1916-04-07

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR 1916-17.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Royal Highness the Governor General, transmitting a Supplementary Estimate for the year ending March 31, 1917, was presented by Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Sir THOMAS WHITE:: Perhaps I may be permitted to explain that this represents one-fifth of the amount of the War Appropriation Bill recently introduced by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. I beg to move that the message from His Royal Highness the Governor General be referred to the Committee of Supply.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: This is not an additional amount; it is only a vote on account of the $250,000,000. It is necessary *to make some provision immediately.. I have explained it to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid L^urier).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) has handed me a telegram received from the General Manager of the Intercolonial Railway in regard to return tickets for the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. The telegram is as follows:
Moncton, N.B., 6th April. 1916. Hon. Dr. Reid,
Ottawa, Ont.
Yours 5th re transportation of soldiers. I assume this refers to officers and men of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces. The Canadian Government railways grant the same privilege as applies over all other railways in Canada, namely, on presentation of militia certificate officers and men are granted round trip tickets at first-class fare and one-third. Mailing you to-day copy of our fare notice number 217.
F. P. Gutelius.
That is the regulation in force at the present time. Possibly my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) had in mind something beyond that.



JAPANESE IMMIGRATION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. LEMIEUX:: I wish to correct a
statement which I made the other day in the House concerning Japanese immigration. In connection with a return of the Department of Trade and Commerce, during the discussion of the Estimates of that department, I stated that Japanese immigrants had come to Canada in very great numbers of late. On looking up the monthly statement I find that I made a mistake. I should have said that Japanese immigration, due to the war conditions prevailing both here and in Japan, had decreased; in fact, last year the decrease in immigration amounted to 419.



THE MINISTER OF MILITIA.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. KEMP:: The hon .member for St.
John (Mr. Pugsley) asked me a question yesterday 'as to what I thought to be a clerical error in regard to a question which was answered a few days ago. It appears in Hansard of April 5, page 2,651. In answer to a question by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp), " June 3 " was inserted. The answer should read " 1915-left July 3," instead of June 3.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: July instead of June?


Albert Edward Kemp: July instead of June-a clerical error.	.



CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY-SNOW BLOCKADE ON ESTEVAN-CARLYLE LINE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. TURRIFF:: I wish to draw the attention of the Government and of the hon. Acting Minister of Railways and Canals to the following telegram which I received this morning:
Esteven, Sask., April 6.
J. G. Turriff, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Canadian Northern line Estevan Carlyle blocked for several weeks and no effort being made to relieve serious situation; Lampman and other points out of coal; severe weather still prevails; please use your good offices to get line opened.
(Sgd.) Estevan Board of Trade.
There should not be much excuse, for no efforts having been made to open that line, because I brought this matter to the attention of the House repeatedly over two months ago, when the condition was very bad. The people had at that time been 25 days without 'a train and were suffering from lack of coal and food. This line connects with the main line from Winnipeg to Regina, and there should riot be any great difficulty in getting it opened.
The other railways in that part of the country have been running all winter. Four days is the longest tie-up at one time on any of them. So there i^ very little excuse for this condition of affairs. I brought this matter to the attention of the chairman of the Railway Commission this morning. They had advice of it, but not enough was done by the railway company. The acting Minister of Railways should get after the railway company, and see that they give some sort of accommodation to the settlers.


Mr. REID:: I will bring the matter to the attention of the Railway Commission, which the hon. gentleman knows is the only body that has authority to deal with matters of this kind. The Minister of Railways can only work through that board, in order to bring about any action that may be necessary. When the hon. member brought this matter to the attention of the House on a former occasion, information was given to him that everything that could be done by the railway itself and the Board of Railway Commissioners was being
done. The telegram he has read states that at present there is very severe weather in that part of the country, which is ho doubt the reason they cannot get the road open. I have the greatest confidence in Sir Henry Drayton and his fellow commissioners, and believe they will do everything possible to keep open every road in the country.



ALLEGED OMISSION FROM HANSARD.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Mr. Speaker, I desire to draw your attention to an error in the Hansard report of the sitting of the 2nd of March. On that day there was a discussion on the Estimates between the hon. member for Regina (Mr. W. M. Martin) and the Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) regarding a certain correspondence which was alleged to have passed between the Minister of Militia and high officials in the Conservative party in Regina. The Minister of Militia is reported to have spoken in this way:
Sir Sam Hughes: There was no quarrel between that gentleman and myself as to who should dictate the patronage. The trouble was that I found something not exactly square, and I did not care whether he was Grit or Tory, i his head came off.
I was not present at the discussion, but I am informed that certain words of the Minister of Militia were not reported. My information is to this effect that the minister said:
There was no quarrel between that gentleman and myself as to who should dictate the patronage.
The words omitted were: " I found that fellow grafting, and "- Then followed the words at the end of the sentence:	" his
head came off." But, as I have read, the1 report in'Hansard continues, after the word " patronage ":
I found something not exactly square, and 1 did not care whether he was Grit or Tory, his head came off.
But, as I am informed, the words which the minister used were:	" I found that
fellow grafting." The reason why I bring the matter to the attention of the House is that the words have been reported in some newspapers as they are alleged to have been spoken, and as I have just quoted. They were so reported in the Globe, and the report in the Globe was copied in the Leader, of Regina. A suit for libel is taken against the Leader, and therefore it becomes important that the exact truth should be known, and that,

if the words were spoken as alleged, the Hansard report should be corrected. Personally, I know nothing of the matter. The reports of Hansard are generally very fair and very correct; I have no complaint to make and do not think that anybody will make complaint. But sometimes errors will creep in; and, in this case, if I am correctly informed, there has certainly been an omission. I am told that if you, Mr. Speaker, will call the attention of the reporters to the matter, a correction will be made. Therefore I ask that the matter be rectified.


Robert Laird Borden: I should think it undesirable that the House should interfere in a matter pending in the courts, unless the case is absolutely plain. At all events, if any action is to be taken, it should be brought up, in the first instance, in the Debates Committee, which has special charge of such matters.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection that the matter should be considered by the Debates Committee. I think that a very proper course.



THE CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Pugsley: I desire to call attention to a provision contained in the Act of 1914, relating to the Canadian Northern railway. I do so because there have been a good many complaints during this session concerning the operation of the line. I refer to Chapter 20 of the Statutes of 1914, section 16, which authorizes the Governor in Council to appoint a director of the Canadian Northern. I desire to ask if the director has been appointed, and, if so, the name of that director.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Finance informs me that the director has not been appointed; that is his impression at the moment. We will ascertain precisely. I have no recollection of the matter having come before the Government.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is aware of the section I have referred to, authorizing the appointment of a director by the Governor in Council?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes. ENLISTMENT OF EDWARD PAQUETTE.
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. ETHIER:: I would remind the Acting Minister of Militia and Defence of the re-

marks I made last week with regard to a young man who was being enlisted without the authority of his father. I have not had any answer from the acting minister on the subject yet, but I am obliged to the hon. gentleman, -for I received a letter from the father that the 'boy has been sent back.


Albert Edward Kemp: It was not necessary for me to give a further statement; because I gave instructions that the hoy should be returned, the officer wired me that my instructions would toe carried out, and afterwards wired me that the hoy had been returned.



WAR SUPPLIES - PETROLEUM FOR MUNITION WORKS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. DESCARRIES:: I desire to call the attention of the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals and of the Acting Minister of Militia to a letter which the Imperial Oil Company has written to the Lachine Manufacturing Company concerning the transportation of petroleum. The letter is as follows:
Toronto, Ont., 31st March, 1916. Messrs. La Cie ManufacturiSre de Lachine, Lachine, Qu6.
Dear Sirs,-We desire to call your attention to the fact that both the Grand Trunk railway and the Canadian Pacific railway have issued embargoes, which have the effect of prohibiting shipments of petroleum and its products to you.
Therefore, we believe it is absolutely necessary, in order to prevent the serious condition which is bound to occur if you do not receive promptly shipments of petroleum and its products, which you use in the manufacture of war materials, to take up with the Minister of Militia and advise him as to how serious this action on the part of the railroads is going to effect the manufacture and deliveries by you of such war materials and request that he should issue such instructions to the railroads as will compel them to make an exception of petroleum and its products in all their embargoes.
We have felt that the situation as existing today on the railroads is so serious that, unless we have your co-operation, there is no way to predict what the result will be.
Tours truly,
(Sgd.) The Imperial Oil Company, Limited.
I only ask if the hon. ministers will cooperate in an endeavour to find a remedy for that situation.


Albert Edward Kemp: On account of the very large amount of traffic which is being moved throughout the country at the present time, the railroads find it necessary occasionally to put an embargo upon certain commodi-

ties. The embargo upon crude oil and petroleum was put on a short time ago; and, on the representations of several manufacturers that they would have to close down their businesses if this embargo were continued, I made representations to the Railway Commission. I have since been informed, both verbally and by letter, that this embargo has been removed and that the traffic is again moving as usual.



INTERNED ALIENS AS FARM LABORERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. BUCHANAN:: I notice in the press a report emanating from Winnipeg that the Government has decided To allow the alien prisoners in Western Canada to be utilized as farm labourers during the spring season. I would like to ask the Government, if that statement is correct, under what circumstances the men are to be placed and how they are to be guarded while they are employed on the farms.


Mr. ROGERS:: This question has been
taken up, and General Otter has left for Winnipeg to consult with the commandants of the different internment camps, with a view to making suitable arrangements for the release of the prisoners to assist in the planting of the crop. His purpose in going to Winnipeg is to facilitate means by which this work can be carried out in a manner satisfactory to his department and to the people of Western Canada.



TAXATION OF PROFITS.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 74, to Levy a Tax on Business Profits.-Sir Thomas White. Mr. Blain in the Chair.
On section 6-computation of profits:
John Gillanders Turriff: Would the minister
state in a general way how he expects to arrive at the amount of taxation due? Will he endeavour to arrive at it from the reports sent in by the various companies who are either liable or likely to be liable under this measure, or by sending out officials to visit the different companies and assessing the amount of the levy at the head office of the company?


William Thomas White: In the first instance, returns will be called for under the provisions of the Act. Those returns will be examined, and, if necessary, a further investigation made into them; and the assessments will be made subsequently.


John Gillanders Turriff: If the return looks in a general way to be satisfactory, the amount will be arrived at, at the head office.


William Thomas White: If the return appears to be correct-so far as we can check it up, it will be accepted. Of course, we have mercantile agencies' reports which will enable us to form an idea as to whether the return is substantially correct or not.


Mr. LOGGIE:: I would call the attention of the minister to the fact that the figures which would be given under the forms set out at the end of the Bill would not prove anything. In the form to be used by incorporated companies there is no column for total liabilities, whereas there is such a column in the form to be, used Iby persons other than incorporated companies. In the form to be used by incorporaed companies there is a column for cost of management, etc., whereas in that for non-incorporated companies there is no such column. I think that .some incorporated companies would have great difficulty in preparing a statement showing the cost of management, etc. I have in mind an incorporated company which has several branches, and the cost of management of each branch is charged up to that branch monthly or perhaps daily. It is evident that the cost of management in this case would Ibe very hard to get at. The company that I have in mind has. been asked several times by its bankers to supply such information, but it has been practically impossible for them to do .so; at any rate, they did not think it was practicable for them to try to furnish that information. Their statements are prepared along the line of the schedule in this Bill in Tespect of partnership companies. The total assets and total liabilities are shown, and the subtraction of one from the other shows the capital and surplus. The figures required by these statements are taken from the balance sheet of the company for that accounting period, and it is necessary to show the total liabilities and total assets in order to ascertain the capital and surplus. Another difficulty that will present itself is that some companies may have $30,000 or $40,000 worth of dry goods in stock, some of which may have been on the shelves for seven or eight yeaTS and may have depreciated very much in value. But the management, instead of going over the stock and putting the actual value on the goods, say to the employees: Put this stock down at cost price. I do not know whether or not the

minister 'has considered the advisability of making an allowance for depreciation in such cases. In the large wholesale houses if a piece of goods depreciates in value the proper value is put on that piece of goods, but that is not done in the retail business. Then, subsection 2 says:
The profits of a non-Canadian company shall be the net profits arising from its Canadian business including both domestic and export business.
The Armour Company at Hamilton do a large Canadian 'business as well as a large business arising from their Chicago house. For instance, they sell large quantities of soap in Canada, and they sell also large quantities of packing house products direct from Chicago. Would the minister consider any profits arising from that portion of the business of Armour and -Company to be Canadian business?


William Thomas White: Is my hon. friend certain that the 'business is carried on under the name of Armour and Company in Hamilton, or is it under special incorporation? If it is under special incorporation that incorporation would, be dealt with as a Canadian company. If the American house to which my hon. friend has reference has no domicile in Canada, but sells in Canada from outside, it would not be within the power of the Dominion to reach them by direct taxation.


William Stewart Loggie: I think each of the
branches of this company is domiciled, if you like, under a separate name. There is the original Armour and Company; there is the soap company. The name of the one in Hamilton, I think, is the Armour-Fowler Company; at any rate, they succeeded Fowler. They are all branches of the same company, Armour and Company, the large packers of Chicago. What does the minister say as to my suggestion with regard to allowance for depreciation of stock?


William Thomas White: There should be an allowance for depreciated stock if depreciation can be established as a fact. It is a question of good usage in a particular trade or business. With regard to the second schedule, to which my hon. friend has referred, I purpose taking out the words "cost of management, etc." I think that "gross profits" and "net profits" will be quite sufficient.


William Stewart Loggie: That would be an improvement, I think.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 7-capital of a company:
Mr. SINCLAIR:: Has the minister thought of the fact that there may be companies with their head offices in, for example, the United States or Great Britain, that are doing a large business in Canada and have really no assets in Canada? Shipping companies might have ships registered in Great Britain; they would have offices in Montreal, or some other Canadian city, and carry on a large business and make large profits in Canada. Does the minister expect to get any revenue from companies of that character?


William Thomas White: If they have assets, then the capital employed would be ascertained under the provisions of subsection 2. If they have no assets in Canada I know of no means whereby our legislation could reach them. They would net be within the jurisdiction of the Dominion Government.


John Howard Sinclair: I thought, perhaps, the minister had some method of getting at their profits so as to obtain taxation on their Canadian business.


William Thomas White: In the case of British companies, we need have no anxiety as to their paying their share of war taxation, because the Imperial Finance Act No. 2, and the recent Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, impose very heavy burdens on such companies. I have been amazed at the amounts levied on Canadian companies under Finance Act No. 2, which was passed last December. The amounts are very much larger than any taxation we propose.


John Howard Sinclair: I assume the minister has adopted the theory that the place of registry of a ship is the place of its ownership, and, that if a ship is not registered in Canada it is not a Canadian, asset.*


William Thomas White: While that is a legal question on which I am not quite certain, I think the place of registry would be the domicile of the ship.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-boards of referees:
Mr. NESBITT:: What powers does Part I. of the Inquiries Act give?


William Thomas White: They have the power to exercise judicial functions, to send for witnesses and take evidence, and generally adjudicate on the matter under consideration.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: What will be the area over which each board will have jurisdiction?


William Thomas White: I have not fully determined that, but I think it would make for the convenience of the public if there were a board for each province, or at least for each section of the country, if the country could be divided into sections. I think it would be the object of the Government to provide sufficient boards to ensure the prompt hearing of appeals against assessments. My present view is that there should be a board for each province, but it may be found that a board of reference may be able to serve more than one province.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will the commissioners be paid by salary?


William Thomas White: I should think not; an allowance of so much per day would probably cover the case.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has the minister in mind any class from which he will select the members of the board? I have had suggestions made to me by business men in my own province that it would be undesirable to appoint business men to the position. I suppose that,the objectors think that if men in general mercantile business were appointed, in a small province, they would obtain a knowledge of other people's business which would not be desirable. There might be something in the practice in Ontario where county court judges are not appointed for the district in which they have practised.


William Thomas White: We certainly desire to have boards composed of men of ability and standing and absolute fairness; in other words, high-class men.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: And men who are not known as extreme party followers. If they are high-class men, of course they will not be affected by partisanship.


William Thomas White: Does my hon. friend think there are any extreme partisans in Canada now, in the midst of the war?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I imagine many will present themselves for appointment.


William Thomas White: It being a business tax, I see the force of the suggestion of my hon. friend, and possibly it might be well to have members of the legal profession or county court judges. I shall give the matter very careful consideration. Certainly my own intention is to appoint high-class men, who will deal with absolute fairness with all appeals coming before them; because they will be exercising judicial functions, and the rights of the public must be protected.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would like to protest
against the minister's last suggestion, that they may be lawyers or judges. No county court judge whom I know knows any more about a business statement than a hen knows about holy water. The great mass of lawyers know nothing about business statements. There may be some lawyers who know something about business, but very few, according to my knowledge.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is my hon. friend not aware that most business statements are made by lawyers?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: So far as my section of
the country is concerned, no lawyer makes any business statement that I know of; the business men make the statements them-iselves. I think that the referees should be business men. I do not think that because they know something about the other man's business they would peddle. I will endorse my hon. friend's suggestion that partnership should be kept out as much as possible; but, whether manufacturers, commercial men, or accountants, the referees should certainly be business men who understand the compiling of business statements.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-return required, partnerships, etc.; enlarging time:
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose that
under section 10 the liability is imposed upon every person liable to be taxed to deliver a return without notice. I assume that the department will in some way endeavour to send out some notice.


William Thomas White: The statute must take this form in order to create the obligation, but we shall have complete lists made and copies of the Act sent out with the forms to be filled in and returned.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does this section or any following section follow the English Act?


William Thomas White: I am informed'
that in all our provincial legislation the taxation of companies is administered in the first instance by requiring a form 'to

be filled in. Afterwards, of 4 p.m. course, the department may make such inquiries as are deemed necessary before making the final assessment. I am not able to say off-hand whether this follows the English form or not.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister send out any instructions ih connection with this schedule, or will this schedule alone be sent out? It is a very meagre document, and it strikes me that it would be well to issue some instructions. There may be many people who think that they are not taxable at all under this Bill, and who have an idea that the value of their property does not amount to $50,000. I think the minister should lay down some rules by which people would be guided, and .send them out along with the schedules that have to be filled in.


William Thomas White: It is the intention to send to each parity who is thought to be liable to assessment, a copy of the Act, a circular letter, and the form to be filled up.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section II-Minister may request further return, production of books, etc:
iMr. A. K. MACLEAN: The board makes' the assessment in each case, does it not?
William Thomas White: The department makes the assessment, and if anybody is dissatisfied with the assessment he can appeal to the board of referees.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Then the board is merely-


William Thomas White: A court of revision.


Mr. PARDEE:: In the schedule it is provided that the information under the headings of "Values of assets outside Canada" and "Profits of Canadian business" will be required only from companies having their head office or other place of business outside Canada. It appears to me that there should be some provision -whereby we could get at the insurance companies who have their head offices outside, of Canada, but who are doing business in Canada, such as the mutual companies in the Eastern States, which do a very large business here, and do it at a much cheaper rate than our own companies or the English companies can. I understand that they

are not taxed under this Bill and that they are not get-at-able.


William Thomas White: They are not get-at-able.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Is it not unfair that they should escape? Why should they escape whilst they are taking profits from this country. Is there not some method whereby the profits which they obtain by way of premiums could be taxed? Why can it not be worked out the same as in the case of other companies? The letter sent out by the Canada Fire Insurance Federation, St. James Street, Montreal, has no doubt come to the minister's attention. It appears to me that the arguments set out there are fair, and, looking at the matter purely from a layman's standpoint, I think that if these companies are doing business in Canada, making profits out of the people of Canada, a case should be made out against them, particularly seeing that our own companies are to be taxed. I should like to have an explanation from the minister as to whether it would not be possible to tax the profits of those outside companies.


William Thomas White: This matter was discussed last night when my hon. friend was not in the House. This Bill could not be made to apply to those companies because they are not domiciled in Canada, and have no offices in Canada. They are for the most part, New Epgland mutual companies. Even if they had offices here, it is not probable that they would be liable to assessment under this Bill, because being mutual companies they would not have profits. The question is not a new one, it is an old one, and it has been suggested that as the Dominion Government has no power to directly tait those companies, domiciled, as they are, outside of Canada, a tax should be imposed upon the premiums which are paid by the parties in Canada who take out policies of insurance with such companies.
It is recognized that the Dominion cannot reach them directly and it is suggested that they should be reached indirectly by a direct tax upon the insurers here, that is to say, upon the manufacturers and business people generally throughout the country who place insurance with these unlicensed companies. As I pointed out last night when the matter was up in 1910, there was an acute controversy about it. My predecessor was unable to deal with it. A Bill providing for a tax upon the premiums on insurance policies placed with these

companies was passed by the House of Commons but was rejected 'by the Senate. So, the matter is one of acute controversy between the insurers on the one hand and the insurance companies on the other. It would not be possible, under the provisions of this Bill, to deal with the case. As I said last night, there is no doubt a good deal to be said in favour of the position which the insurance companies of Canada ta'ke. They say: We pay a license fee to do business in Canada and we are taxed in Canada; why should we not be protected against the unlicensed companies which take out no licenses, and pay no taxes in Canada?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The minister says that under this Bill it is impossible to get at these companies. When we are imposing war taxes, is not this the very time to get at them?


William Thomas White: You cannot get at these companies. This is a tax upon the business profits of companies doing business in Canada. These other companies have no domicile in Canada and therefore it is impossible to apply this Bill to them. The only way would be by a supplementary measure of taxation taxing the premiums paid by the insurers throughout Canada. Most business people throughout Canada will be taxed specially by this measure. To impose another tax upon them would be to impose an additional measure of taxation. My own view is that this matter should .be dealt with upon a revision of the Insurance Act. If the contention is sound to-day, and there is much to toe said for it, that taxation should be levied tipon insurers in Canada, that was true two years ago, it was true five years ago, it was true before the outbreak of the war and it will be true after the war is concluded. That question is not necessarily connected with the question of taxation now any more than it was with the licensing and taxing of companies before this war broke out. We have brought down this measure of taxation and it is not the intention of the Government to bring down an additional measure of taxation this year. I do not propose to 'bring down an additional Budget. The time to consider it is when the Insurance Act is under revision.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I rather take issue with
the minister upon that. I think the proper time to consider it is now, when you are making extraordinary efforts to raise money
by taxation schemes. If that is so, surely it is not necessary to leave out the people who are making their profits in Canada. It would not be necessary to further tax the insurer; it would only be necessary to say to those companies: if you are to do business in Canada we demand a portion of the profits.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend, I think, misunderstands the situation. How are we going to say to these insurance companies: you must pay us a certain amount of money? The only way we can meet the situation is by taxing A, B, and C by a supplementary measure of taxation, in respect to the insurance that they have taken out in these companies. The burden would not fall upon the companies, but upon the insurer. That is the point.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I was going to
suggest to the minister that clause 9, which refers to the establishment of a board of referees, is hardly in its proper place. I think it should be just preceding section 15 and under "Assessment Appeals." Section 9 indicates that a board shall be established, but there is no way of knowing its powers or duties until you get ahead to section 15.


William Thomas White: I do not think it necessary to change it.


John Howard Sinclair: What period does the
return asked for after the first of July cover? Does it cover the year 1915?


William Thomas White: The accounting
period which terminates after the first of January, 1915.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is there any way of getting at the profits of the large American grain dealers who deal on the Toronto and Winnipeg grain exchanges, more especially Winnipeg, such as the Armours, Patten and that class of people, and who are supposed to make large profits? They "hedge" on grain-anybody who understands grain exchange business will know what that means -and they make very large profits in the transfer from month to month.


William Thomas White: If they are carrying on business in grain in Canada, and if

they have capital invested in that business, they will be liable if their profits are such as to bring them within the provisions of the Act. A grain firm might have very small offices and yet might have a good deal of money invested in the business in Canada.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not think they are capitalized.


William Thomas White: They might have a good deal of money invested in carrying this grain and otherwise in connection with the conduct of their business. In the case of an American firm doing business in Canada from the United States, its capital might relate to its American business and not to its Canadian business and, if so, the Act would not apply.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think they all have
branch offices in Toronto or Winnipeg, especially Winnipeg. They do not carry capital, I think, but they have a large amount of money invested and the minister might get at them in that way.


William Thomas White: I think that would be capital.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-penalty for not making return and for false statement:
William Thomas White: I beg to move that the words " next " and " to " in the second line be transposed.
Section amended as proposed, agreed to.
On section 13-assessment by minister; payment of taxes where two accounting periods accrue on 1st July, 1916; liability to pay tax continued for three years:


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would suggest that we take this up clause by clause; it is too involved to follow by merely reading. I would like to have an explanation of the first clause. What is the purpose and effect of this provision with regard to two accounting periods in one year?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend will recall that when the measure was first introduced it was pointed out that there might be taxation payments in respect to two accounting payments falling due in the present year, and in order to relieve taxpayers from having to make payment in respect of both we determined to spread the payments over three years.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the hon. minister please take a case; we can follow it much better.


William Thomas White: Take the case of a firm whose accounting periocL ended 31st January, 1915. Its next accounting period would end 31st January, 1916. Now, if we made the assessment in respect of those two accounting periods this year the firm in question would have to pay, in 1916, the taxation in respect of 'both accounting periods. So the following proviso is made:
Provided, however, that if on the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, any person is liable to pay a tax for two or more accounting periods, comprising a period of not less than two years, then such person may pay the tax for the accounting period or periods comprised' in the first twelve months on the first day of November, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, and for the accounting period or periods comprised in the second twelve months, on the first day of November, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, and may pay a tax for the accounting period or periods comprised in the subsequent twelve months on the first day of November, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen.
So the parties assessed will be liable to pay on only one accounting period in twelve months.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The Bill provides:
In default of payment, interest at the rate of ten per centum per annum shall be paid on such tax until the said tax and interest are paid.
Is this ten per cent in the nature of a penalty?


William Thomas White: Yes,


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does that apply to the poor fellow whose accounting periodt ends, as the minister has said, on the 31st of January, 1915, and then has another on the 31st of January, 1916, and postpones payment until next year? Does the ten per cent apply to the postponement?


William Thomas White: No, for he is not in default. This is in the nature of a penalty. Otherwise, there might be difficulty in collecting it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The minister allows postponement of payment for the second accounting period for the very purpose of assisting the man to pay. It is almost certain that the only reason a man does not pay when the tax is due is that he is too hard up. Don't you think that ten per cent is a rather severe penalty? Would not seven per cent be quite enough? A tax is not like any other debt; the man will pay

it promptly if he possibly can. And you do not help him to pay by adding ten per cent to his tax. I have always argued for that principle as against people who, when a man is 'behind in his payments, impose an excessive penalty. I think it is a mistake; for, if a man is honest and willing to pay, nothing is gained by adding excessive interest.


William Thomas White: This penalty is in most assessment measures. My view is that the parties who will be liable to this tax will 'be so well able to pay that there will probably not be much in arrear. But I have no objection to reducing it to seven per cent, and; probably that is sufficient. I move:
That in the twenty-eighth line of subsection 1, the word " ten " be struck out and the word " seven " substituted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Howard Sinclair: If a man makes no return for three years, as mentioned under subsection 3, will he have to pay interest.'


William Thomas White: The assessment
would have to be made, and then, if he failed to pay at the time that the payment became due, the interest penalty would apply.


William Stewart Loggie: If he did not appeal?


William Thomas White: I say that the
assessment would be made. By " assessment " I mean, if appealed against, the assessment as revised or confirmed by the court.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Subsection 3 seems to be more in accord with the Statute of Limitations?


William Thomas White: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is the word "for" in line 35 correct? The line reads: "to be paid by any person for the tax." Should not that be " to be paid by any person as the tax"?


William Thomas White: I think it would be better phraseology to say " the amount of the tax to be paid by any person." I therefore move:
That subsection 2 be amended by inserting the words " of the tax " after the word " amount " in line 34, and by striking out the words "for the tax " in line 35.
Subsection 2 will then read:
The minister shall not be bound by any return or information supplied by or on behalf of a taxpayer, and, notwithstanding such return of information, or if no return has been made, the minister may determine the amount of the tax to be paid by any person.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Subsection 4 gives the minister power to distribute the assessment between the original owner and the subsequent owner?


William Thomas White: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: But it does not give him power to distrain on the goods, and the owner may be worthless.


William Thomas White: I think that is the best you can do under the circumstances referred to.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The person who sells
out may not be worth while taxing.


William Thomas White: If he has sold out, the goods are gone.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Not necessarily. I may
sell out to the Chairman, but my goods are still in the business which the Chairman carries on.


William Thomas White: But he may have sold them by the time the assessment can be made.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not think subsection 4 is a very good one. It is the person who endeavours to evade the tax that we want to make pay.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there any provision in the Bill for establishing a lien?


William Thomas White: There is further on in the Bill.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Subsection 4 says, in part:
The minister may, if-he thinks fit, take the accounting period as the period ending on the date on which the ownership has so changed and assess the tax on the person who owned or carried on the business or acted as agent for the person carrying on the business at that date.
As I understand it, he does not take the right to levy the tax on the business itself, no matter who may be carrying it on. If he did so, the person who purchased would be very careful to see that he had deducted the amount that was liable for the tax from the purchase price, as is usually done in a transfer of real estate.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: As long as a tax is a lien, I do not think that sub-section will be used very much. Of course, there might be no property in many eases.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Would it be -worth while to have the referees for the different provinces make a return to, say, the county court clerks, showing that the taxes had been paid? In that way, in the case of a transfer of business, one could search in order to see whether the tax had been paid or not.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Section 22 also levies the tax only against the person. I do not believe that subsection 4 is a good one.


William Thomas White: It meets the case of a party who has been carrying on business for, let us .say, a portion of a year, and sells out to another party. Two questions would arise: First, as to who could be assessed; and, secondly, as to whether there was a true accounting period which would come under the provisions of the Act relating to the accounting period. Power is taken by this subsection for the minister to take the accounting period as the period ending on the date the ownership .so changed, so that the assessment could be made against that person on the, so to speak, broken accounting period. This subsection follows the precise wording of the English Act, and I think it is the .best that can be done to meet the situation, in question. No doubt there will be cases in which men will sell out and go away, and in which the Dominion Government will not be able to tax. That happens in connection, with all assessments. Take the old personal property asessment in the municipalities in .Ontario. In a considerable .percentage of cases it was not possible to levy the tax because of changes that have taken place.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In Ontario your goods are liable for the tax, no matter whether you have incurred the payment or not. If taxes .are due on a certain house and if I move into that house, my goods are liable for the tax and .can 'he seized. That is the point I want to bring out.


William Thomas White: I do not see that we can change the section. I think the real safeguard is the fact that we are dealing with businesses that have capital of at least $50,006-with a class of people that are likely to pay up and not evade taxation.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 15-court of revision:


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What does the minister say to my suggestion of bringing section 9 forward? I think it is misplaced.


William Thomas White: The Bill will be reprinted for the third reading, and can be recast in that respect. I suppose no objection will he taken to that being done on the third reading.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This Bill will be read considerably, and you have to go to clause 15 before you find out the duties of the board.


William Thomas White: I think that the suggestion is a good one. .


John Howard Sinclair: Do we understand that the board is simply a court of revision and appeal, which 'has nothing to do with the making of assessment?


William Thomas White: The court of revision has power, once the appeal is taken, to make the assessment, but a board of referees does not initiate the assessment in any way. It is a court of appeal, with power to hear evidence, adjudicate upon such evidence, and confirm or amend the assessment.


John Howard Sinclair: Return is made direct to the minister, not to the board?


William Thomas White: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-notice of appeal.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Can one taxpayer appeal from the assessment levied against another?


William Thomas White: No, I have not made that provision. I gave it some thought, but I thought it inexpedient in connection with Dominion taxation. A good deal is to be said for it in connection with provincial taxation, but we are following the precedent of the Customs Act, which provides that only parties in interest can bring a matter of customs valuation before the Customs Board.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is twenty days sufficient notice?


William Thomas White: We thought it was, having regard to the size of the country. There is a proviso re special cases:
Provided, however, that the minister, either before or after the expiry of the said twenty days, may give a taxpayer further time in which to appeal.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think you ought to
make it thirty days. Thirty days go by very quickly when you give a note, you know.


William Thomas White: I think twenty days is ample. I move that the word " sixteen " in line 30 of section 16 be struck out, and that the word " thirteen " be substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 17-hearing and decision by board:
John Howard Sinclair: If an appeal is successful, does the department pay the costs of the appeal?


William Thomas White: The costs would be, I think, in the discretion of the court. I should have to consider that and let it stand for the third reading. It is not usual, I think, to provide for payment of costs by the Crown unless the court so directs.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: It seems hardly fair that the appellant should in any event have to pay the costs, even if successful.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
does not mean "in any event "; he means in the event of being successful.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: He would naturally pay
them if unsuccessful, but it seems hardly fair that he should pay them if successful.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
realizes that provision for the payment of costs might put a premium, so to speak, upon litigating questions of taxation.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Line 4 of this section reads:	" The board may in any case
before it increase the assessment." This wording neither looks nor sounds correct. How would it do to make it read:	" The
board may increase the assessment in any case before it "?


William Thomas White: I do not think
that that would be an improvement; I think it is perfectly clear as it stands.


William Stewart Loggie: This does not seem to
me to be an ordinary equity suit. The value has been given by one party, and you are suing for it, and if you are not successful you may have a right to pay the costs. Inasmuch as the Government are asking a share of the profits of the firm in question, if there be a dispute as to the amount of these ptofits, and it is carried to a board, and the board decides against the owner of the business, it seems rather drastic to call upon him to pay the costs. The Government should pay all costs. They have the
machinery for levying the tax, they have their board appointed in a regular way, and why Exchequer Court fees should be added is something beyond me.	*


William Thomas White: I should not like to go as far as my hon. friend suggests, because that means that, whether the appeal is successful or not, the Crown would have to pay the costs. That would really put a premium on appeals and would be too good a thing for the lawyers. I have an amendment which I think will meet the situation. I move that subsection 2 be amended by adding after the last word, " appeals," the following, " and if an appeal is successful the board may recommend that the costs be paid by the Crown." That is the language used with respect to costs which may be payable by the Crown.


Mr. MACDONALD:: The issue to be determined by the board might be whether or not a certain amount fixed by the minister was the correct amount; and a further question might be involved as to whether the amount that was asserted by the party who was taxed was the correct amount. Then the issue might be whether there was any right to tax at all. The words " if the appeal is successful " seem to me to bo hardly applicable.


John Howard Sinclair: It might well be that
the party might succeed on one point and fail on another, and it is possible that the most equitable way to deal with it would be to put it in the discretion of the board to determine how the cost should be paid.t If we assert the right, we should have it' the same on both sides.


William Thomas White: I think an appeal would be on the question of whether there was liability at all, or else as to the amount of liability. The appeal would be successful if the appellant established that he was not liable, and the appeal would also be successful if the assessment, as the result of the appeal, was reduced. It would seem to me that the word " successful " would cover both cases, but if my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) will think the phrasing over before the third reading, I shall be glad to have a more apt phraseology suggested.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It might be that to establish that he was not liable to taxation the appellant would have to go to a great deal of expense in the way of accounting and so on, and it would seem only fair that the Crown should be liable for his costs.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Section 16 provides
two forms of appeal. We have the case of a person objecting to the amount for which he is assessed, and the case of a person claiming to have been wrongfully assessed. The form K would apply, I suppose, to the first of those two classes of cases.


William Thomas White: Does my hon. friend suggest that I withdraw the amendment?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Let it stand, and look at it.
Section 17 and proposed amendment stand.
On section 18-proceeding ex parte:


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is there any clause which fixes the place where the hearing of an appeal by the referees shall take place? I think the place should be limited to the province in which the party is situated.


William Thomas White: Under section 15 the board "shall hear and determine any appeal made by a taxpayer under this Act in such place in Canada as the minister may direct." We do not know at the present time how many boards it will be necessary to establish, and after determining that it is the intention to create the boards and specify the places at which they shall sit for the purpose of hearing appeals.


John Howard Sinclair: I think it is very important that facilities should be given for an appeal to be heard in the locality where the business is carried on; otherwise it would be oppressive if a man had to take a trip and carry his books into another province. There is a clause which enables the minister to make regulations, and I think that would be a proper matter to be dealt with in the minister's regulations. I do not see why an appellant should not have the right to trial in the county in which he has his business.
Section 18 agreed to.
On section 19-appeal to Exchequer Court:


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would suggest that that part of this clause which provides that the taxpayer may appeal within ten days after the mailing of the decision should be amended so as to read that his right to appeal shall be within ten days after the receipt of the decision. To limit the time within which one must appeal by the mail-

ing of the notice is an unusual thing. In some cases it might take ten days to reach the taxpayer.


William Thomas White: The trouble is that he might never get it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How is the taxpayer to know when it was mailed? He might know it by looking at the envelope, which might disclose the mailing date, but frequently it does not. Why not say 15 days after the decision of the Board; per-
5 p.m. haps that would be sufficient.
No doubt the taxpayer would be reading the proceedings of the Board. Make it 15 days after the decision, and require that the decision be mailed to him.


William Thomas White: We do require that the decision be mailed to him. If it were made 15 days after the decision, I think that would cover the case.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The statute must provide for some legal notice. Throw a duty upon the referees board to send a registered letter to the party, then prima facie he has notice, and he can easily satisfy the proper tribunal that he had never received that notice.


William Thomas White: While the matter presents some difficulty, I think that the date of mailing should be the date, because, under decisions, if I send a letter to an individual, that letter is deemed to be his letter from the time it goes into the post office. But, in order to prevent any hardship upon appellants, I would move that the word "ten" in line 17 be struck out, and the word "twenty" substituted therefor.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Should the letter not be registered?


William Thomas White: It has to be registered.
Section 19, amended as proposed, agreed to.
On section 20-exclusive jurisdiction of Exchequer Court:


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That means an appeal from the Board?


William Thomas White: An appeal
or certiorari etc., from the Board.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.'
On section 23-recovery of tax, interest, costs, or penalty:	.
John Howard Sinclair: Who gets the penalty?


William Thomas White: It would be for the use of His Majesty.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This clause does not give the Exchequer Court power to grant costs. I do not think it would be a power that would be inherent in the Exchequer Court under this classification. It is purely a statutory court.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend suggests that the Exchequer Court will not have jurisdiction over the matter of costs unless the power is expressly given?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not think so.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is that?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) raised the question as to whether express power should be given to the Exchequer Court to impose costs. It would appear to me that the court would have that power by reason of its jurisdiction. If there is any doubt, it might be well to make it clear.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Section 17, subsection 2, says that "the tariff of fees in force in the Exchequer Court of Canada shall apply to such appeals." You might adopt the word " costs."


William Thomas White: In order to meet the case in point I move that section 20 be reconsidered, and that it be amended by adding thereto. " and may award costs in connection therewith." That leaves it to the discretion of the court.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: To make this more general, we might say that the court shall have the same discretionary power to deal with the question of costs as it has in all other matters.


William Thomas White: I think that the words " and may award costs in connection therewith " will cover the case.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, I think that
will be all right.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: On the third reading you may amend the phraseology if necessary.


William Thomas White: When we read the Bill a third5 time I will call attention to it. This is an important measure, and we will try to amend in it any defects of phraseology.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In order to be absolutely certain about it, we would need to look at the Exchequer Court Act.
167*


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The phraseology does not seem to me to be right. I think it should be, " and may determine the question of costs." It is all right to let it go that way, but I would suggest that when the Bill is reprinted it be changed.
Section, amended as proposed, agreed to.


William Stewart Loggie: Does not the minister think that to apply Exchequer Court costs *to such proceedings as these is to impose very excessive costs? The cost of proceedings in the Exchequer Court frightens the ordinary man. An individual or firm would suffer a considerable amount of hardship rather than go into the Exchequer Court.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Oh, no.


William Stewart Loggie: I differ from my hon. friend on that point. From my standpoint I think it is decidedly objectionable.


William Thomas White: In order to dispose of section 17, I beg to move:
That section 17 be reconsidered and that all the words after the word " costs " in line 9 be stricken out and the following be substituted therefor: " or part of the costs of such appeal, and if such appeal is successful the board may recommend that the costs, or any part thereof, be paid by the Crown."
Section, amended as proposed, agreed to.
On section 24-tax, etc., first lien.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I suppose that lien
takes priority of bonds, wages of employees, and all other claims?


William Thomas White: The hon. gentleman has asked a difficult legal question, and I can hardly say in advance what the courts will hold. The intention of the section is to give a lien for the taxation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If it is a lien, it should be registered in the province. Take the ease of a person doing business with a firm against whom the lien could be asserted; unless there were registration, his creditors would have no notice of the lien, and that would not be fair to them. There could be no objection to the Crown registering its lien.


William Thomas White: I think there will be great inconvenience in registering. A municipality taxes real 'and personal property, and has a lien, and yet there is no registration. If the purchaser of property-desires to make a search, he goes to the treasurer of the municipality or the taxation officer. In the same way, every one

has notice of this taxation, and, if he desires to make a search, inquiry can be made of the Dominion Government.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But all that ds needed is that the officials of the department should give notice of the claim for registration. I cannot see where the inconvenience would come in. And the registration would he only a reasonable protection to creditors, which might be extremely important in the case of those dealing with firms liable to the tax that may be in financial difficulties.


William Thomas White: I do not know any provincial machinery that would enable us to file these liens. In what provincial office is provision made for the filing of a Dominion lien? Not only would there be inconvenience in filing, but I feel that it would be impossible to file such liens as this against properties throughout the Dominion, because the machinery for it does not exist.	.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not see more difficulty in the case of the Dominion Government filing any lien than in the case of anybody else.


William Thomas White: Where should we file :t?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the registration office of the district. In every province, title to real estate is recorded in the registry office. Bona fide creditors could go and make inquiry as to whether the taxes were paid or not. Is it intended to assert that this shall be a first lien, ahead of a mortgage, a judgment in the hands of the sheriff, or other lien of that kind?


William Thomas White: The intention is to give a lien, but whether the Dominion lien would prevail over a first lien given under the law of the province is a question that I am not able to determine offhand, and I doubt if any .person in the House is so prepared; but I think it desirable that a lien should .be given.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would remind the minister of a very important case which changed the whole current of legal authority in Canada, as to the existence of the right of the Crown in respect of a provincial executive. This was the case of the Maritime Bank, in which case it was decided that the Provincial Government who represented the 'Crown had a first lien on the assets of the bank, and that the Crown was part of the Provincial Government, the

lieutenant-governor of each province being the direct representative of the King. By virtue of the general powers that existed in the Crown, the right of the Crown to its deposits in the bank was declared paramount over that of every other person. So that the Crown, as a matter of common law, has very special rights in advance of those held by any other person.


Mr. BURNHAM:: If a search were made in the Department of Finance, would that obviate the difficulty?


William Thomas White: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) refers to a bank, but the Dominion clearly has jurisdiction there, because banking is one of the subjects in which exclusive authority is given to the Dominion.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon gentleman has not got my point. The Provincial Government had a deposit in the bank in question, and it was decided that the Crown, through the lieutenant-governor, had the first claim.


William Thomas White: That would be in point; and to meet the case I would suggest that the word "first" be struck out. I think that would serve the purpose of the Act.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the Crown consent to come in after other lien-holders?
Sir THOMAS WHITE,; I would say so for taxes, and for a small amount. I doubt that it should come in against mortgagees, holders of mechanics' liens, and other similar charges. I move that in section 24, line 11, the word "first" be struck out.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think the 'Grown has an absolute first right. I am not sure that the hon. minister is lessening the Crown's right in any way.
Section amended as proposed, agreed to.
On section 25-regulations:


William Thomas White: These are regulations as to the district within which the board shall exercise jurisdiction and the places where they should sit and other matters relating to the proceedings of the board and to the general carrying into effect of the Act. Such a general section as this seems to be necessary to make the Act flexible.


John Howard Sinclair: The regulations, of
course, would be consistent with the Act?


William Thomas White: Yes.

266i


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister make provision that this tax can be paid into any chartered bank in Canada to the order of the Receiver General or his department, so that the taxpayer will not have to remit to Ottawa and pay exchange?


William Thomas White: That can be dealt with, if necessary, by regulation.


John Howard Sinclair: That is a reasonable
proposal, is it not?


William Thomas White: It sounds reasonable, but I would like to consider it.
On the schedule:


William Thomas White: I beg to move:
That in the schedule for incorporated companies, in form " J," the column, " cost of management, etc.," be struck out.


John Howard Sinclair: Is there anything to
be substituted, for it? How is the minister to arrive at the cost of management?


William Thomas White: It is not really
necessary for the purposes of the Act. Tne gross profits and the net profits are shown. The difference would be the cost of the administration and the charges payable out of gross profits. I do not think the information as to cost of management will be necessary to the department in administering the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Stewart Loggie: Would it not be wise to have the column "money borrowed and debts due by taxpayers in connection with business," which is in the form for persons other than incorporated companies, also inserted in the form for incorporated companies? In making up a statement of persons or partnership companies, if you insert "the amount of money borrowed and the capital employed in the business," and add the two together, you havie the gross assets. It seems to me that a column with the same wording should be in the form for incorporated companies. I do not think there would toe any objection to dividing the assets in the case of incorporated companies by putting the capital stock in one column and then the unimpaired reserve, rest, or accumulated profits in another column, and the two added together would be the net capital in the business on which the tax' is to be applied. As ther.e is no provision made in the form for me liabilities of incorporated companies, it would be better to have a column similar to that for partnership companies. It seems to me
that the statement for the partnership companies is very plain, because, when you add together the capital and the money borrowed, you have the total assets, and then you have gross profits and net profits, which are taken from any ordinary balance sheet. I think the principle is practically the same in the case of incorporated companies, except that you could have the capital stock in one column and the reserves in another, and the two together, with the money borrowed, would make the total assets of the company.


William Thomas White: I think it is not necessary to make any change. My hon. friend will observe that in the schedule which relates to incorporated companies capital stock is shown; unimpaired reserve is shown; rest and accumulated profits are shown. All those together constitute the capital of the incorporated company, and all we need to know is the capital of the company and the net profits.


William Stewart Loggie: Why do you ask for the liabilities of a business firm and not those of an incorporated company?


William Thomas White: Because, in order to get the capital of a business firm, you subtract the money borrowed from the gross assets. It may be necessary to insert in the business firm schedule another column showing the total value of the assets.


William Stewart Loggie: That would be a very wise thing.


William Thomas White: But my hon.
friend will observe that there is power in the Act for the department to ask for other particulars, and it is possible that we may have to vary these schedules somewhat in the notices we have to send out.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It would be more convenient to the companies if the minister would make a separate column for unimpaired reserve or rest, and one for accum-lated profits.


William Thomas White: We will consider that when settling the form which we will send out.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The reason I make this
suggestion is that unimpaired reserve or rest is generally a permanent thing, and accumulated profits are carried to profit and loss account.


John Howard Sinclair: In the schedule for joint * stock companies, there is one column, "value of assets in Canada," and the nexfi

"value of assets outside of Canada." I would like to have some definition from the minister as to how a taxpayer, in filling up the schedule, should deal with stock which he holds in companies outside the bounds of Canada. Suppose he has stook in a company whose head office is in the United States or in Great Britain? Suppose he holds some of the Anglo-French loan among the assets of his estate? I would like the minister to give us a definition of assets outside of Canada.


William Thomas White: It is assets held by a company in respect of its business outside' of Canada. If I understand my hon. friend aright, he takes the case of, let us say, an American company that has a business in Canada and a business in the United States. In Canada such a company might have real estate, plant and machinery; it might have bills receivable; it might have stocks of Canadian companies. If such stocks were held in connection with its business, the assets in Canada would be the value of all such assets tha.t the American company had in Canada at that time in connection with its business here. Similarly, the assets of that company in the United States would be the assets in connection with its business there, whether they consisted of real or personal property or of stock. No doubt it will be difficult to ascertain precisely what is the amount of assets held by a non-Canadian company in Canada or held by a non-Canadian company outside of Canada, but we are not able to devise any better mode of arriving at the proper amount of the capital which we should take for the purposes of this Act of non-Canadian companies carrying on business in Canada. I admit that there is room for objection to the principle adopted, but I have not been able to discover any better principle than that of simply taking the assets in Canada and the assets outside of Canada, relating the one to the whole, and determining the capital of the company accordingly.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it the purpose of the minister to tax an income arising from assets outside of Canada? Suppose a taxpayer owns stock of the Union Pacific Railway on which he receives a dividend. The business of that railway, in which the taxpayer holds the stock, is not in Canada. Surely such concerns would be liable to taxation under this measure. Many of the large railway companies in this country own stock of railways outside of Canada that have no connection with Canada at all.
'Mr. Sinclair.]
Would the income derived from this source be regarded as part of the income which is assessable under this Act?


William Thomas White: If a Canadian railway company holds stock in an American railway company, and derives dividends from such stock, unquestionably those dividends would be part of the profits of the Canadian railway company, and would be considered in estimating its net profits for the purposes of this Act. Just as a Canadian business is assessable in respect of its profits, no matter whether derived from Canadian or foreign business, so a railway company holding shares in a foreign cora-pany, and deriving dividends therefrom, ' would be assessable in respect of those dividends.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Section 19, as to
appeal to the Exchequer Court, says:
The court shall hear and consider such matter upon the papers and evidence referred and upon any further evidence which the taxpayer or the Crown produces under the direction of the court and the decision of the Exchequer Court thereon shall he final and conclusive.
The Exchequer Court has no inherent power except what it obtains from the statute, and there may be nothing in the statute which gives it power to deal with this particular matter; consequently we have to come to this Act to find out what the powers of the Exchequer Court are under its provisions. In section 19, which purports to state what will take place when you get to the Exchequer Court, there is nothing to make the practice and procedure of the Exchequer Court specially applicable. I suggest' that after the last word in this section there might be inserted the words, " and the practice and procedure of the Exchequer Court shall apply to the hearing and decision of the appeal." This would give one more latitude in approaching a judge with regard to the question of taking the matter up in the province from which it might come, and would in other respects make the Acts more feasible and more workable.


William Thomas White: Perhaps it would be advisable to insert some words to meet the point that my hon. friend has in mind; it could be dealt with on the third reading. It may or may not be necessary to make the modification that my hon. friend suggests; the matter is somewhat complicated, and if we leave it until the third reading we -shall have time to consider it in the meantime.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.

On subsection b of section 3-dividends from tax-paying company exempted:
William Thomas White: In reference to
this subsection, I am sorry that I am unable to concur in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). This subsection was inserted for the purpose of meeting the case of incorporated companies holding the stocks of other companies. If we widened the provision so as to include companies and individuals holding any interest in other businesses, difficulties would arise in connection with the administration of the Act, and I think there would be considerable room for evasion of its provisions. We have gone much further than is usual in the case of taxation measures of this kind in exempting holding companies in respect of dividends which they derive from the stocks of companies which they hold. After giving the matter careful consideration, I feel that we should not extend the principle so as to cover the cases of profits derived from other businesses by persons, firms and corporations.
Subsection b of section 3 agreed to.
Bill as amended reported.



FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. J. Roche (Minister of the Interior), Bill No. 80, to amend the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mt. Rhodes in the Chair. ,
On section 1-correction of errors in patents:
Mr. ROCHE:: I explained the nature of
this Bill on its introduction. A doubt has been expressed as to whether the Dominion Lands Act covers lands within a forest reserve, owing to the fact that there is a special Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act. Under the Dominion Lands Act wherever an error has been made in the description of the land in a patent the minister has authority to correct such error by a supplementary patent. This Bill confers upon the minister the same authority in respect of lands within a reserve that the Dominion Lands Act confers in respect of lands not in a reserve.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
THIRD READINGS.	.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Arthur Alexander Reinhardt.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Charles William Wilson.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Airnee Rita Elliott.-Mr. Douglas.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 46, respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Boyce.
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Explain.


Mr. MACDONELL:: An amendment was made in the Senate by striking out clause 3, which suspends the coming into force of the Act until an Order in Council has been passed by the Governor General. That was done for the purpose of complying with a certain section of the schedule of the Bill, clause 20, which reads as follows:
This scheme shall become effective-
(a)	When the same has been approved by the Railway and Terminals bondholders by extraordinary resolutions passed at meetings of such bondholders, summoned and held pursuant to the provisions of the trust deeds securing the Railway and Terminals bonds, and
(b)	When the same has been assented to in writing by three-fourths in value of the preference shareholders of the railway company and approved by the ordinary shareholders of the Railways and Terminals companies at special meetings of the said companies respectively called for that purpose.
I am informed by the secretary of the Railway Committee of this House that these meetings have been held since the Bill was before the House of Commons Committee, and that the requisite majority was present to give the lawful assent to the Bill. Therefore, the Senate deemed it unnecessary to put in clause 3 of the Bill, which suspended its operation until that majority of -bondholders had been secured. The requisite meeting of bondholders having been held, and their assent secured, there was no reason for clause 3 of the Bill.
Amendment concurred in.
Consideration of amendments by the Senate to Bill No. 26, to enable the corporation of the city of Brantford to own and operate the Grand Valley railway.-Mr. Cockshutt.


Robert Laird Borden: One of the
Senate amendments as appears from a copy of the Bill with the amendments which has been placed in my hands by the clerk is as follows. (Section 8 of the Bill as it passed this House is in these words:
Notwithstanding- anything contained in this Act or in the schedule thereto the provisions of the Railway Act, where not inconsistent with this Act, shall apply to the corporation.
The Senate have inserted these words, "and to the commissions mentioned in sections 4 and 7 of this Act."


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I should think that would be perfectly satisfactory,' because they appoint commissioners under the Act and it would apply anyway. That does not matter. It makes it more definite, that is all.


Robert Laird Borden: Do you know
anything about this Bill?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They are taking over the Grand Valley railway as far as Paris. The city of Brantford has bought its own railway back and is going to operate it. The Grand Valley Railway Company was incorporated by Dominion charter and therefore the city wants our authority to take over and operate the road by commission. That is why these commissions are mentioned in section 8.
Amendments concurred in.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Hope Fother-gill Baily.-Mr. Thoburn.
Bill No. 77, respecting Colonial Bank (Canada).-Mr. Middlebro.
Bill No. 78, respecting British Trust Company.-Mr. Morris.
Bill No. 82, to incorporate the Premier Insurance Company of Canada-Mr. Nesbitt.

Robert Laird Borden: I beg to move, by leave of the House:	'
That Rule 77 be suspended in reference to the Estimates presented this day in order that the same be considered in Committee of Supply this day.
This is in pursuance of an arrangement I made with my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. There should be a vote on account, and, as an estimate has to 'be brought down with respect to the war appropriation, the officers of the House inform me that this course is necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenditures of the public service for fiscal year ended March 31, 1917, the sum of $99,458,597.41 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Robert Laird Borden: I should explain how this is made up. It was arranged with my Tight hon. friend the leader of the Opposition that there should be a vote of one-fifth in advance of the war appropriation vote, and it is made up in this way: The total amount to 'be voted is $132,501 -795,98 less deductions made in the House- I imagine these are items that have already been stricken off-of $63',414.50, leaving a balance of $1'92,438*,301.48. The amount already voted is 20,713,666.40. One fifth of the amount remaining to be voted is $20,744,931.01,. Adding these two amounts, we have a total of $49,458,597.41. One-fifth of the amount under the war appropriation resolutions is $50,000,000, which being added to the sum already mentioned makes the total of $99,458,597.41, the amount mentioned in the resolution.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I had not an opportunity of hearing anything about this before. Do I understand that this is one-fifth of the ordinary civil supply plus one-fifth of the war vote?


Robert Laird Borden: It is composed of three items: first, the amount already voted; second, one-fifth of the amount remaining to be voted; and, third, one-fifth of the war appropriation.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: To vote the war appropriation in Supply is a new method, but I suppose there is no objection to it.


Robert Laird Borden: I discussed that with the right hon. leader of the Opposition this afternoon, and informed him that according to the report of the officers of the House this was the only way in which it could be done.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose it is, but when the War Appropriation Bill goes through will it be for the full amount?


Robert Laird Borden: No, I think it will have to be reduced by $50,000,000-one-fifth of the $250,000,000, which is the amount of the vote. The same is true of the other amounts.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The point I havie in mind is that the war appropriation is voted on a different principle from the ordinary Estimates. The responsibility for the administration of the war vote rests with the Government and; not with any one minister, whereas, in the case of the Estimates, the responsibility of the administration rests with the head of the department for which the money is voted.


Robert Laird Borden: It will appear in the Bill in precisely the same terms as those set forth in the resolution. Further than that, it has been understood that these amounts are only to. he disbursed under Order in Council.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
To provide an amount towards defraying any expenses that may be incurred by or under the authority of the Governor in Council during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1917, for:
(a)	The defence and security of Canada;
(b)	The conduct of naval or military operations in or beyond Canada;
(c)	Promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or otherwise;
(d)	The carrying out of any measures deemed necessary or advisable by the Governor in Council in consequence of the existence of a state_ of war; and
(e)	Payments made for the said purposes during the fiscal years ending respectively the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifteen, and the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, in excess of the amounts authorized by the War Appropriation Act, 1914, and the War Appropriation Aet, 1915, $50,000,000.
Rodolphe Lemieux: The Bill reads, "the defence of Canada," but the resolution, as you read it, Mr. Chairman, is, "the defence and security of Canada."


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.'
Sir ROBERT BORDEN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 85, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1917.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and the second time, considered in. committee, reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Indians, Ontario-relief, medical attendance and medicine, $11,000
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Was the Big Chief up to see the hon. minister yesterday about this medicine?


William Roche: From Prince Edward
Island. This is an item for relief to sick and destitute Indians who have no funds of their own and who. have practically to depend on departmental funds to provide them with the necessaries of life. The amount is the same as last year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have intended for several days to call the attention of the minister to certain things which have happened at Hagersville, Ont. I have received a letter from a merchant there complaining that the Indians, who are receiving bread from the Government, are not receiving the correct weight. If my hon. friend thinks it worth while to investigate this matter, I will send the letter to his deputy. The writer, who speaks on behalf of the Indians, Says that the baker is selling underweight bread.


William Roche: There is no contract
entered into by the department at that point for the supply of bread. If the hon. gentleman submits the letter to me, I will look into the matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The minister is the
Indians' guardian in a way, and he is responsible for them. He should see that they receive the quantity of bread to which they are entitled. I will send the letter to his deputy.
Indians, Quebec-relief, medical attendance and medicine, $17,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend was
kind enough two or three years ago to grant a certain amount towards the maintenance of a hospital at Caughnawaga. A French lady, Madame Perronot, who had certain means, desired, in the goodness of her soul, to consecrate her life to the welfare of the Indians. She had noticed that many of 'the Indians died at an early age, and she thought that, if she could supply a good hospital and if the Iroquois of Caughnawaga could receive proper treatment, she might save many lives. As a matter of fact, I think the department is aware that she is doing excellent work at Caughnawaga. She received at first just a pittance, and then my hon. friend very kindly increased the little indemnity. This year, however, on account of the war in France, she was not able to receive the amounts that she had been receiving in the past

from her family and her relatives, and she asked the hon. minister to increase the little indemnity. I think, if my hon. friend will have the hospital inspected and a report made of the work she is doing, he will reconsider the decision he took some days ago. This lady has given up all her revenues towards helping the Caughnawaga Indians, and it seems to me that the de-partmeht should do something to help her in that excellent work-


William Roche: I quite agree with what
the hon. gentleman states as to the importance of this hospital and the good work in which it is engaged. I met the request that was made last year by increasing the grant by a couple of hundred dollars; but, in view of the fact that it was not our intention to increase any grants this year, I did not see my way to increase this one, and we thought it was rather sudden to have two increases in two successive years. The grant this year is the same as it was last year. I shall, however, be pleased to have the hospital inspected and a report made, as the hon. member suggests.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Can the minister tell me what portion of this appropriation goes into the county of Wright?


William Roche: I cannot say off-hand, but I will get the information. The differentiation is not made -in the books here.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Perhaps the minister can tell me who are the doctors in attendance upon the Indians and what amounts they receive.


William Roche: I will get the information for. my hon. friend a little later during the course of the evening.
Indians, Ontario and Quebec-repairs to ' roads and bridges and drainage, $21,900.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is that for?


William Roche: Certain roads and bridges
in connection with the various reserves require repairs and construction from time to time.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Do the Indians pay anything towards repairing their own bridges?


William Roche: No. Usually we pay for
these through appropriations by Parliament. In some cases, however, the Indians make contributions which are supplemented by the provincial and Dominion Governments.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Could the minister tell
me if anything has been expended recently on the road at River Desert in the Maniwaki reserve? That road is every.year _ partially eaten away by the river Desert.


William Roche: Yes, money has been spent on that road.
Indians, Nova Scotia-salaries, $6,200.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: Who are the
Indian inspectors for the province of Nova Scotia?


William Roche: Mr. Boyd and Mr. Foster are superintendents. The agents are: Mr. Hoyt, Annapolis; Mr. Harris, Digby; Mr. Freeman, Lunenburg; Mr. Chisholm, Halifax; Mr. Willis, Hants; Mr. Stephens, Windsor; Mr. Smith, Colchester; Mr. Johnson, Cumberland; Rev. MacLeod, Pictou; Mr. Cameron, Antigonish and Guysborough; Rev. Macdonall, Richmond; Rev. Mac-Pherson, Inverness; Dr. Sparrow, Cape Breton; Rev. Macdonald, Cape Breton; J. E. Campbell, Victoria; W. J. Whelan, Yarmouth; John Gibson, Shelburne.


Alexander William Chisholm: Where is Mr. Foster located?


William Roche: Halifax.


Alexander William Chisholm: Do the^e men report to the minister with regard to the work they do?
Mr. ROCHiE: They report to the department -from time to time.


Alexander William Chisholm: There is a report from Mr. Foster in the department, I suppose?


William Roche: I presume so. All the superintendents make reports.


Alexander William Chisholm: Is Mr. Foster devoting his time to this work just now?


William Roche: I understand that Mr. Foster has enlisted.


Alexander William Chisholm: What salaries are paid to these men?


William Roche: $1,800 for Mr. Foster.


Alexander William Chisholm: He is drawing his
salary now, though he has enlisted?


William Roche: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What counties does he exercise supervision over?


William Roche: Shelburne, Yarmouth, Digby, Annapolis, Queens, Lunenburg, Kings, Hants, Halifax, Colchester, Cumberland.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How many Indians are nnder him?


William Roche: There is about an equal division of the Indian population, which amounts to some 2,000.


John Howard Sinclair: When did Mr. Foster enlist?


William Roche: He enlisted prior to the first of November. J do not Temember what month. I think it was probably in August.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is he drawing his
salary as Indian superintendent Us well as his military pay?


William Roche: Yes, just the same as all other civil servants who enlisted prior to November 1.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the minister know what position he has in the military service?


William Roche: No, though I believe that he is a lieutenant.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who is doing the work in Mr. Foster's absence?


William Roche: The other superintendent, Mr. Boyd, is doing his best to carry on the work.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is there any fear of the situation being such that the other superintendent is being overworked, or that the minister would deem it necessary to appoint any one in Mr. Foster's place?


William Roche: I have not heard any complaints that Mr. Boyd is not attending to his duties, and it is not my intention to appoint anybody to take Mr. Foster's place.


Mr. KYTE:: Last year when this matter was brought up the minister did not seem to know upon whose recommendation Mr. Foster had been appointed. Has he that information now?


William Roche: I cannot charge my memory with who made the recommendation. I think I did explain last year that the appointment was made during my absence from the city by the acting minister. I do not really remember who was the acting minister at the time. I cannot tell the hon. gentleman on whose recommendation the appointment was made.


George William Kyte: Is there any information in the department that would set forth the necessity for making the appointment, such
as a report that Superintendent Boyd was overworked and was unable to discharge his full duty?


Mr. CARVELL:: Let us have the story. There must be a story behind it somewhere.


William Roche: I am informed that the representations- that were made at the time were to the effect that we would get better service by the division of the counties between two agents than by having one superintendent cover the whole territory. That, I think, is about the only representation that was made.


George William Kyte: From whom did this recommendation come?


William Roche: As I told the hon. gentleman, I am not prepared to state that at present.


George William Kyte: The minister was not prepared to state it last year either. When an appointment of so much importance as this is made, some justification for it should be given to the committee. Was Mr. Boyd unable to discharge his duties to the satisfaction of the department?


William Roche: As I say, I do not think Mr. Boyd was unable to discharge his duties, but in the interests of the Service it was considered advisable by the acting minister, who made the appointment, to have a second superintendent, and that a division of the work would enable them to carry out the duties more efficiently than by having one superintendent cover the whole province. I -cannot tell, because I do not know, who made the representation.


George William Kyte: Was it made in writing?


William Roche: I presume so.


George William Kyte: Is there any record of it in the department?


William Roche: I presume so.


George William Kyte: We are entitled to have this representation placed before the committee. Last year the matter was allowed to go by on account of a statement made by the minister that he was away and was not familiar with the circumstances. I think that he -should have familiarized himself with the circumstances by this time. Mr. Boyd lives in my county, about five miles from me. I know as a matter of fact that his duties as superintendent of the district to which he was appointed did not occupy all his time. His time was altogether at the disposal of the department, but the

duties did not take him away all the time, and I have never been able to understand what the necessity was for appointing him. I know that Mr. Foster had been secretary of the Conservative Association in the county of Halifax, and was very anxious to get an appointment from the Government, and so this appointment was given to him. It is a scandal in Nova Scotia that the appointment was made. The position is a sinecure created for Mr. Foster. The salary of $1,800 and expenses paid to Mr. Boyd has been doubled to Mr. Foster, and this at a time when we were at war. The appointment was made in October, 1914, when everybody knew that all the resources of the country would be required in order to enable us to bear the additional burdens necessary to carry on the war; but in the face of that a sinecure was created for Mr. Foster. He drew his salary from October until about the 1st of August, and then he enlisted and became a lieutenant. He is receiving his pay as lieutenant, but continues to enjoy his full salary of $1,800 as superintendent of Indian agencies in Nova Scotia. If the minister has any recommendation from any person which showed that it was necessary for him to create this new office and impose this additional taxation on the people, I think it right that we should know what the recommendation is and from whom it comes.


William Roche: The hon. gentleman realizes that had I made the appointment myself and been in Ottawa at the time, I would have had a more distinct recollection of the circumstances.


George William Kyte: That was a good excuse last year, but not now.


William Roche: I am simply explaining why I have not a distinct recollection of the circumstances of the appointment. I am not endeavouring to escape responsibility for it. It was before the outbreak of war, in 1913.


George William Kyte: I beg the hon. minister's pardon, the appointment was made in the month of October, 1914.


William Roche: I think the hon. gentleman is incorrect. My information is that it was made in 1913.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the minister know if this official has performed any service since his appointment? Does he know of his doing one hour's work in the last two years?


William Roche: He has sent in his reports, just as the other superintendents have done, as to the work that he is engaged in. 1 do not know of anything else on which we could depend. We insist on reports by all superintendents, and he has con-9 p.m. formed with that requirement like any other superintendent, and in these reports he sets forth just what work he has been doing.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Last year when the minister's Estimates were on the minister declined to justify the appointment of this man to this position. He said it had been made by the acting minister, as he says tonight, and of course, in a general way, he assumes responsibility for the appointment by the acting minister. But the statements last year by gentlemen on this side of the House with regard to Mr. Foster's appointment were of such a character that I am surprised that the minister did not, as a matter of duty-because I believe he is animated by some sense of duty-make some inquiry into the facts; and if he had made any inquiry whatsover into the facts he would have found that the appointment made in his absence was without justification, and an absolute disgrace to his administration. *There is nobody in Nova Scotia, of either party, who does not know it to be so. If the minister looked into it at all he must know that he has kept in office a person who is giving no value for the money he receives. It is a case of gross disregard of the common decencies of Government to permit the continuance in office of this man. Has the minister ascertained the date of the appointment?


William Roche: There is no record here of the date of the appointment, but my deputy informs me that he is under the impression it was made in the fall of 1913.


George William Kyte: I am under the impression, and I think my impression is very reliable, that it was in 1914-


William Roche: You may be correct. I would not be personally sure.


George William Kyte: -after the war was on, when there was no necessity and no justification for such an appointment. The fact that Mr. Boyd continued to discharge the duties of superintendent over the whole district for which he was originally appointed goes to show that there was no justification for Mr. Foster's appointment. It was a purely political appointment and nothing else.


William Roche: The hon. gentleman knows that many men have gone to the war whose work is now being done by other officials, and that the same argument would apply to many members of the inside Civil Service who are at the front now, and whose work is toeing discharged by others.
(Mr. KYTE: I venture to say that there is no other case where an office was created after war was declared and the duties performed by a new appointee only for a few months, when a new person was appointed in his place. This situation is absolutely unique among all the instances of indefensible appointments in all departments of the Government.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What does the minister propose to do? It has been suggested that this officer has never yet performed any service, and I do not believe he has. He has enlisted, but I believe he is doing as much for the service, of the Indian Department as he ever did since his appointment. I do not believe he ever did one month's work, except that he revised the lists in Halifax county on behalf of the Conservative association. That is his business. He was not appointed because anybody additional was needed, or to perform any service. The work is not there for him to do, and he never intended to do anything when he got the appointment.


William Roche: Does the hon. gentleman state on his own authority that Mr. Foster has never done any work?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Practically I mean to 3ay that. I have tried to find out what he has done, but I have never learned anything. He may have taken a trip once or twice out through the district.


William Roche: I am quite willing to
bring down his reports.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I should like to see
them.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This item should
3tand, in view of the statements made by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, not one of which has been questioned.


William Roche: I have no objection to the item standing until the reports are brought down.


George William Kyte: And also the recommenda-
' tions asking for the appointment?


William Roche: I doubt if the hon. gentlemen would go so far as to ask me to dismiss this man because he has enlisted.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Certainly we do.


George William Kyte: He should never have been appointed.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister need
not put forward the theory that because the man has enlisted-and we do not know whether he is in the home guard or for overseas service-


William Roche: He is in the 112th regiment for overseas service.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Was that the first regiment he enlisted in?


William Roche: I do not know.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think my hon.
friend will find that he enlisted in some other regiment before the 112th, which has never yet been mobilized into proper shape. My hon. friend will be bound to admit the truth of the statements made by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that this position was made for Mr. Foster, secretary of the Conservative Association in Halifax, who had to be provided for. The position was made without justification or excuse, and there was nothing for the man to do. We told the minister that last year. He knew it, and he has known it all along. He knew that when this item came up the matter would be brought before the House, and yet he has no defence to offer. So that because Mr. Foster, who has nothing to do to earn the $1,800 salary, goes and attaches himself to one of these numerous regiments that are being formed all over the country -and nobody knows when they will go to the front-we should not say anything against the appointment, is absurd. If the minister cannot show that the man has done something since his appointment to this position, and that there is something for him to do, which we deny, then the minister has no justification for keeping him in the employ of the department.	[DOT]


George William Kyte: Is there a superintendent of Indian agencies in New Brunswick?


William Roche: No.


John Howard Sinclair: It would be interesting if the House could get all the facts about these appointments, because there have been a great many in this department. The minister must not1 forget that his department has one of the worst records of any

of the departments. I do not say that it took place in the minister's time; it took place under his predecessor. I have an abstract' of a return made last year giving the number of appointments since this Government came into power in 1911, and the nurqber of dismissals in all the departments or in most of them. I find that the record of the Department of the Interior is as follows:	Since this Administration
came into power in 1911, there have been dismissed, 309; resigned, 374; and appointed, 1,651. So that Mr. Foster's case is only one of hundreds. I have no doubt that if we were able to get all the facts before the House it would arouse the country as to the condition of the Department of the Interior.


William Roche: This is a separate branch, and has nothing whatever to do with the department of the Interior, but instead of an increase of hundreds as my hon. friends suggest, there have been only seven addi-tionaT officers appointed since the Government came into office. In five years' time, I think that is not a very bad record.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Who is the Indian Medical Officer at Baddeck, Victoria county?


William Roche: Dr. H. A. Grant.
Mr. MACLEAN; Where does he reside?


William Roche: At Baddeck.


Alexander William Chisholm: Dr. Grant does not reside at Baddeck.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am told that he resides at Whycocomagh, 12 miles from Baddeck.
, Mr. ROCHE: Yes, that is where he resides.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I think that Dr. Grant does live at Whycocomagh, just across the lake. There are no medical men left in the county of Victoria, and Dr. Grant lives nearest to this Indian settlement, and I suppose that it is for this reason that he was appointed. Hon. gentlemen opposite have expressed some doubt' concerning the circumstances which surrounded the appointment of Mr. Foster as superintendent of Indians. There was a little mystery about the appointment of a certain superintendent of Indians in the province of Nova Scotia, but it was not Mr. Foster; it was in connection with the appointment of another superintendent, Mr. Boyd. I understand that When he was appointed

some years ago there was a meTry little quarrel going on in the county of Richmond. There were two gentlemen who were ambitious to represent that county in the local legislature, Mr. Boyd and Dr. Bissett. The quarrel grew so warm that the party found it necessary to pull one of the contestants; off, and so he was appointed superintendent of Indians for the locality. He lives in an out-of-the way place, and perhaps he is not very wel! adapted for the office which he fills. But so far as Mr. F'oster is concerned, he is a young man, a man of education and of ability, and is admirably fitted for the post which he occupies.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is he a good reviser of electoral lists?


Avard Longley Davidson: If he devoted his attention to that kind of work he would be a good man. He is a lawyer of standing, and it requires a lawyer to look after that work, in Nova Scotia. Hon .gentlemen opposite do not know very much about the locality in which Mir. Foster performs his duties. I happen to live in that locality, and I know that he makes his visits regularly to the different reserves and agencies, and does his duty well. The fact that he has shown enough public spirit to volunteer for service on behalf of his country should not lay him open to this attack. I think it is very unjust. If, after the war, it should be found necessary to dispense with the services of one of these officers, I would say that probably the best thing to do would be to dismiss Mr. Boyd.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Avard Longley Davidson: Perhaps it would noi
be necessary to dismiss any one, but if hon. gentlemen opposite are so exceedingly anxious to reduce the expenditure and to have somebody dismissed, I would say dismiss the older and less competent man.


George William Kyte: With respect to the observations of my hon. friend from Annapolis, I may say that he is not as familiar with matters in my county as he used to be; he does not come so often. As regards the appointment of Mr. Boyd, he was appointed on the recommendation of the minister, and the fact that the Department of the Interior has found it necessary to appoint another person to take a part of his territory goes to show how efficiently and effectively Mr. Boyd has discharged his duties. The department has recognized that his

was a proper appointment. A superintendent of Indian agencies is so necessary in the Maritime Provinces that the department decided to appoint another, to have two instead of one.


Avard Longley Davidson: I can hardly follow
the reasoning of my hon. friend, though it is somewhat characteristic. He says that, because it has been necessary to appoint another man to do the work which was supposed to be done by Mr. Boyd, that gentleman is competent. It does not seem so to me, and I think the people concerned in Nova Scotia are not satisfied with the work done by Mr. Boyd.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What does my
hon. friend know about it?


Avard Longley Davidson: I know as much as my hon. friend from Halifax. He is the financial critic of the Opposition, but, so far as I know, he is not the Indian critic, and consequently I am inclined to take the view that I know as much as he does.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know what the hon. gentleman is either thinking or saying. I understand him to say that the Indian affairs are very much better administered in Western Nova Scotia than they were because of the appointment of Mr. Foster. He seems to speak with personal knowledge, and I want him to tell the committee what he does know. Has he come in contact with the Indians, or visited the reserve?


Avard Longley Davidson: I have an officer in the county of Annapolis who looks after the Indians for that county. I try to keep in touch with all my officials.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Avard Longley Davidson: With all the officials who have been appointed on my recommendation. I think I have very efficient officials in Annapolis county, and I try to keep in touch with the public servants in that county. I know something about it; I do not pretend to speak about something I do not know. The other day the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) spoke about apple growing, and it afterwards developed that he did not know of the existence of a paper organized and run [DOT] by the fruit-growers of the Annapolis Valley and published in his own constituency. I hope I will not follow his example. I try to familiarize myself with any subject that I discuss.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the hon. member answer my question and not talk on side issues. Will he tell the committee what he knows about the manner in which Mr. Foster -performs the duties of his office? He seemed very anxious to do so a moment ago.


Avard Longley Davidson: I stated that I knew of Mr. Foster's visitations, and of his consulting the official appointed in that locality. As a matter of fact, I think it is the duty of the hon. member for Halifax, who is making the charge, to give us the proof of his assertion.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not making any charge, but the hon. gentleman stated that he knew a great deal about a certain thing, and I want to find out if that is correct.


Avard Longley Davidson: The charge was made
by hon. gentlemen opposite that Mr. Foster did nothing in connection with his duties, and I stated that to my -own personal knowledge he had made many visitations. I know from personal knowledge that the service is better performed by him than it was previously.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I want to help the minister out by voting this money, but so far I have absolutely no information about the service rendered by Mr. Foster. If the hon. gentleman knows, he ought to tell us what the service is that Mr. Foster has rendered. The minister was not able to tell us what service he has rendered. We cannot vote money to a man who has not rendered any service. Would the hon. gentleman please tell me what service Mr. Foster has rendered? What has he done? What are the visitations that the hon. member speaks about?


William Roche: In so far as this item is concerned, I had been asked to let it stand, and I am not going to press it. I promise the hon. gentleman that I will bring down these reports.


Alexander William Chisholm: I want to correct the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson). He says that the reason this doctor, who resides at Whycocomagh, was appointed to attend the Indians at Bad-deck was that Whycocomagh is on the opposite side of the lake. The fact of the matter is that there is no lake between the two places. My hon. friend says also that the reason this doctor was appointed was that there are no doctors in Baddeck. The fact

is there are three doctors there, one permanently and two temporarily. I am not finding fault with the minister for getting a doctor in Inverness county, because there is no better doctor in Nova Scotia, but lest the people in that part of the country should read Hansard and see the remarks of my hon. friend and say that I was not paying proper attention to my business, I do not desire to allow his observations to go uncorrected.


Avard Longley Davidson: It will be a surprise to the people of Nova Scotia, when they read my hon. friend's statement, to find that there is no lake Bras d'Oi lying between Whycocomagh and Baddeck. It will be news to them to learn- that Baddeck, is n^t upon a	lake.	My
authority for the statement as to the supply of doctors is Premier Murray, who made a speech in the Nova Scotia Legislature, as reported in that very reliable journal, the Halifax Chronicle, in which he stated that there were no medical men in the county which he represented and that as a consequence he'proposed to introduce a Bill to enable persons to practise medicine without complying with the ordinary requirements.


Alexander William Chisholm: I cannot allow that to pass, because it is not true.


Avard Longley Davidson: Premier Murray and my hon. friend from Inverness will have to fight that out.


Alexander William Chisholm: There is no fighting about it at all; it is a matter of finding out who is right. There is a medical .doctor in Baddeck; in fact, there are two doctors there. Dr. Macdonald is now residing in Sydney, but there is another doctor-


Avard Longley Davidson: Who is he?


Alexander William Chisholm: Dr. Mclver. My hon. friend must know there is no lake between Baddeck and Whycocomagh. The fact is that Whycocomagh is 14 miles away from the reservation and Baddeck is right at the reservation.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Perhaps the hon. member for Annapolis will explain why a doctor from Baddeck was not appointed? Here is a man who resides right beside the Indian reservation. It would have been much preferable to have had a doctor right there to attend to serious cases.


Avard Longley Davidson: Perhaps I was wrong, but if I was it was because I was going on the authority of the statement made by

the premier of the province. Perhaps that is rather an uncertain source of information, but when he made that statement I thought it was true.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The question of doctors having been brought up, the statement is made by my hon. friend from Inverness (Mr. Chisholm) that the minister, when he wants a doctor for the Baddeck reserve, goes to Whycocomagh in another county. When was this Dr. Grant appointed?


William Roche: About two years ago.


George William Kyte: Does the minister know how far Whycocomagh is from the reserve at Baddeck? It is 15 or 18 miles.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. The committee cannot possibly have a discussion unless there is some item before it for consideration.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We are discussing salaries.	*	[DOT]


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The item we have had under consideration is No. 286. This has been asked to stand.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think so.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) asked to have it stand and the minister consented.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I beg to express the opinion, speaking to the point of order, that you, Mr. Chairman, are wrong in regard to that. There are several items included in this general vote. It was understood that this item should not be finally passed until the minister gave us certain information, but that does not preclude us from taking up other items in regard to Indian affairs.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is one other item before the committee, the item of $29,962. I do not wish to preclude discussion. I am in the judgment of the committee. I think I am right in saying that we should not discuss an item which an hon. member has asked to stand, but that we must proceed to another item if we are to comply with the rules.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is not the practice of the committee. This resolution is subdivided into several items, and it has been the practice to deal with these items individually. I understand the minister to ask that the item for salaries stand for the time being. Surely it is in the interest

of the minister to get the other items passed?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the request was only that the item of salaries stand the discussion is quite in order. My understanding was that the whole resolution was to stand.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not understand it in that way.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am rather surprised at this attempt to restrict discussion. We were dealing with salaries, and it was understood that the item would not be passed until the minister gave us some information. But, before the item finally stands, we might give some further consideration to the question of medical aid. The question of why Dr. Grant was appointed two years ago, although he lives 12 miles away in another county, suggests to us the question why, in the county of Pictou, the minister dismissed Dr. Mackenzie, who had been attending the Indians at the Pictou Landing Reserve, as had been done by his predecessor while he was living in Pictou. The minister dismissed Dr. Mackenzie and appointed a man who lived in New Glasgow.


William Roche: I understand that the hon. gentleman asked the same question last year, when the matter was fresh in my mind, and I gave him the reply. As far as my recollection goes, it was because the greater portion of the Indians resided nearer to where Dr. Grant lives in New Glasgow than where the other doctor lives. They reside just on the opposite side of the water. The major portion of the Indians reside on the opposite side of the water, and Dr. Mackenzie was in New Glasgow.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is the other way round.


William Roche: It may have been the
other way round, but at any rate it was by reason of the representations that .were made at the time that he was appointed. It was pointed out to me that Dr. Grant's appointment would be more convenient to a greater number of the Indians than that they should be attended to by Dr. Mackenzie.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Of course, the whole thing was a little piece of politics; that is the cold English about it. Perhaps the minister might explain why Dr. Grant of Whyeocomagh was appointed instead of one of the doctors at Baddeck. We have heard suggestions about the peculiar con-168
dition that has developed through the country as to the deficiency of doctors. There was no such deficiency when Dr. Grant was appointed to look after the Indians in another county.


William Roche: It had not struck me that Dr.. Grant lived in another county; he lived in the county in which New Glasgow is.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am speaking about Dr. Grant of Whyeocomagh.


William Roche: This appointment was made, as the other appointments were made, no matter what Government was in power,-on the recommendation of those in authority who have the recommendation in their hands, and of those in whom we have confidence. T'he representations made were such as convinced me that it would be a wise appointment and a convenient appointment to be made, so far as attending the Indians is concerned. There was nothing exceptional in this case.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Dr. Grant was appointed to succeed Dr. Macdonald?


William Roche: Yes.	'


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: W'ho resided at Baddeck?


William Roche: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why was he dismissed ?


William Roche: I explained why the other man was appointed. I cannot carry all these things in my head two or three years after the appointment was made.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Partisanship5


William Roche: I do not know.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I desire to ask the minister a question for information, with regard to a matter which does not relate exclusively to his department, but which has come up this evening. The question is as to the salary of the civil servants who have enlisted. It is extremely unfortunate, I think everybody will agree, that the anomalous condition should exist that some civil servants who have enlisted are in receipt of their salaries while others who have enlisted are not. I am not going to discuss that as a matter of policy, but I think the Government is open to very grave censure for not continuing that policy, or else for having established it at all. I do not know that we have ever had any explanation from any minister as to why that policy was emibarked upon. But



surely it is very objectionable to see special favours extended to some men who enlisted prior to others. How does the Government justify it? It cannot be based upon any sound principle surely-to say that the man who enlisted before the 1st of November shall 'be entitled to his pay, whereas the man who enlisted a few days later shall not. The question I desire to ask for information is this: Suppose that a man enlisted a week before the passing of the Order in Council in November, but was not actually attested-I think that is the word; he did not sign the roll-until a day or two after the passing of the. Order in Council, would he be entitled to his salary?


William Roche: In all such cases the official produces the certificate of his superior officer, and we are guided by that certificate as to the date. Prior to the 1st of November, 1915, of course, we were paying thfe salaries of all officials who enlisted, and they were allowed their military pay as well. I have explained this all before, and I think there is not a minister whose Estimates have been before the committee but has been called upon to deal with it. I can only repeat that we are paying only the difference between the military and the civil pay. Some take the ground that we should have instituted that originally, but I do not know of any who have taken the ground that we should continue it, even though we found the payments made such a large drain on the war vote, because the substitutes of these men, when they have substitutes, are all paid out of the war vote. We are doing no injustice to those who enlisted later than the 1st of November, for all knew in advance exactly what the conditions were. We could not tell how long the war was going to last; by many it was not thought at first that it would be so protracted, nor did we think that we should have such a large number enlist as have enlisted. But when so many were enlisting, and the war continued so long, we thought it well to relieve the strain on the war vote, and that we should revise by Order in Council the rate to be paid.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I know many who enlisted with the idea that they would get their full salary. They resigned or abandoned their official work before the passing of the Order in Council, and, perhaps, in many cases, actually were in uniform, but did not happen to make the attestation or signature of the roll until a time subsequent

to the passing of the Order in Council. Many mem enlisted thus expecting to get their full .salaries, but they did not sign the roll early eneugh, and were not able to get their full salary.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I understood the minister to say that substitutes in the departments were paid out of the war vote. Where can we find out just what amount from the war vote goes to the different departments to pay for substitutes?


William Roche: I think that information
was laid on the Table of the House some days ago.
Item stands.
Indians, New Brunswick, $16,284.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the Indian population of New Brunswick by divisions?


William Roche: The total Indian population is 1,862. The number of reserves is 26.
I will send the hon. gentleman the report of the department which gives in detail the information he asks for.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Thanks; if it is in the
report ,1 can read it up. What is the total amount of salaries paid, say in the last fiscal, year?


William Roche: It was $1,984.	*


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: To whom was the money paid and in what amounts?


William Roche: The list is as follows: John
B.	Sheridan, $800; B. J. Griffin, agent, southwestern division, $500; N. J. Wooton, agent, northern division, $350;. constables at Big Cove, $20; constables at Burnt Church, Northumberland county, $50; constables at Eel Ground, Northumberland county, $24; unforeseen services of constables, timber guardians, etc., $190; amount to provide timber inspection in the Red Band reserve, $50; total, $1,984.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: When was Mr. Sheridan appointed?


William Roche: He was appointed quite
recently to take the place of his predecessor, who had died.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Can the minister give
me anywhere near the exact date of the * appointment?


William Roche: Last autumn.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is as near as the
minister can come to it?


William Roche: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: When was Mr. Wooton appointed? I may say before that question is answered that I observe in the Auditor General's Report that the name of the officer for the northwestern division is given as Mr. Waite, and I was very much surprised to learn of the change. I know both these gentlemen,' and Mr. Waite is a very fine old gentleman who has lived in that portion of New Brunswick all his lifetime. I can vouch for the fact that he was probably much more in need of the salary than was the person who was appointed in his place, and I think he is just as good a Conservative as the present incumbent1. It was somewhat of a surprise to the people in that district to learn that the change was made. Mr. Waite is not one of the bad Grits, because they turned that fellow out and put Mr. Waite in his place. We expect that sort of thing to happen; but why Mr. Waite was put out and the other man put in his place is somewhat of a mystery. As the northwestern division is in that portion of the province which will be joined to the county which I now represent, I naturally have a little curiosity to know why these changes have taken place.


William Roche: If my memory serves me
right, the bon. gentleman was not so enamoured of the services of Mr. Waite last session as he apparently is to-day. If he will read Hansard, I think he will find that he made some severe strictures upon Mr. Waite.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think the minister will search in vain for any public record of any strictures that I made upon Mr. Waite. I think I had a private conversation with the minister about Mr. Waite, but I do not think I made any strictures upon him. I rather pitied him. I think I told the minister that he was in the hands of a pretty bad outfit, who were forcing the poor old Indian agent to do things that he ought not-to do. Other than that, I have no knowledge of ever saying anything against Mr. Waite, and he is the last person in the county of Victoria that I would feel like making charges against. If anything irregular took place I am sure it was not the fault of Mr. Waite; it was the fault of the men who were behind Mr. Waite, compelling him to do what he ought not to do. Will my hon. friend tell me the reason of the change?


William Roche: Complaints were made
about the manner in which Mr. Waite rendered his services, and we had an officer go to that division and report, and, as a re-168-1
suit of his refort against Mr. Waite, we considered he was not discharging his duties efficiently or to the satisfaction of the public, and therefore we relieved him of them. There was nothing political in the matter, as the hon. gentleman knows. It was solely and wholly by reasons of representations made to the department that he was not giving efficient service that he was relieved.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the minister allow me to be a little personal and ask him if he is relying upon the conversation I had with him?


William Roche: Nof at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am glad of that, because the last thing I had in mind was anything that would militate against Mr. Waite. I want to repeat in the most public manner possible that, while I think Mr. Waite may have been induced to perform certain services in a manner not entirely in the public interest, yet I do not for a moment blame Mr. Waite, I blame the men who were behind him and who were profiting by Mr. Waite's perhaps somewhat easy method of carrying on public affairs.
My hon. friend knows there was one mat-, ter to which I referred in this House. I* do not know that I discussed it. I asked a number of questions, and, after a good deal of persistent boring, I got the information; and after I got started, I found no disposition on the part of the minister to withhold the information to which I was entitled. I refer now to the attempted steal of practically all the lumber on the Tobique Indian Reserve. Fortunately, through the active and energetic efforts of the Rev. Father Ryan, who has charge of the Indians on that reserve, it was prevented. As I have said, I have no fault to find with the minister; in fact, I think he is entitled to a great deal of commendation for the energetic manner in which he prosecuted. I understand he was up against a pretty stiff proposition in the shape of a man who was always looking out for himself, and who had the matter well planned. Had it not been that the minister was firm in the matter, the Tobique Indian Reserve would have ceased to exist eo far as any lumber was concerned.
I was, however, anxious to know whether the statements that I had made to the minister regarding the Indian agent at that time had anything to do with his dismissal.

and I am very glad to knew from the minister that I am not the cause in any way of Mr. Waite's losing his position. I regret that he - has lost it, because, after all, these positions as Indian agents in New Brunswick are all mere sinecures. No one ever thinks for a moment that an Indian agent earns his salary. I do not suppose an Indian agent really earns $50 a year, because there is nothing for him to do. He travels around amongst the Indian reserves once in a while. There are only a few of them, with perhaps a dozen Indians1 scattered around in a little encampment, and when they get hard up and want some flour or pork, they send for the Indian agent and he goes and gives them what they require, It seems to me to be a hardship that this Mr. Waite, who really needed the money, was fired out of the position, and the real, active, energetic head of the Conservative party in the county of Victoria was placed in it. The man who was appointed there is the man who, for a time, ran the newspaper, and who monopolizes all the little party funds that were going. He is after everything that has money ih it, and he seems to have been successful in landing this position for himself. I have heard-I do not know how true it is-that even this man has got into trouble and has also been fired. I hope that is true, but I am afraid there is no such good luck as that. I would like the minister to say whether that is true or not.


William Roche: I think the hon. gentleman is doing an injustice to the present incumbent of the office when he states that he is so very fond of grasping the finances that he has landed this job for himself, because, as a matter of fact, he did not seek the job at all. In fact, he has wanted to resign the position.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have heard that.


William Roche: But he has not been dismissed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Has he resigned?


William Roche: If he has sent in his resignation, it has certainly not been accepted.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the minister state whether he is any better satisfied with the way in which the present incumbent is managing his honorary duties than he was with the services rendered by his predecessor?


William Roche: I have not had any complaints that would lead me to believe that

his services are more satisfactory than those rendered by Mr. Waite. Of course, he has not been very long in the position as yet. Every agent will no doubt make mistakes; he cannot please everybody.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is the minister aware of the fact that within the last three months some 800 or 900 acres of land in this reserve were put up for sale? The most important lumbering firm in New Brunswick applied to this agent for a description of the land; they wanted to cruise it and see what was on it. The agent refused to give the representative of this firm the information- wrote him a letter and told him that he did not have it. Not until after the tenders were opened in Ottawa was the information given to the party who wanted to cruise the land and tender for it. When representations were made to the minister's department the sale was cancelled and new tenders called far. Afterwards tenders were received which were mudh higher than the one which had been recommended; by the minister's agent. Is the minister aware of these facts?	.


William Roche: The action to which the hon. gentleman has referred was taken by my order, and instead of being impliedly criticized toy the hon. member, I should be commended. The hon. gentleman states that tenders were called for a certain piece of land. That is very true; a tender was received. It is true, also, that another lumber firm had written to our agent asking that he might be instructed as to where the land was in order that he might cruise it and put in a tender. Through oversight -or some other reason, I know not-he did not get the information until the tenders had been opened in Ottawa. When it was brought to my attention that this gentleman did not have the information, although it had been promised by the agent, I immediately instructed the. Deputy Superintendent General to call for new tenders, which resulted, as the hon. member intimated;, in the receipt of close on to $500 more for the land. That shows that the minister and his officials are anxious to conduct this department in a fair and impartial and honest manner. I am not going to say that Mr. Wooton, the agent who overlooked notifying this lumber company, did so designedly. I am not in a position to say that, but no matter whether he did or not, the matter has been pointed out to him and the explanation has been afforded. In fact, it has reached our ears.

also, that this lumber company had found out what the original tender was, which accounts for the new tender being $400 or $500 higher. At any rate, we showed our desire to have everythlimg conducted in proper manner by calling for tenders for the second time. It was represented to me that it was a strong political friend who put in the first tender and a strong political opponent who put in the second one, but the highest tender was accepted.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the minister will allow me, I again congratulate him for the manner in which he has conducted the affairs of the department so far as he is concerned. I want to say here that I think the minister has acted with the very greatest regard for the public affairs of his department in this particular case. If he will refer to my remarks in Hansard to-morrow, I think he will observe that I found no fault with his department; in fact, I am endeavouring to commend the department. I am only pointing out some of the things they have to contend with down in the province of New Brunswick.


William Roche: Politics are very strenuous down there.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Perhaps it may surprise the minister when I tell him that I have no warmer supporter in my constituency than the gentleman who put in the first tender. Both parties were Liberals, and very active ones at that; so the minister is wrongly informed about the politics of the gentleman who put in the first tender. Would the minister think that I was impertinent if I were to ask him if the incident to which we have been referring is the cause of Mr. Woofon's desire to retire from the position?


William Roche: No, I believe not-not to
my knowledge.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: When was Mr. .Griffin
appointed, and where was he to reside?


William Roche: J am afraid that I am not in a position to givie the dates of those appointments, as I have not any record of them here. I can give, the information later to the hon. gentleman.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: T suppose he takes the place of a Mr. Smith whose name I find in the Auditor General's Report?


William Roche: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister has given
me the date of Mr. Sheridan's appointment -and thereby also hangs a tale. Hon. gentlemen from Nova Scotia seem to think that they have a grievance; that politics have played a part in the appointment of a man by the name of Foster in that province. I wonder if the hon. minister is aware of the circumstances connected with the case of Mr. Sheridan? It may surprise the minister when I tell him that for some years previous to his appointment Mr. Sheridan had been a member of the legislature of New Brunswick and that in the month, I think, of April last, on account of very serious charges that had been made by the Opposition, a royal commission was appointed, ostensibly with power to investigate many matters in the province of New Brunswick, among them the expenditure of certain road moneys in different counties. In the county of Kent an investigation was held by Mr. Chandler, who was the commissioner, in which it was proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that this Mr. Sheridan had been party to absolute theft of public moneys of the province of New Brunswick. It was established that Mr. Sheridan's son, a boy of twelve or thirteen years of age or thereabouts, was placed upon the pay-roll in connection with certain public works. It was shown that this boy was not on the works at all; that the cheque was made out and delivered out to the father. When the superintendent who had been responsible for this was put upon his oath, he said: Mr. Sheridan had been pretty good to me and I wanted to help him all I could. Therefore they made out these bogus payrolls and bogus cheques, which were endorsed by a person other than the boy, and the money was drawn from the treasury of New Brunswick. Mr. Sheridan was obliged to get out of public life in New Brunswick on account of practically pilfering public money from the province. The very moment it was found that this man was not fit to be a member of the legislature of New Brunswick he was handed over to my hon. friend the minister who appointed him an Indian agent under the Federal Government at a salary of $800 a year. The matter complained of in Nova Scotia was only a matter of taking $1,800 a year out of the treasury of Canada, but this case is worse. It is almost compounding a felony. It is giving a position in the public service to a man who got kicked out of the Legislature of New Brunswick. The Lord knows they are kicking them out pretty faist down there. Another fellow was fired the day before yesterday for boodling:	1
i

do not know whether my hon. friend will *find a position for him for boodlirig-for taking money that did not belong to him. He has been found guilty by the same royal commission; I hope my hon. friend will not find a place for him. How in the world can the minister justify the appointment of this man Sheridan under the conditions that I have stated? Perhaps he did not know the circumstances; if so, he ought to find fault and make some one explain why a man of this kind was foisted upon him. If he did know, then I must say that I have not the same high regard for njy hon. friend that I have had in the past and that I want to have in the future. Nothing that has happened in my province since the famous investigation which resulted in the resignation of the premier has cast such a discredit upon public life and has caused people to wonder if there is any such thing as honesty in public life as did the appointment of Sheridan to the position of Indian agent, having regard to the revelations made before the royal commissioner. I do not know who recommended him; I suppose it would be the member for the county of Kent (Mr. Robidoux). It is in the county of Kent, and I have no doubt the member for that constituency will assume responsibility for the appointment. But it reflects very little credit upon whoever appointed him, and I hope the minister will be able to tell this committee that he did not know the condition of affairs, and did not know what was happening when this man was appointed.


William Roche: As to the accuracy of the statements that the hon. gentleman has just given the House, I know nothing. As the hon. member will realize, a minister, in making appointments throughout the country, cannot know all the conditions of the different appointments.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I appreciate that.


William Roche: I do not know who Mr. Sheridan is. He was appointed in the usual way. If we have a representative from that constituency supporting the Government possibly the recommendation may have come from him. The vacancy was kept open for some time, and the nomination of this gentleman was accepted in the usual manner. I certainly heard nothing against Sheridan's character in line with what the hon. member has said to-night; it is all news to me. Possibly if some other member from New Brunswick, conversant

with all the facts, were present to-night he might be able to put a different colour on these statements.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, he cannot do it.


William Roche: At any rate the hon. member will appreciate that I was not in a position to judge of the character of Sheridan, and in such a case a minister must be guided by the recommendation of his friends.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I appreciate the position, and I am glad to know that the minister was not aware of the conditions, because I wish to repeat that since the present minister took charge I have found nothing on his part or on the part of his officers but a desire to administer the department properly. I wondered if the Hon. Mr. Roche could be aware of the condition of affairs when this appointment was made. He says that possibly if some other gentlemen were here he might throw a different light on it. I did not know that the matter was coming up to-night, or I would have armed myself with the report of the Royal Commission. It is a public document, which was published in the newspapers of New Brunswick two or three days before Christmas, and if the minister wants to get the facts he has only to send to the library for the report. Mr. W. B. Chandler was the commissioner. He is a lawyer of high standing in Moncton, of such high standing, indeed, that when they tried to throttle him and not allow him to go on and investigate, he resigned rather than be made a cats-paw by any political party. But he had gone far enough to investigate Sheridan and a man named Stewart, the late member for Gloucester in the New Brunswick Legislature. The report is a public document, and in it the minister will find every statement I have made. In fact I have been very modest, and not made my statement as strong as it might have been made. I am surprised that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), who must have known something of the appointment, did not inform his colleague of the true position of affairs before the appointment was made. It may be that the member for Kent, who is new in public affairs, who has not had much to do with public matters, possibly may have thought that he could put one over on the minister without being caught at it. But that is not the case with the Minister of Marine, because he knows the

game in New Brunswick from a
10 p.m. to z. I say again that I am surprised that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries did not inform his colleague of the true condition of affairs, that he was appointing a man who, on the1-report of a Royal Commission, would have to resign or be kicked out of the legislature of New Brunswick. The same condition of affairs existed with regard to the other man, Stewart. Stewart would not resign; he hung on and met the legislature. The Government of which he was a supporter refused to appoint him on any committees. The newspapers took the matter up. Stewart would not resign, and sat in the legislature for four or five weeks. Finally a resolution was moved, about a week ago, asserting that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a seat in the House of Assembly. The Government took the ground that the motion was improperly brought, that there was no jurisdiction, and in some way virtually whitewashed him. But public sentiment became so strong that two or three days ago, I see by the newspapers, he resigned. J hope to the Lord the minister will not give Stewart a job. It is bad enough to give one of them a job. I hope that the Minister of the Interior will report this matter to his colleagues, and see that Stewart is not given a position, as the other fellow was. They were both proven guilty of the same offence by the same commissioner, and were equally bad. It is truly a disgraceful condition of affairs, and I can only say again, I am heartily glad that the Minister of the Interior did not know the conditions when he made the appointment.


Mr. COPP:: The hon. member for Carle-ton (Mr. Carvell) has referred to a recent appointment to the position of Indian agent in the province of New Brunswick, in the person of Colonel Sheridan. He has given the committee some information with regard to this man's standing, and some reasons why he should not have been appointed to the position he now holds under the minister. I should like to supplement the hon. member's statements, because this man took good care not to resign, and held his seat in the legislature until he had received the appointment from the Department of the Interior to the office he now holds. I had a conversation with this man quite late last autumn, and while newspaper rumours had it that he had been appointed Indian agent in the room and place of the - deceased officer, Mr. Irving, he said he was still debating whether or not he would
accept the position. The truth is that Commissioner Chandler's report had not been given to the public at that time, and he was not sure whether he would have to get out of the Legislature or not; he was awaiting that report before accepting the appointment at the hands of my hon. friend. My hon. friend says that he had no intimation in regard to this man's reputation or character before he made the appointment. I do not know what principle the ministers follow in regard to getting information concerning appointees, but ii does seem to me that, in the province oi New Brunswick at least if they get mo information they tumble on the very worst class of citizens in making appointments and Sheridan is no exception to the rule.
I have here the report of the Auditor General for the year ending March, 3il, 1916. I notice that Mr. Irving's salary is paid only to the 30th of November, 1914. At the same time there is a Mir. Hutchison who received two months' salary. 1 presume he was acting for the two months from the 1st of February to the 31st of March. Apparently there were two months in the year when no salary was paid for an Indian agent in that division of the province of New. Brunswick. Is that correct.


William Roche: This gentleman did the
work as acting Indian agent until the appointment of Sheridan was made.
, Mr. COPP:	Until the appointment of
Sheridan?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That cannot be.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is what I say-I cannot understand the report. I am reading from the report up to the 31st of March, 1915. Mr. Sheridan was not appointed until late in the fall, November or December, 1915.


Mi ROCHE:: Mr. Irving was paid for eight months until November 30.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Of what year?


William Roche: 1914, and then Mr. Hutchinson acted for two months until the 31st of March, the end of that fiscal year.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Why was he acting?


William Roche: Some time elapsed before an appointment was made.


Arthur Bliss Copp: When did Mr. Irving die?
iMr. ROCHE: In 1914, before Christmas, I think.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I think the hon. minister is mistaken. Mr. Irving died last year.


William Pugsley: I met him in 1915.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I travelled with him in the summer of 1915.


William Roche: Yes, it was 1915.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This report gives the appointment down to March 31, 1915, but it shows that Mr. Irving got his salary for only eight months. He was certainly Indian agent until the summer of last year or the fall, perhaps till September, though I do not know the exact date, and I cannot understand why be received only eight months'. salary and why Mr. Hutchinson came in.


William Roche: I understand that for some time before Mr. Sheridan was appointed there was no agent at all.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That might be, but why did Mr. Hutchinson come in?


William Roche: I must frankly admit that I do not know anything at all about it. I do not know when the man died, and my deputy cannot give me the information offhand. I will get it later on for my hon. friend.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I shall be glad to have the information, because it struck me as a rather singular matter. I could understand Mr. Hutchinson coming in a year later and acting as agent until it was known whether Mr. Sheridan was going to be forced out of the Legislature. Mr. Hutchinson may have acted for a couple of months until the investigation concerning Mr. Sheridan was concluded. There is another matter with regard to which I should like some information. I notice that the province is divided into three divisions, and I think the minister told my hon. friend from Carle-ton (Mr. Carvell) that there were 26 reservations in the province, Can he tell me how these reservations are divided, and the number of the Indian population in the three divisions?


William Roche: In the northern agency the number is 224, in the north-eastern agency 939, and in the south-western agency 533.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I thought that the northern division was somewhat smaller than the others, and I was surprised to notice in the Auditor General's Report that the fees of the doctors in other portions of the

province are somewhat small compared with those of Dr. Peat who was paid $400 for attendance on the Indians in the smallest division.


William Roche: It is true that Dr. Peat got $400, but there are others who got $200, for instance, Dr. Coleman and Dr. Leger. Dr. Arnold got $150, Dr. Desmond $300, Dr. Gorman $300, Dr. McKeifzie $200, and Dr. Gilchrist $200. Several of the others got $150 and $175.


Arthur Bliss Copp: But Dr. Peat got the largest salary, though he has the smallest district. I should like to ask, also, how the provisions are supplied to the Indians. Are they purchased 'by the agent's orders whenever he sees fit and wherever he sees fit? Are they purchased by tender, or how is it done?


William Roche: The local agent sends in a requisition to the department for the amount of provisions required for the particular Indians that he superintends, and he is authorized to make the purchases at the best prices.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If an application is sent to him, does he go to the place and ascertain whether the party applying sells what is required?


William Roche: That is what is expected of him.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In my county there is a small reservation where the Indians work. They have quite a little farm, and yet I see certain amounts charged. I see there is a doctor's bill for $150, although there cannot be over a half a dozen families on the reservation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would like an assurance from the minister that he will bring down the papers wljioh I have asked for before the close of the session. I know there is not much use in asking that this item stand, 'because we are getting near the close of the session, and probably when these items come up again it will be about two or three o'clock in the morning and they will go'through. Will he give me an assurance that he will bring down all the correspondence with reference to the appointment of Mr. Sheridan to the position of Indian agent?


William Roche: I shall have no objection whatever to bringing down any correspondence on file. I have no recollection of any particular correspondence but such as there is I will bring down.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: While it may be too much to ask the minister to remove this man from office if he finds that what I am saying is true, I would like at least to aek if he ydll not get some of the officials of his department to look up the report of Mr. Chandler, which he will find in the newspapers of New Brunswick about the 21st or 22nd December last, and see if he does not come to the conclusion that this man ought not to be an Indian agent or to hold any position in the Government of Canada. When a man has so conducted himself that he is not fit to be a member of the Legislature of the province, he is not fit to be an agent looking after the expenditure of the money of this Government. My hon. friend, while I gladly say that he was perfectly innocent in this transaction, is not elevating the standard of public life in Canada very much when he is rewarding a man of this kind under the conditions which I have indicated. While I do not know that I can ask thfe minister to say offhand that he will dispense with the services of this man, I think I have a right to ask that he will give the matter his very serious consideration and, if he finds the statements I am making are correct, that he will seriously consider the advisability of dismissing this man from the public service. I am making no attack upon Mr. Sheridan, I am only discussing him now because he has been found guilty by a public commissioner, a gentleman appointed by his own political friends, and I do think that the minister will be doing something in the way of trying to purify .public life in our province, which, I am sorry to say, has reached a pretty low ebb, by removing this man from his position and removing him from the public gaze where he remains as an incentive to other men to go and do wrong because it seems that in our province the greater the wrong a man may commit the greater the reward he gets for his services. I think the hon. gentleman, as one member of this Government, should take a firm stand and show the people that every thing politically 'is not bad and miserable in this country although that seems to be the way things are drifting in New Brunswick. I can only ask the minister to give very careful consideration to this matter.


William Roche: I will inquire into it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to express my sincere regret that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) saw fit
to leave this chamber just before this item was brought up. I think we should have a statement from him as to why this man was appointed, and why he should have allowed his colleague to be drawn into the position that he finds himself in to-night. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is hot doing himself credit by absenting himself from the chamber at a time when he ought to be here to defend his conduct.
Indians, Prince Edward Island, $3,225.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: When was the assistant superintendent appointed?


William Roche: About two years ago.


James Joseph Hughes: There was no need for his appointment. It is just that much additional expenditure. Where does Dr. Stewart live?


William Roche: Tyne Valley.


James Joseph Hughes: There was no necessity for Mr. Arsenault's appointment.


William Roche: Was not Mr. Arsenault the old agent? He got very old and the superintendent Rev. J. A. Macdonald, was appointed to do the work.


James Joseph Hughes: Mr. Arsenault was appointed two years ago.


William Roche: He was an old official of
the Government.


James Joseph Hughes: No, he may be a man of the same name but he is not this man.
' Indians, British Columbia, $182,650.


William Pugsley: Before entering upon
the consideration of this item, I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior if he has any papers, correspondence and reports which he could give to us in reference to the Kitsilano reserve in Vancouver which has been purchased by the British Columbia Government. The circumstances connected with this reserve are exceedingly peculiar and are such as to demand consideration from this committee. The Government is the trustee of the Indians. It is its duty to guard the rights and property of the Indians just as it is the duty of any trustee to guard the interests of his trust. In the case of this reservation, there was a property belonging to the Indians worth, by common consent, between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000, a very valuable property situated in the city of Vancouver, on the south side of False creek. It occupied a position which was of strategic im-

portance in connection with the entry of railways into Vancouver. Among other railways which were desirous of getting into the city was the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul, one of the large American companies. That property was acquired by a person who had been expressly or impliedly set to work to negotiate with the Indians, and it was obtained f*220,000. I think the correspondence, which the minister will find on file, will show that this Government, or the Department of Indian Affairs, were aware of the negotiations which were going on with the Indians, and I think it will be admitted that it was the duty of the minister to intervene and see that the highest price which it was reasonably possible to obtain for the Indians was obtained, or to see that the interests of the Indians should not be unnecessarily sacrificed. The fact that there were comparatively few Indians represented, that the property was of enormous value and that the Indians would receive, even at the price which was paid, quite a large amount of money, is no answer for this Government to set up for neglecting to discharge its duties as the trustee for the Indians. It was its duty to obtain for the property what it was fairly worth. My information is that the amount actually paid the Indians was $220,000.
I find on examination of the records of what took place in the British Columbia Legislature, that there was read a telegram sent by Mr. Bowser, Attorney General of British Columbia, to the Minister of the Interior at Ottawa, stating that the purchase could be made for that sum. But, strange to say, the British Columbia Government actually paid $300,000; and of that sum, the enormous amount of $80,000 was paid as commission on the transaction. Some very interesting proceedings have taken place in the British Columbia Legislature and also in the courts of British Columbia, in a case which was brought on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and judgment given, and in which the court makes very severe remarks in regard to payment of this very extravagant commission. It would appear that the deal was put through by Mr. Read, a clerk in the office of the firm of the Attorney General, the firm of Bowser, Reid & Wellbridge. Mr. Read, the clerk to whom I have referred, had some connection, it appears, with Mr. Alexander of Winnipeg. After negotiation with the Indians, an option was obtained in the name of Mr. Alexander. It appears, from an examina-

tion of the witnesses before the committee of the British Columbia Legislature, that first the option was taken in the name of Mr. Read, but afterwards, for reasons not explained-whether it was because Mr. Read was the clerk in the office of Mr. Bowser's firm-I do not know-it was changed from the name of Mr. Read to the name of Mr. Alexander. And when the $300,000 was finally paid, it was paid to Mr. Alexander and went through him, and he handed over to Mr. Read the very large sum of $39,000 as a share of the profits or commissions on the transaction. It does not appear that Mr. Read had done anything to earn that $39,000, and when he was asked before the committee what was the consideration for which he had received this amount, his only answer was that he thought he had earned the money'-although he admitted that he had done practically nothing for it-that Mr. Alexander was a man of honour and had paid him this amount of money as a man of honour would do. These are rather extraordinary facts. I do not know whether the Minister of the Interior has had his attention called to the matter or not, but he must have correspondence in his department bearing on the subject. But I think that before the item goes through the committee should have such details as are available to the minister. I am not going into details in connection with the matter, hut these are the facts to which I have referred: first, that the property in question was worth between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000; second, that this Government was informed of the negotiations which were taking place and the property was purchased for the British Columbia Government for $300,000; and, third, that the $300,000 did not go to the Indians, but the sum of $80,000 was paid out as commission to those who carried through the transaction. I would ask the hon. minister to give information to the committee with regard to the transaction, and to state what steps, if any, the Government took to safeguard the rights of the Indians.


William Roche: I will say a few words with reference to the question put by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), and the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), a local man, who is acquainted with the facts, will go into the matter more in detail. It is true, as the hon. gentleman has stated, that the Provincial Government of British Columbia did make an arrangement with the Indians on the Kitsilano reserve to surrender their reserve for $220,-

000, or something in that neighbourhood. The Legislature of British Columbia did vote $300,000 to close out the deal. The negotiations with the Indians were carried on in much the same manner as those in the surrender of the Songhees reserve were carried on. There, also, a viery large commission was allowed. In this case, if anything wrong has been done with regard to the reserve by the Provincial Government they are amenable to the people of British Columbia. But the Government of which the h'on. member for St. John was a member did not hold themselves responsible for the commission paid to a Mr. Matson, or some such name, of about $75,000, in connection with the Songhees reserve. I think the hon. gentleman is astray when he speaks of a telegram sent to the Minister of the Interior.


William Pugsley: In the investigation before the committee reference is made to a telegram from Mr. Bowser, the Attorney General, dated March 17.


William Roche: In what year?


William Pugsley: The year in which the transaction took place, which, I think, was 1913. I take my facts from a newspaper report of the evidence.


William Roche: There was no telegram sent to the Minister of the Interior. That telegram, as I read it, was supposed to be sent to the Hon. Mr. Rogers, after he had ceased to be Minister of the Interior.


William Pugsley: How long has the present Minister of the Interior been in office?


William Roche: Since the 1st of December, 1912. I think the telegram referred to some conversation had with the then minister. No telegram was sent to me as Minister of the Interior.


William Pugsley: It is said that it was sent to Mr. Rogers when he was Minister of the Interior.


William Roche: In March, 1913, he was not Minister of the Interior. This Government did not authorize that dealing and did not confirm it. And the best evidence that we have not been satisfied with the arrangement with the Indians by the British Columbia Government is the fact that to-day we are arranging, on the recommendation of the Royal Commission that have investigated the matter, to have this property disposed of to the Harbour Commission of the city of Vancouver, and the sum the
Indians will eventually get out of it will be the sum that is determined by expropriation proceedings on the part of the Harbour Commissioners. Therefore, it is not only $220,000 that the Indians will eventually receive, but it will also be the excess amount over that which, upon investigation by arbitration under the Expropriation Act, the Harbour Commissioners will pay this Government. The Indians, of course, will get the benefit of all of that excess.


William Pugsley: Against whom are the Harbour Commissioners expropriating?


William Roche: They are expropriating the reserve, dealing with the Dominion Government on the report of the Royal Commission, which made a recommendation to this Government that we should dispose of the reserve to the Harbour Commissioners and allow them to develop their harbour properties there, and they have the authority [DOT] under an expropriation clause in their charter to expropriate this Kitsilano reserve.


William Pugsley: Expropriate as against the Dominion Government?


William Roche: Under the Indian Act and the expropriation provision that they have in their own charter.


William Pugsley: Do I understand that the property, which the Indians- are supposed to surrender unless this arrangement that was made with the Government, will be valued by arbitrators, and the difference between the $300,000 and the total value ot the property be put into the funds of the Indians?


William Roche: That is the agreement


Mr. STEVENS:: As I have some rather intimate knowledge of this matter, the committee will perhaps bear with me for a moment. I may say at the outset that this Government has at no time officially recognized the action of the Provincial Government in acquiring the reserve. It does not follow, however, that the Provincial Government were entirely wrong in their, action. I think they were actuated by a desire to solve a problem which had been concerning the people of Vancouver for many years, that is, how to get rid of this Indian reserve in the heart of the city. As nearly as I member the circumstances, the Provincial Government had an intimation that the Indians were ready to deal, and they thought it would be a good opportunity for them to take action.

It must be remembered also that the provincial Government claim reversionary-rights. I also understand that the Government of Canada has never officially recognized the reversionary rights of the provincial Government and that it is a disputed point that has never been determined by law or by agreement. During the last couple of years the Indian Commission, a joint commission between the two Governments, was appointed for the purpose of solving the dispute, if one might call it so, between the two Governments, relating to all Indian reserves. When the Provincial Government took the action that it did, I strongly opposed it on the ground that this particular reserve should be kept for public purposes, for the public of Vancouver or for the Harbour Board, which at that time was not constituted, or for the city itself to administer. There was a friendly difference between myself and the provincial authorities whose sole Object was to take advantage of the willingness of the Indians to sell in order to get rid of them, just as happened in the case of the Songhees reserve. In taking the action which they did, they followed, as the minister has pointed out, the precedent of the Government of which my hon friend is a member, and they employed the same methods exactly of carrying it out. As to the value, of this reserve, the hon. gentleman says it is worth from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000.


William Pugsley: I did not say that; I say" that is my information.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The value of the reserve depends a great deal upon certain things. If the reserve carries with it the ownership of the foreshore butting on the reserve, that adds to its value; but, as a matter of fact, the Indians have simply riparian rights, and that does not carry with it ownership from the 'Crown of the bed of the harbour, so that that detracts a great deal from its value.
Another point is this, that before this reserve can be utilized for waterfront purposes, it will cost a very large sum to build a breakwater at the western side of the reserve jutting into English bay, and that also must be taken into consideration, because of the value which my hon. friend has mentioned is a value based upon what the reserve may be worth used as a harbour property, and it cannot be used as such until such action is taken as I have mentioned, that is, the

securing of the ownership of the foreshore and also the construction of the breakwater. That question, however, will all be settled by the Board of Arbitration which has been appointed. The Government of the Dominion, in all the negotiations relating to this reserve, have at all times acted strictly in the interest of the Indians. They have refused to recognize any action which is not in accordance with the Indian Act and of the statutes of Canada, and in the interests of the Indians financially. The Board of Arbitration will be completed and will commence its work, I think, in the near future. The Harbour Board, under the powers given to them in the Harbour Act, have the right to expropriate, and in the Indian Act, there is a clause which provides for expropriation for public purposes. Under these two powers the process of expropriation is being carried out. An offer has already been made to the Indian Department by the Harbour Board of something like half a million dollars, but it has been refused by the department as inadequate, and that has made it necessary to carry on the expropriation proceedings and to appoint a Board of Arbitration to settle the matter. The matter will be settled in a manner which will be perfectly above board and in the interest of all concerned.


William Pugsley: What title did the
British Columbia Government obtain from the Indians, and how, if they have any title, could the Harbour Board expropriate their rights unless there was some special power to expropriate against the Crown as represented by the British Columbia Government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Indians have absolutely no right to give title to any one except under the provisions of the Indian Act.


William Pugsley: The British Columbia
Government have paid $300,000. Of that amount they have paid $220,000 to the Indians and $80,000 in commissions to Mr. Read and Mr. Alexander. How can the rights of the British Columbia Government, whatever they are, be expropriated by the Harbour Board? The Provincial Government must think they have some legal rights or they would not pay $300,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The British Columbia
Government claim reversionary rights, and the determination of the value of those reversionary rights will be done by this arbitration.


William Pugsley: Is the British Columbia Government a party to this arbitration?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, a consenting party, and it will have counsel present although it has no member on the board. I think it was last June or July that the Provincial Government agreed to become a party to the arbitration. That practically answers the questions raised by my hon. friend, other than this that he mentioned in his remarks that Mr. Read and Mr. Alexander were authorized. He, of course, meant authorized by the Provincial Government and not by this Government.


William Pugsley: By the Provincial Government. I thought I made myself clear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I also wish to make this point clear in fairness to the Provincial Government. The hon. gentleman pointed out that Mr. Read was a clerk in Mr. Bowser's office. At the time this deal was put through, Mr. Read had left the employ of Mr. Bowser, and has not been in his employ since.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Was that R. L.
Reid?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


William Pugsley: This was a gentleman named Hamilton Read, who was clerk in the office.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He was a young lawyer from the Old Country, who was really clerk in the office, but he was not clerk at the time this deal was consummated, nor has he been since. That ought to be stated, in fairness to the Attorney General.


William Pugsley: The record shows, as a matter of fact, that he did not leave until the very day that the $300,000 cheque was issued, March 31, 1913.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the record shows that, I cannot dispute it. All I know is that at the time the deal was closed he was not and since then has not been in the employ of Mr. Bowser.


William Pugsley: This report-it is a newspaper report, and may not be correct- states that Mr. Read was with Mr. Bowser's firm until March 31, 1913. Then, later on, it. says that the deal was closed on March 11, and that a cheque was issued for $300,000 on March 31. So that at the time the deal was closed he was clerk in the Attorney General's office.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think that is incorrect, and in justice to Mr. Bowser's firm that ought to be made clear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It was charged in the provincial election.
Mr. .STEVENS: I know. Without any question, he was an employee in the office when the first steps were taken regarding these Indians, but he left the employ of the firm before the deal was closed. In fact, there were two or three deals and one or two fell through before ,the deal was finally closed. Mr. Alexander, who closed the deal, is a stipendiary magistrate, a man of very high standing.
He was, I think, the first child born in Vancouver; he knew all the Indians, and it was his acquaintance with them that enabled him to make the deal. I have no comments to make on the commission that was alleged to have been paid, or as to the right of the Provincial Government to take the action it did, other than to say this: they were actuated originally by a desire to get rid of the Indians. For many years this question had been vexing the people of Vancouver. The heart of the city was a poor place for an Indian reserve, and it was very desirable that the reserve should be closed. The outcome will be distinctly to the advantage of the city of Vancouver, of the public and of the Indians themselves. A very much larger sum will undoubtedly be secured and placed to the credit of the Indians in the department here. I think that the Kitsilano deal, from the Dominion Government standpoint, is a highly creditable transaction. I am not speaking of the provincial end of it at all; the Provincial Government are responsible for that; they must take the responsibility, and I assume that they are willing to do so. Sq far as this Government is concerned, and so far as the negotiations authorized by this Government are concerned, they are of a very proper type.


William Pugsley: What I object to is not the action of this Government, but their inaction; their doing absolutely nothing to guard the rights of these Indians. They must have known that these negotiations were going on and that the rights of the Indians were being purchased for an amount far and away below their value. They should have taken steps to protect the interest of the Indians in this respect.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. gentleman
must remember that the Provincial Gov-

ernment was acting entirely on its own responsibility. The Prime Minister of Canada repeated time and again on the floor of the House that this Government had never authorized or recognized the action taken. That is on Hansard.


William Pugsley: If the Provincial Government has any right in the reserve it is because the Indians ceased to occupy. This Government allowed the Provincial Government really to put the Indians off the reserve, tear down their buildings and so make them absentees from the reserve, bringing into operation a law, if it 'be the law, that would give over that reversion of interests to the British Columbia Government. And this Government stood idly by, they being the trustee for the Indians, bound by a sacred duty to protect their rights, and allowed them to be dispossessed of their rights in that way. I am very glad, indeed, that it has been determined to leave the matter to arbitration and that there shall be paid for the benefit of the Indians what the land is worth. But it does not seem to me that the fact that the Indians will be likely to- get what their land was worth is the result of the very widespread and very strong agitation which took place in the city of Vancouver.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not at all.


William Pugsley: There has been a good deal of agitation there; it would seem as if the Government had been forced to move. My complaint is that at the time that the interests of the Indians were being sacrificed, this Government, knowing -that such was the case, stood idly by and allowed this to go on, just the same as a trustee might stand by -and see the property rights of the cestui que trust taken away from him. I do not think that the Government is free from blame for not intervening at that time. If a private individual or company had done what the British Columbia Government did in reference to these Indians, and the Government was aware of the fact, surely it. would have been its duty to intervene and protect the rights of the Indians. The fact that it was the British Columtoia Government that was despoiling these Indians, moving them from the reserve and tearing down their buildings, does not in -any way alter the situation. With regard to Mr. Bead, I have here a report of the proceedings of the Legislature, in which it is stated that the cheque was issued on March 31, 1913, and that

Mr. Read h-ad then been for some time a clerk in -the office of the Attorney General's firm, and remained with the firm until that day, the 31st of March. The Attorney General had apparently been informed that the Indians could be bought out for $220,000. When I referred to the matter I thought that my hon. friend the present Minister of Public Works was Minister of the Interior at the time, but it appears not. The telegram was to Hon. Mr. Rogers, dated March 17. This is important only as showing that this Government knew, through one of its ministers, that these negotiations were going on with the British Columbia Government. It was then the duty of the Government to intervene and see that the rights of the Indians were protected. It shows, also-, the extraordinary fact that the Attorney General of British Columbia, although he then knew that the Indians were willing to take $220,000, coolly handed over to Mr. Read, who was then, or had been, clerk in the office, and to Mr. Alexander, the very large sum of $80,000 as a commission for something which Mr. Read evidently was not able to put any value upon. There appears to be no adequate consideration for any such exorbitant commission as that. My hon. friend seeks to justify it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I do not.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No; I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I stated that for whatever action the Provincial Government had taken they would have to foe responsible to the people of British Columbia. I made no comment on its being either right or wrong.


William Pugsley: Does not my hon. friend see that on this valuation the British Columbia Government will .claim back the full sum of $300,000, not merely the $220,000 which was paid to the Indians, but also the $80,000 which was thrown away? Necessarily that will be recouped to the British Columbia Government out of the amount which these valuators, or arbitrators, may allow, and to the extent of that $80,000 the Indians will toe deprived of that which they ought to have got; because it seems to me a most outrageous thing that, for the services of Alexander in getting a few Indians, not more than 20, to sign an option, there should be paid the very large sum of $80,000. When the arbitration instituted by this Government is

concluded, this money must necessarily come out of the Indian fund. .


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not necessarily.


William Pugsley: Yes, because the British Columbia Government will say: "We paid $300,000 for the purpose of getting these titles; it could not come from any other person, and the British Columbia Government would be entitled to get it."


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is putting up a plea for the British Columbia Government.


William Pugsley: No, I am stating the
fact.


William Roche: You are interpreting the
result of the arbitration.


William Pugsley: I do not. know whether the arbitrators will allow half a million dollars or a million and a half dollars, but out of whatever they do allow, the British Columbia Government will have that recouped to them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend forgets
that the British Columbia Government has reversionary rights.


William Pugsley: It has no reversionary
rights or rights which come into operation until these Indians left their reserve. But here the Indians were allowed by this Government to be turned out of the reserve by the British Columbia Government. The British Columbia Government burned down their buildings and induce them to leave their property, and it would be by virtue of that act and that act alone that the reversionary title under the law would become vested in the province of British Columbia.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does my hon. friend
know what buildings they burned down?


William Pugsley: I am told that there
were a number of Indian shacks, not very important. But the Indians as a rule do not live in palaces, and I presume it was a very easy thing for the British Columbia Government to expel the Indians in a night and have all the shacks removed quickly, and no doubt it was done quickly. The British Columbia Government, by reason of the Indians having left the reserve, assert their rights under the law, claiming that these rights thus became vested in British Columbia. Here is what is said with regard to price: One witness states that he asked Mr. Read how much the reserve was
worth and Mr. Read told him from one to two million dollars. Then, with regard to Mr. Read's services, he said his share was $39,525. This question was put to him:
Q. You did pretty well for one who had nothing to do with the deal?-A. Yes.
Q. The Attorney General didn't engage you, nor did Alexander. What did you do for Alexander to earn this $39,000?-A. Nothing. Alexander did what any honourable man would do. I suppose he admits a moral obligation like some people do.
So that for doing absolutely nothing, rendering no service of any value whatever, except to draw an option in his own name which he afterwards changed to read in the name of Mr. Alexander, this gentleman, Mr. Read, a clerk in the office of the Attorney General'e firm, received the very large sum of $39,000, and that $39,000, even if this arbitration results in some further amount to be paid to the Indians, must come out of the funds to come to this Government, because the British Columbia Government paid out the amount and they, I presume, will have no difficulty in inducing this Government to believe that they acted bona fide and ought to be recouped for whatever amount they have actually paid out.
My hon. friend referred to the Songees Reserve. I know nothing with regard to that, but I should say, myself, that if it appeared to this Government that any gentleman had been treated as Read was treated by the British Columbia Government, we would think that conduct very censurable indeed. Whatever was done in regard to the Songees Reserve, is no justification for this very indefensible transaction, so far as the British Columbia Government is concerned. As I said, the only respect in which I blame this Government is for their inaction, shutting their eyes and permitting this indefensible thing to go on under which the Indians' rights were sacrificed, while this Government took no steps to prevent that being done.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are one or two corrections that I must make to the hon. gentleman's remarks. Apparently he has got the impression that a considerable number of the Indians were forced off the reserve. As a matter of fact, this reserve was used by the Indians as a sort of lodging place or camping ground when they visited the city. I do not think that more than one or two of them stayed there for any length of time, but numbers of the band used to come over there and stay for short periods. They have three other reserves

in the vicinity of Vancouver, and lived on these reserves and not on the Kitsilano.
I also wish to disabuse my hon. friend's mind of the suggestion that this Government has done nothing. There has been in connection with this Indian reserve one of the most difficult problems to solve that the Indian Department has had to deal with in the last three years, and I can assure the hon. member that they have done a great deal indeed. If they had not done a great deal we could not possibly have brought the matter to such a successful issue. They have arranged for a settlement, in a large degree, of the differences between the Dominion and the Provincial Governments. The whole question has been considered by the Royal Commission, and took a great deal of time. The procedure of expropriation 'by the Harbour Board has all been carried out step by step legally, which also took a great deal of time. Ever since the day that news arrived that some action had been taken by the Provincial Government, there has been the utmost activity on the part of the Department of Indian Affairs to reach a proper solution, and I can assure the House and my hon. friend that not only have the Government not been derelict in their duty, but they have been very diligent indeed in protecting the interests of the Indians, and the outcome should convince my hon. friend of that fact. He misunderstands the action of the Provincial Government. ' It is based upon a claim put forward by them in their own right, and not as friends of this Government or as acting on behalf of this Government. This Government contends, I contend from what I have seen of the case, that their claims are not well taken in every sense. Some of them are, but most of them are not, and they have at last come to see eye to eye with this Government. The hon. member is certainly not justified in condemning this Government for inactivity during this transaction.


William Pugsley: I have not complained ol inactivity since the transaction closed, I say the inactivity was during the transaction, and while this wrong was being done to the Indians. During the last year or two, since public opinion has been aroused in the matter, I think the department has been acting with considerable diligence.


William Roche: It was referred to the Royal Commission long before that.


William Pugsley: It was their duty to take steps to right, as far as they could, the great wrong which had been done to the Indians. They are entitled to the large sum of $80,000 which was wrongfully taken from them, and which will in all probability never be restored to them.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: I wish to ask the minister if the Indian Lands Commission appointed some years ago has yet made any report to the Government?


William Roche: From time to time they have made interim reports, but they have not yet closed their work entirely. I expect, within the next six weeks, or at most by the middle of May, to receive their final report.


William Melville Martin: There has been no report presented to Parliament in (connection with the matter.


William Roche: No.


William Melville Martin: I understand that the
commission has made interim reports from time to time, and that these reports have dealt with specific matters.


William Roche: Quite so.


William Melville Martin: Was the matter of the
Kitsilano reserve dealt with?


William Roche: Yes.


William Melville Martin: What was the main
question that was referred to this Royal Commission to start with?


William Roche: I suppose the hon. gentleman refers to the duties that were assigned to the commission.


William Melville Martin: Yes, there was some main question that was assigned as the reason for the appointment of the commission.


William Roche: I might read one of the clauses under which the commission have been acting:
Until the final report of the commission is made the province shall withhold from preemption or sale any lands over which they have a disposing- power and which have been heretofore applied for by the Dominion as additional Indian reserves or whioh may during the sittings of the commission be specified by the commissioners as lands which should be reserved for Indians. If during the period prior to the commissioners' making their final report it shall be ascertained by either Government that any lands being part of an Indian reserve are required for right of way or other railway purposes, or for any Dominion or provincial or municipal public work or purpose, the matter shall be referred to the commissioners who shall thereupon dispose of the question

by an interim report, and each Government shall thereupon do everything necessary to carry the recommendations of the commissioners into effect.
The hon. gentleman no doubt knows that the British 'Columbia Government have laid claim to the reversionary interest, but the Dominion Government could. give no clear title to any of those Indian lands, and any one disposed to purchase them would have to go to the province to get a quit claim.


William Melville Martin: As I understand it, the real question was the ownership of the lands in the various Indian reserves in the province of British Columbia. The province claimed that they were the owners of those lands whereas the Dominion Government claimed that they had some right to them in the same way as they have the right or fee to other lands in western Canada. Of course, other questions have arisen in connection with the lands in the province of British 'Columbia; they may be on a somewhat different basis than the lands in other parts of western Canada. But what troubles me about the matter is not so much the question that is before this commission, as the time that it has taken to arrive at any conclusions. What the commission has been doing, I do not know. I saw reports in the papers a couple of years ago about it travelling in different parts of British 'Columbia. I do not pretend to know as much about their duties as the commissioners themselves, but it seems to me that the question to be determined was a purely legal question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They visited every reserve, and there are 1,100 or '1,200 reserves.


William Melville Martin: I know that there are a good many reserves, but what information could the commission get with respect to the legal ownership of lands, with respect to determining whether these lands were vested in the province or in the Dominion, by travelling to the reserves?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was to determine whether or not they had enough land, and to enlarge and reduce the reserves as well.


William Melville Martin: These duties must come under some other clause than that which has been read.


William Roche: I read only one clause.


William Melville Martin: Supposing that this commission wanted to investigate every Indian
in the province of British Columbia, I fail to see why they should have taken from the 12th of April, 1913, until the 7th of April, 1916, a period of three years, to carry out their investigation. There are a number of men on this commission. I do not know very many of the members personally; I presume they are well qualified. I see on the list the name of a former member of the Saskatchewan Legislature, L. H. Mac-do wall; the others I do not know. But when I look at the amounts which have been drawn from the public treasury by these men in three years, I feel certain that they would stagger the ordinary citizen in this country, particularly when he considers the money that has been spent, not only on this commission, but on other commissions appointed by this Government. I find in Hansard, on page 2144, answers to a question asked by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Buchanan) with respect to this commission, and I see that up till the 29th February of this year Mr. N. W. White had drawn $29,545 out of the public treasury, Mr. J. P. Shaw had drawn $29,430; Mr. L. H. Macdowall, $29,730; Mr. S. Carmichael, $20,790, and Mr. J. A. J. McKenna, $22,663.76, or a total up till 29th February, 1916, of $273,367.64. It is only fair to say that the Dominion pays only a portion of that amount, but the proportion to be paid by the Dominion up to the 29th of February, 1916, is $154,722.23. It seems to me that that is a tremendous amount of money to be spent on an investigation of that kind, particularly as the main question at issue was a question of the ownership of those lands, and a question that could be determined just as well by the commission sitting in the city of Victoria or Vancouver as by going to the Indian reserves throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia. The ordinary Royal Commission consists of only one man, sometimes of two or three, but here we have five men on this commission, drawing princely salaries out of the treasury of the Dominion Government, and, I submit, not doing very much to earn the money. It seems to be another instance of extravagance on the part of the Government, and I am sorry that it is located in the department over which my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior presides. We have heard a good deal of criticism of that department, and I think it only fair to repeat that there are a great many more employees in it to-day than are needed to perform the public service at the present time. The



minister has- stated that he expects .a full report from this commission in a very few weeks. I hope that his expectations in that respect will 'be realized, and that we will have an end of this commission and have the question decided finally before very long.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How long is this commission going to last?


William Roche: I have just informed the hon. member for Regina that I expect that by the 15th of April they will have wound up their work entirely.
Indians, Yukon, $22,000.


William Pugsley: That is the same as last year?


William Roche: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How many Indians are there in the Yukon?


William Roche: 1,528.


William Pugsley: Would the minister find it convenient to leave the last item standing, as I think there are some hon. gentlemen who would like to say something?


William Roche: If the hon. gentleman would kindly let the rest of these items go through, there is already one item standing on which I am quite agreeable that any debate should take place.


William Pugsley: Any debate relating to any subject in the department can take place?


William Roche: Yes.


William Pugsley: Would the minister let us know when he is going to take up this item?


William Roche: Yes.	-


William Pugsley: There are some gentlemen who will want to speak, and they may have to leave. My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) was obliged to leave owing to a family bereavement, and he intimated to me that he wanted to speak.


William Roche: There are two or three items in the Supplementaries coming down, and hon. gentlemen can discuss any matter on these.
Indian education, $734,115.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Where is that expended ?
Mr.' ROCHE: There is a reduction this year of $250,000 in that item. It is spent

in connection with industrial, boarding and day schools situated in all parts of Canada.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
Monday, April 10, 1916.