1917-05-31

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. CURRIE (East Simcoe) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 59 to amend the Criminal Code.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Explain.


Mr. CURRIE:: I shall read the Bill,
which will explain itself. It is an amendment to iSection 79 ,of the Criminal Code and reads as follows:
79. A. Any person who votes for any person, for any public officer, or who takes any active part in any election for any public office by becoming a candidate, sneaking, writing, canvassing or driving voters to the poll, who was or is a citizen of any country, now or at any time during the past five years at war with Great Britain or her Allies; or who was a subject of any country not allied with Great Britain or her Allies, which does not permit its citizens the rights of expatriation, or holds the doctrine of dual citizenship or who was exiled or banished from any allied country, even though such person may have been granted naturalization in Canada or Great Britain, or may have his or her name on the Voters' List; shall be deemed guilty of an offence under this Act, and on conviction before a court of competent jurisdiction shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years, together with forfeiture of civil rights and all property to the Crown.
B.	The above provisions shall not apply to any person who is. serving or has served in His Majesty's Forces, or has been a naturalized British subject resident in Canada for twenty-five years. The burden of proof as to such exception shall rest upon the Voter.
C.	Any person giving such information as will lead to the conviction of any such person shall be entitled to one-third of all fines and forfeitures.
I informed the Minister of Finance sometime ago that I intended to introduce this Bill, and he asked me to defer its introduction until the return of the leader of the Government. I have done so, but unfortunately the time for dealing with measures introduced by private members has expired. I would therefore ask the Government to set aside a day to discuss this subject.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	How many appeals were taken each calendar year since 1908 from decisions of the Board of Railway Commissioners to the Governor in Council?
2.	What was the number of cases each year in which the decisions of the Board were varied or reversed?


Mr. DOHERTY:: .
1.	1908, nil; 1909, nil; 1910, 1; 1911, 2; 1912, 5; 1913, 4; 1914, nil; 1915, 2; 1916, 1; 1917, 1; total, 16.
2.	1908, nil; 1909, nil; 1910, nil; 1911, nil; 1912, 1; 1913, nil; 1914, nil; 1915, nil; 1916, nil; 1917, nil; total, 1.


BINDER TWINE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to a letter which I have just received from a union of the United Farmers of Alberta, No. 383, in regard to the binder twine situation. The letter says:
The Union has been trying to place its order for binder twine but has been unsuccessful so far. We have tried the Alberta Farmers Cooperative Elevator Company and the T. Eaton Company, Winnipeg. Both have sold their entire stock and find it impossible to get more from the manufacturers. The T. Eaton Company explains that raw materials for the manufacture of twine have been on the docks for months and that they have gone so far as to ask the Government at Ottawa to help out, but so far (May 1, 1917) have not been able to get any more cars moving.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: If my hon. friend will send that over to me, I will make inquiries.



PRIVILEGE.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. NEELY:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of privilege. In the vote taken on the 29th instant on the amendment of the, hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) I notice that my name is not recorded in the list of pairs. I was paired with the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Marshall), who, through a misunderstanding, voted on that occasion. In order to set the matter right, I may say, that had I voted I should have voted for the amendment.



PURCHASE OF CHEESE BY BRITISH GOVERNMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to a matter that was mentioned a couple * of days ago with regard to action that is alleged to have been taken in connection with the export of the surplus supply of cheese. My right hon. friend will recall that I intervened with a word on that occasion. I have since received representations from my constituents who are complaining about the continued inaction, as they describe it, and the storing up of the cheese in the curing rooms. I am obliged again to ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to make a statement in the House with regard to this matter.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Owing to the
indisposition of the Minister of Agriculture,, I am not, perhaps, as fully informed as I should be on the subject. I did address a: somewhat urgent communication on the matter two days ago, but I have not yet received a reply. I am under the impression that the British Government have decided to take over at a fixed price all cheese coming either from the United States ot from Canada. This was done some time ago with regard to Australia and New Zealand; ar-rangments were made which were accepted by the governments of these Dominions and by the British Government. The diffl-culty here has been the ascertainment of a proper price. I think that the Commission that was appointed has found itself unable to act so far on account of the difficulty experienced by the British Commissioner in obtaining the necessary instructions from the British Board of Trade. There has been no inaction on the part of this Government, who have been endeavouring to do everything in their power, but as the British Government are to be the purchasers, certain conditions must be authorized by them and cannot be authorized by us. So far as I have gone into the details I have been speaking more from impression than from actual knowledge, and my. remarks must be taken subject to that qualification. I have, however, given an accurate statement of the situation so far as I have knowledge of it at the moment., I shall inquire from the Minister of Agriculture whether he can, give any additional information on the subject.	*



DR. BRUCE'S REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Frank Oliver: I understand
that the Minister of Militia has received the report from Dr. Bruce. May I a3k if it is to be laid on the Table, and if it is to be printed?	*
'Sir ROBERT BORDEN: The Minister of Militia has referred that matter to me and I have examined a report or memorandum with regard to it, so far as the demands upon my time would permit. It is not the intention of . the Gov' eminent to lay it on the Table without first submitting it to the Overseas Minister of Militia, to whom in the ordinary course it should be presented, as it relates to matters under his immediate jurisdiction. Whether or not the report will afterwards be laid upon the table, I am not for the moment prepared to say. I speak not of my own knowledge when I refer to the contents of the report, because it is voluminous and I have not had time to read it, but I understand that a portion of it is not responsive to anything in the report of the Commission over which General Babtie presided and that it is not made in respect of any matter upon which Colonel Bruce was asked to report. Whether that is the case I am not now prepared to say, owing to lack of time to mak- me necessary examination. I am thoroughly of opinion, however, that the report should first be submitted to the Overseas Minister of Militia. During the interval I shall have an opportunity of considering whether the document is of such character, having regard to the public interest, that it should afterwards be laid- upon the table of the House.


Frank Oliver: In view of the fact that it will necessarily be a considerable time before Dr. Bruce's report can be printed or made public, as it has to take the course decided upon by the Prime Minister, is it the intention of the Government to have the reports made by Dr. Bruce, Dr. Jones and Dr. Babtie, which were printed in England, (a small number of copies being available in Canada) published in Canada for public circulation?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: At least forty of these reports were available for distribution to members of the House. I do not know whether cr hot they have all been called for. The expense of printing large numbers of the three reports would be considerable, and it was thought that forty would
fSir Robert Borden.]	,
be sufficient. I shall make inquiries of the Clerk of the House, to whom the copies were sent, and ascertain whether or not they have all been distributed. The Clerk may still have on hand a sufficient number of copies for all members who desire to see them.
Mr. .1. G. TURRIFF: When Dr. Bruce's report was first laid on the Table I got a copy of it for the purpose of making some extracts from it. The King's Printer, however, telephoned me two or three times saying that he wanted the report for the purpose of printing a number of copies of it, a month or six weeks ago, therefore, he got the report, a day or two after it was laid on the table. Obviously his intention was to print additional copies so that we should not have to secure a copy every time we wanted to make extracts from the report. These reports ought to be printed and available for members of the House. The Government would appear to be dillydallying with the report and delaying the printing of it and its being laid - on the table.


Albert Edward Kemp: That is not the case at all. The reports are public property; they have already been laid upon the table of the House. I was under the impression that no more copies would be required than those which had been sent to the Clerk of the House. I shall look into it and see how many were sent out and whether some are still available for distribution. Perhaps the hon. gentleman himself has not lately ascertained that.


Frank Oliver: Do the remarks of the minister apply to the three reports of Dr. Bruce, Dr. Jone3 and Dr. Babtie?


Albert Edward Kemp: I do not remember as to that. The member for Assiniboia said that the report was laid on the table a month or six weeks ago. It was before that, however; it was during the first part of the session.


Mr. TURRIFF:: Before the adjournment.


Albert Edward Kemp: If my memory serves me correctly, a number of copies of all three reports were printed. I shall look into the matter, and if sufficient copies are not available, I assume we shall have to go to the expense of printing additional copies.


John Gillanders Turriff: This matter has been brought up on the Orders of the Day half a dozen times during the past month, and we are not a bit further ahead than' we were a

186S
month ago. My hon. friend is always going to find out.


Albert Edward Kemp: Permit me to correct the member for Assiniboia. The matter to which he refers as having been brought up half a dozen times during the last few weeks is the matter brought up by the member for Edmonton. The reports referred to by the member for Assiniboia were those brought down before the House adjourned.


Frank Oliver: Three printed reports, the Bruce report, the Jones report and the Babtie report, are in the hands of the Clerk.
I have been favoured with copies of all three. Have all three'been laid on the table, or was only the Bruce report laid on the Table?


Albert Edward Kemp: I am under the impression that all three were laid upon the table. However, I am speaking from memory.	They are in the hands of the
Clerk.


Robert Laird Borden: That is my recollection.


Frank Oliver: I am informed that only the Bruce report was laid on the table. It is desirable that the other two reports should also be laid upon the table, in order that they may be made public.


Robert Laird Borden: Speaking from recollection, I am confident that the Bruce report and the Babtie report were laid upon the table by myself before the House adjourned in February. I have no recollection at all of the report of Dr. Carleton Jones; in fact, I do not think I was aware that there was any such report.


Wilfrid Laurier: My memory
agrees with that of the Prime Minister, that the first two reports, those of Dr. Bruce and Dr. Babtie, have been laid upon the' table. I do not know that the report of Dr. Jones has -been laid upon the table in reference to this 'subject and the answer just given by my right hon. friend, was the second report, that is the reply of Dr. Bruce made by order or of his own motion ?


Robert Laird Borden: So far as I
understand, that report was made of his own motion. I have no information to the contrary.


Wilfrid Laurier: As we have
had the accusation, and the reply of Dr. Bruce, I would suggest to my hon. friend that in justice to Dr. Bruce, who is a responsible man, the reply should be made public.


Robert Laird Borden: That is well
worthy of consideration in so far as that report is in response to anything in the Babtie report. My Tight hon. friend, however, will agree that the subject is one' that should be brought to the attention of the Overseas Minister of Militia.


Frank Oliver: Do I understand that it is the intention to lay the report of Dr. Carle-ton Jones on the table, and thereby make it a public document?


Robert Laird Borden: I know of no
reason why that report should not be placed upon the table of the House. The minister of Militia so informs me.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: This may clear the
atmosphere. A few weeks ago I received the report on the Canadian Army Medical Service by Dr. Bruce, the interim report of Dr. Jones, and the report by Dr. Babtie.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: How did you get them?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I got them by asking
for them from the Clerk of the House.



WESTERN COAL MINING.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):: Might I ask the minister tor a statement as to the present situation in connection with the coal strike in western Canada, and also to give the House information as to what the Government is doing to get the mines into operation again? The situation is very serious, and if necessary drastic action should be taken.


Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour):: Efforts are still being made with a view to securing resumption of work, and the executive officers of the international organization of the United Mine Workers are taking an active and earnest interest in those efforts. I hope they may be successful very soon; but if they are not, efforts will be made by the Government with a view to controlling the output of coal in that region.



FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF CONFEDERATION.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, I would like

to present the report of the special committee which was appointed conjointly by the Senate and the House of Commons to report upon the method of celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the Federation of this Dominion. This is the report:
House of Commons, May 31, 1917.
The special committee, appointed to consider and report upon the arrangements which should be made for the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of this Dominion, ask leave to submit the following recommendations as their first and final report.
That a topical pamphlet comparing and contrasting Canada of 1867 with Canada of 1917, be published for the purpose of drawing attention to the outstanding features of Canadian growth and development and giving direction to the thoughts which should animate the memorial services.
That the Government issue a proclamation Inviting churches, Sabbath and day schools, *colleges, municipal authorities, Canadian Clubs and other associations to co-operate in the working out of fitting corhmemorative services for the day.
That the Provincial authorities be requested to arrange for a special official celebration of the anniversary at the capitals of the several provinces.
That the Federal Government provide for the issuance of a commemorative post card andi postage stamp, with appropriate design and legend representative of the work of the Fathers of Confederation.
That appropriate memorial services be held at London and Paris on July 1st.
That upon the central stone column, upholding the roof of the great entrance hall of the new Parliament buildings, the following inscription be incised:

1867	 1917 !



ON THE FIFTIETH


[Stage Direction]
DEDICATE^ THIS BUILDING THEN IN PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION AFTER DAMAGE BY FIRE,

[Stage Direction]
That the Government arrange a fitting ceremonial service for setting in place and dedicating this inscribed stone at 12 noon, on the 2nd day of July. 1917.
Mr. MARCIL:: Is it the intention to have the inscription in both languages?


George Eulas Foster: The committee did not deliver itself upon that point.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I recommended that that be done at the first meeting of the committee.


George Eulas Foster: I imagine that it could easily be done.



SALARY OF POSTAL CLERKS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of 'the Day:
Mr. W. E. KNOWLES:: Will the Acting Postmaster General tell us what is to be done with regard to the prospective salary increases for the postal clerks, including carriers? The hon. gentleman is no doubt aware that the different associations have been asking for increases.


Hon. Mr. PATENAUDE:: I shall probably be dble to answer my hon. friend in two or three days.



SURGEON GENERAL CARLETON-JONES' REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Albert Edward Kemp: As there seems to be some doubt whether the proper formalities have been complied with, I now beg to lay on the table the report of Surgeon General Carleton-Jones. The Clerk of the House has in his possession for distribution among the members quite a number of copies both of this report and oi the other two.



GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS-PURCHASE OF COAL CARS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:: I should like to call the attention of the Minister cf Railways to the situation that exists in eastern Canada with reference to the -delay in the transportation of coal. Transportation by water has been practically cut off and there is accordingly a greater demand for coal cars on the Intercolonial. I am informed by business men that there is a very great paucity in the supply of coal cars. I think the minister should provide not only for immediate needs but for our needs next winter, and I bring this matter to his attention with a view to asking whether it is his intention to supply the number of cars that are required for the transportation of coal on the Intercolonial.


Hon. FRANK COCHRANE:: The only firm that has spoken to me about the moving of



SI, 1917

[Stage Direction]
coal on the Intercolonial is the Dominion Coal-Company. My officials have come to Ottawa, but I have not had an opportunity of discussing the matter with them yet. I can assure my hon. friend that we will do our best to get the cars. We have been trying to get cars in the United States, but have found it almost impossible to get even second-hand cars. I let a contract over a year ago to a manufacturer in the constituency of my hon. friend, but he has not delivered the cars yet.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How many were
ordered?


Francis Cochrane: Five hundred.



SUPPLY.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called, "House again in Committee of Supply."
William Thomas White: In connection
with this Order, the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) was good enough at my request the other day to postpone the moving of an amendment to the motion to go into Supply, on the understanding that the matter should come up to-day. So far as the Government is concerned, we are prepared to consent to his proceeding with his motion.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The rule is explicit that on Thursdays and Fridays the Speaker shall leave the Chair without question put, but if it has been arranged between both sides of the House that the hon. member may proceed with his motion, I shall interpose no objection. I would point out however, that the rule must not be regarded as obsolete.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps it would be better if a formal motion were made that the rule be suspended.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg to move, if my right hon. friend has no objection, that rule 17 (c) (be suspended for this sitting.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have very
great pleasure in seconding the motion, but I would observe that there are certain (rules more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and this is one of them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) that the House do go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. J. A. ROBB (Huntingdon) moved in amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
That to ensure a plentiful supply of bran, shorts, and middlings for the farmers who produce milk, cream, butter and cheese, and for the raising and fattening of live stock, this House is of the opinion that bran, shorts and middlings should without delay be placed on the free list.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must point out to the hon. member that the subject matter of his amendment was discussed and passed upon by the House when it considered the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ed-imonton, whose amendment embraced all foodstuffs. The subject matter of the 'amendment by the hon. member for Huntingdon having therefore been considered and disposed of by the House this session, his amendment is not in order.


Mr. ROBB:: Will you permit me, Sir,
to point out what I think is a misunderstanding. In the first place, this amendment applies not to food but to feeding stuffs for cattle. I also


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must remind the hon. member that I have already ruled his amendment out of order.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would not
presume to discuss your ruling, Sir, at the moment, but might I ask for permission * to bring the matter to your attention at a subsequent date? Because the House has disposed of an amendment for placing all foodstuffs on the free list, I do not think the House is bound to say it will not later on consider an amendment for placing one particular foodstuff on the free list. There is a great difference between placing all foodstuffs and placing one foodstuff on the free list. I would ask for permission to bring this point up at a later stage.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am quite content with the suggestion of the Tight hon. leader of the Opposition on that point.


James Alexander Robb: That all the words after "that" in the main motion be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:
"Inasmuch as cotton jute, or paper sacks, when containing flour, now enter Canada from the United States free of duty, and inasmuch as Canadian millers employing Canadian labour are handicapped because they are compelled to pay on empty sacks and bags, a duty of 27|% on cotton and jute bags and sacks, and a duty of 35% on paper sacks. This House is of the opinion that such unfair discrimination should be removed, therefore it is resolved that in the opinion of this House, cotton and jute bags

and sacks and paper sacks, when imported by millers for use in their own mills should be free of duty."
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the amendment
of mine which you ruled out of order was of greater importance to my constituents than that which I now move, and I would have much preferred had the Houee had an opportunity of discussing that amendment. Had I 'been considering my own business alone, perhaps I should not be so strongly in favour of free 'bran and shorts; but representing an agricultural constituency as I do, where the supplies of bran and shorts are used for the production of milk, cream, butter and cheese, and having in view the interest of producers in these lines throughout the country, I submit the present resolution. Owing to the recent Order in Council conditions are rapidly arising under which the farmers, especially those of eastern Canada, will be compelled to pay much more for their feedstuffs than they should pay. This resolution is necessary because in the revision of the United States tariff, the so-called Underwood tariff, included clause 644, which names certain articles a.s on the free list. That clause is as follows:
Wheat, wheat flour, semolina, and other wheat products not specially provided for in this section. Provided, That wheat shall be subject to a duty of ten cents per bushel, that wheat flour shall be subject to a duty of 45 cents per barrel of 196 pounds; and seminola and other products of wheat, not specially provided for in this section, 10 per centum ad valorem, when imported directly or indirectly, from a country, dependency, or other subdivision of government, which imposes a duty on wheat or wheat flour or semolina imported from the United States.
This clause means that Canadian wheat is subject to a duty of ten cents a bushel on entering the markets of the United States, unless Canada accepts a proposition prepared in Washington without consulting Ottawa, a proposition altogether different from the much-abused Fielding-Knox proposition of 1911. It gives United States millers special privileges in the Canadian markets, privileges which, in my judgment, will ultimately result in reduced production of flour in this country, and consequently reduced production of the bran and shorts so necessary for the farmers of eastern Canada. Under the proposition of 1911 precaution was taken not to interfere in any way with manufacturing in Canada, and especially was this precaution taken with Tespeet to our milling industry, for a duty of fifty cents a barrel on flour was provided, which enabled the Canadian millers, in a measure, to offset the increased cost of bags

in Canada as compared with the United States. The Canadian miller had a protection of fifty cents a barrel in a market that was growing at the rate of one new flour mill of a thousand barrels a day every year, and consequently there was a steadily increasing production of bran and shorts. It may be interesting for the House to know that while in 1895 Canada exported less than 250,000 barrels of flour, in 1910 our exports reached 3,000,000 barrels, and in 1915-16, 7,426,000 barrels. _
In taking the position that the recent Order in Council will be injurious to Canadian millers, and consequently will lessen the supply of bran and shorts for the stock feeders of Canada, I am in good company. On reference to Hansard of 1916, I find that in the debate on a resolution presented by my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), which was opposed by the Government, the Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White) expressed about the same views on. this question as I do. I may say quite frankly, I was never very much enthused over the proposition to admit our wheat to the United States on terms dictated by Washington. I am in favour of free wheat and of free grain generally; I am in favour of the proposition as presented in 1911. If there was any classes of our community who were "in on velvet" in that proposition, they were the Canadian farmers and the Canadian millers. But the present Order in Council is altogether different. Let me call to the attention of the House the views of the Finance Minister as expressed in the debate to which I have referred and reported in Haneard of 1916, at page 870:
Then we have had petitions from mixed farmers. The mixed farmers say that bran and offal are more expensive in the United States than here and that consequently, if this went into effect, both in the Northwest and Ontario the farmer would have to pay more for his bran and offal. It is put forward also that if we took the step contemplated by this resolution the milling industry would certainly not be extended into the Northwest.
I have given that matter as careful consideration as I think I ever gave a question in my life, and I have come to the conclusion that if this were done the Canadian milling industry would not be extended further into the Northwest for this reason, that the markets lie to the east and south and while the milling would be done in Canada east of Winnipeg, to the extent that our millers might be able to carry it on with American competition, there is no likelihood, so far as we can judge at present, of an extension to the Canadian Northwest of the milling industry. I need not tell hon. members that upon the milling industry mixed farming largely depends for its well being. The offal, the bran which the farmers use for the rearing

of their livestock, is of supreme importance to the farming community and this proposed change would have an important bearing upon the supply of hran and offal for the rearing of stock by those engaged in the mixed farming industry. I think the small miller would probably disappear and that the business of the large millers would be very seriously affected if not crippled, and that the extension of the milling industry in the Northwest would be prevented.
I think the Minister of Finance was on solid ground in 1916 when he advanced that argument. I may frankly say that the Canadian millers opposed the proposition of 1911. It was opposed by the Minister of Finance. We heard in this House arguments why, if Canada wanted to negotiate with Washington, we should not have sent down two old men, but these two old men made a better bargain for Canada than that which is presented in the recently passed Order in Council that has at last been put through after six years of apprenticeship. Every carload of flour that comes into this country from the United States bagged in cotton sacks brings in free of duty 875 yards of cotton, and the Government, in admitting this cotton free into Canada, admits the products of United States cotton bag manufacturers. If the Canadian miller who is employing Canadian labour wishes to import these bags, he is met at the customs house with a tax. of 274 per cent.


Mr. NESBITT:: Plus 74 per cent.


James Alexander Robb: No, 20 per cent and 74 per cent. I have a quotation on bags from the Bemis Bag Company, manufacturing in St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City and Winnipeg, and I find that the cost of bags is 84 cents a barrel cheaper in the United States than in Canada. That means that on his flour bags the Canadian miller is discriminated against to the extent of $19.04 per car, and notwithstanding what my hon. friends say about the monopolistic millers, I wish to say that there have been millions of bags of flour sold in this country to Britain and her Allies during the last two years upon which the millers got little more than $20 a carload profit. That may be a surprising statement, but I know that flour has been sold at practically the commission going to the Allies of Great Britain on the other side, and it may be said that $20 is not very much on a carload of flour.
Let me point out to the Minister of Finance how it works with regard to bran and shorts. The Canadian miller is enabled by the tariff to put bran and shorts upon the markets of the United States, but when the Canadian farmer wishes to buy bran and
shorts milled from Canadian wheat in United States mills, he is met at the customs house with a tariff of 25 per cent. Now, let us see how that works out. Bran at $30 a ton, with the duty of $7.50 per toil added, would cost $150 per carload duty. Canada, through its Government, says to the eastern farmer: for every car of bran you bring in here from the United States you must give us one of your best cows, and only when you have done so can you unload your car of bran. How can we expect the eastern farmer to increase the production of butter and cheese when he is met with such a tax upon the feed he requires for his animals? The Government recognize that bran and shorts are very important to the farming industry. I imagine that every hon. member in this House recently received from the Department of Agriculture special circulars Nos.
7 and 8 in which the department 4 p.m. urged the farmers to feed more bran and shorts to their live stock. The Department of Agriculture is urging the farmers to feed bran and shorts and the Department of Finance is placing an additional tax on bran and shorts coming into Canada.


Mr. EDWARDS:: How does the price of bran and shorts in Canada compare with the price on the .other side of the' line?


James Alexander Robb: The price of bran at Buffalo on.the 29th May, as quoted, was $32.50 and on the same day it was quoted at from $36 to $38 in Toronto. The price in Boston was $34.50 and the same quotation would apply to Montreal as to Toronto. The shorts are a little higher, the spread b^ing greater in Canada than in the United States.


William Thomas White: What about the freight?


James Alexander Robb: As I understand, Boston freight points are $2 a ton over Buffalo and Buffalo freight points are just about the same as Toronto freight points. I know that upon wheat the freight rates to Port Colborne and Buffalo are exactly the same and I imagine the same applies to bran and shorts. Under the present tariff arrangements' we are practically subsidizing the Canadian miller to export his product. He can buy bags cheaper in the United States, bring these bags into Canada, fill them with Canadian bran and shorts and export them and the Government gives him a rebate of 99 per cent of duty paid. I find here a quotation on bags for a carload of bran at $49.60. The duty is $13.40 and the refund,

if the bran and shorts are shipped out of the country, is $12.25; in other words, we have now a policy in Canada whereby we are subsidizing the Canadian miller to the extent of 60 cents a ton to put his bran and shorts out of the country. That is not an unfair way of presenting it because that is exactly the way it works out. Bran costing $30 a ton, when it is imported from the United States, pays a duty of $7.50 a ton. The Canadian miller can get his bran into the United States free. There is nothing to hinder him from putting out bran enough to create a scarcity in this country and to hold up the price to the Canadian feeder to the extent of $6 a ton over what it is in the United States. On this ground I would plead with the Minister of Finance to carefully reconsider the matter and put bran and shorts on the free list. If the Canadian miller is to maintain his output on the basis of last year, the minister must make some tariff changes. He must put cotton, jute and paper bags and flour milling machinery on the free list or what he predicted in 1916 will come true sooner than he thinks.
Who is going to build a mill anywhere in Canada when he can 'buy bags to sack his flour cheaper in the United States? Who will build a mill in Canada anyway when he can build it much cheaper in the United States? So I say to the Minister of Finance that if the farmers of eastern Canada are to have a .plentiful supply of bran and shorts for their cattle, and if the Canadian milling business is to continue to prosper, there must be some tariff changes.


John Wesley Edwards: Has my hon. friend the figures showing the shipments of bran and shorts both ways between the United States and Canada?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not think it should require any argument to show the Minister of Finance that what my hob. friend (Mr. Robb) has just said is absolutely correct. It is absolutely unfair in the first place to make the miller pay a duty on his containers as against the American miller, who is not paying any duty on his containers. Bags can be purchased cheaper in the United States than here, and the Canadian miller has to pay a duty on them coming into Canada. The figures given by the hon. member for Huntingdon are not at all exaggerated. It is also unfair to ask us in Ontario, where more animal foodstuffs are fed than in any other part of Canada, to pay a duty on bran and shorts.

We want to have an open market for bran and shorts necessarily, and to get the feed as cheaply as we can. Before the removal of the duty on flour, etc., that did not make so much difference, but now that the duty has been removed, I am quite sure it does not require an argument to show the Minister of Finance, with his ability, that we should have free of duty the articles that my hon. friend has mentioned this afternoon.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend from Huntingdon (Mr Robb) has managed, in the course of his remarks, to speak to the amendment which was ruled out of order, -as well as to the amendment which is in order. 1 hope that I may be pardoned, therefore, if I reply very briefly to it- briefly because he has intimated that he may raise the question upon another occasion. He has referred to my remarks upon the subject of free wheat in 1916. The remarks which I made then, were, I believe, sound, having regard to the conditions which existed at that time:	It is
not my intention to go over the arguments which I put forward during the present session in support of the action taken by the Government in putting wheat upon the free list. It will be sufficient to say that the conditions now are' fundamentally different from the conditions which prevailed in 1916 when I made the Budget speech referred to. We on this side of the House are just as much interested as my hon. friend from Huntingdon or the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Nesbitt) in the live stock industry, and we nave shown it during our tenure of office by measures brought down for its development and increase. This Government may be depended upon to take such action at any time as may be necessary if the live stock industry of this country is in any way threatened with injury. I desire to say this: that bran and shorts have been and are to-day cheaper in Canada than in the United States, The hon. member for Huntingdon on the former occasion when he introduced this matter to the House during this session admitted it; he admitted that the prices in the United States were higher than in Canada. If that is so, it would not appear to me that there need be much apprehension on the part of the live stock industry in Canada that bran and shorts are going to flow from the United States into Canada.


James Alexander Robb: The Finance Minister is quite correct; I did say that bran and shorts

were cheaper here than in the United States. But that was before the passage of this Order in Council.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend stated the matter fairly, and that was so, and it is so to-day. There may be local points at which bran or shorts are cheaper in the United States, although I do not know of any, but it must be borne in mind that freights play an important part in this matter. Take, for example, the district about Montreal served from the mills of Montreal. What about the freight rates? Any Canadian miller who desired to supply the United 'States market would have to pay freight rates on his ibran and shorts going out of this country to the United States. I am informed that there are no traffic rates governing bran and shorts from Montreal. Consequently, so far as the Canadian farmer in that district in which my hon. friend is particularly interested is concerned, there would seem to be no reason why bran and shorts should be dearer than across the line, and I am satisfied that the contrary is the fact. I have here a statistical statement published under the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture in the United States showing that for the years 1915, 1916 and 1917, the price as a whole of bran in the United States, per ton was, in 1915, $28.96; in 1916, $26.05, and in 1917, $38.33. For the State of Maine, the prices were: in 1915, $31.70; in- 1916, $29.70 and in 1917, $41.80. Whereas in Canada the price of bran at Toronto was on March 15( 1915, $28, which was lower than in the State of Maine and lower than the average price in the whole United States; it was $24 in 1916, which was lower than the price in the State of Maine and average price in the United States as a whole; and it was $37 in 1917, which was $1.33 lower than the average price in the United States; $4.80 lower than the price in the State of Maine; $3.60 lower than the price in New Hampshire, and $5.80 lower than in Massachusetts. The same is true with regard to other States, New York, Michigan and Minnesota, for which I have the prices here.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What was the price in Canada in 1917?


William Thomas White: The wholesale price was $37.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We never bought any in 1917 at that.


William Thomas White: That was at Toronto.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We never bought any at that price.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend is not a good buyer.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I cannot help that. I tell my hon. friend that we are good buyers in our section of the country.


William Thomas White: What an unfair position hon. gentlemen take upon this question. They say: We are in favour of free wheat, and we were in favour of it in 1915. But now that it has been adopted they say: By reason of your putting wheat upon the free list, bran and shorts go out of the country and the result is that the price will be higher to the Canadian farmer. Is that a consistent position for hon. gentlemen to take? The inference is that wheat should not have been put on the free list. As I said, if any situation should arise by which the livestock industry might be injured by reason of there being a duty on bran and shorts, this Government may be depended on to meet it as it would any other difficulty. The figures which I have put forward are correct, and the situation at present is a sound situation so far as the price of bran and shorts in Canada and the United States is concerned. My hon. friend stated the other day that he was a miller, but so great was his love for the farmers of his district that, notwithstanding it would be a very serious thing to him as a miller, he wanted the duty taken off bran and shorts. That day he was speaking for the farmers; to-day he comes forward as a friend of the millers, and he is sitting cheek by jowl-with the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), the avowed enemy of the millers in this House. Hardly a day passes that the hon. member for Richmond does not tell us of the tremendous profits made by millers, and he puts questions on the order paper asking the amount of excess profits we have taken from the miller. Yesterday I was able to show him that in the year 1915 we took from one milling company alone not less than $380,000. The member for Huntingdon says that the unfortunate miller will be ruined if the duty on cotton and jute bags and paper sacks is not removed. The whole discussion on free wheat which has agitated the House and the country for years past is now reduced to the monstrous injustice of the duty of 274 per cent on cotton and jute bags and paper sacks. That is what we have come down to in the Budget debate. Let us discuss the matter on its merits.

My hon. friend says: why should the miller have to pay duty on cotton and jute bags and paper sacks? He says that the Canadian millers are in competition with the millers of the United States. So they are as to flour, which comes in free of duty. But flour, cotton and jute bags and paper sacks are not the only commodities that come in. The milling industry is concerned in the manufacture of other things besides flour. My hon. friend has paid no attention to the other commodities on which the millers of Canada have a substantial protection. What are they? Buckwheat flour, general tariff, one-half cent per pound and 7i per cent war tax; corn flour, 25 per cent; rye flour, one-half cent per pound and 71 per cent war tax; oatmeal, three-fifths of a cent per pound and 7i per cent war tax; rolled oats, three-fifths of a cent per pound and 71 per cent war tax; wheat germ meal, 25 per cent; bran, 25 per cent; feed. 25 per cent-and only wheat flour and semolina on the free list. The principle involved in the tariff is this: if there is a protection of 25 per cent, as there is in some of these cases, that duty has been determined upon with due regard among other things, to the duties that the manufacturer has to pay upon his material coming in. My hon. friend admits that the millers, of which he is one, are protected to the extent that I have stated. I submit that nothing has especially been -brought to our attention which would warrant the Government in removing the duty from cotton and jute bags and paper sacks. This matter is of as little importance as any matter ever raised in a Budget debate. To show the House of how little importance it is, I point out that no miller in Canada, so far as I know, except the member for Huntingdon, has asked for the removal of the duty upon bags. My hon. friend says that the Canadian millers are in competition with the American millers, In the first place, they have the freights in their favour, I am informed that the cost of a 25 pound paper sack is 2 cents, of a 50 pound sack, about 4 cents, and of a cotton bag about 10 cents. In view of the protective duties which the millers enjoy upon their products other than flour, they have not asked us to take any action with regard to the duty upon bags. But the member -for Huntingdon is so -convinced that a grave injustice is being done the millers that he brings forward this resolution. If -at a time of a revision of the tariff, good -reason was shown for the reduction of these duties,' the Government would consider the 
situation. But this is not the time to- consider it, nor has the Government been asked to consider it by any one except the member for Huntingdon. My hon. friend's motion, therefore, is very trifling and unimportant indeed. If the matter were of consequence, the millers iwo-uld have brought it to the attention of the Finance Department.
I wish to call attention to another aspect of the case to which the member for Huntingdon has not adverted. Many industries in Canada are engaged in the manufacture of cotton and jute bags and paper sacks; they may be found in Winnipeg, Montreal, Toronto and other parts of Canada. These manufacturers have to pay duty upon the material which they import into Canada and upon all their machinery. Having regard to that fact, I think it would be -most improper to remove the duties from their product. If, as I say, upon a general revision of the tariff and in the light of the circumstances then prevailing, it would be advisable for the Government to give consideration to the question of the duty upon these hags and -sacks, the Government would do it, but in a proper way. It would have regard not only to the millers, hut to the manufacturers of bags, some of whom are engaged in large industries. Consideration would be given also to the material which they import and to the conditions of their industry. That principle underlies the whole tariff and all the duties imposed by it.
I have shown that so far as bran and shorts are concerned, the Canadian farmer is not likely under present conditions to suffer from our action respecting free wheat. I have stated that if he does suffer, this Government can be depended upon to deal with the situation as its. merits may warrant. I have shown also that the millers -I do not know that my hon. friend, although he is one of them, is authorized to speak for them all

have not deemed this matter of sufficient importance to bring it to 'the attention of the Finance Department. I have shown that they are protected under the tariff in respect of a great variety of their products. I have shown that the manufacturers of bags and paper sacks are interested in the duty upon these articles and that the matter should he dealt with, if it were advisable or necessary to deal with it, only upon a revision of the tariff. The amendment of the hon. member for Huntingdon should without hesitation be voted down, because it proceeds without

regard to the duty upon the products of millers other than flour and without any regard to the industrial' interests of those engaged in the manufacture of paper bags. Moreover, I know of no industry in Canada that is enjoying a greater prosperity during the war than the milling industry.
My hon. friend asserts that the milling industry will be seriously injured if the Government does not take the duty off cotton and jute bags anld paper sacks. It will be very interesting to see how the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) votes on this question. I would like to know what he has to say as to this. He says that the millers are making such tremendous profits that the Government should take possession of the mills, and .his desk-mate (Mr. Robb) says that the milling industry is suffering to such an extent that if we do not take the duty off bags, irreparable damage is going to accrue to that industry. It will be difficult for the hon. member for Huntingdon and the hon. member for Richmond to reconcile their views on the matter. The same remark applies to other hon. gentlemen who have spoken, not as the champions of the millers, but as their enemies. Some hon. gentlemen opposite have declared that this Government has been in a conspiracy with the western millers to prevent the farmers from getting a proper price for their wheat. The hon. member for Huntingdon now asks hon. gentlemen opposite to vote in favour of taking the duty off bags, a duty which is a source of revenue to this country in a time of war, arid the reason he gives is that the milling industry is suffering. When we come to vote on this matter, we shall see how hon. gentlemen opposite are going' to reconcile these two points of view, which, it seems to me, are almost irreconcilable.
I have dealt with the domestic business, and I have pointed out that the Canadian miller has the advantage of the local market which is always the best market. So far as concerns the export business, if the Canadian miller pays a duty on bags and fills those bags with Canadian flour and exports them to the United States or any other country, then, as my hon. friend from Richmond has stated, that miller receives a drawback of 99 per cent of the duty paid on those bags. Therefore, as regards the export business, he is on a par with other manufacturers of flour outside of Canada. It would seem to me that the hon. member is attaching an entirely disproportionate amount of importance to this
matter, and with all due respect I think he should not have taken the important step, although it is quite within his right, of moving what is really a vote of want of confidence in this Government, in respect of duties in regard to which, up to this date, no complaint has been made by any miller in Canada except himself.


Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has not dealt with this matter in the same spirit in which my hon. friend from Huntingdon introduced it, nor has he understood the spirit in which my hon. friend brought it before the House. It was the intention of my hon. friend to bring this question) up directly as a question of the free entry into Canada of 'bran and shorts, and on account of difficulties which arose under the rules of this House in regard to bringing up that motion, the amendment was launched in its present form, practically in order to get over a technicality. I think my hon; friend understood that. If he did not, in my judgment, he should have.


William Thomas White: Will my hon.
friend allow me to state this? So far as I know there are two amendments before the House, one unconnected with the other, one ruled out of order, the other Tuled to be in order. The latter is the one that we are discussing.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the one I purpose discussing. What I say is that the hon. member for Huntingdon, at the beginning of his remarks, made it clear to any one who desired to understand him, that he was bringing this matter before the House, not in the interest of the millers, [DOT]but in the interest of the farming and dairying community in the county of Huntingdon. Had the hon. member been pleading his own case, I do not know that I would be willing to justify it.


William Thomas White: Will my hon.
friend be good enough to read the amendment?


Hugh Guthrie: I heard the speech of
the hon. member.


William Thomas White: The amendment is based, on unfair discrimination against the millers.


Hugh Guthrie: I heard the amendment read, and I heard the speech of my hon. friend from Huntingdon, and I think the Minister of Finance understood it, and if he did not do so, it is because he did not

pay any attention to it. The hon. member's speech was base entirely upon the fact that under the present tariff items there,was an unjust discrimination against the farmers cf Ontario, and no special plea was made in favour of the millers. Had the previous ' amendment not been ruled out of order, the present amendment would not have been moved. The Minister of Finance says there is no demand for any change in regard to these items. I will grant that there is no demand from the millers, but surely imy hon. friend will not say he has no demand from the farmers of Ontario.


William Thomas White: 
Hugh Guthrie: Well, the members in this House who represent the farmers of Ontario have certainly made strenuous demands upon the Minister of Finance, and have brought the matter to his attention as forcibly as we have been able to do so, and still the minister sits in 'his seat and does not intimate that there will be any relief. With all due respect to my hon. friend and to his great ability as a financier, I have this to say: that he has made a mistake in not making wheat products free as well as wheat. That is his mistake and he can rectify it without a general revision of the tariff. I will agree with him that this is no time for a general revision of the tariff, but he can rectify this slight mistake in regard to making wheat products free, just as last session he rectified what he considered an error in regard to apples. This is the situation in a nutshell. I cannot accept the Minister of Finance's statement in regard to prices. What he has given ns is the average price for the year, and he has quoted the average prices in 1915, 1916 and 1917 up to the present date. The minister does not buy on average prices; the farmers pf Ontario get the daily paper; they have the telephone, and when the opportunity comes to buy they do so, and they buy not on average prices, but the day's price.
I believe the figures which I submitted to the House a day or two ago, and which I will repeat to the House now, are absolutely correct. I was spoken to on Saturday last by farmers on the question of bran and shorts for feed; I made the inquiry, and I know that the prices which I am going to give are correct. The prices on Saturday last, as between Toronto and Buffalo, were as follows:-
Buffalo. Toronto.
Bran	532.50	538.00
Shorts or middlings.... 36.75	44.00 to $50.00
Those were the figures on the 29th of this month. I take the Montreal Gazette for

to-day, and I will give to-day's figures for Toronto: Toronto, mill feed prices, bran, $37 per ton; shorts, $43 per ton. I cannot give the Buffalo figures for to-day. The Toronto figures are per ton on track, Montreal freights, which applies to all points between North Bay and Toronto. There is, therefore, four or five dollars a ton difference.


William Thomas White: What is the differ ence along the boundary line east of Toronto? This tariff applies to the whole of Canada.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not understand the minister's question.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend has quoted prices at "Buffalo and Toronto. Those are only two points. What about Montreal and places in the adjoining states?


Hugh Guthrie: I will give the prices at Boston and Montreal.
Sir'THOMAS WHITE: And the freight rates.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. At Boston on the 29th day of May bran was quoted at $34.50 per ton or $2 more than the price at Buffalo. Middlings were quoted at $38.75 per ton or $2 more than the price at Buffalo. On the same day the Montreal prices were bran, $38; shorts, or middlings, $44, with a spread up to $50. The freight rates are those which pertain to all points between North Bay and Toronto. I am not, however, going on the day's prices or on the prices given in the brokers' sheets. Men have come to me as recently as four or five days ago and have said: You are going to Ottawa, try, if possible, to get bran and shorts put on the free list. They know the situation and it has been brought to my hon. friend's attention by many hon. members on this side of the House so forcibly that he must have some reason for refusing to grant our request. Surely he can see that by making bran and shorts free, he is not going to injure anybody and he is going to help a very large number of people throughout the Dominion. Then why not take that course? See what an anomalous situation he has placed us in. We allow the wheat to go into the United States free, and yet we cannot get the bran from that wheat back into this country without paying a duty of 25 per cent. Our own wheat and our own bran go to the United States free, but we cannot get our own bran and ou>-own shorts and middlings back free.


Mr. MORPHY:: Is it not a fact that
tremendous quantities of soft wheat come back to the Canadian miller from the Toledo district in Ohio, bringing the bran with it, under the free wheat regulation?


Hugh Guthrie: But there is not enough of it coming back, and the price shows that if the duty were removed $4 or $5 a ton would be the advantage the Canadian farmer would derive from it. As the hon. member for Huntingdon has pointed out, by reason of the drawback allowed on bags, there is a bonus of 60 cents a ton to the Canadian miller who exports his bran and shorts to the United States instead of selling them in Canada. This is a wrong that should be righted, and the Finance Minister with an assistant could right it in half an hour. We are not asking him to revise the tariff. We are simply pleading for a chance for the Canadian farmer to get cheaper feed for his hogs and for his cattle. As a matter of revenue this item amounts to nothing. I do not know whether the millers have asked for this or not, but whether or not, the farmers should be granted this relief; it is not going to hurt the millers. The figures I have given today are correct, or they were on the 29th. My hon. friend from Huntingdon presented the case iA a very striking manner when he said that a man who imports a carload of feed has to pay in duty the price of the best cow in his herd. Under the strained conditions that exist to-day, $150 is a pretty heavy tax for a man to pay who is feeding dairy cattle to be used as food for ourselves and our Allies.
I know that this amendment is practically a motion of want of confidence, and perhaps it is not the most appropriate way of bringing the matter to the attention of the House, but if the Finance Minister will assure us that he will study this matter out and give the farmers this relief, not next year, but next month, or even this month, we shall all be satisfied on this side of the House, and it will be one step in the right direction,


John Wesley Edwards: I am prepared to give my hearty support to any movement which has a tendency to reduce the price of mill feed to our farmers. But the motion which is before the House is not calculated to do that. Notwithstanding what my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has said, this motion is intended for the benefit of the millers of this country. It reads:
That inasmuch as cotton jute, or paper sacks, when containing flour, now enter Canada from the United States free of duty, and inasmuch as Canadian millers-
Canadian millers, you will observe, not Canadian farmers.
-inasmuch as Canadian millers employing Canadian labour are handicapped because they are compelled to pay on empty sacks and bags, a duty of 27 J per cent on cotton and jute bags and sacks, and a duty of 35 per cent on paper sacks, this House is of the opinion that such unfair discrimination should be removed: Therefore it is resolved that in the opinion of this House, cotton and jute bags and sacks and paper sacks, when imported by millers for use in their own mills, should be free of duty.
The farmer or agriculturalist is not mentioned from beginning to end of that amendment, nor is there any reference to him either direct or indirect, nor to the consumer either. It deals with the millers entirely, and in my humble judgment the millers in this country are not suffering, and are not entitled to any special consideration from this House. When the hon. member for Huntingdon was on his feet, I asked him for the import and export figures as between Canada and the United States for bran and mill feed, but he did not have them. I have now before me the figures for the years 1915 and 1916, which show that our imports from the United States of bran, mill feed, etc., amounted to $47,778 in 1915, and to $43,700 in 1916. Our exports of bran to the United States amounted to $778,626 in 1915, and to $1,602,158 in 1916. The Finance Minister this afternoon has given us the price of bran and mill feed in Canada and the United States for the past three years, and the figures indicate that the prices in Canada for the last three years have been uniformly lower than on the other side of the line. I think my hon. friend from Huntingdon admitted that. The hon. member for South Wellington has also given us the figures for one or two days at one or two points in the United States and Canada.


Hugh Guthrie: Those were governing points, both for Canada and the United States.


John Wesley Edwards: We have the figures
of the hon. member for one or two days at what he says were governing points in this country and the United States. In addition to that, and the statement of the Minister of Finance, we have our import and export figures for bran and mill feed, as between this country and the United States. If the hon. member for South Wellington is Tight in his statement that bran and shorts are

cheaper on the other side of the line, then why in the name of heaven do the people of the United States, who are always supposed to have a pretty strong grip on the dollar, come over here and pay a higher price for our bran? We cannot overlook our export and import figures, and they emphatically indicate that the price on the other side of the line is higher than the price in Canada.


Hugh Guthrie: Then why maintain the duty?
Mr. EDW1ARDS: I have given these figures in controversion of what my hon. friend has said, and they indicate that the statement of the Minister of Finance is to be taken in preference to the statement of the hon. member from South Wellington.


Hugh Guthrie: Then why maintain the duty?	'


John Wesley Edwards: Let me give the hon.
member a reason why we should not interfere with the duty-a reason which he applauded until he almost raised blisters on his hands when the matter came up in the session of 1912-1913. Let me quote the words of his own leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, uttered in the House on that occasion (Hansard p. 30):
Once a duty is imposed that duty should not lightly be interfered with.
He was referring to the duty on cement. The hon. member for South Wellington supported that; he said that it was perfectly right. The motion arose out of the Government's determination to cut the duty on cement in two. When hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, they did not show the farmers of this country much consideration in the matter of cement, which is used by our farmers all over the country, for they immediately raised the duty on cement coming from the United States. They immediately increased the duty on 'cement coming into this country from the United States. Under the National Policy of the Conservative party there had been a duty on cement, but bags containing the cement were free. But that did not suit hon. gentlemen opposite. Supported by the hon. member for South Wellington, they not only increased the duty on cement, but put a special duty on the bags containing cement. Why? Because they had such gentlemen as Senator Edwards and others in the cement merger, who are making hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the farmers by squeezing them on the price of

cement. In this and scores of other cases that I could mention, where their friends are affected, their views about customs duties do not amount to a snap of your finger. If their friends can reap the benefit ,and take money from the pockets of the people, they will arrange the duties accordingly.


Hugh Guthrie: Is the hon. member
(Mr. Edwards) in favour of removing or of maintaining the duty on bran and shorts?


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. member (Mr. Guthrie) need not smile as if he thought he had asked me something that I would not answer. Hon. gentlemen opposite, including the hon. gentleman from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) might smile when putting a question for information to hon. members on this side if we were like themselves and had as many policies as there are members. Every person knows that the Liberal party is a conglomerate, so far as their tariff policy is concerned of-


Frank Oliver: Not Nationalist and Tory.


John Wesley Edwards: Where did the Nationalists learn their lesson? Let me tell the hon. member for Edmonton there is not a treacherous Nationalist utterance by Bour-assa, Lavergne, or any other in the province of Quebec, but has its counterpart in the utterances of his own leader at different times in his career.


Frank Oliver: May I ask the hon. member to permit me to say that what he has stated is incorrect in substance and in fact?


John Wesley Edwards: I do not know that the fact that the hon. member for Edmonton says that my statement is incorrect will materially alter the opinions of the people of this country. My word in this House or out of it is as good as his, and my record is as good as his. Now, to revert to the question asked by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). Gould anything be plainer or fairer than the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), that as soon as this Government perceives that the farmers can be benefited by a change of duties in regard to bran and shorts he is ready and willing to give that change? And he states the reason why there is no necessity for that change now-that the prices of bran and shorts in the United States are higher today than the prices on this side of the line. That is perfectly satisfactory to me, and I think that in so stating I answer the hon. gentleman. I am in favour of removing the

duty on bran and shorts as soon as it can *be shown that 'by so doing we shall benefit the farmers of this country, but I am not in favour of it merely because some hon. gentleman gets up and produces figures, or makes statements, which, in my humble judgment, when coming from the other side of this House, may always be taken with a liberal supply of salt. The hon. member for South Wellington, speaking in this House no longer ago than the dajf before yesterday, said:-
I do not believe at any time in tho haphazard revision of the tariff. I think that such a revision should be gone about systematically and scientifically. I think the tariff should be revised from time to time, and I hope that when the revision does take place, after hostilities are closed, we will be able to revise it downward. But I think that of all times this is about the most inopportune to disturb the industries and business of this country.
I agree with him; in ifact, I might have quoted the words of the hon. member as an answer to the question that he asked me a moment ago; I went a little further in stating my opinion on this question of the duty on bran and shorts. But have these gentlemen any right to get up, and, under the cover of a motion intended for the benefit of the millers only, pose as the friends of the farmer? I say they have not. The whole course of the Liberal party in this country is one showing absolute disregard for the farmers except to try and hoodwink and blindfold them. Take their position in regard to farm implements, -for instance. We had the spectacle here the other day of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), and the hon. member for Moose-jaw (Mr. Knowles) advocating the removal of the duty on farm implements. Yet, a few years ago, when the proposition was made by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Sehaffner) to reduce the duty on these implements, the hon. member for Assiniboia, assuming to speak for western 'Canada, said that the motion of the hon. member for Souris ought not to be approved. And the hon. member for Moosejaw took the same position. But that is not all. These hon. gentlemen when ip office did make a change which was nominally a slight reduction of the duty on agricultural implements. The duty on binders at that time was 20 per cent, and they cut it down to 17} per cent. But at the same time they went to the manufacturers and said: You need not be a particle scared; we know what we are doing; we are simply doing this to satisfy the farmers, but we will fix it all right for
119	*
you. And so they did. When the duty was 20 per cent the valuation for duty of a binder was $80, so that the duty was $16. But when they reduced the duty to 17} per cent, they raised the valuation to $100, so that the duty collected was $17.50. That is the way they played the game of the manufacturers while pretending to the farmers that they were going to cut off the head of protection and trample on its body -that they were going to wade in gore, so far as protection was concerned. The whole object evidently was to hoodwink the farmers just the same as in the case of cement. They raved about the cement duty in their speeches in one part of the country, pretending that they would meet the wishes of the farmers. But they framed their tariff in such a way as to put hundreds of thousands of dollars into the pockets of Senator Edwards and other Grit,heelers-excuse me, I would rather say, partisans of their own-whom they wanted to please. As a friend near me suggests, that is the policy they have pursued for fifteen years, a policy which differs in every part of the country. There are 221 constituencies in this country, and for the Liberal party there are 221 different tariff policies. That party, so far as tariff matters are concerned, is a thing of shreds and patches.
Down in one part of the country they want free potatoes. The hon. member for Car-leton- (Mr. Carvell) is for free potatoes, ,or he would fix the price of potatoes but only after he had sold his. Pure jealousy! He would put the price of potatoes down to $1.75 a bag when he had not any more to sell because he did not want his neighbours to get $3 or $2.50 just as he wanted to fix the price of hay. Then these hon. gentlemen come and plead that they are the friends of the farmer. I represent an agricultural constituency. I am certainly satisfied, representing the farmers of my part of the country, with the stand that the Minister of Finance has taken on this matter and the assurance that he has given the House this afternoon. I am satisfied that he will deal with this matter in the interest of the farmers as well as all other classes of the community fairly and at the proper time.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the hon. member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards). He started out by being very careful to read the motion that was put before you, Sir. I thought that for once in his life he was going to hew to

[DOT]1878

the line and stick closely to what is really the amendment before the Chair. But he was not very long speaking when the old spirit of slander crept upon him and he began to swing from the latitude which he had laid out for himself. It was not long before we heard him talking about Bourassa and Lavergne and all that stuff in which he delights to revel. Let me point out, by way of reply, some thoughts that ran through my mind as he was speaking about Bourassa and Lavergne. It is not very long ago that Bourassa was saying in his paper and on the platform that he had had enough of the English and England. He wanted nothing to do with them -not a man, not a dollar to support their cause or to forward English ideas. When he was, in his paper and on the platform promulgating his ideas in this country-


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I would like to know what Bourassa has to do with the duty on jute bags.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The House will realize that I am somewhat embarrassed in that apparently the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) is traversing something that was said by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) at a moment when I was not in the Chair. If the hon. member feels constrained to traverse the remarks of the hon. member for Frontenac, I would ask him to adhere as closely as possible to the subject before the House.


John Wesley Edwards: I only spoke in reply to an interjection of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver).


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is highly characteristic of the hon. gentleman who takes the objection (Mr. Middlebro). The chief whip was here during the divergence from the subject of debate and heard the expressions used by the hon. member for Frontenac and other speakers. That was perfectly all right, there was no harm in it.
'	5 p.m. Rules to the winds, proper order
to the dogs, as long as it is in the interest of the party of which he is a member, but the moment any one on this side of the House undertakes to reply to his observations, it is irregular and we must be called to order by the hon. member!


William Sora Middlebro: Does the hon. member not know that the remarks came from the hon. member for Frontenac because of a
tMr. D. D. McKenzie.]
direct question asked him from the other side of the House?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It does not make the slightest difference what gives rise to the discussion once it is permitted to go on. Once the observations are made, I submit there ought to be an opportunity given to reply to them. We on this side of the House are not to be taunted with Bourassaism, Lavergneism and Nationalism. It would be well for the hon. member for Frontenac if he could once get clear of the product of such ideas and doctrines as have been put forward by these gentlemen, and sweep his own house clean. If he got rid of the supporters of Nationalism in his own party and in the Government he would not have a corporal's guard in this House. If the hon. gentleman shows that he has the courage of his convictions and will declare himself to those he points out as traitors because they are Nationalists and friends of Bourassa, I will have the greatest respect for any statements he makes about matters of this kind. But, when Bourassa was at his worst, in his speeches, his papers and his propaganda in 1911, the great province of Ontario was financing him.


Mr. LALOR:: I think the hon. gentleman is making a speech upon Nationalism and not on the question before the House, and I again call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) only replied to a question put to him by the hon. member for Edmonton .(Mr. Oliver).


Frank Oliver: Will the hon. member (Mr. Lalor) say what the question was? I have no recollection of asking a question on any subject.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: It was not a question but an interjection. The hon. member raised the point, and -the hon. member for Frontenac replied.


Frank Oliver: I raised no point and asked no question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The point of order is well taken, but if latitude is allowed to one hon. member, another hon. member on the other side should not be unduly restricted in reply. I ask the hon. member-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have almost finished my remarks.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I ask the hon. member not to pursue that subject because it may lead to acrimonious discussion, detrimental

to the orderly and proper consideration of the question before the House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not in the least degree acrimonious nor do I feel out of temper in the slightest


George Eulas Foster: What would you be if you tried to be acrimonious?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not quite hear the observation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. If it is for the winning of the war I would be pleased to listen but if not it does not matter, I suppose. I have not often the honour of being interrupted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I am sorry I did not hear what he said because I would like respectfully to reply to him. But what I was pointing- out-and I will be brief and cut it down-is that I am sick and tired of supporters of the Government, whenever they get on their feet, no matter what the subject is, turning to Nationalism and trying to represent that the origin and beginning and genesis of Nationalism is with the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). If Nationalism is bad, if Bou-rassaism is bad, if Lavergneism is bad, why did they take them to their hearts in 1911?


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why are they hugging Nationalism to their hearts to-day and glad to have it?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They live with it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They live with it; they try to keep it up; they sleep with it; they tried to breed it in 1911 and they have tried to breed it again. Now, that is all I propose to say on that subject. I promise my hon. friends opposite that every time they bring up this subject we will have something to say about it.
The resolution now before the House is a sort of double barrelled arrangement. There is a resolution that is said to be out of order and another resolution that is in order, and we have been to some extent discussing the one that is out of order on the one that is in order. I am not breaking imy neck in trying to bring any great favours to the millers of this country unless they will show some fruit worthy of repentance and some fruit worthy of being cuddled and cared for by the Government of this
119*	\< f | |
country and by this Parliament. In the /part of the country from which I come, rwe had always hoped that when the West was developed, when we had given them plenty of railways, when we had plenty of wheat, we in the far East, who are practically non-producers of flour, would have cheap flour and cheaper living. In Nova Scotia we .produce large quantities of coal, iron, steel, fish, lumber and other materials, but we do not produce enough flour to feed our people. We therefore are very much interested in cheap flour. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance have done nothing to help out the situation in reference to the high cost of living and the cost of the product of the (miller. The Minister of Finance makes the proud boast that he took $238,000 from one milling concern in Ontario. That milling concern immediately started to tax the fisherman, the lumberman, the farmer of the province of Nova Scotia and of other provinces until it could get back three times the amount which the minister is so proud of having t'aken from it. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Moffioy) the other day informed us that the flour which is to-day bought in Sydney and by the working classes of Glace Bay, Sydney Mines and North Sydney at $17 a barrel was ground of wheat that was bought at $1.70 a bushel.


Frank Oliver: Less than that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And less than that,
f think that the people of this country [DOT]have a right to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce not to allow the millers to pile on this enormous profit. Why does he permit the millers to rob the people of Canada by selling flour at $17 a barrel that could have been sold at $8.50 or $9. I want to point out to the Minister of Finance that the money he takes from the millers and other big concerns is simply taxed back by them upon the poor men of this country, and that it is a fallacy to say that it is taken from the wealthy men. We had an illustration of the same thing in the United States a few years ago. When that great financier Rockefeller gavie $25,000,000 for the purposes of education to the federal treasury of the United States, he immediately turned around and added half a cent to the price of oil, and in less than a fortnight he had his $25,000,000 back. That is what is happening in the case of the millers, the money that he takes from them they tax back upon the poor people of this country. That is the explanation of flour selling at $17 a barrel to-day. If any favours are to be

granted to the millers we, the common people of this country who have to buy the .products of the millers, would like to see that we are getting some benefit from it. Something should be done by the Government for the relief of the poor man who is earning $2 or $2.50 a day, whc finds it almost impossible to pay #17 for flour, 50 or 52 cents a pound for butter, and 40 or 50 cents a pound for beef. He cannot pay that out of the miserable pittance he receives in wages. I asli the minister to come to the rescue of the poor people and relieve them from the horrible and unbearable burdens which they have to carry by reason of the high cost of living, the exorbitant prices of many of the things they consume.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Does the hon. member
think that free flour has effected any relief to the people of this country?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not talking about the tariff on flour. I say that the Government of this country, like those of other countries, should forbid the owner of flour, whether a miller or a middleman, from selling it at an exorbitant price. I know nothing to prevent the flour owners in the 'United States combining with the flour owners in this country and imposing a 'similar burden on the poor of the two nations. We are looking for some measure of real relief, not the haphazard measures that have been taken toy this Government.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: A reply is allowed to a member who has made a substantive motion before the House, but not to a member who has moved an amendment. It is understood that the hon. member for Huntingdon is to be allowed the privilege of a reply by the consent of the House and in accord with an arrangement previously come to.
Mr . J. A. ROBB (Huntingdon): The Finance Minister said that I had introduced a resolution to help the millers, and then went on to point out that I made a speech to help the farmers in connection with free bran and shorts. But later on both the Minister of Finance and the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) laid stress on the fact that all our efforts this afternoon were to advance the cause of the millers, notwithstanding that the Minister of Finance had said that our speeches were altogether in favour of free bran and shorts. I am very much encouraged with the statements of the Finance Minister and the member for Frontenac. The Minister of Finance has said that the farmers may trust this Government to do what is fair
XHr. McKenzie.]
and to put them in a right position, and the member for Frontenac has also said that just as soon as it can be proved conclusively that the farmers are wronged the Government will make it right. I want to explain the effect of .free wheat on these prices. The Order in Council was passed on the 16th April. On the 14th April bran was worth $43.50 a ton in Buffalo and $38 a ton in Montreal and Toronto. On the 28th April it was $43.25 in Buffalo and $43 in Montreal. There was no advance in the United States, rather a reduction, but an advance of $5 a ton in Canada. That is what I complain of exactly. The Minister of Finance has given quotations for 1915, 1916 and 1917. He is living in the dead past. He gave quotations on bran and shorts under conditions that existed before they passed this Order in Council. But as soon as the Minister of Finance passed his Order in Council, which permitted bran and shorts t6 go free into the United States, but put a tax of 25 per cent upon them coming into Canada he reversed those conditions. The minister will find that in one or two years from now the conditions will be altogether changed.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Does the hon. gentleman consider that the increase in the price of bran and shorts in Canada, to which he has been referring, is a hold-up by the millers?


James Alexander Robb: I am inclined to think that the hon. gentleman has guessed correctly. The tariff compels the millers to pay 27i per cent duty on cotton and jute bags and 35 per cent on paper sacks. The Finance Minister has admitted that the figures which I gave were correct. He himself quoted figures in corroboration of what I said: that the cost of sacking flour in Canada was 8J cents a barrel greater than the cost of sacking in the United States.
The minister lays stress on the assertion-that I am the only miller who has complained. If he digs down deep enough into his own department he will find there a letter published in Canadian newspapers on Christmas Day, 1913, and signed, I think, by Mr. Black, of the Ogilvie Milling Company. Of that I am not sure; at any rate, it was signed by a large miller in Montreal, and it pointed out to the Government that if they passed an Order in Council accepting conditions imposed on Canada by Washington they would compel the millers to join those who were agitating for free admission of many articles into Canada, particularly of bags, sacks and milling machinery.

I was proceeding, when interrupted, to point out that conditions have changed ' since the Order in Council was passed. Bran and shorts to-day are worth $32.50 in the United States and $38 at points in Canada taking the same freights. These freights are what are known as zone freights. The price of bran or flour is fixed largely on the basis of blanket freights. In respect of goods going into the United States, Boston or Buffalo would be zone freight points.


William Thomas White: Are there through freight rates on bran and shorts from Montreal to United States?


James Alexander Robb: I should not think so.


William Thomas White: If there are not through freight rates, then why should bran and shorts go from Montreal and surrounding districts into the United States? I am asking a question based on information which I obtained from one of the leading manufacturers of flour, bran and shorts in Canada, who told me that there were no through freight rates from the district in which Montreal is situated to the United States.


James Alexander Robb: That is quite right. The basis of all these prices is the rate on products coming from the West. In the Northwest, where the big mills are-Winnipeg, Moosejaw, Kenora, Fort William-or at Port Colborne, there are no cattle to eat the feed, which must be shipped east. The price is based on its value delivered at blanket freights. The production of bran and shorts in Montreal is only a bagatelle compared with what is required in this country; even in eastern Canada the supply is not sufficient. My complaint is that the millers can create scarcity by taking advantage of these through freights and shipping to the New England market via Buffalo and Niagara Falls. They are encouraged to do this by the duty on hags, which gives them a rebate on all bags exported. I think, therefore, that 1 have proved to the minister that conditions have changed since the Order in Council was passed. I am encouraged to believe that he will change his mind and make some tariff changes.
I know that the resolution which I have presented is out of order, but it was brought in to enable the House to discuss the question. With the permission of the House, therefore, I withdraw the amendment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member have leave to withdraw his amendment?


William Thomas White: I prefer that it should be declared lost on division.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Amendment lost on
division.
Motion of Sir Thomas White agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Blain in the Chair.



IN COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
Customs-to provide for expenses of maintenance of revenue cruisers and for preventive service, $100,000.
["There is no disposition on the part of hon. gentlemen on this side to tolock my hon. friend's estimates, or the estimates of any minister. This information ought to be before the public in justice to the minister and to the Government, if for no other reason, because if the phblic see these amounts and have no explanation of them they will think that there is something wrong. I am not making a charge that there is anything wrong, but the only way to show the people that everything is right is to give the information.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Hon. Mr. Roche, the House adjourned at 11.23 p.m.\nFriday, June 1, 1917."]
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How many of these cruisers are on Atlantic coast?


Mr. REID:: Last year we chartered a boat to take the place of the Government cruiser Margaret, which we got two or three years ago, but which was sent to Halifax when war was declared. Last year we got a steamer, the Dollard, from the Marine and Fisheries Department, but this year we have been unable so far to arrange for a steamer, the Dollard having been sent to Halifax on naval service. The Government steamers are all in use. It has always been the custom to have an item of this kind for that service. We have another little steamer, the Alert, down at Sydney. I think that is the only steamer that comes out of that port.


Mr. KYTE:: Has the Government recently chartered a steamer for customs preventive service in the St. Lawrence?


John Dowsley Reid: Not that I know of. I do
not know of any being under order.


George William Kyte: I am informed that Mr. W. M- Macdonald of Sydney recently purchased in the United States a steamer which he has chartered to the Department of. Customs and which is at present undergoing repairs on the marine slip at Point Tupper. Has the minister any information to give to the committee on that matter?


John Dowsley Reid: A charter would not be made until I had been consulted, and no charter or offer of that kind has as yet reached me. The chief officer of the Preventive Service, Mr. Wilson, who is in charge of such vessels, when we were informed by the Marine Department that we could not have the marine steamer, DollaTd, has been making inquiries for some little time, and he may possibly have been discussing this matter with the gentleman mentioned by the hon. member, but if he has, I have never heard of it before nor has the matter been submitted to me.


George William Kyte: I was at Sydney a few days ago, and the statement was made that this

*steamer had been purchased for the purpose of chartering her to the Government for the customs service, and I want to know from the minister if any negotiations to that end have recently been on foot.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think I can make the matter clearer than I have done. No negotiations have as yet been submitted to me, and I have not heard of any; but negotiations may be going on with the officials of the department, and when they come to some decision as to what they think would be fair to submit to me for my approval, I would it of it then. Therefore, I am not in a position to say that no negotiotions heve been going on. It may be possible that the officials have been carrying on negotiations, but nothing has yet *reached me.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are these cruising
steamers in the preventive service supposed to see that American fishermen do not fish within the three mile limit? Has the Alert anything to do with that? I know, when the late Captain Borden was in the service of the Customs Department it was part of his duty at certain seasons of the year to ,see that American fishermen did not come within the three mile limit. While he was performing the same service that the Alert is performing now, he made several captures. The Alert is a very slow concern; she is supposed to overtake other vessels, and I suppose it is the intention that she will overtake them on the same principle that the lion catches the jackal; when the jackal makes a run all around the country, he gets confused and Tuns into the lion's mouth. If the Alert catches anything, it will certainly be on that principle, because I understand she is a very slow boat. It so happens, however, that while she is slow, she is owned by a very fast crowd, and that no doubt suits the ideas of the minister, and he will pass over all the sins of omission and commission of the Alert so long as the one great aim and purpose is served of putting money into the pockets of his Tory friends. 1 want to remind the minister that I hope this Alert will keep within her proper bounds. Of course, her speed is such that it is not difficult for her to keep within any bounds, hut this boat was not always in the preventive service. She was hired for preventive work, but she was willing to do other things in the interest of the Tory party. She used to be chartered by this

Government and by my bon. friend who presides over the department for carrying election rum down to different parts of Victoria county.


John Dowsley Reid: She was pretty fast then. I am surprised that the hon. member says she was a slow boat, because I thought at that time she was pretty swift.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: She got her name into a code which was made by which the workings of the department in connection with the Alert was understood. It so happened that we discovered the code through the very name of the Alert. This code name was appearing so often in the code telegrams that at last we discovered that this boat was being referred to, and once we found out that this meant the Alert, of course, we unravelled the whole business, and I must admit that in that case she was swift-in bringing destruction to the Tory party, because once we found out what those telegrams meant the results weTe startling. What I want to impress upon the minister is this, that there will he elections again, and there will possibly be byelections, and I want, in all seriousness, to impress upon him that the money that comes into his hands and that he is expending in connection with the public service of this country is furnished by Grits and Tories alike, and I think that the minister will concede at once that it is most unfair to compel the Grits to supply the funds to carry on a Tory campaign, because, when we were furnishing the money to run the Alert and to pay her captain and crew, we were furnishing the money to fight against ourselves. I am sure the minister will rise to the lofty eminence of saying to the officers of the department that they must not prostitute the service and departmental property to such purposes as they used the Alert and everything belonging to it in those days. I am not speaking in a haphazard way, because all these facts were brought out in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, and it was shown that all facilities of Government were put at the disposal of the Tory party in that connection. Not only the Alert, but the telegraph system and the telephone system of the Government were put at their disposal in the same way. I wish to give the minister notice that if he should again commit such a reckless error as that we shall not promise to deal with him in such a mild manner as I am doing in bringing this maJtter before him now. I hope hereafter that each party will pay their own

election expenses, and that Tories will not he permitted to put their hands into the public treasury and to take out Grit money for the purpose of-fighting the Grits.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with the hon. member that Government steamers, or Government property, should not be used in such cases as the hon. member has stated. I do not think that is fair. I think the position taken by the hon. member is absolutely right. I remember the case that the hon. member mentions. I did not know, of course, at the time that a Government steamer had been used for any other purpose than that for which she was chartered.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Didn't you get a telegram?	-


John Dowsley Reid: No, not in any shape or form. ,1 did not know anything about it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We were inquiring
in the House about it.


John Dowsley Reid: That was after the boat had started on the trip. As soon as the matter was brought to my attention, I had the boat stopped. They tell me-I don't know whether it is true or not-that Government steamers were used for this purpose when an election came on under the late Government.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who told you that?


John Dowsley Reid: Not the hon. member. However, whether it was done ot not, I do not think it is right.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What does the Alert cost a month?


John Dowsley Reid: 31,250. She is paid the same rate as the Gladiator, whose place she took.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Where is the Dollard stationed?


John Dowsley Reid: She runs anywhere on the
St. Lawrence, from Quebec down to Anticosti, the Magdalen Islands, and all around those waters. She has taken the place of the Margaret, and is in the same service. We have not been able to charter any steamer so far this season, but we shall be glad to get one if we can.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How many are on
-the staff at New Glasgow?


John Dowsley Reid: There are six: J. Fred McDonald, H. W. Baillie, H. D. Gillis, S. T. McCurdy, S. M. McKenzie, and A. A Clay.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Has Mr. Clay been
permanently appointed?


John Dowsley Reid: He has not been appointed
permanently up to the present. He was put on as a landing waiter on August 16, 1915.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He is not a returned soldier?


John Dowsley Reid: I could not say.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is it intended to
make his appointment permanent?


John Dowsley Reid: Before taking a man on we
generally have him examined by the inspector or collector as to hie fitness for the position; if satisfactory, he is appointed on probation for six months, and if he makes good he is then appointed permanently. I know of no reason why Mr. Clay has not been permanently appointed, and now that my hon. friend has brought the matter to my attention, I will have an Order in Council passed appointing him if everything is satisfactory.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It has been stated that Mr. Macdonald is going to retire. Has the minister heard anything of that?


John Dowsley Reid: There has been no application from him for superannuation and retirement. He has been in the service since 1879. If he retires-, he would be entitled to 70 per cent of his salary, about $1,260.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If he retires, will a returned soldier be appointed in his place?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, but we might have to fill the position temporarily until we can find a returned soldier qualified for the position. At the present time we have a number of returned soldiers acting as relieving officers, taking the place of those who are absent on holidays or from sickness. If Mr. McDonald retired, and I was not able to get a returned soldier in that constituency to fill the position, I would get one from outside.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There are plenty of returned soldiers there.


John Dowsley Reid: He would have to be qualified for the position.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would he have to be recommended by the man in charge of the patronage?


John Dowsley Reid: We take the best man we can get


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am speaking of returned soldiers.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not heard of any
patronage committee in that riding. I am

the only patronage committee for the Customs Department.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As the hon. gentleman has never heard of a patronage committee in my constituency, I might remind him that he has never asked me to recommend any appointments, and perhaps I may he said to represent the people there. Where does my hon. friend get his information about there being no patronage committee in my constituency?


John Dowsley Reid: I make inquiries of my own. There is no patronage committee.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Only some particular gentleman who happens to have your confidence, I suppose?


John Dowsley Reid: I know a lot of people.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am a little curious - about this. There was a vacancy in the postmastership at Stellarton a few weeks ago, but although the minister claims great credit for having always appointed returned soldiers, this position was given to a man who was not a returned soldier, but was recommended by the local chairman of the Conservative Committee. There were quite a few returned soldiers in the district who were quite competent to fill the position, which did not require any technical training. In view of the experience in my own constituency I do not know whether my hon. friend's protestations in regard to returned soldiers are to be regarded seriously. Perhaps a different policy is followed in the Post Office Department.


John Dowsley Reid: I am following the Order in Council and appointing returned soldiers wherever possible. I understand the same policy is followed by all the departments, but I have enough to do to look after my own department. I have already appointed over 233 returned soldiers, and there are still a number of good positions vacant. When a vacancy occurs the people, of course, are very anxious that a returned soldier in that constituency should receive the appointment. Men are coming back wounded in much greater numbers than before. I had a letter to-day from a man in an Ontario constituency telling me about a young man who had occupied a splendid position and who is now back from the war having suffered the loss of a leg, and asking me if I could give him a position. I was pleased to be able to say that I could, and in his own constituency. That is the policy I have pursued. If, for instance, a vacancy

should occur in the hon. member's constituency, and a soldier should return to that constituency who was qualified to fill the position, I should be glad to appoint him.


Mr. CARVELL:: Is that the policy in the other departments of the Government?


John Dowsley Reid: I have told the committee about the Order in Council on the subject.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It does not seem /to be the policy of the Department of Public Works. In my constituency last September a returned soldier was appointed to the position of caretaker of a public building, a position not calling for very great skill or ability. The man got notice from Ottawa of his appointment. But there was an election, and a man there who was not a returned soldier, but who represented about a dozen votes, threatened to bolt the party unless he got the position, so they turned down the soldier and gave the place to the politician. I only wanted to know whether the hon. minister was speaking for himself or for the Government.


John Dowsley Reid: I know that the Order in Council was passed, and I do not know that the other departments are acting differently from my own. At the same time, I am looking after my own department, and I suppose each head of a department will be able to speak for himself.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would the minister regard with any degree of interest or attention a letter that I might write to him with regard to a returned soldier?


John Dowsley Reid: If there is a position vacant and a returned soldier fit to fill the position I will appoint him.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would the minister ask the attention of the Post Office Department to a case that I might lay before him?


John Dowsley Reid: I am pretty busy attending to my own department.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When another minister goes away, it seems quite the custom to call the hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid) to take temporary charge of the department. I think he has acted for almost every one of his colleagues except the Prime Minister. I am bound to say that he is one of the most competent men in the Government, and it is on that account that I appeal to him, because I feel that he could exercise a good influence upon his colleague, whoever he may be, who is Acting Postmaster General. A vacancy occurred in my con-

stituency in April last, but there was not the slightest suggestion of appointing a returned soldier, though there are quite a number of returned soldiers any one of whom would be competent to fill the position. Will not the minister be good enough to call the attention of the Post Office Department to this matter? Who is Acting Postmaster General?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Patenaude.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will not the Minister of Customs call the attention of the Acting Postmaster General to the fact that the provisions of the Order in Council which has been referred to have not been observed with Tegard to the appointment of a postmaster in the town of Stellarton, in my constituency. The hon. gentleman is in more direct communication with the Acting Postmaster General than I am.


John Dowsley Reid: I had to go to the Acting Postmaster General a few months ago with regard to a vacancy in my own constituency. We had a vacant post office there-quite a nice position. I asked the Acting Postmaster General to fill it temporarily until we could find a returned soldier who could fill it suitably. Of course, the hon. gentleman said that that was the intention. That position in my constituency is held until there is a returned soldier to fill it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who was appointed temporarily?


John Dowsley Reid: A girl who has been in the department ten or twelve years fills it temporarily, with some assistance. The other day, the case was mentioned of the postmastership of Smiths Falls, in the constituency adjoining mine. The question was asked whether it was the intention to appoint a returned soldier, and the Acting Postmaster General replied that it was. I will mention the case of Stellarton, and will say that I hope that the same policy that I am following is being carried out in other departments.


Charles Marcil: Has the minister reached a - conclusion with regard to the customs col-lectorship at Montreal?


John Dowsley Reid: That was fully discussed last night, as the hon. member will see by referring to Hansard.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There was an officer of the Customs Department in North Sydney, a Mr. Brennan, who went to the front as an aviator. He returned wounded, but, having recovered, has gone back to the front again.
His position in the customs service has been filled, but not by a returned soldier. Can the minister tell me whether this appointment to succeed Mr. Brennan is only temporary, or whether the new man has been permanently appointed?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Brennan, as the hon. gentleman has stated, is absent on active service. When a vacancy occurs in this way, -the policy is, as I have stated, to put in a relieving officer, on the understanding that he holds the position only until the soldier returns, or until it is ascertained that he will not be able to return. That was the policy previous to the Order in Council. This may be the man who was appointed- Hector W. McNeill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is the man who
was appointed.


John Dowsley Reid: He is on the list as an acting officer. If he had been appointed prior to the Order in Council, and if he has been acting since, I would not feel justified in dismissing him now until we see what is the result in so far as Mr. Brennan is concerned.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand it is the
policy in regard to the inside service that, if a man enlists, his salary goes on irrespective of whatever pay he gets as a soldier. Does that rule apply to the outside service as well? I am not begrudging Mr. Brennan anything he may be getting. I am asking if this young gentleman, who left his position in the customs at North ;Sydney and who is performing service at the front as an aviator, comes within that rule or gets the salary that he was getting from the department before he enlisted?


Mr.   RETD@: The rule is the same for
both services. The Order in Council passed first gave the full salary. Then, in 1915 it was provided that they would get the one salary. The Orders in. Council apply to both the inside and outside services. As far as Mr. Brennan is concerned, he would come under the first Order in Council were it not, as I have been informed, that he enlisted in the Imperial flying corps, and not in the Canadian Overseas Forces. If Mr. Brennan had enlisted in the Canadian Overseas Forces prior to November 1, 1915, he would come within this rule of getting his full salary. But, if after that he would simply -get the difference between his military pay and his civil service pay.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not know the date of Mr. Brennan's enlistment but I know

he took a course in aviation and enlisted in Canada. Evidently he put himself at the disposal of the powers that be and when he got across I do not know where they put him. We had no Canadian aviation corps at the time and I suppose he was (willing to go wherever they put him. He certainly enlisted, received his commission and took his course in Canada before He went across'.
IMr. REID: I remember that the Imperial Government had an aviation -school and were enlisting for their own Imperial forces. Any official who enlisted in the aviation corps received a commission from the Imperial Government and not from the Canadian Government and, of course, he would not come within the Order in Council. Therefore, Mr. Brennan is not getting anything from the Customs Department but he would probably be getting more in the aviation corps than the amount of his salary here. I do not think there will be very much difference.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like the minister to look into it. If Mr. Brennan, as a member of the outside service of the department, would be entitled to a continuation of his salary if he had enlisted in the Canadian service, he should not be deprived of that advantage because of the particularly useful and hazardous course he had to take or because he had to go into the Imperial Service, particularly in view of the fact that we had no aviation corps of our own that he could have joined.


John Dowsley Reid: This is the first time this
matter had been brought to my attention. Cases of this kind would be very few, as faT as I can see, and I think they might be -very generously dealt with. But, they would not come within the scope of the Order in Council as it now is. I will take that matter up. It is one that can he settled at any time by ah application from Mr. Brennan or any one else that has enlisted in that way. It might open up a question though in quite a lot of cases because there are a large number of men from *Canada who have gone over and enlisted in the same way.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Brennan belongs
to my town but he is not a supporter of *mine at all. I wish the minister would remember what I am saying and that he would give me an assurance, that if an application is made on behalf of this gentleman, it will be considered.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Indians, Ontario and Quebec-Relief, medical attendance and medicines, $28,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: On this item I wish to express my gratitude to the hon. gentleman for what he has done towards maintaining a hospital for the Indians at Caughnawaga. For many years it was known that the Indians were exposed, especially to tuberculosis, until a certain lady from France devoted her fortune to help those poor unfortunates. Although she had quite a large fortune, yet the maintenance of a hospital at Caughnawaga required the help of the Government. I appealed not in vain to the present Minister of the Interior, and he very graciously acquiesced to the request to aid that hospital. I am proud to say that with what has been given annually for the maintenance of that hospital the lady in question has been in a position to grant a very considerable relief to the band at Caughnawaga. Now that my hon. friend has done so nobly for that cause, I would appeal to him again, this time not for financial aid, because I understand that for the present he has done well enough towards the institution. But for the last two years a quarry which, I think, belongs to the Government as it is on the reserve, has been exploited by a gentleman in Montreal, Mr. Giroux, in virtue of a contract passed with one of the departments. That quarry is in the neighbourhood of the institution and as a result of its exploitation there is, first, the noise which is very annoying to the patients, and, secondly, a dust which invades the institution much to the worry of the medical staff, the nurses and the inmates. May I press the minister to see that this quarry is not further exploited. I believe that stone can be extracted from another point on the reserve, and surely the welfare of the sick and the staff of the hospital should take precedence over the little profits which might be made from the operation of the quarry. I think the minister might safely put the matter into the hands of his deputy by whom it would be dealt with expeditiously. In fact, I have taken on myself to interview Mr. Scott on two occasions, and we have appointed ourselves a delegation to wait on the minister in order to see if this annoyance cannot be abated.


Mr. ROCHE:: I understand there have been some negotiations between the com-

pany having the lease for the stone quarry and the department, and that some complaints have been made to the department regarding the noise, dust, etc. The company has promised to mitigate these annoyances to the greatest possible extent, although I do not know if the noise can be abated. If stone could be removed from another part.of the reserve, I think that would be quite satisfactory.
Indians, Nova Scotia-Salaries, $4,400.


George William Kyte: What determination has been arrived at regarding the disposition of the Indian Reserve at Sydney? I think this was in the Exchequer Court a year or so ago.


William Roche: In accordance with the Indian Act, Judge Audette, of the Exchequer Court, went to Sydney, took evidence and completed his report. Under the terms of the Indian Act, this report is to be submitted to the Governor in Council and then to be submitted to Parliament and to be approved or disapproved by resolution at the next ensuing session. I had the privilege of laying the report upon the Table some time ago, and the resolution is now on the Order Paper and will come up in course of time for discussion. It is not my intention to ask any appropriation at this session of Parliament for the purchase of a new reserve. Judge Audette has recommended that the Indians be removed from their present reserve in the town and that another reserve be secured for them, but it is not my intention to ask for any new reserve at the present session.


George William Kyte: Has any determination been arrived at as to where the new reserve is to be located?


William Roche: Three alternative sites have been examined and reported on by Judge Audette. He recommends one of these three; but there has been no determination as to which of the three should be selected, as I thought it somewhat premature, during war time, to vote a sum for this purpose when the matter was not very urgent.


George William Kyte: How is the land in the present reserve to be disposed of?


William Roche: By auction sale.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the removal of the Sydney reserve, how did it become necessary to invoke the terms of the Act? To what extent did the Indians make objection, and on what grounds?


William Roche: I was informed that it was by reason of the circumstances connected with this particular reserve that my hon. friend introduced the amendment to the Indian Act in 1911. This reserve is on one of the main thoroughfares in the city of Sydney, which has a population of about 19,000. On several occasions agents of the department interviewed the Indians and endeavoured to get them to make a surrender. The Indians, however, refused to do so, largely on the ground that, as many of them work in the steel plant and the reserve is convenient to their occupations in the city, a change would 'be inconvenient. Some of them are quite agreeable to surrender provided they get another suitable reserve, but they do not wish to be moved any considerable distance from the town.


Frank Oliver: What was offered the Indians as a consideration for their voluntary removal?


William Roche: Practically the same considerations and provisions as are offered now by the judge of the Exchequer Court: that we should sell their land to the best possible advantage, move them to another reserve as convenient and suitable as possible, erect their houses on the new reserve, and put them in possession.


Frank Oliver: As a general rule, when surrenders are taken from the Indians they are guaranteed a minimum valuation on their original property. Is there any such guarantee in this case, and if so, what is the amount?


William Roche: No. We are to dispose of their present reserve by public auction.


Frank Oliver: And they are to have no protection in the way of a minimum price?


William Roche: They would, no doubt,
have the protection of an upset price on the land. We will rehabilitate them in their new reserve and place them under as favourable conditions as possible. We have always endeavoured to protect the rights of the Indians in the past, and shall do so in the future. It is only when they object upon what we consider to be unreasonable grounds that we invoke the terms of the Indian Act. We think they have every guarantee of getting value for their present reserve by our establishing an upset price and disposing of the land by public auction. In a city of that size there would likely be considerable competition for land in the middle of the city and on the main thoroughfare.


Frank Oliver: As I took some responsibility for placing this amendment in the Indian Act, I am interested in this its first application. While I appreciated at the time the necessity of some such provision, I did not fail to appreciate the right of property held by the Indians in their reserve, and I should be sorry if the minister has not retained that appreciation in his dealings with this Indian band. I know that the circumstances are such as to make it desirable that the Indians should be removed from this reserve, and I appreciate the fact that there may have been difficulties in the way of securing their consent. But when' the strong arm of the law is invoked in dealing with the property of these people and with their personal rights, the Government should take not a less careful but a more careful view of the measure of those rights. They should be sure that nothing is done to derogate from the right of those people to the full value of the property. The property is well known to the public and it must have some measure of fixed value, if city real estate has any fixed value to-day in Canada. The services of the Commissioner should have been utilized to satisfy the Indians and those who wished to see justice done them that they would get a fair value for the land; and the sum so considered to be a fair value should be stated to the Indians as well as to the House. My hon. friend will understand that I make no suggestion of impropriety of action on his part or on the part of any of his officials.
But I can see very grave danger in the fact of the Government simply reaching out its hand and taking away their property from these people and selling it to the highest bidder without giving any assurance to them or t<o the country that they will be absolutely protected. I do not need to go into any further details as to what may occur in such cases, but it will certainly appear right to the minister that he should have availed himself of the services of a commissioner tp place a valuation upon that village.


William Roche: That has been done.


Frank Oliver: I have asked the minister for that valuation, and he has not given it to me.


William Roche: I think the hon. gentleman must have misunderstood me. The commissioner did inquire and take evidence as to the value of the' present reserve, and he has given his estimate of the value. I just forget the amount, but it was some-

where in the neighbourhood of $5,000. The hon. member knows that the reserve consisted of only a little over two acres.


Frank Oliver: Yes, I am quite aware of that.	.


William Roche: The commissioner took
evidence from several parties as to the valuation of the land, and he made a recommendation himself as to the value of it.


Frank Oliver: That, of course, clears the point provided that the department is prepared to stand by that valuation of the commissioner and to guarantee that amount as a minimum to the Indians. That is what I have been arguing for in/ my remarks. Now that the minister has stated the amount, it has become public, and while some may think the amount too small and some too large, unless the amount is fixed and publicly stated, I still mainlain chat the Indians are not receiving fair protection.


Mr. CARROLL:: I understand the minister has been discussing the Sydney reserve?


William Roche: Yes.


William F. Carroll: The minister has made the statement that there are three sites available; where are the sites?


William Roche: A couple of weeks ago I
laid the report of the judge upon the table of the House. I cannot carry all the details in my memory.


William F. Carroll: I will look into the matter myself. The minister will recollect that this "subject was brought up a few years ago, and that I suggested to him then that the Indians of the Sydney reserve are in a somewhat different position from the Indians in other parts of the Maritime Provinces. The Indians at Whycocomagh and other reserves are following their ancient occupations of basket-making and tubmaking, but the Indians of Sydney get work around Sydney and they do not follow the old occupations of the Indian tribes in that district. The only interest that I have in the matter, as representing the Indians, is that I should like the minister to take precautions to see that the Indians are not sent so far away from Sydney that they will not be in a position to follow the occupations in which they have been brought up, such as working in the mines or with private families. Apart from that, it would be for the interest of Sydney that the Indians should be removed.


William Roche: I .do not think there will be any interference with regard to their following their former occupations.


George William Kyte: I presume there will be a surplus left out of the $5,000 after paying for the new reserve. What is proposed to be done with that surplus?


William Roche: My hon. friend means the surplus over and above the $5,000, that is, if we put the land up for sale and it fetches more than $5,000.


George William Kyte: Yes.


William Roche: That would go to the Indians.


George William Kyte: Is the amount to be funded for them or distributed amongst the members of the tribe? [DOT]


William Roche: The hon. member overlooks this fact. We have to secure a new reserve, and the amount received for the land will not be nearly sufficient to place the Indians on a new reserve, and we shall have to come to Parliament for an extra appropriation. The surplus over and above the $5,000 will he applied to the expense of settling the Indians on the new reserve. We shall have to purchase a reserve, have buildings put up, remove the Indians and so on, so that the surplus over the $5,000 will be applied to that.
Indian Department-Miscellaneous and unforeseen, $9,162.


John Gillanders Turriff: How much of the vote for miscellaneous and unforeseen was expended last year?


William Roche: In 1915-16, $3,758.


John Gillanders Turriff: Do the officers of my hon. friend's department not know approximately how much of the vote was expended last year?


William Roche: The deputy informs me that it was nearly all expended.
New Brunswick Indians-Salaries, relief, medical attendance and medicines, miscellaneous and unforeseen, repairs to roads, and to provide for encouragement of agriculture, $16,284.


William Roche: That is the. same amount as last year.


Mr. COPP:: How many officials are included in the salary item?


William Roche: There is the superintendent of the northeastern division; there is an agent at Buctouche; there is an agent at Fredericton for the southwestern division;
there is an agent at Perth for the northern division, and then we have constables at Big Cove, Kent County, Burnt Church, Northumberland county and Eel Ground, Northumberland county.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Has the agent at Perth been changed lately?


William Roche: Mr. Wootten is the agent there.


Pius Michaud: There was a Mr. Waite there.


William Roche: He was removed some time ago.	.


Pius Michaud: For what reason?


William Roche: The hon. gentleman will remember that either last session or the session before there was some discussion in connection with some timber cutting on the reserve, and as we did not think that Mr. Waite fulfilled all his duties on that occasion, we removed him from his position .


Pius Michaud: It is very unfortunate that Mr. Waite has been removed froth his position, because if he had remained as agent of the Indian reserve, probably the wood that the minister mentions would be preserved better than ft will be now.


William Roche: It was during Mr. Waite's regimp that the wood was removed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Surely the minister does not blame Mr. Waite for cutting timber on the Indian reserve. I know something about the matter, and I do not think the minister ought to make that charge against Mr. Waite, because Mr. Waite did all he could to preserve the Tobique Indian reserve, when a friend of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries went as far as he could go. I want to give the Minister of the Interior credit that when he found out exactly what the condition was, he stopped the cutting of timber. The minister is entitled to a good deal of credit for saving an Indian reserve from the political grafters who are after it. Do not blame Mr. Waite for this.


George William Kyte: Is it the intention of the Government to appoint a second superintendent of Indian agencies for the Maritime Provinces9


William Roche: No.


Pius Michaud: Is there a special appropriation for repairing the road on the Indian reserve at Edmundston?


William Roche: Yes.


Pius Michaud: I hope the grant 'will be sufficient to put this road in good repair, because every spring it is almost impossible to go through that Indian reserve, and as that road is the main highway along the St. John river, I hope the minister will give a good grant so that we shall have a pretty good road in the near future.


William Roche: There has been some correspondence on that matter.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I should like to know if a certain gentleman by the name of Colonel Sheridan is still in the employ of the department as Indian agent in the .province of New Brunswick.


William Roche: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the minister remember that about a year ago I pointed out to him that this gentleman had been compelled to resign his seat in the Legislature of New Brunswick for -wrong-doing. I do not want to go into the details again to-night, for I gave them to .the minister a year ago, and the minister was very much surprised, I believe, when he got that information. He promised to investigate the matter, and I think he even went so far as to say that if the facts were as alleged Colonel Sheridan was not.a proper man to occupy a position under the Government. So strong was the feeling against the conduct of this gentleman and his confreres in the county of Kent that at the last provincial election the Conservative majority of 800 was converted into a Liberal majority of 600. In the face of all these facts, will the minister still persist in keeping a man of that stamp in the employ of this Government at a big salary? It seems to me I am putting up a fair proposition. I believe the minister wants to administer the department fairly. I have always had the most courteous treatment from him, and have always found him disposed to do what is right and fair, and I therefore cannot understand how he can continue to employ this man in view of the very distressing circumstances which I pointed out to him last year.


William Roche: I remember the hon. gentleman bringing to my attention certain statements of his own about Colonel Sheridan; I had never heard of the circumstances before, and I promised to make an inquiry. I looked up the judge's report, and if I recollect aright Colonel Sheridan was censured by the judge who tried the case for certain indiscretions. I think certain work had been done in the name of his son.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The trouble is that the work was not done, but his son drew the pay for it. Names were added to the pay list and the money was paid to Colonel Sheridan.	.


William Roche: I understand that certain small amounts were paid. I knew nothing of the circumstances when I appointed Colonel Sheridan, and after looking into the circumstances related by my hon. friend, I did not think Colonel Sheridan had been guilty of impropriety such as would warrant me in dismissing him, as he was carrying out his duties as Indian Agent quite properly.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the minister think that a man who was not fit to sit in the legislature of New Brunswick, because of irregular practices, itf a perfectly fit and proper person to act as Indian Agent in his department?


William Roche: I do not know whether he was fit to sit in the legislature or not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He got out.


William Roche: Lots of men get out.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am sorry for the minister. I want to say here publicly that I spoke to the minister about the raid on the timber on the Tobique reserve, and the minister did everything a minister of the Crown could be expected to do. I want to give him credit publicly for saving that reserve to the Indians, but I am sorry, after he has done so well in that respect, to see him allowing this condition of affairs to exist in another , part of the province.


William Roche: I am sorry my colleague from New Brunswick is not in his place", because he is better acquainted with the circumstances. I know he has a different idea from my hon. friend.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think the minister's colleague is very glad indeed that he was temporarily called out of the Chamber.


Charles Marcil: I was not in the House when the Quebec vote for the Indians was passed. Was any road-making done on the Maria and Restigouche reserves last year, and is any contemplated for the coming summer?


William Roche: Work was done last year, and we intend to do work on both reserves this summer.	[DOT]


Charles Marcil: How much work was done last year, and how much will be done this summer?


William Roche: $500 was expended on each reserve last year, and we expect to spend about the same amount this year.


Charles Marcil: Will that complete the
work that is contemplated?
Mr." ROCHE:	We usually spread the
work over a series of years,


Charles Marcil: Who is in charge of the work?


William Roche: Nobody has been appointed for the work this summer.


Charles Marcil: Is the work being done
by day labour?	[DOT]


William Roche: Yes, I can get the foreman's name for my hon. friend later on.


Charles Marcil: Are Indians employed in this work, or any body at all? [DOT]


William Roche: We give Indians the preference.


Charles Marcil: Were any Indians employed on these reserves?


William Roche: That is my impression.


Charles Marcil: Who is the medical officer in charge of the Restigouche Reserve?


William Roche: Dr. Martin. -


Charles Marcil: Who is the medical officer in charge of the Maria Reserve?


William Roche: Dr. Boileau.	'


Charles Marcil: Do they receive a salary, or are they paid fees?


William Roche: Dr. Boileau receives $300
per annum. Dr. Martin is paid on account and receives no stipulated salary.


Charles Marcil: Have any requests been
made for seed grain to increase the grain production on the Restigouche Reserve? A petition was sent here some time ago asking that the Reserve be fenced in, so that the Indians could go in for more extensive production,


William Roche: They made a request, and their request has been granted.


Charles Marcil: To what extent?


William Roche: Whatever they asked for
was granted. I think it was in the neighbourhood of $500.


Charles Marcil: Do you buy the grain?


William Roche: The agent buys the grain.


Charles Marcil: Does he purchase from
the Government or anywhere he likes?


William Roche: He has a free hand.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Has the minister received any complaints from the band at Woodstock, New Brunswick, that they were not being treated fairly in the distribution of supplies? I have always had very grave doubts of the wisdom of the policy of sup. plying the Indians with a few 'pounds of pork or flour, but it has been the custom ever since. Confederation, and I am not going to raise that question now.
I know that a great deal of fault is found with the giving of supplies, on the ground that the Indian is not treated fairly. I do not know whether that is true or not, but I know that representations to that effect have been made to the department. The charge is that when the Indian wants supplies he must go to a certain store with his order for two dollars, five dollars, or whatever it may be. The storekeeper, they complain, gives them some things, but will not give them others. The information I get is that they could not get pork or flour, but could get other things that they do not want. Also, they claim that they are charged such exorbitant prices that their order only lasts for a few minutes. I do not make any charge, but I draw the matter to the attention of the minister without mentioning names. Has he made an investigation, and if so, what is the result?


William Roche: Complaints have been made along the lines indicated by the hon. member (Mr. Carvell). The deputy minister instructed the inspector to investigate these charges and this was done. The report of the inspector was favourable to the action of the agent, and showed that there was comparatively little in the charges.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Were the Indians given an opportunity to be heard, or was the investigation an ex parte one? If an investigation was ever held in which the Indians were allowed to be represented, I have not heard of it, and I may tell the minister that an investigation purely ex parte, under the conditions existing in New Brunswick to-day in his department, would be of little use. I did a little investigating myself, and came to the conclusion that there was reason to believe that the Indians were justified in the position they took. It is for that reason I bring the matter to the minister's attention. I certainly do not want to do injustice to anybody; I am making no charges, but there was sufficient evidence to satisfy me that there ought to be either a change of merchants or a change in procedure of supplying goods to the Indians.


William Roche: My information is that the Indians were afforded an opportunity to give evidence. I will send the hon. gentleman a copy of the report.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And will the minister please send, also, a copy of the evidence on which the report is based?


Charles Marcil: With regard to the Resti-gouche reserve, has any application been made to secure any part of that reserve as a pulpwood limit and mill site?


William Roche: No.


Charles Marcil: Has there been any move in that direction?


William Roche: No.


Pius Michaud: I understand that the
province of New Brunswick will spend some money on the Indian reserve at Edmunds-ton, and so will the Department of the Interior. Has the minister named a person to supervise the work? And, if so, has he appointed the commissioner of the parish, or has he appointed the commissioner from Edmundston, near which the land is situated?


William Roche: We have not named anyone.


Pius Michaud: Is it the intention of
the Government to employ either of the men I have suggested, or will somebody else be appointed?


William Roche: That point has not been
under consideration as yet, the money for the year not having been voted.


Pius Michaud: I hope the minister
will take into consideration the appointment either of the commissioner for the town of Edmundston or the commissioner for the parish of St. Basil. I know them both, and both are good men.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I was not in my place
when the Indian Estimates for Ontario were going through. May I be permitted to ask if the minister will let me have the tenders for the sale of timber on the Shawgnaga reserve in January, 1917, and the prices at which the timber was sold?


William Roche: I will get that information.


Charles Marcil: Is the same method followed in regard to the Indians of the Quebec reserves as with the Indians of the New Brunswick reserves in the matter of supplies? Is an Indian given an order for [DOT]supplies?


William Roche: The Indian is not handed the money to go and buy wherever he likes, but the agent directs where the supplies are to be purchased.


Charles Marcil: Are the charges for goods sold to the Indians supervised by the department?


William Roche: Yes.


Charles Marcil: The purchases for the Restigouche reserve would have to be made in Campbellton, N.B.?


William Roche: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: How many Indian reserves are there in New Brunswick?


William Roche: Twenty-six.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is one located at Dorchester?


William Roche: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The number of Indians there is very small, and I did not know whether it was a regular reserve, or whether the Indians had dropped in there themselves and were being looked after more or less by the agents in the province of New Brunswick? Following up what has been said by the hon. member for Oarleton (Mr. Carvell), I may say that from what I have been able to learn [DOT] with regard to supplies furnished to Indians in my own county, no check at all seems to be kept. There may be a telephone message purporting to come from the Indian agent at some distance away, and on that authority supplies may be taken to the camp for the Indians. But there seems to be no check, the agent himself does not know what is actually supplied except as he is informed by those who furnish the supplies. The appropriation for this purpose for the province of New Brunswick is small, but for the whole country the aggregate is a very considerable one, and as this is a business matter, one would think that businesslike care should be exercised to have some check on the goods supplied, and the prices charged.
Some, of course, do such work as the loading of vessels in the harbour in that locality. We can understand that complaints might readily be made by those people when there are perhaps not very good grounds for them but I do know that the supplying of the Indians is done in a most 'offhand way by telephone message, or something of that kind, the goods are taken to the camp and nobody knows anything more about them till somebody sends a bill.


William Roche: We must have confidence in the agent and he certifies to these ac-

counts before they come to the department. We depend on his business capacity and honesty to see that these are proper accounts. I could quite well understand that if he was 25 miles away from the Indians who were going to be supplied he could not be present to check over the supplies and he would have to telephone to place the order. But, he is supposed, in the discharge of his duties, to see that the Indians are not imposed upon. If the hon. gentleman has information with regard to some individual Indians, or if he knows the Indian character well enough, he will know that they are not at all averse to putting up a kick occasionally and that if there is any ground, and sometimes if there is none at all, they grumble. But, we do trust to the reliability of our agents to see that they are not imposed upon.


Mr. OOPP:: I quite understand that the complaints of a very large class of them would have to be taken more or less with a grain of salt. But, we have an agent who has charge of the reserves in my county who lives not 20 miles away from the reserve but possibly 60 or 70 miles away. There are places in Westmorland where there will be only four or five families of Indians. I did not know whether they were regular Indian reserves or not or whether they were just small communities. At Dorchester there are only a few families and yet I understand, it is a regular Indian reserve. The minister says that the agent must certify to the accounts. Anybody who knows the conditions at all knows that when the agent certifies to the accounts he has no more information about these accounts than the minister has himself. These matters are small but I think it would be well to reorganize the system down there and have somebody in the different localities to see that the goods that are purchased for the Indian tribes are properly supplied and that they get value for the money paid. We should have some assurance that the goods are supplied at fair and reasonable prices. The agent has no information in regard to these matters that would enable him to certify to the accuracy of the accounts and he simply accepts the accounts from the merchants and those who supply the goods. These merchants might as well send the accounts direct to the department and do away with the agent altogether because he is absolutely of no use.


William Roche: What would the hon. gentleman suggest?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would suggest that, rather than have an agent there who does not know the value of the goods supplied, the merchants should send their accounts direct to the department.


William Roche: The only thing about that is that the Auditor General could not pass them.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Unless you adopt some
special plan to get around the Auditor General, I suppose we cannot expect anything else. But, I speak seriously about this matter. There is no one who has sufficient knowledge to certify to these accounts, and it is a matter of leaving the merchants to supply the goods to the different reserves. Whether they supply the goods or not they charge for them and they are paid.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was not in the House when the Nova Scotia items were up, and if you will pardon me, Mr. Chairman, for a moment, I would like to refer to a few little things appertaining to the Nova Scotia vote which has just been passed. Near the town where I live we have a small colony of Indians. They have no reserve and no land. There are a few 9 p.m. families, numbering about 20 or something like that. They have been living on the same land, I suppose, for forty years. It is only through the kindness and generosity of the people who own the land that they are permitted to reside on it. Some day these people will turn them off, I suppose. Often, in the old days before this Government came into power, I used, to speak to my hon. friend's predecessor, the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs about this matter, but I could not get anything done. I think the Indians should be taken away altogether and put with the Indians at Sydney, or some other provision made for them. There is no agent or doctor there. The doctor at Sydney is the nearest doctor, and at a certain season of the year he has to go 17 miles to reach them. In the summer time there is a ferry and it is only five miles. But in the winter time, when the Indians would be likely to require the services, of a doctor, the nearest doctor would be 17 miles away. The same care should be taken of this little colony as is taken of Indians in other parts. The land on which they live is not valuable land and it would not be expensive to get a few acres for them where they are so that they would be on their own property. I realise



that it would be very difficult to get them to give up the place because they have become attached to- the spot where they have been living for -forty or, perhaps, fifty years. But they never had any organization or anything done for them.
I also want to say a word about the Sydney Indians. I have lived in Sydney for many years and I know many of these Indians -personally. I took a great deal of interest in the report that I saw had been made with regard to their removal. I would suggest to the minister that instead of selling this land, for which he might get a few thousand dollars, he should give it to the city. We will call it Roche Park and it will commemorate the minister for all time to come. Sydney is quite a large city and in that end of the town where the reserve is located there is no land available for park purposes. It is right on the seashore, and it is valuable property for a park. It is outside of the commercial part of the city. I presume the water front is still the property of the Government, and it could be made a beauty spot and would be of great value to the city and people generally. The ordinary man in Sydney, with his wife and children, having the privilege of visiting that park, going to the shore and enjoying the magnificent bathing place there, would bless the memory of the minister if he made that reserve into a small public park. The money that he would get for it is a mere bagatelle and would soon be forgotten. To give this land to the city as a park would be an excellent and generous thing to do. Victoria Park, at the other end of the city, was practically given to the city for park purposes by the Imperial Government. It was Admiralty ground in the time when the island of Cape Breton was a province and Sydney was a garrison city. That park has been beautified by the city. About a mile And a half awray to the south is this little bit of land occupied by the Indians, and it is rather a drawback to that part of the city. The Indians themselves would be better off elsewhere. I would suggest that it would be better not to hand the money to be paid to the Indians for this land direct to them, but rather to place it in the hands of trustees, such as the Indian agent, who is a very capable man, and Reverend Pather McAdam, the priest there, who has been very kind to the Indians. In this way the money would be paid to the Indians at intervals when they needed it, whereas if it were given to them direct they would spend it very quickly and in a way which would not be to their own advantage.

I would suggest also that the small settlement of Indians who have really squatted in the town of North Sydney should be removed. They occupy land really by the grace of the owners, and have been there for about thirty years. I know that it will be difficult to get them to stay in any other place as the Indian is peculiar in that way.


William Roche: When I said that any surplus over the estimate of $5,000 would be handed to the Indians, I overlooked the fact- that there would not likely be any surplus as it would cost a good deal more than $5,000 to secure a reserve for the Indians elsewhere. As to the suggestion that this land should be handed over to the city of Sydney for park purposes, I do not wash to say anything to prejudice the proposal, but this is the first time it has been made. The city of Sydney seems to be rather apathetic on the whole question; I do not think that any of the municipal officials even appeared before Judge Audette. It has been the intention, if possible, to place the Indians at North Sydney on the same reserve with those from Sydney when a new reserve is obtained.
Indians, Manitoba, .Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest territories-General expenses, $263,924.


John Gillanders Turriff: Why are the salaries not put by themselves in connection with this item as is the case of the other provinces?
Mr: ROOHE: I presume it is because, from time immemorial, it has been done in this way and the salaries have been paid from the item of general expenses. The same thing has bene done in Quebec and Ontario.


John Gillanders Turriff: How much of the item for general expenses is for salaries?


William Roche: $145,542.


John Gillanders Turriff: What, in a general way, are the details of the balance of that item?


William Roche: Rations, miscellaneous,
fuel, feed, live-stock, equipment and buildings.	.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: What is meant by triennial clothing?


William Roche: The chiefs' clothing, given under the terms of the treaty every three years.


Frank Oliver: There is an amount here
for surveys. Are these surveys of new re-

serves, and if so, in what part of the country are they to be made?


William Roche: The surveys projected for 1916-17 are as follows:	Survey of certain
reserves under provision of Treaty No. 8. A proposed exchange of the Pine Creek reserve. Small exchanges requested by the Indians and granted at the Blood Vein River and the Berens River reserves require to be surveyed. A small reserve containing a supply of wood and timber for the Norway House hand is to he surveyed. Tpwnplot of Fairford to he reposted and revalued. Small area of land d-ue Indian band at Cumberland House to be surveyed. A small reserve for hay purposes for the Moose Lake hand. An addition to the Chi-mawawin Indian reserve 32-F. A number of reserves under provisions of Treaty No. 10. Survey ,of land at Battle lake for the Riding Mountain hand, Man. The defining of the limits between the marsh lands and the Brokenhead reserve at its northwest corner. .


Frank Oliver: Has the department
knowledge of any requirements in the way of further surveys in the Peace River country?


William Roche: The reserves in northern
Alberta have been practically all completed. We expect to finish the surveys in a comparatively short time.


Frank Oliver: Are some reserves located that are not surveyed?


William Roche: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Where are those locations?


William Roche: In the neighbourhood of
Fort McMurray.	-


Frank Oliver: I had occasion to communicate with the department recently with regard to a small reserve in the neighbourhood of Fort McMurray. Are there many more in that vicinity?.


William Roche: There is a Treaty, No. 8, in that district. Some of the surveys are not yet completed. It may require a season's work to finish them.


Frank Oliver: Are any other reserves
contemplated within a radius of 20 or 30 miles of Fort McMurray that are not already located and surveyed?


William Roche: I understand that one has been requested, but our surveyors have not as yet been up to look at it.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to criticise the. location or the arrangment with the
120i
Indians; I am desirous of seeing the Indians treated with all fairness. But a railroad has been built to within 20 miles of Fort McMurray; it is anticipated that the rails-will reach that place this summer. Many people of a more or less speculative disposition will then go into that country, and as there are mineral possibilities, they will desire to locate in various places. It is very disconcerting, confusing and unsatisfactory to a prospector who has gone into a new country and made his location to be displaced in the interests of the Indians. Where there is an immediate development resulting from railroad construction the question of Indian reservations should already have been settled; it should not be left until the railroad has arrived on the ground. If further reserves are to be located and surveyed in that locality I urge upon the minister the desirability of making those locations and surveys as' early this summer as possible, in order to avoid confusion and dissatisfaction. __


William Roche: I understand that the reserves have been practically all located. The Indian branch has requested the Department of the Interior not to throw these lands open for homesteaed, the idea being to establish an Indian reserve upon them. I understand that the Interior Department have complied with that request. We will expedite the work with a view to meeting the condition which the hon. gentleman says is likely to arise through the completion of the railway.


Frank Oliver: This is a question not between the Indian Department and the Department of the Interior, but between the Government and the public. The reservation by the Interior Department of a section of land for a prospective Indian reserve may cause the greatest possible annoyance to the prospector and tempt him to make trouble for the authorities. I repeat that the question of Indian reservations should have been settled before -the construction of the railroad and the coming in of prospectors. I would urge upon the minister the necessity of making these locations and surveys as soon as possible. It would be good for the Government, good for the prospector, and good for the country. Are any surrenders of reserves or parts of reserves in prospect in the prairie West?


William Roche: I cannot recall that any surrender has been called for in any of the prairie provinces.


Frank Oliver: There are no negotiations going on?


William Roche: We have already arranged to have a sale of a portion of the Blackfoot reserve that was surrendered some time ago.


Frank Oliver: Recently surrendered?


William Roche: No, it is an old surrender.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps 1 am not in order to ask this question of the Minister of Indian Affairs, but if not, I will ask the Minister of the Interior what is the present policy in regard to the issue of scrip to Indians under treaty who, on pretense of being half-breeds, withdraw from the treaty and thereby become eligible under the original conditions for an issue of scrip.


William Roche: The policy of the department is that we are not issuing any more scrip, and I hope we are done with that business.


Frank Oliver: I understood that to be the policy, but I would just like to have it as absolute and definite as the minister can give it. Do I understand him to say that no further half-breed scrip will be issued to any Indian withdrawing from treaty in the Prairie Provinces?


William Roche: Certainly. It is not my intention to authorise any such issue. I will answer for myself so long as I am in the department.
.Mr. OLIVER: From time to time, the question is asked me by constituents and others, and I wish to be able to make on the subject a formal statement in which I shall be supported by the minister.
British Columbia Indians-salaries, relief to destitute Indians, to assist Indians in farming, fruit culture and cleansing orchard, hospital, medical attendance and medicines, travelling expenses, office, miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses, surveys, $166,050.


William Roche: There is a reduction of $16,600.


John Gillanders Turriff: Are the expenses in connection with the Commission on Indian Reservations paid out of this vote? I refer to the commission that has been at work in British Columbia for some years.


William Roche: There is no appropriation this year. The commission has gone out of existence.


John Gillanders Turriff: The commission is no
longer drawing salaries?


William Roche: It is no longer drawing salaries.


John Gillanders Turriff: I notice in an answer given to a question on the 3rd of May last

that Mr. N. W. White, K.C., had drawn just for himself alone, the sum of $35,183.37. Does the minister not think that is somewhat in the nature of-what shall I say?


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: Slightly extravagant.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: That must have been
before the war.


William Roche: Mr. White was appointed commissioner under an Order in Council passed several years ago. He was chairman of the commission. I am sorry to say that the gentleman has since died.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am very sorry to hear that, but still I do not think that relieves the Government of a considerable amount of responsibility for the fact that one man in connection with a commission of that kind, that, to my mind, was practically unnecessary, should be allowed to dilly-dally the work along until he draws over $35,000 out of the department.


Frank Oliver: What is the result of the work of the commission?


William Roche: The commission ceased
their labours last July, and under the terms of the Order in Council appointing them, they were to make a report to the provincial government and to the Dominion Government, which report was to be adopted by the two governments prior to its being submitted to Parliament. The report was furnished just about the time that the old government in British Columbia weTe in the midst of an election campaign, and they were too busy with other matters to deal with this report. The new government, since it has come into power, has been busily occupied; it has held its first session of Parliament. We have had some communications with the prime minister of British Columbia to "try to expedite the consideration of the report in order that we might have the matter taken up and action taken at this session. Mr. Brewster stated that he was far too busy to give the report his attention during the session of Parliament, but that he would have it taken up as expeditiously as possible and have it dealt with. We are awaiting the action of the British Columbia Government before taking any further proceedings prior to laying the report upon the table of the House.


Frank Oliver: What was the purpose to be achieved by this somewhat luxurious commission?


William Roche: The hon. gentleman knows that the question of Indian reserves in British Columfbia has been a great bone of contention between the Indians, the provincial government, and the Dominion Government for many years past, and this commission was appointed with a view to clearing up all these difficulties. It was claimed by the Indians that they were not in possession of sufficient land for their purposes, and the contention was made by the British Columbia Government that in many instances there was far too much land for the number of Indians, and in order to do away with those conflicting representations it was decided to have this commission investigate each reserve. That was done very thoroughly, and I believe a very excellent report was made. The country is mountainous and very extensive, and many reserves are difficult of access. The commission visited each reserve personally and that meant a great deal of time. They took evidence of all the Indians interested, and they have made recommendations that those reserves in which it was found that there was too much land for the Indians to occupy should be cut down to what the commission considered to be the requisite area, and in other reserves where they considered the land was too small" in area for a reserve they have recommended that additions be made. It was with the reserves alone that this commission was occupied, and while I am not at liberty to divulge the nature of the report, because it is a very voluminous and exhaustive document, I believe they have made a most excellent report and one which I trust will commend itself to all parties concerned. From what little conversation I have had with the Premier of British Columbia in regard to the matter, I am inclined to think there will not be much difficulty in having his government approve the report, and if that is the case I am satisfied, from my slight perusal of portions of the report, that it should recommend itself to the Dominion Government as well. I cannot go into the details of the recommendations, because there is a separate report on each reserve, but the recommendations were along the lines I have indicated.


Frank Oliver: When was the commission appointed?


William Roche: I think in 1913. I was in the Old Country at the time the commission was appointed.


Frank Oliver: What was the total bill?


William Roche: The total bill, including salaries, travelling and all other expenses, amounted to $316,782, of which the province of British Columbia bears one half.


Frank Oliver: Did the closing of the work of the commission and the change of government in British Columbia merely synchronize, or had one any bearing on the other?	.


William Roche: I would not venture an opinion on that.


John Gillanders Turriff: How many commissioners were appointed?


William Roche: Five.


John Gillanders Turriff: The report would need to be good seeing that it cost over $300,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the report been printed?


William Roche: Yes, but under the terms of the Order in Council appointing the commission, the report has to be approved by both governments before it can be laid on the Table.


Frank Oliver: Laying it on the Table will be merely a matter of form, as the subject has already been settled before it comes to the consideration of this Parliament.


William Roche: It is not a mere matter of form. The people's representatives have a perfect right to criticise the report and to see how the money was expended, but we are not permitted to lay the report on the Table until it has been endorsed by the two governments.


Frank Oliver: That means that an effective criticism by Parliament would be the defeat of the Government. That seems to be going o.utside altogether of parliamentary procedure. It is taking the control of affairs out of the hands of Parliament very effectively. I think the conditions surrounding the- issue of the commission are nearly as remarkable as the expenditure on its behalf.


John Gillanders Turriff: What is the object of laying a report on the Table when the time has passed for discussing it effectively?


William Roche: It is only right that hon. gentlemen should have access to the information secured by the commission.


John Howard Sinclair: It would be interesting to get the names of the commissioners and the items making up that total.


William Roche: That is a pretty large order, as the expenditure is spread over three years; the items are all shown in the Auditor General's reports.


John Howard Sinclair: What are the names of the commissioners?	[DOT]


William Roche: The appointees of the Dominion Government were N. W. White, S. Carmichael and J. A. J. McKenna; and the appointees of the British Columbia Government, Mr. J. P. Shaw and Mr. D. H. Macdowall. Mr. White replaced Chief Justice Wetmore, who was the chairman originally.


John Howard Sinclair: What was the amount paid to each of these gentlemen?


William Roche: The commissioners received a per diem allowance of $20, and the chairman $25 a day.


John Howard Sinclair: They received that
amount for three years?


William Roche: Yes.


Frank Oliver: I think it is a most fortunate thing for this Dominion of Canada that the Government of British Columbia changed. This arrangement seems to have been a deal between the Government of British Columbia alid the Dominion Government to divide up, as they saw fit, certain valuable assets belonging either to the Indians or to the province of British Columbia, and charging the expense to the province and the Dominion without regard to the Parliament of the Dominion or the legislature of the province. As/a specimen of autocratic government and disregard of the rights of the people and of their representatives, I think that stands absolutely in a class by itself.


John Howard Sinclair: I see that in addition
to his salary Mr. White received a living allowance of $10 a day. Was that the case with the other commissioners?


William Roche: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: And travelling expenses too?


William Roche: Just transportation.


John Gillanders Turriff: What is the object of
allowing $10 a day for living allowance? If the commissioners stayed at the Canadian Pacific Railway hotel in Victoria all the time it would only cost them $5 a day. At the small hotels it would cost them much less, and in cases where they had to carry provisions with them, it wquld be 
less still. The minister must know that it never costs $10 a day to live in British Columbia.


William Roche: Some of these gentlemen
were engaged in professional life, and they had to throw up their professions. British Columbia is an expensive country to live and travel in. All these things were considered when the Order in Council was passed, and the Government came to the conclusion that $10 a day would be a reasonable allowance.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister seems to
have raised the rate per diem. I see that from April 1, 1915, to March 31, 1916, the chairman was allowed 366 days at $25 a day, or $9,150; also a living allowance of $10 a day for 366 days, $3,660; and travelling ' expenses $121.75, making a total for Mr. White during that period of $12,931.75. He was paid for Sundays throughout the whole year.


William Roche: Yes, the regular salary
of $25 a day and $10 living allowance.


John Howard Sinclair: Were the commissioners all paid on the same basis?


William Roche: Yes, except the chairman.


Frank Oliver: What is the position with * regard to the Kitsilano reserve?


William Roche: The Vancouver Harbour
Commissioners wanted this property for harbour purposes and they expropriated it. The price was to be fixed by a board of arbitration. AVe were not satisfied with the judgment of the board, and the case is now being appealed.


Frank Oliver: AVhat was the amount of the award?


William Roche: $666,000.


Frank Oliver: What amount was paid
for the reserve by the British Columbia Government?


William Roche: The Indians got out of it something in the neighbourhood of $216,000.


Frank Oliver: Has the British Columbia Government been repaid that amount?


William Roche: No.


Frank Oliver: Is it proposed to repay
the British Columbia Government that amount?


William Roche: Our future action will be decided after the arbitration is over. We place a higher valuation on the reserve than

the arbitrators did. That is the reason we are not satisfied with the award, and we have appealed it to the judge. The appeal will soon be heard, and then we shall decide what to do as to winding up between the British Columbia Government and the Dominion Government in view of the amount they have expended.


Frank Oliver: Did the Dominion Government fix the amount they would toe willing to accept for the reserve?


William Roche: Yes, we considered that the reserve should be worth about $1,250,000.


Frank Oliver: And the arbitrator gave


William Roche: Yes.


Frank Oliver: And the Indians got


William Roche: They got $216,000.


Frank Oliver: There is some difference
in the figures. This Kitsilano Indian reserve was presumably the property .of the Indians. It was under the jurisdiction and administration of my hon. friend (Mr. Roche). While it was under his jurisdiction and administration, some person or perspns presumably acting for the Government of British Columbia, without let or hindrance from the minister so far as we know, went in and made arrangements with the Indians under which the Indians were paid $216,000, and they vacated the reserve. There never was such a case in all the history of Canada before-that the Government of the Dominion neglected to exercise that jurisdiction and assume that responsibility that properly rested upon their shoulders for the protection of the interests of the Indians. They allowed the Indians to be dickered with by these agents, more or less responsible; they allowed them to be removed from the reserve; they allowed their buildings to be burned; and they allowed the Government of British Columbia, I believe, or the hirelings pi that Government, to assume jurisdiction over that reserve as though it were their property and not the property of the Indians or under the jurisdiction of my hon. friend. I do not know whether I said at the time, but I say now -but, perhaps I am wrong in suggesting that this was under the jurisdiction of my hon, friend; I believe the undertaking originated under his predecessor-that I am unable to conceive that this conjunction of circumstances could have taken place without a definite understanding between the
gentleman, whoever he was, then at the head of the Indian Department of the Dominion of Canada, and those who directed the affairs of the province of British Columbia, and interesting themselves in these transactions. What their purpose may have been I am not here to say, but I know what the purpose of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs ought to have been, and that was to secure the Indians their rights and the full extent of those rights. Anything else than this was a dereliction of duty, and was a reflection on the good faith of the Dominion of Canada and behind the Dominion of Canada on the good faith of the British Crown. There were other moneys paid besides those paid to the Indians. I do not know whether the amount my hon. friend has stated to me is the total amount that was paid by the Government of British Columbia, but some money was paid to the Indians, and some was paid to friends of that Government, because these moneys afterwards became the subject of a lawsuit, and so of public record. Were the amounts so paid outside of what was paid to the Indians included in this $216,000?


William Roche: I understand that moneys were paid by the British Columbia government, by way of commissions that were unwarranted. These are not included in the $216,000.


William Pugsley: Was the amount about
$100,000?


William Roche: I do not know.


Frank Oliver: My recollection is that
the amount was in the neighbourhood of $80,000. That would bring the tojal payments of the British Columbia Government to about $300,000, of which the Indians received $216,000, and the friends of the British Columbia Government, $80,000. This feature makes the transaction even more remarkable than it was in the beginning. Does this $216,000 include the expenses of removing the Indians as well as the cash payments made to them?	,


William Roche: Only the cash payments.


Frank Oliver: So that besides the $216,000 there were the removal expenses and the commissions. All this money was paid, and all this transaction was entered into, either with or without the knowledge and consent of this Government through its then Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. If this transaction went on without the

knowledge of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, then he was so utterly negligent of his duty that he should be condemned; and if it went on with his knowledge, there is no other possible suggestion that that he was a party to the transaction for reasons other than the public good or the benefit of the Indians. The Indians owned that property. If there was any question as to their ownership, it was certainly not the business of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs to question that right; it was his business to maintain that right, to maintain it to the limit of his powers under the law. But instead of doing that he did not even exercise the ordinary supervision that his duty requires him to exercise, to prevent unlawful access to the reserve, unlawful trespass upon it, the unlawful destruction of property of the Indians upon it, and the improper and unlawful transactions with the Indians concerned.
There is no way in which the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs can justify his position in connection with this transaction. The Government of British Columbia, so my hon. friend says, went into this transaction. They put up this $216,000, they put up the moving expenses and they put up the commission. Why did they do it? Was it the Government that did it, or was it the members of the Government that did it, using the treasury of the province to enable them to do it? However, the transaction went on, and whether it wa* the exposure made in the House of Com mons, or whether it may have been protests made on the Pacific coast, for some reason or other apparently it did not go through as intended. Now, the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, who was asleep at the switch when these transactions were going on, has awakened. He is now doing business. He now claims that the Indians own the reserve and he is proposing to deal with the Harbour Commissioners of Vancouver for its sale. I think I remember that when this matter was considered before, my hon, friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) had bright hopes that this reserve was going to 'be made a present of to Vancouver, or that in some way Vancouver was to benefit immensely out of these transactions, in which the Government of British Columbia was the chief actor, and to which the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs was a consenting party. Apparently these bright hopes of my hon. friend have been shattered.


Mr. STEVENS:: My hon. friend is again in error.


Frank Oliver: Did not my hon. friend entertain such hopes?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, my hon. friend is entirely and absolutely wrong in his idea.


Frank Oliver: Thank you. The present that the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs purposes not to hand, to the city of Vancouver is the difference between $350,000, say, and $1,250,000, a difference of about $900,000. That certainly would be sufficient to make the citizens of Vancouver sit up and take notice and greet with enthusiasm the action of the late Government of British Columbia and the support that my hon. friend gave it in the House when the matter was up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is again
mistaken.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend did not support it in the House at that time?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not only did I not support it in the House, but I never supported the action of the provincial government My hon. friend is wrong in all his arguments.


Frank Oliver: Then, if I am wrong in that particular it is my hon. friend's privilege to correct me, but I am not wrong as to the actual facts, or as to their sequence apart from my hon. friend's action. There is no argument on that point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will show my hon.
friend in a moment.


Frank Oliver: That will be his privilege also. Then, the arbitrator as between the Harbour Commission of Vancouver and the Department of Indian Affairs
10 p.m. has decided that the property is worth a certain amount, and I suppose the Harbour Commission is willing-would I be right in. suggesting that it is willing-to pay the amount that the arbitrator ha;s awarded for the property, namely $660,000. Whether it is or not, a responsible arbitrator-I presume he is responsible-has decided, long after the real estate boom has burst and when property does not hold the value it did three, four or five years ago, even in the city of Vancouver, that the property is worth twice as much as the Government of British Columbia bought it for, assuming that they did buy it, and twice as much as the then Superintendent General of Indian

Affairs was willing that they should buy it for.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is wrong, too.


Frank Oliver: Well, at any rate, my hon. friend will agree that the late Superintendent General of Indian Affairs did not prevent them from buying it and that he might have done so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He did everything possible to.


Frank Oliver: He had a right to prevent trespass upon that reserve. He did not take any measures to prevent trespass on the reserve, and I say again that I am bound to reach the conclusion, on the facts now laid before us, that he was a party to the transaction in the expectation of ultimate 'benefit to others than the Indians or the public.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is wrong too.


Frank Oliver: It seems strange that,
when the fall of the Government has occurred in British Columbia and when a king has arisen there who knows not Joseph, the price of this reserve suddenly rises from a little over $300,000, paid to the Indians, paid for their transportation and paid for commissions that were the subject of a lawsuit, to which figure the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs at that day must have consented, to the figure of $1,250,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Again my hon. friend
is wrong. One million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars was the price fixed by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs about four years ago and not since the accession to power of a king who knows not Joseph, as my hon. friend suggests.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend will remember that when I asked the present Superintendent" General of Indian Affairs what was the valuation of the land placed by his department-


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the price placed upon the land four years ago.


Frank Oliver: -he said $300,000, and
my hon. friend will agree, and the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs will not deny, that within the last fifteen minutes he has told us that the Government had refused the arbitrator's value of $660,000, which is more than double the total amount of money that was paid for the reserve by the British Columbia Government with the consent of my hon. friend and his predecessor, the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Superintendent General-


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend will have all the opportunity he wants.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But I was just going to correct my hon. friend.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend can make his correction later. I am just about through anyway. I want to establish the fact that under one set of circumstances, when the prices of property were booming, this property was considered to be worth $300,000 or perhaps a little over, but in conditions of real estate collapse, it1 is now considered by a responsible arbitrator to be worth $660,000. My contention is that if it is worth $660,000 that money belonged to the Indians, and what I am desirous of asking the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs is: If he gets the price he should get for it, whether it is $660,000 or $1,250,000, or whatever sum it may be, what disposition does he propose to make of that money?
Does he propose to pay to the British Columbia Government the amount that they paid including this commission, and what disposition does he propose to make of the balance of the money? Has the question of the donation of this reserve to the harbour commissioners or the city of Vancouver come up at any time or under any circumstances?


William Roche: My hon. friend asks me whether we are-going to recoup the British Columbia Government for the money they have spent. What we have promised to do is to arbitrate on the value of the reversionary interest claimed by the province of British Columbia in this reserve. The British Columbia Government have always claimed a reversionary interest in this reserve, and we have decided to arbitrate, and if a certain value is placed on the reversionary interest coming to British Columbia, we will have to abide by that. The amount over and above that will certainly go to the Indians. As to the remark of my hon. friend that I placed a value of $1,200,000 or $1,250,000 on it, he did not ask me if that was placed on the reserve since the defeat of the late provincial government. That was placed several years ago.


Frank Oliver: The value of $660,000 fixed by the arbitrator was since the defeat?


William Roche: The arbitration was decided within the last few months.


Frank Oliver: That was since the defeat Of the late provincial government?


William Roche: Certainly. Do you think that has anything to do with it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has, by a series of rather cleverly constructed statements, sought to involve the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs of the Federal Government in a transaction which he knows perfectly well has nothing whatever to do with this department. I have had a very close knowledge of this matter from the very commencement, and I wish to state that the greatest credit is due to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs for the firm stand he has taken on this question from the beginning. The facts of the case are very different from the impression conveyed by the hon. member for Edmonton, and. I am surprised that he, with the opportunities he has had during the last three years of ascertaining the facts, should attempt to make the cheapest kind of political capital out of a question which reflects only credit upon this Government, whatever may be his estimate of the action of the provincial government of British Columbia.
The facts are briefly something along this line:	About four years ago, the provincial
government, as a result of a general feeling in the city of Vancouver that this reserve should be utilized for other purposes than that of an Indian reserve, undertook to get possession of it from the Indians. In order that the House may have a correct view of the situation, they should know the location of this reserve. My hon. friend from Edmonton knows perfectly well where the reserve is situated, practically in the heart of the city, at the mouth of False creek, in a very important and strategic point in the harbour.


Frank Oliver: I do not like to interrput my hon. friend, but I should like him to keep a little closer to the line. My hon. friend is hardly correct in saying this reserve is situated in the heart of the city. It is well situated, but it is not in the heart of the city.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is in the heart of the city.


Frank Oliver: It may be in the heart
of the city geographically, but it is not in the business centre.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is in the heart of the business centre.


William Pugsley: In the heart of the
future city.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is not correct. I know what I am speaking about; it is within half a mile of the Vancouver hotel.


Frank Oliver: Across False creek.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And there is three miles of solidly constructed property in each direction from it except on the water side, both west and south. It is right on False Creek which is a hive of industry. During the past five, six, seven or eight years, there has been a tonnage of from three to five million tons of coastwise trade in and out of False Creek, starting at a point immediately adjoining the reserve and up the creek, and immediately across within 100 yards of the reserve on the other side. False Creek, of course, is a little arm of the sea, about two miles in length. It is a perfect hive of industry, and that is where the Kitsilano Indian reserve is. My hon. friend sought to lead the House to believe that the provincial government went on the reserve and in some subtle manner induced the Indians to leave, and then burned their houses and arbitrarily took possession. That is not the fact. My hon. friend knows it, or ought to know it. The Kitsilano Indian reserve was never a reserve of residents. It belongs to certain bands of Indians, part of the Squamish tribe. They live chiefly on the Capilano Indian reserve across the inlet, some miles away. They came to False Creek and Kitsilano occasionally, landed with their fishing boats, and went up to the city to make purchases, as they used to land at the old slip at the foot of Gore avenue. Indians generally have some one place where they land. On the reserve were a couple of old shacks, you would scarcely call them shacks, simply a few poles put up with a few old boards to keep them together, and occasionally the Indians used to stay there overnight, to no good purpose for themselves or the community. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) generally speaking, desires to be honest in his criticism, but in this case I think he has departed from his usual course. He knows perfectly well that there is no greater curse to the Indians of Canada than these reserves situated in the heart of a thickly populated community like Vancouver and some other cities in the West where Indians can come in and are subject to the evil influences of a closely settled city district. That is one of the problems with which the Assistant Super-

intendent General of Indian Affairs is constantly faced. It was exceedingly desirable that this reserve should be turned into	useful	industrial property and the Indians properly compensated. When my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) was Superintendent General of Indian Affairs he was asked by the city of Vancouver time and time again, and he'* knows that the candidate representing the party which he represented in this House, on the hustings in Vancouver, promised the people of Vancouver that if returned to power his Government, that is the late Government, would make a present of this reserve to the people of Vancouver. That was one of the baits held out to the people of Vancouver. The statement of my hon. friend that I* bad made such suggestions is absolutely without foundation. Not only did I never make that statement, but I have always held, as my correspondence on the records of the department will show, that the Indians should be properly compensated for that property and that any transfer should be under the direction and control of the Indian Department. But here is what occurred. The old provincial government, knowing the sentiment of Vancouver desired to get rid of the Indians on the Kitsilano Indian reserve. They took the ground that they had a reversionary right, and that if the Indians left the reserve and abandoned it the reserve reverted to the province. But, fouT years ago, the moment I heard that action was being contemplated by the provincial government, I took the view that they had no such right and that the reversionary right as such did not exist. I lwld that view to-day. I placed that view before the department who at once took cognizance of it, and the Prime Minister, on the floor of the old House of Commons, the first time it was brought to his attention, stated that this Government, under his leadership, had given no authority to the provincial government to take the action which they did.
Moreover, he stated on that occasion and on several occasions since that this Government had never recognized the right of the province to take the action that they did. Agents of the provincial government induced the Indians to accept $216,000 and $1,500 for the removal of some dead bodies which were taken to another reserve. The Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, the Assistant Superintendent General of Indian Affairs and I myself hold that the provincial government had not acted according to law, or according to their rights,
and the action was never recognized by this Government. This Government deserves from my hon. friend not condemnation, but credit.
My hon. friend states that this Government stood aside and allowed the provincial government to take possession and remain in possession of that reserve. The provincial government had never been properly in possession of that reserve. My hon. friend infers that the Harbour Commissioners dealt with the provincial government or with some other authorities for the purchase of this reserve. This is what occurred. The Harbour Commissioners, recognizing the value of this reserve for harbour purposes, and acting under the authority of their Act of incorporation, expropriated the reserve. How did they expropriate it? They offered this Government $500,000 for the reserve about two years ago, but the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs refused the offer on the ground that the amount was not sufficient. They then notified this Government that they intended to take proceedings to expropriate. It was necessary to get the consent of the Government. The Government consented, and a board of arbitration was appointed, consisting of Mr. C. E. Mahon, alderman of the city of Vancouver; Mr. Boreland, a prominent citizen of about 25 years' standing in that city, and Mr. Pound, a gentleman of the highest standing in Vancouver on arbitration matters concerning real estate.	Mr. Pound, by the way, is
treasurer of the Liberal Association in the city of Vancouver-and he is a gentleman from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head. This board was appointed bfifore the election last fall, so there can be no suggestion of political influence. They sat in arbitration for some months, after which they adjourned because Mr.. Livingstone, representing the Indians and the Crown, had to attend Supreme Court in the East. Their finding, which was brought down, if I remember rightly, in January of this year, was that the reservation was worth the sum of $666,000. My hon. friend seeks to make capital out of this. He says that the Government allowed the reserve to be sold in boom times for $216,000, which is absolutely without foundation in fact. This Government not only opposed the action, but prevented it as far as it was able. Then, he says, in a time of collapse, the board of arbitration found that the property was worth $666,000. The facts in that regard are these: the board of arbitration, as by law they were


William Pugsley: What is my hon. friend's opinion as to who owns the foreshore?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Crown, represented by the Dominion Government. That has been decided in this particular case.


William Pugsley: Then if it has been decided in this case, the Indians cannot own it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The question was decided as between the right of the Crown as represented by the province and the right of the Crown as represented by the Dominion.


William Pugsley: When?


Henry Herbert Stevens: A couple of years ago; I cannot remember the date.


William Pugsley: I understand that the British Columbia Government has always contended that the foreshore of a harbour which at the time the province entered Confederation was not actually used for the purposes of a public harbour and on which no public improvements had been made, would vest in the province. Then the question as to whether the Indians own or not would depend on their title. Some Indians own to low water and some to high water.


Mr. HAZEN:: The Privy Council decided that if a harbour was a public harbour at the time of Confederation, the foreshore is the property of the Crown as represented by the Federal Government.


William Pugsley: When I was a member of the late Government and Sir Richard McBride was premier of British Columbia, his Government, when Prince Rupert was established, claimed all the foreshore in the harbour of Prince Rupert.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A case was taken to the Privy Council concerning part of the bed of False Creek, which is connected with this reservation, and it was definitely decided that the foreshore was in the right of the Crown as represented by the Dominion Government.


William Pugsley: Could my hon. friend give me the name of the case?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, but I will tell my
hon. friend how the question rose. My hon. friend gave a piece of property, eighteen acres in extent, in False Creek, to Mr. John Hendry, one of his friends in Vancouver, for ten dollars an acre. Mt. John Hendry, two years afterwards, sold that property to the British Columbia Electric for $700,000. That is where the property lies which was decided by the Privy Council-


William Pugsley: I have no recollection
of giving Mr. Hendry any land whatever. As a matter of fact, the rule of the department and the course of practice governing the Marine and Fisheries Department and the Public Works Department ever since Confederation have been to give, at a comparatively nominal rental, leases of the foreshore to people who actually had the riparian rights; but I have no recollection whatever of giving Mr. John Hendry any such land.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can bring the papers
down to-morrow if my hon. friend so desires. My hon, friend not only gave this property to Mr. John Hendry, but, to give another illustration, he gave to Mr. Robert Kelly and Mr. McFeely for $3,600 a very large piece of property which was refused to a Mr. J. B. Tiffin who owned the foreshore, and that piece was, through the Exchequer Court, sold to this Government for about $360,000.


William Pugsley: Would that be the piece of land which was sold by agents who obtained a very large commission on the sale to this Government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it was sold by my hon. friend and his Government to Mr. Robert Kelly and Mr. McFeely, one an eminent Liberal gentleman in Vancouver.


William Pugsley: For how much money?


Henry Herbert Stevens: As my hon. friend has
diverted my attention to this matter, I will just digress in order to explain the transaction a little further. I am delighted to have the opportunity. My hon. friend year after year refused to give to Mr. J. B. Tiffin, who owned the Red Cedar lumber mill at that point, a lease of the foreshore. Mr. Tiffin had to sell that property and did sell it to the hon. gentleman's friends, and those gentlemen came down here and within about two months got that property for about one-tenth of its value. I do not wish to digress any further.


William Pugsley: I would be glad if my hon. friend would give the facts and not draw on his imagination.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not drawing- on
my imagination.


William Pugsley: Just a moment. Does my hon. friend say that the same property that was sold to those people for $3,600 was bought back by the present Government for $360,000?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do say it, and I say it was bought back through the Exchequer Court. There was another very valuable piece of property at the sugar refinery that perhaps my hon. friend will remember. It consisted of some 3,000 feet, and about one-tenth of that property that was sold or given away for $4,000 was leased a couple of years ago for three times the amount for which my hon. friend gave it away. Not once since this Government came into office has any Crown grant been given, but simply leases are given, except when a piece
of property has been occupied for twenty years or more for industrial purposes, and then grants are given on a valuation very much in advance of anything that my hon. friend ever thought of securing.
My hon. friend thought to divert my attention from the real question before the House, and I will now return to that question. The whole question is whether the Indians have the ownership of that foreshore. The Superintendent General of Indian Affairs fixes his valuation on the assumption that they did; the arbitrators went into the matter very carefully, and they decided that the ownership ceased at high-tide mark, and that from there on the Indians had riparian rights, and the amount of $666,000 has been fixed on that basis and premises. The Superintendent General still persists in his protection of the Indians' rights; he still persists in his valuation; he has appealed from the decision of these three estimable and able gentlemen to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the case is before that court at the present time and will be decided as to the matters of law, ownership and value.
So much for this valuation. This is the point I wish to make, that I think my hon. friend from Edmonton has done a grave injustice to the Superintendent General. From the very outset of this transaction there has never been one moment that the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs has not exercised care and solicitude for the rights of the Indians. My hon. friend asked what was to be done with the money, and the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs answered him partially, if not fully. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that the Indian Act provided that half of the money derived from the sale of Indian property is usually given to the Indians and the other half is placed in a fund and kept at Ottawa for the benefit of the Indians. That is exactly what the Superintendent General intends to do when this award is completed; he intends that the money shall go entirely to the use of the Indians.
Let me turn for a moment to the Indians themselves and to their action. The Indian accepted $216,000 for their interest in this reserve, and this amount was divided up amongst about twenty Indians. These Indians are satisfied with what they have received and they have given up all their rights. My hon. friend, naturally, in his endeavour to make a little political capital, tried to involve the Superintendent General in that transaction, and he said this: By the very fact that the provincial Govern-

ment paid those Indians, the Superintendent General must have been a party to the transaction, and in some way or another, his friends benefited from it. That did not follow at all. I hold, and the Superintendent General holds that the provincial Government had no right to carry out that transaction, but the provincial government claimed-and they have some ground on which to base their claim-that they own these reserves the minute they are abandoned by the Indians, and they went to the Indians and asked them if they wanted to abandon this reserve. The Indians replied that they did; the amount was agreed upon, and the reserve was abandoned by the Indians voluntarily. The Indians were not put off the reserve; they went off it willingly, and the provincial authorities then said: This reserve is ours. I have explained to my hon. friend my reasons for saying that the provincial Government was wrong. The Indian is a ward of the Dominion Government; he is in exactly the same position as a minor, as a child under twenty-one years of age, and that child or that minor has no right to abandon a piece of property that belongs to him without the consent of his guardian, and therefore I think the position of the Dominion authorities is sound, and the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs was perfectly right in taking the stand that the provincial transaction was not sound nor right. The question now arises: Is it fair to reimburse the provincial government? I contend that it is right to do so, because if you do not, you will pay the Indians an additional sum. It is quite true that after all, we cannot ignore what the provincial government did. We may say to them: You have spent your money; you had no right to give it to the Indians; go and get it bdck from them. I suppose that could be done, but that is not a proper view to take of the matter. The Dominion Government naturally say that they are prepared to reimburse the provincial government for such rights as they may establish, and those rights will be established by fair arbitration, I presume by some independent arbitrator such as a Supreme Court judge, or an Exchequer Court judge, or some other authority agreed on between the two parties. I think that fairly well explains the situation. In my opinion, the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, as representing the Dominion Government, has acted in good faith, and he deserves credit for safeguarding the rights of those Indians.


William Pugsley: I would not have detained the cominitte but for the extraordinary statement which my hon. frieqd seemed to think it was necessary to make in regard to the action of the department over which I presided for some few years, in regard tp a piece of property at the city of Vancouver. The matters to which he has referred have nothing whatever to do with the question under discussion, but thinking in some way to discredit the management of my department the hon. gentleman has stated that I practically gave away the foreshore rights in the city of Vancouver to friends, which foreshore rights were pf very considerable value. It is nearly six year3 since I was minister, and I do not recall any of the eases to which my hon. friend refers. But I do know that ever since Confederation there has been a rule in the department that in respect to foreshore privileges leases will be given at almost a nominal rental to the riparian owners for the purpose of making improvements to the property, by way of erecting wharves, factories or other buildings. That was the rule long before I came into Parliament, and I have no doubt it is the rule followed by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


John Douglas Hazen: The leases are given by Order in Council on the joint report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: I think the matter is
always initiated in the Department pf Marine and Fisheries. The valuation whether rental or purchase price is fixed by that department, and not by the Department of Public Works. Then the engineer of the Department of Public Works reports whether there would be any objection from the public standpoint, whether there wpuld be any obstruction to" navigation, and so forth.


John Douglas Hazen: There is a report from the engineer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries that it would not interfere with navigation, and a report from the engineer of Public Works that the property is not required for public purposes. [DOT]


William Pugsley: I think the minister will agree that the valuation is fixed toy the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and therefore my hon. friend from Vancouver is barking up the wrong tree.


John Douglas Hazen: I do net say the valuation is actually fixed by the Department of ' Marine and Fisheries. The report is signed

by both ministers, but the matter certainly initiates in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Then it goes to the Minister of Public Works, and if he approves he joins in the report; so both ministers agree.


William Pugsley: But the signature of
the Minieter of Public. Works is of a more formal character. He simply has to decide whether the property is required for public purposes. The matter always originates with the Department of Marine and Fisheries, which fixes the valuation. That was the practice when I was minister; it has been the practice ever since Confederation, and I have no doubt it is the practice to-day. So my hon. friend is barking up the wrong tree when he attacks me for making an arrangement with regard to the rental at which the foreshore rights in Vancouver City should foe leased. It is a perfectly simple matter. The riparian owner, having land fronting on navigable water, can prevent any obstruction being erected which would in any way interfere with his access. He can have approach to his land by steamer, scow or any other vessel which can navigate to it. No person would be allowed to erect an obstruction in front of his property, and if any one attempted to do so the owner could obtain an injunction, compelling him to remove the obstruction. All Governments ever since Confederation have favoured granting foreshore rights to people who own the land facing the water, provided they required the foreshore for the purposes of improvement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is perfectly correct in stating that the two departments co-operate in fixing the price. Would my hon. friend accept the valuation of the Chief Engineer of the Marine and Fisheries Department in signing his report?


William Pugsley: The practice with me was always this: There would come to my department a report signed by the chief engineer of the Marine and Fisheries Department, and a recommendation to council signed by the minister, and I wouln accept the report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries as to valuation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Inasmuch as my hon. friend had to sign these reports in regard to this property which was given by Order in Council for $180, and two years afterwards sold for $600,000-


William Pugsley: Was that a sale?


Henry Herbert Stevens: An absolute sale. The Crown grant was made, and the sale took
place from John Hendry to the British Columbia Electric.


William Pugsley: Did Mr. Hendry sell all the riparian rights as well in that transfer?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was foreshore, which included riparian rights.


William Pugsley: If it was solely foreshore how could they get access to it except by water?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was exactly the same property that my hon. friend gave for $180. I wish to ask a second question. If my hon. friend accepts the valuation of the chief engineer of the Marine and Fisheries Department, why did he override at that time the valuation of $180,000 fixed by Colonel Anderson, chief engineer of the Marine and Fisheries Department, and sell the land for $10 an acre, or $180.


William Pugsley: The answer to that is I do not believe I did anything of the kind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will bring down the papers to-morrow.


William Pugsley: I wish my hon. friend would. I am satisfied he is entirely mistaken.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am positive I am right.


William Pugsley: With regard to the sale which Hendry may have made to the British Columbia Electric, I venture to say he sold not only the foreshore, but a large area of land fronting on the water, which of course would include riparian rights in the foreshore. The remark which my hon friend has made with regard to property being sold to this Government for $360,000 reminds me of rumours which I have heard from Vancouver, that certain friends of my hon. friend the member for the city of Vancouver had succeeded in getting an enormous sum from this Government for a property which was worth very much less than the Government paid for it. That perhaps accounts for the rumours I have also heard that certain gentlemen received large commissions in connection with the transfer of that property.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What property does niy hon. friend refer to?


William Pugsley: The property is said to have cost $360,000, and the rumours I have heard reflect very seriously upon my hon. friend and friends of his.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As my hon. friend has brought that matter up, I will tell him that the dock site in Vancouver was chosen by engineers of the department without any interference whatsoever; and what property did they chose? Did they go to friends of this Government? No, they bought a piece of property belonging to Mr. Robert Kelly and Mr. McFeely, two of the most prominent Liberals in Vancouver. How did they buy it? Not as my hon. friend has no doubt done, by means of a nice private transaction between the department and the owner. No, they took it to the Exchequer Court. There was absolutely no middleman of any kind whatsoever, and I defy my hon. friend to produce one scintilla of evidence to show that there was even a middleman, let alone him getting anything out of it. The matter was not settled even by arbitration, but was taken to the Exchequer Court, and as the award was not satisfactory to Kelly and McFeely, the case was appealed. My hon. friend has no right to insinuate that there is anything in the transaction reflecting upon me unless he is in possession of facts to prove it. The facts that I have given can be proved beyond all peradven-ture by Order in Council. Yet the hon. member presumes to stand up in his place and throw out what I consider the contemptible insinuation that I was mixed up in the transaction, and that I or friends of mine profited by it.
I again challenge him and defy him to produce one scintilla of evidence to show that there was even a middleman in the property, let alone any commission. He knows, if he knows anything about it at all, that what he says is absolutely without the slightest foundation in fact.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman says I have no ground for the suggestion I made, and that neither Ihe nor his friends were interested. If he knows that I gladly accept his word. The statement on which I was relying was contained in a letter which I received from Vancouver, in which reference was made to-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the hon. gentleman give me the name of the writer? Will he give it to the committee?-or to Mr. Speaker?-or to the Prime Minister?


William Pugsley: I was speaking from memory. Tihe letter was received by me last year or the year before. Whether I have it on file now or not I do not know. But the statement in that letter is corroborated by the statement of the hon.

gentleman himself that these gentlemen paid something like $3,000 for a property for which they received from this Government the princely sum of $360,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Under award of the Exchequer Court.	,


William Pugsley: These awards depend largely upon the counsel engaged and the witnesses called to give information to the judge. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Stevens) is too old a bird not to understand how these things are done. He may smile, but I think he knows how these things are done -with friendly counsel and friends all around who are not desirous of making too hard a bargain. The hon. gentleman speaks of Mr. Robert Kelly. Mr. Kelly is a very fine fellow; indeed, one of the best men in the city of Vancouver. But I have yet to learn that if Mr. Kelly had a property he wanted to sell to the Dominion Government, say for a wharf site, he would be averse to availing himself of the assistance of friends in representing the value of that property to the Government. I do not know that that would be a serious reflection upon his standing or reputation. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Stevens) has said that there was no middleman-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely none.


William Pugsley: If he says that there
was none, and that his friends were not interested, and that the Government agents first approached Mr. Kelly, or whoever owned the property, in the ordinary business way, and the case was tried out bona fide, and the full evidence presented, and that the Government got the land at a fair valuation, I am prepared to accept his statement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And Mr. Kelly and his associates were dissatisfied with the award of the Exchequer Court.


William Pugsley: I do not see why they should be greatly dissatisfied in view of the fact that for a property for which they paid $3,000 they got $360,000. Gentlemen in the part of the country from which I come would be greatly pleased with such a transaction. What was the frontage?


Henry Herbert Stevens: About 350 feet, so far as their particular part was concerned. Let me correct my hon. friend-he has had iquite a, little spell at it now, let me put in a moment's correction. Because the hon. gentleman has peculiar ability in misleading the House somewhat in matters of fact. Let me remind him that it wag he who

signed the Order in Council together with the head of the Marine Department in. the Government of which he was a member, which gave this property to his friends for the remarkably low sum of $3,600. If any crime against public right was committed, the guilt lies at the door of the late Government. The value placed upon the property by the Exchequer Court was a fair value. But these gentlemen had a Crown grant from-his Government, and it is the price that Government accepted on behalf of the people of Canada to which I was calling the attention of the Committee, and to which attention should be called. He is not going to get away from it by trying to slip it around to the allegation that the present Government paid more than it ought to have paid. They paid what the Exchequer Court awarded, after a hearing that was bitterly fought out.


William Pugsley: The foreshore, the hon. gentleman says, was 350 feet. How much of that is actually occupied by any wharf, building, or other structures?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There was an old mill.


William Pugsley: What was the depth of the property from high water to low water':


Henry Herbert Stevens: He is not going to get me tangled up in matters of that kind. The foreshore sold by his Government-


William Pugsley: I am asking now about what was sold to this Government.
Mr. STEVEN'S: The hon. gentleman is not trying to find out the facts, 'but is trying to make the matter appear an involved one to the members of the committee and to Hansard. His Government presented Mr. Kelly and Mr. McFeely a property from high tide mark out beyond low tide mark- 1 have forgotten the exact distance, but I think it was 700 feet-for $3,600. From high tide mark to the inner boundary of the property was a comparatively sh.ort distance.


William Pugsley: What distance?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It varies, as it was a
kind of a hay. It might be 100 feet.


William Pugsley: What was the distance between high tide and low tide?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That had nothing to do with it, because it was not from high tide to low tide, but he gave from high tide 600 feet put and beyond low tide.


William Pugsley: If any one is trying to mislead the committee, it is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Stevens), unless he is speaking in ignorance of the law. He ought to know that no Government could give Mr. Kelly or any one else rights beyond low tide, for that is common to the whole world; it does not belong to the Crown, and I venture to say that this Government neveT undertook to grant it. If Mr. Kelly built out into the navigable harbour, he had no right to do so. I understand now that he built out about 600 feet.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I said that the area covered by the Crown grant recommended by the hon. gentleman in his report to council and iby his associate the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries was approximately 600 feet.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman said it went put beyond low water mark.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly.


William Pugsley: I say it could not do so, because the Crown has no right beyond low water mark. He says that in addition to these rights Mr. Kelly and his associates owned the riparian rights as well, and that these were sold to this Government in conjunction with the foreshore. There is the difference. The foreshore right is practically of no value whatever as distinct from the rights pf the riparian owner, because the riparian owner could prevent any obstruction being placed in the foreshore; but with the two holding together he has something that he can dispose of as a joint property. The hon. gentleman will Tecognize that he is the one who has tried to deceive the committee because the foreshore rights acquired from the Government for about $3,000 were sold to the present Government for $360,000.
He now says that in addition to the foreshore rights, Mr. Kelly and his associates owned the riparian rights, the whole of which, with certain improvements upon the property, were passed over to the Dominion Government. That is all I have to say. I am sorry to have taken up the time and I would not have done so had it not been fox my hon. friend digressing in order to make it appear that the Liberal Government had parted with that property in Vancouver for less than it was worth.


Frank Oliver: I am sorry to have to delay the committee, but it is so seldom that a statement such as I made finds such exact corroboration from the other side of the House as my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) was good enough to



give me this evening that I cannot help but draw attention to it. We find ourselves in absolute agreement on almost all important points. He is just as certain as I am that the absolute right to the Indian reserves in British Columbia Tests in the Indians and is absolutely under the jurisdiction of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. He explains to the committee, and I entirely agree with him, the ostensible principle under which the then mittee. But they claimed the absolute right to all abandoned reserves. If they could secure the abandonment of this reserve, they would become its owners, and so they employed agents to deal with the Indians to secure that abandonment to the end that they might become the absolute owners. Now, we are absolutely in agreement upon this line of facts and there is no argument about the matter. We disagree when he says that the then Superintendent General of Indian Affairs in any way contested the action of the British Columbia Government at that time or in any way undertook to protect the interests of the Indians or the rights of this Government as protecting the Indians. He declares to the committee that this Government, through its Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, did everything it could to protect the Indians against this attack upon their rights, which he has described so accurately. He will remember that when this transaction was actually in progress, it was ventilated in the Vancouver papers from day to day and that at was brought by myself to the attention of the then Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. It was therefore absolutely within his cognizance. My hon. friend from Vancouver assures the House that it was absolutely within has jurisdiction and the facts as recorded in the Vancouver papers, and the facts as they occurred, are that the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs did not then or afterwards take any action to prevent this carefully planned, determinedly made and concerted attack upon the rights of the Indians. He admitted so much that there is no use in his attempting to deny what is such a patent fact. I said on a former occasion, and I repeat, that the British Columbia Government, peculiar though their ideas may have been as to the rights, powers and immunities of its membership, did not take $216,000, did	not take	$300,-'
000 out of the treasury of British Columbia knowing what they did know as
	(
to the rights of the Indians and the authority of this Government, unless they had an understanding with this Government on the subject. They would not have risked the penitentiary to that extent.
With regard to the remarks of my hon. friend as to my connection with the matter, I certainly say that I was approached on numerous occasions to secure the surrender of- the Kitsilano reserve. I took such measures as were possible to secure its surrender, and if my memory serves me aright, I found difficulties in the way. The legislation which was the subject of discussion between the Minister of the Interior and myself this evening, .was brought into Parliament and put through under my auspices for the especial purpose of dealing with the Kitsilano Indian reserve. However, the people of Canada kindly took the responsibility out of my hands and I was not further concerned in it. That is my connection with the Indian reserve and I can assure my hon. friend that whatever any supporter of the Liberal Government may have said in Vancouver-and I would not like to be responsible for everything that everybody in Vancouver might say-he never had any authority from me to say that any such disposition would be made of the Kitsilano reserve when the rights of the Indians in that reserve had been disposed of.
I shall not delay the committee further than to point out that the set of facts that I have placed before the committee has been absolutely substantiated by my hon. friend from Vancouver who was on the ground and is familiar with the circumstances. There certainly has been a change of policy on the part of this Government from the time when they did consent, and must have consented, to the transaction of the provincial government with these Indians on the basis of $300,000 and it is interesting to compare that policy with t'he policy of to-day which refuses $660,000 as a fair price for the reserve. My hon. friend has told the House that the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs had said that the provincial government would be recouped for the money they had spent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I did not say that. .What I said was that the minister had said that arbitration proceedings would be taken to determine the nature of the rights that the British Columbia Government had and he assumed that the arrangement made would be fair and reasonable. I have taken

this to mean that it would be fair and reasonable to recoup them for the money they paid to the Indians instead of paying the Indians a second time. These Indians usually get half and half goes into a trust fund for the benefit of the Indians. From the half that was given to the Indians, it would be fair to deduct the amount they had already received from the provincial government and return that to them. That is a matter that has to be determined by mutual arrangement and I understand that they have agreed upon arbitration.


Frank Oliver: 
William Roche: That has been denied on
the floor of Parliament by my predecessor.


Frank Oliver: Yes, yes.


William Pugsley: 
William Roche: There are other items.


William Pugsley: Should the minister not give them to the committee?
121J	'


William Roche: They will be found in the Auditor General's Report at pages H-42, H-43 and H-44.


John Gillanders Turriff: 
William Roche: The Chairman was not
at home, as his home is in Nova Scotia. By Order in Council it was provided that the $10 a day for living allowance should be given to the Commissioners while they were engaged on the work. That was done as is usually the case with Commissions of this kind, instead of requiring them to keep tab of each item of expense as is done with subordinate officials of the Government.


John Gillanders Turriff: I quite understand that. But these men were apparently located in Victoria or Vancouver' a great part of the time, if they were not at home.


William Pugsley: some of the items, and perhaps the minister would allow this to stand. It is now twenty minutes after eleven, and I suggest that we adjourn.


William Roche: If the hon. gentleman will allow this item to pass I will bring down the information. I would like to go through with the other items, hut if the hon. gentleman wishes to stop work of course we will have to do so.	*


William Pugsley: There is no disposition on the part of hon. gentlemen on this side to tolock my hon. friend's estimates, or the estimates of any minister. This information ought to be before the public in justice to the minister and to the Government, if for no other reason, because if the phblic see these amounts and have no explanation of them they will think that there is something wrong. I am not making a charge that there is anything wrong, but the only way to show the people that everything is right is to give the information.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Roche, the House adjourned at 11.23 p.m.
Friday, June 1, 1917.