1914-05-11

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY PAPER.

[Stage Direction]
Indenture between Lake Superior Terminal Company, Limited, Toronto, and National Trust Company, Limited, Toronto, dated 28th December, 1903.-Mr. Borden.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. PELLETIER:: I would like to call the attention of the House to some statements which were made by the right hon. leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) in my absence on Friday last. The statement of the hon. member for Rouville, which is to be found on page 3,592 of 'Hansard,' is as follows:
I do not wish to offer any objection to the Bill, but I might remind the House and the leader of the Government that the Minister of Justice is more generous than the Postmaster General. Three years ago a mail carrier perished in trying to save the mails during a storm on lake of Two Mountains, between Ottawa and Montreal. He left a widow and five or six children. The case was brought to the notice of the House by the hon member for Two Mountains (Mr. Ethier). He begged the Government to do something for the widow and children, but the minister refused. More than that, the people of Oka petitioned the Postmaster General to transfer the mail contract, formerly held by her husband to the widow of this man. The petition was turned down, the widow has received nothing, and there she is to-day.
On page 3,593 I find -the following:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: I agree with the minister in everything he has said, but I would strongly recommend to him the case brought to his attention by the hon. member for Eouville. It is not in his department, I know, but the circumstances are very much the same. Here is a man who lost his life in the performance of his duty. The circumstances may not have been heroic, but, after all, the case is deserving of attention from the State, which has benefited by the performance of this man's duty. If the hon. minister could prevail on his neighbour, the Postmaster General, to do the same for this man's widow, he would win the gratitude not only of the widow but of every member in this House.
Mr. Doherty: I shall be very glad to call his attention to what has been said.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: Calling his attention to it will not accomplish much.
As I said, tho.se statements were made in my absence. A.s a matter of fact, I asked Parliament to vote $1,000 for this
poor woman, and that amount has been voted and paid. Moreover, much against the wishes of many of my political friends, I got this woman appointed as postmistress at that place; and I have received from her letters expressing her most profound gratitude. In one sentence of the letter 1 have in my hand she .says:
. It seems to me that I have suffered enough since that time without having people heap reproaches on my benefactor after what he has done for me.
These are the facts.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: As far as I am concerned, I spoke under a misapprehension, and I am very glad to offer my congratulations to the Postmaster General on what he has done.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I was away during the first session of this Parliament, but I gathered from certain remarks that the hon. Postmaster General had refused the request of the member for Two Mountains. I, also, am glad to congratulate the Postmaster General on what he has done.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If this had been taken up in my presence, it would have been better, perhaps.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 166, to incorporate the Farnham and Granby Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Baker. Mr. Blondin in the chair.
On section 8-line of railway authorized:
Mr. BOIVIN:: I would like to direct your attention, Mr. Chairman, to a small technical error in clause 8. There is no such place in Canada as the town of Granby. The section should read the ' village ' of Granby. The inhabitants of the- village of Granby are very anxious to see this Bill go through, and I am very much in favour of it, but I would like to have that mistake corrected. I was not able to be before the Railway Committee when the Bill came up. I would, therefore, move that the word ' village ' be substituted foT the word ' town.'
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



THE PRUDENTIAL LIFE OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 150, to Incorporate the Prudential Life of Canada.-Mr. Niokle. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 10:
The new company shall not commence business until at least one hundred thousand dollars have been paid upon its capital stock.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: When I intervened on
Friday night to say a word about this Bill, it was not with any desire to prevent its passing but to draw attention to the wording of section 10 which was discussed before the Committee on Banking and Commerce. It was contended 'by certain members of that committee that the language of the clause is not clear; that it might be complied with by showing that one hundred thousand dollars of capital had been subscribed at some time in the past, but that might now be impaired to some extent, and that it was necessary to have the clause so clear that there should be no doubt that one hundred thousand dollars of capital would be to the fore when the company is being incorporated with a federal charter. Apart from any undertaking of the Finance Department which no doubt will be carried out, I would like to know if the minister thinks the language of the clause is sufficiently clear as it stands to enjoin the department to see that there is one hundred thousand dollars to the good now, before the company would be chartered for business.


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: Since this matter
was last under discussion, I have made inquiry as to the Dominion Acts passed during the last three years incorporating companies with the power of taking over provincial companies. I find that in 1911 there were two companies so incorporated: The Merchants and Employers Guarantee Accident Company, and the Continental Fire Insurance Company of Canada; in 1912 there was incorporated the Liverpool-Manitoba Assurance Company, and in 1913 the Canadian Provident Insurance Company, the Underwriters Corporation of Canada, and the Western Canada Accident and Guarantee Insurance Company. The Insurance Department informs me that while these Acts prescribe the amount of capital stock required to be paid up before the new company shall commence the transaction of its several classes of business, there is no provision in any of these Acts regarding the amount of unimpaired capital to be shown. There is a provision

in each of these Acts that there shall be a certain paid-up capital, but there is no specific provision that there shall be an excess of assets over liabilities, or an unimpaired capital. The Department of Insurance further informs me that in practice they have always insisted, before a license is granted, that the amount of paid-up capital mentioned in the Act of incorporation shall be wholly unimpaired. I have here the Acts incorporating the several companies which I have mentioned, but I do not think it necessary to go into them in detail. My hon. friend from Guysborough will observe that a new company is being incorporated under this Bill, H-2 of the Senate, that is to say, it is a new incorporation. This new company is to have the power of taking over an old company, the Prudential Life Insurance Company, incorporated under the statutes of the Province of Manitoba. By section 10 of the Act it is provided that the new company shall not commence business until at least one hundred thousand dollars has been paid upon its capital stock. That section is on all fours with sections in these several Bills which I have mentioned, passed during tli-e last three years. When the matter was under discussion in the committee, I stated that it might be conceivable that a new company might have one hundred thousand dollars of fully paid-up stock and yet there might not be a surplus of one hundred thousand dollars of assets over liabilities, and therefore, if there had been no other circumstances in the matter it would have been entirely agreeable to me that the amount of sixty-five thousand dollar's-which had been fixed in a Bill passed a little while ago by the committee- or eighty thousand dollars, or a hundred thousand dollars, should have been provided as the amount of unimpaired capital, the company should show before being licensed to carry on its business. But by reason of the considerations which were drawn to the attention of the committee, namely, that this Bill had been strongly opposed on the ground of its name; that last year it had been rejected in the Senate; that this year it had passed the Senate and that the change now might involve, by reason of the lateness of the session, the company not obtaining inoorporationj at all, it appeared to me that if the mat* ter could be safe-guarded, as it can be safeguarded, by the Insurance Department, it would not be necessary to insert in this Bill a provision which has not in the past

been usual in connection with similar incorporations. These being the tacts it would appear to me that the matter of the standing of the company and its solvency is safeguarded by the precautions I have taken in instructing the Insurance Department to see that before the license is granted the company shall have an unimpaired fully-paid-up capital of one hundred thousand dollars. I may say that at the last meeting of the Banking and Commerce Committee, I was assured by the manager and by the president of the Prudential Life Insurance Company, that they have no objection whatever to taking that course and would have no difficulty in complying with the requirement of the department.


John Howard Sinclair: Another question. The minister in his letter to the superintendent of insurance says that he should associate with his officers an outside actuary to make an investigation into this company. I would like to know who is to pay for the services of an outside actuary?


William Thomas White: I did not consider that aspect of it, but personally I would see no objection to the Insurance Department paying. That will be done in the ordinary course of business. It is not unusual for the department to engage expert officials from outside in connection with the conduct of public business devolving upon it.


John Howard Sinclair: I think the Prudential Life Company should pay for the outside actuary; of course the actuaries of the department will do the work as part of the business of their office.


William Thomas White: I would suggest to my hon. friend that perhaps it would be better that the Government should pay, for the reason that my idea in suggesting that outside actuarial assistance be obtained was in order to put the matter of the standing of the company beyond any question. If a company whose affairs are to be investigated pay for the actuary, it might be suggested that the actuary, being so paid by the company, might not be as strict as if he were paid by the Government. It would occur to me that the proper way of dealing with the matter would be for the Insurance Department to pay for any actuarial assistance which might be obtained.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not regard it as important. I have no doubt at all that the minister will make the necessary investigation, and that everything will be done
carefully and in order. I have every confidence in the minister and the department that this matter wall be attended to as he states it will be. This measure is now practically a Government measure, and the minister, of course, takes the responsibility in regard to it.
The point that I wish to impress upon the House is that the House has functions in regard to these matters as well as the Department of Finance, and that it cannot discharge its functions by passing them over to the department. It is well understand that the functions of the Department of Finance are administrative and that the functions of the House are legislative. It is the duty of the Department of Finance to issue a license to a company when it complies with the terms of the charter granted by this House. If the House chooses to grant a charter to a company to do insurance business in Canada with a capital of $5,000, and if the company comes next day knocking at the door of the Department of Finance with the charter, complying with the terms of it and furnishing the $5,000 capital, or the proof of it, it is the duty of the department to issue the license, notwithstanding that the minister may be of the opinion that the company ought to have at least $100,000 capital. Therefore it is important that the House in all these matters should provide clearly and distinctly what is required because, as to what is required, the Department of Finance will carry out the mandate of the House. It is especially important, when we remember the unfortunate incident which took place recently in regard to the Union Life and incidents of a similar nature. Therefore I hope the minister will see the point which I make, namely, that in all these charters that are granted it is proper and right that the House should be clear and distinct in regard to the conditions on which they shall be granted.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Do I understand the minister to say that the section in the Bill fixing the capital at $100,000 shall be construed by the department to mean that there must be assets over liabilities to that extent?


William Thomas White: Yes.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 59, respecting the Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Currie.
Bill No. 167, to incorporate the Cornwall and Hawkesbury Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Alguire.
Bill No. 161, respecting the Western Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Bradbury.
Bill No. 163, to incorporate the North American Accident Insurance Company.- Mr. Baker.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 172, respecting the Toronto Terminals Railway Company.-Mr. Macdonell.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

[Stage Direction]
* Mr. MACDONALD:
1.	Referring to the statement made by the
Prime Minister in 'Hansard' 1912-1913, page 11757, as follows:	'The Canadian Northern
Railway Company professes itself able, under ordinary conditions, to raise all the money that may he necessary for the completion of the line.' Who made this statement on behalf of the Canadian Northern Railway Company?
2.	When was it communicated to the Government?
3.	Was the statement made in writing? If so, who signed the same?
Mr. BORDEN:: 1.	An official of the Cana'dian Northern railway.
2.	Shortly before the statement was made to the House, so far as the Prime Minister can recollect.
3.	No.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-C. FRED. AVARD.
Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	On what date was C. Fred. Avard appointed to a position in the freight department of the Intercolonial railway at Sackville, N.B., at what rate of wages or salary, and to what position was he appointed?
2.	On what date was the said C. Fred. Avard dismissed from the Intercolonial railway service, and what position did he hold when dismissed?
3.	What was the salary or wages being paid him at the time of his dismissal, and was he the senior freight porter at the Sackville freight shed at the time of his dismissal?
4.	Under the schedule which came into effect
on June 1, 1911, did it grant the following scale of wages:	Senior freight porters $1-80
per day ; junior freight porters $1.50 per day; second year $1.70 per day; junior freight

porters third and subsequent years $1.75 per day?
5.	How long was the said C. Fred. Avard in the railway service as senior freight porter at Sackville, and what was the rate of wages paid him after June 1, 1911?
6.	For what cause was the said C. Fred. Avard dismissed, and upon whose recommendation was the dismissal made?
7.	Was the said C. Fred. Avard senior freight porter at Sackville station on the first day of June, 1911, and since that date?
8.	If not, who was and who has been since the dismissal of the .said C. Fred. Avard, and what rate of wages were paid him since his appointment?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	April 17, 1903; $1.20 per day; occupation, porter.
2.	January 31, 1914; senior porter.
3.	$2 per day; 63 years of age; senior in the service.
4.	Yes, for sheds where porters are numerous enough to be classified.
5.	Classified as senior porter nine months, from April 1, 1913, to January 21, 1914. $1.70 per day, June 1, 1911, to March 21, 1913; $1.90 per day, March 21, 1913, to April 1, 1913; $2 per day, April 1, 1913, to January 31, 1914.
6.	Incapable of performing duties satisfactorily, on account of being too old.
7.	No, but he was so classified from April 1, 1913, to January 31, 1914.
8.	No one. Claude Estabrooks, at $2.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY-TRANSCONTINENTAL LINE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Referring to the statement made by the Minister of Finance, in 'Hansard' 1912-13, page 11713, in the following words: 'It is estimated that by the summer of next year, if the same conditions prevail as have prevailed as to labour, the Canadian Northern Railway Company will be running trains across the continent from Quebec to the Pacific coast;' who made the estimate referred to?
2.	Was the said estimate made in writing?
3.	Was the estimate communicated to the Government? If so, by whom and on what date?


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: 1.	Officials of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. In the annual report to the shareholders of the company at the annual general meeting of October 23, 1912, it was statekl that it was hoped the transcontinental line of the Canadian Northern railway system would be completed by the end of 1913.
2.	No.
3.	Yes, during the session of 1912-13, but upon what date and by whom the minister does not recall.


NORTH RIVERSIDE POSTMASTER.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Referring to the dismissal of Charles McPherson, postmaster at North Riverside, Guysborough county, N.S., did the postmaster or any officer of his department write to the said postmaster stating that complaints of partisanship had been made against him?
2.	If so, was such complaint made in writing and by whom?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, by James R. Mac-Pherson, but, as already explained, the postmaster was not dismissed for that reason.
PANAMA CANAL RATES vs FORT WILLIAM RATES.
* Mr. BURNHAM:
1.	What will be the difference in freight charges per bushel for wheat from Pincher Creek, laid down at Liverpool, via the Panama canal and via Fort William?
2.	What will be the difference from Winnipeg?


Mr. FOSTER:: It is impossible to answer this question, as no wheat rates or other rates have yet been established through the Panama canal.


Mr. BURNHAM:: The hon. member for
Macleod (Mr. Warnock) informs me that the difference will be from six to eight cents; but I wished to get it more definitely. It is rumoured that it will be twelve cents.


SHERBROOKE POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES.
Mr. McREA:: 1.	What is the name of each person employed in the post office inspection department at Sherbrooke?
2.	What is the remuneration paid to each individual, including the inspector?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The following persons are employed in the post office inspector's office at Sherbrooke:
Name, rank and salary-Dastous, L. E.M., inspector, $2,500; Soles, C. Edw., asst, inspector, $2,000; Doherty, M. M. L. (Miss), clerk 3-A, $1,000; Campbell, S. (Miss), temp, clerk, $500; Bousquet, P., messenger, gr. A., $2 a day; Downing, J. P., temp, help; $2 a day; Frechette, R. temp, clerk, $500; Le febvre, J. P., porter, gr. C., $2.50 a day.


PETITE RIVIERE BREAKWATER.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What amount was spent during the fiscal year 1913-14 in connection with the Petite Riviere breakwater, Lunenburg county, N.S. ?


Mr. ROGERS:: $2,499.98 to January 16,
1914.


WHARVES BREAKWATER
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What amount was spent during the fiscal year 1913-14 in connection with the Wharves Breakwater, Lunenburg county, N.S.?


Robert Rogers: $1,499.76 to December 27,
1913.


THREE RIVERS, MILITIA CAMP.
Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	How many tenders were received for the supply of meat for the military camp at Three Rivers during the year 1913?
2.	(a) Is it the intention of the Government to hold a military camp at Three Rivers during the coming summer? (b) If so. will tenders be asked for the supply of meat and other necessaries of life?
3.	(a) Who was awarded the contract for the supply of meat at Three Rivers military camp in 1913, (b) what price was paid to the contractor, and (c) was the one who supplied such meat the lowest tenderer?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Four.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) Yes; advertisement for tenders has already been made.
3.	(a) Harris Abattoir Company, Ltd.; (b) eleven and one-half cents per pound; (c) Yes.


KINGSTON CAUSEWAY.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	Has the work on the Causeway at Kingston been discontinued? If so, when and for what reason ?
2.	According to progress made to date, is the work likely to he completed by the time specified?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	No.
2.	Fair progress is now being made.


FENIAN RAID BOUNTY-NOVA SCOTIA APPLICATIONS.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	(a) How many applications for Fenian Raid veteran's bounty have been received from Nova Scotia, (b) how many have been allowed, and (c) how many have been disallowed?
2.	Were the Nova Scotia claims forwarded to Ottawa and passed upon by the Pension Boards? If not, how and by whom were the claims adjusted ?
3.	In the case of Nova Scotia claims allowed, do the names of the veterans appear on active service pay-lists at Ottawa?
4.	Was the form of application for the bounty the same for Nova Scotia as for Ontario? If not, in what respects did it differ?
5.	What proof was required of the Nova Scotia veterans to make good their claims?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	As claims have
not been entered by provinces, it is almost impossible to give the exact date relative to the province of Nova Scotia; but:

1.	(a) Approximately 20,000 claims have been received from Nova Scotia; (b) Approximately 5,700 warrants have been issued for Nova Scotia; (o) Approximately 300 claims have been disallowed.
2.	Claims were all forwarded direct to Ottawa. The Pension Board had nothing to do with these claims. The claims were passed upon1 toy the officials engaged in carrying out the terms of the Fenian Kaid Volunteer Bounty Act of 1st April, 1912.
3.	No. There are not any Active Service pay-lists for the province. The service took place in 1866, before Confederation, and it seems that the pay-lists were destroyed.
4.	Yes.
5.	As the proclamation of the 17th March, 1866, called out every man in Nova Scotia between the ages of 16 and 45, and not as in Ontario and Quebec, where corps were specially named in the General Orders calling out the force, the sworn declaration of a claimant and a comrade that he was enrolled in a corps of the Nova Scotia militia, and served with it on actual service in obedience to the proclamation issued by the Governor of Nova Scotia on the 17th day of March, 1866. The sapae proof, in fact, as has been required and accepted in cases in the other provinces where active service pay-lists were absent.


PORTNEUP LIGHTKEEPER.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Is the Minister of Marine and Fisheries aware that, as alleged, when an investigation was being held by Mr. Omer Beaubien, attorney, in the case of Josephine Rodrigue, lightkeeper at Portneuf, county of Portneuf, several witnesses were summoned from Portneuf to Quebec, where said investigation was being held, and that they have not yet received their witness fees and travelling expenses?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to have them paid?


Mr. HAZEN:: The amounts due the several witnesses were included in the account submitted by Mr. Beaubien. The account, including the fees for witnesses, has been paid to Mr. Beaubien. The matter has been referred to the Justice Department for advice as to further liability.


EMPLOYMENT OP MEMBERS OP PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES.
Mr. MOLLOY:: Can members of any provincial legislature be employed by or receive money from the federal Government for services rendered?


Mr. BOBDEN:: Questions of this character are not usually answered, as they involve an opinion upon questions of law. 
In any event the subject would be dealt with by enactment of the provincial legislatures.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Kyte.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and memorials since the 1st day of November, 1911, relating to the post office at Johnstown, Richmond county, N.S., and to complaints against the present postmaster and recommendations for his dismissal?
Mr. Wm. Chisholm.-For a copy of all correspondence, memorials, letters, telegrams and other documents relating to the redistribution of constituencies in the province of Nova Scotia, as affecting the electoral district of the county of Antigonish.
Mr. Sinclair.-For a copy of all correspondence, memorials, letters, telegrams and other documents relating to the redistribution of constituencies in the province of Nova Scotia, as affecting the electoral district of the county of Guysborough.
Mr. Kyte.-For a copy of all correspondence, memorials, letters, telegrams and other documents relating to the redistribution of constituencies in the province of Nova Scotia, as affecting the electoral district of the county of Richmond.
Mr. Oliver.-For a copy of all papers and correspondence relating to a contract for telegraph or telephone poles for a line from Green lake to Isle a. la Crosse, Saskatchewan, the advertisement for tenders the tenders received, with names of the tenderers and prices, and also a copy of all correspondence regarding same and particulars of contract awarded.
Mr. Sam. Sharpe.-For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, accounts and receipts, concerning advances or payments made by the Government to Newton Wesley Rowell, K.C., for legal services in connection with the Oka Indian litigation.
Mr. Neely.-For a copy of all documents, letters, telegrams, homestead inspector's reports and other documents relating to the cancellation of the entry of R. Bannatyne for the northwest quarter, section 24, township 3 6, range 18, west of the second Meridian.
Mr. Sinclair.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, Orders in Council, contracts, tenders, papers and other documents in possession of the Department of Public Works, and of the Department of Militia and Defence, relating to the construction of an armoury at Amherst N.S.
Mr. McCrea.-For a return showing whether Mr. David Armstrong, mail carrier of the city of Sherbrooke has been dismissed, and if so the cause for such dismissal; whether an investigation was held at which he was given an opportunity of meeting his accusers and being heard in his own defence ; the number of years Mr. Armstrong has been in the service and the remuneration he was receiving for his services ; whether his successsor has been appointed; if so, the name of said successor, the list of those who recommended him, and the remuneration he receives.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Customs), Bill No. 171, to amend the Customs Act, was read the second time, and

the House went into Committee thereon, .That will necessitate another amendment Mr. Blondin in the chair.	farther on in the same section, as follows.
On section 1-Revised Statutes, chapter 48, amended:
Mr. CARROLL:: What is the usual time which is allowed after the payment of the duty? I refer to subsection 2 of this section.


William Thomas White: I am sorry that I am unable to answer my hon. friend; I will get the information later and give it to him. [DOT]


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will it be the practice of the department to take note of all importations of iron when they are made and before consumption at the furnaces is begun?


William Thomas White: In the administration of this Act the department will satisfy itself as to the amount of pig-iron which entered into the export manufactures of
12 noon, any concern, and if that concern has imported an amount of pig-iron equal to that amount, a drawback will be allowed in respect of the duties paid upon the pig-iron so imported.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 136, to amend the Dominion Lands Act, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 3-price:
Mr. ROCHE:: Sections 3 and 4 of this
Bill were held over for the purpose of considering an amendment suggested by the hon. member for Moosejaw. I had adopted the principle laid down by the amendment of the hon. gentleman, but had refused to accept its wording. The amendment to section 3 which he substituted ran this way:
Any instalment or instalments not paid on the due dates thereof.
As this is not very happily worded, I have redrafted the amendment. I beg to move:
That all the words between the word ' instalments ' In the- eighth line and the word ' provided ' in the fourteenth line of clause 3 be struck out and that the following be inserted in lieu thereof: And every instalment which is not paid upon the date when it becomes due shall bear interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from such date until it is paid.
In effect, that means that no interest is charged except upon overdue payments.
That the following words be inserted after the word ' fee ' in the fourth line, in the second proviso: or on any instalment or instalments for any period before any such instalment became due.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 4-section 28 amended:
William James Roche: A similar amendment is proposed in connection with purchasing homesteads. I beg to move:
That section 4 be amended by adding thereto the following:
Subsection 5 of said section 28 is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:
5. The price payable for land under this section shall be 83 an acre, and such price shall be payable one-third at the time the entry is made and the balance in five equal annual instalments; and every instalment which is not paid upon the date upon which it becomes due shall bear interest at the rate of five per centum per annum from such date until it is paid: Provided that, on the completion of the requirements under this section for obtaining letters patent for such purchased homestead, payment in full may be made therefor and letters patent therefor may thereupon issue.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
Mr. OLIVER:: Before the Bill goes out of committee, might I suggest to the minister that, in consideration of the fact that this Bill governs the rights of such a very large number of people who are not learned in the law, 'but yet who desire to acquire knowledge of what their rights .are from a perusal of the Bill, that, wherever he has made an amendment providing for the insertion of one or more words in the Act as it formerly stood, he repeal that section, and replace it hy a new section which will express in full the new intent of the law; so that when a layman desires to understand the meaning of a certain .section, he will not have to refer to the old Act and the new amendments, and read them together, in order to get the meaning of the amended Bill.


William James Roche: I think that is worthy of consideration.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I want to ask the minister a question about a. case which I know will arise. Suppose that a man has not money to pay the first instalment on his pre-emption when it becomes due, but is in funds for the total balance fifteen months after; how much residence duties would he be called on to give an account of?


William James Roche: He would have to perform his proportion of the residence duties. As the hon. gentleman knows he has to put in six months in each year. Therefore, in this particular case he would have to put in about fifteen days. Still this is a matter on which the very greatest amount of latitude will be allowed, and the ordinary good sense of the department will be called into requisition in deciding such a case. I do not suppose a matter of fifteen days would hold up any man's patent.


William Erskine Knowles: It might be twenty
months instead of fifteen. The minister cannot see each of these men personally, and I think it is a mistake to leave the Act in this slipshod manner. This is a matter which should not be left to the officials to decide, according to whether the applicant is friend or foe. The law provides for six months' residence duties in each homestead year. I am inclined to think that in the case I mentioned, where a man was in funds twenty months after the first instalment became due, the officials would make him put in two periods of six months each. If all these cases came before the minister personally, I have no doubt that he would do what was just, but it .is hardly necessary ifor me to repeat that there are men in his department upon whose justice I would not always rely; and I think he is making a mistake in not making that point clear.


William James Roche: The strict interpretation
would require what the hon. gentleman states, but we are not putting any more power in the hands of our officials than they now possess. There must be a certain amount of elasticity in the interpretation and enforcement of the law. The good sense of those charged with the administration of the Act will have to decide each case on its merits.


William Erskine Knowles: Will the minister say that the residence duties for a fraction of a year shall be not more than, in the ratio of six months to twelve months?


William James Roche: That is the rule that will be enforced.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. J. Roche (Minister of the Interior), Bill No. 137, rt amend the

Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act, was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-paragraph 1 amended:
Frank Oliver: This Bill, as I understand it, merely provides for the setting apart of new reserves and the cancellation of old ones, or the limitation of boundaries. It is impossible for any person to understand what is meant without the aid of a map, and I would respectfully ask the minister to place a map on the table and to adjourn consideration of the Bill until this afternoon, or some other time, to give members an opportunity of seeing what are the changes proposed. It may not have any pressing importance and yet the changes may be important.


William James Roche: I have just placed a map upon the table. If it is necessary to postpone the Bill I shall not object, but I do not know that there are any very important departures proposed. The principal changes proposed are in the form of additions to our present forest reserves. These lands have been thoroughly inspected by the officers of the forestry branch, have been temporarily set aside, and we now wish to make the reservations permanent. There are withdrawals from two or three reserves, amongst them the Buffalo Park reserve, from which we are taking a quarter section upon which a homesteader has qualified.
If the hon. gentleman thinks it necessary, * I will agree to a postponement,


Frank Oliver: I would certainly like to have an opportunity of looking at the map to see what changes are being made.


William James Roche: Well, we will leave it until this afternoon.
Progress reported.


MERCHANTS AND EMPLOYERS ACCIDENT GUARANTEE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), Bill No. 120, to correct a clerical error in Act 1-2 George V, chapter 118, respecting the National Weekly Indemnity Company, and to change its name to the Merchants and Employers Guarantee and Accident Company, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section I-business of company:
Mr. DOHERTY:: The purpose of this Bill is merely to correct a translator's error in

the English version of the Act. The act sought to be amended was originally a private Bill presented in French, but, when it came to be translated, the word ' cautionnement ' was translated as * bond ' instead of ' guarantee.5 One of the purposes of the company was to do guarantee insurance but the translator rendered it as bond insurance. This Bill originally contained one section correcting that error but I may say that it will be necessary to put in another clause, because the same error occurred in another section of the Bill which was not noticed at the time the Bill was prepared. Furthermore, the Insurance Department having pointed out that the regulations they imposed in regard to the capital were imposed in view of the English version, it will 'be necessary to further amend the Bill to meet the requirements as to capital suitable for a company to do a guarantee insurance business. I therefore beg to move that the Bill as before the committee be amended by adding the following sections:
2.	Subsection 2 of section 8 of chapter 118 of the English version of the statutes of 1911 is amended by striking out the word ' bond ' in the second line thereof and inserting the word ' guarantee ' in lieu thereof.
3.	Subsection 2 of section 8 of chapter 118 in both the English and French versions of the statutes of 1911 is amended by striking out the words ' eighty thousand dollars ' in the fourth line thereof and inserting in lieu thereof the words ' one hundred and twenty thousand dollars, but the new company may commence the business of guarantee insurance in addition to accident insurance and sickness insurance when its paid-up capital stock amounts to ninety-five thousand dollars, or may commence the business of burglary insurance in addition to accident insurance and sickness insurance when its paid-up capital stock amounts to sixty-five thousand dollars.'
4.	Subsection 4 of section 8 of chapter 118 in both the English and French versions of the statutes of 1911 is amended by striking out the word ' thirty ' in the fourth line thereof and inserting the word ' seventy ' in lieu thereof.
The two last sections are introduced to meet the requirements of the Insurance Department.


Wilfrid Laurier: Where is the head office of this company?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In Montreal.


Wilfrid Laurier: Where was it incorporated?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The company by another name was originally incorporated in the province of Quebec, and by a statute of 1911 the name was changed to the Merchants'
and Employers' Guarantee and Accident Company, and provisions were made with regard to the capital that would be required in order to the carrying on of the business. The reason these changes have to be made is, that in determining the amount that would be required with regard to capital at the time the Bill was passed, the Insurance Department acted upon the English version and required a capital suitable to the doing of a bond insurance business, which I understand is less than would be required for the doing of a guarantee business. The anomalous situation was created that whereas, under the French version of the statute which was based upon the petition whicn was in French, the company was authorized to do this guarantee business, under the English version it was apparently only authorized to do a bond insurance business. The requirement as regards capital was based upon the English version and, therefore, only provided for a capital such as, in the opinion of the department, was necessary to justify the carrying on of a bond insurance business. It comes as a public Bill because it has been represented that the mistake which called for correction was the mistake of the officers of the House. The petitioners put their petition before the House in a language which they were entitled to use, and in the French version it was perfectly clear that a guarantee business was sought, but an error occurred in the translation and it was carried through and not noticed until later. The Insurance Department has recommended that these other changes which are consequent on that original error should be made.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


ADDITIONAL SENATORS FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA.
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved that the House go into 'Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that It is expedient to provide for three additional members of the Senate for the province of British Columbia.
Wilfrid Laurier: It might be
well to discuss this matter now.


Mr. BORDEN:: The province of British Columbia was brought into Confederation by an Order in Council which provided that it should be represented in the Senate of Canada by three members. A close consideration of the statutes under which that

Order in Council was passed might lead to the conclusion that possibly something had been overlooked. However, the Order in Council has been acted upon for a great .many years, and British Columbia has always been regarded as being represented in the Senate by three members, and it is so represented to-day. When the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were created in 1905, provision was made that they should each be represented by four members and after the next decennial ceu-sus that the number might be increased to six. When the addition was made to the territory of Manitoba in 1911 a similar provision was made in regard to that province, namely, that its representation in the Senate, which at that time consisted of four, should after the next decennial census be increased to six. The original basis of representation in the various provinces in the Senate was not fixed by population, nor does it seem to have been fixed upon any principle that could very well be defined. The representation as fixed seems to have been purely arbitrary. There was a provision that the provinces then constituting Confederation should be divided into three divisions: Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces. It was provided that Ontario should be represented in the Senate of Canada by twenty-four members, that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick should each be represented in the Senate b>
twelve members, and that Quebec should be represented by twenty-four members, it being provided that in the province of Quebec the representation should be assigned to certain divisions in that prov ince, whereas in the other provinces of Canada the representation is at large. It was provided that in case the province of Prince Edward Island should be admitted to Confederation, the representation of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick should be reduced by four, and that Prince Edward Island should be assigned a representation of four in the Senate. Provision was also made for the representation of Newfoundland in the Senate should that colony be admitted to Confederation. There was also the provision that His Majesty the King, by Order in Council, might increase the representation in the Senate by either three or six. In case of an increase by the number of three, one should be taken from Ontario, one from Quebec and one from the Maritime provinces. If the representation should he increased

by six, two should be taken from Ontario, two from Quebec and two from the Maritime provinces, and no new senators should be appointe'd from either of these provinces until after the number fixed by the British North America Act should be reduced below the number which I have mentioned, that is, twenty-four for each division. There has been no provision for the constitution or establishment of a fourth senatorial division in Canada, beyond the provision to which I have just now alluded; and the proposal to increase the representation of the four western provinces to the number of six each would bring about in effect the establishment of a fourth division, although, so far as those provisions in the British North America Act which provide for a temporary increase in certain cases are concerned, it would be necessary to have an amendment to the British North America Act for the purpose of establishing proper provisions in that regard. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition alluded to this matter when one of these Bills was under discussion some time ago; and, if I remember his words correctly, he suggested that it would be a very proper thing to establish a fourth division for representation in the Senate of Canada consisting of the four provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. The proposals which we have laid before the House in that regard will carry out his suggestion except as regards the necessity of some amendment to the British North America Act to which I have alluded. I think it is clear that any legislation passed by this Parliament for the purpose of increasing the representation of the province of British Columbia in the Senate would have to be confirmed by British legislation. As far as that is concerned, we would not propose to bring the legislation into effect until such confirmatory legislation should have been obtained. There is a precedent for the course which I am proposing to follow in this regard in the legislation passed for rihe purpose of appointing a deputy Speaker in the Senate in 1894. This legislation was passed with the proviso that it should not come into' force until His Majesty's pleasure was signified by proclamation in the Canada Gazette. The question as to whether or not Parliament had the power to pass that legislation was submitted to the law officers of the Crown in Great Britain; and, although they doubted whether any confirmatory legislation was

necessary, such confirmatory legislation was passed in 1895. It is desirable, I think, that the province of British Columbia should be placed upon the same basis as the other western provinces in respect of its representation in the Senate, and I think I have already placed upon the table of the House a resolution of the legislature of that province passed during a recent session. It was transmitted to the Government by the following communication :
Province of British Columbia.
The 3rd of March, 1914.
At Government House,
Victoria, B.C.
Sir,-I have the honour to forward herewith, a copy of an approved minute embodying- a resolution of the Legislative Assembly of this province, in which application is made to the federal Government for an increase in the number of senators representing the province.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Thos. W. Paterson, Lieutenant Governor.
The Honourable
The Secretary of State,
Ottawa.
The resolution alluded to is as follows:
The Committee of Council submit for the approval of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor a resolution of the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia, as follows :
Whereas the Parliament of Canada has under consideration a measure providing for the redistribution of the constituencies of the Dominion :
And whereas it is provided to make provision for the appointment of an additional number of senators:
And whereas it is provided that the number of senators for each of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta shall be six:
And whereas the population of British Columbia, as ascertained by the census in 1911, compares favourably with the other provinces mentioned and is increasing rapidly:
And whereas the area and importance of the province of British Columbia make it necessary and advisable that this province should receive' adequate recognition when such appointments are made:
Therefore, be it resolved that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor be requested to forward through the proper channels to the Dominion Government the prayer of this House that the number of senators for the province of British Columbia be increased to six, so as to give British Columbia equal standing in the Upper House with the other western provinces. .
The committee advise that a copy of this minute be transmitted to the Honourable the Secretary of State of Canada.
Henry Esson Young,
Clerk, Executive Council.
Victoria, 2nd March, 1914.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are before the House at the present time four
resolutions to increase the representation in the Senate of the four western provinces, namely, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, in order to give each of these provinces six members instead of what they have at present. As to the desirability of such legislation, for my part, I have no objection to offer. On the contrary, some years ago, at the time we created the two new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, I pointed out that it would be advisable that we should do for the western provinces what had been done for the eastern provinces, namely, create a new division, which would be called the western division, and which would make the number of divisions four. As stated by my right hon. friend a moment ago, when Confederation was established three divisions were created for the purpose of senatorial representation, that is to say, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces, each of which three divisions was given twenty-four members. The fathers of Confederation foresaw that, as time went on, new provinces would be added to Confederation, and they made provision for representation in the Senate of two provinces, namely, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, which it was supposed would come into Confederation. The dispositions which they made with regard to Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland were just as has been stated by my right hon. friend. With regard to Prince Edward Island, it was stated that, when it came into Confederation, it would be entitled to four members, but that these four members would be deducted from the twenty-four members from the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, leaving twenty-four as the unit of representation for the division consisting of the Maritime provinces. At the same time it was stated that Newfoundland would be given a representation of four, making the total number of senators seventy-six instead of seventy-two. Strange to say, although the fathers of Confederation foresaw that British Columbia might come into Confederation, no disposition was- made as to its representation in the Senate. When British Columbia came into Confederation, it was given representation in the Senate of three members, thus adding three to the total membership of the Senate, which had been fixed by the British North America Act at seventy-two. The matter evidently was an oversight at the time; but still, as stated by my right hon. friend, more than forty years have elapsed since that date, and, although British Columbia has been represented in the Senate perhaps without

authority, it would be to no purpose to question what has been done. I have only this, however, to observe to my right hon. friend, that in so far as two of the provinces, namely, Alberta and Saskatchewan, are concerned, whose membership in the Senate it is now sought to increase, there is no constitutional objection; we have the power in this Parliament to give them this increased representation. So far as British Columbia is concerned, nay right hon. friend can see that we have no power, but that anything we do must be confirmed by the Imperial Parliament. I submit, with all due deference, that so far as Manitoba also is concerned, we have no power at present to increase the representation of that province in the Senate than we have in the case of British Columbia. It is true, that two years ago when we extended the boundaries of Manitoba, we introduced into the Bill a provision to the effect that Manitoba should be represented in the Senate by six; but I submit with great confidence to the judgment of my right hon. friend that this was simply an expression of our will that the thing should be done by the proper authorities, and that the Parliament of Canada as now constituted has no power to increase the representation of Manitoba in the Senate. I would submit to my right hon. friend the advisability of proceeding in a different way from that which he now proposes. I think undoubtedly we have no power to increase the representation of British Columbia in the Senate; and in my opinion-I do not know whether that opinion is shared by hon. members on the other side-we have no such power in relation to Manitoba, or that at best our power to increase the representation in Manitoba would not be held to be above doubt. Therefore, I submit to my right hon. friend that it would be better to proceed as we have proceeded in such circumstances before when we were asking for imperial legislation and, instead of passing Acts which we have not the power to pass and then asking confirmation by the imperial authorities, to proceed by way of Royal Address asked by the Senate and the House of Commons to His Majesty asking for the necessary legislation, which would give us the powers we have not now. I repeat what I said a moment ago, that in view of the development that is taking place in the provinces of the West they are certainly entitled to increased representation in the Senate, and as a group I think the representation should be increased to twenty-four. I think it would be more in [Sir Wilfrid I.aurier 1
accordance with the constitutional usage if we passed an Address declaring that we create a new group composed of the western provinces to be given representation of twenty-four-a new group of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, just as we have the group of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island-and that its representation in the Senate be twenty-four members.


Robert Laird Borden: The observations of my
right hon. friend, are, of course, entitled to very careful consideration. Perhaps this resolution might be permitted to pass at present, so that the Bill may be introduced and I will confer with my right hon. friend before taking any further action in regard to it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. BORDEN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 184, respecting the representation of the province of British Columbia in the Senate.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) the House went into Committee on Bill No. 174, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act amendment, 1908, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-appointment of deputy judge:
Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the object of
this amendment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose is to empower the judge of the Juvenile Delinquents Court to appoint a deputy judge, the appointment to be made subject to the approval of the Attorney General of the province. It has been found in some of the large centres, and I may say particularly in the city of Montreal, that there are occasions when it is impossible for the judge to be in attendance day by day and do the work. At present in the absence of the judge, they have to call in a police magistrate. While these gentleman who are called in, no doubt, do their work very effectively, still it has been considered undesirable that a person not accustomed to the administration of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which, as the hon. gentleman

knows, looks rather to paternal correction than to the administration of criminal justice, should intervene in the operation of the court.
It seems desirable that some one accustomed to the system should be appointed to do the routine work. I think it is probable that in many instajnoes clerical officers of the court will be appointed deputy judges. This legislation has been strongly urged by Judge Choquet, whom everybody will recognize as being what may be called an expert in the administration of this particular law. It has been suggested, however, that there may be cases where it may not he considered desirable by persons interested in some of these juvenile delinquents that the matter should be dealt with otherwise than by the judge himself. To meet that view, I move that the Act be amended by adding a second section, providing that:
No deputy judge shall hear and determine any case which a Juvenile Court committee desires should be reserved for hearing and determination by the judge of the Juvenile Court.
The Act provides for the constitution of a committee of citizens, acting gratuitously, to co-operate with the judge of the Juvenile Court and I know that in Montreal there are very active committees of that kind which take a live interest in the treatment of the children who are brought before these courts. It has been- thought that, when in their judgment any case is deemed to be of such a nature that the judge himself should deal with it, they should have the right to make a request to that effect, and that that request should be granted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Rodolphe Lemieux: I quite approve of this legislation. From what I can gather, the Juvenile Court in the city of Montreal has, under the -able direction of Mr. Justice Ghoquet, been a great success. There is, however, an amendment which I would suggest to my hon. Mend and in doing so I simply voice the opinion expressed by many friends of the Juvenile Court. It i3 that the proceedings of the court should be kept more private; that is to say, that they should not -be made public through the -press. Several organizations and religious bodies im Montreal have made representations to the Attorney General to this end. The Juvenile -Court was created by Parliament because it was thought that young boys and young girls who fall in early life 22SJ
-should be kept away from the older criminals and given a chance of reforming themselves through their receiving paternal treatment on the part of society, represented by the judge. On several occasions I have noticed that cases coming before the juvenile court were fully reported in the press. I am a friend of the press and a -sort of journalist myself, but I think that -quite .enough news of this kind may be obtained from the other courts without the proceedings of the juvenile courts being published.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: I am aware of this, but, unfortunately, I can point to some instances where the reports were published, much -against the view of those who take an interest in these courts.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At one o'clock the House took reces-s.
The House resumed at Three o'clock.


FARMERS BANK DEPOSITORS.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance), the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Blondin in the Chair:
That it is expedient to provide that there may be paid and applied from and out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, a sum not exceeding in the whole one million two hundred thousand dollars to pay to persons who were creditors for money on deposit in the Farmers Bank of Canada, the respective amounts standing at their credit in the books of the bank when the bank suspended payment.
Frank Oliver: Is there any understanding in regard to this Bill? I do not know



what the intention of the leader of the Opposition is.


William Thomas White: I understand that* following the usual course, the principal discussion will take place upon the second reading. In the meantime, I shall be very glad to explain in a general way, if any gentleman desires it, the reasons for the Government's proposals.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Perhaps the minister might give a brief explanation.
Mr. WHITE': My hon. friend from Halifax having asked me to explain, I may say that the proposals of the Government embodied in this resolution are founded upon the report of Sir William Meredith, now Chief Justice of Ontario, who, it may be recalled, was in 1912 appointed a commissioner to investigate the affairs of the Farmers Bank of Canada from its incorporation. His report, we submit, establishes that the certificate of the Treasury Board, which, under the Bank Act, was necessary before the bank could open for business, was obtained by false and fraudulent representations. In this connection, I might call attention to the first paragraph of page 8 of the printed report of the commissioner, which reads as follows:
My conclusion on this branch of the inquiry is that the Treasury Board was induced to give its certificate by false and fraudulent representations on the part of Travers, and that if the facts I have mentioned as to the way in which the $250,000 was made up had been disclosed, the certificate of the Treasury Board would not have been given.
I might also draw attention to section 3 of page 9 of the report, which reads as follows:
It is true that, as Mr. Fielding stated in evidence, Travers, so far as he knew, was a reputable banker; but that was not, in my opinion, a sufficient reason for not having instituted an inquiry as to the matters which had been called to his attention. Such an inquiry could easily have been made, and the delay occasioned by it would have been inconsiderable, and such an inquiry would, undoubtedly, have resulted in the discovery of the manner in which the $100,000 had been raised and in the refusal of the Treasury Board to give the certificate.
The report of the commissioner further establishes negligence on the part of the Treasury Board in the issue of the certificate. Paragraph 6 of page 8 of the printed report of the commissioner is as follows:
I do not suggest that the minister would have been justified because of the information
[Mr. Oliver. J
conveyed to him in recommending that the certificate should not be granted, or that the Treasury Board because of it would not have been -justified in refusing to grant it, but, having received the information, it was in my opinion incumbent on the Treasury Board to have investigated the charges that had been made before coming to a conclusion as to whether or not the certificate should be given.
Briefly, the inquiry referred to in this paragraph would have shown that Travers, the general manager, and wrecker of the bank, had made a false declaration to the Minister of Finance and to the Treasury Board. It would have shown that the provisional directors had made a five years' contract with Travers, and put him in control of the organization and business of the bank. I would call attention, in passing, to paragraph 3 on page 5 of the report:
It appears clear from these agreements and resolutions that what was intended was to sell the charter of the bank to Travers and to put him in control of its organization and business, and that the provisional directors should abdicate their functions and act in accordance with his directions, and that is what followed.
If the certificates had not been granted the bank would not have commenced business; or if, afterwards, the provisions of the Bank Act had been strictly complied with the bank would not have started business with Travers as its general manager, because if the Treasury Board had made the inquiry which the commissioner finds it was incumbent upon them to have made, the character of Travers would have been disclosed. Of course, if the bank had not started business, or if, starting business it had been under prudent and honest management, the loss which followed would not have ensued to the depositors.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: After all, is not the finding of the commissioner that if the bank had not started there would not have been any loss?


William Thomas White: I do not think the commissioner explicitly finds that. I am arguing that if the certificate of the Treasury Board had not been given the bank could not have opened its doors for business.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: And thereby there would not have been any loss?


William Thomas White: Therefore, there could not have been any loss. If, on the other hand, at a later date, the provisions of the statute had been complied with, if $500,000 of bona fide subscriptions had been received, and $250,000 in cash paid thereon, as required

by the Bank Act then, assuming this inquiry had been made it would have been impossible for Travers to have been placed at the head of the bank, because the inquiry, which the commissioner finds it was incumbent on the Treasury Board to have made, would have disclosed that Travers had perjured himself in the statutory declaration which he made to the Minister of Finance. But, by reason of the negligence of the Treasury Board, as established by the commissioner, the bank was allowed to start on its ill-fated career, and with Travers as general manager at its head.- Travers, whom the Treasury Board would *have discovered, if they had made the necessary inquiry, a man who had perjured himself in his declaration, and was wholly undependable and unreliable. That, in a general way, is the argument in favour of the Government proposal in this matter. Without elaborating further, because I understand the debate is to take place upon the second reading of the Bill, I shall place upon ' Hansard ' a statement as to the position of the bank, furnished by the liquidator under date of May 1, 1914, just a few days ago. The statement is as fol-laws:
Toronto, May 1, 1914.
In the matter of the Farmers Bank of Canada -Approximate statement of affairs.
Liabilities.
Circulation, with interest, outstanding	$332,133	00Deposits due to provincial Government	
26,533	00
Deposits-
Savings and current	$1,134,425 00
Less, deposits after
hours paid.. ..	389 20

 1,134,035	80
Drafts issued	outstanding	
23,690	00Due to creditors for moneys collected	
13,704	00All other claims	
20,754	00

Assets.
Deposits with Receiver General to
secure circulation	$ 21,000 00
Bank premises and furniturevalued at	
3,500	00Mining properties-valued	at. .	..	2,500	00Real estate and	mortgages	held	..	40,286	00Value of accounts and bills receivable-say	
47,303	00

Double liability-estimated value
of uncollected portion	 120,779 00
Keeley mine-option price	 150,000 00

In regard to the last named item, the Keeley mine, option price $150,000, I was advised by the liquidator on April 3 that he expected that the option would be exercised by the parties who hold it. It must be exercised within the next two months and,
I understand, that $10,000 has been paid down for the option. I have been told by the liquidator that ore to the amount of $30,000 or $40,000 has been blocked out which will belong to the liquidator in the event of the option not being exercised. He seems to be of the opinion that the option will be exercised and that the mine will realize $150,000. Consequently, it has been included in the list of assets of the bank. From this statement, including all assets upon which, in the opinion of the liquidator, it may be hoped there will be realization, it will appear that the depositors both on savings and current accounts, will receive nothing. In addition to the liabilities mentioned here there will be the cost of the liquidation which will be fairly heavy. There will be the remuneration and disbursements of the liquidator and the legal costs.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What will they
get from the double liability?


William Thomas White: The liquidator estimates
that the double liability will produce $120,779.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the Government get the proceeds of the option on the Keeley mine if it is exercised by the option holder?


William Thomas White: The proceeds of the option on the Keeley mine, as I explained, are included in this statement of assets and: with that included there will be nothing *left for the depositors on savings and current accounts. In the Bill which I propose-to introduce, the Government upon payment of the depositors, will be subrogated to their rights in the liquidation. In the event of there being any balance, that would belong to the Government and the Government would be entitled to the benefits of the shb~ rogation.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the parties who
nave money on credit with the bank, though without having it actually on deposit, get .any benefit from this legislation?


William Thomas White: The Bill covers only depositors on current and saving accounts; it does not cover those who hold drafts ox money orders on the bank.
222i


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I noticed in the press a statement to the effect that there was some agreement existing between the depositors and the shareholders as to the partition of any amount received from the Government under this 'Bill. Will the minister inform the House if he knows of any such payment, and if so, what is the nature of it?


William Thomas White: I have no authentic information respecting the agreement in question. I have seen in the press, no doubt the same reports that my hon. friend has seen, in which it has been stated that depositors, of their own motion, would contribute such an amount from the sums which were received from the Government as would relieve the shareholders from their double liability, but I have no official knowledge of it nor do I know whether all the depositors, or, if some, how many, have entered into such an agreement. My information is hearsay only, as, I understand, is the case with my hon. friend.


Mr. PROULX:: The minister stated that the Government would be subrogated in their rights; will the Government exact the double liability from the shareholders?
Mr .WHITE .The G-overnment would not be in a position to exact anything. The liquidation is under the Dominion Winding-up Act, and it would be the duty of the liquidator to carry out his liquidation under the provisions of that Act. That would include the question of double liability. After all the liabilities are paid and the costs and expenses of the liquidation provided for, in the event of there being a surplus which would be available for the depositors on current and savings account, the Government would be subrogated to their rights in respect of such surplus available for them. But I must state to my hon. friend that the question is not likely to arise, for the reason that the liquidator has included in this statement, which I have placed upon ' Hansard,' the sum of $120,779 as the estimated value of the uncollected portion of the double liability, and even with that amount included the assets would appear to me, on the statement insufficient to meet the liabilities other than those to depositors. So that, in so far as the subrogation clause _ is concerned, I do not suggest that the Government will receive anything in respect to it, so far as I can judge from the statement which has been furnished me by the liquidator.

In concluding my remarks, which have 'been general in character, and reserving what I have to say in greater detail to the second reading of the Bill, I desire to call attention to the remarks of the commissioner on page 10 of the printed report as to the conduct of the bank under Travers and the nature of the failure of the bank. He says:
The subsequent management of the affairs of the hank was characterized by gross extravagance, recklessness, incompetency, dishonesty and fraud, and has resulted in the entire loss of the paid-up capital and the whole of the deposits, and that after allowing for all that can be extracted from the shareholders on their double liability a loss amounting to no less than $1,806,437, making a record unparalleled in the history of any bank in Canada, or, as far as I am aware, in any other country.
For the present, that is all I desire to say with regard to the resolution.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Does the minister intend to safeguard the depositors irrespective of the shareholders? It is known to a great many members of this House that copies of an agreement have been sent, I presume to all of the shareholders, asking that they sign them. This agreement provides in the main that if the depositors receive their deposits they will pay thirty per cent, of them for the benefit of the shareholders, so that there may be no double liability upon th& shareholders. I do not know that any one in the constituency I represent is interested particularly in the matter, but I have several clients from adjoining counties who have consulted me on that point, and I know from others that copies of this agreement have been sent them, and also letters, threatening them that if they do not sign they will not get anything.


William Thomas White: I ask merely for information; is my hon. friend aware as to how far these agreements have been signed, 'because I am not?


Hugh Guthrie: No, but I know from
some hon. members in this House that they have advised the depositors to sign, and I would like to know if it is the intention of the minister or of the Government to safeguard the depositors, even those who have signed these special agreements.


William Thomas White: How do you mean to safeguard them?


Hugh Guthrie: To see that the money is actually paid to the depositors, and we can do that by inserting a clause rendering

null and void any agreements that have been heretofore signed.


William Thomas White: The Government's action in this matter is not dependent in any degree whatever on what depositors may or may not do with their money. As I stated to my hon. friend from Halifax, I have no knowledge, except of a hearsay character, as to the agreement or agreements which have been referred to. If the depositor receives payment from the Government of Canada, I suppose it will be his money to deal with as he sees fit. It is the intention that these cheques shall be sent to the depositors themselves, from the Finance Department, when this Bill becomes law. Further than that, I do not see how it is possible to fetter the action of the depositors when they receive the money. My hon. friend has suggested that a clause might be inserted in the Bill that would safeguard the depositors, but if the depositor desires to use his money in a certain way after he receives it, I do not see how we can restrict him in what would appear to me to be his undoubted right. A question would also arise as to any agreements which he may have signed- and I have no knowledge as to how many of such agreements have been signed-as the question of how far a person has bound himself by contract would appear to me to be concerned with property and civil rights, unless, of course, it came exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament and we were dealing with it by legislation. If we discuss that here we will get into pretty deep legal waters.


Hugh Guthrie: If the cheque is sent to the individual depositor and not to any representative of the depositors, I think that will pretty well safeguard it.


William Thomas White: My idea is to send it direct.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The legislation which the Government purposes founding upon the resolution we are now considering is, I think, very regrettable indeed, and is establishing an extremely bad precedent. Further, I believe this legislation is proposed in face of the pretty strongly and generally expressed opposition of the people of this country. However, as the minister has suggested that it is more fitting that the discussion in detail upon the proposed Bill be postponed until the second reading, I .agree in that. I would like to ask the minister a question or two in respect to some returns I asked for the other day.
In the first place, I asked for a return giving the names of the depositors with the amounts of their deposits. I understand that the return has been placed upon the table of the House, but I believe it is very voluminous. My reason for requesting that return was that I wanted to ascertain what was the average amount deposited by each depositor. I would like to inquire if it is possible for the minister to direct that a statement be prepared by his officials between now and the second reading of the Bill, showing the number of depositors with, amounts between one dollar and $1,000, and between $1,000 and $2,000, and so on, deposited by each.


William Thomas White: I think I can give the hon. gentleman that information now.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would be glad if the hon. minister would put it on ' Hansard.' I want also to call, the minister's attention to the fact that I asked (for a return showing the amount of deposits at the end of each year beginning with 1906, the year of incorporation, and ending with 1910, the year the bank was suspended. If my hon. friend could give me that information now and place it upon ' Hansard,' I would be much obliged. Further, when the minister rises, I would like him to explain upon what principle the Government has decided to decline to meet the petition of the shareholders, and upon what principle he differentiates between the claims made -by the shareholders and the claims made by the depositors.


William Thomas White: Answering my hon. friend in. detail, I laid upon the table, I think in his absence, the other day, a list of all the depositors of the Farmers Bank, upon both current and savings accounts. I have also laid upon the table the return to which he has referred showing the amount of deposits on current and on savings accounts as of the close of the years, 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1910. My hon. friend has not seen that return, but it was laid upon the table within the last two or three days.


Mr. ROSS:: Has my hon. friend laid
upon the table a list of the shareholders; if not, will he do that also?


William Thomas White: I have not been asked for that, and I have not such a list. I think, however, I can obtain it and lay it upon the table later on. My hon. friend from Halifax has desired to obtain some infor-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the memorandum proceed any further than my hon. friend has read?


William Thomas White: No. If my hon. friend
would like to have the number of depositors havings deposits 'between the several thousands I cam get that information, if he thinks it is essential for the discussion of the Bill.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would like to see it.


William Thomas White: I will endeavour to get
the information.


Mr. KOSS:: Is my hon. friend going to allow the depositors any interest on their deposits?


William Thomas White: I do not think the depositors will insist upon interest.


James Hamilton Ross: The same principle will apply.


William Thomas White: You are speaking of the interest, not the principal.
My hon. friend from Halifax has asked as to how we differentiate the shareholders from the depositors. I think that is an easy differentiation. The shareholders of the bank are the proprietors of the bank; they elect their directors; the directors select or continue in office the manager and other

officers having under their control the administration of the bank. We cannot see any principle upon which the Government is justified in affording relief to the shareholders, because, as I have said, the shareholders are the proprietors, the owners of the bank, carrying on its business subject to the provisions of the Bank Act. If their directors, or the agent or agents of their directors, are dishonest or, by incompetence, extravangance or fraud, dissipate the assets of the bank, the shareholders cannot be heard to say that they have any claim for relief. [DOT]


Rodolphe Lemieux: The other day I put on the Order Paper a question which was answered by my hon. friend, and which was as follows:
Does the Government intend to reimburse the depositors of La Banque Ville Marie, La Banque du Peuple, and La Banque de St. Jean, three banks that have failed during the last fifteen or sixteen years?
My hon. friend answered ' mo.' Since getting that answer I have received some letters. The county of Rou ville, which I represent, the county of St. Jean, and Iberville and in some degree the county of St. Hyacinthe have been very deeply mulcted by the failure of La Banque de St. Jean two years ago. Especially in the parishes of St. Cesaire, St. Paul, Marieville, Ste. Angfele and L'Ange Gardien; many of my electors, many widows and many minors have been practically ruined by the failure of that bank.
As regards La Banque Ville Marie, I know perhaps more intimately the cause of the failure, because at that time I was practising law in Montreal; and I, with Mr. Gxeenshields K. C., happened [to be retained as counsel to defend some of those who were arrested in connection with the failure of the bank. We all know that the president and the manager were sent to jail, and that many people were ruined as a consequence of the failure.
We also know the causes of the failure of La Banque du Peuple. The manager had to leave the country and died in Chicago, ruining a large number of people. La Banque du Peuple, after the bank of Montreal, is the oldest in Old Canada, and the oldest amongst the French-Canadian families had their fortunes more or less involved in that bank. My hon. friend will understand that I am .sincere in asking this explanation. The people who have been affected by the failure of these banks will hardly understand why there is a differential treatment in their case. I might tell

my hon. friend that the management of La Banique Ville Marie and La Banque de St. Jean, and perhaps in a less degree of La Banque du Peuple, was characterized by the same recklessness as is described in the report signed by Chief Justice Meredith. When I recall what took place after the failure of La Banque Ville Marie, and of what took place before the court subsequent to the failure of La Banque St. Jean, I say this language applies exactly to those cases:
The subsequent management of the affairs of the bank was characterized by gross extravagance, recklessness, incompetency, dishonesty and fraud, and has resulted in the entire loss of the paid-up capital and the [DOT] whole of the deposits.
I say this language applies exactly to the management of these other banks. And the people will not understand why different treatment is meted out to those who lost their money in these banks and those who lost their money in the Farmers' Bank. Now, my hon. friend should give an explanation to the country, to the unfortunate depositors and shareholders-or let me say depositors, for I understand that the shareholders are not to be reimbursed-he should give an explanation to the unfortunate depositors of these banks setting forth the reason why they are not treated in the same way as the depositors of the Farmers' Bank are treated. I ask that in all sincerity and all frankness, reserving any further criticism of the subject for the present.


William Thomas White: I observed that my hon. friend was not in his place during the earlier part of my remarks upon the resolution. I supplied then the reason for the Government's action in bringing in a measure to reimburse the depositors in the Farmers Bank. He has referred to the consequences of certain bank failures. We all agree that in this and in all other cases of bank failures, the results have been most tragic-I think that is the word he used-
' to those who have lost through the failure of these banks and by the incompetence, fraud, and dishonesty of those in charge of those banks' affairs. My hon. friend has fixed upon one part of the report of the commissioner, at page 10, which he quotes, and he says that these remarks of this commissioner would apply equally to all the banks which he has drawn to my attention. But I would point out to him that the Government is not taking this action because of the fact that the banks' administration was characterized by ' gross extravagance, recklessness, incompetency, dishonesty and fraud ', to use the words of the commissioner-*


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman himself quoted that.


William Thomas White: I quoted that passage to show the character of the administration of the bank, but I say that the Government's action is not on that ground, or rather not solely on that ground; but, as I pointed out at the outset of my remarks, is based upon the finding of the commissioner, now Chief Justice of Ontario, which, I submit, shows conclusively that the conditions prescribed by the Bank Act as precedent to the issuance of the certificate of the Treasury Board had not been complied with, that the certificate had been obtained by fraud and dishonesty, and that the Treasury Board had been negligent in issuing it. The basis of the Government's action is negligence on the part of the Treasury Board, and I will read for the benefit of my hon. friend the portion of the report that I read during my remarks at the beginning of this discussion. I read from the printed report of the commissioner, page 8, first paragraph:
My conclusion on this branch of the Inquiry is that the Treasury Board was induced to give its certificate by false and fraudulent representations on the part of Travers, and that if the facts I have mentioned as to the way in which tne $250,000 was made up had been disclosed, the certificate of the Treasury Board would not have been given.
I read paragraph 6 on the same page:
I do not suggest that the minister would have been justified because of the information conveyed to him in recommending that the certificate should not be granted, or that the Treasury Board because of it would not have been justified in refusing to grant it, but, having received the information

That is to say, in reference to the fraud which was being practised by Travers.
-it was in my opinion incumbent on the Treasury Board to have investigated the charges that had been made before coming to a conclusion as to whether or not the certificate should be given.
It was ' incumbent upon the Treasury Board.' That is it was the duty of the Treasury Board, which duty the Treasury Board did not fulfil. Now, breach of duty is negligence. Therefore, the basis of the Government's action is negligence on the part of the Treasury Board which issued the certificate after express notice received that there had been irregularity. If the Treasury Board had made the inquiry which the commissioner says it was incumbent upon them to make, the bank would never have opened its doors for business, or if the

irregularities had been cured subsequently, the bank would never have opened its doors for business with Travers as general manager, because the inquiry which the commissioner says it was incumbent upon the Treasury Board to make would have disclosed the fact that Travers was a perjurer and a wholly unreliable person. And I pointed out that Travers had a five years' contract with the directors of the bank. The result was that the bank was launched- the provisions of the Bank Act not having been complied with-with Travers at its head and with consequent loss to the depositors. Now, my hon. friend says:	How do you
differentiate this ease from the case of the other banks? It is not the policy of the Government, I repeat-it has never been the policy of any government in Canada-to reimburse depositors or other creditors of banks that have failed. Where I differentiate this case from the cases that have been drawn to my attention and all other cases is this,-that this Treasury certificate should not have been granted. That certificate was granted by the Treasury Board, and the Government is responsible for the action of the Treasury Board, at least morally; and the Treasury Board's action in this case was negligent, according to the findings of the commissioner. The hon. member for Rouville says that the people will not understand. But in view of the explanation I make, the people will understand. And I am aware that, now that I have made the explanation, he will help me to get the people to understand. If he will reply to the parties who have written to him, or if when he is upon the platform as he frequently is in dealing with political matters, he will say, that the Government's action in this case does not form a precedent, because in no other case has there been established negligence in the issue of the certificate, the people will understand and no misunderstanding will arise as to the action of the Government.
I repeat^although it would seem to me to be an unnecessary repetition-that the principle of the Government's granting relief in this case is the negligence of the Treasury Board, and the loss which resulted to the depositors of the Farmers' Bank as a natural consequence and outcome of that negligence.


Mr. DEVLIN:: May I ask the minister if this sum is to be paid in lieu of damages?


William Thomas White: No one has contended
that these depositors have a legal right against the Government which they could 
enforce by action. The Government's course is not based upon its legal liabilities, although I think on legal principles the Government is bound to reimburse these depositors. I think it can hardly be said, therefore, that payment by the Government is compensation for damages sustained by the depositors.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is not the occasion upon which to discuss the principles involved in this Bill; that discussion will come more properly on the second reading. But without waiting for that occasion, I must at once protest against the imputation-not only the imputation, but the charge-made by my hon. friend against Mr. Fielding: that he was guilty of negligence in issuing the certificate.


William Thomas White: I made it against the Treasury Board, on the finding of the commissioner.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Treasury Board was presided over by the Minister of Finance of the day; therefore the expression of my hon. friend the present Minister of Finance, no matter in what language it may be clothed, implies-not only implies, but asserts-that his predecessor in office was negligent of the duties incumbent upon him. I protest against the language of the Minister of Finance and say that he has no reason for making such a grave assertion against, a man of Mr. Fielding's character. I call the attention of the committee and of my hon. friend especially to the language of Mr. Justice Meredith, page 9 of the report:
There is, in my opinion, no ground for supposing that any improper influence was used to induce the Treasury Board to give the certificate or to induce the Minister of Finance to recommend the granting of it, and the most that can properly be charged against the Department of Finance or the Treasury Board is an error of judgment.
Error of judgment and negligence are two different things. Error of judgment cannot be called negligence of duty; it is an error in itself. But when you imply negligence, you imply that the party alleged to be guilty of that negligence did something which should not have been done and could not have been done without violating the moral law.


William Thomas White: Oh, no, not the moral law.


Wilfrid Laurier: I say that a man who is guilty of negligence has violated the moral law, and a violation of the


moral law is, in my opinion, a fault, if not a crime. But nothing of the kind can be charged against Mr. Fielding. The judge's finding upon this matter is that Mr. Fielding would have been better advised if he had prosecuted his inquiry more than he did; that is all. Therefore the imputation which my hon. friend wishes to make does not apply in this case. If there was negligence on the part of Mr. Fielding the question of how far the Government would be responsible would be a very different question; the Government would be responsible morally, if not otherwise. If a minister of the Crown has made an error of judgment, it is simply a question of his having made a mistake which has no legal or moral consequences. Of course, there may have been political consequences. It is always a serious charge that there has been an error of judgment, but we are all liable to err, and, after all, if. the only charge that can be made against a minister of the Crown who has been fifteen years in office is that upon a certain occasion >he committed an error of judgment, the charge is but a minor one. As I have said, this present occasion is not the time to discuss the Bill, but I say it is not fair to Mr. Fielding to say that he has been guilty of negligence. The charge against him . is one of error in judgment; let that pass until we come to the second reading of the Bill.
With regard to the matter which has been brought up by the hon. member for South Wellington-the assignment of claims on the part of depositors-the hon. Minister of Finance said that the money was to be paid to the depositors and that what they should do with their own money was their own business, not his. I agree with that, but at the same time there is another aspect of this case which must receive consideration. I have myself received a letter from an elderly lady telling me that she was almost forced to make an assignment of her claim to the shareholders. While the minister has nothing to do with that, as I do not think it can be provided against in the Bill, I think it would be well that it should be understood that no assignment of claim, whether partial or total, will be encouraged by the department, but that cheques shall be issued to the depositors. No assignment of claim should be admitted; if that is understood I shall be satisfied.
I have a question to ask my hon. friend with regard to the Keeley mine.
4 p.m. Travers assigned that mine property which is alleged to be
of the value of $150,000. Mining property is of a very unstable character; its value may be very high to-day and very low tomorrow. Upon what basis is the optional price put at $150,000?


William Thomas White: I have no information. except the statement of the liquidator that an option for $150,000 has been, given; that it is to be exercised within the next two months and that it is his view that it will probably be exercised.
I desire to take exception to the assertion of my right hon. friend that I have imputed, by using the term negligence, moral culpability to my predecessor in office. I call the committee to witness that I have upon every occasion dealt as fairly and justly as I believe it is possible fox a man to deal with my predecessor and his course in this House-


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: Because he is not here to defend himself. I always bear in mind the saying of Lord Bacon, that you should be tender to the memory of your predecessor because some day you may be a predecessor yourself. It may be that as to the question of negligence there is a distinction between the French law and the English law, but I may point out to my hon. friend-and there is not an English lawyer in the House who will not support me in the opinion which I now express- that an error of judgment may constitute negligence and that negligence does not necessarily imply moral culpability of any kind or nature whatsoever. For example, at common law a man may be negligent who miscalculates distance upon the street in driving his conveyance, if an accident results, causing damage. A man is bound to exercise the care which an ordinary man would exercise in his conduct towards his fellowmen. A man, by mere error of judgment involving no suggestion of moral obliquity, may become responsible at common law for negligence and its consequences. I did not mention, except in so far as I read it from the report of the commissioner, the name of my predecessor, but, of course, I am advancing to the committee the reasons for this legislation and I must advance them as they exist. The reasons for this legislation are that, according to the finding of Sir William Meredith, the commissioner, the Treasury Board did not do what he says it was incumbent upon the Treasury Board to have done. I lay it down as a principle of law which cannot be

controverted that if it is incumbent upon an individual or public body to do something and that individual or public body does not discharge that duty which it is incumbent upon him or them to discharge, that constitutes negligence. I have stated that no legal rights accrue to the depositors against the Government, but I was seeking to justify-and I think I have justified-the action of the Government on the analogy of legal principle, and, therefore, it was perfectly proper for me-and I do not think my course can be animadverted upon at all-to establish, from the finding of the commissioner, that the Treasury Board had been negligent in the issue of the certificate. I have said, and I repeat, that that does not by any means mean that my predecessor in office was guilty of any moral lapse or obliquity in the discharge of his duties as chairman of that board. My hon, friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has quoted a paragraph from the report. I may say that the commissioner is. there dealing with the question of whether money had been used by Travers to procure the issue of the certificate. It had been suggested that there was some impropriety connected with the issue of the certificate; that Travers had used money to purchase, so to speak, the certificate, and it was in dealing with that aspect of the case that the commissioner made the remarks my hon. friend has quoted. The commissioner says:
There Is, in my opinion, no ground for supposing that any improper influence was used to induce the Treasury Board to give the certificate-
I have not for a moment suggested that there was.
-or to induce the Minister of Finance to recommend the granting of it,-
I have never suggested that it was so used.
-and the most that can properly be charged against the Department of Finance or the Treasury Board is an error of judgment.
I submit that that error of judgment under the circumstances was negligence, or what we call negligence at the English common law-failure, either through lack of judgment or otherwise, to discharge the duty which the commissioner finds it was incumbent upon them to discharge.


Wilfrid Laurier: Are you going to proceed legally on this question?


William Thomas White: No, because, as I have said, the negligence cannot be established 
as against the Crown, or as against a minister of the Crown acting in his capacity as minister. What I have sought to do is to show that on legal analogy the action of the Government is justifiable by reason of the fact that the negligence to which I have referred on the part of the Treasury Board was the primary and original cause of the loss of this money to the depositors.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do you say that was the finding of the commissioner? Because he finds to the contrary.


William Thomas White: Of course, we knew before this report was issued that it was fraud on the part of Travers, and the recklessness and extravagance of his management, that brought this loss to the depositors of the bank; but my argument is this: if the 'Treasury Board had done what they should have done-in other words if they had not been negligent-then the character of Travers would have been discovered, the certificate would not have been issued, the bank would not have started, and there would have been no loss to the depositors.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If a man was
never born he would never sin.


William Thomas White: No certificate, no bank and no Travers; no bank or no Travers, no loss to depositors. That is the chain.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think the commissioner meant to ridicule that position.


William Thomas White: I do not think he made
any attempt to ridicule that position. The commissioner says in the concluding portion of his report:
Notwithstanding the irregularities on the part of Travers and his misconduct in connection with the application for the certificate, which I have mentioned, the evidence satisfies me that if the bank had been prudently and honestly managed there is no reason why it should not have succeeded.


Mr. CARVELL:: Why blame Mr. Fielding?


William Thomas White: I agree with that. It is
perfectly obvious that if the 'bank had been honestly managed there would have been no loss.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
William Thomas White: I can only say in answer to my hon. friend that I do not know of any political obligation that the Government has to discharge, and it might be that my hon. friend from Middlesex (Mr. Boss) could answer that question better than I can. I have given the grounds for the Government's action and, I think, strong and cogent reasons justifying this measure of relief to the depositors.


Mr.   BOSS@: As far as I am personally
concerned, I have no political obligations to discharge in 'connection with the Farmers Bank, and in that regard I am probably in a more enviable position than the minister's colleagues. It seems to me that either the minister's argument goes too far, or that his Bill is not going far enough. If, as he says, the reason for this relief being given is that there was negligence on the part of the Finance Minister and the Treasury Board in the initial stages, that negligence caused loss to the shareholders as well as to the depositors, and if the basis is as he says, he should go further and help the shareholders as well as the depositors. Either his reasoning is not good, or his assistance to those who lost in the Farmers Bank does not go far enough. I think that what the hon. member for Halifax has suggested is probably correct, that the Government by this expenditure of $1,200,000 is trying to discharge some political obligations with which they have encumbered themselves. I do not believe that the Finance Minister, in his heart, believes that this is a good principle to establish. Speaking for myself, I think this is an exceptional case, and I do not think it should be allowed to become a precedent in connection with the banking affairs of this country. I may say plainly to the House that considering the greatness of the disaster in Ontario through the failure of the Farmers Bank I, personally, am in favour of repaying the depositors for two reasons, and probably more: firstly, because the injury to the farmers of this country is so widespread and deeply, felt; and secondly, because as a matter of principle-I know the minister does not agree with me in this-the depositors of every chartered bank in this country should be protected. I think the Government should compel the banks themselves to give this protection, and because they have' not done so is sufficient reason for' the minister assisting the Farmers Bank depositors at any rate. But I think the Government should go farther, and if the minister's argument is good, and in some way assist the shareholders also. If the minister did that-as has been agreed upon between the depositors and shareholders- it would be perfectly right so far as I can see, in this very exceptional case, which however, by proper legislation being enacted as I advocated last session should not be allowed to become nor could it become a precedent.
We had no branch of the Farmers Bank in my riding but some of the depositors did live in that riding, and I know depositors and shareholders who have suffered. They were both misled by the same fraud, misrepresentation and dishonesty. When the minister puts his proposed assistance upon the ground that he has, it is the duty of the Government to go farther than they have done or put their assistance upon some other ground.
Mr. LEMIEI7X:	In view of what has
been said by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White), would he not consider an application on behalf of the depositors of La Banque Ville Marie, La Banque du Peuple and La Banque St. Jean? I think that when my hon. friend is made aware of the facts in connection with the failure of these banks he will find that representations were made to the officers of the Finance Department at the time that the aforesaid banks were mismanaged. The people have it in their heads that if the officers of the Finance Department had been more diligent perhaps the failures might have been averted. I would like to have an answer from my hon. friend whether in view of this [DOT] legislation, in view of the fact that the Farmers Bank depositors are compensated, he will consider my application. Some yeaTS ago the then hon. member for Jacques Cartier, Mr. Monk, -and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) will remember, it-took very strong ground in this House that the depositors in La Banque du Peuple should be recouped their losses. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance says that this legislation is based on the fact that an error of judgment was committed by the Treasury Board. I have always been educated under

the British constitutional system to the notion that the King could do no wrong. Can we not compare the action taken by my hon. friend in so far as the Treasury Board is concerned with the action which might be taken by the Minister of Justice, for instance in a case of miscarriage of justice? My hon. friend contends that he does not recoup the depositors of the Farmers Bank because of the crookedness, extravagance or perversity of Travers and his associates but because forsooth, an error of judgment was committed by the Treasury Board. Now, Sir, is not the Government also responsible for the administration of justice? The appointment of judges is made by the Minister of Justice after a recommendation is brought before Council. You appoint a judge, say in my district; he is supposed to be well versed in the law, honest and sober. He goes on the Bench, a case is brought before him, and, as a result of his inebriety, or his dishonesty, or ignorance of the law, he ruins the litigant coming before him-would not the litigant in that case be as much entitled, as a result of your error of judgment in appointing that judge, to receive compensation from the Government as the depositors of the Farmers Bank are to-day? The unfortunate appointment was made by the Government of a man supposed to be well versed in the law and to be honest, and yet the momen' he sits on the Bench he becomes dishonest, displays ignorance of the law, and as a consequence he ruins the litigants by his judgments-I ask again have not the litigants recourse against the Government? If we must accept the dictum of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance in the case of the Farmers Bank depositors the ruined litigants would have logically the same recourse. I think that this legislation, as my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) stated a moment ago, creates a grave precedent, and if my hon. friend refers to the conservative press of the country-1and when I use the word ' conservative ' I apply it not only to the press of the Conservative persuasion, but, in its proper and wider sense-he will find that this legislation is very much deplored indeed. In my judgment, if the Government must reimburse the Farmers Bank depositors, the depositors of the Banque du Peuple, the Banque Ville Marie and La Banque St. Jean-my electors-should receive similar treatment, and for my part, I will try and see that they agitate to get justice the same as the Farmers Bank depositors have.


Mr. NICKLE:: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend allow me; the Ville-Marie bank, let it be well understood, because we have enough sins of our own to answer for, was not a French-Canadian bank. It had a French-Canadian name only.


William Folger Nickle: Then let me put it generally, and speaking generally I say that I do not believe there should be one law for one part of the country and another law for another part of the country, in matters of this sort!


Rodolphe Lemieux: Although the Ville-Marie bank was not a French-Canadian bank, the French-Canadian people lost heavily.


William Folger Nickle: One of my friends beside me says that there is not one law for one part of the country and another law for another part of the country. My opinion is that this is making one law in one case and none in another. That may be a question of judgment, and I am only giving my judgment this afternoon. Through a very peculiar coincidence I happen to hold two shares in the Farmers Bank, which, of course, was a mere trifle, but the most careful inquiry I had been able to make when that bank went into liquidation convinced me that the loss was all due to Travers' irregularities and not to any irregularity on the part of the Government; and, that while the ex-Minister of Finance was probably somewhat careless in the granting of the certificate, yet, after that certificate was
issued, if the management of the bank had been honest and proper, there would not have been any loss, but the bank would have been a success. In my judgment, the efficient and proximate cause of the failure was not the granting of the certificate but the irregularity and criminal conduct of the management.


John Hampden Burnham: Some of these gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, are going too far afield. If you look at what occurred immediately after the certificate was given, you will find out who was liable and who was not. Where the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Niekle) is at fault is that he does not distinguish between (negligence and gross negligence. It is quite true that ordinary common negligence may not'imply responsibility, but gross negligenoe is an entirely different thing, and I contend that in this case there certainly was very gross negligence.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: How do you know?


John Hampden Burnham: I am stating my case, and if the hon. gentleman will wait I will tell him more. Therefore, we have to deal with the question of gross negligence. Now, then, is the extraordinary principle to be laid down that a Government is above all liability, that it may blunder, that it may do the most stupid things, that it may in fact do criminal things, and yet not be responsible?
Mr-. NICKLE:	Is it not correct in law
to say that a petition of right could issue to permit the trial of the responsibility of a government for the negligence of an official?


John Hampden Burnham: I think it is, but that is entirely contrary to what the hon. gentleman has just said. According to my understanding there can be no question in the mind of the ordinary citizen that the Government that undertakes to do a thing, by the very fact that it has undertaken to do it-incurs a co-relative responsibility, if it undertakes to issue a certificate. If it states that a bank can go on without a certificate, well and good, but where the Government says that a bank cannot go on without a certificate and prescribes the rules for the issuance of that certificate, there is beyond all question a responsibility upon the Government to see that no gross negligence is committed. To say that the efficient cause is subsequent to the issuance of a

certificate, is to say that had a thief who stole the money and run been caught as he might have been caught as he ran through the streets, the loss would not have occurred. But that is an entirely different proposition.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When did the hon. gentleman contend that this gross negligence took place? Was it ^during the administration of the bank, after it commenced business, or before?


John Hampden Burnham: It certainly was before the certificate had issued. As I understand the evidence, it was pointed out very clearly that a full and complete warning was given to the people who had the power to issue the certificate, but notwithstanding that fact, when they should have been alert to catch every sound of warning, especially in such an affair as this, they absolutely glossed it all over and issued a certificate, and it was because they issued that certificate an!d because of the right of the bank to transact business that the people of this country put their money in the bank on the assurance that the Government was transacting its business properly, and so lost their money. It had nothing whatever to do with Travers; it had nothing whatever to do with the management of the bank; the fact is that because the certificate had been granted the people put their money in the bank.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What about the shareholders?


John Hampden Burnham: They of course are supposed to look into the management of the bank themselves. They are one with Travers, in my opinion, and whilst they cannot be charged with criminal negligence, they certainly ought to be charged with gross negligence, and ought not to get anything at all. They have been mulcted to the extent of their double liability, and quite properly so. That is my opinion upon that. As to French-Canadian banks, are we to be threatened? I say that whether they are French-Canadian banks or not, if the money is stolen from the people under the circumstances of this case, they should get their money.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


John Hampden Burnham: Certainly, why not. But the idea set out by prominent gentlemen sitting in this House, that if other institutions are not recouped, nothing shall be done for the people who suffered in this case, is the most monstrous doctrine I have

ever heard. And the converse is true: if right is done in this case, it must be done in every case; if these other banks, on investigation, are proven to be in the same position as this bank, then pay the people their money. But do not let it go abroad that the poor people of this country, relying on the certificate of a Government, may put their money on deposit in a bank -and are to have no reliance on, the Government and no recourse when their money is taken from them. Are we to understand that a Government may be grossly negligent, yes, even inhumanly negligent, and sti'll escape liability? And yet that is the doctrine that is laid -down here to-day by some hon. gentlemen.


Mr. HUGH CLARK:: If the debate is to go on at this -stage, I do not see why I should not make a few observations. I quite approve of the -stand taken by my hon. friend from Middlesex (Mr. Ross), but I quite disapprove of hi-s reason for taking that -stand. I do not think there could be any excuse for this Government, or for any government, coming to the aid of any bank for the reason that that bank had been improperly managed, or that there has been subsequent loss through the mismanagement, or incompetency, or fraud, or anything else of that sort. I would not support this Government if they tried to recompense the depositors for that reason. I support the Government for the reason given by the Minister of Finance, namely, that the certificate was wrongfully obtained, and that the initial mistake was made by the late Government in granting the certificate. Any person who has read the evidence can come to no other conclusion than that there was absolute lack of care and caution on the part of the Treasury Board. That can be stated without singling out any individual, and particularly the late Minister of Finance. To say that there was no negligence is to overlook the fact that the ex-Minister of Finance him-self was warned as to the process by which the subscriptions were being received by Mr. Traver-s and others. And, as to there being political reasons for thi-s action, there are no political reasons that do not apply to both parties. Hon. gentlemen who heard read the list of names of the depositors in that bank, will remember that the very first reference was to the township of Zorra, represented by my hon. friend from North -Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). A large number were in the eon-

*stituency represented by my hen, friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Ross).


Edmond Proulx: Does the hon. member
mean to say that the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) made the promise?


Hugh Clark: No. Nor did I.


James Hamilton Ross: There was not a large number mentioned from my riding; there was not one single name.


Hugh Clark: As far as differentiating
between the shareholders and the depositors is concerned, I do not think for one minute that the shareholders should be considered at all. A shareholder is a man who enters into a business of that sort as an investor. He knows what he is doing; he becomes a proprietor of the bank; he knows that there is a double liability. He knows the hazard of his venture, because he makes an investment on which there is a double liability; but the depositor, in almost every case when he deposits his money in a chartered bank, believes he is depositing it there for safekeeping, and that the stability of this country is behind the bank. At any rate, he used to believe that, before the failure of the Farmers Bank. I cannot see where my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) finds any logic whatever in making a parallel between this and a judgment given by a judge which may ruin a litigant, although the judge may have been improperly appointed by this Government. In that case a litigant has more than one appeal against the judgment of that particular judge. In any event it is not a parallel case. I do not approve of my hon. friend the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) stating that this is a pernicious and obnoxious precedent. It is not a precedent for such cases as advanced by my hon. friend the member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). No person has ever alleged that any of these banks obtained their certificates through fraudulent means. No person has ever contended that the certificates granted to these banks weTe obtained from the Minister of Finance or the Treasury Board after the Treasury Board had been warned that wrongful practices were being resorted to for the purpose of procuring deposits. It will be a precedent, and I hope that it will be observed as a precedent, if the Minister of Finance of the present day or of any future time shall issue a certificate to a number of men who are organizing a bank and who have
obtained a charter or a certificate to do business for that bank in the same way that Mr. Travers and others did in connection with the Farmers Bank.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. W. T. White thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 185, for the relief of the depositors of the Farmers Bank of Canada.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) moved second reading of Bill No. 183, to provide for the payment of a yearly allowance to Mrs. Alice Joynson, widow of the late J. H. Joynson, a guard in the British Columbia penitentiary.
Frank Oliver: Perhaps the minister will make a very short statement of the occasion, and there may be no discussion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The matter was discussed somewhat fully when the resolution on which the Bill is based was before the House. The purpose is to provide an annuity for the lady mentioned who is the widow of a man who was a gum d in the British Columbia penitentiary. Something over a year ago, this man was killed in endeavouring to prevent the escape from the penitentiary of two very desperate criminals. In their endeavour to escape, one of the criminals was killed and, very unfortunately, this man Joynson was also killed. I may say that his conduct on the occasion showed what I think may be properly described as conspicuous bravery. These two desperate men had succeeded, in the first place, in depriving one of the guards of the penitentiary, who was in immediate supervision over them, of his revolver, and then, by threatening other guards as they passed through different portions of the penitentiary grounds with this revolver, they succeeded in possessing themselves of the revolvers of those guards too. They had reached the final gates which separated them from liberty and were threatening the guards upon the wall when this man Joynson came to the rescue and at the risk, and, as it proved, at the price of his own life, intervened to prevent the escape. He has left a widow who has some small children and who is not in a position to maintain herself. Therefore we propose to give her a small annuity of $500 a year, the money to be paid to her monthly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In connection with
this Bill, as I unintentionally did an injustice to my hon. friend the Postmaster General the other day in referring to the Oka Case, I wish to state most emphatically that I read this morning the fourth volume of the debates of 1911-12, after the explanation made by my hon. friend, and he is right in his explanation. When we discussed that case in the House, the hon. member for Two Mountains (Mr. Ethier) asked that certain provision be made for the widow and that the mail contract be given to her. I see by ' Hansard ' that my hon. friend said at the time that it was not possible to give the contract, because the children were too young and the people objected to that contract being handed to minors. He said, however, at that time that he would see at the next session or at the earliest opportunity-it was in the dying days of the session-that a certain amount would be paid to the widow as a gratuity, and this morning I saw the cheque. I beg to apologize to the hon. minister for making the statement I did.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the chair. [DOT]
On section 1-pension for Mrs. Joynson:
Frank Oliver: On what principle did the hon. gentleman fix the compensation in this case? Is this a certain proportion of the salary of the deceased?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The man was earning at the time $700 a year. We allowed Mrs. Joynson last year the salary for that year. Now, we are allowing $500. Perhaps it is a little difficult to say that there is any principle upon which we fixed it, save that it may be said that this family were living on $700, and there was the man himself to maintain. We know that less than $500 would not be worth while, and that this sum will at least help this woman and her children.


Frank Oliver: I endorse what the minister has done in this matter; and should such an unfortunate case arise in the future, I hope there would be no hesitation in making proportionately liberal provision for the surviving dependents, and I would much rather the error should be on the side of liberality than on the side of economy.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.	,


INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 114, to amend the Indian Act.-Mr. Roche. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-power to establish industrial schools, etc. :
William James Roche: When this Bill was before the House on the last occasion when I was present, it was pointed out that this section might be interpreted to be rather wider than it was intended by the department to be. It was stated that any school to which was committed an Indian child might be considered an industrial school within the meaning of this section. That was not the design. In accordance with the suggestion made on that occasion by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), I beg to move the following in lieu of that section:
The Governor in Council may establish an industrial school or a boarding school for Indians, or may declare any school or Institution where children are provided with board and lodging as well as instruction and with the managing authorities of which the superintendent general has made an agreement for the admission of an Indian child or children and for the inspection of the school or Institution, to be an industrial school or boarding school for the purpose of this or the next following section.
This provides that where an arrangement has been made between the superintendent general and the authorities of the school, that is, where it is mutually agreeable, it can be done.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That meets the objection, so far as I am concerned.


Frank Oliver: I would like to have it clearer that this agreement spoken of is not merely an agreement as to the maintenance and control of that child, but is an agreement as to the measure of control of the school by the Government in consideration of the aid given.


William James Roche: Yes, that is the idea.


Frank Oliver: That is the purport of the agreement ?


William James Roche: Yes.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 2-taking land for schools:


Frank Oliver: When this section was up the other night, I criticised it on the ground that it seemed to me that the occasion was trifling as a warrant for interference with the rights of the Indian to his land. I think that possibly some isolated instance has

occurred, and it is proposed to cure the difficulty by legislation. But I think it would be better to allow the individual difficulty to remain rather than to interfere by legislation with the ownership of land by the Indian. There is nothing upon which the Indians are quite so touchy as the ownership of land, and it is not well to interfere with them in any way unless the circumstances make it unavoidable.


William James Roche: This is because of a certain difficulty having arisen where land was nee'ded and was refused by the Indian. Of course, it is not intended that the land should be taken without compensation. We are not very particular about securing this power, but we think that in case of similar difficulty arising it is better that this should be passed rather than see a school blocked.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-withdrawal of half-breed from treaty; status of wife:
Frank Oliver: When this section was under consideration the other night, I mentioned the fact that under recent conditions-I am not sure whether under present conditions or not-half-breed scrip is issued to members of bands who withdraw from those bands. If there is no issue of scrip, if that absolutely does not exist, the objection I make does not hold. But if half-breed scrip is issued to members of bands who withdraw from those bands, then the effect of this section would be to double the object of the scrip speculator in securing the withdrawal of the members from the band by automatically withdrawing the wife with the husband. Either the woman would be entitled to the scrip or she would lose the benefit of being in the band. Either one or other would be detrimental to the interest of the half-breeds.


William James Roche: I have read the hon. member's criticism on this point. It is not the intention to issue any further scrip. The issue of scrip has ceased, and will not be made in the future.


Frank Oliver: How long is it since any scrip has been issued?


William James Roche: None has been issued within the last two or three years.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-compulsory, etc., sale of reserve:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the hon. minister considered the protest of the Caughnawaga Indians on this subject?


William James Roche: I think the Caughnawaga Indians are unnecessarily alarmed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the effect of the clause?	.


William James Roche: We have already an amendment, by which there is a portion of a reserve that is required for some public purpose, adjacent to a city or town of 8,000 population, and where the Indians refuse to surrender and are absolutely preventing the development of that portion of the country, provision was taken by my predecessor to have a reference to a judge of the Exchequer Court for inquiry and report to the Governor in Council, which report is placed before Parliament and must be passed upon	by	Parliament beforethe Governor	in	Council can act.
The Act is being further amended by doing away with the limitation to cities and towns of a population of 8,000 or more, so that wherever lands are required for similar purposes, they shall, where the indians refuse to surrender, be dealt with in a similar way. There is no design upon the Caughnawaga reserve; the amendment introduced in 1911 has never been called into requisition and this one may never be called into requisition. There is no danger of the Caugbna-wagans losing their reserve.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am glad to accept the word of my hon, friend in that regard. The Chief of the Caughnawaga band wrote the letter which I read the other day in the House, but after my hon. friend's assurance that they need not be nervous about any sinister design on his part, I suppose they will now be satisfied.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the procedure in the obtaining of portions of Indian reserves not in or near a town, for industrial purposes? Is it complicated?


William James Roche: In such cases we secure a surrender from the Indians.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the procedure?


William James Roche: We send one of our officials to the reserve, and he calls a meeting of the band and places the proposition before them. A vote is secured, and all that is necessary is the assent of the majority of the band. No protracted time is required and there is no complication.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is conveyance made by the chief of the Indian tribe?


William James Roche: Yes.


Mr. MARCIL:: The rumour is prevalent that an effort is to be made to take the Restigouehe reserve, or a large portion of it, for the establishment of a mill. The reserve is opposite the town of Campbellton, in the province of New Brunswick. In this case, it is not the town but some industrial corporation that is asking for further taking over of the reserve.


William James Roche: I understand that in the
past there have been some negotiations between the owners or proprietors of the proposed mill and the Indians, but the Indians have thus far refused to surrender.


Charles Marcil: It would seem that under this section the company can get the reserve by going to the Exchequer Cojirt.


William James Roche: Not unless the proposed
establishment is considered by the Exchequer Court to be a public utility.


Charles Marcil: The Baie des Chaleurs
Milling Company are located on the reserve at the present time. There is a rumour that these people are looking for a site for a pulp mill along the Restigouehe river and that they have taken up several options. It is openly stated that they are going to locate on this reserve and I would like to know from the minister Whether any application has been received in this regard.


William James Roche: It is true that so far as the mill is concerned they have an old lease from the Indian Department, but it would be impossible for that company to step in and take away any portion of the reserve without the consent of the Indians, from whom they must secure formal surrender. This provision distinctly states that the matter shall be referred to the Exchequer Court of Canada for inquiry and report as to whether the taking over of any portion of the reserve is expedient and as to whether the interests of the public and of the Indians of the'band will thereby be served.


Charles Marcil: Formerly, if the Indians
refused to surrender, that was the end of it, but now any company desiring to obtain the land may go to the Exchequer Court and, by following the necessary process, oan get the reserve or any portion of it. Campbelton is not a town having a population of 8,000 and it seems to me that under this legislation the company will be able to get this reserve.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman is, I
think, confounding private enterprises with public utility. .


Charles Marcil: It may be declared that
this private enterprise is a public utility. Although the minister may not know it, I am satisfied that some person may take advantage of this provision. ,


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman knows that if this case were brought before the Exchequer Court the supreme authority is, after all, the Parliament of Canada. Parliament must pass upon it favourably before any action can be taken.


Charles Marcil: Whether or not it is intended to furnish means by
5 p.m. which, this oan be done, it is the intention of that industry that it is to be done. These Indians would thereby be dispossessed; they would be forced out of their lands, which would be turned over to this company by the usual process.


William James Roche: I have not in mind the
case to which my hon. friend refers.
Mil-. CARVELL:	The minister will remember that early in the session I asked him some questions with regard to the Tobi-qne reserve. As my hon. friend knows, the valuable timber upon one portion of that reserve was pretty well cleaned off by his friend, Mr. Smith, during the last year, but the upper portion of the reserve still has a considerable amount of valuable timber.
I am afraid that under thi3 section the remainder of the lumber may be appropriated by gentlemen who require it in their business. One gentleman said that he had a mill a few miles down the river and as the lumber would be worth a little more to him than to anybody else, he ought to have it. I would like to know if the minister thinks this section is strong enough to allow.these gentlemen; to come in and gather up the remainder of the Tobique Indian reserve.


William James Roche: I think not. It is not designed to cover a case of that kind and I am satisfied in my own mind that it would not cover it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I lam glad indeed to
hear that, and I hope the minister will give us a promise that the remainder of the Tobique Indian' reserve will not be gathered in by the politicians of New Brunswick,

the same ,as the southern portion of the reserve has already been gathered in.


William James Roche: I think probably the hon. gentleman has in view the gathering in, as he calls it, of certain timber that is upon the reserve. Certain lands were disposed of from time to time before this Government came into power, and recently a portion of the timber was sold, but that has nothing whatever to do with this provision of the Act. Every case will be dealt with on its merits. It is not my present intention to alienate any other portion of the Tobique reserve, and I am sure that unless they can make ont a very good case it wall not be done.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am glad to hear that.
I do not want to discuss just now the details of what is taking place because I think this is not the proper occasion, and I hope to have an occasion of doing so before prorogation. The minister will understand, however, that we have alienated portions of this reserve and, according to the returns, alienated it without much rhyme or reason, and so far as I can see without any application on the part of the persons who purchased it. The matter seemed to be the suggestion of the minister's own department that this land should be sold to Mr. Smith. I only hope that no more suggestions like that will be made, and that what remains of the Indian reserve will be maintained for the Indians and not for the benefit of the politicians.


William James Roche: It was surrendered by the Indians.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I understand that a
portion of the land on the south of the Tobique river had been surrendered by some arrangement so that the department was in a position to sell; but the department was not in a position to give this land over to a political supporter without public competition and without the public knowing anything about it; and giving it to him for one-quarter of what the land was worth and allowing him to steal what valuable timber there was on it. Surely the department was not justified in doing that. However, I shall discuss that later.


Mr. KYTE:: Has it come to the knowledge of the minister that there is an Indian reserve in the city of Sydney upon which certain individuals have been casting envious eyes for some years? I understand that applications, in one form or another, 223i
have been made-or were made, at all events, to the late Minister of the Interior- and I think the efforts in that direction have been continued up to a comparatively recent date.


William James Roche: Propositions have been
made to the department on more than one occasion to have the Indians moved from their present location in the town of Sydney to some other place. The Indians have not been agreeable to such a transfer and, therefore, the department have not proceeded with the case at all. The Indians are not being disturbed, and will not be disturbed without their consent.


George William Kyte: Will the passage of this Act make it easier to remove the Indians from that reserve ?


William James Roche: Not unless it is desired to use the land for some public purpose. The judge of the Exchequer Court must first decide that it is a question not only of expediency but in the interests of the public as well as in the interests of the Indians. This amendment is not designed to cover that particular case, or any case like it. Propositions have come in to the department about that reserve, but invariably the Indians have refused to surrender their land, and that settles it so far as the department is concerned. We have no intention of calling this Act into requisition in order to dispossess them of their land.


George William Kyte: I understand the minister to say that it is only in the event of the land being required for public purposes that the Indians may be ultimately removed.


William James Roche: I might say to my hon. friend that the amendment brought in in 1911 would cover this particular case, because Sydney has a population of 8,000 people.


George William Kyte: So if this Act is passed, it will not be any easier to get rid of the Indians than heretofore ?


William James Roche: Not at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister so intends to administer the Act that the land will not be sold unless it is required in the public interests. I am afraid, however, that the Bill does not very happily cover the minister's intentions, and it is possible that at some future date there will be another minister of the Interior not possessed of the same high ideals as the present one. If the minister will read section 6 carefully he will see that it is not

confined to the case of a public body requiring the land. It 'says:
In a case of an Indian reserve which adjoins or is situated wholly or partly within an incorporated town or city or in the immediate neighbourhood thereof or which contains more land than is necessary for the use of the band-
That is the point.
-or which is so situated as to materially retard the natural development of the surrounding country-[DOT]
But, to go bacik a moment, it says: 'which contains more land than is necessary for the use of the band.' It seems to me that the minister should eliminate that line from the Bill, because you can hardly find an Indian reserve in the Dominion in regard to which some enterprising gentleman will not be convinced that they have more land than is required for the use of the band, and, once he convinces the minister that such is the case, he then has a right to apply for it. The .section goes on:
-which reserve has not been released or surrendered by the Indians and which the Indians refuse to surrender, the Governor in Council may, upon the recommendation of the Superintendent General, refer to the Exchequer Court of Canada for inquiry and report the question as to whether it is expedient, having regard to the interest of the public and of the Indians of the,band for whose use the reserve is held, that the whole or any portion of the said reserve should be sold for the benefit of the Indians, and that the Indians should be removed from the reserve or any part of it.
To go back to the Tobique Indian reserve, to which I have already referred. There are thousands of acres in that reserve that the Indians do not occupy. They occupy only a very small portion of me reserve; I think I am safe in saying that nine-tenths of the reserve is entirely in forest land, and I can quite understand how a number of enterprising gentlemen from New Brunswick may come here and convince-not this minister, because he has had a little experience of them-the minister's successor-that there is more land there than is necessary for the use of the Indians, and therefore persuade him to sell, not the whole of it, but the portion that has valuable timber. Those words in lines 21 and 22 of .section 6 on page 2 are the ones to which I object. I am afraid it is opening up a very wide field indeed.
I can readily understand that, in the case of an Indian reserve situated right in the midst of a town, there may be very strong reasons why that reserve .should be opened to the public and the Indians removed to IMr. Carvell].
some other place. There would be strong reasons for that if some public utility required it, for instance, but I think this section leaves it open for any private individual who casts covetous eyes upon a portion of an Indian reserve to come to the minister, and possibly work the oracle and get possession of the property.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman overlooks this fact. The Minister of the Interior, no matter who he may be, has not power to sell the Indian reserve. The matter would have to be referred to the judge of the Exchequer Court who makes a full inquiry. Witnesses are examined under oath and the Indians are represented by counsel paid for by the department. The judge, after inquiring fully into the matter, makes his report to Parliament; and if Parliament pass upon it, the case goes to the Governor in Council for final action. That is exactly the procedure that took place under the late Administration. Parliament must pass upon it before it goes to the Governor in Council.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We know what Parliament means; we had an illustration of that, this afternoon, in connection with the Farmers Bank.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman will
have a chance to enter his protest if it is proposed to sell any part of a reserve.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And that is all.


William James Roche: We often have the jurisdiction of the Governor in Council called in question, and hear it said that this and that matter ought to be brought to the high court of Parliament. As I said, the Minister of the Interior, no matter who he may be, has no jurisdiction in the matter of selling an Indian reserve. All he can do is to refeT it to the Exchequer Court. It is then reported upon to Parliament, and Parliament passes upon it before the Governor in Council takes final action; so that I do not s>ee any force in the hon. gentleman's objection. No undue influence can be brought to bear upon the Minister of the Interior, for he simply cannot act.	1


Frank Oliver: Parliament is to-day laying down the law which will control the judge of the Exchequer Court when the question is brought before him. Parliament is contemplating to-day that, if there is more land in the Indian reserves than the Indians are using, the extra area may be taken from them on an order of the judge. It is perfectly clear that if a case in regard to a certain Indian reserve is

brought before the Exchequer Court, and if it is proven that there is more land in the Indian reserve than the Indians are beneficially using, the judge will have no discretion but to declare that a portion of the reserve shall toe taken from the Indians. That is the whole purpose of the Bill, that is what it says, that is what will be the necessary result. I maintain that this is most objectionable.


Mr. BRADBURY:: Will that apply to any reserve?


Frank Oliver: Yes. I think that the minister will realize that in pressing this legislation on Parliament he is proposing to destroy the treaty rights of the Indians by authority of Parliament. I am quite aware that Parliament can destroy these treaty rights but I am not prepared to admit that Parliament ought to. The minister may say that under the late Government provision was made for the taking of the land from the Indians toy the order of the Exchequer Court. It is quite true. A Bill was brought before Parliament by myself, as an emergency measure, after a complete declaration of the fact that it was trespassing upon the treaty rights of the Indians, and that it was a question as to which was the greater right and which was the greater wrong. It was particularly provided in the Bill that it should only have effect where, by reason of the proximity of a large population, the land occupied by the Indians had reached an abnormal cash value and the Indians in occupation were not receiving adequate benefit, and where the duty of the Government, as guardians of the Indians, required them to take such action as would ensure to them all of the increased value by reason of the proximity to a large population. That was the limitation under which that extraordinary power could be exercised through the courts. But my hon. friend departs from that extraordinary condition altogether and in any circumstances where any Indian reserve occupies a greater area than the Indians are using he can put this Act into operation and the judge of the Exchequer Court must act as he is directed by the terms of this section. In so far as the Minister desires to excuse this Bill by suggesting that its terms are parallel with the terms of the Act now on the statute book, I desire to repudiate the parallel absolutely and to say that the Act now on the statute book is within limitations which absolutely safeguard the rights of the Indians and that it was put there for the direct benefit of the Indians. This
Bill is certainly a trespass upon the rights of the Indians wherever they may be located throughout Canada.
There is another feature of this Indian question that I am going to take an opportunity of directing to the attention of the minister. This Bill is a trespass upon the ordinary treaty rights of the Indians. But there are the bands of the Six Nation Indians located on the Grand river in Ontario who, I maintain, are in a different legal position from any Indian bands who are native to the country. These Indian bands on the Grand river had their original home in the United States. At the close of die war of the revolution they emigrated to Canada and were given lands under a special treaty, not as subjects of Great Britain, but as allies of Great Britain, and I maintain that the holding of these Six Nation Indians on the Grand river is of such a kind that this Parliament has no right to interfere with it. I admit that Parliament has the power to interfere with the rights of Indians under treaty made with this Government, but I say that this Parliament has no right to interfere with a treaty made between the Imperial Government and the Six Nation Indians.
I protest most strongly against this legislation as being a breaking of faith with the Indians in a matter in which faith should be most sacredly kept. The other night, speaking in the House, I referred to the nature of the Indian and to the necessity of maintaining his self-respect. The knowledge of the ownership of his land is the greatest factor in maintaining his self-respect, and if we are to let him understand that the land which he is located upon and which is sacred to himself and his tribe is not his excepting as the Parliament or Government of the day may see fit to declare, you simply take away the last vestige of his self-respect, the last opportunity to save in him all that makes him a man.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to emphasize the attitude taken by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) as regards the sacredness of the title which the Indians have to their reserves. I was speaking a moment ago of the Caughna-waga Indians, and my hon. friend said that there was no sinister motive behind this clause 6 as regards their reserve. Looking over the documents which were published by this Government many years ago, I find the titles to the reserves, and I submit that even with

the legislation which is before the House to-day, the department could not dispossess the Caughnawaga band of that reserve or any part of it. I would refer my hon. friend the minister to the titles to the Sault Sit. Louis reserve in the ' Indian Treaties and Surrenders/ vols 1 and 2, officially published in the year 1891, and which contains the Indian treaties and surrenders from 1680 to 1890.
Respecting the Caughnawaga reserve, the following document is, I believe the most ancient concession made by France to the Indians of Canada. It will be seen from it that the Caughnawaga reserve was originally granted to the Jesuit Fathers by Louis aIV, on the 29th of May, 1680. Here are the terms of the grant:
Fontainebleau, France, 29th May, 1680.
Louis, by the Grace of God, King of France and of Navarre. To all to whom these presents may come, greeting:
Our dearest and well beloved, the Religious Order of the Society of Jesus, residing in our Dominion of New France, have caused it to be most humbly represented to us that the lands of the Prairie de la Magdalene, which were heretofore granted to them, being too damp for the purpose of sowing and of providing for the sustenance of the Iroquois who have thereon settled, and that it is feared they might leave if we were not pleased to give them the land called 'Le Sault' containing two leagues in width from a point opposite the St. Louis rapids, going up along the lake by an equal depth, with two islands, islets and shoals, which are in front and adjoining the lands of the said Prairie de la Magdalene, which would allow them not only to receive the said Iroquois but even to increase their number, and to spread by that means the knowledge of faith and of the Gospel; for these reasons, desiring to contribute to the conversion and instruction of the said Iroquois and to deal favourably with the said petitioners, we have made and do make them a donation by these presents signed with our hand, of the said land called *Le Sault' containing two leagues, in width from a point opposite the St. Louis rapids, going up along the lake, by an equal depth, with two islands, islets and shoals, which are in front and adjoining the lands of the Prairie de la Magdalene on condition that the said land called 'Le Sault' shall belong to us, when the said Iroquois will, give it up, toute d6frich6e (free and clear as it then may be without any claims on us).
We permit and allow all those who wish to bring to the said Iroquois rings, knives and other small mercery and such things, to do so; we do most expressly prohibit and forbid the French who may live with or go among the said Iroquois and other Indian nations who may settle on the said land called 'Le Sault' from having and keeping any cattle, and all persons from keeping any public-house among the dwellings (dans le bourg) of the said Iroquois which may be built on the said land.
Therefore we order our beloved and faithful men holding our Sovereign Court at Quebec, and all our other judicial officers whom it may
fMr. Lemieux.]
concern, to have these presents our letters of donation and of grant read and registered and to permit the said petitioners to use and enjoy the same, ceasing and putting a stop to all troubles and hindrances which might be caused to them to the contrary, for such is our pleasure.
In faith whereof we have signed these presents and affixed our Seals.
Given at Fontainebleau the twrenty-ninth day of May in the year of Grace one thousand six hundred and eighty and of our reign the thirty-eighth.
(Signed) Louis.
By the King.
(Signed) Colbert.
Later on Frontenac, one of the most illustrious governors under the French regime, issued the following letters patent, dated Quebec, 31st of October, 1680:
Quebec, 31st October, 1680.
With regard to what was represented to us by the Reverend Fathers of the Society of Jesus, that His Majesty by his letters patent of the twenty-ninth of May one thousand six hundred and eighty, registered at the Sovereign Council at Quebec on the twenty-ninth of October ensuing, having made to them a gift of the land called 'Le Sault' containing two leagues in width from a point opposite the St. Louis rapids going up along the lake, by an equal depth, with two islands, islets and shoals which are in front, and adjoining the lands of the Prairie de la Magdalene, for the reasons mentioned in said letters and in the clauses and conditions therein laid; and whereas they have asked that we might be pleased to grant them a piece of land of one league	and a half	or	thereabouts	in lengthto be	taken from	the	said land	called 'LeSault' going up along the lake, towards the seigniority of Chateauguay, by two leagues in depth, which would afford them a still better	opportunity	of	drawing thereto the
Iroquois and other Indians, to increase their number and to spread by that means the knowledge of faith and of the Gospel;
We, by virtue of the power given to us conjointly by His Majesty, and in order to facilitate still more the said Reverend Fathers of the	Society of	Jesus with the	means of
continuing the care and pains which they have been doing for a long time and with such zeal, for the conversion and instruction of the said Iroquois and other Indians, we have given, granted and conceded, do give, grant and concede to them by these presents, the said piece of land of about one league and a half in length, to be taken from the said land called 'Le Sault' extending toward the seigniority of Chateauguay, by two leagues in depth, to be used and enjoyed by the said Reverend Fathers on the same conditions, clauses and terms as are set forth in the aforesaid letters patent of His Majesty, and that they shall obtain from him a ratification of the presents in a year from to-day.
In faith whereof we have signed these presents and affixed the seal of our arms.
Given at Quebec, on the thirty-first of October, one thousand six hundred and eighty.
(Signed) Frontenac.
(Signed) Duchesneau.

This is signed by Frontenac, and Duches-neau who was Intendant of New France.
Looking over these historic documents, I find that later on the Iroquois had a litigation with the Jesuit Fathers, just at the beginning of British domination. The case was brought up before the administrators of the colony at that time. After the conquest the country was divided into three governments : the Government of Montreal, the Government of Three Bivers, and the Government of Quebec, and the question came up in 1762 before His Excellency Thomas Gage, Governor of Montreal, assisted by his Council.
22nd March, 1762.
Before His Excellency Thomas Gage, Governor of Montreal, assisted by His Council, to wit, Messrs. Frederick Haldimand, Colonel of the 4th Battalion of the Royal American, and William Browning, Major of the 46th Regiment, Herbert Munster, Major of the 4th Battalion of the Royal American, and Gabriel Christie, Major and Quarter-Master of His Majesty's Armies.
Between the Iroquois Indians and other Indians of Sault St. Louis, appearing by Mr. Clauss their Attorney, Plaintiff, on the one
part:
And the Very Reverend Fathers of the Society of Jesus, appearing by the Reverend Father Wett, their Attorney, Defendant, on the other part.
One of the chief allegations of the Iroquois in that famous litigation was:
That at the surrender of this country all things had been well arranged to maintain the said Indians in possession of their lands at Sault St. Louis, but that now the Jesuit Fathers, their missionaries, were granting continually to the French the lands forming part of the territory of Sault St. Louis which, however, they believed belonged to them by a title of grant given them by His Most Christian Majesty. And that if matters are not promptly set right, they would soon see themselves obliged to give up their own fields, to withdraw with their families to the woods, considering they do not any longer find there enough land to afford a means of living.
The Indians were also claiming some of the church property. They claimed that they had paid their share to the maintenance of the church, and that they were entitled to its ornaments and perquisites. Judgment was rendered by that special tribunal presided over by His Excellency Thomas Gage, and perhaps it would be well to read what the decision was:
We are of opinion that the grant of the lands of Sault St. Louis was made to the Right Reverend Jesuit Fathers with the sole intention of settling these Iroquois and other Indians and that all the soil could produce was wholly intended for their profit and advantage. The reasons which the Right Reverand Jesuit Fathers use in their petition, and which seemed to have determined His Most Christian Majesty
to make his grant, were founded on the fear that the Iroquois that had settled at that time on the Seigniory of Laprairie and occupied lands which were too damp for the purpose of sowing, should happen to leave, alleging that by means of that new grant, they would be not only kept back but that their number would be increased and by that means the knowledge of faith and of the Gospel would be spread.
And another paragraph as follows:
Therefore we deprive and nonsuit the Right Reverend Jesuit Fathers of all temporal rights which they might have assumed on the said lands either by the condescension of the Governors or the Tntendants, the only title by which they have got the decrees of Union to the estate which they obtained at different times, or by right of possession or other reasons which they might allege, and we order that the said Indians of the Sault-
Our English-speaking friends would do well to keep the pronunciation of the word ' Sault' not ' Soa'
-be put in possession of and do enjoy peaceably for themselves their heirs and other Indians who would like to join them, the whole land and revenue which the said concession can produce.
And being of opinion that nothing contributes more efficaciously to civilize and enlighten the Indian nation than by scrupulously keeping the pledges which are made with them, and by preventing all cause of disagreement between them, and the inhabitants settled in their neighbourhood.
We order that the boundaries of the concession of the Iroquois of the Sault be drawn as soon as possible by a sworn surveyor, and that the limit of said concession be marked with stones fastened into the earth and stamped with His Britannic Majesty's Arms, and that the figurative plan thereof be delivered at a record office.
And then the litigation is settled by the representatives of His Majesty, the new King of British North America, deeding this reserve to the Iroquois, their heirs' and successors, because it had been deeded to them for their purposes by the Crown of France in 1680. This constitutes an Imperial title. The Caughnawaga Indians received first a royal title from the Crown of France, and after the conquest, it was implemented by another royal title. By the treaties and by the capitulations of Montreal and Quebec, reference is made to the title of the Indians in their reserves as established by the Crown of France. Therefore in a case of this kind such as Caughnawaga reserve, I do not believe that this Parliament or the Department of Indian Affairs could interfere in any way, manner or form. My hon. friend has declared that the Iroquois should have no fear, but it is well that the country should know that this reserve was given under Louis XIV and confirmed by George III after the conquest, and that the Government takes authority to-alter the conditions


Robert Laird Borden: It is perfectly obvious
that great c-are must be taken in dealing with the titles of the Indians, and it is the desire of the Government to carry out that principle. As far -as the legal point Which my hon. friend has made is concerned, I am not at the moment quite lalble to- appreciate it, because the result of it would be that any title acquired in this country to land, which is based upon the Acts of the British Crown or of the French Crown -before responsible government was introduced into this -country, could not be the subject of expropriation at all, whether it -belonged to the Indians or to any one else. I do net conceive that to -be the law of this country, nor do I think that the powers of Parliament are limited in that way. Under the British system, the title of all lands is traced to the Crown; -and it does not make any difference, so far as the legal aspect is concerned, Whether the title is traced, to the Crown before we have responsible government in this country or whether it is traced to the Crown afterwards, through the medium of responsible government. The position is precisely the same. Parliament has the right to declare in respect of the ordinary citizen of the country that his 'lands may be taken, with suitable compensation, for purposes of -a public character. It goes further than that:	It empowers corporations
carrying on public utilities to expropriate lands of ordinary citizens, without their consent but with due compensation, for such public purposes. As far as the Indians

are concerned, the object of this legislation is simply to extend in a certain measure a principle which has -already been acted upon by this Parliament in a measure introduced, I think, by my hon. friend the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) a few years ago. It is simply extending the conditions under which that power may be exercised in the public interest.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is extending it much beyond the purview of public interest and public utility; it is getting down to where private individuals -are interested.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand the legislation just in the way that the hon. member for Garleton understands it. Section 49a, which is the amending section, begins in this way:
In the case of an Indian reserve which adjoins or is situated wholly or partly within an incorporated town or city or in the immediate neighbourhood thereof or which contains more land than is necessary for the use of the band or which is so situated as to materially retard the natural development of the surrounding country.
Then certain procedure cam be followed for the purpose of expropriating the land without a surrender by the Indians. It is all concerned with questions of the public interest, land the Minister of the Crown who undertakes the initiating of proceedings must, of course, have due regard to what those are. In any case, the land of the Indians can only be taken after proper proceedings have been had in the Exchequer Court of Canada and under conditions which safeguard the interests of the Indians in every respect. They must be paid for their improvements; they must be fully compensated in every way; and further than that, if I remember the section correctly, they must be provided with certain suitable land elsewhere as a reserve. If there is -any further provision that ought to be inserted in order to safeguard thoroughly the rights of the Indians, we will be very happy indeed to have suggestions in that regard. The object of the section is to extend along a certain line provisions which have already been sanctioned by Parliament and which in -some cases have been found not to be fully adequate to r>
oet considerations of the public interest.


Frank Oliver: 
Robert Laird Borden: As I understand the
legislation it would be only under provisions set forth at the commencement of the section.


Frank Oliver: But it includes every Indian reserve.	For there is i no Indian reserve that floes not contain ' more land than is necessary for the use of the band '; no reserve is occupied so efficiently that it could not be (reasonably considered that there is room for more than the Indians to whom it is allotted. Then there is no Indian reserve of which it is not true that it ' materially retards the natural development of the surrounding country.' On these two counts every Indian reserve in Canada is subject to being decreased in iarea by reason of the order of the judge of the Exchequer Court; and the judge would have no option if j;he matter were brought to his attention.


Robert Laird Borden: But in the first place the proposal must commend itself to the minister, and he is responsible to Parliament, of course, for his action, and can be made amenable to Parliament if he exercises this power in an improvident or unjust manner. Then, after that the court must distinctly consider whether or not it is expedient that the band of Indians should be removed from that reserve.


Frank Oliver: I beg pardon, the courts
must decide simply whether there is more land than is necessary for the Indians.


Robert Laird Borden: I will read to my hon.
friend what I was relying upon. It is provided that the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the superintendent gener al may-
__refer to the Exchequer Court of Canada for
inquiry and report the question as to whether it is expedient, having regard to the interest of the public and of the Indians of the band for whose use the reserve is held, that the whole or any portion of the said reserve should he sold for the benefit of the Indians, and that the Indians should be removed from the reserve or any part of it.
The judge of the Exchequer Court is to take that into consideration and report upon it. The minister, in the first place,
must decide that it is a proper case to refer to the court, and it is left to the judge of the Exchequer Court to determine whether it is expedient that the Indians should be removed. If he decides that they should he removed, provision must he made by Parliament and compensation must be afforded the Indians so that they may suffer no finarcjal loss.


Charles Marcil: I have listened very carefully to the debate, and 1 am more convinced than I was at first that this legislation is objectionable. I have in my constituency the Restigouche reserve, the oldest Micmac reserve in eastern Canada, and the centre of the missionary efforts among the Micmacs for eastern Quebec and the Maritime provinces. This reserve is located very close to the town of Campfoelltown. Now, from the white man's point of view the proximity of an Indian reserve to a town injures that town. That does not mean that therefore the Indians . must go. From the point of view of the white man the Indians are not using the whole of the land contained in their reserve. As a matter of fact they do not do much farming. Most of them act as guides in the summer foT American sportsmen who come to fish on the Restigouche and Cascapedia, and in the winter time they are in the shanties. For this reason, it would be found by the judge of the Exchequer Court, or by anyone else going there, that the Indians do not occupy all the land in their reserve.


Robert Laird Borden: How near are they to the town of Campbellton?


Charles Marcil: Just .across the river, only a few minutes' distance. And as to the material development of the surrounding country, from the white man's standpoint, for instance, the establishment of a pulp and paper factory or a saw-mill, and the employment of a lot of white men, would certainly mean the development of the country. But the Indians have been there for over a century and a half-close upon two centuries; and .if they are sent away under the terms proposed now a grave injustice will be done. The most objectionable part of the legislation, to my mind, is that we are not told who must make the application to the minister for this property. If the application were made by the missionary order, who have had in charge for generations the moral, religious, intellectual and every other interest of the Indians, or if the appli-

cation had to be made by the town council of Campbellton, a public 'body, declaring that the reserve .should he used for public purposes, it would not be so bad. But under this legislation any one could make the application, and we should not know who made it until it was acted upon by the minister who refers it to Council. Of course, reference has to be made by the Governor in Council to the judge of the Exchequer Court. The court must decide whether it is expedient that the band of Indians should be removed from the reserve or any part of it. Well, any number of witnessess from Campbellton would testify that it is to the interest of the town to get these Indians out of the way; it is obviously to the interest of the town that they should be removed. The interest of the white men is in favour of the establishment of a pulp mill which *would necessitate the removal of the Indians. But that is not necessarily a final reason why the Indians should be sent away from the reserve. The Indians have already conceded a portion of their reserve for a saw-mill, and I think they are getting along pretty well with the company, though they had some difficulty at first. But from rumours circulating in the county and district, well known to the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Reid) as well as to myself, an effort is being made to get possession of that reserve. If it were solely for the public interest, I would not have so much objection, but I am afraid it is going to be obtained for private interest rather than for the interest of the country. The Indians are well situated; they have a magnificent church, and they benefit by the labour of the splendid order of missionaries who are looking after their interests and who can do so much better for them in that locality than they could if the Indians were removed. For this reason, I cannot help being reminded of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) and his bold, determined fight for the St. Peter's reserve. If it were made easier for these people to get these Indian reserves, they could easily invoke these reasons and the judge of the Exchequer Court would have to admit that the Indians have more land than they use and that their presence materially retards the advancement of the town and the surrounding country from the point of view of the white man. The decision is supposed to hinge upon ' whether it is in the interest of the public.' Of course, that is the white man s view of it-it is not in the interest of development from the white man's point

of view that the Indians should be there at all.
Section 6 says:
Having regard to the interests of the public and of the Indians of the band for whose use the reserve is held, that the whole or any portion of the said reserve should be sold for the benefit of the Indians, and that the Indians should be removed from the reserve or any part of it.
These things are easily established. Of course, the interests of the greatest number-the interests of the public-must overrule everything. If I were satisfied that in the application of this law nothing but the public interest would dominate; if applications under the Act were made by a reputable body, by the order of Capuchins, for instance, who are kloing missionary work among the Indians and who have their interests at heart, I would consider the legislation to be not half as bad as it might be; but if applications for Indian reserves, or portions of them, are to be made by ordinary companies for business purposes, all the provisions of this Bill can easily be complied with, and the report of the judge of the Exchequer Court given to the minister and to Parliament. Parliament will accept the report of the Exchequer Court judge, the legislation will be put through, and the Indians deprived of their reserve, and a great injustice will, in my opinion, be committed.


William F. Carroll: In this legislation I think there is no doubt about the safeguarding of the public interest. Sub-section 1 of section 6 says that:
The Governor in Council may refer to the Exchequer Court of Canada for inquiry and report the question as to whether it is expedient, having regard to the interests of the public and the Indians-
And so on. Subsection 4 says:
If the court finds that it is expedient that the band of Indians should be removed from the reserve.
I think that in order to safeguard the interests of the Indians, this subsection should say: ' having regard to the interests of the Indians and of the public.' After the Exchequer Court judge hears counsel and evidence on both sides, he might find it expedient, in the interests of the people, to send the Indians-out; according to the wording of this section he would be quite justified in doing so. But if the wor'ds in subsection 1 with regard to the interests of the Indians were inserted also in sub-

section 4, the interests' of the Indians would be thoroughly safeguarded.


Robert Laird Borden: The Act in that respect has been copied precisely from the old Act, which was passed under the regime of the hon. member for Edmonton. There is some point, however, in what my hon. friend suggests, and I think that it could be met if after the word 'expedient' there were inserted the words 'as aforesaid.'


William F. Carroll: If the department employs solicitors to act for the Indians, great caution should he exercised by that solicitor to ascertain the exact facts that exist with regard to the particular bands of Indians whose reservations are to be taken over by the department. Application was made to two or three preceding governments to get the reserve of the Indians in the city of Sydney, which is a valuable piece of land. The Indians there live under peculiar conditions. The Micmacs of Nova Scotia earn their living generally by making tubs, baskets, and so on, but the Indians of the reserve in the city of Sydney make their living simply by labour, and if they were removed from Sydney-it certainly would be in the interests of the city of Sydney that they should be removed-their occupation would be practically gone. They have not taken up the occupation of their forefathers, and, if removed from Sydney, they would be taken away from the locality where they would ordinarily be able to make a living. I bring this matter up merely to show that great precautions should be taken by, and very detailed instructions given to the solicitors in each case with regard to the particular reserve in question. If all precautions are taken by the department, by agents and by solicitors, I would rather *see the Act administered by a judge of the Exchequer Court or of any other court than by any department of any government.


William James Roche: I beg to move:
That the words ' as aforesaid ' be inserted after the word ' expedient ' in the first line of subsection 4 of section 6.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Frank Oliver: Inasmuch as the Minister of the Interior and the Prime Minister have both based their argument in favour
of this Bill on the existence of a statute of 1911, I will take the liberty of reading the important section of that statute in which this question is dealt with, which will make perfectly clear the difference between the two provisions. Section 49a of the Act to amend the Indian Act, assented to on the 19th of May, 1911, begins:
In the case of an Indian reserve which adjoins or is situated wholly or partly within an incorporated town or city
Both the Act of 1911 and this amendment are the same as to that point. The amendment goes on:
.-or in the immediate neighbourhood thereof or which contains more land than is necessary for the use of the band or which is so situated as to materially retard the natural development of the surrounding country, which reserve has not been released or surrendered by the Indians-*
These last words are the same in the Act as well. The amendment goes on:
-and which the Indians refuse to surrender.
Then the following words in the old Act and the amendment are the same:
which the Indians refuse to surrender, the Governor in Council may, upon the recommendation of the Superintendent General, refer to the exchequer Court of Canada for inquiry and report the question as to whether it is expedient, having regard to the interest of the public and of the Indians of the band for whose use the reserve is held,-
The amendment goes on:
*-that the whole or any portion of the said reserve should be sold for the benefit, of the Indians, and that the Indians should be removed from the reserve or any part of it.
There is no material difference betweeen that last paragraph and what is in the old Act. I want to emphasize this point: Under the Act as it stands, there is a distinct and definite limitation of the exercise of authority by the minister, by the Exchequer Court and by Parliament. The limitation is fixed by the condition that the reserve shall be either within or adjoining a town or city of not less than 8,000 people. That is a definite and distinct limitation. It can only possibly apply to a very small number of Indian reserves, and it can only apply to the condition in which the value of the land occupied by the Indians has been abnormally increased by the existence of the city immediately adjoining or surrounding the reserve. That being the case, it is in the interests of the Indians that they should get the benefit of the increased value of the land that they hold, which they do not get

by merely holding it; and it is the duty of the Government as guardian and trustee of the Indians to take such measures as will secure to the Indians the proper value of that land. That is an abnormal condition, and we took what may be called abnormal measures to meet it. I may say to my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) that the condition of the reserve he mentioned is adequately and unquestionably provided for in the Act as it now stands, without any amendment. The old Act makes adequate provision for dealing with that reserve or any other similarly situated, and consequently there is no need to extend the scope of the Act to cover that case. While the old Act restricted action by the Government to a certain stated condition, for certain specific reasons, which are evident on their face, this Bill provides that for three other reasons in addition to those set down in the original Act the right of the Indians may be taken away by the process set out in the Act-the conditions being practically the same in both. The first of these is that the land is in the immediate neighbourhood of a city or town, it does not need to adjoin or be surrounded by a town, but if it is in the immediate neighbourhood of a city or town it can be condemned. If it contains more land than is necessary for the use of the band it may be condemned. If it is so situated as to materially retard the natural development of the surrounding country it may be condemned; so that in addition to the provisions of the old Act the proposed Bill makes three conditions under which the reserve may be taken away from the Indians without their consent, and under one or other of those three conditions every reserve in Canada can be brought under the operation of this Act. The minister, if he sees fit, may refer the question of the right of these Indians to their reserve to the Exchequer Court, and if the judge of the Exchequer Court find that the conditions are either of the three I have mentioned, he would be bound, I maintain, to render judgment that the Indians should be cleared off the reserve, or off some part of it; that is to say, that their rights should be taken away. The judge having rendered that decision, the case comes to Parliament. It has been referred to the judge on the responsibility of the minister, and it comes to Parliament with the decision of the judge. The ministry, after they have had the support of the judge's decision are bound to maintain the position that they first took, and the parliamentary majority gives sanc-

tion to that decision. The value of the treaty right to the Indian has absolutely ceased once this legislation has passed.


William James Roche: I may say to the hon.
gentleman that if there is more land than the Indians require, it is not the intention of the Act to take the land away from them for that reason alone. The land if taken has to be used for particular purposes. That is the ruling factor in the question as to whether the land shall be taken from the Indians. In the first place, I do not think any Minister of the Interior would refer to the Exchequer Court the question of the expropriation of a portion of an Indian reserve by reason of the fact that the reserve was larger than the requirements of the Indians demanded. The Act is not to be read in that light at all. The hon. gentleman has stated that by reason of the contiguity of a reserve to a city of 8,000 population the land increased in value. I may say it matters not how close or how remote the reserve is to the city; the value placed upon it is estimated in the same manner in both cases. For instance, it has to be disposed of by public auction. If the hon. gentleman will read subsection 5 he will see that it provides that:
The court shall transmit its findings, with the evidence and a report of the proceedings, to the Governor in Council, who shall lay the same before Parliament at the then current or next ensuing session thereof. Upon such findings being approved by resolution of Parliament the Governor in Council may thereupon give effect to the said findings and cause the reserve, or any part thereof from which it is found expedient to remove the Indians, to be sold or leased by public auction after the publication of notice of such auction in the Canada Gazette and at least two newspapers published in the locality or nearest the locality in which such reserve is situate for at least one month.
The compensation to the Indians is determined in the same manner. It matters not whether a reserve is adjacent to a city with a large population or remote from it. The hon. gentleman will surely see that there might be a case where, for some reason or other, the Indians might refuse to surrender their land notwithstanding the fact that it might he required for some public utility not covered by the expropriation clause of the Act. For instance, supposing a portion of the Indian reservation was required for a public utility; the Indians were quite agreeable to surrender the same except for one point and that point would be that they wanted all the money instead of the fifty per cent prescribed by the Indian Act. They might in this way be holding up a great public en-

terprise. Although the conditions, as far as the monetary consideration is concerned would be quite acceptable they would refuse because they would not be allowed one hundred per cent of the money. What would you do in a case of that kind? It is a case of that character exactly that we want to get at. That is one illustration where a section such as this must certainly -be requisite. It would be an unreasonable thing for the Indians to do. If they were agreeable to the compensation, and in every other respect consented, they might still hold out for the one hundred ,per cent instead of the fifty per cent as provided by the Indian Act. Under the provisions of the Bill we refer it to the Exchequer Court, the evidence will be taken and laid before Parliament and by formal resolution Parliament refers it to the Governor in Council to be dealt with without the consent of the Indians. The necessity of taking advantage of the provision of this Act would be due simply and solely to the unreasonableness of the Indians. I do not think that the hon. gentleman has interpreted the Act aright when he states that the fact that there is land in abundance, or more than is required for the Indians, will entitle the minister to refer the matter to the Exchequer Court. I am sure that no minister of the Interior would do so and if that were done by a minister no judge of the Exchequer Court would decide that it was either in the interest of the Indians or of the public that that particular land should be taken from the Indians.


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend the
Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche) had confined the section of his Bill to the taking of land from the Indians for the purpose of some specific public utility his argument would be good. But there is no such limitation in the Act. He may say that a minister of the Interior would not refer the question of taking land from the Indians unless for some good reason but if Parliament has placed fairly on the statute book the complete authority enabling the minister to do so is not that his sufficient warrant for doing it? We cannot go behind the plain wording of the statute, and if we, the members of this House at this time, assist to put on the statute book a provision which defines a sufficient reason why the land should be taken from the Indians, we are not to find fault with a future minister of the Interior or a judge of the Exchequer Court, if he exercises his authority in accordance with the statute passed by this Parliament. The responsibility is on this Parliament here and now to decide how far they will allow this discretion to the ministers of the Interior for the future. In regard to public utilities, if my hon. friend will look at the amendment to the Indian Act made in 1911, he will see that provision was made for the expropriation of land on reserves without the consent of the Indians for specific public utilities, that is to say, for a railway, a road, public work, or a work designed for any public utility. It seems to me that this is going far enough to meet the requirements of the public interest, and that if we are going beyond that we are going beyond the requirements of the public interest, and we are making an undue trespass upon the rights of the Indians and upon the good faith of the people and Government of Canada 'that is after all a matter of some importance.


George Henry Bradbury: I am placed in rather an embarrassing position. During 1911, when the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Oliver) introduced an amendment to the Indian Act which took away the right of the Indians to vote whether they should surrender a certain portion of their lands or not, I took strenuous objection to that amendment, and I pointed out that the amendment would deprive the Indians of a right which they enjoyed under treaty. The amendment that is proposed to-night goes farther than that of the hon. gentleman went, and consequently I feel that the powers that the Indian Department are asking for to-night are altogether too great for that department to have. In justice to the Indian, we must not forget that at one time he was all-powerful in this land, antd that when these treaties were made he was in a position to enforce his side of them. Today we are strong, but I am afraid we are neglecting to realize our position, and are taking advantage of our strength to deprive the Indian of some of the rights which he should enjoy under his treaty. If this amendment had gone no farther than to provide fox the expropriation of land within the limits of a town, or adjacent to a town, and if it had provided, as it does, for expropriation proceedings to be taken before the Exchequer 'Court and that the judgment of the Exchequer Court should be submitted to Parliament, I would have had no hesitation in supporting the amendment. But I feel that this proposed amend-

mert is altogether too broad, broader than necessary, and I would suggest that the Government should limit the power to merely taking lands within towns or adjacent to towns, a reserve situated fifteen or twenty miles away from a town. According to the provision of this Act, if anybody succeeded in winning the ear of the department a change might occur similar to that which occurred in 1908 when the St. Peter's Indian reserve was surrendered, without the Indians' consent. Under this provision, without the Indian's consent, this matter could be taken to the Exchequer Court, and his land taken away from him. I think that this is absolutely wrong, and unfair to the Indian, and that no such power should be vested in 'any department. The Indians have rights, and we ought not to trespass upon them. We have boasted in Canada for years that the Indians, under the British Crown, always received fair play and justice.
I regret to say that in following up the history of the manner in which the Indians have been treated in times past, by the provincial governments and by federal governments in Canada, I have discovered that that boast is not well-founded. The Indian has been exploited in this country to a degree that is pretty hard to conceive. In Ontario the Indian timber lands and the Indian reserves were exploited, and in the different provinces the same thing occurred. I believe it is the duty of the Government to see that the Indian is properly protected. I have every faith in the intention of the Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs to protect the Indians, but I am bound to say that in my judgment this amendment is giving him greater scope than he needs for the purpose of carrying out the intention of the department, and that he ought to ask Parliament for. I do not intend to dwell on this matter, but I can asuure you that I feel that in the interests of the Indians of Canada this amendment should be limited in such way as would not give the department power to expropriate lands that are not needed immediately for public purposes. I can understand that an Indian reserve must be subject to expropriation as is any other property, when it is needed for public purposes, but taking the reserves all over Canada I do not think Parliament should be asked for this power in the present Bill.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I am sorry that to some extent I cannot agree with the hen. member
[Mr. Bradbury. 1
(Mr. Bradbury). There aT6 a good many Indian reserves in my constituency, and I have never known the timber upon them to be sold other than by the consent of the Indians, and in every case that has come to my knowledge they have always .secured a very good price; a price rather higher than was got for the adjacent timber. In connection with this particular clause of the Bill, I may say that there is	a reserve,	not	in	my riding
but in that of the Minister of Railways, which is well known to me and for the expropriation of which there has been a very strong agitation for some years. I do not know the name of the reserve, but it is almost adjoining the town of North Bay on lake Nipissing. It has been for a number of years a great handicap to the town of North Bay, which in the assessment before last had a population of 8,000. The Government of Ontario has been for a number of years building a great trunk road from North Bay to Sault Ste. Marie which has to cross this reserve, and the Government have been handicapped by the fact that they cannot get the right to cross the Indian reserve, and even if they got the right they would have no chance to keep the road in repair except at the expense, presumably, of the Government of Ontario. There are no roads leading west out of North Bay, which is due simply to the fact that they cannot get the right to pass the road through this reserve. I think that this clause, surrounded as it is by the safeguards placed in it by the minister, by the fact that there must be a judgment of the Exchequer Court before any action is taken, and as I understand it that it must be endorsed not only by the Governor General in Council but also at the succeeding session of Parliament, I think this clause safeguards and protects every right of the Indiaijs. In justice to these towns which are situated as North Bay is, this Bill should pass.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the reserve
which my hon. friend (Mr. Arthurs) speaks about, I may say that the Indians of that reserve signed a surrender, and part of the property was sold at auction, but there was a right maintained by some of the timber men and I believe an action is now pending in the courts. That is the reason the reserve has not been opened up. It is not the fault of the Indians nor the fault of the department, but the fault of some rights which have been acquired by holders of timber, who would not let go of these

rights and who have been maintaining their position by action in the courts.


James Arthurs: Is not that due to the fault of the Indian Department in the sale of the timber? My contention has been for years, and it is the policy of the present Government-I think it was the policy of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) when he was Minister of the Interior-not to sell this timber except on condition that it be removed within a short term of years. This reserve is not large, and there is absolutely no reason why the lumbermen should not remove the timber within one or two years.


Frank Oliver: The arrangement I refer to was made many years ago under the old system, and the owner simply holds on to his right and refuses to let go, and the arrangement has been retarded up to the *present on that account. I am sorry that the minister does not see fit to make some concession to what I think is not only the public interest but the good faith of the people of Canada. When it comes down to the question of good faith on the part of the Indian Department, if that is to be the final test in this matter, I am bound to say that the evidence which has come to me is not such as to warrant me in placing dependence on the good faith of the department in dealing with the Indians. I have had occasion to bring to the attention of Parliament the case of the Kitsilano Indian reserve, situated within the limits of the city of Vancouver. It was for the purpose of procuring the removal of the Indians, and the sale of that reserve Iot the benefit of the Indian owners, that this particular .amendment to the Indian Act of 1911 was passed. Had the Act been operated under, the rights of the Indians as well as the rights of the city of Vancouver, they would have been protected. 'But instead of having that done, the position of affairs is this: the Indians who occupy that reserve, and whose property it was, have disappeared from it, and their buildings have been burned. They have gone elsewhere, we have been informed, without the knowledge of the department. Whether with or without the consent of the department we do not know, but we know it is absolutely and unquestionably without the protection of the department. These people have been sent away; they have been paid money by the Government of British Columbia to vacate that reserve, and they have vacated it,
but no provision has been made for them in their new location, such as the Indian Act of 1911 provides for. These people have been paid a large amount of money by the Government of British Columbia. By what secret arrangement with the Dominion Government that was done I do not know, but I am perfectly satisfied that it was done under some secret arrangement with this Government. The Government of British Columbia paid that money, the Indians received it. The British Columbia Government had an understanding with this Government as to what their rights in that reserve would be or they never would have paid the money to the Indians, and the Indians are wanderers on the face of the earth to-day without the money, without the reserve, without recourse against any-[DOT]body, and without having received an item of protection or consideration from this Government. Under these circumstances the minister must not ask us too much to trust the good faith of the Indian Department in a matter of the administration of Indian affairs. It is the fact, though I have not the figures before me, that these Indians were paid a large amount of money by the British Columbia Government. But it is also a fact that they were not paid within fifty per cent of the well established value of the reserve. The money value of that reserve was the property of those Indians according to the law of Canada; and under the Act placed on the statute-book in 1911, they would have received the full value for their reserve; they would have been established on other lands to which they would have had title; but instead of that, they have received money, not the value of the property that was theirs; they have been taken away from the land that belonged to them; their buildings have been burned, and they are to-day occupants of other reserves or wanderers over the province without a home in any part of the province. That is the administration of Indian Affairs that we have under this present Government; and when that Government comes here with a Bill of this character, which places every Indian reserve from the Atlantic to the Pacific absolutely at the mercy of the Minister of the Interior, I say they are asking too much when they ask us to pass such a Bill without consideration. I move that section 6 be struck out.


Mr. STEVENS:: I cannot allow the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) to pass untirely unchallenged. I quite understand that he makes them with the best

possible intention of protecting the interest of the Indians; but I think he has been somewhat misinformed in so far as the facts are concerned in regard to the Kitsilano reserve to which he has just referred. In the first place there was absolutely no action taken on tire part of this Government to remove the Indians from the Kitsilano reserve; the Indians went of their own free will. In the next place it should be definitely understood that the Indians belonging to the Squamish band, of which the Indians of the Kitsilano reserve were a portion, have at least half a dozen reserves within a short distance of the city of Vancouver, and they move *around from one to the other. Some of them are fairly well fixed on the different reserves; but not as a tribe are they fixed in any one locality, and the few Indians who lived on the Kitsilano reserve did not live there' constantly, but steadily moved from one part to the other. In so far as the buildings are concerned, to which the hon. gentleman has referred, they are very, veTy few and of the most dilapidated character, so that no particular harm has been done to the Indians in that regard.
I would also draw the attention of the House to this fact, that the Government stated last year that, in so far as the Indian Department was concerned in its relation to these Indians, it was not different in one iota from what it was prior to the action of the provincial Government. I do not know that there has been any change in the situation since that time. I would like to say this-and I think the hon. member from Edmonton understands it-that the British Columbia Government put up a strong claim for reversionary rights; and in their exercise of it, in my estimation, an error was made. I do not think the provincial Government were probably well advised in acting exactly as they did, but from their viewpoint their action was warranted. An effort is being made, however, and I think has almost reached a point of successful conclusion, where this matter will be amicably adjusted, and the Indians, I think, will be dealt with in a perfectly just manner. I do not think that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) will have any complaint to make when this Government is through with the Kitsilano Indian reserve. He realizes the difficulty which always presents itself in dealing with an Indian reserve and its surrender, especially when complicated by provincial claims or rights, such as we have in this case. I would like the House to remember and

understand that no injustice has been done to the Indians of the Kitsilano reserve by this Government, and that their interests are being well protected. I know this perfectly well, because I have been deeply interested in the whole matter.
I wish to say one word as to the merits of the Bill in general. In and around the cities throughout this country there are certain Indian reserves. There is one right in Vancouver, known as the Kitsilano reserve, and there is another in the city of North Vancouver. In the vicinity of North Vancouver district there are two more. Thus there are four reserves in and around the harbour of Vancouver. I but use this as an illustration. The Indians are suffering morally and in every other way from being kept upon these reserves, and I think it is desirable to get them away from city life. No hon. member will question the wisdom of getting the Indians away from contact with the cities. It is difficult under present legislation to deal with these Indian reserves; and as I understand it, this Bill will make the process a little more easy, and at the same time adequately protect the Indians and the public. I do not know a piece of legislation which so thoroughly protects the interest of the public and the Indians as this legislation, by which a reference is first made to the Exchequer Court; then it comes to the House and must go through both Houses of Parliament, and finally the Governor in Council deals with the question. It is impossible to throw more safeguards around a question of this kind than is being done by the arrangement made by the Minister of the Interior. With the growth and development and the advance in settlement in all parts of the country, it is recognized that we must do something to deal with the Indian reserves. Personally I would be in favour of a policy that would place the Indians on a basis of individual citizenship where we could get them, after a few generations, entirely off the hands of the Government from the standpoint of being wards. I know a large number of Indians, in the West particularly, who are well fitted to-day to take up the full rights of individual citizenship and be established upon farms and carry them on successfully. On the other hand, it would take some time to educate and develop other bands of Indians; but it would be a wise policy on the part of the Government to take steps of that kind. In the meantime, measures must be provided to deal with this question, and under the strictest regu-

lations, and I believe the minister has discovered a method by which this can be done successfully.


Frank Oliver: Does the hon. member expect the Indians of that reserve to get the full value of their reserve ?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have no hesitation in saying that, in so far as I am concerned, I would not ask the department to sanction anything short of the Indians getting a just and fair value for that reserve.


Frank Oliver: Has the hon. member any idea as to how they are going to get it? '


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have an idea, but I do not think this is the proper time or place to give it.


Robert Laird Borden: The Indians are really in a very good position according to the statement of my hon. friend, because it 'seems they have received a considerable sum of money as compensation for this land, and the land is still held by the Government of Canada as trustees for them.


Frank Oliver: The only failure with that theory is that it goes on the supposition that the British 'Columbia Government do not know what they are doing; .that they are a Government of fools, and that they are wasting the money of the people of British Columbia in handing it out to a band of Indians not knowing what they are handing it out for. That I think is a mistake. I have said before and I say again that, when the British Columbia Government handed out that money to those Indians, they had an understanding either with this Government or with members of this Government as to how they were going to be recouped for that money; either that or they are fit candidates |for the penitentiary. It is either one or the other; there is no other recourse. They have taken the money of the people of British Columbia and have handed it out to a band of Indians. Now, either they have got value or they have not got value. If they have got value, they have got it by an understanding with this Government whereby the Indians sold their property for less than half what it is worth; and if they have not got value, then they have robbed the treasury of British Columbia. You can put it either way you like, but it is one way or the other. And I say that under the circumstances I certainly cannot be a party to supporting a provision such as contained in this Bill. My 224
hon. friend has suggested that the conditions in Vancouver demand the legislation proposed in this Bill. There is legislation already provided-has been since 1911-that absolutely provides for the case in the city of Vancouver, or can be used to provide for such a case, whereby the interests of the Indians will be absolutely protected and the well-being of Vancouver will be equally protected. There is no difficulty about it. But the Government, or the department, did not see fit to take action under that Act. I did not say that this Government removed the Indians from this reserve. I said that this Government, which is the guardian of the Indians, permitted their removal from this reserve, permitted the burning of their buildings, such as they were. The Government either are the guardians of the Indians or they are not. I take it that they are the guardians of the Indians; and if so it was their business, if the Indians were making an improvident bargain, to see to it that they did not make that improvident bargain. If the Indians had anything to sell they were under the guardianship of this Government, and it was the business of this Government to see that they did not sell it for less than its value. That, I think, will be admitted. On the other hand, if the British Columbia Government took the money of the people of British Columbia and handed it to a band of ragged, dirty Indians, without getting value, then the British Columbia Government ought to be in jail.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. gentleman is entirely wrong in his supposition. He is .aware that the British Columbia Government made certain specific claims for reversionary rights. They .are acting in good faith, and acting properly. There is a difference of opinion on the subject of those reversionary rights, but the Government have repeatedly stated just what their position was. When he charges the British Columbia Government with a criminal act, he knows that he is stretching it very far. They acted in good faith and within what they believed to be theiT rights. We believe they are mistaken in the assumption of that right, and the matter is now in process of very reasonable and successful settlement. It takes some time to settle an intricate question of that kind, but there is every prospect of a reasonable and satisfactory settlement, satisfactory to the British Columbia Government, to this Government, to the Indians .and to the public at large; As to the hon. gentleman's



reference to these Indians as a dirty and ragged band, I do not see why the hon. gentleman should use that language. They are Indians, industrious and hard-working -fishermen most of them-and there is no reason for the imputation he makes against them. We are the guardians of the Indians, and so far as we in the West are concerned, we do all we can to help them along. I do not suppose he really means what he says, hut simply wants to add ginger to his remarks.


Frank Oliver: I am delighted to hear that these Indians are what the hon. gentleman says. I spoke of them only as I have seen them spoken of, as a very degenerate band of Indians who were not at all desirable to be where they were or competent to do their own business. Ii they are of the better character, I am very glad to know it, and I again come to the point that if they were doing business with the Government of British Columbia, and that Government were acting in good faith, then this Government was not acting in good faith in allowing the British Columbia Government to deal with these Indians as these Indians were dealt with.


William James Roche: This Government knew
nothing about the matter until the deal was over and the houses burnt. That is my information on the subject, and I repudiate the assertion of the hon. gentleman.


Frank Oliver: If the hon. minister did not know he is the only man in Parliament who did not know, because the House was informed at the time by the British Columbia papers that this transaction was in progress. Yet no steps were taken either then or afterwards to deal with the matter. The hon. gentleman was certainly informed, the House was thoroughly informed, before the buildings were burned. It was all published in the newspapers. And I say now that if the department did not know, then the department should have known. It was the department's business' to know. These Indians are their wards, and this property was worth a very large amount of money and the Government knew it. It is no excuse to say they did not know when everybody else in Canada knew.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as the Government is concerned we are not very much concerned by my hon. friend's opinion of the Government of British Columbia; the Government of British Columbia is responsible to the people of that province and not to

him. They may have equally strong opinions about him, for anything we know. But all these matters are entirely irrelevant. This Government realizes that in respect of these lands it stands as trustee for the Indians and will maintain the Indians' rights. As was said last session, the supposed surrender not having been accompanied with the formalities provided for by the Indian Act, does not affect the title as we understand it. The position we took last session is the position we hold today. So far as this section is concerned, which is the matter under consideration at the present time, some hon. gentlemen have dealt with it as if some attempt was being made to rob the Indians of their land. The ordinary individual in this country is subject to powers of expropriation exercised not only by the federal Government but by railway corporations. The rights of the Indians under this legislation are preserved to this extent-that there must be in effect, what is equivalent to a special Act of Parliament before they can be interfered with even for public purposes. You have in	the	first place the
responsibility of the Government through the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs exercised along a defined line. Then you have the judgment of the Exchequer Court exercised along the same line. Lastly, and after all that has been done upon due consideration and inquiry in court, nothing can proceed until Parliament ratifies it. So, as I have said, a special Act of Parliament must be passed to accomplish in respect of the Indian reserves what can be accomplished in the case of the property of the ordinary citizen by merely an administrative act of the Government or by a railway corporation. I would be sorry indeed to have any legislation passed that would in the slightest degree be capable of use for the purpose of injustice to the Indian. I realize some strength in one criticism of my hon. friend which I have discussed with my hon. colleague the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. I refer to what is contained in lines 20 and 21, of page 2 of the Bill, the words ' or which contains more land than is necessary for the use of the band.' The object of the resolution in the first instance and of this extended legislation was to so deal with the land which might be situated in a particular part of the country whose development it would retard that that land might be acquired without injustice to the Indians and with due provision for the Indian elsewhere.
I am not at all sure that the expression

' or which contains more land than is necessary for the use of the band ' is really required for the purposes of the Bill as based upon the principles that have been laid down, and I would suggest to my hon. friend the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs that if he sees no valid objection to it, these words might be struck out of the Bill, which would still contain all provisions that are really necessary to carry out the purposes for which it is intended.
Mr. MARCH.:	Why not say:	'When
any portion of a reserve is required for public purposes?' I am pressing this point because I asked the Minister of the Interior a few days ago if application had been made for the taking over of a portion of the Restigouche reserve and he informed me that a company had asked for land there, but that the Indians had refused to sur-.. render it. Under these provisions this same company can make application and proceed to make out a case to the Exchequer Court and obtain the land. I am prepared to support this measure if altered but I do not want legislation to be passed here which will enable these reserves to be used for private purposes, as they would be in the case of the Restigouche reserve, opposite Campbellton. A company has land there with a saw-mill upon it; they are looking around for property for the purpose of erecting a pulp mill, they have taken up options all along the Restigouche river. They have applied to the Indians for land in their reserve for the establishment of a pulp mill, but the Indians have refused to give it. Under these conditions the company can go to the Exchequer Court and show that the Indians occupy more land than they need, that the reserve is so situated as materially to retard the natural development of the surrounding country, and if it is believed that the company will employ a large number of men and materially assist the development of the country, the Exchequer Court will grant the application. In the shape of a ministerial measure the matter will soon pass through Parliament and the Indians be dispossessed. Give me legislation that will provide for the taking possession of the lands of the Indians upon an equitable basis, and I will support it, but under the legislation now proposed the company referred to may secure the land of the Indians, which they could not secure otherwise, not for public purposes but solely for their own private use. The 224i
counties of Restigouche, Bonaventure and Gaspe have urged upon the Government for years the necessity of the linking up of the Gaspe railway with the Intercolonial and of building a highway and a railway bridge connecting Campbellton with the county of Bonaventure. This railway would pass through the Indian reserve; for a purpose of that kind there would be no possible objection to the acquiring of the land. If the town of Campbellton should make application for a portion of this reserve for public purposes, I would have no objection whatever, but I am afraid that we are putting through legislation by which we are helping a company-a company of Americans at that, from Portland, Maine -to dispossess these Indians, who have been on their reserve for over half a century. I think the matter is well worthy of consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is, I think, unduly apprehensive. I wouM not imagine that any superintendent general of Indian affairs would undertake to exercise the powers conferred upon him under this Act for the individual interests of a company or syndicate. The reserve in regard to which any changes are proposed to be made must be within the immediate neighbourhood of a town or city, or 9 p.m. must be so situated as materially to retard the natural Idevelopment of the surrounding country. And there is something more than that. The question to be referred to the Exchequer Court is whether, having regard to the interests of the public-not of a company or syndicate-and having regard to the interests of the Indians of the band, it is expedient that the Indians should be removed. Before action may be taken, the judge must determine that it is in the interests of the public and in the interests of the band that they should be removed. If, after having inquired into the evidence and after having heard the Indians, represented by counsel, the judge should find that it is expedient to remove the Indians, the matter must come before the high court of Parliament and be sanctioned by Parliament before any further steps may be taken. Under those circumstances it seems to me that it is impossible to imagine that the provisions of the statute will ibe made to subserve any merely individual interests. That is not the idea at all; the idea is that the courts shall determine whether or not removal is in the interests of the Indians and in the interests of the public.

In the event of removal, the Indians shall be fully compensated in every respect and provided for elsewhere.


Charles Marcil: I am sorry to be obliged to insist upon this matter, but there has been nothing as yet to show by whom application for this land is to be made.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no question of application at all.


Charles Marcil: If the minister refers a
case to the Exchequer Court, he will do so, presumably, because somebody suggested that a portion of this reserve should be taken for some public purpose, or otherwise. If this application came from the Atlantic and Lake Superior railway, from the Intercolonial railway, from the town of Camp-bellton or from any public body and if the land were to serve a public purpose, I would not find fault, because I think the interests of the public are supreme, but in this' case we do not know who the application may come from.


Robert Laird Borden: In this respect the legislation is exactly the same as the Act was found in 1911. No application was contemplated; it was supposed that the superintendent general of Indian Affairs would keep himself acquainted with the conditions in connection with these reserves throughout the country and I presume that it was expected that 'when a certain condition forced itself upon his attention, he might, after careful consideration, make the reference to the Exchequer Court of Canada which is provided for in the statute.


William James Roche: The interpretation placed
upon this section by the hon. member for Edmonton is evidently that, where there is too much land or more than is necessary for the Indians, for that reason alone the reference can be made to the Exchequer Court. As the Act was not intended primarily to cover that condition, I would have no objection to striking out the words ' or which contains more land than is necessary for the use of the band ' in the third and fourth lines of subsection 1 of section 6, and I beg to move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Frank Oliver: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am very glad that the minister has seen fit to eliminate what appeared to me to be the most objectionable part of this legislation, but even then I do not think he goes far enough. As has been stated by the hon. member for Edmonton, either we are the custodians of the Indians and their property, or we are not. Anybody who knows the resourcefulness of people throughout the country- I am not referring to one set of politicians more than to another-can see how readily some people can get up some sort of an excuse to justify the department taking action. Two illustrations have been given this afternoon and evening: one was the Kitsilano reserve in British Columbia; certain people wanted that land, and they got it. The member for Vancouver and the minister may explain it in any way they like, but the fact remains that the Indians have lost their land and the people who wanted it have got it. The other, was the case down in New Brunswick. A certain gentleman wanted the lumber or the land of that reserve, and he got it through this department without any trouble. True, that by the vigilance of some people, myself included, the man has been compelled to pay a fairly good price, though even then probably only part of what the land is worth. If this Bill goes through even as amended, and leaves in the words:
Or which is so situated as to materially retard the development of the surrounding-country.
I can readily see how -certain designing gentlemen might convince the minister that it is necessary to get rid of the rest of the reserve ini order not to retard the development of the country. It looks to me as if this was a scheme by which every small Indian reserve in Canada may be obliterated, and the gentlemen who -axe support-

ing my hon. friends opposite will have ability and originality enough to devise some scheme by which these lands will be sold. My hon. friend knows how resourceful people are wham dealing with a friendly Government. Perhaps the most useless provision in the whole Bill is that by which the minister provides for counsel for the Indians. We know how easy it is to provide counsel who are not working for the Indians, but for the people who want the Indians' land. To my mind, that is the most objectionable clause in the whole Bill. I think that this section-should be, entirely eliminated. We have already legislation to deal with a reserve in the vicinity of a large city, but here you are bringing it down to a reserve near any little town of 2,000 or 3,000 people. You are putting it into the hands of designing people. to get the Indians' land, and the Indians cannot help themselves.	-


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to. Yeas, 43; nays, 17.
Charles Marcil: I did not vote as I was
paired with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty).


Hugh Guthrie: I lam paired with the
hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster). Otherwise, I would have voted against the section.
On section 9-restriction Indian dances, etc.


William F. Carroll: I want a little information from the minister. It might more properly be asked for on section I, but perhaps the minister may give it to me now. Does the Department of Indian Affairs make any provision for the upkeep of young Indians who may be sent to reformatories for petty offences?


William James Roche: I understand they have
to he committed by a judge of the province.


William F. Carroll: Under the provisions of our criminal law a person under the age of 18, instead of being sent to a peniten-trary, may be sent to a reformatory, or, as we call it in Nova Scotia, an industrial school. They are kept in confinement at those schools, but are taught certain trades. The municipality or town from which the culprit goes pays a portion of his upkeep providing the parents are not in a position to do so. I want to find out whether the department pays a certain proportion of the upkeep of a young Indian sent to a reformatory?


William James Roche: No.
Mr. 'CARROLL: I just wish to bring to the attention of the department this fact. In our large cities with Indian reserves in the vicinity, young Indians like other people get into trouble. They commit offences and may he sent either to the penitentiary, to the common jail, or to a reformatory. Our stipendiary magistrates and judges try these cases-mostly stipendiary magistrates

and in the majority of cases the young Indians are sent to the common jail, where they do not receive proper care. I am talking of Indians under the age of 18. In Nova Scotia, we have both a Protestant and a (Catholic reformatory. The Catholic offender is sent by the stipendiary magistrate to the Catholic reformatory, and the Protestant offender to the Protestant reformatory at Halifax, but Indians do not get the same justice, for the reason that they do not pay any taxes to the city or municipality. The city or municipality must pay a part of the upkeep of the inmates from its particular locality in these reformatories. I have talked with the stipendiary magistrate in Sydney and he has said to me: The city will not stand for me sending these young Indians to the reformatory because the municipality will have to pay for their upkeep. The provincial Government pays one-third, the municipality one-third, and the home provides something further as a matter of charity. The magistrate stated that it would not be fair to send these young Indians to the reformatory because the Indians do not pay anything towards the taxes of the city and therefore he had to send the Indians to the common jail. My hon. friend knows what common jails are for young people whether they are Indians or white people. I bring this to his attention so that the department may give it some further consideration and, perhaps, at some future time, something may be done towards bringing in an amendment to meet this particular difficulty.
Bill reported.
On the motion for the third reading of the Bill:


Frank Oliver: With reference to the section with regard to permission to Indians to participate in shows, this matter was discussed the other night and we were not quite clear as to whether this prohibition applied to the interchange of visits among reserves for the purpose of attending festival and ceremonial dances.


William James Roche: No, it does not.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committtee on Bill No. 137, to amend the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act.
On section 1-schedule to Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act amended:
William James Roche: The Bill is intended to make
a considerable addition to the forest reserves in Saskatchewan, enlarging them from 1,801 square miles to 7,910 square miles. In Alberta there is no alteration whatever. In British Columbia there are added 1 -5 square miles and eliminated 1 -75 square miles, making very little alteration.


Frank Oliver: Where is the elimination?


William James Roche: There is an elimination at Long Lake Forest reserve of 1 -5 square miles and at Larch Hills of 1 -75 square miles. In Manitoba the Bill cuts off 36 miles from the northwest corner of the Riding Mountain Forest reserve, reducing the area there from 4,180 5 to 4,072 square miles. The reason of this is that the reserve cuts into the municipality of Bolton and the municipal council have petitioned us representing that they desire to have this land for taxation purposes. The area has been examined and pronounced fit for agricultural purposes and the municipal authorities are desirous of having it included in the municipality.


Frank Oliver: Has the minister considered the Idesirability of withdrawing the Lake Manitoba Forest reserve in Dauphin? It is between lake Dauphin and lake Manitoba, and consists of about seven townships. It is closely settled. I was advised while I was minister that there was no good warrant for maintaining it as a forest reserve, and I was under the impression that I had provided for its elimination. There is one small timber limit on it. I was discussing this with the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Cruise), and he did not think it shoukd be maintained as a reserve.


William James Roche: The seven townships on the west side of lake Manitoba were pronounced fit for agricultural purposes, and there is a branch of the Canadian Northern railway running into that country which will penetrate the reserve and go farther north. The area has been withdrawn from the forest reserve.


Frank Oliver: Has that withdrawal taken place under this schedule?


William James Roche: No, the townships were withdrawn before, and it is my intention to have them thrown open for entry in the ordinary procedure this summer.


Frank Oliver: The reserve was withdrawn, but the proceedings have not yet been taken to throw it open for entry?


William James Roche: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-paragraph 7 of schedule amenlded:
Frank Oliver: The minister might say as we go on what the particular reserve is, and what the change is.


William James Roche: First, Long Lake; second, Larch Hill.


Frank Oliver: Increase or decrease?


William James Roche: The former decreased by 1.5 miles and the latter by 1.75.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to. [DOT]
On section 3-paragraph 10 of schedule amended:
William James Roche: This provides for the area taken from the Riding Mountain.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the Riding
Mountain reserve, the hon. member tor Dauphin (Mr. Cruise) left with me a return in which I find the following letter:
Office of the Hiding Mountain Forest Reserve, Kelwood, Man., November 12, 1912.
Sir,-Enclosed find report of P. T. Allen, forest assistant on townships 24 and 25, range 27, W., in the Riding Mountain forest reserve. I am of the opinion that this is a fair and impartial report, and is an accurate description of the lqjid and conditions contained in those two townships. J. W. Curry was on this work with Mr. Allen and they made a thorough inspection as directed to do. The map of this territory will follow in a few days, as it is not quite completed at the time of writing; it will convey a fairly good idea of the amount of water, sloughs and timbered land, as well as stony ridges ; there are also a large number of photographs that will be of value to show the nature of the reproduction, and the general looks of the country.
1 am satisfied now, as I always was, that this is forest land and not fit for agricultural purposes, and if it is out of the reserve we will know it is for political reasons only.
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd) Albert McLeod,
Supervisor.
R. H. Campbell, Esq.,
Directory of Forestry,
Ottawa.


William James Roche: I have reports here quite to the. contrary. The present supervisor, the Inspector of Forest Reserves, and the Homestead Inspector, report in its favour. There is a resolution passed by the municipal council, signed by Mr. Armstrong, secretary-treasurer, stating that the municipality desires to see it open as there is no timber on the same, and it is suitable for agricultural purposes. There is a let- ' ter from the reeve, Mr. Hemboff, a strong political opponent of mine, who sends forward a resolution of the council, stating that it should be thrown open for homesteading. The preponderance of evidence seems to be for its withdrawal.


Frank Oliver: I am not familiar with the case myself, but there seems to be quite a strong sentiment. In view of the discussions between the minister and myself in former years, in regard to the settlement at Clear Like in the Riding Mountain reserve, has that been completely disposed of?


William James Roche: There is no settlement
there now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Porcupine Forest reserve
Frank Oliver: That seems to he a very large addition. My understanding of the purpose of these forest reserves was that by their reservation the source of water supply would be conserved. Is this part of the Porcupine Hills a source of water supply?


William James Roche: It covers the headwaters
of a large number of important rivers. It ,is reported ;that the soil is nowhere of permanent agricultural value.


Frank Oliver: Under present circumstances, when our homestead lands are within measurable distance of exhaustion in the vicinity of existing railroads, there should not be reserved such an enormous tract of land as this unless the Government is thoroughly satisfied that there is no considerable portion of it available for homesteads. On the face of it, it would seem hardly reasonable that there is in that country such an immense area that does not contain land suitable for homesteading. If the department has thoroughly examined the country and is satisfied, of course there is. nothing more to be said. I merely draw attention to the fact that this is a time when there should foe more than ordinary care taken before reserving lands from
homestead settlement. I observe that a large part of the area has been township surveyed.


William James Roche: I made particular inquiry as to this land. It was selected and temporarily set aside the year before last and I notice that resolutions have been passed by the associated boards of trade in the West urging us to enlarge these forest reserves for the conservation of water and for re-forestration. The officers report that these lands are not available from an agricultural standpoint.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Cypress Hills.
Frank Oliver: I would foe quite ready
to support the minister in fairly drastic action in securing considerable reservation on the crest of the Cypress Hills, and for an expenditure^ for the purposes of affores-tration. There is an area, above all others in the West, where good can foe done by securing the conservation of the water supply at the source of the streams flowing both north and south. I must plead guilty to not having taken very drastic action when I was minister in making large reserves there, but as the present minister seems to foe willing to make large reservations I desire to place before him the fact that the summit of the Cypress Hills is above all other territory in the prairie provinces the place where it is desirable there should be afforestration. I would be quite willing to go a very considerable distance in support of the minister in acquiring lands in the proper localities and in making provisions for the growth of forest upon these land's, believing that a very great good can foe done by that policy.


William James Roche: This is a new reservation situated near Seward and Webb on the Cana-idan Pacific railway main line. It has been reported on as a suitable place for this reservation. The Minister of Agriculture for the Province of Saskatchewan suggested in 1907 that as there was not yet sufficient forest in Saskatchewan to provide for the settlers, this area of agricultural land should foe reserved and- reforested. In response to a request of this character this reserve has been created.


Frank Oliver: Is it west or east of Maple Creek?


William James Roche: East, I think.


Frank Oliver: I have found it on the
map; it is not very far from Swift Current.

I have travelled over that railway very frequently and I do not happen to have in mind any territory answering the description that my hon. friend has given. I almost think that he is running this reserve business a little into the ground.


William James Roche: Do you not think the Minister of Agriculture of Saskatchewan is pretty well acquainted with the neighbourhood?


Frank Oliver: I will admit that he ought to be and, of course, he has an interest in the matter. The responsibility, however, is here; and again I say that to make a reservation on the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway, that is absolutely accessible to settlement, is a rather serious responsibility unless there is remarkably good reason for it.


William James Roche: It would have been taken up before now if it had been fit for agriculture.	,


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On subsection 33-Elbow Porest reserve: Mr. ROCHE: This is a new reserve.
Frank Oliver: Is it west of the Elbow?.


William James Roche: It is 70 miles northwest of Moosejaw, and about 80 miles directly south of Saskatoon.


Frank Oliver: Is it west of the Saskatchewan river?


William James Roche: The area proposed for the reserve is 119 square miles; and consists of two parts, one lying immediately west of the Saskatchewan river, at what is known as ' The Elbow ' of said river, the other lying three or four miles east of the Saskatchewan river.


Frank Oliver: These lands are being set aside as forest reserves, although as a matter of fact there is no forest there. Is it the intention of the Government to establish forests, or is this merely a name used for the purpose of establishing a reservation?


William James Roche: The -intention is to reforest. It is land, as I understand ,it, that is unfit for agricultural purposes and has not been settled upon, although in an old and settled part of the province. It has been recommended as suitable only for reforestation.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 35-Keppel Forest reserve: Mr. OLIVER: Where is that?
William James Roche: That is a new reserve consisting of three blocks, and comprising 86.25 square miles lying southeast of Battleford, in the province of Saskatchewan.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 36-Manitou Forest reserve:
William James Roche: This is a new reserve, comprising a broken and hilly tract of 180 square miles, lying immediately south of Manitou lake, and reaching to the western boundary of Saskatchewan.
Sub-section agreed to.
On subsection 37-Steep Creek Forest reserve.


William James Roche: This is a new reserve comprising seven square miles, lying about 15 miles east of Prince Albert.
Sub-section agreed to.
On subsection 38-Big River Forest reserve :


William James Roche: This is a new reserve, comprising 1,373 square miles northwest of Prince Albert.


Frank Oliver: This big reservation is a very large one. What is the idea in regard to it.


William James Roche: This is intended to form a water shed. The tract is a rolling plain to the east and southeast; to the west and southwest it is quite hilly. The elevation of the country ranges from 1,500 to 1,900 feet above sea level. The general slope of the country is to the north and northwest, it being the headwater of the Crooked river, Big river and Chitok river, which are branches of the Beaver river, one of the large tributaries of the Churchill river. Sloughs and muskegs are numerous. The soil is sandy. The timber is mostly aspen, spruce and jackpine, but balsam and tamarack are also found. The tract has suffered a great deal from fires. Reproduction is as a rule very good. There are no settlers within the proposed reserve. The forest -survey was made by an expert of the Forest School of the University of Toronto.


Mr. McKAY:: Has the hon. minister any amendments to propose to section 38? I notice there are some sections in the description given now that were drawn to my attention some time ago.


William James Roche: I think we eliminated those that the hon. gentleman has in mind.


James McKay: I notice that in lines 29 and 30 there are some sections included that were drawn to my attention, and also in line 38. The sections that I would like to have excluded are all the sections in township 54 and the south halves of township 55, ranges 7, 8 and 9. I notice these are included in the Bill I have before me.


William James Roche: I understood that the hon. gentleman had gone over this Bill with the superintendent, and that this section was arranged between them.


James McKay: At the time I went over the Bill we excluded those sections brought to my attention at the time. Since then there are other sections; and if I remember correctly, I wrote to the minister in regard to the matter.


William James Roche: The hon. member knows the country better than I do. If he will vouch for it that these are agricultural lands, I do not wish to include them.


James McKay: The information that I have received is to the effect that they are suitable for agriculture. I move:
That subsection 38 be amended by striking out the following words and figures where they occur in lines 29 and 30, all of the sections of township 54, range 9, not included in the Indian reserve No. 118.
Subsection, as amended, >agree<i to.
On subsection 39-Sturgeon Forest reserve :


Frank Oliver: Where is this?


William James Roche: This is a new reserve lying northwest of Prince Albert and immediately east of Sturgeon river. This tract covers the watershed between Churchill river on the north and the Saskatchewan river on the south, and is drained to th<i north by Big river and Red Deer river and to the south by Sturgeon river and Littio Red Deer river.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 40-Pasquia Forest reserve:
Where is this reserve?
William James Roche: In central eastern Saskatchewan. The tract is elevated and broken, reaching an elevation of 2,000 feet, which is about 1,000 feet above the elevation of the surrounding country. Several large streams have their rise in this tract. The forest cover consists of white and black spruce
also poplar and aspen. Some jackpine, larch and balsam fir also occur.


Frank Oliver: A very large area is it
not?


William James Roche: Yes, a very important
watershed.


Frank Oliver: From what I have heard of that country it is more desirable to get rid of the water than to conserve it. That is the great difficulty-there is fno much water.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to. Section 6 agreed to.	[DOT]
On section 7 :
Mr. WARNOCK:: Before this section
passes, I have beam requested to discuss with the minister the grazing leases in the forest reserve, but if I could have an opportunity to discuss that subject on the Estimates, I should not need to take it up now.


William James Roche: That opportunity will be
afforded.


David Warnock: There is just one matter to which I wish to call attention. A good many years ago an Order in Council was passed prohibiting the use of sheep on an area from the international boundary on the south to High river on the north and west to range 27 or 28. It was passeld at the instigation of some of the large ranchers of that country. I would like to know if that Order in Council is still in force, and whether the minister proposes to have it rescinded with regard to the forest reserves.


William James Roche: Is the area referred to
within a forest reserve?


David Warnock: Some of the forest reserves are within it; one that I have particularly in mind being the Porcupine reserve.


William James Roche: The Order in Council is still in force.


David Warnock: I will Idiscuss it on the Estimates.


Frank Oliver: To what locations does this section 7 apply? That is not clear from the Bill.


William James Roche: The Miskonlith reserve is in the province of British Columbia. It covers an area of two square miles. And paragraph 2 of section 7 is to correct the

description of the Rocky Mountains Forest reserve, which was incorrect through a clerical error.


Frank Oliver: What is the effect of it?


William James Roche: It does not affect any area.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Frank Oliver: Before the Bill is reported, I desire to ask the minister with regard to the reserve for military purposes in the province of Alberta-three townships south and the south branch. This was set apart of the Red Deer river, between the Red Deer and the South Saskatchewan. This was set apart some years ago for purposes in connection with the Militia Department. I understand that a lease has been granted of these three townships to some organization for some purpose connected with rearing and supplying horses for military use. If the matter has not been up before and the minister couM give in a few words what the arrangement is, I should be glad. What I had in mind is this-that a number of these so-called forest reserves that are being set aside under this Act will be necessarily treated as grazing areas, and I presume under arrangements to be made from time to time. I should like to know just what has been done in regard to this one to which I have referred. Though not a forest reserve, it is a reservation for Government purposes and I suppose in this respect will be in much the same position as the forest reserves which we have just declared.


William James Roche: The matter is one concerning which I have not much personal knowledge. The area was set apart some years ago for the Militia Department, and therefore any lease that has been issued has been issued by that department and not by the Department of the Interior. I wish to explain an amendment which I propose to this Bill. I propose an amendment to the Bill to'be known as section 5(a). The effect of the section is to withdraw the south west quarter of section 6, township 44, range 8, west of the 4th meridian, from the Buffalo Park reserve. This is across the river from the rest of the reserve, has never been fenced in. It was given as a homestead entry and the man has qualified. This was recommended some years ago by Mr. McIntyre, then representative of Strathcona, but never formally recognized by Act of Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill as amended reported.

On the motion for the third reading of the Bill:
Frank Oliver: 'The estimates for forestry have not yet been taken up?


William James Roche: No.


Frank Oliver: There are some matters I wish to discuss and I will take them up on those estimates.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (acting Minister of Railways and Canals), Bill No. 181, respecting the entrance of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Comapny and the Canadian Northern Railway Company into their joint terminals at the city of Winnipeg, was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in ihe Chair.
On section 1-agreement of April 10, 1911, confirmed:
Frank Oliver: In the absence of the
leader of the Opposition and of the exMinister of Railways and Canals, I think that the acting Minister of Railways had better make an explanation of this Bill.


Mr. REID:: In April, 1911, the Minister of Railway^ and Canals, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Railway Company entered into an agreement whereby the Grand Trunk Pacific railway would have the right to use the terminals of the Canadian Northern railway in the city of Winnipeg. For some reason, no Bill was passed in the House confirming that agreement, and this Bill is introduced merely for that purpose. A schedule showing the terms of the agreement is printed with the Bill. As the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) who made this agreement, is not present this evening, 1 would suggest that the committee pass the Bill and allow it to stand for third reading and if there is anything wrong in the Bill the hon. member for South Renfrew and myself will take it up later.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there not a case before the Supreme Court at present in connection with this agreement?


John Dowsley Reid: If I remember rightly, there is a case before the Exchequer Court as to the value of the land taken by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for termi-

nals, but that does not in any way affect this agreement.
On section 2-use of railway tracks confirmed notwithstanding encumbrances:


Mr. MACDONALD:: Will my hon. friend explain what he apprehends that the effect of section 2 will be?


John Dowsley Reid: The effect of this section is that the Grand Trunk Pacific railway is to continue to use the terminals, notwithstanding any foreclosure of bonds or mortgages, subject, of course, to the payment of the rental of $30,000 per annum, as set forth in the schedule.


William John Macdonald: The object of this
section is to provide that if there be foreclosure of mortgage securing the bonds of the Canadian Northern Railway
10	p.m. Company, the lease will not be swept away by an order of the court providing for sale and possession subsequent to sale?


John Dowsley Reid: That is the object.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When may we expect a similar Bill with regard to the agreement between the Transcontinental railway and the other lines at Quebec?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know whether or not a Bill is necessary; at all events, negotiations are going on and the matter is, as I understand it, in good shape. As the hon. member knows, the matter has not come directly to my attention, but I will look it up and give him the information in a day or two.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.	.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Martin Burrell (Minister of Agriculture), Bill No. 113 to regulate
Cold Storage Warehouses was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the 'Chair.
On section 1-short title:
Mr. BURRELL:: The intention of this Bill
is to give statutory power to exercise what we may call reasonable and desirable control over the cold storage industry of the country in so far as it is connected with the food supply of the public. We thought it well to deal with it, if we deal with it at all, as a federal matter although it has been argued that it is more a matter of provincial concern. It has not been found to work v.ery well in those States of the Union that
have taken up the control of cold storage, and considering it more as a federal matter the Federal Government of the United States are now contemplating passing legislation in that direction. In the commerce connected with the food supplies of the whole country, cold storage, as every member of the House knows, is a factor of very recent importance, but of very extraordinary importance. I think possibly the best brief description of cold storage is this:
Cold storage is essentially the application of scientific temperature control to the solution of an economic problem, namely the storage of the surplus of one season against the want of the next and of preventing the fluctuation of prices from below the cost of production at harvest to a point beyond the resources of the purse the remainder of the year.
As every one knows, the problem of the preservation of food from one season to another, or from a period of flush production to a period of scarce production is as old as life itself, and it is only by the artificial control of temperatures in recent years that the whole question of cold storage has come so prominently to the front, and has made it a matter of very special public interest. To use the words of one writer:
Cold storage has enlarged the number of food products preservable to their original condition and created a new industry; it has largely removed the function of this class of food preservation from the scattered individual producers to large central establishments and thrown the business of accumulating and conserving surplus more fully into the hands of tradesmen. It has permitted the preservation of flesh foods in a raw state, which were never before so preservable; and it has so improved the quality of stored products whose current production never ceases entirely that in many cases the held goods cannot be distinguished from the fresh production.
I can only say for myself-mid I think most members who have given this matter any consideration will agree with me- that the history and development of the whole cold storage movement is a great, if not, perhaps, an unmixed blessing. Like other businesses closely concerned with popular needs, it has its evils. There is a tendency, of course, to centralization and specialization, and it is partly, I think, because of this, and partly because of the increase in the cost of living in recent years, that there has been a good deal of criticism levelled at cold storage, chiefly along two lines: first, along the line of prices, it being assumed, in some quarters, that extortionate prices by cold storage men have led to an increase in the cost of living-and, secondly, largely on account of a misconception, criticism has been

levelled against the health side of cold storage. It was on account of a lot of this criticism in the United States that various states put through legislation, some of it, however, not working out very well. It was only as recently as 1911 that the first state law was enacted in relation to cold storage-in the state of Indiana, I think it was. At the present time about eleven states have cold storage legislation, but there is no federal legislation. In a natural season of production, if we could assume that there was no such thing as the preserving of food products, the man who produces food does it first for himself, and then for the rest of the community. When their needs are supplied naturally the prices come down, and he is going to cease producing any more until prices give him at least some little profit for himself. Then comes a slack season of production and prices go up. Finally there is a season of no production, when prices amount to almost famine levels for any of the particular articles which are not produced at all. One might ask what is the actual effect of cold storage within the last ten or fifteen years on our modern commercial life. Briefly, I think I may put it in this way: That it enables the carrying of food products from a season of flush production to a time of no production or a minimum production, and trus has resulted in a lowering of prices, and also enables a greater production because the man who can produce for a relatively larger market is going to produce more heavily than ever before. I think it would ibe well within the mark to state in connection with the criticism of the high prices that cold storage men have exacted in this country, and in the United States, that on the whole prices have been lower for the whole year than they would have been if we had no cold storage at all. It has been said by some people that speculation has entered into this question, and that prices have been held up at an absolutely unreasonable height; but those who have given any study to the matter at all will find that although speculation has sometimes entered into it to a regrettable extent, taking one year, with another the man who goes into the cold storage business after all, perhaps, gets only a moderate profit. In this connection I would like to read a line or two of the report of the commission that was appointed some time ago by the Chicago Association of Commerce, which practi-
cally bears out the report of the Massachusetts committee, which probably gave more study to this question than any other committee. The commissioners say:
Exhaustive examination of the statistics compiled under the direction of your committee, and a comparison of these statistics with the facts obtained by the Department of Agriculture, after an exhaustive research demonstrates clearly that the prices of butter, eggs, poultry and fish have been more uniform during the year since cold storage has become a factor in the care of food products than before that period. These statistics also show that taking an average for a period of years, prices on the whole have been lower than during the years when cold storage was unknown.
Dr. H. E. Barnard, State Food and Drug Commissioner of Indiana, has said that this statement is in substantial agreement with the conclusions reached by the Massachusetts committee, and that it is undoubtedly an accurate gauge of the effect of cold storage upon the price of foodstuffs. A good deal of criticism has been levelled at cold storage in connection with its health phase. On this point I would like to quote from probably the greatest authority on the continent, Dr. Mary E. Pennington, who is chief of the United tates Food Research Laboratory. In the examination held recently she was asked this question:
How does the change that takes place at the end of twelve months of cold storage, 10 degrees F., compare with the change that takes Place in the same product after twenty-four hours' exposure under the same circumstances before refrigeration?
Dr. Pennington: There would probably he a greater change in twenty-four hours if the temperature was from 65 degrees to 75 degrees than if the temperature was 10 degrees F. for twelve months.
Mr. Littlefield: That is to say, the ordinary food product that is kept in the house, without being kept in a refrigerator, under ordinary circumstances would show more deterioration than the same food product kept in cold storage for twelve months?
Dr. Pennington: If the atmospheric temperature should be over 60 degrees, it would -that is in respect to chickens.-We have at the expiration of twelve months (in storage at 10 degrees F.) a change which is fairly comparable with the change at the end of fifteen days at 32 degrees F., and with the change at the end of five and a half days in a good house refrigerator, and which is very much less than the change at the end of three days at a temperature at from 65 to 75 degrees.
Senator Commins: As to meat kept hard frozen for twelve months; would a chicken so kept and eaten at the end of twelve months be injurious to the health of the person who ate it?
Dr. Pennington: I have eaten many of them and found them very palatable.
There has been a lot of discussion in regard to the effect of cold storage on eggs.
%

Dr. Pennington was- asked by a member of the .committee:
Will you be kind enough to say to the committee whether your results with reference to eggs are practically parallel with the results you have described in connection with poultry?
Dr. Pennington: The investigation or study of, eggs has been practically along the same lines as the study of poultry. Eggs are more difficult to handle if anything and keep in good condition than poultry. Nature has set a limit on eggs herself. An egg ordinarily will not keep in good condition under refrigeration for more than ten months-between nine and ten months generally-and it must be an extra good egg that will hold in good condition for ten months. Eggs that are to be kept under refrigeration must be even more carefully selected than poultry which is to be kept hard frozen.
In other places she repeats that am egg will deteriorate more in twenty-four hours in a certain condition of temperature and humidity than in eight or nine months in cold storage. One other illustration I might give of the result in regard to fish because it has been stated that the effect of cold storage on fish is rather disastrous. The testimony of Dr. William J. Gi-es, Professor of Biological Chemistry, Columbia University, is interesting in this regard. He was asked:
Mr. Littlefield: Have you had occasion to examine fish that have been the subject of cold storage?
Dr. Gies: I have.
Mr. Littlefield: Please state to the committee what your experiments in that line have been?
Dr. Gies: Briefly stated, fish In cold storage for a year, blue fish for example, and fluke- when allowed to thaw in my office on an ordinary table at room temperature after 24 hours; (that is after the fish had softened) appeared to be practically identical with fresh fish of the same kind.
I am only giving these instances to show that there is a great deal of misconception about the effect pf cold storage, from a health point of view, on food. The conclusion -arrived at by practically all the authorities who have looked into this matter is that a vastly greater effect is to be attributed to the condition of the food when it goes into cold storage than the length of time in which it stays in cold storage.
As to the legislation on the subject, there are eleven states of the union which have acts on their statute books, but as these acts have only been in existence for the past two and a-half years there has not been time to see how they have worked out. In Pennsylvania they have a law which has been very much quoted and it is not at all popular, not only with a great many of the
fruit producers and handlers but even with a good many portions of the public. In Massachusetts probably the law has worked out more satisfactorily, and I can give the committee roughly the lines upon which these cold storage bills run. We recently sent our cold storage commissioner, Mr. Buddick, down to Boston, to Pennsylvania and to New York to to get into contact with the people connected with the operation of the cold storage laws and study them as closely as he could, to talk with the leading people interested in cold storage matters and to obtain such information as he could for the benefit of any legislation which might be brought forward here. At the present time in Canada we have about forty-six public cold storages, twenty-seven of which have received subsidies, or are at present receiving them from the Government; that is thirty per cent on the cost of construction. In this country there are something like fifty private cold storage establishments, abattoirs and other places of that kind. As nearly as I can learn the total cold storage capacity in Canada would be about 18,000,000 to 20,000,000 cubic feet, a very small amount when it is realized that in the city of Boston alone they have one company which is operating about 10,000,000 cubic feet of cold storage. As far as the actual quantity of.food products going into cold storage both here and in the United States is concerned, I think that probably it would not amount to more than eight or ten per cent. As far as our own country goes, of course, the whole cold storage system is comparatively in the very beginning of its development. We have thought, therefore, that in this legislation it would be better not to fix any arbitrary limit of time, or to embody in the legislation some of the details that have been worked out in the state legislation across the line because they are continually altering their laws as they are found to be unsatisfactory. The whole thing is in an experimental stage and we thought that it would be better to ask the House to pass this Bill in such shape as to give power, by regulation, to deal with all the questions practically that have been dealt with in most of the legislation passed in the various states. I shall take the legislation in the States of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania as examples. In Pennsylvania they have an arbitrary time limit fixed during which food products may be kept in cold storage. It is provided that beef may be kept four months; pork, sheep, lamb, six months;

veal, three months; fowl, drawn, five months, undrawn, ten months; eggs, eight months; butter, nine months; fish, nine months. There are also certain regulations in regard to marking. The food or the container is to be marked with the date of receipt and withdrawal. The sale of food kept in cold storage outside of the state is prohibited if held for more than the time limit or unless marked as provided. Quarterly reports to the dairy and food commissioner are provided for and more frequently if required by such officer. In Massachusetts the law was approved on May 27 and it became effective on September 1, 1912. It includes fresh meat and fresh meat products, fresh fish, poultry, eggs and butter. There is a time limit of tmelve months which may be extended by the state board of health if the foods are still in good condition. Articles of food, except fish, or container, are to be marked with the date of receipt. Reports are to be made quarterly to the state board of health or more frequently if the board requires.
In various states they require from three to four reports a year to a yearly report. In this Bill we have provided, under section 4, that the regulations will deal with all these questions including the question of making returns to the Government to show exactly what is in cold storage. I think that, without wearying the committee any more as to the general lines upon which the Bill runs, I will leave the committee to take it up clause by clause.


Mr. ROBB:: Would the minister explain how he will control importations ex cold storage from other countries?


Martin Burrell: We have not worked out that feature, and I cannot say just now exactly how the United States is dealing with that.


James Alexander Robb: The minister proposes to fix a time limit on cold storage in Canada, but supposing stuff had been in colld storage in Massachusetts fpr eight months and was then shipped to Canada, how is he going to help that?


Martin Burrell: I am not definitely proposing that we should exercise the power now to impose a time limit, and I am not sure it would be wise to do so with our present knowledge. In the Bill we are reserving the power to fix a time limit if our experience should justify the department in doing so. As to other stuff coming from cold storage to Canada, I presume

that would be dealt with under the inspection of food.	.


Frank Oliver: The certificate given by the minister to cold storage and its operation would rather lead to the conclusion that there was no necessity for this Bill. Cold storage as carried on at present, as I would gather from the remarks of the minister, is altogether a benevolent and generally a beneficent institution. That being the case there does not seem to be any serious necessity for its regulation. I think the majority of the House will believe that notwithstanding the good opinion the minister has of cold storage, the principle of cold storage an'd its operation, its regulation by the authority of Parliament is entirely desirable. The principle which the minister announces as being the principle of cold storage, namely, that by this means the surplus of one season can be made to supply the scarcity of the following season to the benefit of the consumer and producer in both seasons, is a beautiful theory, but like many other theories it does not work out in practice. As a matter of fact, everybody believed when cold storage was begun that it was going to work exactly in the way the minister suggested, namely, that the producer was going to get more and the consumer was going to pay less, but after the experience of several years the general public have come to the conclusion that the way cold storage works out is that the consumer pays more and the producer gets less. It is generally believed now that the policy of holding perishable food products from season to season enables the dealer on a large scale in these products, who has cold storage facilities, to control the market both as to purchase and sale, as he could not do unless he had the facilities of cold storage. It is believed that as a matter of fact, having that control of the market, he uses the control to depress unduly the price to the producer by reason of his always having an available surplus on hand, and on the other hand to unduly enhance the cost to the consumer because he can always hold back the supply without it being destroyed by process of time. It is because of this condition, the very opposite of the theory which the minister places before the House, that regulation under Government authority becomes a necessity. While I do not agree with the minister's premises I do agree with his conclusion.
But while we want governmental regulation we want that regulation on the authority and with the knowledge of Parliament, as a

means by which the public is aware of what is being done for its benefit. The minister has taken authority to do as he pleases in regard to the regulation of cold storage; in regard to the regulation of the. supply and demand of a large percentage of the food of the people, without reference to any authority except his own will and that of his colleagues in the Cabinet. That is a fairly large order and for my own part I do not think it is an order that should be filled. 1 think that in all fairness, the Government if satisfied that regulation of such an important department of business and of life is necessary, should be prepared to inform the public through the medium of Parliament how far they propose to go in that regulation. The fact still remains that cold storage ought to be a public benefit, and it is by means of legislation that we hope to secure that benefit to the public that we do not secure at the present time. Before we give authority to the minister, we would like to know how far the interests of the public are to be protected, if they are to be protected; how far the present conditions of monopoly are to be affected; whether they are to be perpetuated, or whether the interests of the public are to be left in the condition they are in to-day. It is not a small matter; it is a very great matter, and I and others think that before the Government ask for such wide authority they should be in a position to inform the House to what extent they expect to exercise that authority, and in fact to, so far as possible, take authority direct from Parliament so that the public would know how far they are being protected and how far they are not. I think legislation on the subject is-entirely desirable, but I think it is altogether too much in line with about ninety-nine per cent of the legislation brought down by this Government since it took office; that is to say, legislation giving authority to govern by Order in Council. That is necessary at times, but I am one to say that I think we have had really too much of it at the hands of this Government, and I regret that this is another example.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: Will this Bill cover the cold storage of meat ?


Martin Burrell: Yes, it covers all cold storage.


Angus Alexander McLean: There are regulations now providing that an inspector shall be in every cold storage warehouse where meats are put in cold storage. Is it the purpose of this Bill that a regulation shall be made that there shall be a Government inspector in every cold storage warehouse ?
If so, I woulid suggest to the minister that the certificate of the inspector should be prima facie evidence that the product was fit for food when it entered that warehouse. Otherwise the burden oi proof would be on the party who put the goods into storage and the goods might not be put into cold storage at all on receipt and might be spoiled before being put into cold storage. The consequence would be that, if the goods were spoiled, the burden of proof would be on the man who put them in. He would have no evidence at all; all the evidence would be in the hands of the cold storage warehouse. If he had a suit, if the goods were spoiled through the fault of the cold storage warehouse, he would have to call as witness a man in charge of that warehouse, and probably the man who handled the goods when they went in could not be found. Therefore, I would suggest-and I think this is a provision that is in the cold storage bills in other places, especially in the United States-that a certificate of the Government inspector, where there is an inspector in a warehouse in this country, should be prima facie evidence that the goods were as he certified that they were when they went in, that is fit for human food.
Mr. A. DeWITT FOSTER: I do not rise to make any extended remarks, but the subject under consideration is one which is of peculiar interest. I apprehend that we are considering question 4?


The CHAIRMAN:: We are on section 3.


George Eulas Foster: (reading):
3.	The Governor in Council may make such regulation as he deems necessary or expedient, to provide for a supervision of all cold storage warehouses.
4.	Such regulations may provide,-
(a)	for the licensing of all cold storage warehouses;
(b)	for the inspection of all cold storage warehouses;
(c)	for a system of periodic and other reports by owners of cold storage warehouses showing the quantities in storage of the several articles of food.
In regard to that, it appears to me that the report made by the owners should be a report not only as to the quantities in storage of the several articles of food, but as to the time they are in cold storage. It seems to me that the time articles of food are kept in cold storage is of paramount, importance to the consuming public of this country. I notice that the minister made reference in his remarks to eggs being kept

ten months in cold storage. Personally I am not an expert as to how long an egg should !be kept in cold storage; but from some little experience I have had with eggs that" have been in cold storage for five or six months, I would say that a period of ten months was absolutely too long. In support of that contention I propose to give the House some information elicited last fall during an investigation into the high cost of articles of food by a committee appointed by the United States Government, which sat in the city of New York during the month of November. At this investigation some very startling evidence was brought to light as to the method and management and the result of cold storage systems operated in the United States. It seems to me that what is true of large cities in the United States may be equally true of cities in Canada where cold storage has been adopted or put into force to the same degree. The committee sat not only in New York but in other large cities of the United States, and the conditions they found there were similar. At the possible expense of wearying the House, I should like to put on ' Hansard ' a few of the findings of that committee during their session in New York.
About that time one of the leading newspapers took up the question and showed it up to the public in a very remarkable manner. Demonstration stations were opened in various parts of the cities after the results of the investigation were brought to light, so that eggs that had formerly been selling on the market for 45, 50 and 60 cents per dozen were actually placed on the market at these demonstration stations at the price of thirty-two cents per dozen. In discussions which I had with egg dealers and other gentlemen closely connected with this business, I was informed, much to my surprise, that what had been brought to light at that investigation was going on and had been going on for a great number of years. One of the leading newspapers, the Globe, came out on November 2, as follows-I will read just a quotation or two:
Everybody in New York now knows that the public is being robbed by the egg gamblers, but everybody does not know th&L trie State of New York has conspired to help the gamblers in their cold-blooded conspiracy against public health and the public pocketbook. The Globe proposes through this demonstration station at the corner of 8th avenue and 121st street to make the whole scheme of egg trickery, egg fraud and egg corruption so transparent that the authorities, who now say they never realized what was going on, will no longer have any excuses for inaction, and that the people may 
have sufficient facts within their hands to enable them to give themselves the protection which they are now denied by the national, state and city governments. The eggs which will be sold [DOT]to-morrow in the Globe demonstration station at 32 cents per dozen are nothing more nor less than storage eggs. There are no ' fresh eggs ' in New York.
According to the Globe there were no fresh eggs in New York on November 2. That seems to be a startling thing in itself. (Beading):
All the eggs sold in this city at the present time are known to the trade as ' western fresh,' ' fresh held ' and * storage.' Western fresh eggs may be from a month to three months old. Fresh held are between four and six months old. Storage eggs are between five and eight months old.
*So that when we come to consider the labelling of eggs for cold storage in Canada, I would respectfully draw to the attention of the minister that he pay particular attention to the framing of his regulations in that regard. (Beading):
One year ago we had a law that obliged the retailer to mark all ' storage ' eggs for just what they were. The people were eating storage eggs then just as they are eating them now, but they did not know the facts then as they do now. Therefore when they saw the word ' storage ' on the egg, they refused to buy it. At least this is what the egg gamblers, who held the eggs in storage, said to the New York Legislature, and the New York Legislature believed the story and at once repealed the law so that the retailer could label his storage eggs with a lie and call them 'fresh.' Under this fraudulent * fresh ' label the public is content to pay as high as 55 cents or 60 cents per dozen for the same'eggs for which it would not pay 35 cents per dozen if they sold under their correct name. So say the egg gamblers, whose influence was so powerful with New York politicians that quietly and obligingly the politicians changed the law.
Back to the demonstration station eggs, everyone of which is guaranteed to he a good egg of the class known as ' straight candled storage.'
I point out these words as the various degrees of eggs placed upon the market and eaten by the consumer. (Beading):
All the ' weak ' eggs, ' very weak ' eggs,
' spots,' and ' cracks ' have been candled out of these 32 cent storage eggs. Each case contains an average of from twenty to twenty-two dozen fancy and from eight to ten dozen fancy seconds. These are the same eggs that are now selling all over New York city at 40. 42, 45, 50 and 55 cents per dozen under labels that deceive.
As a matter of fact, they should sell to the public for much less than 32 cents per dozen. The Globe does not own them, however, and, therefore, cannot control the prices. These eggs were put away in storage in the month of June and at that time cost between 18 and 19 cents a dozen. Storage charges cost 40 cents per case, interest 22 cents per case, cartage 3 cents,

insurance 6 cents, which bring up the extra charges 71 cents per case of thirty dozen each.
At 19 cents per dozen, the outside price, a case of thirty dozen eggs when it went into storage cost If 5.70.
Plus the extra charges of 71 cents, these eggs now represent an investment of $6.41 per case of thirty dozen, or 21 1-3 cents per dozen. This figure, 21 1-3 cents per dozen, represents the actual money invested in each dozen of eggs which will be sold to-morrow at the Globe's demonstration station at 32 cents per dozen.
On November 1 there were 1,800,000 cases of storage eggs in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, and Jersey city, representing an investment of $6.41 per case or $11,538,000. The gamblers who put these eggs away in the public coolers are now releasing them to the jobber at prices ranging from 29 cents to 40 cents per dozen. At a low estimate. The Globe takes the gambler's average price to the jobber at 30 cents per dozen, or $9 per case.
At this price the gambler realizes on the eggs held by him November 1, $16,200,000, or a profit of nearly $5,000,000. The jobber in selling these eggs to the retailer makes anothei profit of 2, 3, and 4 cents per dozen. At 2 cents per dozen his profit on a case is 60 cents. On 1,800,000 cases his profit is more than $1,000,000. The eggs which will be sold to-morrow at the Globe demonstration station at 32 cents per dozen were purchased from an egg gambler at 29 cents. Allowing the jobber a cent a dozen as his profit and also allowing him the loss on rejected eggs not good enough to sell at the demonstration station, the figure of 32 cents per dozen is arrived at.
At this price for good eggs the public allows a profit to those who have candled their eggs since November 1 of $5,742,000, which is exactly 50 per cent on the investment, quite a handsome figure. However, at 32 cents per dozen the public cannot buy good eggs in tne city of New York. As a matter of fact, many of the eggs sold at 45, 50 and 55 cents are not good eggs.
If we take the average retail price of eggs on sale to-day in New York at 45 cents per dozen, we have a retail value of $13.50 per case. At this price the eggs, which, with all over head charges figured into the cost, represent an investment of $11,538,000 now have a value of $24,300,000, showing a profit on one of the most necessary and vital articles of our daily food supply of over one hundred per cent.
In view of the facts elicited by that committee, I am bound to say that I agree absolutely with the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). While I have no fear in regard to trusting the Minister of Agriculture to draft regulations, and while I do not object to the Governor in Council making such regulations, I do feel that if Canada is to branch out into cold storage, as this Bill provides, the minister must make absolutely stringent regulations for the control of these articles of food; for in the future of this country the great difficulty we are going to have, and that wef have to-day, is perhaps not so much the| production of a food supply, but the dis-| tribution of that food supply, so as to get it| 225
from the producer to the consumer .at the lowest possible cost to the consumer, eliminating the various profits that are made to which profits the cold-storage of the .United States and of other countries, and I dare say of this country, will contribute ,a very large proportion. It is for that reason that I have risen to say that I hope that in any regulations enacted provision will be made for the owners to make a jeport with regard to the time these eggs .are to be in cold storage. Because after they are in there for several months, they ,are sorted out and graded under different names. Some axe a shade better than others. And, while there is a fine under the existing laws of New York for the selling of eggs of an inferior quality, and white, during the investigation of this committee, three men were actually put in jail for that offence, yet safeguards must ;be placed around the labelling of these eggs and the time they are in .cold-storage, in order do preserve the best interest of the consuming public of Canada. And if the minister had done no more to assist consumer and producer than the production of this measure-and he has done a great deal more, as every one will admit- he will have conferred upon the people of this country one of the greatest benefits that have ever been enacted by this House or that could have been conferred upon the people, because it means that he wi.l have the control of cold storage absolutely within his own power.


William F. Carroll: The Bill before the
House is a rather important one from any point of view, but I am forced to say is rather a makeshift Bill. When cold storage was first made a business in this country, the majority of the consumers in Canada were led to believe that it was going to be a blessing, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Edmonton. But as time went on, these cold-storage institutions, especially in our large cities, took upon themselves absolute monopoly over all the products they could handle that were necessary for the people of those cities, and as a distributing centre for the smaller towns and cities. In the large cities to-day of Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and others, these cold storage institutions will buy up foodstuffs such as meats, cheese, and so on when they are cheap, and will hold them there until other supplies have run out, and then they will take their own good Jltime to give these articles to the public as Ifresh articles at greatly enhanced prices. 1

356ft

would like to point out that the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) introduced into this House a Bill which to my mind was almost a masterpiece of the legislation of the kind we should have in this country for the regulation of cold storage. There is very little use in the minister or the Government taking power to pass regulations governing this thing. The minister tells us, as I understand him, that there is no great necessity at present, and he does1 not see that there will be any in the near future, for placing a time limit for articles kept in cold storage. I say that is the most important point the minister must grapple with. I say that this feature which he thinks will not he needed now or in the near future is one of the most necessary features of legislation for the regulation of cold storage.
Articles are sent out of cold storage and solid to the unsuspecting public as fresh products. I say that every article put into cold storage should be handled in such a way that the consumer of that article would know exactly what he is buying. He should know, in the first place, whether or not the article is a cold storage article, and he should know, in the second place, how long it has been in cold storage. The question asked by the hon. member for Huntingdon is a very important one; I notice that it is covered by section 4 of the Bill introduced in this House by the hon. member for Selkirk, which says:
No food which has been placed in cold storage and has been removed therefrom for the purpose of sale shall be returned into cold storage.
The Bill brought down by the Minister of Agriculture makes absolutely no attempt to deal with that phase of the question. For example, articles which have been in cold storage in New York for seven, eight, nine or ten months may be sent to Canada and placed in cold storage here for a similar or a longer period of time. I think that there should be added to this Bill a section which would prohibit cold storage people in any other country or in any other part of Canada from removing their goolds from one cold storage warehouse to another with any other purpose in view than that of immediate sale and immediate distribution.
Another provision which, to my mind, should be in this Bill, is that which is embodied in section 9 of the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Selkirk. It is as follows:
All food taken out of cold storage and offered for sale shall be marked with a card upon which shall be plainly printed in red block let-
[Mr. Carroll, j
ters not less than two inches long, upon a white ground, the words 'cold storage goods.'
That would be notice to the public that instead of buying what they might suppose to be fresh goods, they were actually buying cold storage goods. I say that the Bill as introduced by the hon. Minister of Agriculture having regard to the fact that he has told us that at the present stage there is no necessity for a time limit and that we may, therefore, presume that no regulations will be made by the department to that end- is an absolutely bald Bill, and I do not think it should be allowed to pass unless there are incorporated in it some of the provisions which are contained in the Bill presented to the House by the hon. member for Selkirk. There is no doubt that if the Department of Agriculture will at the present stage embody in the present Bill the provisions contained in Bill 6, the proposed legislation will have some effect. In my humble opinion, the high cost of living in our large industrial centres to-day is traceable largely to cold storage in this country. The New York commission referred to by the hon. member for Kings has come to that conclusion. By putting legislation on our statute books which would force the co!d storage institutions in this country to break up their trusts, monopolies, and combines in respect of the necessaries of life, the minister would be giving relief to the consumers and incidentally not hurting the producers. While cold storage is of some benefit to the producers of foodstuffs, it is not the blessing to them that we were led to believe it would be when cold storage was given an impetus in this country by legislation some years ago. There can be no political controversy with regard to this piece of legislation. There are hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House who will think that the hon. minister's way of regulating cold storage warehouse is the better way, but I am sure that persons who have given attention and study to this subject will invariably tell the minister that instead of making regulations five, six and seven
11	p.m. months hence, we should have upon our statute books at the close of the present session such legislation as will contain every possible regulation having in view the interests of the people. The most stringent legislation with regard to the time during which goods may be kept in cold storage warehouses should be made. I think the minister would be well advised if he would revise his legislation and, instead of making regulations by Order in Council, regulate this

matter by provisions incorporated in this Bill and passed by this Parliament. I do not think that the minister, even in his own department, can get more information in the matter of cold storage than he oan get right here in the Chamber of the Commons. Here we- have gentlemen from all over the country-from the Maritime provinces, from central Canada and from the West. We are sent here to legislate, not to give power to the Government or to a member of a Government to make regulations. There are here members who have given this matter special consideration; members from all parts of Canada who know the conditions, and I am sure that after a thorough discussion of this Bill in the House the minister would come to the conclusion to pass a Bill not giving him power to make regulations but putting upon the statute book the regulations proposed by the hon. member for 'Selkirk.


Mr. NESBITT:: 
Martin Burrell: It would depend entirely upon how far we went as far as regulations 'are concerned. I entirely agree with the view of the hon. member for South Cape Breton that this is not a political matter; we are all engaged in trying to do something towards effecting reasonable control and supervision of cold storage warehouses, which have never been subject to such supervision or control. But, with all due deference to the hon. member for Edmonton and to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, I must say that I do not entirely agree with all that they have said.
Our own cold storage commissioner has given this subject more attention than probably any member of this House. It is his particular business; he has had made a careful study of the question, and has looked into the matter at first hand as it exists in the United States,, and in view of the experiences that they had in the United States and the experience we had in our own department, we came to the deliberate conclusion that it would be at least a step in advance to warn all cold storage warehouses that we were going to demand from them a proper report of all their proceedings, and a right to inspect the condition of their warehouses in order to exercise some control over the stuff that went in and came out. That, in itself, would mean 225i
something; and I think it would be better to undertake that initial step and take power to make further regulations than, in the light of our present knowledge, to embody in a Bill things that might prove most unsatisfactory, very unworkable, and very cumbrous, and that would have to be dealt with over again. I believe that it is better to go slowly. I admit that it may not be always good policy to legislate by regulation. I quite appreciate that point of view, although I think my hon. friends opposite will agree that there has been a good deal of legislation for a great many years in which power has been taken to do things by regulation. That practice is not confined to this Government, and I do not suppose that any hon. member will assert that it is. I quite agree that something ought to be done, and I think it would be as foolish to do nothing as to go too far. I would .ask that this thing be given a trial. What I wanted to do was to refer this matter to the Agricultural Committee, who could examine witnesses, take evidence, and thresh the whole thing out. If the House comes to the conclusion that it would be better to do that-better to defer action until the matter has been thoroughly threshed out-I would prefer doing that than, in the light of my present knowledge, embodying in actual legislation at the present time a lot of the suggestions that have been made. As far as the Government is concerned, we have no desire except to do something towards exercising' proper supervision and control. After all,
I think that a great many cold storage v arehouses in the country are trying to do the square thing by the public, and I think that on the whole our system works out better than that of the United States, because although it is true that there are private institutions which may perhaps be engaged in a certain line of work that may-be called monopoly, at the same time we have a great number of cold storage warehouses of smaller capacity that exercise a reasonable check on them. Our system, initiated by the late Government, of .subsidizing a number of cold storage firms all over the country with a reasonable check on rates, has been spoken of in the highest terms by the United States authorities as being a step in the right direction, and as being a set off against monopolies controlling the cold storage business. My desire as minister, and the desire of the Government, is to take power, which we will exercise as fast as we can in the light of fuller knowledge,

and to demand, now, ? thorough accounting and reporting from cold storage warehouses, and to have such powers of inspection that we can make them toe the mark and see that all the stuff comes in and goes out properly. Some such step, we think, is in the public interest.


George Henry Bradbury: I am afraid I cannot altogether agree with the minister when he practically points out that the cold storage system of Canada and the United States has done so much good, and very little harm. I am one that believes the cold storage system is a blessing, if properly managed. If not properly controlled, I believe it may be one of the greatest curses ever inaugurated. From my own observations and I have given a little time to the study of this question-I am satisfied that something [DOT]ought to be done to control the cold storage systems of Canada. There is no question in my mind that under the present system-with no regulations at all-the cold storage systems of Canada can, and are storing away food products in the seasons of the year when they are flush, and holding them until the supply is scarce, and then exacting undue profits from the masses of the people of this country. I am satisfied of that. Take the present time for instance. April and May is the season when the eggs for the whole year are stored. Now the mere fact that the cold storage systems of the United States and Canada are in the market purchasing those eggs by the million, enchanees the price of eggs at the present time to the consumers of this country. The eggs are placed in cold storage and carried over till next winter when we are asked to pay double and sometimes treble the price that the cold storage people are paying for the eggs at the present time. The eggs were bought at the minimum price in April and May, although the price at that time was raised to the consumer because, if the cold storage people were not in the market for them, the eggs could be bought much cheaper.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does my hon. frienld not think that the price would be higher six months from now, if there were no cold storage system?


George Henry Bradbury: No, I do not think the price would be higher, and I will tell you why. The consumer would be laying away the eggs as he used to in the old days, putting them away just as the cold storage people are doing now. They would not be cold storage eggs, but stored eggs, which

would be practically just as good for the average housekeeper.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Do the coM storage
people prohibit that now?


George Henry Bradbury: No, they do not; but the fact of the cold storage people being in the market has raised the price of eggs at this season of the year.
Mr. NESIBiITT: What about the producer? I am one of them.


George Henry Bradbury: That is all right; the producer is getting the benefit; but surely the consumer ought to be considered. The same thing applies to all food products; to meats, to fish, and everything that is put away in cold storage. I claim that the Bill that should be enacted as law in this country should make some provision for a time limit. The minister's Bill takes powers to regulate, and no doubt if the regulations limit the time of cold storage properly that would cover the necessities of the case, but everything depends on what those regulations are going to be. I have made a little attempt at framing a Bill for this purpose. I introduced a Bill in the early part of the session-


Mr. CAR YELL:: A very good one.


George Henry Bradbury: -but it did not get very far. I have given considerable attention to that Bill, and I believe it covers the essential points in a cold storage Bill for Canada. Clause 3 of my Bill was designed to give the minister control of the coM storage business of Canada; to license every firm in Canada doing a cold storage business; that no building could be utilized for cold storage purposes until it had been licensed by the Department of Agriculture. At the present time, there is absolutely no control. Any one can set up in the cold storage business and take in eggs, meat, and poultry, whether the cold storage house is sanitary or otherwise. If we are going to have a system of cold storage in Canada, I claim that it should be controlled absolutely by this Government, and we have a precedent for that. Eleven or twelve states on the other side of the line have been devoting a good deal of time in the last four or five years to legislation to controlthe cold storage systems of the United States. There has been a great deal done and there has been a great deal of money expended in the way of investigation. Many state committees, and some federal committees, have investigated this question thoroughly and we have a vast amount of evidence from all these committees which tends to

guide us in any legislation that we may pass here. California has a cold storage system [by license, also (Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York and North Dakota. In all these states there is legislation under which no cold storage system can exist except by procuring a license from the Government.


Martin Burrell: They will be licensed
here.


George Henry Bradbury: I am assured by the minister that they will be licensed here. That is an important point. Clause 4 of the Bill that I had before the House was designed to protect the health of the consumer. It is an established fact that ptomaine poisoning may occur from the . eating of meats, poultry and fish, not from the fact that they have been held in cold storage, but from the fact that it had been exposed to the atmosphere, thawed or partially thawed and then put back into cold storage and refrozen. All the authorities on hygiene who have studied this question agree that food should not be returned to cold storage after being exposed for sale in the open air. In nearly every one of the states to which I have referred it was enacted that no food products, taken out of cold storage and offered for sale, should be returned to cold storage again. All the evidence that I have under my hand, including that of Dr. Wiley, the celebrated American authority on this question, proves beyond doubt that many serious cases of ptomaine poisoning have been occasioned Iby the thawing out of poultry which has been taken out of cold storage, exposed in the butcher store or in the green-grocer's store for from one to three days, put back into cold storage, refrozen and offered for sale again. I provided in the Bill I had before the House that it should be illegal for a storekeeper to expose poultry or meats for-sale which had been taken out of cold storage and then to place these products back in cold storage and have them refrozen.
Clause 5 of my Bill was designed for the purpose of informing the public as to how long meat and other food products had been held in cold storage. That is a clause that is contained in the Act of every state to which I have referred. It is provided that every product offered for sale should be labelled ' cold storage food,' ' cold storage eggs,' or 'cold storage meat,' so that the consumer, when he walks into the store and
purchases any article, will know what he is buying. My hon. friend from Kings, Nova Scotia0(Mr. A. DeWitt Foster), has given us some information as to the effect this has had in New York. Evidence given before the committee of the United States Senate shows that cold storage eggs are sold repeatedly as fresh eggs in New York city.
It is done right here in Ottawa and in every city in Canada. People imagine that they are buying fresh eggs when they are paying from 50 to 75 cents per dozen, but as a matter of fact they are buying cold storage eggs. It is the duty of the Government to have these eggs labelled when they come out of cold storage. Nobody objects to eating a cold storage egg, if good, as the cold storage egg may be just as good as the fresh egg, but we do object to paying the price of fresh eggs when we are getting cold storage eggs. It would be a very simple thing to have a law passed that would compel those who deal in eggs or meat to have these articles labelled as being cold storage products.
Clause 6 was designed to protect the consumer in two ways: The first was to make it impossible for large cold storage plants to corner any sort of food products and by doing so increase the cost to the consumer. The second was to ensure as far as possible that the product mentioned to be sold was in prime condition. This, Mr. Chairman, is a very important clause. If cold storage operators are allowed to hold eggs for an indefinite time the effect is liable to be very disastrous to the consumer. We have records showing that eggs have been held as long as three years and then sold to the consumer. We have evidence here, taken by the committee to which I have referred, demonstrating clearly that after three weeks eggs begin to deteriorate. If the egg is put into the cold storage perfectly fresh and the temperature is maintained regularly at from 32 to 34 F., they say that an egg will keep for six months perfectly fresh but we know by experience that we eat eggs in Ottawa that have been in cold storage from eight to twelve months and sometimes longer. The egg loses its value as a food product. The same applies to meat. You can hold meat, if it is put into a sanitary cold storage in prime condition, properly frozen and kept frozen, for a considerable time, but no one can tell me that meat does not deteriorate after it has been frozen. Take a quarter of beef out of cold storage and expose it to the atmosphere and the deterioration is . so rapid that it soon becomes unfit to eat. But that is not the worst feature of it to my mind. I believe


Edward Walter Nesbitt: How would you pay for that cold storage?


George Henry Bradbury: I would propose that the Government should pay a large proportion of the cost, and that the producers in the different localities should pay the balance. We are bonusing now large cold storage warehouses to the extent of twenty per cent, and we could afford I believe, to bonus these smaller places to the extent of 50 per cent, and that it would be in the interest of the consumers and producers alike. The producer, I believe, will obtain a better price for his products and the con-

sumer "would obtain these products at a less price than he is paying to-day, (because there would be eliminated the cold storage middlemen, who take these eggs and hold them for months, and then ask and get a bigger price than they ought to. It seems to me that something along this line should be done by the Government.
The high cost of living is a live question throughout the country, and we have had it discussed in this House. It is well known that there is no country in the world that has a better supply of fresh fish than we *have. Canada is one of the greatest fish-producing countries 'in the world, and yet you find that the people of Canada are paying to-day more for their fish than are the people of any other country similarly situated. On the Atlantic coast we have one of the greatest fisheries in the world, and on the Pacific coast we have enormously productive halibut grounds. We have allowed these halibut grounds to be exploited by the Americans. Last year 26,000,000 pounds of that fish were shipped from the Pacific coast, principally to the United States. I claim that, through a proper cold storage system, controlled by the Government, we ought to be able to in some way control a fair proportion of the halibut for sale in Canadian cities at a reasonable price, and the same would apply to the products of our Atlantic fisheries. A few days ago in this House some gentlemen from the Lower provinces urged the Government to subsidize a line of steamers to take our fish to Boston, but .it seems to me a more sensible and practical thing, and more in the interests of the consumers of Canada, would be to provide cheap transport for fish from the Atlantic coast to Ontario and Manitoba, so that we would be able to purchase this fish at a reasonable cost, instead of bonusing a line of steamers to take it out of our country. These are problems we have to face, and problems that require a great deal of study and thought. We have these great natural resources which belong to the people of ,Canada, and the people of Canada have the right to get the full benefit of them. Instead of encouraging the export of our natural products such as fish, it would be much better to encourage interprovincial means of transportation, so that the people of Canada might be supplied with Canadian fish at a reasonable cost.
There is just one other phase of the question. I am not going to take up any more of the time of the House; but I shall be very glad to see this Bill go into force,
and I hope, when it does, that every cold storage system of Canada will be placed under the absolute control of the (department; that it will be licensed, and that every one of these cold storage systems will be compelled to make a monthly report of the amount of food products of different kinds held in the different cold storage plants. I believe this is absolutely necessary in the interest of the public. The public should know how many eggs and how much meat are at a given time in the cold storage systems of the country. If the public knew that, it would go a long way perhaps towards compelling the cold storage people, the people who control the food products of this country, to do the right thing by the people. The trouble at the present time is that there are millions of dozens of eggs and millions of pounds of meat stored away sometimes for one, two or three years. The people Ido not know it; and the cold storage people have been known to take out tons and tons of chicken and poultry of different kinds that have been in cold storage for two or three years and have destroyed them sooner than sell them to the people at a reasonable price at a reasonable time. I hope the minister will take every precaution he can to safeguard the interest of the people.


Martin Burrell: If it is desired to have more discussion on this Bill, I do not wish to choke 63 discussion. Our (desire is to get all possible light on the subject, and I therefore move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Post Office-Outside service, salaries and allowances, $6,429,920.75.
Mr. GRAHAM:: What is the increase
made up of?	.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The increase of $932,190.75 is made up as follows:
Increase in the post offices .. $756,672.50
Railway mail service	 125,314.00
Post office inspectors' offices ..	50,204.25
Total	$932,190.75
The first item of $756,672.50 is made up as follows:
Increases given to employees
under the Act of 1913 . . . . $191,556.00 240 statutory increases of $100
each	 [DOT][DOT]	24,000.00

98 statutory increases of $74
each	$	7,252.00
721 statutory increases of $50
each	 36,050.00
1,102 statutory increases of
$78.25 each	 86,231.50
200 additional clerkships	.	.	. .	112,070.00
342 additional letter carriers,
porters, etc	 214,405.00
Salaries of letter carriers at
Amherst and Belleville	..	..	11,268.00
Increase in provisional allowance	 43,840.00
Increase in amount for temporary clerical and other assistance	 30,000.00
Total	$756,672.50
This makes up the first item of the three I gave a moment ago which together make the total sum of $932,190.75. Now, the second item contributing to this total amount is one of $125,214, and it is made up as follows:
104 statutory increases of $100 each... $ 10,400 70 statutory increases of $100 each
under the Act of 1913	 7,000
177 statutory increases of $50 each.. 8,85( 4 statutory increases of $78.25 each...	313
20 statutory increases of $91.25 each. .	1,825
109 additional clerkships	 59,300
1 additional messenger	 626
Increase in mileage allowance	 25,000
Increase in provisional allowance.. ..	10,000
Increase in amount for temporary clerical and other assistance	 2,000
Total	$125,314
The third item of $50,204.25 is composed as follows:
Increase under the Act of 1913.. ..$ 1,095 50 48 statutory increases of $100 each.. 4,800 00 13	"	"	74	" ..	962	00102	"	"	50	"	5,100	001	"	"	11	... .	11	006	"	"	78.25 each	469	5028 additional clerkships	
29,286 001 additional messenger	
626 00
Difference between the amount provided for an assistant inspector at Sherbrooke ($1,800) and the salary of Mr. C. E. Soles, transferred from the Montreal inspector's office to fill
the vacancy ($2,000)	 200 00
Difference between the amount previously voted for the salary of a messenger in the inspector's office,
Ottawa ($500) and the salary of Mr. O'Brien, appointed to the vacancy ($704.25)	 154 25
Increased provisional allowance .. . . 2,500 00 Increase in amount for temporary clerical and other assistance	 5,000 00
Total	$50,204 25
These items of $50,204.25,	$125,314 and
$756,672.50 together make the total of $932,190.75.


George William Kyte: I understand the minister to say that he has difficulty in getting men to fill the positions of railway mail clerks.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I said that we had
difficulty in finding people who had passed the examination. But we have quite a number of candidates who would like to get in without having passed the examination.


George William Kyte: I have a letter from a man in my county, Mr. Abraham Beranger, who tells me that he made application for a position in the railway mail service but for some reason his letter appears to have been overlooked.
An lion. MEMBER: A Liberal.


George William Kyte: No, a Conservative. His
father has been a consistent Conservative as long as I have known him. The young man holds a second-class certificate as teacher in the public schools of Nova Scotia and he desired to get some information from me as to whether or not that qualification would entitle him to that position. Perhaps the Postmaster General, when he comes down with his Estimates again, would think of looking up this young man's letter. I would like to give him such information as would enable him to qualify for the position if the qualification he holds at present does not entitle him to it.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.
Tuesday, May 12, 1914.