Bellechasse. William Wakeham, Gaspe, $2,000; the remainder of the province of Quebec, including the Gulf division to Blanc Sablon.
6.	The duties of these inspectors embrace the general supervision of the fisheries within the district for which they are appointed.
7.	The federal government has not taken exception to such an arrangement.
8.	There is no conflict concerning interior waters.


QUESNEL-IORT GEORGE MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	To whom has been awarded the contract for carrying the mails between Quesnel and Port George ?
2.	How many tenders were received?
3.	What were the amounts of the tenders ?
4.	Hoes the contract call for a bi-weekly or a monthly service ?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: 1.	The contract has not been awarded.
2.	Seven tenders were received.
3.	Until the contract has been awarded the tenders must be treated as confidential.
4.	The contract will provide for a frequency of not less than weekly in summer and fortnightly in winter.



QUESTIONS AND MOTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
On question 17 Mr. Boyer-
['I think they are on all fours. The case we are trying to meet here is a case of continuing damage. It is a ease that arises out of a contract. But here is a man who is living alongside of a smelter by which he is injuriously affected. Many men have settled without any knowledge of the location of the smelter. When the farmer bought the land, he did not know that there was going to be a smelter. His case is analagous to that of the man who bought land not knowing that there was a reservation as to mineral rights, and not knowing that oil was going to be discovered. If a smelter is located alongside of the property of a farmer and he is injured thereby, he will require to maintain a continuous action in order to secure that which he is entitled to recover, as the damage would be continuous, and he is entitled to be relieved of going into a lawsuit the same as you are going to relieve these owners under this Bill. I do not know of any reason whv, if this Bill becomes law, any man residing alongside of a smelter should\n\nuot have the same right to come here and ask this government to compensate him. Otherwise, he may be robbed of his legal common rights just as these parties would be if the minister had not introduced this legislation. It is class legislation.\nResolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.\nMr. GRAHAM moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 208) to provide, for the payment of bounties on crude petroleum.']
Mr. FISHER.: Some of the answers to this question might be given in a few words, but some of them would be very long, so that we will have to let it stand as a notice of motion for a return. I will, however, as soon as the information is obtained present it to the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to interject a query here, because many questions are in the same position. When they stand as notices of motion for returns, there is no opportunity of moving them, and, therefore. they are nullified for the rest of the session. It seems to me that some provision ought to be made 'by which these motions should be allowed to pass during the present session.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I may say to my_ hon.. friend that the committee on the revision of the rules has a rule in contemplation which will meet his suggestion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can anything be done to dispose of the notices now on the paper?


Wilfrid Laurier: Of course, we are now within the present rules, and we must remain so, but in the rule which we propose to bring in it will be provided that in a case of this kind the motion will go at once. The new rules will come into force next session.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR.: Perhaps the hon. the premier would allow the unopposed notices of motion to be taken up some day and disposed of.


Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps we can do that.



Mr. A. C. MACDONELL.: I would like to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister if an opportunity will be afforded for considering Bill (No. 23) introduced by myself to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act? The Bill has had its second reading and has advanced to the committee stage, but a further opportunity to consider it has not been afforded. The Minister of Labour has a Bill to amend the same Act, and I would like to have an opportunity when that Bill comes before the House for consideration to bring up my Bill, so that both amendments, which are largely identical, may be considered together.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will look into the matter.


INTERFERENCE OF UNITED STATES OFFCIALS.
Mr. ARMSTRONG.: 
Mr. D. C. KOSS.: Following up the state ment made by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), I may say that I have already brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of the Interior, and I believe the facts stated in the article referred to to be substantially correct as I nave received a letter from home confirming them. Such representations should be made to the government of the United States that conduct of this kind on the part of their officials will not be repeated. It seems to me that both Canadian and American officials engaged in the enforcement of immigration Acts should be taught that one of their first duties is to dispense courtesy and kindness rather than heckling, browbeating and humiliation to the parties with whom they have to deal, and in this particular case they should be severely censured for the conduct of which they have been guilty. I know the fajpily that has been mentioned very well and they are one of the most respectable families in my county.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER.: In order that there may be no misapprehension as to the responsibility attached to the conduct of this government, I would like to emphasize the fact to the House that the action is taken by the United States officers and is taken in respect of people who, if not already citizens of the United States, propose to become citizens of that country. Their conduct is not such as this government is responsble for except indirectly. Perhaps it may be well for me to explain to the House just how far that responsibility extends in the case which has arisen. Under the immigration exclusion laws of the United States, as under the immigrant exclusion laws of Canada, provision is made for the exclusion at the border of people who are deemed undesirable by the immigration officials of either country. In order that there may be an efficient examination of people who are crossing at the border, and in order that railway traffic may not be delayed, it has been the custom of the United States officers to board trains destined for the United States, in Canada, for the purpose of making their examination of passengers on the train before they reach the border, so that there will be no delay at the border. The alternative of that arrangement would be that trains arriving at the border would be held there the same as they are for customs purposes, until the examination was made. Of course that would involve a very serious delay to railway traffic. So the immigration officers of the United States do the same as the customs officers of the United States, that is, for the convenience of travellers, they board trains in Canada and make the examination on Mr ARMSTRONG.
the train, so that the examination may be as far as possible completed by the time the train arrives at the frontier.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Do Canadian officers board American trains in the same way?


Frank Oliver: In some cases where it is considered necessary. But I may remark that the exclusion arrangements of the United States are much more elaborate and extensive, and involve the employment of a much larger staff, than do the exclusion arrangements of Canada. Therefore the United States employ a much larger number of men than Canada is able to em-plov, or needs to employ. We run our exclusion business on a much cheaper scale than the United States, although we think it is equally efficient. Now in the handling of the exclusion act along 3,000 miles of the frontier, and where so large number of men are employed, doubtless it frequently happens that some of these men are not all they ought to be for the purpose for which they are employed, and sometimes they make mistakes, sometimes they inflict hardships needlessly. I would like to say, however, that so far as our experience has gone in dealing with the United States officers engaged on the immigration service, when we have brought to their attention any case of hardship or impropriety on the part of United States officials, we have received very fair consideration at the hands of the head of the immigration service of that country. We have never failed to bring such instances to their attention, and so far they have never failed in giving us reasonable satisfaction


RONDEAU HARBOUR.
Mr. A. B. McCOIG (West Kent).: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to a couple of articles which have appeared in the Chatham local papers protesting against the provincial authorities removing a large portion of the forest on Rondeau park. One of those articles states that the provincial government is going right ahead and is destroying the natural forest which protects the Rondeau harbour. That is the statement of a Mr. Watson, who is a prominent lumberman of that particular district, and is well acquainted with the locality, and knows how important this forest is to the Rondeau harbour on which the Dominion government are spending three hundred thousand dollars to make it the best harbour on Lake Erie. The action of this government in this respect has met with the general approval of people in the western part of Ontario. They regret to see this forest, which consists of hundreds of acres, damaged to such an extent that by the removal of large trees the smaller

ones are likely to be overthrown by the heavy storms that occur in the fall of the year. I think that if the Minister of Public Works will take up this matter with the Minister of Lands and Mines of the provincial government, the latter gentleman may be induced to cease operations, and I know that such action on the part of this government would meet with general approval, because there is a very widespread protest about the removal of these trees. I think that last fall when some of the leading Toronto papers took the matter up, it was generally understood that the work would be stopped, at least for a while. I hope that the minister will take the matter up with the provincial authorities, and see if measures cannot be taken to protect that harbour, and prevent the destruction of the timber which beautifies that part of the country.


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY.: The matter to which my hon. friend has called attention is one of a good deal of importance. But he will realize that the only ground upon wdiich this government could intervene would be that the cutting away of the forest is likely to be injurious to the harbour and injurious to navigation. I can understand that under certain circumstances that might be the case; whether it is the case at Rondeau I am not at present prepared to say. However, the matter is of a good deal of importance, and I should be glad to communicate with the proper minister of the provincial government in regard to it. I shall be very glad indeed if the views my hon. friend has presented can be met.


TREATMENT OF IMMIGRANTS.
Angus Claude Macdonell: I desire to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior to what appears to be a very serious grievance in connection with the exclusion of immigrants. There is a requirement that immigrants entering Canada shall each be possessed of a certain sum of money, and I have information to-day as to a case in Toronto in this connection which is one of great hardship. These immigrants are most of them illiterate and unable to speak the English language, so that they are not aware of what qualifications will be required of them ivhen they arrive at a Canadian port. If they have not the required amount of money pei capita they are then deported. A change has recently been made in the regulations in this respect, as heretofore each immigrant was not required to be in possession of a sum of money. I submit that the government should take precaution to inform those immigrants on the other side what qualifications will be required of them, and not have them come to a Canadian port under a misapprehension and
be subject to the harsh treatment of deportation.


Frank Oliver: This question lies at the very root of the subject of immigration. It is a question as to whether we are to exercise a selective and restrictive policy or not. I take it that the will of parliament is, as expressed in the Immigration Act, that we should exercise a selective and restrictive policy in regard to immigration, and the government must carry out the will of parliament which cannot be done without occasional cases of hardship. Let the members of this House thoroughly understand that in giving sanction to restrictive and selective laws they assume responsibility on behalf of themselves and their constituents for the hardships that necessarily arise in the adminstration of these laws. It is not possible that every person in every part of the world who makes up his mind to come to Canada shall be previously informed by the government of Canada as to the regulations. All that can be done is that the government -shall do what is reasonably possible to give due notice to the world as to wdiat the requirements, are. In 1908 an order in council was passed requiring that each immigrant should have a stated sum of money in order that he might be admitted into Canada. The first order in _ council passed required the money qualification to cover a certain term, and when that term expired another order in council was passed continuing the money qualification until the order should be repealed. These orders Were, of course, passed under the authority of the Immigration, Act. It is, therefore, more than two years since notice was given as to a money qualification being required. In view of the difficulty that people generally might not be conversant with the letter of the law', at the close of the last immigration season, on the 4th of June, 1909, a departmental circular wras issued which gave notice to every one it could reach as to the policy of and the administration of the Department of the Interior in regard to the selection of immigrants. On June the 4th, 1909, this circular was sent to the steamship companies, to booking agents, to anybody we knew of who wras interested in immigration, and the steamship companies reprinted the circular and published it in Europe as a part-of their information to immigrants. This circular set out that each immigrant was required to have $25 in cash on his arrival -in Canada except he wras going to farm work or going to certain specified relatives who were able and willing to support him. The shipping companies reprinted that circular and it was circulated through Europe bv them. I submit to the House and to the country that the Immigration Department has done all that

reasonably can be expected of it to give notice to the world as to what our regulations and requirements would be. The assertion that there has been any change in these regulations in regard to the amount of money required is not correct. It was found after administering the immigration law for nearly a year under the circular issued, that the circular was not in all particulars supported by the law. That is to say, there was a difference of opinion between the officers of the government who drafted the circular and the courts as to the support that there was in the law for the terms of the circular. The government forthwith passed another order in council on the 15th of March, 1910, which unquestionably brought the law actually in accord with the terms of the circular of June 4, 1909. In order that there might be no question as to the ampleness of the notice, care was taken that the substantial terms of the circular of June 4, 1909, should not be varied by order in council of the 15th of March, 1910. I submit, therefore,, that so long as parliament places on the statute-book a law providing for -the selection and restriction of immigration, the government is bound to carry that policy out, and I -submit further, that the government has given all reasonable notice as to the terms of the law that is being enforced and the necessity for a money qualification.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I have no fault to find with a restrictive or selective law; my point is that in all fairness to these people a test should be made on the other side and not when they land here.


OUTSIDE CIVIL SERVANTS.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation this year in respect to the reorganization or increases in salaries to the outside civil servants?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Act of which notice is on the order paper provides for considerable increases to the Inland Revenue, Customs and Post Office outside service.


THE BANKING ACT.
Henry Robert Emmerson: Will the Bank Act be taken into consideration this -session, and, if not, has the government under consideration the appointment of a commission to inquire, between now and next session, into the workings of the Bank Act of Canada?


Mr. FIELDING.: To both questions I shall have to answer ' No.' I had anticipated that there was a prospect of the Bill being got through before this session ended, but the indications are now that there would not be sufficient time to carry it through its various stages. Our inten-Mr. OLIVER.
tion is to deal with it early next session. With regard to the appointment of a_ commission, I do not think a commission could obtain any information that is not accessible to officers of the department who may be instructed to study the question.


NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into committee on Bill (No. 95) respecting the naval service of Canada.
Mr. DOHERTY.: I would ask the right hon. the leader of the House, if it is possible, that he should allow this Bill to stand over in view of the illness of the leader of the opposition. The measure is of considerable importance, and the leader of this side of the House, who is unfortunately absent to-day, would naturally feel desirous to be present at the discussion of it. I quite understand it is not a matter of right, tout if the leader of the government could see his way to let the order stand, it would be very convenient.


Wilfrid Laurier: Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and I think to some extent my duty to try and meet the wishes of my hon. friend (Mr. Doherty), I will not press the Bill to-day. I will try and arrange with m.y hon. friend on the other side as to when it can be taken up.
Motion withdrawn.


CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution.
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Act by providing for the appointment of temporary clerks for the compilation of any decennial census, who may be employed for a period not exceeding tliree years, and who shall be eligible for the annual statutory increases provided by the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908; by providing that the salary of a temporary clerk employed under section 23 of the said Act shall not be greater than the minimum salary authorized for subdivision B of the second division, subject to be increased as authorized by section 33 of the said Act; and for the payment to collectors of customs of a salary not greater than $4,500 per annum: and for the payment of officers of inland revenue salaries not greater than the following maximum, viz.; inspectors, $3,200:	collectors, $2,800; deputy collectors, $2,200; accountants, $1,800 ; special class excisemen, $2,500; first, second and third class excisemen, $1,500; probationary excisemen, $600; stenographers and typewriters, $700 ; messengers, $800; and for the payment of officers of the Post Office Department, as follows, viz.; post office inspectors on appointment, $2,500, with an annual increase to a maximum of $3,500; assistant post office inspectors and superintendents of the railway mail service on appointment. $1,600, with an annual increase to a maximum of $2,500, and to author-

ize the increase to the minimum of the salary of any such officers whose salary is at present less than the minimum; and assistant postmasters, on appointment, a salary of not less than $1,100 and not more than $2,800, and that the said salaries and increases shall be payable as from the first day of April, 1910.
Mr. GERVAIS.: Is it the intention of the minister to appoint more than one Census Commissioner?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This resolution refers only to the appointment of extra clerks required for_ compiling the census returns in Ottawa. Under the present Act temporary clerks can only be employed for six months, and the census clerks will be required certainly for from two to three years. By this legislation we will be empowered to employ temporary clerks for a longer period than the Act provides.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: There is a provision in the Census _ Act for the permanent taking of information in connection with the census; who is to be in charge of the whole of that new extra work in connection with the new general census?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The census commissioner.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Mr. Blue?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Is it the intention of the minister to appoint some one to act jointly with Mr. Blue in supervising generally the census in all provinces?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, we have the secretary of the Census Bureau and other chief officers. It is not my intention to appoint any chief officers for the general work. There will be census commissioners appointed in each province, but they will be outside and not in the inside service under the Civil Service Act.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: There will be no joint commissioner with Mr. Blue?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Is it not a fact that for the taking of the census of 1900 there was a joint commissioner with Mr. Blue? I refer to Mr. Cote.
_ Mr. FISHER. No, Mr. Cote was the assistant and occupied the same position with relation to Mr. Blue that Mr. St. Denis does.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: There will be no assistant to Mr. Blue for the next census?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: None outside the present secretary of the office in the department- Mr. St. Denis.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Will Mr. St. Denis have the same powers as Mr. Blue?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: There will be no supervision or control at all beyond that of Mr. Blue?
Mr. FISHER, Certainly not.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I understood Mr. Cote had equal power with Mr. Blue.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, my hon. friend is entirely misinformed. Mr. Blue, had absolute power and control of the whole census, and Mr. Cote was one of his assistant officers. .


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that provision is made that these clerks are to be allowed a salary not greater than the minimum salary authorized for subdivision B of the second division. That is in reference to clerks employed to compile the census?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They are to be appointed as ordinary temporary clerks commencing at $500 just like temporary clerks do now.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The only difference is that we will be entitled to employ them for a longer period than we are now authorized to appoint temporary clerks for, and being employed for perhaps two or three years, they will be entitled to statutory increases, the same as permanent clerks will be during the period of their employment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is an increase of $50?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then they come in at $500?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Under this Act we are arranging that some temporary clerks may be employed in subdivision B of the second division the same as in the third division, and it may be that a few of the temporary clerks for the census who will have charge of a block of other clerks will come in at a higher degree-that is at $800 instead of $500-at the minimum of the second division instead of the minimum of the third division.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then you have not provided for that in your resolution, because you say:
That it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Act by providing for the appointment of temporary clerks for the compilation of any decennial census, who may be employed for a period not exceeding three years, and who shall be eligible for the annual statutory increases provided by the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908; by providing that the salary of a temporary clerk-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That applies to the whole Act, and not to census employees only. One clause of the Act of 1908 defines our

powers with regard to the census. Then the resolution says:
-by providing that the salary of a temporary clerk employed under section 23 of the said Act shall not be greater than the minimum salary authorized by subdivision ' B ' of the second division, subject to be increased as authorized by section 33 of the said Act.
Under the present Act all temporary clerks have to go into _ the third division, subdivision ' B '. This is a provision that certain temporary clerks employed for a short time may be brought into subdivision ' B ' of the second division, instead of subdivision 1B ' of the. third division. This has no reference.particularly to the census.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: What is the salary that they are entitled to in subdivision ' B ' of the second class?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It begins at $800. .


John Graham Haggart: You could employ the whole of these clerks that you take in at $800.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, if I thought of doing such a thing, but I would not think of it. The Civil Service Commissioners have found that we have frequently had applications from ministers through their deputies for the temporary employment of men of a higher character for special work, and it has been found impossible to get these men at $500 a year. We have, therefore, made this provision in order that they may be brought in at the minimum of the second division instead of the minimum of the third division. The Act of 1908 provides that temporary clerks shall come in at the minimum salary, and that has been held to be the minimum salary of subdivision ' B ' at $500. As I explained to my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart), it ha3 been found difficult to get men of the desired class for temporary work, and we therefore propose to pay them the minimum salary of subdivision ' B ' of the second division instead of that of subdivision ' B' of the third division. That will be done only where the work is entitled to be so paid.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They start at $800, and go up to $1,600.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am talking of temporary clerks only, and temporary clerks could only be employed, except in census work, for six months in the year with no statutory increase. If a man is employed temporarily he can only be employed for six months. He can be paid at the rate of either $500, or at the rate of $800.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Rut your resolution provides that the term is to be three years.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is for the census people?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, but they are employed as temporary clerks?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And they commence at $800, and run up to $1,600?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A few of them who may be employed as superior clerks, and put into that division, instead of into the third division, would commence at $800, but they would only be employed for three years, and during those three years they could only increase at the rate of $50 per year, or up to $950. There is another provision later on in the resolution, which says that temporary clerks may also have the addition which is permitted under section 33 of the Act, in case the employment is of a character which is not sufficiently paid for by the minimum salary of the class. For instance, if the Public Works Department required to employ an engineer for three months, under the present Act it could only pay him at the rate of $500 a year, and it would be impossible to get an engineer at that rate. We make provision that exceptional temporary clerks may be put into the second division, where the minimum is $800 a year. I do not propose to apply that generally to the census employees, whose work is in a class by itself, and is of a nature that would hardly justify such a provision, although I think that a few of them ought to be paid more than $500 a year. I may say that out of 200 or 300 census employees there would probably be not more than half-a-dozen who would be put in the second division.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I notice that the resolution provides for the payment to collectors of customs of a salary not exceeding $4,500. I have no doubt that in fixing this amount the hon. minister has given full consideration to all the circumstances that ought to determine the amount of the salary. I would like, however, to suggest that there are certain ports where collectors of customs handle a very large volume of business and a very large amount of revenue, and that there has been a very great increase in that business and that revenue since the salaries were fixed at the present amounts. Furthermore, in view of the great increase in the expense of living that has taken place since that time, the government might well take into consideration whether in such cases it should not pay even a larger salary than $4,500 a year. I have at present in my mind the Collector-ship of Customs of the port of Montreal. The immense increase in the business of that port and in the revenues collected there are matters of such public notoriety that it is not necessary for me to go into details in that regard. That immense increase involves a large increase in the work

imposed on the collector and a large increase in the responsibilities laid on his shoulders. Under these circumstances, I think I may be pardoned if I take it upon myself to urge upon the minister a further consideration of the question whether in a port of such importance the services of the collector should not be remunerated at a larger salary than $4,500 a year. When one considers the salaries paid to men in ordinary business life, whose responsibilities do not compare with those of the Collector of Customs of Montreal, it seems to me that the government might see its way to pay a larger salary. I make no reference to the qualifications of the gentleman who now occupies that position; T refer to the matter generally. If I did make reference to his qualifications, I am sure that the minister would agree with me that they would very materially strengthen the case which I am endeavouring to make, that as regards a port of such importance, at all events, the salary suggested can hardly be considered adequate or fair.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The matter which my hon. friend has brought up is one which is more for the Minister of Customs than for myself. The Civil Service Act, of which this Bill is an amendment, fixes the salaries of various officers outside of Ottawa. The Act as it stands limits the salary of collectors of customs to $4,000, and it is proposed to raise that to $4,500. The question as to whether a larger salary should be provided for collectors at such important ports as Montreal and Toronto is a question which I must refer to the Minister of Customs.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am glad to find that provision is being made for an increase to the extent of $500; but I have felt it my [DOT]duty to point out the considerations which to my mind conclusively establish that the increase being made, while it is to be commended, does not adequately meet what justice requires in the case of the particular position to which I refer. The minister might at least have seen his way to adding the round $1,000 to the existing salary, and even then he would be very well within the mark.


Mr. PATERSON.: I may oay that the reason I asked the Minister of Agriculture to change the schedule of the Civil Service Act which fixes the maximum salary of collectors of customs at $4,000 was that I might be able, with the consent of Council, to given an increase of salary to the collector in Montreal and perhaps also to the collector at Toronto. The hon. minister thinks we should make the amount $5,000 instead of $4,500. Increasing the maximum will not enable us to deal with any great number of collectors of customs, because we would not feel warranted in asking that 221
the salaries of many of them should exceed $4,000, except at Montreal and Toronto, and possibly Winnipeg. The business done at Winnipeg does not seem to warrant it, but the cost of living there seems to do so. There is difficulty, however, in this matter. The Collector of Customs at Montreal is certainly a good officer, and we value him; but in the days gone by we could not give him more than $4,000, because it seemed to be ratheT an anomaly that the deputy Minister of Customs at Ottawa, who is charged with the administration of the law all over-the Dominion, only got $4,000, and it seemed to me that an officer subordinate to him should not be given any more, perhaps not as much. But a year ago the House was considerate enough to advance the salaries of the deputies, so that the Commissioner of Customs now gets $5,000. That opened the way to removing the difficulty which I had experienced before. If we were to advance tne maximum salary of any collector of customs to $5,000, that would bring up the question of advancing the salary of the deputy, which I suppose would bring up the question of advancing the salaries of all the deputies, and we would be in the same position that we were in before. Of course, we have to proceed gradually in these matters and try to do justice. In another year there may have to be a further revision of salaries. Circumstances seem to point in that direction, as valuable officers require more than was paid in years gone by. Of course, we could not now change the amount in this resolution even if we desired to do so. Another resolution would have to be brought down. So, perhaps, we had better let this go, for the time being at any rate, and at another time something may be done in the direction of what my hon. friend desires.


Mr. CROSBY.: I understand that the salary of the collector of customs in the city of Halifax has been at the same figure for upwards of 30 years. We have a man in that position who was taken from his business and appointed 4 or 5 years ago. He is a very competent officer, he enjoys the confidence of all classes of people in Halifax, and I am sure also he enjoys the confidence of the Customs Department, and we in Halifax think his salary should be increased. I need not press the matter further, because I have no doubt that the hon. minister knows the gentleman very well, and I hope he will see his way clear to increase his salary to at least $4,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The objection to this resolution is that it only deals with a fraction of the service. The minister has admitted over and over again that the salaries of various classes are low and ought to be raised. Therefore, in submitting a resolution to the House, I would


SEYISED EDITION.
[Stage Direction]
have expected that he would have included the whole service. In many cases we are increasing the salaries of the heads, but not those of the lower grades. If the increased cost of living entitles the higher officers to an increase, surely it ought to apply to those of the lower grades as well; yet they are not included in this list. When the government brings down a measure to deal with this question at all, it seems to me they should bring down one that would include the whole service entitled to an increase of salary.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may say tha? in the old Civil Service Act there is a schedule which fixed certain salaries of the outside service in the Departments of Inland Eevenue, Customs and Post Office. In other departments of the outside service the ministers are free to increase the salaries of the officers as they see fit out of a lump vote. In this resolution the Minister of Inland Eevenue proposes a change, raising the whole schedule from the higher officers down to the very lowest.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: 
Mr. BLAIN.: What about the larger towns?


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the towns the postmasters are paid out of the revenue, while in the city offices they are paid out of appropriations. In the town post offices the postmaster, appoints his own staff, and we bring them under this scale when the postage collections and revnues are between |20,000 and $25,000, and the population is in the neighborhood! of 12,000, when we also give a free city delivery. These increases will affect 16 inspectors, 18 assistant inspectors, 8 railway mail superintendents, 7 assistant postmasters, and the amount involved will be $10,800 a year. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) referred to railway mail clerks. I stated the other day in the House that in my judgment the outside service, including not only the officials in the larger post offices, but the railway mail clerks as well, should come under the Civil Service Act. It is my intention during the recess to adjust their salaries, prepare a proper classification, and try to bring them under the Act which applies now to the inside service-in 1903 the railway mail clerks received an increase when Sir Wm. Mulock was Postmaster General, and I cannot, in justice to the other classes of employees in the outside service, discriminate in their favour. True, last year I increased the salaries of the lower classes, the stampers, the sorters and the labourers but there was no dissent to that proposition, and the general opinion was that their salaries should have been increased long before. In the higher classes it is a little more difficult and delicate, but I shall have to look into the matter, with a view of doing substantial justice to all. We are dealing with some of the higher officials this year, but it is much easier to discuss the salaries of a few whose efficiency is universally recognized, than to enter into all the intricacies of the other grades of the post office service. I believe that the increases proposed this year meet with the approval of the country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister gives a very peculiar reason for not increasing the salaries of the middle classes this year. He told us he increased the salaries of the highest classes because they were the highest, and of the lowest because they were the lowest, but the middle classes he has not dealt with at all.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not prejudiced at all against the railway mail clerks; on the contrary I wish to do justice towards them. But they cannot sustain their claim against the ordinary clerks in the post office who have not had an increase and who do exactly the same work, and often under considerably more difficult circumstances.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does not the minister think that their position and work are as 221 i
different from those of the man established in a permanent office as day is from night? They are subject to dangers, privations, hardships and extra expense that the man sitting in his office knows nothing about.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is true in a way, but still there are good answers to all that. The railway mail clerk is meeting with dangers in the exercise of his functions, but on the other hand, he works only during some days of the week and he has days off. The clerks are closeted in the post offices, and they have to work day in and day out. Of course, they do not encounter the same dangers, but they have not the same facilities for breathing pure air as the railway mail clerks have. The railway mail clerks, it is true, are exposed to some dangers, but are not commercial travellers also exposed to dangers?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not to the same extent at all.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are on the same train.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister must admit that there is a wonderful difference with respect to the danger between the man who is in the hind car and the man who is in the car next the engine.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, I admit that the railway mail clerk is not far from the engine, but, if the train runs well, if there is no accident, there is no more danger for him than for the commercial traveller in the first or second-class car or in the parlour car. I am not at all against the claims of the railway mail clerks. I simply say that I would not be inclined to discriminate between their case and that of the clerks in the offices. It requires a little investigation on my part, and I wish to be fair and just towards the different classes in the service. If I were to give an increase this year to the railway mail clerks I am sure that I would have a very strong protest from the clerks in the post offices. I must take the opportunity during recess of going into this matter. Time flies, and it should not take too much time. The railway mail clerks have already received a substantial increase, and they can afford to wait a few months more.


Mr. RUSSELL.: Would the Postmaster General tell us what was the increase that the railway mail clerks received in 1903?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The mail clerks in 1903 were granted a substantial increase in their salaries, and they were the only branch of the service dealt -with at that time. Up to 1903 the railway mail clerks were appointed in three divisions, known as the

first, second and third classes. Men in the third class were appointed at $480, alter two years going up to $520, after five years $560, and after ten years $640. In the second class they started aj; $600 and increased, after two years to $640, after five years to $720, and after ten years to $800. The first class started at $720, and increased, after two years, to $800, after five years to $880, and after ten years years to $960, and $960 was the highest salary to which any railway mail clerk could attain in addition to his mileage. It will then be seen that the increases in the railway mail clerks' salaries were at the rate of $40 for two years which is equivalent to $20 per year. It did not necessarily follow that when a man had reached the maximum of a class to which he belonged he would be promoted to the next class; in fact, in a great many instances he had to wait until there were vacancies in the other class before he could be advanced to a higher class. As a matter of fact he had sometimes to wait for two or three years before passing from one class to another. Owing to representations made with regard to their work, the dangers they ran. the hardships they suffered, and at the request of the railway mail clerks themselves, the different classes were abolished >'n 1903. Under the change made by Sir William Mulock a railway mail clerk is now appointed at a salary of $500 per annum, after six months probation, with mileage-my hon. friend knows what mileage is-and he goes on uninterruptedly, unless there is some report against him, by increases of $50 per year, until the maximum of $1,200 is reached. Under the old arrangement his maximum was $960. Since 1903 he has reached a very fair and substantial increase. His maximum is now $1,200 besides his mileage. Some Tailway mail clerks can make salaries reaching the very respectable figure of $1,900-not many, but some. This was a very considerable increase as the following figures will show. Under the old law a man starting at the minimum and going to the maximum salary of the first-class, $960, would attain that maximum in a period of seventeen years, but as above stated, where delays took place in promotion from one class to another until vacancies occurred these delays would probably double that time before he would receive the maximum salary.
Jfow, a man going on at $500 and receiving his increase year by year, "which will be granted to him if he is worthy, attains the maximum, not of $960 but of $1,200, in fourteen years as against seventeen years in the old days. The maximum has been increased by $240 and the time in which the maximum can be attained decreased by three years. Under the old Act if he had Mr. I.EMIEUX.
been granted his increase and promotion without delay, which was never known to occur, he would have earned in seventeen years $11,560, while under the new Act he earns $16,350. Under the old Act the first class railway mail clerk who had reached the maximum salary would have received $5,760 during his last six years, and during that same period under the new Act he would have received $6,740, or an increase of 17 per cent, which salary would continue year after year as long as he remains in the service. In 1903, when Sir William Mulock increased their salaries, the railway mail clerks were in a very inferior position and he placed them on a very much better footing. It is my desire and intention to still further improve their position, but it would not be just to the other classes of employees in the service who have no mileage allowance and who have not received any substantial increase in the past. During the recess I intend to bring about this reform, which I have contemplated for many years, and they will receive justice at my hands.


Mr. G. V. WHITE.: In an answer given by the Postmaster General to the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) the minister placed the stampers and sorters of the city post offices in the same class as the railway mail clerks. Are they required to pass the same examination as the railway mail clerks do?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Many of the railway mail clerks are appointed without the examination required by the Civil Service Act, but with the expansion of the postal service, especially in the west, it was found impossible to get railway mail clerks fully equipped, and so we take the best young men we can secure for the service, and after a period of probation they pass their examination and then come within the law. They have got to pass a more difficult examination than the ordinary stamper and sorter, but the clerks in the city post offices have to pass just as stiff an examination as the railway mail clerks.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Adam Brown Crosby: I am glad to find that the Postmaster General is providing by this Bill for increases in the salaries of some of the outside service, and also that it is his intention to take up during this year the other branches of the outside service. Last year I urged upon him that ,in the cities, particularly in cities like Halifax, where the mails come in at all hours, and men sometimes have to be on duty for eight or ten hours waiting for them to arrive, special consideration should be given. I tried also to impress

upon the Postmaster General that now that the Post Office Department is showing a large surplus, the minimum salary of a post office clerk in a city should be not less than $1,000 a year. Money is a great temptation to a man when he needs it, and occasionally we find some of the men in the post offices going astray. The increase of salaries has not gone far enough, and I hope the day is not far distant when no clerk will be employed in a city post office and expected to keep a family on less than $1,000 a year. Perhaps the maximum need not be much higher than that.
T hope and trust that the Postmaster General -will take this matter up during the year, and see his way to come to that conclusion. With regard to the letter-carriers-


Rodolphe Lemieux: They have had a substantial increase.


Adam Brown Crosby: I am very much pleased with what the Postmaster General has done for them, but I hope the day is not far distant when a letter-carrier will not be asked to work for less than $800 a year. There are very few of the post office clerks who are not married. There is a rule in our banks that a clerk is not allowed to marry until his salary is $1,200 a year, and I think there should be a somewhat similar rule in our city post offices


Richard Blain: I would like to be permitted to ask a question of the Postmaster General. Section 115 of the Postal Guide of 1909 reads:
All letters and other mailable matter despatched from Ottawa by the Speaker, or chief clerk of the Senate or of the House of Commons or the librarian of parliament, as well as all mail matter directed to the Senate, to the House of Commons or to the library of parliament, at Ottawa.
In the Postal Guide for 1910, the words,
' as well as all mail matter directed to tho Senate, to the House of Commons, or to the Library of Parliament, at Ottawa are omitted. May I ask under whose authority thi3 was done?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have not fresh in my mind the order in council which dealt with that matter immediately after last session. As my hon. friend's question is not germane to the Bill, I would ask him to bring it up at another sitting of the House, and I will give him the information. At all events, I may say that nothing of the privileges of members has been barred by any order in council that has been passed.


Richard Blain: It does not apply to members. I will bring it up at another time.


Joseph Russell: I w'ould like to ask the Postmaster General if stampers and sorters have to pass the same examination as railway mail clerks? [DOT]


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not the same examination ; but outside of the stampers and sorters there are in the post offices several classes of clerks who have as difficult and intricate work to perform mentally as the railway mail clerks, and who have as severe an examination to pass. I refer, for instance, to those in the Registry Branch, and those in the Inspector's Branch.


Joseph Russell: But these other clerks receive salaries going as high as $1,500 a year


Rodolphe Lemieux: The clerks of the different classes can pass from one class to another provided there is a vacancy. The railway mail clerks, when appointed after their probationary period, get $500, and they go up by regular annual increases to $1,200, and they get the mileage allowance besides. It is true that the mileage allowance is only intended as compensation for their living expenses on the road; but suppose you should offer a railway mail clerk employment in a post office at the same salary, without any mileage allowance, he would refuse. He regards his mileage allowance as an addition to his salary, and not merely as compensation to pay for his board. Let me give an instance. The other day a young man who is employed as railway mail clerk belonging tp the district of Montreal, asked to be transferred to the Inspector's Branch where there was a vacancy. He was quite competent. As railway mail clerk he had reached a salary of $600, if 1 mistake not, plus his mileage allowance. He was transferred to the Inspector's Branch where there is no mileage allowance, and since then he has been writing the department to get his mileage allowance, an;d says he never expected to lose it. I replied that in the Inspector's Branch there is no mileage, but that if he would return to his former position as mail clerk, he would get that allowance. I do not know what I may do as he is an efficient clerk. I may decide to increase his pay after a while, but he is not entitled to any increase just now.


Joseph Russell: In the case of a town where the postmaster receives from $1,300 to $1,500 per year, does he pay his own clerks out of that?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.
Resolutions reported, read the second' time, and agreed to.
Mr, FISHER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 205) to amend'the Civil Service Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 103) to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.-Mr. Pugsley.
William Pugsley: Since this Bill was last before the committee, I have been endeavouring to see if I could not meet the suggestions thrown out by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), and also my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), and two or three other hon. gentlemen opposite. I am going to propose that there should be added to the first section this clause:
The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to small wharfs, not costing more than $1,000, groynes, or other bank or beach protection works, which do not interfere with navigation.
* I think that will meet all the objections raised by hon. gentlemen opposite. If in practice it be found that there are still any objections to the Act, those can be met by amendment in the future. I am sure that the committee will realize that my only object is to keep control of the navigable waters in the public interest, and I would not authorize the chief engineer of my department to interfere with small wharfs or structures, such as my hon. friend from Halton referred to, unless they really and substantially interfered with navigation. The great object is to have a law under which people will recognize that if they are building substantial structures within navigable waters, they must first submit their plans to the department for approval.


George Taylor: The hon. minister might add boat-houses.	,


William Pugsley: I have no objection.


Mr. BARKER.: I think that covers what my hon. friend from Halton spoke of, but I mentioned that in harbours there were occasionally rights of property where the title ran out into somewhat deep water and where a man might want to construct a wharf or elevator or something of that kind, and his building or structure would be actually in the water. I do not want to interfere at all with the passage of this Bill, the general object of which, I admit, is good. But what I ask is whether the hon. minister would see any objection to add the following as the last clause:
Nothing in this Act contained shall affect the right of any person to construct or maintain any structure upon his own property.
That is only to preserve the right of property, often very considerable property;. Where a man owns a right in a harbour, he owns the soil out under the water some distance. It is his property the same as the dry land. That man ought to be at liberty to build so far as his title goes, and Mr. FISHER.
yet 1 am not sure but that under the first clause of the Bill he might not be prevented by the government from building even on his own property. I would suggest the consideration of those words; if the hon. gentleman objects to them, I won't press them.


Mr. CONMEE.: I would like to call attention to the condition of affairs at Port Arthur and Fort William that might be affected by the motion which the hon. member for Hamilton proposes. The water lots there run out two or three thousand feet. The indentations of the bay are deeper in some portions of the harbour than in others, and therefore' the lots are not all of equal distance from the shore line. Now, if the owner of those lots has the right to obstruct navigation on any of those lots the harbour -would close up. I had occasion to look into the matter a little -while ago, and I understand that the patents issued by the provincial authorities in later years all contain a reservation, they deed the property subject to the right of navigation, they are not to do anything on the property that would interfere with navigation. Formerly that precaution was not the practice. I understand that is the practice of the federal, government, the department issues patents embodying the same reservation. Now, in case of most of the structurds such as elevators and the larger wharfs, people are compelled to advertise in the papers their application to build, and frequently I have been called in by the board of trade or the city couneil, in both cities I may say, for the purpose of getting changes made in the proposed plan or location of these structures, in order that navigation may not be improperly interrupted. The amendment might work well in some places, but I would be a little afraid of it in these two cities.


William Pugsley: I see an objection for the reasons which have been presented by my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) and also for other reasons which may be applicable to other localities. I have in mind my own province of New Brunswick. I think upon all the rivers of the province the old grants above the flow of the tide carry the ownership to the middle of the river, even on large rivers like the St. John. Therefore, if the clause were put in which my hon. friend suggests, the effect would be to remove from the department control over the erection of structures upon the navigable waters of those rivers. Then in the case of the foreshores in harbours which are owned by the federal government under the British North America Act, if the suggestion were carried out and a party should obtain from the Department of Marine and Fisheries a lease or grant of the foreshore, he might then go on in defiance of the Public Works Department and erect any

kind of structure upon that property, because under the law, even if he had a lease from the Marine Department, that would be his property. Of course, if he had a quit claim, which is sometimes given, it would be absolutely his property. While I would be glad to meet, if possible, the view of my hon. friend, I am afraid it would make the Bill inoperative in many respects.


George Taylor: At Gananoque, the Gananoque rivei; empties into the St. Lawrence about a quarter of a mile below the lower dam in the Gananoque river, and the owners of lots on either side of the river own to the centre of the channel, by virtue of a grant from the government to the founder of the village. If the amendment of my hon. friend from Hamilton was adopted, it might have the effect of destroying the navigation on that river. All our warehouses and factories are situated on either side of it, and vessels land their coal on docks built upon it. Under that amendment some person might be able to build structures out into the water which would destroy every factory in the town.


Samuel Barker: As I said, I will not press the objection if the minister doesn't wish to accept it. I know there are a great many cases where the property right is very valuable, but I would trust to the justice of the government to see that no mischief was done in such a case. With regard to other cases, such as Port Arthur, the patents provide that nothing should be done to restrict navigation. That is a common reservation in many of the patents, and this amount would not interfere with that at all. [DOT]


Mr. JAMESON.: I have no desire to obstruct the passage of this Bill; no doubt there are many cases in which it may be desirable to have the authority which, under this Act, it is proposed to give the Department of Public Works and the Governor in Council. At the same time, I wish to draw attention to one fact with respect to the conditions of harbours on the Bay of Fundy. The hon. minister knows very well that there is a tremendous Tise and fall of the tide on that bay. I may tell him that so far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned, there are a large number of settlements along the coast where grants of the foreshore or water lots have been made to the owners of the upland. Those grants extend out some hundreds of feet, but in many cases they do not extend out so far as the tide recedes. Consequently, at certain times these water lots, or the foreshore, are exposed. Now, in order to build a wharf on these foreshores, and some people do require facilities of that kind, they are compelled to expend more than a sum of $1,000. The sum of $1,000, as the minister knows, expended on a structure of that character on the shores of the Bay of Fundy, would be wasted, for the structure would not exist for a single year. Consequently, when he has placed the amount as low as $1,000, up to which it will be competent for persons to build a structure of that character without obtaining permission from the department, or without having the site of the structure approved by the Governor in Council, I must say that I think that will work a serious hardship to the owners of those foreshores. In the harbour at Digby, for instance, where the tide recedes many hundreds of feet, and beyond the point to which the foreshores are granted to the owners of the upland, wharfs are from time to time being built, costing from $3,000 to $6,000. Some improvements of that nature are contemplated there now, and this Act would interfere with them very seriously. I dare say that on rivers it is necessary that the Governor in Council should have that authority to determine on a site, but it would be a serious thing to have this clause 5 put into force, permitting the destruction of an unapproved wharf under the authority of the Governor in Council. If instead of $1,000 the limit could be made struction of an unapproved wharf in the open sea coast under the authority of the Governor in Council. If instead of $1,000 the limit could be made a higher amount it would be some advantage.
* Mr. PUGSLEY. This being a general law applicable to all navigable waters, it would not do to make an amendment which might be supposed to meet the case of one river, but which might cause very serious public inconvenience in respect to other rivers. The $1,000 was fixed to meet the case of hundreds of small structures erected largely upon the inland waters in regard to which it would be a hardship to require the submission of plans. But in the case to which my hon. friend refers, there would be no serious inconvenience or hardship, because if a wharf of a substantial, permanent character is being built to cost upwards of $1,000 there certainly would not be much inconvenience or hardship in submitting plans for the approval of the Department of Public Works. It is impossible to conceive. of a case where, if the proposed work would not seriously interfere with navigation. there would be any refusal to approve of it. My hon. friend will see that if we put the limit at $5,000 some one will say it should be six, or if we put it at six that we should put it at ten thousand. The main point to consider is whether the work is of a substantial and really valuable character.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I would think the amendment proposed would largely meet the case to which I drew attention a short time ago. Where possibly two or three or

four groynes would have to be constructed, sav by a county council, in a distance of 300 or 400 yards, would the value of $1,000 apply to each or would it refer to them altogether.	*


William Pugsley: The $1,000 would not apply to a groyne of any kind.


Mr. BEISTOL.: I see that this only refers to bridges, dams, booms, etc., that interference with navigation, navigable waters are not mentioned. If I understand the new provision, it refers to piers, docks or other structures not included in the old Act. and if any of these cost more than $1,000 the plans have to be approved. I was wondering why the minister put it in that way. because if the work did not interfere with navigation what would be the object of any man with a $2,000 wharf, say on his water lot in Muskoka, coming to the department?


William Pugsley: UndeT the present law there is no authority which is to decide whether a work interferes with navigation or not, and the only way that could be decided would be to go to law. For instance, when a wharf is built without the plans being brought to the department, if the department wished to take action the course would be for the Minister of Justice to be instructed to file an information for a mandatory injunction to compel the removal of the wharf. Then the question would have to be tried, and it would have to be determined whether or not, as a matter of fact, the wharf really interfered with navigation. My hon. friend can see how, as time went on, navigation would be interfered with very seriously, and how much better it is to have some disinterested, competent authority in the first place to determine as to these plans. When the matter first came before the House I mentioned the case of a bridge which was erected in New Brunswick. As the hon. gentleman from the city of St. John knovrs the Fredericton bridge was erected when Mr. Blair was the premier of the province, and although the river is navigable for steamers running between St. John and Fredericton and Fredericton and Woodstock, he did not think it was any part of his duty to come to the federal authorities. He said: We are going to put a draw in, we are not going to interfere with navigation, and because we are not going to interfere with navigation we will not submit our plans to the federal authorities. I mention that case, because it almost caused a crisis in provincial affairs at the time, almost caused the resignation, or the dismissal, of the government, owing to certain action which was taken by the legislative council, and certain further action which was contemplated, I believe, by the governor of the day. It was a case in which the plans ought to have been submitted to the Department of Public Works, and the Mr. HENDERSON.
chief engineer ought to be the one to decide as to whether or not a structure of this kind in reality interferes with navigation. That is the whole object of the Act. It is to get a larger control over navigable waters.


Mr. DANIEL.: I presume from the way this Act reads that it will necessitate an application to the Minister of Public Works whenever a wharf is built in any of the harbours as well as on any navigable stream?


William Pugsley: Yes. .


John Waterhouse Daniel: Take the St. John river, for instance, which the minister has referred to as a navigable river; no wharf of any size or kind can be built in that river after this Act passes until a plan thereof has been sent to the Minister of Public Works and has been approved by him.


William Pugsley: Yes, but let me say to my hon. friend that to-day any structure of the kind is absolutely Illegal, and any man coming along with a motor boat, or steamboat who finds a wharf in his way in a navigable water can apply for an injunction, and compel it to be removed or destroy it as being an obstruction or a public nuisance. As the hon. leader of the opposition said the other day this is really an enabling, and not a restrictive Act, and it gives authority to make that legal which to-day is absolutely illegal, because the law gives any person the right to travel on the public highway, which a navigable water is, without being obstructed by a wharf or any other structure placed there without lawful authority.


David Henderson: Would the hon. Minister of Public Works let me read the amendment again?
The aforegoing provision of this section shall not apply to small wharfs not costing more than' $1,000 groynes or other bank or beach-protection works or boat houses which do not interfere with navigation.
I am satisfied with the clause as it reads. It refers to groynes, and other protection works just the same as it does to small wharfs. It might be made a little plainer by putting in the word ' or ' after the wrord ' dollars/ but I do not think it is necessary in order to give it the meaning I should desire it to have. My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) suggests that word.


William Pugsley: There is no objection to it.


David Henderson: Will the minister permit me once more to draw his attention to the request that I made before, and which I trust he has not forgotten? I think it is a hardship to the county council of Halton, and the municipality of Burlington to be compelled to pay for those groynes or wharfs


William Pugsley: That is another question.


David Henderson: It is another question.


William Pugsley: Better discuss it on the estimates.


David Henderson: I may not have an opportunity of repeating my request, and I do not want the minister to forget it. I am quite sure that if he asks his local engineer at Toronto to visit this erosion two and a half miles from Burlington he will get information which will warrant him in spending half of what is requisite to protect this shore and let the county council spend the other half. He has given me the assurance that the engineer will go to Burlington and examine the erosion there, and I trust he has not forgotten.


Clarence Jameson: My hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) having got his [DOT] or ' in, I trust I may be permitted to say a word to the minister as to the figure he has fixed in regard to the value of a wharf that may be built without authority from the Governor in Council. I would like to ask the minister if he cannot see his way, in view of the fact that it would cost more than $1,000 to erect any structure at all on the Bay of Fundy shoTe, to raise the amount to $3,000. I do not think it is an excessive sum, and if this Act passes as it is, it will be a very serious encroachment on private rights. There is no question as to the interference of navigation in the instance to which I refer.


William Pugsley: What does my hon. friend mean by interference with private rights? Does he not know that under the British North America Act the control of navigation is absolutely and exclusively vested in this parliament? Does not my hon. friend know as a lawyer that if I own the land simply between high and low water where the tide ebbs and flows, I have no power without express legislative authority to build a wharf there? The public may not try to destroy it, but does not my hon. friend know that any man would be entitled to go and destroy that whaif because it is an interference with navigation?


Clarence Jameson: I am very much obliged to the minister for explaining what is no doubt the law, and which I think everybody understands. If we did not understand it before, I presume we do now. But, there has been an Act on the statute-book relating to this subject, and the minister apparently does not think it goes far enough. He proposes to go beyond what that Act prescribed and he is going to compel persons desiring to construct any wharf or structure of that character on their own lands, to apply to his department and obtain permission before proceeding with the work. But, he has gone a little
farther than that. He says that in the case of a structure which is not going to cost more than $1,000, he is willing not to enforce the provisions of this new statute. Such works are excepted. I would ask him if he could not extend that and make the amount $3,000 instead of $1,000? He may not think that it is an encroachment on private rights, but if a man owns the foreshore and he cannot construct a wharf on it without obtaining permission from the department, I venture to say that if there is a petition sent in by some good friend of the minister's, that permission would not be immediately forthcoming. If a man cannot obtain permission I think it is an interference with private rights. It does not necessarily follow that he is going to interfere with navigation. I cannot imagine that any wharf that is going to be built for $3,000 on the coast will be an interference with navigation. On lakes and navigable streams a short or inexpensive wharf may prove an obstruction, but when it comes down to the salt water 1 do not think the same objection exists.


John Graham Haggart: This does not give any person a right to erect a small wharf; it simply says that you need not go to the minister for permission, but your wharf if it is an obstruction is bkely to be removed by anybody who likes. Inis clause does not give any permission; it simply says that one need not go to the minister to approve of the plans for such a wharf.


Mr PUGSLEY.: That is it; if you choose to do it, you do it at your own risk.


John Graham Haggart: The minister would oblige us very much now if he would give us a definition of what ' navigable waters are?


Mr PUGSLEY.: If I could do that I would be qualified for the highest judicial position in the country.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: In my constituency there is a dam now in course of construction which has had the approval of the Governor in Council, but I do not know how far the approval went or whether the structure complies with, all the conditions. Would this Act have any relation to that structure?


William Pugsley: This Act would not apply in that case because the work has already been approved under the existing law.	.


Mr. ARTHURS.: The amendment proposed by the minister meets a great many of the objections I urged against the Bill on a former occasion. But, in a great many cases sawmill men maintain booms round their mills which are to a certain extent in navigable water, the purpose of these being to retain the logs while they are being cut
. COMMONS
up. It appears to me that the Act would prohibit this practice in future.


William Pugsley: No, They can apply to the department submitting a plan of their proposed dam, and they can get approval. v\ e have continual complaints from persons living along navigable waters as to the erection of booms, such as that mentioned by my hon. friend from Pembroke (Mr. G. White) the other day in reference to a dam constructed right in front of the village of Petawawa. Surely the department should have reasonable control over works of that kind just as well as over fractures placed in navigable waters. When they submit their plans, if it is found the work will not seriously interfere with navigation no chief engineer would refuse to recommend approval. We are doing that constantly in the case of boom companies.
, Mr- ARTHURS. There are no doubt cases where a boom erected across a stream would be an obstruction, but this can be easily guarded against under the terms of the present law. What I am referring to is the case of booms which are constantly being changed, which do not necessarily interfere with the navigation of a stream or lake and of which no plans could be submitted to the department.. It would be a great hardship if a man who wanted to erect a small boom around a mill had to send plans to Ottawa.
' Mr. EMMERSON. The man who puts the boom there now is the judge as against the rights of all other people and often he constructs his boom in his own selfish interest as against the interests of the public This Bill merely enables the department to protect the public interest and it does not infringe in any way upon private interests because if the public interests are not affected permission will be given. At present these things are done without authority and in violation of the law.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I understood the minister to say that this was an enabling Act, but section 4 prohibits bridges, booms, or dams being constructed in navigable waters so as to interfere with navigation. The Bill does not include these words at all, but merely refers to navigable water so that it enlarges the scope of the existing law.


William Pugsley: Under the present law if a person should construct a work of that character without the permission of the department and if it interferes with navigation, any person who is obstructed on that part of the river can remove the obstruction or get an injunction in the court, and the man who erected it is liable to be indicted as creating a common nuisance. What I meant to say was that this Bill enables any one who desires to construct Mr. ARTHURS
a work of this kind to get the approval of the department and then it is made legal.


Mr. BOYCE.: Would this Bill compel those who are erecting dams on navigable water for the development of power, to come to the Department of Public Works every time they desire to put in a damp


William Pugsley: If it is in navigable waters, yes.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: For instance, on the Winnipeg river, a lease may be granted by the Department of the Interior for the purpose of generating water-power, and that lease may grant explicit powers to the company m the furtherance of that development; would it be necessary under this Bill for the lessees to come to the Minister of Public Works and submit their plans for the development of that power?


William Pugsley: Undoubtedly that would be so if the dam was to be constructed in navigable waters. But without this statute and without its terms being complied with, or without a compliance with the terms of the existing statute, no lessee could, under a license from the Minister of the Interior, construct a dam in a navigable water.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: If it was an interference with navigation.


William Pugsley: I judge that any dam in a navigable water would be an interference with navigation.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In every Bill that comes before any committee, in which we grant powers of that kind, we provide that such works shall be subject to the approval of the department.


Mr. LOGGIE.: Under the amendment, if a dock or wharf is to cost less than $1,000, will the person who constructs it still have to apply to the department? If he has not to apply to the department, is he protected, so that no person can interfere with that piece of property, as could be done under the present law?


William Pugsley: If it is a wharf costing less than $1,000, the Public Works Department cannot interfere with it, and the owner need not come to the department for permission to build it; but if he does not, he builds the wharf at his own risk, just as he does under the present law.


Clarence Jameson: Would the minister consider favourably an amendment which would make this $1,000 apply to navigable streams, and say $3,000 apply to coast waters?


William Pugsley: I could not do that.


John Graham Haggart: In floating logs down the river it is customary to put around them a boom in order to tow them through a lake or a long stretch of the river, or to

guide them to the entrance of a channel where there is a rapid. If a person who owned a small bogt insisted on the right to pass through that boom or to remove it on the plea that the river was navigable, it seems to me that under this law he would have power to do so. Lumbermen have as much right to navigate these streams by towing logs down as any one else, and it is absolutely necessary that the boom should move along with the logs.
'Mr. PUGSLEY. That is a movable boom, used to float logs and to keep them together, and I do not think that any minister would hold that the section applied to that.


John Graham Haggart: I do not know what any minister would hold, but I want to know if that is the law as laid down by the minister?


William Pugsley: The owner of the raft of logs is exercising his right to navigate the river.


John Graham Haggart: At the entrance to rapids he may stretch the boom and use it for two or three days, and may obstruct a navigable river in doing so.


James Conmee: There is another side to that question. In some cases rivers are unnecessarily blocked, but any lumberman who is at all reasonable would so arrange his boom as to stretch a long chain towards the shore so that any small boat or steam launch could get through. People work out such problems without much difficulty under the existing law.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 5,
Clarence Jameson: I wish to ask the minister if this Act relates to an extension of with the repair of an existing structure?


William Pugsley: It would, of course, extend to a new part, but not to any existing work.


Clarence Jameson: It would not interfere with the repair of an existing structure?


William Pugsley: No.


John Graham Haggart: Would it not interfere with repairs if the party did not get the consent of the minister? Would it not give the minister the power, if he though! proper, to remove it?


William Pugsley: I would think not, unless it were extended out farther into the channel.	>-


John Graham Haggart: I thought the Bill was intended to give the minister jurisdiction over some works which are at present ih existence and which are nuisances?


William Pugsley: No, it is only for the future.
Bill reported with amendments, and amendments agreed to.


ESCHEATS TO THE CROWN.
Hon.  A. B.@: AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide, in the case of escheats to the Crown, that out of any property so devolving the Governor in Council shall have power to make such grants as seem right;
(a)	To any person having a legal or moral claim upon the previous owner or a just or natural right or claim to succeed to his property.
(b)	To carry into effect any disposition of such property which the previous owners may appear to have intended.
(c)	To reward any person making discovery of such property to the Crown.


John Graham Haggart: What is the object of the resolution?


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: We have no general Dominion statute at the present time authorizing the disposition of money which may be received in the form of an escheat.
The word 'escheat', I might remind hon. gentlemen, primarily, perhaps literally, applies only to real estate. But using the word as including, not only real estate, but also personal property, which may devolve upon the Crown for want of any legal heir to a deceased person, we have at present in the consolidated funds of the country a sum of about $50,000 which has been realized and paid into the Receiver General as the proceeds of the sale of the estate of a man who died without having disposed of all his property by will. We have no authority to do anything with that money by any statute law. This possibly is the first occasion in which the necessity for some statutory provision on this subject has arisen since confederation because escheats, as every one knows, go to the provinces. This particular property, however, came from the territories before the new provinces were established there, and it may be that, in view of the provisions of fhe constitutional Acts of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, by which the Crown lands remain ithe property of the Dominion, all escheats from those provinces possibly might- follow a like destination. But, however that may be, and without adverting to that question of the future, so far as the territories are concerned, they were not a province, and it is quite plain that any property there which was escheated to the Crown for lack of heirs would fall to the Dominion as being the only govern* ment to which it could go. Such a thing

may happen at any time in the Yukon or Northwest Territories. AVith regard to the future, therefore, as well as to the money in hand, what. I am proposing is that by legislation the Governor in Council should be empowered to pay out of such moneys such sums as may seem right, first to any one who had a legal ot moral claim on the previous owner or a just or natural claim to succeed to his property. There might, for instanace, be an illegitimate child or other relations of a character *which .would seem to make it right to dispose of some part of the property, at any rate, in that way. To do so at jjresent there is. no authority whatever. The second proposition is that the Crown might be empowered to carry into effect any disposition of such property which the previous owner might appear to have intended. He may have made a will, but have defectively executed it, or there might be other circumstances indicating a certain intention. Finally it is proposed to reward any person making a discovery of such property to the Crown. These provisions are analogous to provisions in like circumstances of provincial legislation. The necessity for them is now shown, and it is desired there should be a general statute applicable to all people and cases of a like character. When mention was made of the intention to put this notice on the order paper, the hon. member for St. James, Montreal (Mr. Gervais), took exception, xearing that the proposition might be regarded as an attempt to encroach upon the undoubted rights of the provinces in this regard. I have since had the benefit of a conversation with my hon. friend, and I think he is quite satisfied that at any rate I do not entertain any such intention; but any possibility of danger in that respect can be readily safeguarded by the wording of the Bill when introduced, so as to limit it distinctly to what I intend, namely, the devolution of property by escheat upon the Crown in right of fhe Dominion and the Dominion only.


John Graham Haggart: I think that is a power which the Crown in the Dominion ought to have. If there are any escheats to it, it has as much right to make a disposition of such escheats at any province. But, what I rose particularly to ask is whether the hon. minister has in view any particular estate, because in my section of tlie country there is the estate of a party who died out in Alberta, and in which it was impossible for the Minister of Justice to act upon the principles that are carried out in the different provinces.
- refer to the estate of Mr. Montgomery who died up there.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: 


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: That is the very estate I have in mind.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have always thought the law should go further and provide for taking over all sums-lying in banks, for which there is no claimant. Money is frequently deposited in banks and the owner dies, there are no heirs, and the money is not disposed of but remains in the bank. We passed a law years ago which provided that year by year the unclaimed balances in banks should be published, but did not make any provision for disposition of the money for which there were no claimants. I have always thought that such money should revert to the Crown. I have never seen good reason why any individual should retain it. This Bill should go further and give the Crown possession of property of that character just the same as a portion or the whole of an unclaimed estate.


Charles Murphy: The suggestion made bv the hon. gentleman is one which would more properly apply to the Bank Act than to the resolutions now introduced.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not see any reason why, when we are dealing with the subject of escheats, we should not cover the whole ground. Of course, we could make such a provision in the Banking Act, but we could do so just as well in the Bill about to be introduced.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the resolution, which was reported, read the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. AYLESWORTH moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 206) respecting Escheats.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to provide for the payment to four additional judges of the Superior Court in the province of Quebec, each $7,000 per annum, and to one additional judge of the Court of King's Bench in the province of Manitoba $6,000 per annum.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: This resolution is introduced to satisfy the demands which, so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, have been very strongly pressed for now as long as three years. In the session of the provincial legislature of Quebec for 1907, a provision was made for creating three additional judgeships at Montreal and one at the city of Quebec, in the Superior Court of the province. That legisiu-

tion duly passed by the provincial legislature three years ago, has never yet been supplemented by the necessary legislation of this parliament to provide the salaries. I am free to admit that the delay in that regard has been felt as more or le3s of a grievance by the province of Quebec. It will be in mind that early in this session the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) placed a notice of motion on the subject before the House, which was debated to some extent, and which appears now upon the order paper among the Public Bills and Orders, the debate not haying been concluded. I said in the discussion of that resolution that the explanation of our delay in taking action which the hon. member for Jacques Cartier thought was rather reprehensible, was the hope which we had entertained that it might be possible by some reorganization of the judicial system of the province of Quebec, or by some better utilization of the present judges in that province, to avoid the necessity for increasing the number of judges. That hope on my part has, I am sorry to say, turned out one impossible of realization. I cannot pretend to sit in judgment upon the action of the Attorney General, and of the provincial legislature of Quebec in calling for these additonal judges as a necessity, yet I cannot lose sight of the fact that to provide an annual salary for all time of $7,000 is tantamount to increasing the fixed charges upon the Canadian revenue to the extent of about $200,000. Every additional Superior Court judge just means that increased expenditure to the Dominion. Yet where the needs of the public require this additional expenditure, the Attorney General of the province is the appropriate and best judge of the necessity which the provincial legislation demonstrates by its enactment. In the case of the four judges which are asked for from the province of Quebec I cannot doubt that the necessity really exists.
Then with regard to Manitoba, the amount of the salary, to begin with, is not quite so large, it is only $6,000. But the legislature of that province, during the session before the recent one, I think not more than fourteen months ago, determined that their needs required the addition of one judge to the number of judges of their Court of King's Bench. Recognizing, as I have said, the fact that the administration of justice in the province is in charge of the Attorney General and authorities of the province, and that they are the people best in position to know of this necessity, we have proposed by the resolution under consideration to meet the demands of the province of Manitoba in this respect as well.


John Graham Haggart: I am sorry to say that I cannot concur in the views just expressed by the Minister of Justice, for the reason that as we pay the money we have a right to see that we receive service for it. It is true that the administration of justice comes within the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities, but the payment of the judges lies in our authority. The payment of judges constitutes a great responsibility, and we have a right to be assured that there is an absolute necessity for it. The minister says that he was trying to make arrangements by. a readjustment of the duties of the existing judges which would obviate the necessity of appointing four new ones, Now, we have a right to hear what difficulties he met with in trying to make an arrangement of that kind. I may be wrong, but from what I hear it is not so much new judges that is required in the province of Quebec, as a readjustment of the duties of the judges they have there now. I wish to protest against the assumption of the Minister of Justice that because he has received a requisition from the provincial authorities asking for the salaries of four new judges, that he is therefore bound to accede to that request, until he has assured himself that it is not possible by a rearrangement of the judicial system in that province to meet	all the	requirements.	I	am
aware that the position taken by the Minister of Justice is that which has been taken by all preceding governments. They do not like to take the responsibility, which they ought to assume, of seeing that there is an absolute necessity for the appointment of more judges, and that no readjustment can be made which would obviate that necessity. The minister tells us that the salary of a new Superior Court judge is tantamount to an increase of $200,000 upon the fixed charges upon Canadian revenue.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I can assure my hon. friend that in this matter, as I think the dates demonstrate, I have held out to the second bell. I have done my best, and I have been, I must admit, convinced by the investigations I have made that it is not practicable to do what I had hoped. My idea, I may state frankly, was that by some doubling up, so to speak, of judicial work in the province of Quebec, Superior Court judges of the rural parts of the province might be made available to assist in the city work. Of course that is a matter entirely under the control of the provincial legislature, which has charge of the constitution and maintenance of the courts. One can readily understand that the practitioners and also the litigants in any particular district would not be willing to see their judge removed altogether from their own locality. I am assured that the plan which I had thought of is already practically in force, and that the judges for the whole of the territory surrounding Mont-

real as well as for the counties in the vicinity of Quebec, are to-day devoting all the time they can spare from their local duties to the work of assisting in the litigation of the cities. In that situation, there being unduly great congestion of work in Montreal particularly, I have felt that I could not properly oppose myself any longer to the views of the Provincial Attorney General and of the provinical government. I have no doubt that hon. gentlemen of the legal profession in this House, coming from the province, of Quebec, would bear out what I have said in that regard, and I am quite sure the hon. member for St, Anne's division (Mr. Doherty) would have personal knowledge of the situation in that city.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As regards a new arrangement which could be made in the province of Quebec resembling somewhat the one existing in Ontario, which province I believe has an advantage in this respect, my hon. friend is probably aware that some years ago the Hon. Mr. Thomas Chase Casgrain, formerly a member of this House and one of the leaders of the Bar, while Attorney General in the Taillon administration, proposed as a radical reform that the province of Quebec should adopt the same system as exists in Ontario, that is to say, you would have district magistrates having jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters up to a certain amount, and the judges of the Superior Court, properly speaking, having residence in Montreal or Quebec, as in Ontario they have their residence in Toronto, and proceeding to the administration of justice by a rotative system, by circuits. Mr. Casgrain was ahead of his time apparently, because although he then commanded quite a large majority in the legislature, although this was not a party question, he had to withdraw his measure after having explained it to the House and submitted it to the Bar. It is a most difficult question and I understand the difficulty experienced by the Minister of Justice when he compares the situation in Quebec with that in other provinces and comes to make new appointments. But we have in Quebec a system which existed long previous to confederation whereby certain districts. have been assigned to judges and these judges have been retained in those districts and the districts will not stand the removal of these judges outside of the shire town. As a matter of fact, the new judges who are being provided for in this resolution for the city of Montreal and the city of Quebec are needed. I have not practised in Montreal for the last eight years, but I am quite sure the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) who has presided as a judge in the Montreal district for several years, much to the credit of the


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: profession and of the judiciary, will agree with me that the three new judges in Montreal are badly needed. The population of Montreal has increased remarkably during the last ten years. It has now reached the high water mark of nearly half a million and the seventeen''judges who are there have to look after the administration of justice not only in Montreal but in Hochelaga, Maisonneuve, Vereheres, Chambly, Jacques Cartier and Laval. The litigants are obliged to wait, not for days, weeks or months, but for years before their cases are heard before the Superior Court. The witnesses come to the court house, and if the judges are engaged on a case that takes some time, they become uneasy and return home, and when at last the case is called on the roll the litigants cannot proceed in view of the absence of the witnesses. The Bar of Montreal, through the Chief Justice of Montreal, Sir Melbourne Tait, have made several representations to the government. Last year the Chief Justice and two of the judges who for years have been sitting in the court, Mr. Justice Mathieu and the hon. member for St. Anne's (Mr. Doherty) joined in the request for an increase in the number of judges. It is not a party affair, it is a question of business. The merchants of Montreal are simply discouraged when they have to bring a case before the court. The Attorney General of the province of Quebec, Sir Lomer Couin, brought this question before the House several years ago, and the legislature of Quebec decided by a statute passed at that time to create three new judges for Montreal and one new judge for Quebec. There is as much need for an additional judge in Quebec as there is for three additional judges in Montreal. The appointment of new judges in both districts should meet with the favour of this parliament. The city of Montreal is becoming a national port. That brings business to the court house and makes necessaray this legislation.


John Graham Haggart: I did not clearly understand from the minister why the provincial authorities could not rearrange the divisions, and duties of the judges so that the present judges might do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: These representations have been made to the Attorney General of Quebec. The Attorney General is quite open to conviction. He admits with the Minister of Justice that judicial centralization must soon take place, but we must educate public opinion first, and that takes a little time. He has agreed with the Minister of Justice that in future no new districts shall be created, and no additional appointments shall be asked from the Dominion government unless a friendly

conference takes place with the Dominion authorities. It is so arranged under our constitution that the creation of judges is part of the duties of the provincial legislatures whilst the payment of these judges is our lot. We cannot evade that obligation.


John Graham Haggart: I think the payment is the greatest power, refuse to pay unless you do so and so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: To sing the song of Kipling we must-pay, pay, pay. That is what is being done in the present instance.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that at all events I can speak with respect to the district of Montreal, and in my view there is an absolute necessity for an increase in the number of judges in that district. If there were room for criticism-and I do not propose to say that there is-I would be inclined to think that it is rather in connection with the delay in making this provision than in the actual making of it, because the facts set forth by the hon. Postmaster General are certainly not at all exaggerated. There is an absolute need in the district of Montreal for an increase in the number of judges, and that need has existed now for some time, in fact, there is a condition there that amounts very nearly to what might be properly described as almost a denial of justice. While all this is quite true as the result of a condition which should be a subject of amelioration, not perhaps by the direct action of this government or this House, I cannot sympathize with the suggestion that the position should be taken in this particular instance, at all events, that this government or this House should refuse to pay because it is in accordance with the system as we have it. But I do think that there is a serious responsibility upon the provincial government for maintaining, or refraining from endeavouring to remedy the condition which does make so large a number of judges necessary for the province. I am not unaware that there will be difficulties to be encountered by that government in remedying that state of affairs, but I think it is possible that there may be a great deal to be said in favour of the contention that a more strenuous effort might have been made in the past, and I think it is to be hoped that a more strenuous effort will be made in the future to readjust the system, and to make it possible for the work to be done in that province without a further increase in the number of judges. I think too that something might be done in regard to the manner in which the business is handled apart from the readjustment of the districts themselves. I am glad to see that at the present session of the legislature of Quebec there has been introduced legislation, which, if the reports
I have seen are correct, would seem to tend in the direction of ameliorating the situation in that regard. But whatever may be said about the condition that exists in that province, it is a condition which does exist and unless further provision is made to meet the absolute wants of the administration of justice in the district of Montreal, at all events, you will have a state of affairs where people are practically, so great are the delays, refused justice. I am quite prepared to approve of the proposition which is now made. I approve of the motive which has led the Minister of Justice to act with some hesitation in the matter, and I am not disposed to criticise the proposition, but if there were room for criticism it seems that it must be rather of the delay in taking action than of the action itself. I think that the provision which is being made is an indispensable one and an absolute necessity.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What has been said with regard to the necessity for additional judges in the province of Quebec is equally true with regard to the necessity for additional judges in Ontario. I understand that there has been a very great congestion of business existing through the lack of judges. So great has it been that it has been brought to the attention of the Ontario legislature, and some legislation was passed at -the last session providing for the appointment by this government of additional judges for the high court bench of Ontario. It is known, I think, to the Minister of Justice, that there is a very great congestion of judicial business ini Ontario necessitating the appointment of additional judges, and I should like the Minister of Justice to state whether or not he has received notice of such legislation as was passed respecting the appointment of such judges, and whether he would not accede to the prayer for the appointment of such judges so that there will not be a delay of a year before these judges can be appointed, and so that the congestion which exists in consequence of their non-appointment may be relieved.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the province of Ontario, I cannot pretend to speak to-day with the authority which I think I might properly have asked any one to repose in what I said on such a subject as this a few years ago. I certainly, when I ceased active practice in the courts of Ontario, did not think there was any necessity for increasing the number of our Superior Court judges in the province. Only a few years ago the number of high court judges in Ontario was increased by three on the establishment of the exchequer division of the high court. I do not recall in what yearthe judges of that division were appointed, but it is within the knowledge of every one that there was no chief justice of that division

until 1905. That is not yet five years gone by, so that in the province of Ontario we hail, only a few years ago, the whole of the work of the high court done by the twelve judges of the three divisions of that court. Subsequently their number was increased from 12 to 15, and in these circumstances one would have thought it was doubtful if so soon there was urgent need of adding to the number. It has additionally to be borne in mind that at a comparative recent session of the legislature the jurisdiction of the county courts in Ontario was very greatly increased. I am not sure of the extent to which the utmost jurisdiction of the county court in civil cases goes at the present time, but I think it is not less than $1,000. The effect of that legislation necessarily must be greatly to reduce the work of the superior courts. Every practising lawyer knows how large a proportion of the actual litigation of the Superior Courts always was in respect to sums of less than $1,000. I am persuaded that there cannot, therefore, be as great an amount of work to be done by the Superior Court judges in Ontario as there was prior to that considerable increase in the jurisdiction in the county courts of the province. But, while these things are so, 1 saw in the newspapers a few months ago that the judges of the Superior Court had made representations to the Attorney General of the province that additional judges were needed, and if the newspaper statement be correct, three at least were asked for. I had the advantage, two or three months ago, of a personal discussion of the subject with the Attorney General of the province, and he told me that he intended introducing legislation during the session of the legislature which has recent-Iv ended to deal with this subject. Since then he has written to me on two or three occasions, and he sent me a copy of the Bill which he intended to introduce, providing, as he stated in his letter, for two additional judges. Except in that informal way, and by a letter from the Prime Minister of the province on the subject, I have no knowledge of what has been done by the provincial legislature in this regard. I might say that I have not had any copy of the Bill as it finally passed, but I understand that it was for the creation of two additional judgeships. That is what the Attorney General said to me was his intention. I have not had, nor has there come to the government in any way, any formal application in the matter or any formal notice of the passage of this Act. In the circumstances, and I must admit that relying very considerably upon my own personal judgment in the matter, I have thought that legislation by this parliament, so far as as the, province of Ontario is concerned, might well wait for another 12 months without any interest really being Mr. AYLESWORTH.
hurt. Unfortunately, judicial work in the province at the present time is labouring under the disadvantage of the absence on account of illness of the senior puisne judge of the high court, Mr. Justice Mac-Mahon. I have no doubt that his inability to do his share of the work has increased the amount of work which necessarily would fall upon the shoulders of his brother judges. But I am sanguine to think that there are no arrears of work before the Superior Courts of the province at the present time that the existing force of judges is not able to cope with for at least another 12 months, and that the public interest in the province will not suffer at all if action on our part is left until another year.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: I would urge strongly that the minister consider, although it is late in the session, the question of increasing the number of judges in Ontario. I happen to know that the judges are overcrowded with work and that judgments are delayed a long time because the judges cannot catch up with the arrears. I might also suggest to the minister that in the large centres of population in the provinces of Ontario, especially in Toronto, the cost of living has increased-some say 60 per cent at least-and the salary of a high court judge does not go nearly as far as it formerly did. Another consideration is that remuneration from court practice to the better class of lawyers has increased to such an extent that a practitioner of the first class will hardly consider a judgeship, because while he might consider it a great honour it would be a great sacrifice for him to go on the bench. These are questions that parliament -will have to grapple with in course of time. Litigation is increasing all the time, and many of the judges have reached that age when they are not so young and vigorous as they used to be. It is a great imposition on them to have to grind in the courts day after day and work harder for less money than would be their reward in private practice. It is only fair that if the judges do good work they should be paid good wages. A good lawyer in the city of Toronto can make $25,000 a year, and any one of these judges if he were in practice would be earning that money.


An hon. MEMBER.: Not only in Toronto.


John Allister Currie: Not only in Toronto, but I understand that in the Supreme Court it is a hardship on these men. I know that the Minister of Justice has cognizance of this matter and that he will deal with it. I fully concur in the proposal to increase the number of judges.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A few years ago we increased the salaries of the judges to what

I thought was a very considerable extent. 1 have always regarded it as unfair to make a comparison between what is paid to a judge and what eminent lawyers get because of their legal ability. There is no class in the community which gets* as many of the plums of life as the.legal profession. As solicitors for railway corporations, banking corporations, loan companies and industrial concerns, they are paid great salaries on account of their knowledge of law, enabling them to give their principals information as to how they can evade the law and extract very large and onerous returns from the people. It is said that we ought to pay higher salaries to make these men judges because they can earn more in the profession. I think that is radically wrong. There is no profession in the country that earns half the salaries which they do, and yet I am bound to believe that many men in professional life are as intelligent, as brainy, as industrious and as faithful as lawyers are. But they do not get the returns-why? Because they are not able to tell their principals how they may evade the law. That to my mind is no proper argument why you should increase the salaries of the judges. I believe that 90 per cent of the people of the country agree with what I sav, that in proportion to their ability the legal profession of this country get more positions to which large emoluments are attached than any other class of men in the community ; and it is almost adding insult to injury to put that forward as a reason why the salaries of the judges of this country should be increased.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. AYLESWORTH moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 207) to amend the Judges Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide rliat the bounty of one and one-half cant per imperial gallon payable on crude petroleum ironi Canadian wells, or from shales or other substances mined in Canada, authorized by chanter 52 of the statutes of 190R, may be paid to the owner or occupier of the' soil through which it is mined or won, or to such other person interested or injuriously affected bv the mining operations or works, as the Governor in Council mav approve.-Mr. Graham.
Mr. GRAHAM.: The meaning of this is simply this. The Dominion government gives a bounty of li cents per imperial gallon on all crude petroleum to the producer thereof. A corporation known as the Can-222
ada Company obtained patents to a very-large portion of the territory in western Ontario now operated as oil fields. Up to 1872 there was nothing in the leases which the Canadian Company gave to the farmers reserving to the company the mineral rights. After 1872 the company, in its deeds to the farmers, reserved those rights. The result of that is that a man owning a farm in Essex or Kent, where the oil wells have been sunk or where it is proposed to sink oil wells, is very much handicapped. Cases have been brought to my notice where a man's entire crop would be practically spoiled by people to whom the Canada Company had leased the right to sink wells. They go over a man's property, tramp down his crop, knock down his fences, offer a mall pittance for the damage, and tell him to go to court. No matter what reservations are made as to the mineral rights, this is manifestly unfair to the ipan who is tilling the soil. This matter came up in the Ontario legislature a few years ago, when I was a member of that House, and was discussed thoroughly. The hon. gentleman who is now Provincial Secretary, has stated that on a farm valued at $5,000, the actions of the lessees of the mineral rights would do damage to the extent of possibly fifty per cent of that value. A case was brought to my attention the other day in which it was said that the lessees went on a man's property and asked him if he proposed to farm that this year. He said certainly he did.
' Then,' they said, ' you had better move to another farm, because we are going to fill this one with holes.' Any action we take will not interfere in any way with the contracts between the Canadian Land Company and the farmers; but parliament has seen fit, in its wisdom, to present a bounty to the producers of crude petroleum, and what we propose to do in this Act is to give the Minister of Trade and Commerce the right to apportion that bounty between the producer of the crude petroleum and the farmer whose land is damaged by the work of developing these oil welis. The injury done to the farm lands is part of the expense incurred in the development of the crude petroleum industry, and we think that on that ground we have every Tight to protect the farmers whose lands are thus injured. If it has the effect of making the lessees more careful so that he will avoid any unnecessary damage, the farmer would be thoroughly satisfied, but if the lessee should inflict a certain amount of damages, the Minister of Trade and Commerce will have the. power to apportion the amount of the bounty given in such a way that the farmer will be protected to a certain extent. With that explanation I wish to noint out that the amendment provides for the insertion in the Bill of certain



69SS
words, which will make the Act read as follows:
The Governor in Council may authorize the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of a bounty of one and one-half cent per imperial gallon on all crude petroleum, having a specific gravity, not less than -8235 at 60 degrees by Fahrenheit thermometer produced from wells in Canada or from shales or other substances mined in Canada on and after the day on which this Act comes into force-the said bounty to be paid to the producer of the petroleum or to the owner or occupier of the soil through which it is mined or won, or to such other person interested as the Governor in Council by regulation approves.


Mr.   .T. HAGGART@: That is to be done by regulation.


Mr. GKAHAM.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: What form will your regulations take, because the principal objection to this resolution is that it will be entirely optional on the government to act on it or not. There would be no objection to some mechanical way by which the party injured would be entitled legally to compensation, but this is left to regulation at the option of the government.


Duncan Graham: We are not making any change in the old Act in that respect. As the Act stands, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, recommends certain regulations which have to be approved by the Governor in Council. By these regulations, he may apportion a part of the bounty to the farmers:
The Minister of Trade and Commerce shall be charged with the administration of this' Act, and may, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, make such regulations as he deems necessary respecting the payment of the said bounties.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister does not appreciate the point I make. Your regulations are for the purpose of applying to the lessee alone the one and a half cent per gallon, and you intend to take that from him and give it to the owner of the land which you say is damaged. In what form are the regulations by which that apportionment is to be made?


George Perry Graham: I see the point my hon. friend makes. I tried to work out a mechanical way by which the thing could be done. The Minister of Trade and Commerce tried to work that out, but we found it impossible to make it mechanical in the statute because the conditions are so varied. The object of the Bill is to protect the farmers against damages as well as give them compensation, and we found it impossible to devise a clause that would operate mechanically, and apply to all the conditions that might arise.


Duncan Graham: 


John Graham Haggart: But if you do not
have your clause mechanical, do you not see the danger that might arise?


George Perry Graham: * I appreciate the situation, and we discussed that point thoroughly, but came back to the conclusion that this is the only practical way in which we could work the thing out. Otherwise there might be some deserving cases which would not come within a mechanical clause. Take where the mineral rights have not been retained by a company, the farmer gets by arrangement one-eighth of the oil, and the bounty. That would amount practically to $2 per barrel. I started on that basis, but found it would hardly do because these men, to whom we are paying the bounty, do not own the minerals as do the other men. I tried another basis, and came back to the conclusion that the only practical way was the one we have adopted.


John Graham Haggart: There is another question. The lessee has acquired by lease the right to thi3 one and a half cent per gallon, he has the right to the distribution, the same as any other lessee, or owner of land throughout the country. You deprive him of his inherent right by giving the money to another person. What right have you to do that?


George Perry Graham: The lessee has no inherent right. We are making him a present of one and a half cent per gallon; it is our bounty, and we can cease that whenever we like.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose he has a lease and has that provision.


George Perry Graham: He has a provision entitling him to whatever bounty the government gives.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The government have passed a law agreeing to give a bounty. In that lease it is provided that the bounty payable by the government will go to the lessee.


George Perry Graham: We can do as we like with the distribution of our own money.


Richard Blain: Not by order in council.


George Perry Graham: I am getting an Act. He caii provide in his lease that the bounty which the government says shall go to the producer, shall go to this man; but if parliament says that the government has the right to reduce the amount payable to the producer and give a portion of it to some one else, the government can act on that authority.


John Graham Haggart: Why deal differently in the case of a lessee who gets his land from a farmer, and the one who gets it from the Canada Company?


George Perry Graham: The Act will give the Trade and Commerce Department the power as set forth in these words:
The said bounty to be paid to the producer of the petroleum or the owner or occupier of the soil through which it is mined or won, or to such other person interested as the Governor in Council by regulation approves.
If he is injuriously affected under this Act, he will get a portion of the bounty.


John Allister Currie: Those leases are generally taken by oil well drillers. They lease a certain territory. In the lease it is provided that a certain proportion of the oil shall go to the owner of the land. Unfortunately in those leases in question, the mineral rights were retained by the Canada Company. The parties who purchased from the Canada Company are supposed to have known, under the ordinary rules of civil contract, that these minerals were reserved. How will it be possible to work out a proposition of the kind submitted to us? Here is John Smith who has 100 acres which he bought from the Canada Company, and which did not give him any mineral rights; and here is Thomas Jones, his neighbour, who purchased his land with the mineral rights. Why should Smith be in receipt of any bounty from the government more than Jones? Because the second owner was the owner of the land, he was also the owner of the mineral rights. In the case of the Canada Company's lands the owner of the surface was not the owner of the mineral rights. Now in what position is the man who holds the mineral rights? How does he differ in respect of his lease from the Canada Company? Why should not the money, instead of going to the lessee of this land, go to the owner of the mineral rights in all cases, irrespective of any leases, or surface rights? But you are making exception. You make an exception in this case that the owner of the surface rights shall get the bounty. Is not that the case? The owner of the surface rights, according to the minister, is to receive this bounty if that land was purchased from the Canada Company originally; but if the land was not purchased from the Canada Company, if it was purchased from somebody else, the owner of the surface does not get that bounty at all, it goes to the oil lease. The Bill is also wide, because it says that if any damage can be shown, the man who suffers the damage can get the bounty instead of the man who has the lease. Another question was raised with regard to present leases. This law will be to a large extent retroactive. A man has leased land from the Canada Company, and he has contracted with the Canada Company to give them, we will say, one barrel out of every eight on 2231
the understanding that any government bounty shall go to him. Now he goes to work and finds himself cut out from that bounty if he does not get the bounty he would only give one barrel in ten, possibly, for the lease. Now this Bill is legislating these men out of their civil rights, and I do not think it comes within the purview of this House to do so. It is quite true that you will give to one man a bounty, and not to another man, and I do not think that is fair legislation. I know there is a grievance, but if a man's land is damaged I think he has relief in the courts, and can get damages. In the province of Ontario, if you are the owner of the surface rights, and a mine is discovered, the pefson who has discovered that mine has a perfect right to mine it. If he goes on that land and destroys your property he has to pay for it. The province of Ontario will see that justice is done in that respect.
But I can see a little further in this legislation I can see possibly a little nigger moving in the wood pile. Possibly in cases where some damage is done the" minister will see that some good Liberal friend will get this bounty instead of a Conservative. I have an idea that something like that is drifting in the background. I know that the chairman of the patronage committee in that riding, if he has any land that he bought from the Canada Company, he would be getting the bounty instead of the man who is the actual producer, the man who has gone to the expense of exploiting and developing this land. Everybody knows Jhat this business is really a wildcat business. It is worse than horseracing. A man guts his money into a piece of land. Another man may come along and find a good well across the fence that shoots a thousand barrels a day, and fifty yards away from that he may sink 4 or 5 wells, and not get a gallon out of any one of them. I think this Bill is quite too far reaching, and this House should have nothing to do with it. I cannot see how it can be worked out. The minister says he has had difficulty himself, I can quite apprehend it. Another thing, will this Bill affect cases that are now before the courts? The Ontario government has stepped in to see that justice is done. Then again, what about the purchasers? Hundreds of purchasers have leased this land, and this government takes away from them the right to that bounty and hands it over to the men who own the surface rights, and who have not spent a dollar on it. I think this is a very serious question.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I am somewhat surprised that the hon. member for North Simcoe

(Mr. Currie) takes such a pronounced stand against the agriculturists of this province.


John Allister Currie: I beg your pardon, I do not.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I am very much surprised that he takes the stand he does, because there is no question that the Bill which the minister has introduced will be of great benefit to the people of the western part of Ontario, who are unfortunate enough to own Canada Company land. The hon. gentleman says that the provincial government are looking after their cases. I may remind him that the attention of the provincial government was drawn to the predicament the farmers have been in for some two or three years.


John Allister Currie: Is not that doing them justice?


Archibald Blake McCoig: I should say not. The attorney general of the province of Ontario pledged the honour of the House that he .would make a test case and enter it in the courts; that was over two or three years ago, and he has only just now started to do so. Do you think that is doing justice by the farmers of the province? I do not think my hon. friend is acquainted with the facts, or he would not make such a statement as that. If the provincial governments are doing the farmers any good, if they grant them relief as I hope they will, we will give them credit for it; but they are certainly very slow in taking action. The people who are suffering at the present time on account of owning Canada Company lots, feel the same way that I do myself about it. As for the Biil now before the House, I think that members opposite should join us in assisting to get it through instead of trying to obstruct it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Archibald Blake McCoig: Well, I hope the hon. gentlemen will assist us.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman has no right to use the word ' obstruct.'


Archibald Blake McCoig: Well, I will say ' oppose,' if that pleases the hon gentleman better. In the section which I have the honour to represent, there are a large number of farmers who are sufferers from being in the unfortunate position of owning Canada Company lands, and they are to-day being held off their farms in some cases by American operators coming on their lands and drilling for oil, and they have little to say as to where these operators shall drill, and practically they have to do about as the operators say. There have been cases where the farmers have had to leave their farms.


Archibald Blake McCoig: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this land where they have the right to go on and explore for oil leased from the Canada Company or from the land owner?	.	.


Archibald Blake McCoig: It is leased from the Canada Company. The Canada Company gives the leases to these operators, the operators go on to the farmer's land and go ahead and operate for oil. In case after case the farmer has asked the operator to show him the lease, and they inform me that they have never yet been able to see the lease given by the Canada Company to the operator. The Canada Company does not operate itself, it always gives the right to a second or third party,- and these leases are handed along from one concern to another.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is the custom in our country that when a man buys a Canada Company lot, it is practically under lease, but he has the sole right to occupy, to own, and to use that lot. I would not think that the Canada Company, in addition to that, would give the lease to another person to go on and buy a portion of that lot during the time the first lease or provisional lease was in operation.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I agree with what the hon. gentleman says, that they should not be able to do it, but they do it nevertheless. The Canada Company on no occasion has operated for oil in any section of the counties of Kent or Essex, but they give the right to second or third parties to whom these leases are resold. I shall give one instance. A gentleman named Stevenson, in Tilbury, owned a Canada Company lot. An oil operator came to that man's farm and asked if he was going to farm the land that year. Mr. Stevenson said he was and the man said: If you intend to farm you will have to get some other land, because we are going to punch this land full of holes. He had cleared the farm, paid the taxes, done all the improvements and built up a good home for himself, when the time came when the Canada Company thought they could get something for the lease they turned it over to an operator and he proceeded to drill it. Farmers have had to sit up at night to protect their crops from the operators and having wells put down so as to ruin the crops about the time of harvest.


John Graham Haggart: Can the lessee of mineral rights do this without indemnity to the other, owner of the soil?


Archibald Blake McCoig: They do it,


John Graham Haggart: Does your lease permit them to do it? I understand a reservation of mineral rights, but where the power is exercised there is an indemnity.


Archibald Blake McCoig: The only indemnity paid by any operator to any lessee, of the Canada's Company's lots would be $25. One ~1'hon. gentleman says: Why can they not go to the courts? That is what the operators always offer to do. They say: If you are not satisfied with what we give go to the court. The hon. gentleman knows how little chance the average farmer has in going to court against an oil company.


John Graham Haggart: I am with you, we will stick to the honest farmer.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I appreciate my hon. friend's assurance that he will stick to the farmer. There is no doubt a great hardship to many agriculturist's in this country.


Mr. HUGHES.: The farmer buys land
from the Canada Company. Who controls the right to enter his farm and get the oil, the Canada Company?


Archibald Blake McCoig: That is the great^ question; whether they do that or no!, the operator takes that right of going on the land and operating for oil, damaging crops and fences and ruining farms.


Samuel Hughes: Have they no shot guns up there?


Archibald Blake McCoig: The hon. gentleman has expressed exactly the position the farmers have taken. In some cases they have threatened the operators, but I am glad to say have not done any bodily harm so far. One gentleman asked whether this bounty was to be paid under this Act, as it would be to a farmer who owned both the land and the mineral rights. I do not think that is the intention of the Bill; as I understand the Bill it is to give to the owner of the surface rights a portion of the bounty for the oil that is developed or found under his land. A portion of that is to recoup him for the damage he sustains to his farm through their operating for oil. It seems quite reasonable and fair and I feel satisfied the members will assist in this matter, because there are 'many, both Conservatives and Liberals, who will be benefited by it. It is not a case, as the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) said, of some particular person having the patronage or having some one with a pull getting all the money, it is a case of giving people their just rights in this particular section, and I feel satisfied the farmers will be delighted if the government will give them some assistance or relief in the unfortunate predicament.
Under the existing conditions the district is practically at a standstill. Owing to the danger of injury by oil operators the farmers will not take any steps to improve their farms or their buildings. If this Bill becomes law it will place these men on the same footing as their more fortunate
neighbours who own both surface and mineral rights, and the interests of the community will be greatly advanced.


John Allister Currie: I do not propose to be misrepresented by the hon. member, I am not opposed to seeing justice done the farmers, the only thing I am opposed to is injustice being "done to any portion of the community.
Does the minister not think if he wishes to give relief to these people he should give relief directly, and insist in paying the damages in a case of this kind where lands are entered upon? The very first man to protest against the bounty going to the surface-owners in that case would be the gentleman who owned, the lease. The Canadian Company without a question retain all the mineral rights in their leases just as deeds in Ontario for many years contained a clause retaining the mineral rights, and in the north nearly all the free grant lands, especially in the eastern portion of the province, contain a clause retaining the mineral rights to the Crown as the deeds in the northern parts of the country retain the pine timber to the Crown. As a matter of fact, the man who owns the surface right never owned the mineral right at all. The complaint he can make is that it puts him to inconvenience and damage to have people drilling for oil on his place. In order to recompense him why should the government penalize the man who takes over the oil lease of that land? Bear in mind that it is not only thq oil drillers from the United States who are concerned, there are others; farmers buy oil leases from their neighbours. Companies have been formed all over that country, and have secured leases for which they have paid, and they are entitled to a portion of this bounty. I think that we should meet the situation fairly. We should not say that the man who has the oil lease shall be penalized and the bounty refused to him. I think that is only a fair proposition. I do not wish to injure the man owning the surface rights, or to penalize the man who owns the lease, and has possibly paid a large sum for it. There are many other cases in that section where owners of oil leases go on land where they have no right to the surface, destroy crops and punch holes, and the man who owns the surface right has just as much complaint as those who happen to have received lands from the Canada Company.


George Perry Graham: The argument put up by my hon. friend is exactly the argument put up by the Canada Company. Previous to 1872 their leases carried all the rights. After 1872 they inserted a clause in the leases retaining to themselves the mineral rights. What farmer knew that that clause was slipped into that lease? It might mean anything or it might mean

nothing. Half of them would not know what it meant anyway. They thought they were getting their land. Every man who has an old patent from the government thinks that he owns the land.


John Allister Currie: And he does.


George Perry Graham: That is true, but those people who got land from the Canada Company would not know that they were not getting the title to the w'hole property but to only part of it. That being the case, the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggests a practical thing. We cannot interfere with a contract, that is a matter for the province, but we are giving, for the production of crude petroleum, a certain amount of bounty which is a gift and we have a perfect right by legislation to say how this gift shall be distrir buted. If the lessees of the oil rights have abused the privileges which they have got under their leases, we have a perfect right to step in and make them, in the ordinary vernacular, sit up, in so far as we can. This is a Bill for that purpose. If they do not damage the farmer's property they will get all their bounty, but if they have been regardless of and do damage to the surface rights of the farmers they should not get all their bounty, and if they know that they are not going to get it they will be careful with respect to the amount of damage that they inflict. My hon. friend says:	Let them go to the court. That
sounds well, but it is not business as far as the farmer is concerned. He may go to the court this year and get judgment for his damages, but he will have to go to the court next year and the next year after ' that. It is a great crop for the lawyer, but a mighty poor thing for the farmer. We have it in our hands, in connection with the bounty on oil, to deal with the matter and to say to whom and in what proportion it shall go. It is a fair proposition for this parliament to say by statute to the men who operate these oil wells and are injuring the farmers by inflicting damages upon the owners of the surface rights that we shall take the right to give them a certain part of the bounty, or to withhold a part in order to help pay for the damages that they may inflict upon the farmers. That is all that we propose to do here, and I think it is an act of fairness. It may not make much difference in the distribution of the bounty, but it will make a big difference in the damage inflicted upon the farmers by the lessees.


David Henderson: I am very glad indeed that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) has taken this matter up. I noticed in the newspapers a few days ago-it is only lately that the matter has been brought to my attention- that such a difficulty existed in western


George Perry Graham: 
Richard Blain: May I ask the minister if any provision will be made with respect to damage done to property where no oil is discovered? They may go in and destroy a man's property and discover no oil. What remedy will there be for the farmer under these circumstances?


George Perry Graham: That is hardly a thing that this House can deal with.	,


Richard Blain: What would be the result in a case of that kind?


George Perry Graham: There would be no result under the Act.


Richard Blain: The farmer would get
nothing?


George Perry Graham: That would be more for the local legislature to deal with than this parliament. Ojir powers are largely confined to dealing with our own bounty with respect to the production of oil. It is the only way we have to reach this question, it may not be very far reaching, but we will go as far as we think we can in this regard.


John Graham Haggart: It appears to me that the minister does not fully appreciate the position. Let me instance a couple of cases.
I go into that county and buy from a farmer mineral rights. I go to the Canadian Company and buy from that company the mineral rights on a particular section of land. In case I buy from a farmer, I am sure of getting the full bounty. I have an equally honest and valid claim on the property that I bought from the Canadian Company, but I am liable to a reduction for the simple reason that I have bought it from the Canadian Company. The minister says that the government have the right to dispose of this bounty in any manner they like. The government has no right to dispose of the money of the people to meet any such exceptional case as this. The government has no right to institute discrimination and to say they will give to one what they will not give to another. They may have the power, I doubt even if they have, but if so, it is a power that has never been exercised by any other government. If I buy mineral land from this company, and another man buys mineral land from a farmer, why should the man who buys from the farmer be penalized and not the other? I may do three times the damage to the land I purchase from the farmer, but I get no compensation, whereas if I do any damage to the land I got from the Canada Company I get compensation. Of course, you cannot make a law to apply to all sales of that kind, because it would be a dangerous principle to introduce, and it would be very expensive, but if you do
it in one case, you certainly ought to do it in the other. As to oil being a mineral, I may tell my hon. friend from Halton that the courts have decided it is, and further than that, they have decided that gas is a mineral.


David Henderson: That is some stupid judge.	.


John Graham Haggart: You cannot speak of the judges in that way, and the general opinion is that the judge was right in that case. At all events, exceptional legislation of this kind is always dangerous, and the ' form in which it is presented in this Bill is most objectionable.


George Perry Graham: 1 want to put this case to the hon. gentleman. A man buys the mineral rights from a farmer who owns them, and the farmer gets full pay for everything; it is a deal direct by the farmer himself. Is there not a big difference between that case and a third party coming in and leasing the rights from another farmer, who does not get a cent? My hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) says that the legislation i3 peculiar, and I admit it is, but the condition is peculiar. You cannot make any comparison, except theoretically, between the farmer who owns the mineral rights on his land and who makes a sale of them for which he gets a quid pro quo, and the man who until lately thought he owned his own land who has his property taken and who receives no damages. It may be peculiar legislation, but I believe it is practical legislation, and if it has the effect of making the third party, who is the lessee under the Canada Company, more careful as to the damages he inflicts, it. will do a great deal of good, and notwithstanding that it may be peculiar legislation, if it effects a good purpose, I think it ought to be approved of.
At six otcloek. Committee took recess.
After Recess
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. GOODEVE.: It has occurred to me that possibly the minister might alter the wording of the resolution to meet at least to some extent, the objection raised, by providing that a portion of the bounty paid by the government be withheld from any flowing well owned by an operator who had committed damage in connection with another well. For instance, suppose a man operated on five farms, on none of which he obtained oil, but on all of which he did more or less damage, and eventually secured a flowing well on a sixth farm; he could apply a portion of the bounty that he would receive on the flowing well to the five farms on which damage had occurred, until that was paid up, and then the dam-

age would be continuing on the flowing well. In that way it seems to me we might cover the objection raised, because nearly all these companies eventually have some well on which they are receiving the bounty from the government. In regard to the merits of the Bill, as the minister lias pointed out, it is very peculiar legislation, and he is taking an extraordinary step; but where that is done in the interest of justice, as apparently it is done in this case, probably the government are amply justified in passing it.


Mr. WILCOX.: Having a farm leased to an oil company in the western portion of the province of Ontario, I desire to add a few remarks to what has already been said upon this question. I understand that this legislation does not in any way affect land which was not originally secured by the settler from the Canada Company. I am inclined to the view that my hon. friend from West Kent (Mr. McCoig) placed a very broad application upon this legislation when he said that it would benefit all the farmers in the western part of Ontario. To the extent to which it will benefit the farmers it has my hearty support, but it seems to me that it does not go far enough.
I may say that the leases which have been given by the farmers to the company are perpetual leases; and they are only surrendered by the company after they test the field, and find that there is no oil. In the district where I live most of the lands were leased, and it proved to be a dry field. Various holes were put down for the purpose of testing the field, But no oil was secured; and under this resolution, as I understand it, the farmer will not receive any benefit unless oil has been discovered. Therefore it would be only in a very rare case that a farmer would be in a position to receive a portion of the bounty.


Archibald Blake McCoig: The hon. gentleman is well aware that possibly over half the lands in the counties of Essex and Kent are Canada Company lands, and if there are oil operations on any of these lands, the farmer owning the land would certainly be benefited.


Oliver James Wilcox: In the field to which I refer I know of only one lot that was purchased from the Canada Company, and there did not prove to be oil on that lot; consequently no benefit would be derived by the farmer who owned it. It would be possible for a company to go and bore upon that lot, and do all kinds of damage to the farmer's crop, and other damage by carrying on such operations, yet the farmer would not be in a position to receive any benefit from this legislation. Now, I do not like the wording of this resolution. It will only be a benefit to the particular


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: farmer, wherever he may be situated, who owns a Canada Company lot upon which there is oil, and upon which the company has retained the mineral rights. Among one hundred such lots ninetydiine would be barren of oil, and the one containing oil would be the only one benefited by this legislation. The resolutions provide that where a farmer has purchased from the Canada Company, one of these lots on which there happens to be oil, the minister may-it seems to me that that is only directory, and it ought to be imperative. It looks to me like placing temptation in the way of the minister. For instance, I might be a man independent in politics, and this might be handed out to me in order to bring me over to the right side. I would much prefer if the word ' shall ' were used instead of ' may,' so that any farmer, irrespective of political colour or affiliations, if he had oil on his place, would be entitled to the bounty provided in this resolution. Reference has been made to the position already taken by the Ontario government. I may say that some little time ago I had an interview with the Minister of Public Works for the province, the hon. Dr. Rheaume, who is the representative in the Ontario legislature from my constituency, and I was informed by him that the reason this test case had not been made is because it is only lately such a case has been presented to the government. I was informed that an offer was made by the Ontario government to have a test case, but that the case had not been presented to the government. So far as I know the Ontario government is perfectly willing to have a test case in the courts which will determine the Tights of the company and the farmers in this particular.


Archibald Blake McCoig: The solicitor acting for the provincial government is the same legal gentleman who was employed over two years ago and the evidence was placed in his hands at that time. It is the same case and the same evidence and everything is exactly the same now as it was two years ago.


Oliver James Wilcox: 
Mr. S. SHARPE.: I think the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Wil-

cox) has placed his hand on the weakness of this resolution. It is dangerous legislation which makes any class of electors depend upon the good will or bounty of any government. If this legislation were of a compulsory nature, if it were so framed that all parties would share in its benefits, irrespective of any consideration but the merits of the case, I would be in favour of it. But the pertinent question is upon whose recommendations will the bounty be granted. Are the conditions and the regulations to be standardized? Are we to have standard regulations and conditions which will enable any one complying with them to obtain the bounty. If not, the whole Act will be administered according to the whim and will of a political party or minister, and you make it a political weapon whereby any constituency can be whipped into line to support the party in power as the dispensers of bounty. That is most dangerous legislation, instead of being permissive and depending upon the good will of the administration, it should t>e made compulsory. You should lay down the conditions on which the bounty will be granted, so that every one complying with these would be entitled to the bounty irrespective of politics. But if you place an engine of that kind in the hands of any political party, you put a constituency at the power of the government which dispenses the bounty. The Bill which is to follow this resolution should" lay down the regulations and conditions to govern each case and, as my hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Wilcox) has stated, should make the payment compulsory. If it be made compulsory, the farmer who has oil on his land will get the bounty irrespective of politics, and there can be no exceptions made. But if the payment of the bounty is to depend on the good will or the whim of any government, that is dangerous legislation which ought to be strenuously opposed.


William Sora Middlebro: This is class legislation of a very dangerous kind. In the first place it is legislation in favour of a certain class of persons who have lands with oil on them. In the second place it is legislation in favour of particular members of that class. I can see no reason, if we are to give class legislation at all, why one man in a class who has suffered damage is to be treated differently from another member of the same class who has also suffered damage. But this is legislation for class within class. Suppose I lived in the vicinity of the steel works of Sydney, N.S., which company receives and has been receiving steel bounties from this government to the extent of some millions of dollars, and suppose, by reason of the vicinity of those steel works, my lot suffers damage, have I not just as much right to say to the government, give me a part of
those steel bounties? Another case would be this. I understand that the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company have established great works in British Columbia, and have sold lots in the vicinity of these works, the deeds for which contain a clause barring the purchaser from any claim for damages by reason of the smoke or other offensive matter coming from the company's factory. But if a man ten years from now were to buy a piece of that land and were to overlook-as many of these farmers, the hon. minister tells us, have overlooked-the restrictive clause in his deed, he would have just as much right to say that since he had bought a piece of land from the company which was in receipt of government bounty, and since his property had suffered damage by reason of the works of the company, he was entitled to a part of the bounty. Both these cases are on all fours with the present; and if you establish a precedent, these people would have just as much right to claim a share of the bounty as those to whom you are providing to give it to-day. In the Railway Committee the other day, the Minister of Railways himself advised against giving any relief in respect of a measure which the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) had before that committee regarding commutation tickets. He advised *against giving relief upon the ground that the matter was now before the courts. But the same condition exists in this case. A case is now before the courts covering exactly the same points as are proposed to be covered by the resolution before the House. I think the minister could well let the matter stand until we see the result of this case now before the courts.


George Perry Graham: What the minister said in the Raihvay Committee the other day was this: The Board of Railway Commissioners claimed they had certain jurisdiction, the case was taken to the Supreme Court, and the majority of that court agreed with the Railway Commissioners. It was in their hands then to complete. It was not a question of the merit of the case, but whether the board had jurisdiction, and all the people were asking for was legislation to make it clear that the Board of , Railway Commissioners had authority, and the Supreme Court decided that they had that authority.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Tf the test case that is now before the courts is decided in favour of the farmers, will there be any necessity for this legislation?


George Perry Graham: I think it would have no connection with this legislation whatever. I think it would be a relief to the farmers, possibly, if that mineral was not retained, because I think the point would be whether petroleum is a mineral. If the courts were

to decide in their favour, I would not dare to give an opinion on the law, but it will be several years at least before it will be concluded. Now as to the question of the word ' may ' or ' shall.' My hon. friend is a lawyer, and he knows that the word 'may' is the word that is used. It has been in that statute for years, I did not change that word. ' The Governor in Council may authorize the payment,' that is the old Act, I think, without any change. Of course my hon. friend will say that it only applies to the oil operators. But it is the same principle. No more authority has been given except to extend the number of people to whom this may be paid. There may be many instances where it wont be paid at all. But the circumstances are such that the owner of the surface rights ought to be paid whatever the Minister of Trade and Commerce may ascertain under certain regulations to be fair. The regulations I suppose will be new in that regard. In trying to work out a mechanical method by which this would operate, stronger minds than mine have informed me that it was not practical to devise a mechanical method of working it out, that the right principle was to leave it just as it is left under the Act, but to enlarge the sphere. Now there is no idea of any political influence or leverage in this measure at all. I am sorry that my hon. friend (Mr. Sharpe), Who is young in politics and young in the House, should suspect such a thing, and I may tell him now that he will get on further and faster if he does not always suspect some one of political motives when they are trying to pass legislation that will be for the benefit of every class of people. No such thing entered my mind, and I would be very indisposed to make political capital out of this. When I was in the Ontario legislature this matter was brought up, and I did my best to see if there was not some way out of it. I was then leader of the opposition, and I admit it was difficult even from the provincial point of view to know just how to deal with it. The matter was brought up- in the shape of a Bill, and the Bill was found not to be practicable. Then it was decided that the provincial government would bring a test case before the courts and prosecute it to a finality to see if there was any relief along that line, and they are doing that now. It is not so easy a matter to settle as it looks to be on the surface. Now I am informed that we cannot go outside the power we have of granting a bounty, and it is only because we are making a present to some people for the development of the petroleum industry that we are able to deal with this matter at all. We are not dealing with it very rigidly or to a great extent, but so far as we are giving a bounty to any person under the Act, we may deal Mr. GRAHAM.
with it. I ask this House to agree to the legislation, because it will enable us to protect the farmers to that extent. There is no ulterior motive in it at all, it is only a sincere and honest attempt to do justice.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Notwithstanding the professions of the minister, I do not think it requires a man to be old in years, or in politics, or old in political sin, to know that a minister or any one else who is in politics is. not immune from political influence. Does any one suppose that the man who receives this bounty from the government will not feel under an obligation to the government? If tire minister is bona fides in 'his assertion that there is no political influence in this matter, why doe3 he not place the administration of the law in the hands of an independent commission, some local judge, who can ascertain the facts from witnesses on the ground? Let him put the administration of the law in the hands, 3ay, of one of the judicial officers in that constituency. I would like to ask the minister on whose advice he proposes to administer the Act? Is it going to be the local representative? I3 it going to be the patronage committee, or is it going to be the member from the constituency? How does he propose to proceed to ascertain the facts? If the minister does not propose this thing to be a political engine in the hands of the party leaders, it should not certainly be in the power of the government either to grant or withhold this bounty. If the minister does not propose to use this Act for the benefit of the government, why not place it in the hands of some independent commission, the warden of the county, for instance, allow it to be administered by the county council?


George Perry Graham: Does my hon. friend honestly think that the warden of a county would be the proper person? He has no responsibility. This government is responsible to parliament, and parliament is responsible to the country. Talk about the warden! My hon. friend would be the first one to object to the warden because he might be a politician. To my mind the government is the only party to wihom this duty should be entrusted, because the department as a part of the government is directly responsible to parliament, and parliament is directly responsible to the people. If my hon. friend's advice were taken and carried out, we would not need any government at all, because we would not let any department administer anything. I do not think this is a matter of sufficient importance to require us to hand it over to a commission, it is so easy, so plain, and so simple. The Minister of Trade and Commerce will have no troublelin finding out the proper thing to do, and in doing it. That is the only practical way I have

been able to find of dealing with this question. I am in earnest in trying to relieve the situation, I have been at this task for several years, even when I was in the local legislature, and this is the only way I have been able to discover that seem3 likely to solve the problem.


Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: I wish to express my approval of the resolution now before the House. It is not a trifling matter nor a matter which affects only a few people in the county from which I come. There are a great many acres of land, a great many farms where the titles are held in such a way that the Canada Company has reserved mineral rights. I would prefer, if it were possible, that this resolution should provide that a fixed proportion should be paid to the owner of the surface, but I can see that it is impossible to do justice in that way, because in certain cases the owner should receive a certain percentage, and in certain other cases the owner of the surface should not be paid anything. Something has been said about ownership. I think any person who is entrusted with this legislation ought to be careful to see that they are not going to interfere with the vested rights of the Canada Company or of any other person; and if it is an interference with the vested rights to say that those rights which are reserved in the conveyance shall be set aside, I would be disposed to go very slowly in that direction. But I do not think it will'have that effect at all. It is a matter of the bounty of parliament. This is not dealing with the rights of the Canada Company, or with the rights of any other owners who may have reserved mineral rights, but it is purely a matter of bounty given by parliament for the purpose of encouraging the production of oil. It cannot be gainsayed that the owners of the surface are very much damaged, and inconvenienced by the way the oil operations are carried on.
It is not as one member has said, a matter of one or two. I have had many complaints in my professional practice from the owners of soil in regard to this very thing. There are two matters that ought to be considered. Companies purchase the mineral rights from the Canada Company, the Canada Company do not operate themselves, they sell for large sums to other companies which go and operate. These people have not the slightest regard for the interests, and the business of the farmers. In many cases there is a good deal of salt water, and I have had many complaints that this salt water is allowed to escape, the oil may also be allowed to escape, and not only does it destroy the crop for the time being, but it so saturates the soil that it does not recover for several years. It may be that these operators will be gone for ever, they may have ceased their operations, they may be
Americans who have gone to the United States so it seems to me this is one way in which the farmers can be protected. Anyway many of these are wildcat companies. They go there, they are not required to contract with the owner of the surface, they get their rights from the owner of the mineral. It is true they are compelled by the terms of the original grant- to make compensation to the farmers, but this is of little use with many of these companies. They come and get a few wells, destroy a man's soil, and the next season they are gone, and you cannot get anything out of them. For these two reasons it is incumbent on the House to make some provision whereby the owners of the surface who are injured by these operations should be helped to get some of this bounty. As far as the administration of the bounty is concerned, I do not know any administration better than the one which represents parliament in the distribution of its own bounty to see that justice is done in regard to the distribution of that bounty.


Richard Blain: What suggestion would my hon. friend offer for the large number of farmers where oil wells are put down on the farms and great damage done, and no oil procured?


Alfred Henry Clarke: That is a matter with which this parliament cannot deal, that is a matter of civil rights which would come within provincial jurisdiction. As far as I can see they are helpless.


Richard Blain: The Minister of Railways made an effort to grapple with it in the legislature, and he said it was beyond his powers.


William Pugsley: The minister was then in opposition.


Alfred Henry Clarke: All this House can deal with is the bounty. That is a matter within the jurisdiction of this parliament,
and in administering this bounty this parliament ought to see that justice is done to all parties.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Representing a district in which oil is produced, but which is not affected by this legislation, I have investigated the rights of the people in the counties referred to here, and I can assure the members that the farmers in those districts have been most unfairly dealt with. Oil companies will come on their land, and damage it to a considerable extent, and the Canada Company, which happened to reserve to themselves the rights to the minerals which are produced take to themselves a portion of the oil, and destroy to a large extent many farms in the district mentioned. As far as I can understand the legislation is in the right direction. In regard to the cases mentioned by the hon. member

for South Essex the farms that are leased by the oil operators, and on which oil is not found, I can only suggest that the farmers will take good care that when they are entering into a lease with an oil operator to see that he pays the damage, and if you investigate practically all the leases now in force you will find that the lease compels the oil operator to pay any damage done to the farmer by operating on his land. I cannot help thinking the legislation is in the right direction, and although it does not affect my district I feel that for many years the farmers in the districts here referred to have been badly in need of some legislation that will do justice to them.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I still think that if the minister wants to secure to the farmers the full advantage some method should be arrived at whereby every farmer whose property is damaged would receive compensation along the lines I have suggested. The minister must realize that in drilling for oil, as in mining for precious metals, there is only one success out of many failures. It is said the proportion is about one in fifty. If we pass this Bill, taking that as a proportion, then only one man out of fifty who would be seriously injured and whom the minister desires to aid would receive any assistance under this Bill. If that is the case I feel that if we have authority to say that a certain proportion of the bonus which is to be received by the parties operating the well shall be paid to the owner of the land, I cannot possibly see why you cannot go a step further, and say that any operator, when he gets a flowing well, must pay for all the damage he has caused in the drilling of previous wells out of the bonus he receives. That would be fair, and should aid in making the Bill effective.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Is not the resolution wide enough to cover that? It says: Such other persons as may be injuriously affected.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: That is all I want. The farmers suffer most from the operations of men who are not successful in finding oil wells.


George Perry Graham: I am inclined to think this resolution would hardly cover the point suggested. I think the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Goodeve) is well worth considering. As I understand him, one operator may be operating on half a dozen different farms; on one farm he may get oil while on another he may not get any, and the question is whether a Bill could be framed on the resolution sufficiently wide to enable the department to distribute the bounty earned on one farm over all the others.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: 


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: That is the idea.


George Perry Graham: I think it is worth thinking of in order to see whether that can be done. In the meantime, I will see if it can be worked out,


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If an operator gets a lease from a farmer and in that lease the operator states definitely that he will pay all damages to fences and crops, what need is there for further legislation?


George Perry Graham: That is the case where the farmer himself gives a lease, but. I am trying to differentiate between that and the case that we are dealing with in connection with this Bill. The farmer himself enters into that transaction, and if he does not get paid for the damage that is done, it is the farmer's fault. But in this, case the Canada Company has sold a farm to a farmer, reserving the mineral rights. The Canada Company, without consulting the farmer, sells the mineral rights to some other people, and they come along, without the consent of the farmer, and begin operations upon his farm. It is to meet this case that I am introducing this legislation.


William Sora Middlebro: If this Bill becomes law, what ground will the minister have for objecting to compensate a man who is living alongside of a smelter and who suffers the same disabilities as the farmer does in connection with the oil industry?


George Perry Graham: That would be a question to decide by itself. I am afraid I would not introduce a Bill to that effect. I think I can see some differences between the two in quantity at least, as my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) would say, if not in quality.


William Sora Middlebro: I think they are on all fours. The case we are trying to meet here is a case of continuing damage. It is a ease that arises out of a contract. But here is a man who is living alongside of a smelter by which he is injuriously affected. Many men have settled without any knowledge of the location of the smelter. When the farmer bought the land, he did not know that there was going to be a smelter. His case is analagous to that of the man who bought land not knowing that there was a reservation as to mineral rights, and not knowing that oil was going to be discovered. If a smelter is located alongside of the property of a farmer and he is injured thereby, he will require to maintain a continuous action in order to secure that which he is entitled to recover, as the damage would be continuous, and he is entitled to be relieved of going into a lawsuit the same as you are going to relieve these owners under this Bill. I do not know of any reason whv, if this Bill becomes law, any man residing alongside of a smelter should

uot have the same right to come here and ask this government to compensate him. Otherwise, he may be robbed of his legal common rights just as these parties would be if the minister had not introduced this legislation. It is class legislation.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. GRAHAM moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 208) to provide, for the payment of bounties on crude petroleum.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['We shall continue this debate.']
Mr. G. H. BRADBURY (Selkirk).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, 1 desire to call the attention of the House to a matter of very serious importance, a matter that affects the honour of this country, regarding a transaction that ranks, in my mind, high amongst the meanest ever committed by this government. It was an outrage against everything that was fair, against everything that was decent as between the government of the day and its ward, the poor unfortunate Indian who, this country believes, is watched over, guided and protected by the government. The manner in which this government has discharged its sacred trust towards the wards of the people is well exemplified by the way in which it manipulated and secured the surrender of the St. Peter's Indian reserve at Selkirk, which happens to be in my county. Just about a year ago I called the attention of the minister responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the Indian Department (Mr. Oliver) to the scandalous proceedings of the land speculators in relation to this surrender. I urged the minister at that time to make a searching investigation with the view' of protecting the wards of the people and punishing those whom the Indians were alleging to have done them such a grievous wrong. But at that time the minister did not seem to realize that there was anything to investigate, and he practically told me that the Indian had made his own bargain and must abide by it. Now, that the House and the country may know something of this transaction, I purpose placing on record the terms of the surrender, or that part of the surrender that relates to the land which this govenment secured and divided up with their friends. I hold in my hand a memorandum submitted to the hon. the minister responsible for the Indian Department, by his deputy, Mr. Frank Pedley. This memorandum is dated just about one month after the surrender took
place. It is dated at Ottawa, October 26, 1907, and reads as follows:


Frank Oliver: Pursuant to vour instructions, I left Ottawa on the 17th ult. and reached Winnipeg on the 19th ult. to take up with the St. Peter's band of Indians, near Selkirk, the question of the surrender of their reserve at that place. When this reserve, consisting of about 55,090 acres, was set aside in 1871, provision was made tliat the rights of the parties holding lands within the boundaries of the reserve should be protected, and as a result of this some 5,000 acres have been patented to parties other than Indians. In order to _ settle the remaining outstanding claims Chief Justice Howell of Manitoba was appointed a commissioner in November, 1906, for this purpose, and from several interviews with him I judge that there would he from 1,500 to 2,000 acres still to be patented, thus leaving as belonging to the reserve proper about 48,000 acres.
This was the area that I dealt with in my negotiations with the Indians for a surrender.
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, namely: one-half of said sum remaining to be paid to us the year following the receipt of same by the government after sale of said lands, the balance of said proceeds of sale to be funded for our benefit and the interest to be paid to us annually. At each payment as aforesaid the sum so paid shall be divided so that the chief shall receive each year the sum of $6 more than that to which the other 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 hand as follows: to the chief 180 acres, to the ex-chief 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 proportions to widows and to unmarried men and women over 21 years of age. 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. The department shall advance at the time of the surrender the sum of $5,000 to be repaid out of the first moneys received from the sale of the lands.
It will be seen that by this surrender the government secured 48,000 acres of land. This land was all situated within a radius of 25 or 26 miles of the city of Winnipeg.	The Red river passes right
through the centre of hire reserve; the banks on each side of the river were high, making this an ideal area of farming land. I have .no hesitation in saying that 85 per cent of this land is first-class, and was the best land to be found in the province of Manitoba. This government that boasts in this House, and out of it,'.that its policy is: the land for the settler, and not for the


Geo. H.: ing that you will use your influence to bring the matter before the House, if possible.
Your petitioners will ever pray.
Signed.



[Stage Direction]
I have a declaration here which I wish to read to this House made by a man over 90 years old. He came to me himself in Selkirk, and I had an opportunity of talking to him after he had sworn to this declaration :

[Stage Direction]
Dominion of Canada,
Province of Manitoba.
To wit:
Charles Trindle.
In the matter of St. Peter's Indian reserve and of the sale and disposal of the Indian lands in said reserve.
I, Charles Trindle, of the parish of St. Peters, in the province of Manitoba, do solera ly declare that:
Sometime during the month of January, 1908, hearing that parties were buying the Indian lands at Selkirk, I visited Selkirk and approached one of the men who were buying these lands. He refused to buy my land stating that I was too old to deal with. I then went to the Indian office at Selkirk and there saw the Indian agent, J. 0. Lewis. There were present at the time in the room the chief, William Prince, and W. D. Harper, councillor, W. H. Prince and James Williams, also councillors. I told these men that the party who was buying laud, I believe him to be William Frank, had refused to buy my land. The chief then asked me why and I told him that Frank said I was too old. The Indian agent, J. O. Lewis, then said, I will buy your land, at the same time saying, what do you want for your land? I said $10 per acre. The Indian agent said I will take the land and pay you at the rate of $6 per month. In this way you will have a monthly allowance coming for a long time which will help to keep you. It was now dinner time. The Indian agent gave me 25 cents to get my dinner, telling me to come back after dinner when he would give me my first instalment of $6. I came back after dinner, and the same parties were in the office as were there when Mr. Lewis said he would take my land. Councillor James Williams acted as interpreter and explained all this matter to me. After the above explanation, Mr. Lewis, the agent, gave me an order on William Robinson's store for $6 This was, as I understood, the first monthly payment on my land. I took this order to the store and received $6 in cash. As far as I know I was not asked by the agent to sign any paper or any receipt for the order he gave me. I never signed by my mark or any other way to my knowledge any agreement to sell my land to the agent, neither did I ever sign any application for my patent, nor did I ever sign any receipt for my patent. Mr. BRADBURY.
Nor did 1 at any time ever see my patent. I now feel that I have been fooled by the agent in the presence of the chief and councillors. A month later I came hack to my agent for my second payment of $6. He again gave ue an order on the same store as the first, namely, William Robinson. I got the cash for this order at the store. A month after this I again called at the Indian office, and received an order or a paper, this time to George Tracy, of Selkirk. On presenting this to Tracy he gave me a cheque for $6 where I cashed it.	On	receipt	of	this	chequefrom Tracy	I	touched	a	pen.	There
was a paper lying on the desk. It was not read to me, nor do I know the contents. I do not understand English. I am an old man, nearly ninety years of age. There was nobody present to interpret, consequently I did not know the contents of any paper which Tracy may have signed when I touched the pen. This was the only time I was ever asked to touch the pen -or sign any paper in connection with the sale of my land. If my name has been signed, or my mark placed on any other documents, it has not been done by me. At that time Tracy told me that from then on he would make the monthly payments, and for me to come to him every month. This I did, and received from George Tracy cheques for $6 each month foils months in all, not including the two $6 orders I had received from the agent to the store. Including these orders I received a total of tw-enty orders or cheques for $6 each a total of $120 for my property, which should have been 32 acres that I should have received from the government, 16 acres for myself, and 16 acres for my wife, and at $10 an acre the price agreed upon by the agent would be $320. This at $6 per month would have entitled me to receive monthly payments for 53 months instead of 20 months which is all I received from the agent and Tracy, a total of $120. When Tracy gave me my last cheque in August, or maybe a month before, he did not tell me that this was my last payment, hut the next month when I went for my cheque, he told me then that I had received all the money that was coming to me. This was a great surprise to me, as I had expected my payments to continue for a long time. 1 now find that I only received less than $4 per acre instead of $10 per acre that J. C. Lewis, Indian agent had agreed to give me.
I now feel that the Indian agent has not only not protected me but he has deceived me so that I have lost my home.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to he true and knowing that it is of the same force and, effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canadian Evidence Act.
His

[Stage Direction]
Mark
Declared before me at tbe Town of Selkirk, in the Province of Manitoba, this 21st day of December, 1909.
C. Finkelman,
Commissioner.
In support of that affidavit I hold in my hand an account rendered by Mr. George Tracy, which appears in a return ordered

by this House. In the account there is the question of this very land which this man speaks of. Mr. Tracy has an account against Trindle, and in that account he credits Mr. Lewis, the Indian agent, with having made the first three payments on this land. I do not think the hon. minister can ask any further evidence to prove that his Indian agent was a party to this transaction. We have the declaration of the old man himself, and Lewis's colleague, George Tracy, in the account he rendered, admits right on the face of the account that Lewis made the first three payments himself to this Indian. Just before leaving this matter, I want to say that is one account out of eighty-six which this man Tracy had against the Indian. He managed to have dealings with these men after he realized that they were going to be possessed of valuable land, and that these lands would be at their disposal. His accounts aggregated something like $13,000, and I have no hesitation in saying that for 25 to 50 per cent of this amount the Indians received no actual value.
Before I take my seat I think I will be able to satisfy the minister that this statement is absolutely corect. This man only charges Trindle with having received $160, but he received it in six payments according to Tracy. An old man of 90 years of age admits that he got twenty payments of $6 a month, and this man charges him at the very, beginning of the account with a $35 cheque issued to Captain William Robinson's store. I am satisfied this man never received that cheque, and all through this man's accounts the same story is told. The Indians have been wronged right under the eyes of the Indian agent, and I am afraid with the assistance and connivance of the Indian agent. Now, I have here an'affidavit from a poor Indian woman from whom this agent bought land "in the first place, and I will read it:

[Stage Direction]
Dominion of Canada,
Province of Manitoba,
To wit:
Flora Bella Wesley.
In the matter of the St. Peter's Indian Reserve and of the sale of the Indian lands
In the said reserve.
I, Flora Bella Wesley, widow, of the parish of St. Peter's, in the province of Manitoba, do solemnly declare:
That I am a member of the St. Peter's band of Indians, and in the matter of my allotment of land under the terms of the surrender effected September 24, 1907, I was en titled to 16 acres of land, 16 acres each to mv two boys, and 16 acres to my daughter, 64 acres in all.
A few months after the surrender, and before the proper allotments were made, I sold to J. O. Lewis, Indian agent at Selkirk, 82 acres of my land situated inside the limits 223
of the town of Selkirk for the sum of $5 per acre, part of which I had to receive in cash and part in goods, but I am quite unable to say what amount I received on this sale.
I also made a sale to William Frank of 16 acres, and for which I was to receive $125, but only received from him the sum of $35 in ail, $23 in cash, and goods from the store to, the value of $12. The balance of $90 Mr. Frank informed me he could not pay me as George Tracy had claimed it for debt.
William Frank informed me that he had purchased all my land, 32 acres in all, which I disputed, and told him I only sold him 16 acres, that the other 16 acres I did not intend to sell, as I required it for myself. I further declare that I never made application for my patent, never saw my patent, and never signed a receipt for my patent.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.

[Stage Direction]
X
Her mark.
_ Declared before me at the town of Selkirk, in the province of Manitoba, this 20th day of January, 1910.

[Stage Direction]
Sir, I have thirty or forty similar declarations sent to me from these people, and they all verify the statement that has been made by the Indians in their letters. These declarations ought to open the eyes of the minister, because I am sure that some of them must have come to his attention long before they came into my hands. I want to emphasize this fact, that in face of the declaration made by Flora Wesley, and the declaration made by Charles Trindle, the minister can have no further doubt as to the charge that was made that the Indian agent, J. O. Lewis, was buying this land in collusion with other land buyers. In discussing this matter some time ago in this House, I endeavoured to show that the surrender had entailed great hardships upon the poor ignorant Indians, who now allege that the transaction was a trick and a disgrace to the government responsible for it. I urged the minister then to institute an investigation with a view of protecting the Indians against the unscrupulous methods employed by these speculators who, through the assistance of the government, had been able to secure these lands for less than one-third of their actual value. But the minister practically said that there was nothing to investigate. But he did admit that the surrender contained some peculiar conditions, and his words are to be found in volume 1 of last year's ' Hansard,' page 1019:
The surrender contained many peculiar terms. I do not suppose there ever was a surrender like it before, and I fervently hope there will never be one like it again.
Sir, well might the minister hope that no such disgraceful transaction might ever
EinSED EDITION.
COMMON o
again take place under his department. He proceeds to say:
One of th© terms of the surrender was that the Indians should be given title to some part of the reserve. It was a remarkable condition, but I place it before the House as an evidence of how far the department is willing to go in order to meet the Indians, and in order that the land may be turned to beneficial use.
In justification of giving the land to the Indians, the minister says:
The Indian would only sign the surrender of the reserve as a whole when he got this particular piece of land as his very own to do with as he pleased, and when he got it as his very own we had no control over him as an Indian Department or as a government. He could dispose of it as he pleased.
Sir, I submit that that is an astounding proposition for the guardians of the wards of the people of this country to make, that because the poor, ignorant, irresponsible Indian made a bargain, or made a condition, by which he expected to get land worth half a, million of money, before he would agree to sign the surrender, and that the government was justified in giving these men this great reservation to dissipate, to throw away, and to hand over to their political friends. The minister admits the peculiar terms contained in the surrender, referring no doubt to the unprecedented act of giving to these Indians this large area of land, land worth, as I said a moment ago, at least half a million dollars, and then leaving them entirely unprotected. This is, to my mind, the most serious charge that can be brought against the government, the fact that in giving the Indians this land, the government removed all protection from them, handed them over into the hands of speculators, who were watching their opportunity to pounce upon them, and take these valuable lands from them. This was practically handing the land over into the hands of a few men that this whole transaction was apparently arranged for. I have no hesitation in saying, with the evidence I have before me, whether the minister is conscious of the fact or not, that this whole transaction was engineered and arranged so that this magnificent area of land should drop into the hands of three or four men who have actually got these lands. To prove the correctness of the contention that the government anticipated that these lands would eventually pass into the hands of the whites who were hovering around watching their opportunity, I shall quote part of a letter from the Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs to the Hon. Frank Oliver. The letter is dated October 26, 1907, a shoTt time after the surrender was completed. He says:
The ©lacing in the market of the land to be sold, namely. 24,000 acres will afford an Mr. BRADBURY.
opportunity long looked for of having the land available for farming and other purposes, and the issuing of patents to individual Indians will ultimately, I believe, result in a considerable portion, if not all, of the land granted to them passing into the hands of the whites.
The statement that there are 24,000 acres is about as correct as every other statement that gentleman has made in regard to this transaction, because 15,000 acres only and not 24,000 were sold. This is from the man who negotiated the treaty under the instruction of his minister responsible for the affairs of the Indian Department. I claim that nothing more is needed to show that the government was responsible for this outrageous surrender, knew that the Indians would sell their lands to the few speculators then on the ground ready to 'bargain for them, and that under the protection of the government which had warned the general public off by a letter written by Mr. Pedley to the Indian Agent, which I shall read in order that the House may have some conception of the ingenuity of the men who were carrying out this surrender. After the surrender was secured a large number of people in Selkirk who realized the great value of these lands were anxious to secure portions of that reserve, and as soon as they began to negotiate with the Indians a letter arrived from Ottawa to the following effect:
Department of Indian Affairs, Ottawa, January 21, 1908.
In connection with Indians disposing of or pledging their holdings, I beg to say that no transfer or pledge by any Indian will be in any way recognized by the department, and when it has been determined what land each Indian is entitled to receive, a patent for the same will be issued to such Indian, without regard to any claims by white men or others.
It is necessary to make this position of the department clear, and as widely known as possible, as any recognition of rights by transfer would cause endless complications, and in order to prevent same it is incumbent on the department to issue grants only to the Indians found entitled to receive same.
Almost immediately on receipt of this letter the Indian Agent heard of his instructions and made known the contents of this letter wide and far. He went into the Indian reserve and warned every Indian that he had nothing to sell until his patent came. In the town of Selkirk almost every man who approached him-I sent men to approach him myself to find out-they were told by the Indian Agent that the Indians had nothing to sell until the land was surveyed and the patents issued. That was the proper course, and i-f the government had adherd to the spirit of that letter I would not be standing in my place exposing what I believe to be one of the meanest transactions that has taken place under this government during the fourteen years it has

been in office. What occurred? As soon as it became known that the Indian had nothing to sell until his patent issued, the average citizen, Liberal and Conservative 'alike, hung back, refused to give the Indian a dollar on his land, refused to negotiate with him; knowing the Indian nature as well as they did they did not want to deal with them all except four men. One of these was William Frank, whom I have named in this House before, a large real estate dealer in Winnipeg, a supporter of the present government, who came to Ottawa himself and interviewed somebody here, I do not know whom. I met that gentleman myself on his return at Beause-jour, fifteen miles east of Selkirk, and we rode in the train together. He then said to me: I am going to buy the Indian lands, I am going to take the chance, if you like to come in with me, it is all right, it is quite safe. He gave me the tip; I did not take it. He said he had been to Ottawa. I asked him whom he had seen; he did not tell me, but the result was, as is very evident from what has since transpired, that that man had the tip from the proper source. He immediately started to work to negotiate with the poor Indian to buy these lands, he and three others. One of these was Fred Heap, a lawyer in Selkirk, a man who drew $1,800 in fees in connection with this very surrender. Another was George Tracy, a drayman in Selkirk, who conducted one of the most scandalous transactions ever perpetrated in the west in connection with these Indians. Another was a man named Funk, an American. These four men negotiated and dealt with these Indians and bought out of 21,000 acres that the Indians bad, about 18,000.
How did they conduct these negotiations? The very first move these men made was .to secure the co-operation of the chief and councillors. They bought the chief and the councillors' land, and in addition they bought the chief and the councillors to assist them in carrying out the negotiations with the rest of the Indians, in bringing the Indians to them, and in bargaining with them for the balance of the land. They caused these councillors and the chief to circulate a rumour all through the reserve in conformity with the letter I have read to the House that the Indians had nothing to sell until his patent came, but that these patriotic gentlemen were just going to advance them a little money until their patents came. They said to them: Your land is worth about $15 or $20 an acre, but you will get an advance of $4 or $5 an acre now, and when your patents come we will give you the balance of the money. That is the way these poor people were misled. Then they brought the Indians up to Selkirk and they purchased their lands and made their own bargains. That the
whole transaction was arranged for a few party favourites who got these lands, 1 think, is evidenced, first, by the fact that the surrender was secured at the request of Mr. S. ,1. Jackson, then member for tin county of Selkirk, a supporter of the .present government. There was no other demand, there was no petition from any source asking that the surrender be secured. The only man who is on record, according to the minister himself, as having requested the surrender is Mr. S. J. Jackson. This surrender, Mr. Speaker, was secured right on the eve of a general election. The money that was paid out for these lands was circulating through that constituency just in the middle of my campaign. The Indian agent, who I have proven to this House, was recreant to his trust as a government official, was an active organizer for my opponent, Mr.,
S.	J. Jackson. He organized the whole-eastern part of the constituency against me. and, more than that, he seemed to have abundance of money, so much so, that I regret to say, that one of my committee:-saw fit to have him arrested two days'before the election for paying out money in trie-town of Beausejour. The speculators taking advantage of the ignorance of the Indians, 23,000 acres of land were disposed of without let or hindrance, without the guidance or advice of the Indian Depart-, ment. I want it to be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that every one of these Indians had been jaised and brought up to lean and to look upon the Indian Department as their guide and adviser. But this government gives them this valuable land, and then withdraws all its protection, support and guidance. And, in additon to this, we have the letter that was written by the deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, Mr. Pedley, the man who negotiated this surrender, warning the public that no transactions of any kind would be recognized, practically telling the public to stand off, and then we have these four men stepping in and buying these lands at whatever they could get them for, on whatever terms and on whatever conditions. These facts justify me in saying that this whole transaction was engineered from the very beginning for the benefit of the few men who [secured these valuable lands from the government. Admitting for the sake of argument that the minister's contention was right-which I do not admit- that the Indian refused to sign the surrender unless he got this land to do as he pleased with it, it would be no justification for the government withdrawing its protection from its wards and allowing them to be imposed upon and practically despoiled of the valuable lands that the government had given them. The government, responsible for this surrender, knew
223J
[Stage Direction]
the Indian nature, knew that he could not long resist the allurement of a little_ money, and that this land would soon fall into the hands of a few land sharks who were ready to pounce upon the unsuspecting Indian. Just as soon as the government removed all these restrictions and said that the Indian could dispose of his land to whom he pleased and for what he pleased, these favoured people, this quartette of patriots, got to work and began making bargains to secure the lands under the best conditions they could. But, unfortunately for the minister, the facts do not bear out what he stated about the Indians refusing to sign the surrender. I have it from reliable Indians that ther was no demand from the band, as a band, that the protection of the department should not be provided for in the surrender. I am told that when Mr. Pedley read the clause already placed in the surrender which provided that an official of the department should supervise all sales made by the-Indians, it was objected to by a few Indians, but not by the band. It was not put to the vote, and neither the chief nor one ol his councillors objected to the clause being in the surrender. But worst of all, I am informed, that the deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, the man representing this government, who is the guardian of the wards of this country, did not endeavour in any way to explain to these poor Indians, these two or three men who were objecting, that the clause was for their special protection, but rather seemed to take the very first opportunity offered of running his pen through the clause and striking it out. In the face of what has happened it would almost seem that these poor Indians were the paid agents of the men who were watching their opportunity to get hold of these lands, and it seems strange that the man whom the country expected to protect these Indians would yield to that objection and strike out that protecting clause without one word, and leave the Indians at the mercy of the men who wanted to get these lands. Yet, that is what was done.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in proof of this contention I have here among the letters which were brought down by the minister himself, a letter signed by one of the Indian councillors which reads:
St. Peters, September 21, 1909.
Hon Mr. Oliver,-All our Indians are dissatisfied, and are still looking for help from the Indian department, and we the chief and councillors are dissatisfied. For when the surrender was made, before Mr. Frank Pedley, the Indians were asked if they would allow the government to appoint one of their officials to make bargains for them, some Indians said ' No, we can make our own bargains.' But not one of the councillors or the chief, because we want the government to Mr. BRADBURY.
help us, because we, the Indians are like children.

[Stage Direction]
I3 there any other evidence I could give to the House which would be half as conclusive as this, showing that there 'was no demand made by the Indians as a band, that the protection should be removed, and that the statement made by the minister in this House ' was entirely misleading when he said that was the only condition on which he could obtain the surrender of St. Peter's Indian reserve. These Indians declared, as dozens have told me privately, that there was no demand made by the band that the Indian Department should not stand between them and the white man. The Indian knew that he was not capable of handling such valuable possessions, and the duty of the department was after it had given these people these lands, (which I contend was a crime in the first place) the manifest duty of the Indian Department was to see that the Indians were not robbed by a few hungry land sharks. I submit that that is strong evidence to show that the removal of the protective clause in the surrender was not made a condition of the surrender by the band, but that this clailse was struck out simply at the bidding of a few irresponsible Indians who were no doubt in the pay of those who did not want any power to interfere between them and their intended victims, the Indians. As I pointed out, there was no effort made by the deputy Superintendent General-who was responsible for this surrender, and who I believe is responsible for this whole transaction-to retain the protective provision in the surrender. It would almost, seem there was an understanding of some kind between these men and the men who acquired these lands. The more I see and hear of this transaction the more I am satisfied that the whole thing was arranged so that these lands should pass into the hands of the few men who got them, and a scheme was devised, first, to give them to the Indian, and then to make it impossible for the public to interfere, and these four men were allowed and assisted by the Indian agent to acquire these lands on their own. terms and conditions from the poor unfortunate Indians. Well, Mr. Speaker, when the 'minister was before the committee some time ago I again called his attention to the scandalous conduct of the land speculators, and also to the protests that were entered by the Indians against the whole transaction. I then, two months ago, pressed for an investigation, but- the minister flatly refused. However, I learned a few days after that he had despatched his law clerk from the Indian Department with instructions to make a secret or private investigation. On learning this I quite naturally visited the department to

ascertain if this were true. I could not believe it possible, in face of what the minister said to me across the floor of the House, that he would have taken action without at least having given me some little notice, knowing the interest I was taking in the matter. Well, Sir, after visiting the department, and asking a question from one or two of the officials, these men simply shook their heads; they did not know anything about it. When I put the question straight to them: where is Mr. Williams, the answer was; he is away on duty, and when I asked: has he gone to Selkirk, the answer was: I do not know, you will have to see the deputy. I did not see the deputy, I felt it was no use under the circumstances, but the deputy was seen, and the deputy refused to give any information. But I knew that this man had gone to Selkirk and I went to Selkirk myself and I found that the minister had sent Mr. Williams there and that he was making a private investigation. There was no attempt to make a public investigation, no attempt to arrive at the truth regarding these scandalous transactions. What this man was evidently doing-as is borne out by the report which he makes-was simply seeking to get evidence to combat the statements made by me on the floor of the House, and the statements made by the Indians in the letters and petitions sent to the minister. In every page of that report which this law clerk brings down he shows his utter inability to cope with the conditions existing around Selkirk. You might as well send that gentleman to Hong Kong to inquire into Chinese conditions, and expect a proper report, as to send an innocent young man like him in among the land sharks that secured this land. When I went into Selkirk where did I find him? I found him with the Indian agent, the man who had been a party to this transaction;.! found him with these land dealers, the men who had been parties to the scandals complained of. Is it any wonder that his report bears the complexion it does. What do you find in this report? You find the Mr. John Smith sold so many acres of land to George Tracy, and according to George Tracy's books he received payment in full. That is the way he wipes out every one of these charges; he goes according to their books. I have no hesitation in saying, Sir, from my place in the House, that as to a large number of these amounts that are charged up to these poor unfortunate Indians they never saw one dollar of the money. Of course, the books were all right as a matter of book-keeping -these men are good book-keepers as results show.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the course of the criticisms that were made in the House on a previous occasion, the minister stated that he had secured a number of surrenders from different reserves throughout the country, and that in every case the land had been duly advertised and put up to auction. At that time I took exception to that statement of the minister, and in the face of this transaction I was astonished that the hon. gentleman would make such a statement. Surely this transaction must have escaped his memory at that moment, or he could not have made the statement he did. Here was St. Peter's Indian reserve, where they had secured by surrender
48.000	acres of these lands, 21,000 acres of which they immediately gave to the Indians, and through the Indians to their white friends, and out of the balance some
15.000	acres, was sold at public auction. As I have stated, while the surrender called for
21.000	acres, the hon. minister, I presume, knows that it took 23,000 acres to satisfy the Indian claim; and this land was practically handed over by the government, through the instrumentality of the poor ignorant Indians, to a few white men, including one or two party heelers, for less than one-third of its actual value. _ Now, Mr. Speaker, when speaking before in this House, I made the statement that the chief and council were bribed to betray their band. That is a serious charge to make. The hon. minister took strong exception to it at that time; but he ingeniously endeavoured to place Chief Justice Howell as a kind of buffer between the department and this charge, and to make it appear that if I made a charge of bribery I was making it against him. Now, while I frankly admit that the word bribery is not a pleasant word, and ought not to be used by any hon. member except where it is entirely justified, I believe that before I take my seat I shall have satisfied the hon. minister that I was entirely justified in using that expression regarding this scandalous transaction. In order that we may know exactly how this transaction was conducted, it will be necessary for me to review for a short time the negotiations which took place for the surrender. When Chief Justice Howell went to Selkirk to open the negotiations with the Indians with the view of securing the surrender of the reserve, the chief and councillors would not listen to any proposition of that kind. In fact, they refused to discuss the matter with him. The chief called meetings of the band, and, after explaining to the^ Indians wht Chief Justice Howell was suggesting, he pledged himself and the councillors to the band on three different occasions, that under no consideration, would they agree to surrender the reserve. So it was impossible for the Chief Justice to make and headway in securing the surrender. But just at this stage the services of one of the well known party heelers of the town of Selkirk were called into his assistance, and this man succeeded in including the chief and his councillors to violate
[Stage Direction]
the pledge they had given to the band, and to meet Chief Justice Howell and arrange terms of surrender. It is now alleged that the consent of the chief and the councillors was secured only after it was agreed to pay these men a considerable amount of money and a large amount of land, in addition to what the average Indian was to get. These were the influences that were brought to bear upon these poor ignorant Indians, who with the cunning of the Indian and the deviltry and cupidity of the white man in their nature, because two of these men are half white. These men were secured by this man and the government officials to assist in securing the surrender. They were purchased to violate the pledges which they had given and to betray the band which had elected them to office. As evidence that these men were paid to betray their band, I submit this letter, which was brought down in one of the returns by the minister. To me it is very strong circumstantial evidence that the statement I have made is absolutely correct. This letter was written by a man named Ernest Ray-ner, who is credited with having done the trick
Selkirk, October 17, 1907.
F. Pedley, Esq.,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Please find statement of cash and goods expended by me in connection with the St. Peter's surrender. As the estimated cost was $500, you will see the work was done reasonably. Trusting this will be satisfactory, I remain,
Yours respectfully,
_	EARNEST RAYNER.
This man, it must be remembered, was not a government official. He was simply a clerk in one of the stores in the town of Selkirk, and one of the leading Liberal workers in the town, a man who was always on hand to do the work of his party. This was the man secured to carry on these negotiations. There is no account on record to show what that money was for. I have asked for the account, and it is not to be found. In fact, the Indian Department very wisely refused to pay it, as I presume the hon. minister knows. But this letter proves that there was some distinct understanding between Mr. Rayner and somebody that the Indian Department was going to make good this $500, which was the estimated cost of the peculiar work he was supposed to do. Rumor had it in the streets of Selkirk, from the time the deal was negotiated, that the chief was to receive $200 in cash, and the councillors $100 apiece. That would exactly account for this $500 which this man claimed from the Indian Department, and which the department refused to pay. Judge Howell refused to O. K. the bill. But the debt was incurred, and the understanding was arrived at by somebody, and this man had to get the money.
George Henry Bradbury: How was it done? Well, I have not direct evidence, but I have circumstantial evidence, which is sometimes the strongest evidence a man can adduce. You find that, according to the terms of surrender, the chief was entitled to receive 180 acres of land, and he actually did receive 199 acres. By the same surrender the councillors were entitled to receive 120 acres each, and they did receive an average of 140 acres each. As there were five of them, they just received sufficient to make up about 100 acres which, at the current price, settled among the dealers, gave the $500 necessary to recoup this man for the money he had used to pay the chief and councillors for betraying the band that had elected them to office.
I do not see how there can be the slightest doubt in the mind of any one who knows anything about the circumstances that this money was made up in this way to recoup this man for the sum he had spent. What other possible reason can there be ? Why should these men have got this extra land? The treaty provided that the chief should get 180 acres, and the councillors 120 acres each. And instead they got this additional land. It is therefore a fair deduction from the facts that it was from this additional land the $500 was provided to pay these men for the betrayal of their trust.
As I have pointed out, the hon. minister (Mr. Oliver) was very much shocked when I used the word ' bribery ' in this connection. Let me say now that I can find no other word which can so adequately describe the conduct of the government in this matter, in which it secured the surrender, first, by giving the chief thirteen times and each councillor nine times more land than was given to an ordinary Indian, and then by giving the chief and council money and goods to secure their consent.
If this be not bribery, and the most con- . temptible kind of bribery, of the representatives of the Indians to induce them to betray those who had elected them, then I do not know what the word means. What a spectacle of wisdom of the utter lack of honesty of purpose this whole transaction reveals! None but the new school of Liberals could have conceived and worked out such a contemptible scheme. It is a disgrace to the government, and will cause honest men to blush to think that the government would allow its wards, these poor unfortunate Indians, to be treated in the manner I have described.
After the consent of the chief and council had been secured, let me point out what took place. After several private meetings had been held in the town of Selkirk between the chief and council and Chief Justice Howell and an officer of the Indian Department-I think it was Mr. Laird- and lawyers appointed by this government -for what purpose I do not know, except to get a fee, for they certainly did nothing

for the Indians'-this surrender was obtained. All the negotiations took place at these private meetings, and a surrender was agreed upon by the chief and council, who were purchased to betray the band. The Indians, as a band, were not consulted, they knew absolutely nothing about these meetings except from hearing that private meetings were going on, they had a pledge from their chief and councillors that no surrender would take place, and ' they had confidence in their chief and council, and thought everything was all right. But they were rudely awakened from that feeling of security by the publication of the following notice, which was posted up at four different places on the reserve, calling a meeting of the band to discuss this all important question of the surrender of their homes and the heritage they had enjoyed from childhood and which had been handed down to them by their fathers and grandfathers. Let me read this notice, and I am sure even the hon. minister will be astonished when he hears what I am going to tell him, for I give him the credit of believing that he does not know one-half of the scandalous conduct which has taken place in connection with this transaction. This notice called a meeting of the band at one day's notice, and remember that was a meeting of a band of Indians living on a reserve 80 miles square, and they were summoned to this meeting to decide whether they should surrender their homes. One can well imagine how inadequate a day's notice would be to hold a meeting of that kind to a band covering so large a territory. The notice reads as follows:
To the St. Peter's Band of Indians:
Take notice, that a meeting of the male members of this band of the full age of twenty-one (21) years, will be held at the Treaty grounds of this reserve, on Monday the 23rd day of September, A.D. 1907, at 11 o'clock a.m., for the purpose of considering, deciding and assenting to the release and surrender of the St. Peter's Indian reserve on the terms to be set forth at the meeting.


CHIEF WILLIAM PRINCE.
[Stage Direction]
J. D. Lewis.
Indian Agent
Dated at Selkirk, this 20th day of September, 1907.
As I have said, only one day's notice was given for these Indians to gather together. I am going to read to the House, in proof of the statement I have made, for I want to show that this whole transaction was not only disgraceful but illegal, and I do not believe that any properly constituted court in this country would uphold that surrender on the conditions under which it was secured-I am going now to read a letter from William Asham, ex-chief of the St. Peter's Indian band, one of the most intelligent Indians I have ever met. Mr. Asham is not an ordinary Indian. This man, if he
had enjoyed the advantages of education, would have been another Norquay. He is a man of transcendent ability, every letter from whom is in his own handwriting.
Dear Sir,-The inclosed is the original copy of the notice that was posted one day previous to the time of meeting for the surrender of St. Peter's reservation, effected September 24, 1907. The following is the size of the building where the meeting was held: Length, 29 feet: width, 18 feet. I may point out the building is a government storage, for that reason only about three parts of the building was used for the meeting.
Just imagine how ridiculous, for 200 men to gather in a little space not much bigger than that space opposite the Speaker's chair, to conduct these important negotiations. I have >a telegram here from the same source:
Selkirk, Manitoba, January 26, 1910. G. H. Bradbury,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Band received one day's notice of meeting September 23. Notices, three or four posted on Sunday, September 22.
Now, Sir, I am told by the Indians, and told by this man, that this notice was not seen until some time after midday on Sunday, and the meeting was called for 11 o'clock the next day to discuss the 'allimportant question of the surrender of this reserve. I have a copy of the original notice here that was stuck up. I have also a declaration here which I wish to place on record to confirm the letter:
Statutory Declaration.
Dominion of Canada, Province of Manitoba.
In the matter of the vote for surrender of the Indian lands in St. Peter's reserve, taken on September 21, 1907.
To Wit:
I, .John Flett, of the parish of St. Peter's, in the province of Manitoba, Indian, do solemnly declare that I am a member of the St. Peter's Band of Indians; that the notices calling the meeting at which the vote surrendering the reserve was taken, were not posted up, nor did the Indians know- anything about such a meeting until Sunday, the twenty-second day of September, A.D., 1907, just one day prior to the date of such meeting. The meeting was held on Monday, September 23, and duly adjourned until the next day, Tuesday, September 24, but at the time of such adjournment, no notice was given that the vote would finally be taken on Tuesday. Many of the Indians did not see or hear about the notice, and in consequence were not present at the meeting, and did not have a chance of expressing their views or voting. I believe that had ample time been given and the matter properly explained to the-band, that many who were at their homes would have turned out and voted against the surrender of their reserve; many of the young men of the band were away from home working at various occupations and did not know or hear anything about a vote going to be taken owing to the shortness of the time given. That I have been told and believe
[Stage Direction]
that some non-treaty men and some minors were counted amongst those voting for the surrender. That in my opinion the vote was most irregular and improper and was not taken according to the regular custom of our band.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously, believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893.
Declared before me at the parish of St. I'eter's, in the province of Manitoba, this 21th day of March, A.D., 1910.
(Sgd.) ROBERT G. McDONALD,
Commissioner in B. R„ etc.
(Sgd.) JOHN FLETT.
I have four declarations of the same nature, but I will not trouble the House with reading them. This is not a party question; this is not a political question; so far as I am concerned it is a question of right and justice, and I say there is no man listening to me to-night but must realize how unreasonable, how unfair it was to call a meeting of that kind, giving the poor Indians only one day's notice to decide whether they would give up their homes where they were born and had raised their families. It is a scandalous thing, and the officials guilty of it and the government responsible for it ought to be condemned, and must be condemned by every honest man in this country.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will the hon. gentleman give the names of the other men?


George Henry Bradbury: I have other declarations here to the same effect. One is signed by Wiliam Sinclair, who, I may say, is one of the most intelligent men of the band, the man that Mr. Williams, the law clerk, sent out by the department to investigate, employed as his interpreter while going round.among the band. This man testifies also that only one day's notice was given to call this band of Indians together. Another declaration^ is signed by William Asham, an ex-chief. Now, regarding the meeting itself, it was a perfect farce; it was conducted as a farce. It was held in a little bit of a room not capable of holding one quarter of the Indians present. There were 289 qualified voters in that band, and there were something like 200 present in the little room, which was not big enough to hold 50 men comfortably. The government party, the men who attended with Mr. Pedley, numbered eight or ten, so there could not have been room for more than 40 or 50 Indians at any one time. The negotiations, I am told, were conducted almost entirely in English, and there was no proper interpretation of the proceedings to the Indians that were inside while the men that were outside knew practically nothing of what was going on except what they learned from their friends through the windows. Now, I want to call Mr. BRADBURY
the attention of the minister to clause 49 of the Indian Act, which states:
Except as 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 hand, or of any individual Indian, shall he valid or 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, at a meeting of council thereof summoned for that purpose.
Sir, there was less than 38 per cent of that band who voted for that surrender. The law distinctly says that a majority of the band is necessary to secure that surrender. After all that was done the government party were only able to secure a majority of seven of the men who were present. Another matter I wish to emphasize is this, that the young men, the backbone of the band, the men who were earning money, 75 of those young men were absent. Many of them were working on the lake, some were working for lumberers, some were in the harvest fields; while the old men who could not understand the English language were present, and a few of the others.
But the backbone and sinew of the band were not there and without giving these men a chance, without notifying them that this meeting was going to be called or that any negotiations were under way seeking a surrender of their homes, this government allows a transaction like that to be legalized, their homes taken from them, and their lands sold. I say that the matter is not only scandalous, but illegal and it ought to receive the condemnation of every honourable, and thoughtful man in and out of this House. I am informed by reliable men that although this notice calling the meeting was dated on September 20, it was not seen until Sunday, the. 22nd, so there was just one day's notice. This fact alone adds to the suspicious nature of the whole nasty transaction, and indicates that the government has been guilty of an act utterly unworthy of any government of this country responsible for the care and protection of the poor unfortunate Indians who are the wards of the people of this country. There is the further fact that although the Act provides that the majority of the Indian vote is necessary to legalize a surrender of Indian lands, less than 30 per cent voted for this surrender. The matter is irregular and illegal, and I am surprised that the minister who presides over this department, if he is aware of all these facts, would for one moment stand for them. It is hard for any hon. member who listens to my voice to-night to believe that such a thing can take place in a country like Canada. We have boasted, and we get the credit of being just to our Indians, and yet this band of Indians have been practically robbed of their

homes, and their heritage by and through the assistance of the government and its agents. There is no doubt that no honest effort was made by the gentleman entrusted with the negotiations for this surrender to secure the presence of the male members of the band who were eligible to vote. The younger men, as I have pointed out, the men of intelligence, of some little education, the men who had some conception of the value of the heritage they enjoyed, were not present, in calling the meeting a time was chosen when these men were out working, and a snap \erdict was secured in the absence of the men who would have known better, and would have resisted the allurements, and temptations, that no doubt secured even the semblance of a majority that was obtained for that surrender. Everything points to a determined effort on the part of the government to secure the surrender of this magnificent reserve, by fair means or by foul means, and I am bound to say that the evidence I have had before me, and that I am trying to lay before this House leads me to believe that the means used were anything but fair, and were verging very closely on what might be called dishonest. When you take into account the fact that this surrender was not secured at the request of the town of Selkirk, that there was no petition from the town of Selkirk, no demand from the board of trade, that the only demand came from Mr. Jackson, then a memi ber of this House, and a supporter of this government, and that Mr. Pedley makes the statement that he does in his letter that the throwing of these lands into the market was giving to the people what was long looked for, the lands that might be made available for farm, and other purposes, the only parties I know of who were looking for these lands were the men who got them. There was no demand from the town of Selkirk or anywhere else that this reserve should be taken from the Indians. Every hon. gentleman realizes what a small meeting means. The meeting in which this arrangement was completed consisted of not more than fifty men who were able to hear what took place as the building was too small to hold more. The proceedings were in the English language with no proper interpretation, and not one-quarter of that meeting understood half what took place, and I am safe in saying that not one-eightli of the band understood that these men were seeking to secure the surrender of their homes, and to acquire possession of their lands. During the Christmas holiday I visited the reserve, and I found there old people living in houses of which the land buyers had secured deeds. These Indians did not realize that they are not the owners of these houses, they believed that they were still their homes. I say that Die whole transaction is a disgrace to the government that has permitted it. The whole surrender was prepared not in a meeting before the band, but in a private meeting in Selkirk with three councillors, and the chief men who had been bought and bribed to attend the- meeting. The surrender was drawn up, and put in typewritting, and taken down there to the meeting on September 23, by Mr. Pedley. They did not go down there, and arrange with the Indians. They went there to see if they could get the Indians to do what their chief and councillors had already agreed to, and the manner in which they did it is a disgrace to the men who perpetrated the acts that were perpetrated at that meeting. These Indians were not told the truth, they had nothing to do with it, and when they remonstrated with the conditions of the treaty or surrender they were told that it was all fixed, that it was in writing, that it was all completed, and there was no chance of changing it.
Now, we are told that when this meeting took place it lasted two days. The discussion was conducted for the Indians by exchief William Asham, a very intelligent man, who defended the rights of the Indians for two days before the commission before they dared take a vote. The first day's sitting started at eleven o'clock with Mr. Pedley in the chair. Mr. Chief Jus-stice Howell and seven or eight other interested parties were present, and they discussed the pros and cons until four o'clock in the afternoon. Asham then demanded a vote, but, Mr. Speaker, these men who had come to Selkirk for the purpose of securing this surrender by fair means or foul, realized that the opinion of the band, in so far as they could judge, was strongly against the surrender. The consequence, was that Pedley adjourned the meeting until the next day. That accounts for the two days meeting that was necessary for these negotiations. There was a good deal of manipulation and canvassing in the endeavour to secure the surrender, the effort going so far as offering to bribe Asham. I am told on the best authority, and I have a declaration which I will read to the House, that when they found that they could not overcome Wm. Asham's opposition, when they realized that, they were up against a strong man who had the confidence of his band and who had the intelligence to combat what was taking place, they started to work and tried to bribe this man. When they adjourned for lunch this man was invited by W. D. Harper, one of the councillors, more white than Indian, with all the cunning of the Indian and all the deviltry of the white man in his composition, to go to his house. There were several in the room. After lunch lie passed a piece of paper to Asham with these words written on it: What would you

think if we made you equal to a councillor? Would you agree? ffm. Asham tells me that he understood the language and what it meant. It meant this: What would you think if we gave you as much land as we are getting? Would you then agree? Wm. Asham said: No, I could not agree under any consideration without betraying my band. He further says that he then went out of the door and he was told that S. J. Jackson wanted to see him. He says that he told them that he did not want to see S. J. Jackson. Then he walked over into the crowd and he found some one pulling at his coat, and, turning around, found our friend Mr. Jackson. He brought him outside of the crowd, and Mr. Jackson said: Mr. Asham, you are very much opposed to this surrender, are you not? Mr. Asham said: Yes, I am. Mr. Jackson said: Well now, look here, if we make you equal to these councillors and give you as much land as they are getting, I will guarantee1 to get you the patent within six weeks. Asham turned on him and said: No, Mr. Jackson, I would consider that I was accepting a bribe to betray my band. This man was loyal and refused to be bribed. But the bribery and the effort at bribery did not end there.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who was S. J. Jackson?


Mr. BRADBURY S. J.@: Jackson was at that time the member for Selkirk. After two davs of negotiation and discussion trying to win over the poor, unfortunate Indians by fair means or foul, Mr. Pedley decided that the time had come to take a vote. It was about 4.30 or 5 o'clock in the evening. It is alleged, now, that Mr. Pedley said: We must take a vote, and he stood up in the middle of the room and said: Gentlemen, or rather men-I have an affidavit which I will read to the House later describes it better than I can describe it-But Pedley said I have $5,000 here in my satchel; if you vote for this surrender tonight I will distribute this $5,000 amongst you; if you do not vote for this surrender I will take my bag and go home, and you won't get a cent. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he considers that bribery?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Who said that?


George Henry Bradbury: Frank Pedley, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, the man instructed by the minister to go to Selkirk, and secure the surrender of this reserve, I would like to ask the minister, I would like to ask any hon. gentleman within hearing of my voice, whether or not he considers that bribery. How would a man appear if he stood on a political platform, and made a declaration of that kind to an audience? What chance would there be of that man holding his seat before an honest judge? He Mr. BRADBURY.
would be unseated immediately; he would not dare go into court. But this was not all. These men were desperate, they, were bound to get that surrender, and after Mr. Pedley had made that statement he said: iSow the time has come to take a vote; this room is too small; get outside in the field among the rest. Two-thirds of them were outside. These men went out and before they divided the Rev. John Sem-mons, Indian inspector, stood forward, held up his hand, and, speaking loudly in the language that the band understood, the Cree language, he said: All you that want $90 go to that side, indicating the side on which the councillors, the chief, Chief Justice Howell and Mr. Pedley were standing, and that 3ide was counted in favour of the surrender. Yet, in spite of these two facts, first, the statement by the Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs that he had $5,000 to distribute amongst those people, if they voted for surrender and the direction of Mr. Sem-mons that if they wanted $90 they should go to one side, they Pedley and his party only succeeded in securing seven of a majority. I have evidence here in my hand to show that non-treaty men who had no right to vote were counted amongst those favouring the surrender, and that minors, young men, also put in their votes. In the face of this evidence it must be clear to every man in this House that the manner in which the surrender of St. Peter's Indian reserve was secured shows that this was one of the most scandalous transactions that has ever taken place in this country. In view of the facts that I have tried to lay before this House fairly, I would ask the minister whether he thinks I was justified in using the word ' bribery ' in this connection? In view of the transfer to the chief of thirteen times, and the councillors of nine times as much land as the ordinary Indian got, besides payments of cash and goods to these traitors to betray their band, the chief and council, to agree to the surrender in the first place, the statement made by Mr. Pedley, the Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs that he would distribute $5,000 among them if they would agree to the surrender, and the further statement of Mr. Semmons, which was altogether misleading to the effect that all you who want $90 step to that side am I not justified in saying that there is absolute proof of the bribery and trickery that were committed during this transaction? I am bound to say, Sir, that I think the whole transaction was one of the most contemptible pieces of trickery ever perpetrated on the poor Indian and the government responsible for it is utterly unworthy of the confidence reposed in it by the people of this country. The minister responsible for this department ha3 been appealed to time and again by my-
APRIL 13, laid
self to investigate, and he has been appealed to time after time by the Indians, and he has promised to visit that reserve, 'out he has always failed to do so. The minister now must take the full responsibility, and the government through one of its departments has been guilty of a cowardly, and contemptible act in connection with securing the surrender of the St. Peter's Indian reserve. That there may be no misunderstanding about this $5,000, I hold in my hand Mr. Pedley's letter to the minister in which he says :
Five thousand dollars was left at the time of the surrender with the Indian Agent Lewis and Inspector Semmons to distribute to the Indians of the band. Part of this was done on the spot at the time of surrender and the balance will be distributed from time to time as the parties entitled to it appear before the agent for that purpose.


An hon. MEMBER.: Whose money was that?


George Henry Bradbury: It was the people's money. That money was taken from the public treasury, and taken to Selkirk foi the purpose of securing that surrender. There is no doubt that since that land hat been sold it has been charged up against these unfortunate Indians and taken out oi their money. Now, to give you some little idea of how these land transactions were negotiated and all the contemptible trickery that was resorted to to beat these pool Indians even out of the land that the government had so prodigally and wickedly given to them-because I hold the government had no right to make the Indian competent just for a few weeks or a few months to deal in land; I hold that th< Indian was not competent; I hold that the Indian was just as much a ward of the government during the time that surrender was going on as he ever was and as he is to-day. I have, Sir, a letter in my hand from the Indian agent, Mr. Lewis, the man who was part and parcel of this whole transaction, the man who stood in and assisted in these land transactions, because I want to say that these land dealers who bought these lands for less than one-third of their value, did their dealing right under the Indian agent's nose. There was a building with the Indian office in one part of it, Mr. Heap, the lawyer, in another part of it, and the land office in another part of it. If the patents could not be found in the Indian agent's office, they would go to the lawyer's office, and if they could not find them there, they would go to the land agent's office, and invariably they would find the patents in the possession of the land agent and not the Indian agent. I have no dou'bt that the minister will refer to a report b,y one of his Indian agents, who made an investigation, whitewashed
this wolf Tracy, who practically robbed these poor Indians. I will tell you what took place in connection with that man. As soon as he found out these poor Indians were going to be allowed to sell these valuable lands, he immediately endeavoured to get them in debt. That is not a hard thing to do, for the Indian will take anything you give him. He would go to the Indian and say: John put me up 10 tons of hay, after he knew the man was going to give him 32 acres of land. If he knew he was going to get 80 acres of land, he might ask him to put up 20 tons or 40 tons. He would then advance the Indian a little money $10 or $20 and would ask the Indian to touch the pen, when he Tracy would sign some paper. No explanation given, it turned oue to be a power of attorney. The Indian would get the hay, and this man had signed for the Indian a power of attorney, the strongest power of attorney that any legal man in the city of Winnipeg could draw, which gave him absolute control of the Indians land. The Indian would come in the fall and say: Tracy, I have the hay, and Tracy would say: I don't want the hay, you had better keep it yourself. There would be no understanding; Tracy would charge that man $8 a ton for the hay that the Indian had made on his own land. Now I am looking into the faces of some honest men on the opposite side of the House, and I know they will be astonished-I am looking now right into the face of the Minister of Railways- I know that some of these honest men opposite will be astonished when I tell them-that in some of these accounts there is $400 charged for hay that George Tracy was supposed to sell the poor Indians. The Indians did sot want to buy hay, the Indian made the hay on Indian lands, and Tracy first gave him an advance of about $2 a ton to put it up. Then, after the Indian got it up, Tracy did not want it, and the Indian kept it and George Tracy charged him $8 for keeping it. And, Mr. Speaker, these accounts were presented to the men who were getting the land and every dollar was paid to Tracy, showing there was collusion between the four men. There were only four men who had any transactions to any great extent. Out of the 23,000 acres that the Indians got, four men got nearly 18,000 acres of it. Some of the storekeepers in the town got a few acres, but these four men got 95 per cent of these lands. There is no Indian I have met, or very few of them, who admit that they ever received anything like $5 an acre for their land. Every one of these men who got the lands were good strong supporters of the present-government. For the information of my friends here, I want to say that I do not know one Conservative who ever secured an acre of these lands except two store-I keepers in the town of Selkirk, and these

two storekeepers secured a few acres in connection with some of the supplies that were given to these land dealers. The land dealers were very shrewd men; they wanted to get on the good side of the people of the town of Selkirk, especially the merchants, and they fixed the Indian in this way. When the Indian got anything, they would give him an order on the store for, say $10, on the understanding that he would get $5 cash and the other $5 he had to take out in trade. In this way the storekeepers got to understand something about the transaction and they made small deals themselves, and got a few acres of this land. The four dealers who got this land were Wm. Prank, of the city of Winnipeg, real estate dealer; a man named Funk, an American, who was brought in by the Indian agent; a man named Fred. Heap, a Liberal lawyer, who got $1,800 in connection with this treaty out of the Indian funds, and this man George Tracy. These were the four men. Now, what does the agent, Lewis, say about these Indians? The horn minister, speaking across the floor of this House a few months ago, sought to lead the House to believe that these men were thoroughly competent to transact their own business. He said they were just as shrewd as the average man in this House. What does the Indian agent say? He says in a letter addressed to the Indian Department:
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 die same buyer. The Indian- gave a statutory deed as soon as he sold setting forth the price. He received a small payment down with the promise of the balance as soon as he was able to deliver the patent. The sell-mg 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. This shows however scandalous it was to give these poor Indians lands to do as they pleased with.
In face of the letter that was written by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, and surely he would not dare to write such a letter without instructions from his chief-warning the public that no transfers would be recognized, these men, when they got the poor Indians to Mr. BRADBURY
come into .their office and sell their lands, and to receive as they thought an advance of a few dollars on the sale, actually got them to touch a pen and they then signed for the poor ignorant Indian a statutory deed, and that deed was registered just imagine that: right under the nose oi the Indian Agent, the man paid by this country to look after and protect the wards of the people, these men were allowed to take statutory deeds from the Indians for land worth from $500 to $1,000, on advances of $10, and any money they got after that was in small payments of $5 or $10. Nobody knows what the Indians got except the man who paid it out, and they have the audacity now to come forward and say that the books show that the Indians were paid. Why, any man who has anything to do with transactions of this kind knows how easy it is to arrange books to show that an Indian got full pay when he did not get perhaps 25 per cent of what was coming to him.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to refer to another Indian Agent, Mr. Swinford, who corroborates what I stated in the beginning, that the Indian chief and councillors were the paid agents of the land buyers. I stated that just as soon as Mr. Frank, the real estate agent, came back from Ottawa, he started to purchase lands, the first thing they did was to secure the assistance of the chief and councillors. In that way they were able to get at the poor Indian. I have a letter from Mr. Swinford in which he said:
It must be remembered that all the land buyers used the chief and councillors of the band as interpreters and as agents to bring Indians to them and induce them, if possible, to sell their land, and in return these interpreters and agents were rewarded with $5 or more for each transaction in which a transfer of land took place.
In ~ the face oF this whole transaction, every hon. gentleman must see that these Indians have been unfortunate enough to have been tricked through the assistance of their own chief and councillors; but the government and their agents are the men who must take the full responsibility.
I am going to read a sample case from an authority which the hon. minister will hardly feel like disputing. I hold in my hands a letter taken from the returns brought down by this House, which will give some idea of the incompetence of the Indian. It is from A. B. Hudson, of Hudson & Howell, a partner of Chief Justice Howell's son, and is as follows:
Winnipeg, Sept. 7, 1909. The Honourable Frank Oliver,
Indian Department,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-Messrs. William and J. W. Asham, two of the Indians entitled to allotments in the above reserve, called on me and asked me to write to your department with

reference to their claims. It appears that J. W. Asham was entitled to a grant of ninety-six acres under the settlement of allotments in the above reserve. On these ninety-six acres were farm improvements made. In the month of April or May, 1908, one G. H. Punk, of Selkirk, induced Asham, while in a state of intoxication, to make a sale of sixteen acres of ther above parcel at $5 per acre. Asham, however, was aware of what he was doing and it is doubtful if a court could set aside the transaction. Shortly afterward a second sale of forty acres at the rate of 85 per acre was made to Funk. Asham was then also in a state of intoxication but apparently understood very shortly after the nature of what he had done and did not at once repudiate the sale.
Subsequently, on the 4th September of last year, Asham was taken up in Selkirk for being drunk and locked up. Funk went to him in the jail and tried to prevail on him to sell the remaining forty acres for which he agreed to pay $12.50 an acre because the buildings happened to be on this particular parcel. During the day Asham was released, but while still drunk was induced to sign certain documents. A few hours afterwards William Asham, above named, came and discovered what had happened. He then took charge of his son, J. W., and on the latter becoming sober went with him to Funk and returned the $15 which Funk had paid on account.
It appears from the statement of William Asham, who is a very intelligent man, that similar transactions have been entered into with a large number of the Indians on the above reserve. The land which has been bought at $5 an acre is worth in the neighbourhood of $20 or $25. 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. Some three or four have been instituted, and I have got from Mr. H. W. H. Knott a letter showing the position of the suits carried on in his office.
From the above statement it would seem that some support should be given to the Indians to carry on these suits. I should be glad to know if your department can do anything to assist in the matter.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) A. B. HUDSON.
This man states that these bargains were made with these men when they were drunk, and that one of them was made in the lock-up. One was made right in the lock-up where he got his man to agree to sell these lands. The Indian Asham came to me himself and, he said to me: My son has been robbed of his home; he had beautiful land, land worth $30 or $40 an acre, when he was drunk he went to Selkirk, and the land dealers got around him, and got him to give them his land. I was willing to let them take the first forty acres they got from the boy, because I thought it served him right for getting drunk; but when they went to the jail and bought the last piece of land from him, his house, farm and everything he owned, and got him to sign it all off, I thought that was
something which could not be borne. His wife came to me crying, and I went to the jail, and took out the boy, and we went to Funk's office, and I offered to Funk the $15 which he had advanced my boy, and I said to him: This is my son's wife, you have taken his farm, and all that he has, here is your money back, give him back the land. Funk said no, I have got the land and intend to keep it, and he did keep it.
That is one of the things I asked the hon. minister to investigate. This is one of the many scandalous transactions connected with this whole matter. But the minister told me there was nothing to investigate, that the Indian had made his own bargain and must abide by it. In other words, that he had made his bed and must lie on it. This is the way these poor unfortunate Indians are treated, whom the people imagine this department, which is costing the country millions of dollars annually, is protecting and looking after.


An hon. MEMBER.: What was the answer to the letter?


George Henry Bradbury: It was simply a letter written to the department asking if the department would assist them in going to court, and the answer was that the department could not interfere. These transactions became so notorious that the Lands Titles office at Winnipeg, on the advice of two justices of the King's Bench-two Liberals-the registrar general of Manitoba refused to issue a title on any one of those patents. The advice was that, so far as these two justices could gather, the land had been taken fraudulently from the Indians. The consequence is that these patents are lying to-day in the registry office at Winnipeg which refuses to issue a Torrens title in exchange for it. But these parties had their titles registered at Selkirk, and secured themselves in that way. The Lands Titles office at Winnipeg, however, under the advice of two justices of the King's Bench, has refused to recognize these patents, and issue licenses.
Just to prove that statement, I am going to read another piece of Lewis's letter to the department:
July 5, 1909.
On account of the irregular size of the allotments and the inequality of the divisions of the land those who purchased have applied to the Provincial Land Titles Office for a title under the Torrens system getting certificates for quarter sections of the land removing what at present might be described as a patchwork of titles to a section.
By request on the 29th inst., I went up to Winnipeg and had a conversation with Mr. Macara, the registrar of the Provincial Lands Titles office. He told me that he objected to granting certificates of title to these lands unless he was thoroughly satisfied that the Indians were fully and satisfactorily settled

with, that he had been warned by two justices of tbe King's Bench that satisfactory settlement had not been made in all cases and from that and other reports he could not issue any more titles unless some steps were taken to assure him that every applicant to him could show him positively that there would be no after claims upon the land.
This is from the Indian agent, J. O. Lewis who corroborates what I have said, namely, that this transaction became so notorious and scandalous that the Land Title office at Winnipeg refused to issue a title. That was the advice that these two judges gave to Mr. Macara. Here is what he said:
However, aside from the attitude that I assumed with Mr. Macara, I am of the opinion that it would be advisable to take advantage of the position he assumes and the desire of all the purchasers to get Torrens certificates to arrange for a supervision of these accounts. These people are wards of the government and I assume that it is no desire of the department to leave them entirely to themselves to suffer any injustice even if they have so wilfully insisted upon it.
I do not think I need say a word further to demonstrate that the whole transaction bears on its face evidence of the fraud I have described. There has been no attempt at meting out justice to these poor Indians. From the very beginning of the negotiations the effort has been to get these lands by fair means or foul. Now, this letter has a list of the purchasers, and I will put it on record. The biggest purchaser was the Selkirk and Northern Realty Company, the manager was Mr. Wm. Frank. That company was formed after Wm. Frank had secured nearly all the lands the company has at the present time. That company was composed of Capt. Wm. Robinson, a Liberal, of the city of Winnipeg; Wm. Frank, another Liberal; F. Heap, also a Liberal, of the town of Selkirk; Clark, M.D., Winnipeg; McPherson, lawyer, Winnipeg, and others, all Liberals.
. Of the 18,000 acres sold by the Indians it is safe to say that the first two firms on the list bought 14,000. F. Heap bought 1,200 and Tracy about the same amount.
Making about 16,400 acres at the time that these four men had purchased. The other men that Lewis states had made some purchases of small amounts were the following:	C. Finkleman, storekeeper, of
the town of Selkirk; C. Howitz, Jno. Morrison, Millidge Bros., E. F. Comber, E. Raynor, James Monkman, Colin Mclvor, Wm. Fidler, Geo. H. Fox.
"For the information of this House, I may say that out of all these men there are just two among them that might be classed as Conservatives, and they secured a small acreage; but ninety-five per cent of this land passed into the hands of men for whom apparently this whole transaction had been


George Henry Bradbury: arranged. Now, it was distinctly stated by Mr. Pedley's letter referred to that no transaction would be recognized until such time as the patents were issued. I hold in my hand a statement of a few of the transactions as they stand in the lands titles office in Winnipeg to-day, which will prove that in nearly every one of these cases the land was bought and bargained for, and the deed was secured from six to nine months before a patent was issued by the Crown. I hold that in the face of the letter that the department wrote, the department must have known of the facts before these patents were issued, and the department had ample opportunity to protect these Indians and see that these patents went into the hands of the rightful owners. Now, I state formally to the hon. .minister that ninety-five per cent of the patents issued by the Crown went directly into the hands of the land dealers and not into the hands of the Indians. I say that not ten per cent of the Indians ever touched their patent or ever saw it. I will put a few of these on record, a few of the transactions made bv Mr. Tracy:
1.	Application 21522, lot 27, St. Peter's B. & S., dated 25th June, 1908, Alex. Fielding to George Tracy. Patent dated 9th December', 1908. Crown to Alex. Fielding, lot 28, St. Peter's, B. & S. dated 16th August, 1908, Wm Sinclair to George Tracy. Patent dated 27th February, 1909, Crown to Wm. Sinclair.
2.	Application 21542, lot 74, St. Peter's, B. & S., dated 18th July, 1908, George Stevenson to George Tracy. Patent dated 15th December, 1908, Crown to George Stevenson.
3.	Application 21592, part of L. S. 5 of section 24-15-4 east, B. & S. dated 25th February, 1908, Mary Prince, chief to George Tracy. Patent for same dated 25th November, 1908.
4.	Application, part of lot 76, St. Peter's, B.
& S., dated 3rd September, 1908, Benjamin Thomas to George Tracy. Patent dated 15th December, 1908, Crown to Benjamin Thomas.
I will not take up the time of the House by reading all of these, but out of these 410 patents issued to the Indians, I think it safe to say that 400 were issued all the way from three months to a year after the Indians had disposed of their land. I am satisfied that a large percentage of these deals were secured before there was any proper survey or allotment made. What does that mean? Simply this, that there was a blank deed taken, and it wa3 filled in and dated afterwards. There is not a question in my mind that a large percen-age of those transactions were worked out in that way; and this was done right under the nose of the Indian agent, next door to his office, and done with his connivance and knowledge. And still the department says that there is nothing to investigate. Now, I wish to draw the attention of the minister responsible for this transaction to a discussion we had in this House in which he gave me a friendly lecture for

using language that he said was not justified in regard to this transaction. He told me that when I talked of bribery I was not well advised. I have hi3 own language where he said:


Frank Oliver: Again my hon. friend has used the word bribe and used it in connection with the distribution of land among Indians. Bribe is an ugly word. Whoever gives a bribe must be responsible, and whoever makes a charge must be equally responsible for his accusation. If the giving of the land was a bribe, that was given by Chief Justice Howell.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Frank Oliver: Undoubtedly. There was no other authority to give it or to make the arrangement, and the arrangement was made open and above board. It was considered fair and right that the chief and councillors should get a larger share of the land than the other Indians, and my hon. friend is not well advised in using the word bribe in connection with that part of the transaction, and he must take the responsibility of having accused the chief justice of bribery.
That is the minister's own language in this House. He stated that if there was any land given it was given by Chief Justice Howell, and that he wa3 the man who must have committed the bribery. Now, I want to tell the minister what he must know already that it was not Chief Justice Howell who gave this land, he did not give one acre of this land. He made a recommendation, and I have his report here in which he says:
From time to time I approached the men for the purpose of inducing them to surrender the reserve and take new ones. The negotiations continued for many months.
This shows it was impossible for Chief Justice Howell to give land to these men. These men did not want to surrender the reserve. The negotiations continued for several months. After many proposals and counter-proposals had been discussed the matter finally culminated in a deed of surrender, the terms of which are in writing. He says:
Without giving further reasons for my urging the surrender, and without further description of the negotiations

I do not think he would care to describe fully or fairly the negotiations in writing-
I can only say that they were the best I could get, best for the government and for the Indian, and without any hesitation I recommend that carrying out of the same.
He did not carry them out, he recommended the government to carry them out. In another place he says:
I assume that the surrender will be carried out, and I am therefore relieved from the burden of finding the amount of damages due the band for the grievances above detailed.
This shows that Chief Justice Howell had
nothing to do with giving the Indian's
lands except that he made the recommendation, and I have here a letter from another gentleman; the deputy superintendent general, whom the minister dispatched to Selkirk to do this very work, to secure a surrender. Here is what he says under date October 26. 1907:
Pursuant to your instructions I left Ottawa on the 17th ultimo, and reached Winnipeg on the 19th ultimo, to take up with the St. Peter's Band of Indians, near Selkirk, the question of the surrender of their reserve at that place.
When this reserve, consisting of about 55,000 acres, was set aside in 1871, provision was made that the rights of the parties holding lands within the boundaries of the reserve should be protected, and as a result of this some 5,000 acres have been patented to parties other than Indians. In order to settle the remaining outstanding claims, Chiel >1 ustuce Howell, of Manitoba, was appointed a commissioner, in November, 1900, for this purpose, and from several interviews with him I judged that there would be from 1,500 to 2,000 acres still to be patented, thus leaving as belonging to the reserve proper, about 48,000 acres. This was the area that 1 dealt with in my negotiations with the Indians for a surrender.
After several days' negotiations, the Indians surrendered upon the following terms.
Who made the surrender? The minister himself is directly responsible for this surrender. He instructed his Deputy Superintendent General to proceed to Selkirk and conduct the negotiations for surrender according to this memorandum, and when the minister warned me across the floor that I was not well advised in using the word bribery and said that if bribery had been committed it was Chief Justice Howell who committed it, he will realize now that he made a statement that was hardly justified. The hon. gentleman stated with some force, force enough to make some of my own friends feel that the statements I made were hardly tenable, that the patents had been made out in the Indians' names and had been handed to the Indians. He said:
As to the assignments from the Indians to the purchasers of their lands, the House and the public were informed that no assignments would be recognized by the department, and in every ca.se my information is that the patent was made out to the Indian and not to anybody else, and it was handed to the Indian. Now I ask the House in all fairness how is the Indian Department to be made responsible for the disposition that the Indian subsequently made of that patent, a patent [DOT] which he received under the agreement of surrender negotiated as I have stated ? It was his to do with as he pleased. It may be that it was not proper to give him a patent with which he could do as he pleased. But that was a part of the terms of surrender, negotiated as I have said, on the responsibility I have explained to the House.
I have read here declaration after declaration stating that these men have never

seen their patents, never made an application for their patents, and never signed a receipt for their patents. I have talked to dozens, and with few exceptions they say: Mr. Bradbury, we have never seen our patents, we have never made an application, we have never signed a receipt for them. In the face of these facts the minister was not well informed when he stated that the patents were made out to the Indians and delivered to the Indians. I believe the patent was made out to the Indians as it could not be made out in any other way, but that it was delivered to the Indian I deny; the Indians, with few exceptions, never saw it, and further, the patents sent to this Indian agent, the man who was supposed to stand between the Indian and the land buyer, were handed not to the Indian, but to the land buyer. I have 30 or 40 declarations which the minister can have, many of them stating that the patents were seen in Frank's office or in Funk's office or in Heap's office, but seldom in Lewis' office. Some thought they had a balance coming to them and went to the offices for it. They were asked to sign a receipt for the patents and on refusing to do so they were shoved put of the office. The land buyers kept the patent, the receipt was signed all right, but it was not signed by the Indians. The minister tried to make it appear to the House that the lands sold by auction were sold in larger parcels than the land sold to the Indians, that is one of the explanations, that the land was sold in 16-acre lots. The consequence was that land sold in quarter-sections would bring better prices than Indian lands. He said:
As to the difference in price between the land that was sold by the Indians to private parties and thfe land that was sold by auction, it must surely appear to any one that little patches of land in areas of 16 acres do not have the same value in a farming country such as Manitoba as an area of 160 acres.


Mr. FOSTER.: No, if they all remain 16 acre areas. They were not allowed to remain in 16 acre acreas.


Frank Oliver: They were allowed to remain in 16 acre areas. If I bought 16 acres off you and 16 acres off another man and 16 acres off another man and so on. I have to take my chances of being able to get those different parcels brought together so as to make a single block. Does my hon. friend suggest that that land would be as valuable to me as if I could have bought the whole 160 acres in one lot?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, if you knew you could get it all put together.


Frank Oliver: How could you know? There was no way you could know. If Brown, .(ones and Robinson each held single patents for 16 acre lots of land, how are you going to ensure that Brown, Jones and Robinson are going to lump their sections together at your convenience, unless you pay them for it? So I say if that land was sold in blocks of 160 acres it is surely more valuable than the land that was sold in 16 acre pieces.


George Henry Bradbury: What is the inference to be drawn from that? The inference drawn by the minister was that all these Indian allotments were sold in 16-acre lots. The minister knows better to-day. He may not have known then, I do not think he did, but I want to state to the House that the Indian lots averaged within a few acres of the same size as land sold by public auction. The allotments to heads of families were 80 acres and suppose there were 400 other allotments and that there were 23,000 acres that would divide up into something over 58 acres to every patent; so when the minister made that argument in the House it was entirely misleading and calculated to entirely mislead the House and the country into the idea that the Indian lands were sold in smaller parcels, while the land sold by auction was sold in large parcels.
Speaking of the' receipts for patents, I am forced to read another letter:
St. Peter's, December 14, 1909.
Without any doubt the majority of St. Peter's band of Indians never made applications for their patents and how could they sign receipt for such patent which they never saw.
With regard to the sale of land made by Indians of St. Peter's, Frank, Heap & Funk, and others bought land before even the land was subdivided; they were the party that selected the choice land. Of course, they had the chief and councillors under their thumb to help them out in the selection of land. When buying they were careful to have a certain Indian that would sell to have his name to a particular piece of land. At this time it was impossible to describe the land properly. It is most likely they waited until such time the subdivision was made or after the issuing of patents and then made out a proper deed.
That is exactly what is done. I think this Indian has summed it up pretty well, because it is an Indian that has written this letter.
The Indians that did not want to sell were debarred from securing the choice land, for the reason as above stated.
Every acre of these Indian allotments was picked. The Indians who had been given allotments had the first choice out of this 48,000 acres, so that it was picked land.
I wish to point out several instances: James William Asham was working at Fisher river under the employ of the Indian Department; during his absence his patent came at the Indian office. I went up to the Indian office several times and made inquiry whether the patent was there. I said then that they were aware that the boy was away from home and that no one was to be allowed to take the patent away from the office until such time the boy would come. When he came we went to the Indian office after the patent but to our annoyance no patent was to be found: couldn't even get any information who took it away.

Frederick Askara was out at Lake Winnipeg, while being away his patent came out at the Indian office; on his arrival went to the Indian office for said patent and found that some person had taken away the patent; then demanded who this person was and who would dare to do the likes without first obtaining his permission. Finally he received a copy of a receipt of his patent, signed by William Henry Prince, councillor. I saw the copy of the receipt myself.
I have no hestiation in saying that these receipts for these patents that are in the department to-day purporting to be signed by the Indians are, in a majority of cases, forgeries. There is no question about that. They were never signed by the Indians themselves, knowingly. Here is one case, and this man goes on to say:
1 mention these two persons in order that you may know that it was a matter of impossibility to sign receipt of receiving their patents from the hands of the Indian agent. Many more instances similar to this could be brought to light if the matter was to be investigated.
I have already a copy of a letter ready for signatures, whenever is completed will forward same to your address.
(Sgd.) WILLIAM ASHAM.
This proves the statement I have made that neither an application for these patents was taken or a receipt given, and yet the Indian agent, upon whom the minister, I presume, depends to see that these things are done, is still retained in office at Selkirk. During my campaign, that man told me on the train that he had resigned his position; yet, he is drawing his salary whether he is doing the work or not.
Just for a few minutes I want to refer to the auction of this land. Fifteen thousand acres of this land were sold by public auction. I have a letter from the department which tells me that the average price secured for this land was $5.68 per acre. Further on the writer of this letter says:
I may say that the average price of the fellcl5.,?old,,bv imblic auction at Swan lake on the 9tli ult. amounted to $17.62 per acre.
This land at Selkirk, less than 26 miles from Winnipeg, was the best available land in Manitoba. Swan lake is nearly 100 miles away from Winnipeg, and yet land there brings $17.62 per acre as against $5.68 per acre at Selkirk. The minister stated that these auctioned lands were sold in quarter-sections. He must know better now. To quote his own language:	'


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: May I ask the minister if the 22,000 acres that were sold by auction were all sold in bulk and at one time?


Frank Oliver: They were all sold by quarter sections but at the one auction sale, and in sixty or seventy parcels.
What are the facts? The land was sold, not in fifty or sixty parcels, but in 185 different parcels. The average size of the 224
parcels was not any greater, or very slightly greater, than the average size of the Indian allotments, and to prove that I will just read for the minister's information, and for the information of the House, from a return that was brought down and laid on the table by the minister showing the size of a few of the parcels:
Statement showing lands at St. Peter's reserve sMd by auction on the 16th December. 1908, giving name of purchaser, area and price.
No.	Acres.
107	 20:81
112	 51
116	 21
119	 38
124	  34
127	 80
146	 17
233a	 10
228	 10
227	 8
226	 6
I could go through the whole list and show the same thing. But, I want to say to this House that every statement that was made when this matter was discussed by the minister was altogether contrary to the facts, and were entirely misleading. I think that the minister was misled himself; I do not believe that he did it intentionally, but, 1 repeat that every statement that he made was misleading. Regarding the time at which this land was sold, and to show how this whole scheme was worked so that this auctioned land would not bring any more than the Indian land, let me tell the House how it was safeguarded:


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: At what time was your auction held?


Frank Oliver: In the latter part of October or early in November.


George Henry Bradbury: That is just as misleading as the other statement. The fact is that the sale was held in the middle of winter, the I6th December. Imagine holding an auction sale of 15,000 acres of land in Manitoba in the middle of the Manitoba winter, with the ground covered with snow, and nobody able to see the land. It is a most ridiculous proposition.


David Henderson: Coon coats were in order.


George Henry Bradbury: Yes, every man of them there was in a Coon coat. I quote the following from the proceedings of this House:


William D. Staples: Will the minister advise us how long these lands were advertised and in what papers?
Mr. OLIVF,R. I am informed the sale was advertised in the Toronto ' Globe,' the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' and the Selkirk paper, and the advertisement was continued for a period of from four to six weeks.



Another misleading statement. That land was advertised for just six days, and not six weeks in the Toronto ' Globe,' and in the Winnipeg ' Free Press.' The Toronto ' Globe,' advertisement ran from the 23rd of November to the 28th of November, and between the 28th of November, and the 16th of December not a word was said about the sale. The advertisement was published in the Winnipeg ' Free Press,' on the same dates. In the face of this can any honest man argue that there was any attempt to secure a reasonable or fair price for these lands. Does not the whole transaction on the face of it demonstrate that it was 'arranged that these lands should fall into the hands of a few men who were on the ground ready to buy. The fact is that of the 15,000 acres of this land sold, every acre with the exception of 1,015 acres went to the six men who were buying the Indian lands. There has been a question between the minister and myself as to the value of these lands, and an effort has been made to show that this was poor land. I have taken some trouble to ascertain the facts, and I shall lay them before the House. I quote from ' Hansard ':


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Does the minister undertake to say that he considers $6 a fair price for the land?
The minister was arguing that these lands had been auctioned, and realized $6 an acre-he was near it, they realized $5.58.


Frank Oliver: Yes, I think that any land advertised in the public press for a reasonable time and offered for sale within a distance of 25 miles of the city of Winnipeg is absolutely certain to bring its full value at that particular time.
See how careful the minister is. I agree that if the land was sold at a reasonable time and advertised fairly it would bring its price, but when it was sold in the middle of winter it was not sold at a reasonable time. As I have said these lands are situated on the Red river which passes through the heart of the reserve, and the banks of which are ten or fifteen feet high, and eighty-five per cent of the land is what is called first-class. It is a perfect garden. We boast of that land in the Red River valley as the best land in Manitoba, and still there are men who are trying to decry it for their own purposes. To show what these lands were worth I quote from the report of the Indian agent John Sem-mons:
St. Peter's reserve has some of the best lan I in the province of Manitoba. It has the advantage of being very near to an excellent market; it also has the best shelter from the north and west winds offered to any locality. It is safe to say that properly cultivated it might produce hundreds of thousands of bushels of wheat per year.
John Semmons again says:


George Henry Bradbury: 
C. R. SMALLMAN,
[Stage Direction]
Commissioner.
Well, some one will say this is only an Indian. True, but he is one of the brightest and most intelligent Indians I have met. And, as showing his credibility, I have a letter here from the Bishop of Moosomin, which I will read:
Selkirk, Man., December 22, 1909, Geo. H. Bradbury, Esq., M.P.
Dear Sir,-This is to certify that I have known Mr. William Asham for over 19 years as Incumbent of St. Peter's parish. I was associated with him in the work of the church for nearly 19 years, and T can hear testimony to the fidelity and probity of his life. Hi was always a staunch supporter of
[Stage Direction]
the truth and was never afraid to express his opinions and convictions on the side of honesty and righteousness.
I therefore have the greatest pleasure in introducing him to you as one whose word is always reliable, and whose influence is used for worthy and upright ends.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,

[Stage Direction]
Bishop of Moosomin.
There can be no question as to the credibility of this man. I have other declarations here corroborating Asham's statement, and I will place this one also on record :
Dominion of Canada, Province of Manitoba. In the matter of St. Peter's Indian reserve and the sale and disposal of Indian lands, in said reserve.
To Wit:
I,	John Plett, of the parish of St. Peter's, in the province of Manitoba, Indian, do solemnly declare that I am a member of St. Peter's Band of Indians. I never made an application for my patent, although the same has been issued and duly received by me. I was present on the days' when the terms of surrender were being discussed in the school house in St. Peter's reserve. I heard Mr. Prank Pedley say that if we agreed to the surrender it would not interfere with our usual election for a chief and councillors, which should have taken place on July 4, 1908, but which up to the present time has been refused by the Indian Department. The band has no confidence in the present chief and his councillors, who, I believe betrayed us to the officials and to the men who have secured our lands by a misrepresentation in leading the Indians to believe that any money's paid to them in the first instance was simply as a loan and that a proper bargain would be made with them when their patents were issued. I declare that councillor Williams told William Asham and others in my presence, that the chief had received a present. of a team of horses worth $250 from William Prank, and that the councillors were promised $100 each for helping Mr. Prank to secure the land from the Indians. In addition to this they were to receive $2 per day for helping to get the land by bringing the Indians to the office and getting them to agree to dispose of their lands to Mr. Frank.
I heard Mr. Prank Pedley say to the Indians a short time before the vote was taken at St. Peter's, that he had $5,000 in his bag. pointing to it at his side, and he also said if you vote for the surrender I will divide it among you at once. If you do not, I will take my bag and go home, and you will not get a cent. In my opinion this statement influenced many of the Indians to vote with the chief and councillors that day. Just as the vote was going to be taken. I heard Mr. John Semmons, Inspector of Indian agencies, state loudly in the Cree language to the Indians present: All of you who want $90 go to that side, indicating with his arm where the chief and councillors were standing. .1 am satisfied that these two statements, the one by Mr. Prank Pedley, and the other bv Mr. John Semmons, influenced many to go tm the side with the chief. The majority of Mr. BRADBURY.
the Indians did not know that they were voting to surrender their homes, as I am sure they did not wish to do. They were not asked the question: You that are in favour of surrendering the reserve, go to that side. Many did not realize that the vote was whether or not they should surrender the reserve. I am satisfied that if the question had been stated fairly, even in the face of the bribe offered, that is the dividing of the $5,000 mentioned by Mr. Prank Pedley among the band, if they voted to surrender, and the further statement of Mr. John Semmons: All of you who want $90, go to that side, the Indians would never have voted with the chief and councillors if they had understood that it .meant the giving up of their lands and homes where they had been born and where this band had lived for generations.
I declare most solemnly that I understand the English language fairly well, and understood most of what I heard during the negotiations for the surrender. The band at no time was in favour of it. It was in my opinion secured by trickery, and the change in the chief's views, he having pledged himself again and again publicly against and surrender of our lands. The terms of surrender were not even interpreted to the band. Fully one half could not hear what was taking place in the schoolhouse, as they could not get in, and of those who were in many did not understand, as the proceedings were not interpreted to them. I now feel that there was collusion between the officials and the land buyers to take our homes from us, and that the Indians have been badly cheated, first in the manner in which the surrender was secured, and again by the land buyers who have taken our lands at less than one-third of the amount we expected to receive for the same.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously, believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the game force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893.

[Stage Direction]
Declared before me at the parish of St. Peter's, in the province of Manitoba, this 30th day of December, A.D., 1909.

[Stage Direction]
Commissioner.
I have a declaration here which I think I should place on record, the testimony of Fred. Cameron. It reads:
Dominion of Canada, Province of Manitoba. In the matter of St. Peter's Indian Reserve and the sale and disposal of the Indian lands in said reserve.
To Wit:
I,	Fred Cameron, of the parish of St. Peter's in the province of Manitoba, Indian, do solemnly declare, that:
I am a member of St. Peter's band of Indians, and as such was entitled to 128 acres of land, 16 acres for myself, 16 acres for my wife and 16 acres each for my six children under the terms of surrender effected on September 24, 1907.
I never made a selection of my allotment of land, I never signed an application for my patent, but on or about the 20th day of December, 1908, while in Selkirk, Pete Sutherland

met me and said, Fred, your patent is at the Indian office, and I went there, got it and signed a receipt for same. Prior to the time of the surrender there were public meetings held by the band, and at each meeting our chief and councillors with the exception of councillor W. H. Prince told the band over and over again that they would not surrender their reserve under any consideration. The chief went on to say that he was offered enough if he would surrender that he would be well off all the days of his life, and in fact I would be a gentleman if I were to accept it.
The band were left with the impression after these statements at the public meetings that their chief and councillors would never surrender our reserve. On the 23rd September, 1907, negotiations were begun with the band for the surrender, and the band then knew that their chief and councillors had changed their views and were in favour of surrendering our reserve.
On the 24th September, 1907, I heard Mr. Frank Pedley, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, Ottawa, tell the band that he had $5,000 in his satchel, and if you surrender, the money wjjl be distributed among the band, if not, I will take my bag and go home.
A few minutes before the vote for surrender, Mr. John Semmons, Inspector of Indian Agencies, Frank Pedley and Samuel J. Jackson, were standing together. Mr. Semmons beckoned to me and said. Come here, Fred. I went over to them, and Mr. Semmons then said, are you on our side? I said, no. He said, you had better surrender, Fred, and you will be well off. He then asked me what family I had. I told him I had eight of a family. He pulled out a small pass book from his pocket and commenced figuring, and after a little said, you will get $34.40, and besides you will get your 16 acres per head. He kept on figuring and said. You will get 128 acres, and also you will get $90 per head next year. This will come to over $700. After telling me all this, he said will you surrender? and I said no. A short time after this conversation the vote took place. We were separated, those for and those against the surrender. And I believe quite a number did not understand or quite realize what they were doing, as many of the Indians were going backwards and forwards from one side to the other. The vote for surrender was not taken according to our usual custom, and I believe the same to have been both irregular and improper. During the negotiations, Mr. Henry Hope asked Mr. Frank Pedley if the surrender was carried, will it interfere with our usual election for a chief and councillors. Mr. Pedley said, no.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.

[Stage Direction]
Declared before me at the parish of St. Peter's, in the province of Manitoba, this 4tli dav of January, 1910.
r. g. McDonald,
Commissioner.
I have here a short declaration from a man whom the department employed as
interpreter during the time, Mr. Williams, iaw clerk of the department was making a private investigation in St. Peter's at the instance of the minister. That declaration reads:
Canada, Province of Manitoba.
In the matter of St. Peter's Indian Reserve and of the sale and disposal of the Indian lands in said reserve.
To Wit:
I,	William Sinclair of the parish of St. Peter's, in the province of Manitoba, do solemnly declare that:
I am a member of the St. Peter's band of Indians, and that I was present at the time of the surrender of the St. Peter's reserve, and declare that when the vote was just about to be taken to decide whether the reserve should be surrendered or not, I heard John Semmons, Inspector of Indian Agencies, make a short speech in the Cree language, and said to all those present, that those wanting the $90 to go go over there, indicating the place where they should stand who favoured the surrender.
I further declare that I heard Mr. Pedley say that he had $5,000 in his satchel which he would divide among the Indians providing they would make a surrender of the reserve. If not, he would take the money back.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the
Canada Evidence Act.

[Stage Direction]
Declared before me at the town of Selkirk, in the province of Manitoba, this 22nd day of January, 1910.

[Stage Direction]
Commissioner.
These are all bright, intelligent men, who talk the English language as well as I do. The last man, Sinclair, is a very clever fellow, from whose conversation you would never know that he is an Indian.
In view of all these facts which I have laid before the House, the fact that the chief and the councillors were bribed to agree to the surrender, the fact that they then became active agents of the officials who engineered the surrender, the fact that after the surrender the same men became the paid agents of the men who were securing the Indian allotments, and that the poor Indian was deceived by these men into disposing of his lands for less than one-third of their actual value, the fact that the Indian agent at Selkirk was himself a party to the deception, the fact that the terms of the surrender were all arranged at private meetings in Selkirk between the government agent and the chief and councillors who had first been bribed to attend such a meeting and to agree to the surrender unknown to their band, the further fact that the surrender was conducted irregularly and entirely by government officials and other interested parties, the fact that the meeting of the band to discuss the
[Stage Direction]
surrender was sprung on the band at one day's notice, the fact that less than three-fourths of those entitled to vote were present at the meeting, the fact that the Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs offered the band $5,000 if they voted for the surrender, the fact that John Sem-mons, Indian Inspector, offered $90 each if they voted _ for the surrender, the fact that at least 20 per cent of those qualified to vote, all young men the backbone of the band, were absent working and had nc notification of the said meeting, and consequently were not present, the fact that the Indian Act and common sense require a majority of the male members, 21 years and over, to agree to a surrender, and that in this case less than 38 per cent of the qualified voters voted in favour of the surrender, and the fact that in face of all of these scandalous facts, the government were only able to secure, out of some 200 voters present, seven of a majority shows, Mr. Speaker, how thoroughly unpopular the surrender was.
These and other facts- compel me to say that this whole transaction is a disgrace to the government responsible, and that to my mind illegal and would not stand the test of a properly constituted court in Canada.
In view of these facts which I have tried to lay before this House fairly and impartially, I beg to move:
That all the words after the word ' that ' in the proposed motion be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:-
The government of Canada is the guardian and trustee of the Indians and is bound to conserve their estate and property, not only against the rapacious designs of other persons. but also against the known improvidence and business incapacity of the Indians themselves.
That the government ought not to permit any part of such estate and property to become the prey of speculators at a price far below its value, but should observe and enforce all precautions and safeguards which are necessary to preserve to the Indians the full value and benefit of their property and to prevent it from being wasted and dissipated.
That in respect of such matters the government should administer the affairs of the Imdians as a trust and should not permit any person to make an unjust profit at the expense of those whom it is the duty of the government to protect.
That this House desire to place on record its strong condemnation of the methods by which the government secured the surrender of the St. Peter's Indian reserve near Selkirk, in the province of Manitoba, and its equally strong condemnation of the failure of the government to safeguard the inteTests of the Indians in the disposal of the land so surrendered.
Frank Oliver: At this late hour it would hard-Mr. BRADBURY.
ly be fair to the House to continue the discussion, and I would therefore move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will be the business to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: We shall continue this debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.50 a.m., Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 14, 1910.