1933-03-01

Right Hon. R. B. BEXXETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the table a copy of the "Convention concernant les Expositions internationales, et le Protocole de Signature, Paris, 22 Xovembre, 1928," and a copy of a translation thereof into English.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That five hundred copies in English and three hundred copies in French of the convent ion relating to the International! Exhibitions, Paris, November 22. 1928, and the protocol of signature tabled this day be printed forthwith, and that rule 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. TETREAULT:: 1.	Hid any buildings occupy the site of the post office constructed ait Waterloo, Quebec, in 1929?
2.	If so, were such buildings demolished?
3.	Was a contract awarded for their demolition?
4.	If so, to whom was the contract awarded, and upon whose recommendation?
5.	What was the contract price?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes, brick building formerly used as a post office and which stood in front of the new post office.
2.	A contract was awarded for grading and sodding of site and building sidewalks, concrete steps, driveway, etc. The specification of the contract included the removal of the old building, all material of the demolished building becoming the property of the contractor, and to be entirely removed from the site. This contract was awarded to Herve Boyer, the lowest tenderer, for $2,200 after the work, had been advertised publicly and
the following tenders received:
1.	Herve Boyer	
$2,2002.	Alphonse Beaumont	
2,4003.	H. L. Roy	
2,8754.	Alphonse Daris & HormidasForand	
3,000
3 to 5. Answered by No. 2.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TAXATION
Air. DUFF:: 1.	What amount of taxes was paid to the government of Nova Scotia by the Canadian National Railways each year from and including 1926 to 1930?
2.	Was there a new agreement made in 1930?
3.	What sums were paid in 1931 and 1932, respectively ?


Air. MANION:: 1.	Taxes paid to the government of Nova Scotia by the Canadian National Railways between 1926-1930, inclusive, were as follows:
Year	Railways Express Telegraphs
1926	
$91,000	$13,750	-1927	
91,000	13,750	-1928	
91,000	13,750	-1929	
91,000	13,750	-1930	
91,000	13,750	81,8762.	Authority was granted by order in council, P.C. 723, March 30, 1931, to continue arrangement then existing.3.	Taxes paid in 1931 and 1932 were as follows:Year	Railways	Express	Telegraphs1931..	.... 891,000	813,750	82,934 741932..	.... 91,000	16,500	3,555 75TADOUSSAC, QUE.,	WHARF	REPAIRSMr.	CASGRAIN:	1.	How many feet of lumber did the Department of Public Works purchase in connection with repairs carried out at the wharf at Tadoussae last year?2.	From whom did the government purchase such lumber?3.	What price was paid per thousand feet of lumber?
258S
Questions


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Anse Tadoussac wharf-
1.	Bought from Pierre Cid of Tadoussac:- 27,024ft. B.M. of spruce dimension timber at $28 per M. ft. B.M.; 2,058 ft. B.M. of 3-inch spruce deals at $22 per M. ft. B.M.
Bought from A. Chevalier of Quebec:- 3,108 ft. B.M. of rock elm at 18 cents per foot.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
Anse a l'Eau wharf-
1.	Bought from Pierre Cid of Tadoussac:- 10,001 ft. of spruce dimension timber at $29 per 1,000 ft. B.M.; 33,302J ft. B.M. of 3-inch spruce deals at $22 per 1,000 ft. B.M.; 60 lineal feet of 5-inch by 6-inch spruce timber at 12 cents per lin. ft.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


KILLAM'S MILLS, N.B., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Was B. H. Lounsbury, postmaster at Killam's Mills, New Brunswick, dismissed from the office of postmaster?
2.	If so, when, and who replaced him?
3.	Why was his dismissal made and on whose recommendation ?
4.	Was a circular sent to B. H. Lounsbury suggesting that he resign if guilty of partisanship or that he sign and make affidavit if not guilty; if so, on what date was this circular sent?
5.	Was investigation held prior to dismissal; if so, who was commissioner?
6.	On whose request was inquiry held?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 31st October, 1931; (b) Geo. Otty King.
3.	Commissioner's report found Postmaster guilty of active political partisanship.
4.	(a) Yes; (b) 5th February, 1931.
5.	(a) Yes; (b) H. Lester Smith.
6.	Dr. O. B. Price, M.P.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	What is the total cost of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the province of New Brunswick?
2.	How many officers and how many men are
employed on the force in that province?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	$1831,961.23.
2.	Officers	 8
Non-commissioned officers and constables		102
3.	Special constables	 12
. 122 Note.-Of the above mentioned special constables, 8 are members of the marine section, employed on preventive service vessels.


BONAVENTURE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	What was the sum total authorized by the Minister of Public Works for works done by day labour in Bonaventure county in 1932-33, and how much was expended?
2.	Out of what appropriation were such sums authorized ?
3.	Was this expenditure incurred by way of relief for the unemployed?
4.	If so, who selected the men employed?
5.	Were these expenditures incurred on the plea of essential undertakings, and, if so, who so reported?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Authorized	 $68,640.33
Expended	 66,065.63
2.	(a) $56,730.33 from Harbours & Rivers Generally, Quebec.
(b) $11,350 from Special Votes made up as follows:-
Mclnnis Cove, breakwater
completion	 $4,200
Bonaventure, extension to
wharf protection	 1,900
Gascons, wharf extension..	3,700

St. Charles de Caplan, wharf reconstruction (Vote-$21,000)	 1,550
Balance of vote for contract work.

(c) $560 from Dredging Ontario & Quebec.
3.	The Department of Public Works has no special funds for the relief of the unemployed, but the expenditures on labour gave employment.
4.	Foremen of Works.
5.	(a) Yes. (b) District Engineer.


PASI'EBIAC, QUE., WHARF
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has J. T. Langlois completed his contract at the wharf at Paspebiac, Quebec, and how much has been paid him?
2.	How much was paid J. Loiselle, the overseer ?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) $6,748.74.
2.	$279.

Questions


ST. CHARLES DE CAPLAN, QUE., WHARF
Mr. MARCEL:: 1.	Have Ludger Lemieux Limited completed their contract at the wharf at St. Charles de Caplan, Quebec, and how much has been paid them ?
2.	How much has been paid to the overseer J. A. Briere?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) 811,428.75.
2.	8409.50.


STONE FOR PUBLIC WORKS-BONAVENTDRE COUNTY
Mr. MAROIL:: 1.	What price did the Department of Public Works pay for stone at Anse a la Barbe. St. Godfrey. Port Daniel East, Melnnes Cove, Bonaventure, St. Simeon de Bonaventure, Paspebiac. Maria, Carleton and St. Omer, respectively?
2.	W as the price uniform; if not, why?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Anse a la Barbe, 40 cents per cubic yard; St. Godfroy, $1 per cubic yard; Port Daniel East, SO cents per cubic yard; Melnnes Cove, 65 cents per cubic yard; Bonaventure, 80 cents per cubic yard; St. Simeon de Bonaventure, none purchased; Paspebiac, none purchased; Maria, $1 per cubic yard; Carleton, none purchased; St. Omer, SI per cubic yard.
2.	Uniform price paid for each locality.


LEAGUE OF NATIONS-CAN ADLAN DELEGATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	Whait are the names of the members and the persons constituting the Canadian delegations sent annually to the League of Nations from 1920-21 to 1931-32?
2.	What are the items making up the total annual expenditures in connection with these trips?
Richard Bedford Bennett: Travelling and laving Expenses
1st Assembly
2nd Assembly.
3rd Assembly
4th Assembly
5th Assembly
6th Assembly
Special Meeting,
Hon. C. J. Doherty	\
Sir George Foster	14,645	40
Hon. N. W. Rowell	J
L. C. Christie	
1,283	07H. D. Robertson	
480	75
Transportation, etc.-Sir George Foster and
party	 1,848	56
Rt. Hon. C. J. Doherty and Sir George Perley including two secretaries and one stenographer	
Hon. W. S. Fielding	$
Hon. E. Lapointe	
Hon. P. C. Larkin	
O. Langlois	
J. A. Russell	
W. R. Rutherford	
R.	B. Viets	
S.	Wallace	
Hon. Geo. P. Graham	S
H. F. Sherritt, Private Secy...[DOT]	
E Pelletier, messenger	
Sir Lomer Gouin and staff	
Senator Dandurand	S
Hon. E. M. Macdonald	
Dr. O. D. Skelton	
" (delegation)	
R. O. Campney	
E. M. Macdonald, Jr	
Hon. R. Dandurand	
Hon. H. Bostock	
Hon. Philippe Roy	
Dr. Riddell	
Jean Desy	
Hon. R. Dandurand	
Hon. Philippe Roy	
Hon. P. C. Larkin, including Col. R. Hyde.
>-		$
	3,927	00
	4,190	00
	2,913	72
	1,000	00
	994	02
	692	32
	974	30
	700	00
	3,370	00
	730	00
	505	00
	5,402	56
	3,130	00
	5,000	00
	914	72
	537	71
	1,000	00
	720	00
)	7,629	071	2,120	931,380	00202	001,122	76
18,257 78
9,403 40
15,391 39
10,007 56
11,302 43
12,454 76
Questions

Travelling and Living Expenses-Continued
7th Assembly
8th Assembly
Sir Herbert Ames	$	1,040 00
Sir Geo. E. Foster	 3,577 00
Hon. Philippe Roy	 1,040 00
5,657 00
Hon. R. Dandurand	$	3,108 00
Hon. Philippe Roy	 624 73
Hon. C. Stewart	 6,002 50
Dr. O. D. Skelton	 2,687 20
48th Council Meeting	 Hon. R. Dandurand
Jean Desy	
2,121 00 1,457 40
49th Council Meeting
Hon. R. Dandurand	 1,100 00
Lt. Col. Vanier	 1,197 57

50th Council Meeting
Hon. Philippe Roy	$
Jean Desy	
192 95 215 60
Rt. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King___
Secretaries-H. Baldwin	
V. Lem ire	
Confidential Messenger-J. S. Nicol
9th Assembly, 51st and 52nd
Council Meeting	 Hon. R. Dandurand	
Hon. C. A. Dunning, Private Secretary and
Messenger	
Hon. Philippe Roy	
Dr. O. D. Skelton	
9,317 37
2,400 00
4,780 06 753 80 1,399 93
53rd Council Meeting	 Hon. R. Dandurand	 1,260 00
Dr. W. A. Riddell and Lt. Col. Vanier...	224 65
J. Desy	 163 40
54th Council Meeting
55th Council
10th Assembly, 56th and 57th Council Meeting	
58th Council,
Hon. R. Dandurand	 1,350 00
Jean Desy	 142 73



Hon. R. Dandurand	$	1,700 00Dr. W. A. Riddell	
381	79Jean Desy	
356	97Lt. Col. Vanier	
350	56Hon. R. Dandurand	
2,500	00Hon. J. C. Elliott	
2,515	93Hon. W. D. Euler	
2,000	00Sir George Foster	
1,680	00Miss A. Macphail, M.P	
1,658	75Malcolm McLean, M.P	
1,817	00Hon. Philippe Roy	
846	02Hon. R. Dandurand	
1,300	00Jean Desy	
134	69Lt. Col. Vanier (allowance)	
1,500	00
23,805 32
18,741 71
59th Council,
Hon. R. Dandurand	$	1,300 00
Jean Desy	 124 34
11th Assembly and 60th Council	
Sir Robert Borden	
2,877	05Hon. T. Chapais	
3,000	00Hon. Mary Irene Parlby	
2,175	65Hon. Philippe Roy	
1,031	16N. A. Robertson	
1,207	36
13,215 56

Motions for Papers
Travelling and Living Expenses-Concluded
12th Assembly
Hon. Hugh Guthrie	$	4,071 20Hon. C. P. Beaubien	
2,172	35Mrs. A. N. Plumptre	
2,326	48Hon. Martin Burrell	
2,153	10Hon. Philippe Roy	
979	67N. A. Robertson	
1,577	68Lt. Col. Vanier	
515	00
13,795 48
Salaries Paid for Extra Technical, Secretarial and Stenographic Assistance
1920-21-H. D. Robertson	$ 814 03
1924-25-R. O. Campney	 596 77
1926-	27-R. W. Weber	 96 50
1927- 28-E. R. McLennan	 126 22
1929-	30-M. F. Andrews	
90 001930-	31-Lt. Col. G. P. Vanier	4,745 00


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. DUPUIS:: 1.	What is the total number of Indians of the Cbaughnawaga reservation in the province of Quebec: (a) according to the 1931 census; (b) according to the latest statistics?
2.	How many among them are 21 years of age and over?
3.	How many among them have the right to hold real estate?
4.	Has the government received a request or
petitions:	(a) from the council of the said
reservation; (b) from any of the Indians, individually or collectively, expressing a desire to be enfranchised?
5.	By virtue of what agreement or treaty did the Indians of the said reservation secure from the Dominion government the rights and privileges which they enjoy in their reservation?
6.	On what date or dates was this agreement or treaty concluded?
7.	Does the government intend enfranchising the Indians of the Caughnawaga reservation?
8.	Should the superintendent of Indian Affairs decide to enfranchise the Indians of the Caughnawaga reservation, either individually or collectively, will the Indians of the said reservation retain _ the rights and privileges which they now enjoy, or will the said Indians lose their rights by reason of this enfranchisement ?
9.	From whom have they obtained the rights which they exercise, through the agency of the Department of Indian Affairs, in the seigniory of Sault St. Louis?
10.	Since what date have they held these rights ?
11.	What are the duties and obligations of the Department of Indian Affairs as seignior of the Seigniory of Sault St. Louis?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. JACOBS (for Mr. Casgrain):: [DOT]
For a copy of all correspondence, letters and documents exchanged between Mr. G. Nelphat Pelland, chief herdsman at the experimental
farm of Siainte-Anne de lia Pooatiere, and the Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa, or any of the officials of his department at Ottawa or at Quebec, respecting the dismissal of the said G. Nelphat Pelland; also a copy of any petition or petitions forwarded to the hon. Minister of Agriculture in this connection, and a copy of the order in council dismissing the said G. Nelphat Pelland.


GRANDE-RIVIERE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. ROBERGE (for Mr. Brasset):: For a copy of all correspondence, affidavits, communications, and other documents, forwarded to the hon. Postmaster General or to the Post Office Department, during the year
1931-1932, respecting Wilfrid Sirois of Grande-Riviere, county of Gaspe, a oandiaite for the portsinastership at Grande-Riviere.


PUBLIC WORKS-CACOUNA
Mr. GIROUARD (for Mr. Pouliot):: For a copy of all correspondence and reports, respecting an investigation made by the Department of Public Works at Cacouna in 1933, in connection with repairs to the wharf in said locality.


SULLY, TEMISC0UATA COUNTY, POSTMASTERSHIP
Wilfrid Girouard: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department, respecting the postmastership of Sully, county of Temiseouata, since October 22, 1932; also a copy of any claim submitted by Mr. Isidore Jean, of that locality.


SINO-JAPANESE DISPUTE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I am in order when I ask the Prime Minister if he intends to make an official statement with respect to the discussion now going on regarding the proposed embargo on arms and contraband of war shipped and to be shipped to the far east during the present difficulties between China and Japan.
Indian Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, appropriate action is in
process of being completed-I think that is a fair way of putting it-and the order in council when approved will be laid upon the table of the house.


TADOUSSAC-BAIE ST. CATHERINES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) asked me a question regarding a subsidy contract between Baie St. Catherines and Tadous-sac. This service is being carried on during the winter months on one trip a day. Upon investigation we considered that one trip a day was sufficient for that service.


Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Saguenay) :: If I might say a word, Mr. Speaker,
the reason I put the question to the minister was that if there is to be only one trip a day, either in the afternoon or at some other time, many will not be able to avail themselves of that particular trip and will have to pay $5 for a special trip across. It is for that reason I put the question before the house. I do not believe it is fair for the people to have to pay $5 each time they want to use the service.


INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 21, consideration in committee of Bill No. 21, to amend the Indian Act-Mr. Murphy-Mr. Ross in the chair.
Section 5 agreed to.
Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Superintendent General of Indian Affairs):: We shall proceed with clause 7.


Mr. HEENAN:: Have we passed clause 6?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Ross):: It was
carried before.


Peter Heenan: Would the minister revert to clause 6 for a moment?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Clause 6 was passed at a
former sitting.


Peter Heenan: That is right, but would
the minister allow the committee to revert to clause 6?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I should like to proceed
with clause 7, and then if the hon. member desires possibly we could deal with clause 6.

On section 7 -Inquiry as to fitness for enfranchisement.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Before this clause is considered I have an amendment which I should like to have inserted in place of the one now appearing in the bill, and I shall ask my colleague to move it:


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I beg to move in
amendment that:
In respect of an Indian of any band who has not made application for enfranchisement under this section or under section 114 of this act, the superintendent general may appoint a board to consist of two officers of the department and a member of the band to which the Indian or Indians under investigation belongs, to make inquiry and report as to the fitness of any Indian or Indians to be enfranchised, and such report shall have the same force and effect and shall be dealt with in the same manner as if the same had been made upon the application of an Indian under this section.


Mr. POWER:: That makes it worse. What is the change?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: When the clause was
under discussion at a previous sitting the Minister of Justice suggested that as under the act as it is to-day an Indian has the right to apply, that section should be left in the act, and provision made by adding a further subsection whereby the department, in place of the Indian, may take the initial step.


Charles Gavan Power: The principle which was
opposed on the last occasion still remains, namely that the department may, forcibly or by coercion or without the consent of the Indian, enfranchise Indians who are not prepared to make application for enfranchisement. Do I understand that that is still the situation?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I can hardly agree with
the hon. member when he says the principle is to enforce enfranchisement or to coerce the Indians. The department does not wish to do that. The principle in this amendment is the same as it was before.


Charles Gavan Power: Either by coercion, or whatever term you wish to choose, the principle is that under the provisions of the act an Indian may be forced to accept enfranchisement, even if he does not wish it. If that is the principle I wish to state I am on this occasion as much opposed as I was on the last. In fact, my opposition is even greater since, in the interval, a number of Indians have come to Ottawa and have explained to members of [DOT]the committee that in the most energetic fashion they are opposed to this action.

Indian Act


Mr. BRADETTE:: I maintain that the
amendment as it stands in the bill, and the proposed amendment, are absolutely wrong. As I said a few days ago, the measure is in conflict with our electoral legislation, and could very well be left out of the Indian Act. I am convinced that it enters into conflict with the law, and that there would be a conflict of jurisdiction. In my view the section should be taken away entirely from the Indian Act. This is the time and place to do it. Where there are anomalies of this kind the house should avail itself of the opportunity of striking them out. Regardless of what the Minister of Justice may have said on a former occasion, I am convinced that this matter is within the scope of the Dominion Elections Act. I maintain that the present amendment is just as vicious as it was in its previous form, and should be deleted from the Indian Act.


Mr. CASGRAXN:: A few days ago, in a
newspaper, I saw a memorandum which had been sent to the authorities in Ottawa with respect to this amendment. I believe it came from the band of Indians at Caughnawaga, and expressed dissatisfaction with the amendment before the committee. Has the minister received any such communication from these people?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I have received none.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Do I understand that
through the clause in the bill the officials of the department will have the right to enfranchise the Indian on a reserve-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: -without his consent or application? Is that right?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: No, it is not right.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Without his application
you have the power to enfranchise. Who decides whether he should be enfranchised or not under this new bill?
Mr. MURPHA":	The amendment to the
act reads as follows:
In respect of an Indian of any band who has not made application for enfranchisement under this section-
That is, section 110.
-or under section 114 of this act the superintendent general may appoint a board to consist of two officers of the department and a member of the band to which the Indian or Indians under investigation belongs, to make inquiry and report as to the fitness of any
Indian or Indians to be enfranchised, and such report shall have the same force and effect and shall he dealt with in the same manner as if the same had been made upon the application of an Indian under this section.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: In other words, then,
the minister has the right, after that report has been received, to enfranchise that Indian whether he wants it or not?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Subsection 3 of section
110 reads:
In the course of such inquiry it shall be the duty of the board to take into consideration and report upon tile attitude of any such Indian towards his enfranchisement, which attitude shall be a factor in determining the question of fitness.
After the report has been received, the recommendation of the board made, then the Superintendent General may make proper representation to His Excellency in council that such Indian should be enfranchised, and then the necessary action will no doubt be taken. But it does not rest with the Superintendent General to enfranchise him, that is done by His Excellency in council, the same as it is under the present system and has been for some time if not always.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Does not the amendment introduced this afternoon, and the section as amended, give the officials of the department the power to enfranchise an Indian against his will or if he does not desire it at all?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: It certainly does not give the officials of the department any such power.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Then I suppose under
the old act the Indian made application for enfranchisement-am I right?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: He could, yes.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Under the new act he
does not make application.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: He may.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: But he does not have to. At the same time the officials of the department, if they think he should be enfranchised, investigate and report to the minister. What does the minister do with that report?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He reports it to council.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Has the council the
power to enfranchise that Indian after the report has been presented?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes.
Indian Act


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Well I think, Mr. Chairman, that the ministry are taking too much power in their hands, and they are going to run into a lot of grief, and create a lot of dissatisfaction on the reserves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many cases would there be?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: It does not matter if
there is only one case. I have a reserve only a few miles from where I live-probably I should be on a reserve myself. Suppose the governor in council, after having received the report of the official, decides to enfranchise an Indian on that reserve without the Indian wishing to be enfranchised. Being enfranchised, he becomes a Canadian citizen to the full extent. He still remains on the reserve; he has privileges that the other Indians have not. Surely it is going to create a lot of conflict among the Indians themselves. And I might say to the minister that there is enough conflict among the Indians now without creating more. Many delegations come to me from that reserve with complaints of this and of that. I have not taken a great deal of notice of these complaints, I have tried to pacify the situation to the best of my ability, and tried to protect the officials, but with this power that the governor in council is taking the minister is going to run into a lot of grief. I do not think he should place himself, or the Indian either, in that position.


Mr. BROWN:: Mr. Chairman, we must
have failed absolutely the other day to impress upon the minister the grounds of our objection to this bill, if he thinks this new amendment would satisfy the point we raised. It does not touch the point we raised at all. Our objection was that the original amendment to section 110 placed it within the power of (the department officials to enfranchise Indians wholesale without consideration of the wish of t'he Indians at all. I think we can easily see the possibilities of trouble that might arise should the officials undertake to exercise that power. The minister in reply to a question of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) quoted subsection 3, referring to the fact that the attitude of the Indian would be a factor in coming to a decision. How big a factor? That is what we want to know. How big a factor would the attitude of the Indian towards the question be when the department comes to decide the matter?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Hon. members take the
position that it is the intention of the minister or the department or both to enfranchise Indians holus-bolus. There is no such inten-

tion. Rather it is to encourage the Indians -I put it that way-to take out the franchise. Section 110 as it is at present reads:
Upon the application of an Indian of any band, or upon the application of a band on a vote of a majority of the male members of such band of the full age of twenty-one years at a meeting or council thereof summoned for that purpose, according to the rules of the band and held in the presence of the superintendent general or of an officer duly authorized to attend such council, by the governor in council or by the superintendent general, a board may be appointed by the superintendent general to consist of two officers of the department and a member of the band to which the Indian or Indians under investigation belongs, to make inquiry and report as to the fitness of any Indian or Indians to be enfranchised.
Under that section as it has stood for years applications for enfranchisement have not been made, but under section 114 Indians have been enfranchised during the last number of years. It has been preferred by Indians who did not live on the reserves. As I endeavoured to point out the other day, there are numbers of Indians to-day who are professional men, graduates of universities, in business, and who are competing with white men, who are not Indians in the ethnological sense, although they are Indians within the meaning of the act. Under the act they have certain immunities, and they take advantage of them. We claim, as it was claimed in 1920 when this same amendment was put into the act, that these individuals who have obtained that standing should accept their full responsibilities as citizens and be treated as such. But may I again say to the committee, in language as plain as I can make it, that there is no intention to enfranchise Indians holus-bolus, and the condition of affairs suggested to the hon. member for Provencher, I cannot conceive of as arising. It might arise, I do not argue that such a case might not arise, but I cannot conceive that it would. This same provision was on the statute books of this country for two years, and no action such as hon. members fear was taken.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Did the governor in
council have power to enfranchise Indians previous to this amendment?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes, for two years, exactly in the way now proposed.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Why was that provision repealed?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: It was repealed in 1922
for reasons of which I am not aware, as I was not here at the time. I do not know why such action was taken.

Indian A$t


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Is it not a fact that there was very serious objection from many Indians, as a result of which the provision was repealed in 1922? I should just like to say that the more I look into this and think it over the more I am convinced that this is very bad legislation and a great breach of faith with the treat}' Indians. It is all very well for the minister to say that some Indians have become professional men and have taken high places in public life; that is not the point. This provision enables the department absolutely to break faith with the treaty Indians of this country.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: No.


John Campbell Elliott: I am stating absolutely
that that is the fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I ask the hon.
member if it is not the other way about? Is it not a breach of faith with this country for men to claim immunity after having obtained every possible advantage by way of education and otherwise while still declining to accept responsibility?


John Campbell Elliott: I say it is quite the
reverse. You enter into a treaty with an Indian or a white man, it matters not which


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I should like to ask my
hon. friend a question. He suggests that there is a breach of faith, and I should like him to particularize that breach and show us wherein it lies.


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend had not interrupted that was just what I was going to do. When the government enters into a treaty with the Indians and by that treaty undertakes that their land shall be held for them in trust and that they shall be wards of the government; that their property will not be liable to be taken under execution and that they will enjoy immunity from being contracted out of their property and their rights by white men, then I say for the government to take away those rights against the wishes of the Indians is a grave breach of the undertaking. The Prime Minister suggests that it is the other way around.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course it is.


John Campbell Elliott: And the Prime Minister
says of course it is. That just shows how little attention has been given this legislation by the Prime Minister and the minister in charge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nothing of the sort; I
imagine I know the act better than my hon. friend does, and this does not help it any.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps that is the reason we find ourselves considering legislation such as this. It is not to the discredit of the Indian that he becomes a good citizen and takes a high place in the community.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: It is all to his credit.


John Campbell Elliott: It is all to his credit, but for each Indian who does that there are perhaps a thousand others who are not able to take care of themselves and protect themselves against the white men who live on the borders of the reserves and who are very keen to enter into contracts with the Indians.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not touched
by this bill.


John Campbell Elliott: Who are not touched?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those Indians my hon.
friend mentioned are not touched by this bill.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not understand the
Prime Minister when he says those Indians are not touched by this bill. Any Indian whom the department may choose to enfranchise under this act is touched by it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course not.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: But the government has that power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the power
conferred. If the hon. gentleman would read the section he would understand it.


John Campbell Elliott: If instead of pronouncing
such a judgment the right hon. Prime Minister would read the section himself he would see that it does give the government power to enfranchise Indians who otherwise would not be enfranchised. Surely there is no doubt about that. If you have the power to do that you have the power to force enfranchisement upon unwilling Indians, and it was because of that power that the objections were taken which brought about the repeal of the former measure. The Indians objected. It is just begging the question to suggest that the government will not take this action against the wishes of the Indians. Someone suggested the other day that a great many Indians were anxious to become enfranchised. If that is the case let them secure enfranchisement by their own application, not by force. That is just the situation. There is no use beating about the bush; this bill puts in the hands of the minister and of the government the power to take away from the Indians rights which they now have. It puts in the hands of the government the right to

Indian Act

make the Indians liable to have their goods taken under execution; their lands which are now held under a location ticket may be taken under a judgment, which cannot be done now. Anyone who knows anything about the Indians knows that as a general rule they are very trusting individuals and that one of the greatest safeguards they have had in the past has been the fact that the white men living not far from the reserves, who as a general rule are anxious to make contracts with them, cannot by means of those contracts put themselves in a position to issue executions and thereby deprive the Indians of their property. That is the great injury that is being done now; that was the great evil that was sought to be avoided by giving the Indians the protection they have had in the past. They are wards of the government, and why? Does my hon. friend mean to suggest that the Indians are better able to care for and protect themselves against improvident contracts now than they were years ago?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: I differ entirely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have spent many
millions of dollars to make them so.


Mr. McINTOSH:: They are not at the
point of perfection yet.


John Campbell Elliott: I speak with some knowledge of the subject when I say that the Indians have not improved under the care of the government.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Do I understand the hon. member to say that the Indians have not improved under the system of education and other aids that have been given them for many years?


John Campbell Elliott: Not with regard to protecting themselves against contracting away rights which they should not be allowed to lose. That is the position, and even if the Indian has advanced to that stage is he not the best judge of whether or not those rights should be left with him or taken away? I cannot add anything to what I have said already. This legislation is highly objectionable and I believe that it will not be satisfactory to the Indians now any more than it was ten years ago. I do not think it is going to increase the confidence the Indians should have in the protection given them by the government if they are forced to accept legislation of this kind.


Pierre-François Casgrain: A few moments ago,
Mr. Chairman, I mentioned that some Indians
Mr. Elliott.]
had protested against this legislation. I find at page 15 of the Montreal Star of February 28, the following dispatch:
Indians Protest Federal Measure Caughnarvaga Mayor and Councillors Now in Ottawa
This dispatch is dated Ottawa, February 28, and is sent by the Canadian Press.
A delegation of Caughnawaga Indians is in Ottawa to present a formal protest in the form of a resolution passed in council by the mayor and councillors -against a bill introduced in the House of Commons-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reading of this
newspaper article is out or order, the hon. gentleman knows, because there is no evidence as to the authenticity of the facts.


Pierre-François Casgrain: It has often been done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then it is time the
practice was stopped.


Pierre-François Casgrain: When it is a dispatch
taken from the Canadian Press I think we should give some attention to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What has that to do
with it?


Pierre-François Casgrain: And it is a paper
friendly to the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What has that to do
with it? The point is that it reflects-


Pierre-François Casgrain: -for compulsory enfranchisement-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just a moment; I am
speaking to a point of order. The point is this. This is a reflection upon the administration of this act; it states that the government is doing so and so. Now, the fact that it is in a newspaper does not give it authenticity or value. The facts can be verified, but to place on record something that appears in a newspaper is merely taking up the time of the house.


Mr. RALSTON:: It is in order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; it is a reflection
upon the administration of the act.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: It might
be a reflection on the action of the government-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member can
-criticize it, but not a newspaper.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Do you mean to say.
Mr. Chairman, that we cannot read a newspaper article to show that certain citizens in the country are protesting against certain

Indian Act
things that are being done? This is being done every day in the house. I have heard articles read from on the orders of the day, indicating that certain people have protested against certain things that have been done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the Speaker has
ruled that it should stop.
Mr. CASGRAiIN:	I submit that this is
not disrespectful. I think that people may protest against legislation that is being enacted-*


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member can
do the protesting, but not a newspaper.
Mr. CASGRAiIN:	The newspapers have
a right to express their views, and a member can comment on what is being said. If the minister will permit me, I will go further than what is reported. My purpose in reading the article is to elicit information from the minister regarding certain treaties and acts whereby the Indians claim that they have the right not to be subjected to this legislation.


Arthur Edward Ross: Just a
moment-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Will you not allow the
hon. member to read the article?


Arthur Edward Ross: A point of order has been raised.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Will you give your ruling, Mr. Chairman?


Arthur Edward Ross: The article, I understand, is a criticism of the house.


Pierre-François Casgrain: No, Mr. Chairman. I
submit that there is no criticism of the house. A certain band of Indians, a certain section of the community, has the right to protest against certain legislation which is being enacted, and when a petition is reported in the newspapers indicating such a protest against the enactment of legislation proposed by the government, I submit that a member has the right to read and comment upon the article. Very often, when there is criticism in the country, it is reduced into the form of resolutions by boards of trade or other public bodies and such resolutions are published in the newspapers, and they are read in the house, sometimes in the course of debate on the budget.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In most of your speeches, I am bound to say.


Pierre-François Casgrain: My right hon. friend
*when he was himself in opposition read such protests made by different organizations.


Arthur Edward Ross: What the
hon. member is reading is a criticism of proceedings now under way, and I do not think that that is in order.


Pierre-François Casgrain: -for Indians, a bill sponsored and endorsed by the Minister of the Interior.


Arthur Edward Ross: The hon. member is not in order in reading the article.


James Layton Ralston: I know, sir, you will be
fair in the matter. May I ask that you read the rule? The rule, as I understand it, is that no member may read from newspapers comments reflecting on the proceedings of the house. It is in the nature of privilege, but it has nothing to do with criticism of the government.


Arthur Edward Ross: This is
criticism of procedure-


Pierre-François Casgrain: No, Mr. Chairman; I
submit that there is no such criticism.


Arthur Edward Ross: That is my ruling.


Pierre-François Casgrain: It is criticism of certain proposed legislation and as such we have a right to criticize it. Also, we have the right to show that certain public bodies or associations concerned with legislation are entitled to state in the press their criticism


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Pierre-François Casgrain: -and we have the right to explain what that criticism is. Now, we have here in a report of the Canadian Press a certain dispatch-


Richard Bedford Bennett: To my certain knowledge many of the reports sent out by the Canadian Press have been wholly inaccurate.


Pierre-François Casgrain: There is article 98 of
the criminal code.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Will you name some of the inaccurate reports?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will name one that
came to my attention this morning, a dispatch in connection with an international matter dealing with fisheries. I do not know whether the reports have a particular political tinge, but apparently they have in view of their authorship.


Pierre-François Casgrain: -the deputation consists of-*
Indian Act


Arthur Edward Ross: Order. I
have given my ruling and I will stand by it.


Pierre-François Casgrain: What is the ruling?


Arthur Edward Ross: The ruling is that the hon. member may not proceed with the reading of that article.


Pierre-François Casgrain: But what is the ruling?


Arthur Edward Ross: I have
given my ruling; you cannot do it.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Do what? Then I
appeal from your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Arthur Edward Ross: This is the submission: In the course of debate on an amendment to clause 7 of a bill to amend the Indian Act, Mr. Casgrain seeks to quote from an article in a newspaper commenting on proceedings now before committee of the whole. This is ruled out of order under rule 306.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I did not comment on
the proceedings of the house; the newspaper article does not comment on the proceedings. It is a protest-


Arthur Edward Ross: That is the same thing. Is the committee satisfied now?


Pierre-François Casgrain: I wish you would read it.


Arthur Edward Ross: Rule 306 reads:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Chairman, with all deference I contend that you must submit to the Speaker what has actually been read. It is not for you to decide whether it is or is not in order; that is what the Speaker has to determine. We should have the writing in question in order that the Speaker can decide whether it comes within that rule.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am submitting this newspaper as to what took place.


James Layton Ralston: With all deference I protest, because you must submit the thing which was being read, and not your own interpretation.


Arthur Edward Ross: An appeal has been made and it is not for me to decide p.ny thing.

Mr. Speaker resumed the chair,, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
In the course of the debate on an amendment to clause 7 of Bill No. 21, to amend the Indian Act, Mr. Casgrain began to quote articles from newspapers commenting on the proceedings then before the committee of the whole. The chairman having ruled that to make such quotations is out of order, an appeal is made from the chairman's ruling.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, may we now discuss a point of order?


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is not now debatable; it was debatable before the chairman.


James Layton Ralston: There is no debate upon Your Honour's ruling?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This is an appeal from a ruling of the chair.


James Layton Ralston: There is no debate?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The ruling of the chair is a mait-ter for the house to decide. The Speaker merely has the duty of putting the question to the house.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: We know how it will turn out.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The chairman having ruled that such quotations are out of order, the decision is appealed from.


James Layton Ralston: Does Your Honour rule that there is no debate upon the motion?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There is no debate.


James Layton Ralston: No debate upon the
motion Your Honour has put?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There is no motion before the house.


James Layton Ralston: Your Honour has put a motion as to whether the ruling-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am taking the sense of the house as to whether or not the ruling of the chairman shall be sustained; it is not debatable.


James Layton Ralston: It is a question and Your Honour rules that the question is not debatable?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Lo, the poor Indian.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I should like to vote upon this matter without prejudice and I should like to know the rule under which the chairman has ruled this to be out of order.

Indian Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the chair.
Indian Act


Mr. TOTZKE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber). Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling of the chair.


Mr. VENIOT:: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling of the chair.


Mr. BRASSET:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling of the chair.


Mr. BERTRAND:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling of the chair.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I was paired with the
Ion. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the chair.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the chair.


Mr. RYERSON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the chair.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette). Had I voted I would have voted against sustaining the ruling of the chair.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Lobbiniere (Mr. Verville). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the chair.



[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee on Bill No. 21, to amend the Indian Act.-Mr. Murphy -Mr. Ross in the chair.
Pierre-François Casgrain: When I was prevented
from quoting from the article to the effect that a delegation of these people had come to Ottawa, I was going on to say that their objections to the legislation now before us are on the following grounds:	First, that there
are treaties existing between the United States and Great Britain, in which both nations recognize the rights of the Indians as an independent people; secondly, there is another treaty which provides that the Indians shall not be denied their tribal rights; and thirdly, the Jay treaty of 1794 recognizes the tribes as being outside the circle of British subjects in relation to citizenship and sovereignty. I understand that those were the objections for-

mulated in the resolution that was adopted by the council of the tribe at Caughnawaga, and that the council has delegated a certain number of representatives to present their representations to the government at Ottawa. I understand that the names of those who are at the head of the council and of the delegation which has the resolution in its hands are Mayor Joseph Lefebvre, and councillors Angus Diabo, Alex. K. Beauvais and Stephen W. Delisle. They have been entrusted by the Indians to present to the government their objections to this legislation which the government wants to force through the house in relation to the tribes.
I have asked the minister whether he has received any communication from the mayor or people of the Indian tribe of Caughnawaga, and he has replied that he has not received any communication from them or had any interview with them. But it may be that some of his officials have had some communication or interviews with these people, and so in fairness to the house and the country, and in fairness to these various Indian tribes who are much concerned in this matter, I think we should have from the minister, in view of the objections to this legislation by the Indians on the ground of the various treaties I have mentioned, a clean breast, and that the whole situation should be put before the house and the country. I think the minister should also state whether he does -not consider worthy of consideration the objections which are being put forward by the Indians against this legislation, based upon the treaties I have mentioned. If those objections are to be considered, I do not think we should proceed further with this legislation until that has been done, but we should hear the representatives of these people and find out whether they want this legislation and what objections they have to it. That was the course taken when the Indian Act was amended in 1920. I remember that at that time a special committee of the house was set up, and the representatives of the various tribes all over the country came to Ottawa and made their representations, after which certain legislation was enacted to protect the Indians in view of the treaties which they had with Great Britain and with Canada. I believe the present legislation does away with these privileges. I think the minister ought to give all information possible to the house, in view of the treaties I have just mentioned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, in view
of the observations made by the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) I venture to speak to the committee' briefly with respect to this matter. This country

Indian Act
has treaties with the Indians; those treaties confer rights and grant immunities. But that has not precluded parliament from legislating when dealing with Indian matters; neither has it precluded legislatures, in some instances, from dealing with similar matters. That is, parliament has enacted national laws by which Indians are bound. The whole criminal code applies to Indians, as we all know, and so do many other acts. We have also expended very large sums of money in the education of Indians, and it lias been our boast-I think with some degree of fairness-that we have greatly improved their condition. The hon. member for West Middlesex does not think that, and possibly he has good grounds for his conclusions. I am not stating that his judgment in the matter is wrong; it is a matter of opinion. But I have lived for thirty years or more very near large Indian reserves, and I have been more or less familiar with their administration. There is a very large reserve east of Calgary, a Sarcee reserve not far away, a Stony reserve not far distant, and the Bloods have a large reserve near Macleod. I recall an occasion upon which a portion of land belonging to the Stonies was acquired by an enterprise in which I had an interest. I remember the Indians coming down here and putting their case before the department, speaking excellent English, and asking that a certain measure of compensation be given to them for the property they were willing to sell. I remember, further, taking the Indian chief up to the parliamentary restaurant where he had dinner with me, and I was struck with his wide knowledge not only of business but of everything touching the matter we were considering. It made a very definite impression upon my mind at the time, and was, in my view, evidence of the fact that the privileges which we had extended had not been in vain.
Prom time to time this parliament has exercised jurisdiction in enacting legislation which it was believed was in the interest of the nation as a whole and, incidentally, in the interest of the Indians whom it directly affected. It has been suggested, for instance that, the desire to enfranchise some of the Indians had political colour. Obviously any such assertion is negatived by the fact that if they were enfranchised against their will they would not vote for the government that did it. I believe that is a fair answer to make to that. On the first point, we have said that if an Indian desires the franchise, that right should be afforded to him. That right is afforded to him because he has by his education and by his position in the community indicated that he desires no longer
to claim the immunities, but to claim the rights of citizenship, and he is enfranchised accordingly. That has been going on for some time.
I come now to the next point, the controversial point which has had so much consideration in .this house in the last three or four days. Is it not desirable, and I put it on that ground, assuming that parliament has jurisdiction-which I do, for the purpose of all I have to say-is it not desirable that one possessed of education, one possessed of facilities for taking his position in the community, and one who practises a learned profession, should' not be compelled to accept his rights? That is the question. That is all there is in it. If it is felt that this section confers upon the government too great a power, the minister in his statements to the house has made it abundantly clear that he has no desire to utilize any governmental machinery for the purpose of imposing any unfair obligations on the Indians. And if after inquiry by a county court judge, an officer of the department and a representative of the band, constituting a committee to determine whether or not in the light of all the circumstances, the money expended, the education secured and the profession he is practising, or whatever it* may be, it is felt that a man should not longer claim the benefits and immunities under the act, but should assume the responsibilities and rights of citizenship, then that is all that is involved in the measure before us. If it is felt, as the hon. member for West Middlesex seemed to think, that the government had some purpose in the machinery suggested, I may say that this is purely an administrative matter 'which must be passed upon by the governor in council. In other words the minister himself has no power to do it, but when the report is made to him he submits it to council-that is, to all his colleagues- for their consideration. That means that a majority of the cabinet must, by appropriate action, determine what course shall be taken.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Is it not a fact that
when a minister of the crown brings a recommendation before the governor in council, his recommendation is accepted as a matter of form?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I fancy we would have
no difficulty in getting any ex-minister to give evidence on that point.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton); It would be passed if we could get it passed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member who
has just spoken has answered the question. Under our institutions there is no obligation
Indian Act

upon the council to do other than give the fairest possible consideration, in the light of the individual knowledge of each member of the council, the special matter submitted for its consideration.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: It would not be possible for the council to give special consideration, would it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is done. May I say
that the Minister of Labour explained that under an order in council passed in 1930 there can, by order in council, be admitted into this country only certain people. Each one of those applications is accompanied by a report. Each individual case is considered, and members of parliament who make representation may be perfectly certain that upon the application as it comes before council there is a memorandum to the effect that a recommendation has been made by this or that particular member of parliament indicating whether or not action favourable or unfavourable should be taken. In the present and the last administrations it happens that the Prime Minister has been president of the council, which means that he presides. If he is there he signs the order in council. I can only say this, that my experience has been that every order in council has been looked upon with some degree of care, and sometimes in the opinion of the ministers with too much care, by the president of the council and his colleagues.
I have merely indicated to the committee the circumstances under which the minister has submitted this legislation to the house. There is no political object behind it. Obviously there can be none. There is only an effort to prevent, by any individual, abuse of his position. That is, there is an effort to prevent abuse by a person who has attained a position of considerable importance in a community. It has been my privilege to speak to many highly educated Indians. I recall a very learned disquisition made to me once by a medical man who came from one of the Indian tribes, and most of you will recall the fact that for many years the head of the Foresters organization was a very distinguished Indian from, I believe, the Six Nations. Under those circumstances perhaps the committee will realize that this is an effort to prevent abuses by reason of immunities. That is all. But I grasp the force of the argument that was made here this afternoon that possibly two members from the department might give too much of a governmental character to the inquiry. Therefore, as in the case of naturalization, where the county court judge makes inquiries, there 
might be an amendment drawn substituting as one of the three members of the board a county court judge, or a judge of the superior court having jurisdiction in the area affected. I think that might meet the difficulties that one hon. member urged so strongly this afternoon. With that in view I suggest that the other sections of the bill be discussed and that this section stand, and the minister will endeavour to submit to the committee an amendment that will not be offensive to their sense of justice or fair play in dealing with those who, as was properly said by the hon. member for West Middlesex, are the wards of the nation. But being the wards of the nation implies that we are endeavouring to secure for them a position whereby they reach their majority. Just as wards in court are under the jurisdiction and control of the court, and have no contractual or other legal responsibility until they are twenty-one, so in this case we have spent millions of money for the purpose of bringing these wards to that point of maturity of judgment and understanding that they may be able freely to contract for themselves. I admit, as said by the hon. member for Provencher, that it must be done with discretion and without regard to any considerations other than those mentioned by the minister. If the committee is agreed, the section can stand and we will proceed to the consideration of the other sections, and endeavour to submit another amendment along the lines I have indicated.


Charles A. Stewart: May I
suggest, as the matter is to stand, that when the clause is redrafted some attention be given to the fact that this is effective on reservations, and with respect to bands living on reservations. I have refrained from taking part in the discussion because I did not have a very clear grasp of what the department was endeavouring to do by this legislation. I believe that a good deal of progress has been made in Indian education, and I think that we are now seeing the results. I can quite appreciate the fact that if an Indian is not residing on a reserve, is not an accredited member of a band, it might be desirable that he be enfranchised, and that legislation necessary for that purpose be enacted. But take for example, the case cited by the minister the other evening when this proposed legislation was under discussion, that of an Indian who, taking advantage of the educational facilities furnished him, sets up in business and is in possession of considerable property on the reserve. I know of not one but perhaps hundreds of Indians who are in that happy position, who are taking advan-

Indian Act
tage of the free land on the reserves, of the facilities they have under the provisions of the Indian Act, are making money and are creditable citizens. But here comes the point: Can you force that man to accept enfranchisement and become a Canadian citizen, and then, because you have done that, attempt to enforce all the laws of taxation which you think desirable and necessary against him as a resident of the band? Under the provisions of section 110 he left the band, was no longer a member of it, took his share of band funds and was created a citizen with full citizen's rights. That is where I see a good deal of difficulty. If you are going to apply it only to the Indians who have taken advantage of that, who have received their share of band funds, all well and good. That was all provided for before he made application for enfranchisement, when he was a member of the band; then his application in due course reached the Superintendent General. But all that is superseded under the proposed amendment; without that process you insist on his becoming enfranchised if the report of the committee is favourable. The suggestion of the Prime Minister of course will be helpful, that a larger protection will be offered him; but undoubtedly he will object. I never knew an Indian yet who, when you attempted to do something for him or with him that he was opposed to, did not object most strenuously and stir up a tremendous amount of trouble in the band. That is exactly the trouble we were encountering in 1922. I want to warn the minister and the department that by compulsory enfranchisement of Indians who are members of a band located on a reserve they face the possibility of considerable difficulty. You may surround it by safeguards to avoid that difficulty, but I point out that when you attempt to take that action it may lead to a great deal of trouble.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Before we pass from this I want to draw the attention of the committee to a point I raised the last time this measure was before us, namely, the position of the Indian who has never been a treaty Indian. I refer specifically to a very large number of people living in the section from which I come, hundreds of them who migrated from the shores of Hudson's bay just about the time the Canadian Pacific was projected through that country and the following decade, who never have been treaty Indians, and who from the time of their migration adapted themselves to the white man's mode of life. If I understood the minister correctly, and the interpretation given by the hon. Minister of Justice, it was to the effect that these
people are still Indians, that they have not the rights of citizenship as other Canadians have, and are not entitled to the franchise. They are not entitled to any immunities under any treaty with the Canadian parliament. They are making their own way in the world, and measuring up splendidly, as many other Indians who have been treaty Indians are. But if the act. now leaves them stranded, so to speak, neither Indians nor white men, something shcmld be done while these amendments are being prepared to take care of them. I stated, and I restate here, that right in the town in which I live there are several hundred Indians of that class, free Indians, just as fine citizens as you find anywhere, and something should be done for them.
As to the principle of the bill itself, I support absolutely, after an experience of fifty years in the study of the Indian character, the effort being made by the department to enfranchise these men and women, when the Indian department, representing the Canadian people, through its efforts has raised their standard of life to a point where they are well able to stand up alongside of white people and to accept the responsibilities that go with that position. But I would like the minister to give a definite ruling as to the status of the Indians to whom I have particularly referred, and what is going to be done to take care of them. They are not treaty Indians; they just came down from the north and settled alongside of white men, hundreds and thousands of them over the whole country from the Manitoba boundary east.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Before this section stands
I should like to do my duty, as representing the county of Laprairie, to the Caughnawaga Indians, whose reserve is situated in, my constituency. Those Indians sent a delegation to Ottawa, as the hon. member for Charle-voix-Saguenay said, and I had the pleasure of meeting them. I do not know whether or not they saw the minister; I am under the impression that they told me so, but I would not say so definitely. At all events they had a resolution, of which they gave me a copy. This resolution reads as follows:
We, the councillors of the Caughnawaga reserve, assembled in council this 25th day of February, A.D. 1933, do beg to approach you relative to the passing and adoption by the House of Commons making it compulsory for the Indians of Canada to be enfranchised.
It would be severe calamity to our Indians at this present time Should we be compelled to follow the laws of the white man in that we were not given the advantages of seriously
Indian Act

studying and comprehending the difficult problems and laws of the British commonwealth.
In dealing with those treaties between Great Britain and the United States wherein the independence of the Indians of the Six Nations, both Great Britain and the United States have confessed that the Six Nations were an independent people. The supreme courts of both countries furthermore recognized those treaties as inviolable.
In the life of Sir Frederick Haldimand, Making Canada V. 3, page 356. the question of the sovereignty of the Indians was very embarrassing, in that it would have been impossible on any theory of the laws of the nations for Great Britain or the United States to establish a prerogative in themselves to enforce the laws of the white man upon owners of this country.
In dealing with the Jay Treaty of Amity, Mallory page 590 in 1794 the rights of the Indians was recognized. Moreover the language used there treated those tribes as being outside the circle of British subjects in relation to citizenship and sovereignty.
To make this admission still stronger that article was amplified by amendment of 1796 Mallory, page 607, which provides that no treaty made or to be made by either party with another nation or with any other Indian tribe should be construed to deny those tribal rights.
We therefore beg and pray that those treaties be maintained and recognized by Great Britain and her commonwealth and that the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs take into serious consideration our request that those laws dealing with the enfranchisement of the Six Nations Indians be not adopted and enforced upon them.
This petition is signed by Mayor Joe Le-febvTe and Councillors A. K. Beauvais, John Lacombe, Andrew Delisle, Angus Diabo, and Jos. L. Beauvais.
I agree with the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister that the question of enfranchising those Indians who by education and mode of life have put themselves on the same level as other citizens, deserves consideration, and I am glad the Prime Minister made the suggestion that section 7 should be amended. It seems to me that this section puts in the hand of the government -any government that might be in power- the opportunity to bring about enfranchisement contrary to equity and fairness. Governments are only human; sometimes they are bound to fail and sometimes they are tempted. I am afraid that if section 110 is amended as suggested at present the government would be tempted to abuse its powers, so I am glad this jurisdiction is to lie with the courts. Of course I will wait until the amendment is brought forward before discussing its merits, but I was wondering who would decide what Indians should be brought before the courts. If this decision is to be left with the department it seems to me rather arbitrary.

The Caughnawaga Indians have met five or six times in general assembly to protest against this legislation, and particularly against section 7. As I have said before, those Indians in general are well educated, and one would have difficulty in distinguishing them from other citizens, but it seems to me they should decide for themselves whether or not they wish to become enfranchised. They contend that this is a right which should be theirs alone. They also believe, and I think they are right, that this freedom is granted them by the treaties made between the Six Nations and 'Great Britain on the one hand and the Six Nations and the United States on the other. I took the trouble to look up the treaty of Ghent which was agreed to in 1814. Article IX of that treaty reads as follows:
And His Britannic Majesty engages, on his part, to put an end immediately after the ratification of the present treaty, to hostilities with all the tribes or nations of Indians with whom he may be at war at the time of such ratification, and forthwith to restore to such tribes or nations respectively all the possessions, rights and privileges which they may have enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven, previous to such hostilities: Provided always that such tribes or nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against His Britannic Majesty, and his subjects, upon the ratification of the present treaty being notified to such tribes or nations, and shall so desist accordingly.
If we give a rigid interpretation to this section I humbly submit that it guarantees the Indians their rights, privileges and possessions and states that no one has the power to take them away. Those who are conversant with the international laws, those who know these special laws, should study the matter to see whether their contentions are absolutely right when the claim is made that whatever we might do to take away these rights from the Indians would be anticonstitutional.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Before we proceed to
the consideration of another section, may I say a few words with regard to this bill which is intended to amend the Indian Act. I hope that by the time we are through with it the bill will really amend the act and not tend to destroy it. I want to say something for two reasons. One is that when the measure was before the house the other day I made certain constructive statements which I should like to supplement on the present Occasion; and another reason why I think I should take part in this discussion is the fact that in the constituency of North Battleford we have quite a number of Indian reserves.

Indian Act
There are Indian reserves both south and north of the north Saskatchewan river. In northwestern Saskatchewan therefore, there are a considerable number of reserves. My experience with the Indians on these reserves extends over a period of some twenty-one years and I think I know something about the work that has been done to build up Indian character and to fit as many Indians as possible for the higher duties of Canadian citizenship.
The results that have followed the Indian legislation in this country up to the present time have been satisfactory, as the Prime Minister has said. I think the legislation on behalf of the Indians, passed under previous governments whether Liberal or Conservative, has been in the right direction. In my own riding of North Battleford there are two splendid Indian mission schools situated towards the west of the constituency, at the beautiful village of Onion Lake, one Anglican and the other Catholic. I am satisfied that both these mission schools have done excellent work, which has been largely instrumental in teaching the Indians progressive agriculture and fitting them for the duties of citizenship in that great western land.
I said I would supplement the remarks I made the other day with reference to this measure. At that time I endeavoured to make the point that the board which it is intended to set up by this legislation-or rather, the board which it was intended to set up until notice of the amendment was given this afternoon-was departmentally lopsided, and therefore I opposed it. I thought that since the board which the government then intended to set up was onesided it should be altered, and the proposition I put before the house then was that one man should represent the department. I think that is fundamentally sound. I may say I have every confidence in the departmental officials. In the second place I pointed out that the Indians ought to be represented, and that too is fundamentally sound. Thirdly, I endeavoured to define the status of the community under any new legislation that might be enacted, and I submitted that the community ought to be represented. With the remarks of the Prime Minister this afternoon, to the effect that the judge of the district court ought to be the third member of the tribunal, I heartily agree; I think he is on sound ground. The other day when I spoke that was the position I took; I held that the ground the government then occupied was unsound. I contended that what was then proposed did not show good judgment. Therefore, since ithe department is to
have one representative and the band another, and if the district court judge is to be the third member, I think that fills the bill exactly, as far as this section of the measure goes. The suggestion I made to the committee last week was that the community ought to be represented, and if it is represented by the district court judge then I think we shall have a triangular board which will be quite acceptable and which ought to give satisfaction in any matter brought before it.
In giving power to any board one of the first things that should be considered by any responsible minister of the crown, by any department, by any government or any prime minister is the question as to just what power is being extended. What power are you giving away? As Canadians, whether Conservatives or Liberals or Commonwealthers -because apparently we have some of those people in Canada-and irrespective of politics, we should ask ourselves that question as to what power we are giving away and in whose hands we are placing it. That is the essence of liberalism and I am not afraid to put that question to the house. On that ground I stood the other day, and to-day, in view of the fact that the bill has been qualified, I heartily agree with the modification in the structure of the board. I do not think that any power we placed in the hands of the board as thus reconstructed will be detrimental to Canada, to the Indian tribes or to the community. I feel therefore inclined to support it.
In conclusion, may I say that there are Indians who in my opinion should be enfranchised. There are Indians who now have the right to vote; historically they have a perfect right to exercise the franchise. In many of the great movements in the west and in our national history the Indians have played a prominent part, and therefore we are only doing what is right when we seek to put them in that position in which they can foe enfranchised. And, sir, I believe that the measure now before the committee, as modified, ought to fill the requirements so far as the Indians, the community affected, and the nation at large are concerned.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The charge is frequently made against legislative bodies that there are too many laws, and I believe that this is one illustration. This section of the act, I would point out, is in conflict with the Dominion Elections Act. The Prime Minister, I know, said a few moments ago that so far as politics was concerned the application of this legislation or of the act as it has
Indian Act

stood was^ absolutely negative. I believe he is right in that regard. But so far as the Dominion Elections Act is concerned, this parliament has given the right to a certain class of Indians to vote; returned soldiers, Indians who took part in the great war, and their wives, have the right to vote. That of course comes under the election act, but in the application of this section you widen the scope of that provision. I believe therefore that this would be the place to do away with the charge against legislative bodies, to which I have referred, and which has been proved in a great many instances, that legislatures are enacting more and more laws some of which are in conflict with existing legislation. Surely it should be possible for the Indian department to incorporate this section in the election Act. I should be glad if the minister would answer this question: How will the principle apply to my own section of the country where we have no treaty Indians? Under the election act only returned Indians, veterans of the great war, and their wives have the right to vote. Will any of the other Indians in my section of the country get the franchise?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that
section 7 is to stand for redrafting, and that section 110 will remain as it was?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I have no desire to prevent any hon. member from speaking, but these matters can be discussed when the proposed amendment is again before the committee. In order that progress may be made I would ask that this clause stand and that we proceed with the discussion of other sections of the bill.


William Richard Motherwell: Do I understand that section 110 will remain as it was?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: There will be no change
in the old section except that another clause will be added.


William Richard Motherwell: That is the one
which we have been assured will be redrafted?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: With the manoeuvring that has taken place on this simple enough question the minister can understand why the committee has been aroused and become suspicious as to his real intentions with regard to this bill. I have always looked upon the minister as being a very mild-mannered gentleman, one almost without guile, but I am wondering if I have misjudged him in that respect. From now on we are going to scrutinize this bill very carefully and especially any new amendments. I think it is a dis-
IMr. Bradette.]
grace that the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) was prevented from reading the article which appeared in the Montreal Star with respect-


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The hon. member cannot reflect upon the house in that way.


William Richard Motherwell: Am I not permitted to express my opinion on that?


Arthur Edward Ross: I must
insist.


William Richard Motherwell: Very good, that
makes it all the worse for the committee, not for me. You will correct me if I do not get everything dotted just right, but I think it should be noted that not only the member for Charlevoix but also another member on my left repeated the article and the Indian representations against these amendments.


Arthur Edward Ross: A different article altogether.


William Richard Motherwell: He got the goods
across anyhow. That is all I want to say at the present time.


George Brecken Nicholson: I asked a question a few moments ago as to what action was to be taken with regard to Indians who are not treaty Indians and never have been. A confusion exists in the section of the country to which the hon. member for North Timiskam-ing (Mr. Bradette) referred because of the doubt which prevails in this regard. These Indians were born in Canada,* they never have been treaty Indians and never have been in any sense wards of the state.


Charles A. Stewart: Are they
members of a band?


George Brecken Nicholson: They are not members of a band, as I understand the meaning of a band of Indians. They have no chief; they are simply following the white man's mode of life, but they are Indians so far as race is concerned.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I have no desire to delay the progress of my own bill, but I think this question could be answered when the proposed amendment to this section is again before the committee. The hon. member stated that he propounded his question a few moments ago, but because of the noise around me I could not hear him correctly. I intended to read his remarks in Hansard and answer his question when the bill was next before the committee.

Indian Act


George Brecken Nicholson: If there is any doubt as to the position which these people occupy,
I think the matter should be settled once and for all while the bill is being considered.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I will take the matter into consideration.
Section stands.
On section 8-Residing or hunting upon any reserve without authority.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I should like to suggest an amendment to this section. This is a penal section intended to keep aliens or others who have no business thereon off the Indian reserves. In the past any actions taken against parties who have misconducted themselves in any way have been taken before the Indian agent, and to my mind that is a very unsatisfactory procedure. I would suggest that the section be amended by adding the words "before a justice of the peace or a magistrate having competent jurisdiction" after the word "conviction" in the thirty-ninth line. I think this amendment would improve the conduct of cases under this section.


Mr. NEILL:: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that the Indian agents are not competent?


James Arthurs: There is always the impression that while they may be competent, they may be also somewhat biased. We have had the same experience in Ontario under our game act where certain cases are tried before the wardens. I do not think this amendment could do any possible harm.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I think the amendment proposed has some merit and ought to be considered.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The Indian agent is given the powers of a magistrate by order in council if such action is deemed desirable, and otherwise he has certain powers under the act. Section 152 reads:
Every Indian agent shall for all the purposes of this act or of any other act respecting Indians, and with respect to-
(a)	any offence against the provisions of this act or any other act respecting Indians;
(b)	any offence against the provisions of the Criminal Code respecting the inciting of Indians to commit riotous acts; or
(c)	any offence by any Indian or non-treaty Indian against any of the provisions of those parts of the Criminal Code relating to vagrancy and offences against morality;
be ex officio a justice of the peace and have the power and authority of two justices of the peace, anywhere within the territorial limits of his jurisdiction as a justice, as defined in his appointment or otherwise defined by the governor in council, whether the Indian or nontreaty Indian charged with or in any way concerned in or affected by the offence, matter or thing to be tried, investigated or dealt with, is or is not within his ordinary jurisdiction, charge or supervision as an Indian agent.
The hon. member asks that the proposed amendment be further amended to take away from the Indian agent the power to deal with certain offences which may be committed. There are certain sections of the country where the services of a justice of the peace or a magistrate are not available, and in such cases it is necessary that the Indian agent should have the powers given to him by the act as well as the additional powers granted in some cases by order in council. Since taking over the administration of the department I have issued instructions that where -the services of a magistrate are available they shall be utilized rather than having the case tried by the agent himself. I agree with the hon. member that it is not advisable in some cases that the agent should sit on the case because it might well happen that he might also be the prosecutor. However, may I say that if we amended this section in the manner suggested by the hon. member, there are many other sections of the act which should be amended similarly.


Pierre-François Casgrain: That would not do any harm.


James Arthurs: The objection I raised
was largely on that very ground, that it is absolutely unfair that the judge should also be the prosecutor. I am not speaking from any particular personal knowledge of this act. In my county, wihieire there are several reserves, offences in all cases are tried before the magistrate, which I think is proper. I am just bringing up this point which I think must be plain to anybody who considers the matter, that in case of offences under this act the agent would be both judge and jury and prosecutor combined.


Peter Heenan: Perhaps the minister would answer the question I asked some time ago in connection with section 6, which we can probably discuss in conjunction with sections 7 and 8. It will be observed that under section. 8 a penalty is provided fior a person who is found on the reserve and is unable to prove that he is there for some legitimate purpose. Reading that in conjunction with section 6, would any hawker or peddler going on the reserve without permission be subjected to the penalties provided under section 115? The reason I ask that is this: In the part of the country which I represent there are some reserves on which there are no Indian merchants. The Indians in that part
Indian Act

of the country do not remain on the reserve, but go out hunting and fishing and berrypicking, only returning to the reserve during treaty time, and the consequence is that they have to be grubstaked by some merchant to enable them to carry on until treaty time. Now under section 6, would one of these merchants, if he went on the reserve to sell goods to an Indian or collect a debt, be subject to the penalties of section 115? It would appear to me as if he would.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Section 6, which has been adopted by the committee, amends section 101 of the act, which reads as follows:
The chief or chiefs of any band in council may likewise and subject to such confirmation, make rules and regulations as to-
(a) the care of the public health;
and so forth. By section 6 of this bill we have added a new paragraph (k) to section 101, reading:
Regulating the operations of hawkers, peddlers or others coming on the reserve to sell, or take orders for, wares or merchandise.
We are simply adding that paragraph to those already in the section by which the band itself regulates certain matters on the reserve.


Peter Heenan: In other words, the regulating of peddlers or hawkers comes under the jurisdiction of the band itself?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: That is correct. Section
115 is designed for another purpose entirely, namely, to provide a penalty for loitering on tihe reserve when those so loitering cannot prove to the satisfaction of the court that they were on the reserve for some legitimate purpose.


Peter Heenan: Would the minister tell
me how it is that, the Indian bands having given permission to a merchant, say, to go on a reserve, when the merchant arrives there he is met by the Indian agent who tells him that he has received a blanket order from the department at Ottawa prohibiting him from going on the reserve? To give a concrete case, last year some business men who had been doing business with the Indians went on the reserve to collect and sell and were told !by the Indian agent that notwithstanding what the Indian band themselves desired, there was a blanket order from Ottawa under which the merchants were not permitted to go on the reserve. I want to point out to the minister that in my section of the country it had only this effect, that these business men went on to an island just a few yards away from the reserve, and the

Indians went over to them, and in that way circumvented the order. I would ask the minister to clear up that point. If the band have full control, without any dictation from Ottawa, I am quite satisfied.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I think the hon. member
has reference to a departmental order which was issued last year to all Indian agents in the dominion, which prohibited a transient trader from entering on the reserve for a period of thirty days at treaty time. The object of 'that order was to protect legitimate traders, so to speak, who carry on business on the reserve during twelve months of the year, and who in the past have been subjected on certain reserves, possibly not all, to competition from transient traders who come there at that particular time with merchandise and sell their goods to the Indians, and in many cases take practically all the treaty money which has been paid to the Indians. The trader who is licensed to be on the reserve during twelve months of the year in many cases has extended credit to the Indians in order to enable them to carry on, and it was felt that in fairness to these men they should receive the additional protection which was given by the departmental order referred to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Buying or selling contrary to the act.
Charles Gavan Power: By this amendment every
Indian who sells any cattle or other animals or any grain, root crops or other produce, contrary to the provisions of the act, is liable on summary conviction to a fine. Is that the only change here?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: I suppose it is a matter of
administration, and that the object of the amendment is to see that the Indian is not deprived of the proper profit or gain which he might make from his activities as a farmer or in some other line of endeavour. But I would point out to the minister that from the reference to "other animals" it would appear as if the Indian would now be obliged to sell the pelts or skins of animals, say, only to certain persons who have been designated by the department, and his market would therefore appear to be very much restricted. I am making this observation without any real knowledge of the Indian Act, but I would ask the minister if that would not be the effect?

Indian Act


Thomas Gerow Murphy: When this bill was considered the other day we passed section 4 of the bill which involves section 41 of the act, and to that I draw the hon. member's attention. The section with which we are now dealing is merely a penal clause dealing with the same matter. The hon. member will observe that section 120 reads as follows:
Every person who buys or otherwise acquires from any Indian or band or irregular band of Indians in the province of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or Alberta, or the territories-[DOT]"
The Indian in those provinces and territories cannot sell his produce without first obtaining a permit from the Indian agent. He may sell to different people; he may sell to anyone, but before doing so he must obtain a permit from the Indian agent, the object being to prevent the Indian from disposing of his entire stock in trade. In other words it is to prevent him from being victimized. This clause is designed for the Indian's protection, and we are adding the clause to the act to make the Indian himself liable for any offence under the act. In some cases the party who purchased from the Indian was held liable and fined, whereas the Indian knowing full well he was contavening sections of the law, escaped free.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not wish to insist,
but I repeat that the Indian is a ward of the government. Every person outside a band who purchases from him is liable to fine or imprisonment. That follows in pursuance of procedure laid down in the Indian Act. I think however we are going a long way when we make the Indian liable. It is my personal view that in parliament we are altogether too apt to create fines, and to place new penalties on our statute books. It seems to me that we could just as easily protect the Indian by enforcing some sort of discipline. As I understand the situation we make certain grants to him, we give him certain benefits under the Indian Act, and it seems to me that if he is in the position of our ward, or our child, we could withhold some of the benefits we confer upon him. I believe we would be going far if we were to lay down in our statutes a provision whereby any Indian who, without going through proper procedure laid down in the Indian Act sold some of the produce of his hunting, his fishing or his labour as a farmer, could be subject to summary conviction involving a S50 fine or imprisonment for thirty days. I do not wish to insist upon my views, but it seems to me that we could very easily find some other means to
protect the Indians from being victimized, ajndi ithaifc it should wot be necessary to clap him in gaol for doing something which it is only natural he may attempt to do.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The amendment to the
act was made on the recommendation of a former western comimissiotnjeir who had had a very wide experience in dealing with Indians in the prairie provinces. It was found that in some cases Indians would go so far as to sell their seed grain supplied to them by the department. Those Indians knew they were doing wrong. It is not intended that the proposed provision shall become irksome upon the Indians, and I do not think it will be. As the system has been in effect for thirty or forty years, the Indian knows full well, when he sells his grain, cattle or other produce without obtaining a permit, thiait he is dloing something he should not do. If the clause carries I believe no hardship will be worked upon the Indian. I feel certain the magistrates will take due notice of any extenuating circumstances, and that proper protection will be afforded the Indians.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Restriction on Indian dances.
Alan Webster Neill: I should like to know the purpose of this proposed amendment. In these days when Indians are becoming more and more civilized and educated, one would suppose we would be more inclined to withdraw restrictions. The explanations given on the opposite sheet of the bill throw no light on the subject. Indian agents do not live on every reserve-at least, they do not in the west. Many Indian schools are located near towns and at Christmas time they have concerts, for which they have to obtain permission from the Indian agent. Probably thaA would not be so difficult to get, because the people in charge would know some time ahead that the concert was going to be held. We will suppose, however, a condition such as this arises: X country fair is being held a long way from an Indian agent. Arrangements have been made that a team of Indians shall play a team of whites at lacrosse or football. Permission has been obtained-which, I must say is rather humiliating. We will suppose however that permission has been obtained. At the last minute one of the Indian boys cannot play, and it is impossible to replace him with another Indian without breaking the law, because permission could not be obtained from the Indian agent two hundred miles away. I should like the minister to explain what purpose lies behind the change
Indian Act

in the act, what harm it is doing in its present state, and what harm would come if an Indian did take part in a pageant without having first obtained permission from the agent. There is a very heavy penalty involved too, I notice.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: At present the act reads as follows-


Alan Webster Neill: I am familiar with the act.
Mr. MURPHY': It is as follows:
Any Indian in the province of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia, or in the territories, who participates in any Indian dance outside the bounds of his own reserve, or who participates in any show, exhibition, performance, stampede or pageant in aboriginal costume without the consent of the superintendent general, . . .
and so on, shall be penalized. The proposed amendment has for its purpose the striking out of the words "in aboriginal costume."


Charles Gavan Power: Is the term "aboriginal costume" anywhere defined?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I believe the hon. member would find the accepted definition in any standard dictionary. The proposed change would merely widen the authority given to the Superintendent General.


Alan Webster Neill: I know that, but why?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The endeavour of the department, in carrying out the act, has been to teach the Indians and to familiarize them with the principles of agriculture, thereby enabling them to secure itheir living. It has been found that when certain pageants, shows or stampedes are being held the Indian with his wife and family, and all other Indians on the reserve, will get into his family wagon and go to the stampede, leaving his crops and cattle without any care whatsoever. These shows and pageants and stampedes are usually held at a time of year when the crops are either to be harvested or the summer fallow looked after, and it has been found very difficult to induce the Indians to remain on the reserves at these times and practise the arts of agriculture as they should. I do not know whether that is why this section was first put into the act or mot, but that is the reason for striking out these words now, so that they must obtain permission to attend these shows in such cases.


Alan Webster Neill: If I can get anyone to second me I propose to cut the whole section out. That is what is needed. It is absolutely a dead letter in British Columbia, in the western part where I was an Indian agent. I never made any attempt to prohibit them at

Christmas time and the like having a dance in aboriginal costume. They have just as much right to do that as we have to have a fancy dress ball. '
Mr. MURPHY-:	There is nothing to prevent that.


Alan Webster Neill: I remember someone making a complaint about me in that capacity, that I did not interfere in such a matter, and it was reported to Ottawa and I was asked for an explanation. I went down and investigated and found that they had had a pageant, and had devised and constructed an object in the shape of a whale, which came ashore at a given point and broke asunder and a number of young men came out-[DOT]


Samuel William Jacobs: Jonahs!


Alan Webster Neill: No, they were a better type
than Jonahs, they were part of this pageant, and dressed in white. Someone had apparently taken photographs of it, and I sent these photographs in with this comment, that I had been down there and these were the facts as I had found them: that the day before I left home rve had a fancy dress ball in the town where I lived, and the man who got the first prize for a fancy dress costume simulated a monkey. For the life of me I could not see much difference between representing a monkey and representing a whale; if it was right for the white man to impersonate a monkey I did not see much harm in Indians representing a whale. I also pointed out that this is an amusement for the Indians, that the Indian is as much entitled to amusement as we are; in fact, he needs it more because he does not read and so has not that opportunity of recreation. I said that no doubt the ideal condition would be for the Indians to sit around in white collars talking about the uplift of the Indians. But they do not. If they were not doing something like that they would, as is well known, be drinking or gambling, and I thought it much better not to interfere too much with their native customs and enjoyment. I am glad to say that the Indian department was not lacking a sense of humour on that occasion; they said that perhaps I had acted with reasonable discretion. I see no reason why if an Indian wants to deck himself out as an eagle and put feathers on his head, he is any more reprehensible than the ladies who go to the Governor General's reception and put feathers on their heads. And let me say I have never seen an Indian at any of these dances in the condition of decollete that I have seen .at receptions.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.

Indian Act


Alan Webster Neill: I move, sir, that the whole
section be stricken out.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: I second it.


Charles Gavan Power: May I point out that although at first I was quite willing to second the motion of my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni that this section 10 which is an amendment to section 140 of the act be struck out, if it be struck out we will have the clause as it now stands in the act, which prohibits Indians from participating in a performance in aboriginal costume.


Alan Webster Neill: No, I wish to strike out the
whole thing, not section 10.


Charles Gavan Power: Well, if permitted to do so I will second it.


William Richard Motherwell: We ought to know a little about the Indian costumes and sun dances, and what the aim of the government has been for the last thirty or forty years, before we do anything like this. We have been trying to train the Indians to be selfsupporting, and principally to be farmers. If they are going to be farmers, they cannot be showing up in all kinds of fantastic dress to amuse white people and visitors, very often in high positions in the country that I will not mention, so high that none of us are likely to attain to them. These Indians are paraded around to display themselves for the amusement of the white onlooker. That is not the way to make steady farmers of them. If they are going to run side shows, or prepare for the stage, then, that course may be all right, but I have known myself many Indians that have been settling down to domestic and farm life who were all upset by one visit to one of these stampedes. One sun dance will put them back in their advanced civilization for ten years. I think it has been well thought out by those in charge in former years that these old pagan dances are not good for them. It depends on what we want to have the Indians do, what is to be their ultimate destiny. Let them go out with such shows as the Marx Brothers or other travelling troupes if you want to keep them in that class of occupation. But if you are going to make farmers of them the sooner they are permitted to forget the old order the better. That is my experience, and it has been fairly extensive, because we live within a few miles of the most advanced Indian colony in the Canadian west, at File Hills. Even the little change the minister is making I do not like very much, although it is small; but to cut it all out would be decidedly a retrograde step if you want to make self-sustaining farmers of these boys who 53719-166
have been educated by the government and established on farms and have raised their families. When you seek to reintroduce the old heathen practices it is not merely a parade, it is the heathen sun dance that you are trying to bring back by this proposed amendment.


Alan Webster Neill: Did the hon. member for Melville ever hear of the saying: All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy?


William Richard Motherwell: Oh yes, I have
often heard that, but it does not apply here.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is clause 10 carried?


Alan Webster Neill: No. I move, Mr. Chairman, that the section be amended to make it read as follows:
Subsection 3 of section 140 of the said act is hereby repealed.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: As one who has always stood in this house and in this country for the old customs and costumes. I have very much pleasure in seconding this motion. I think, we should not deprive our country, of what little picturesque life is left. Why should we try to force standardization on everyone? Why should we try to induce the Indian to live as we live? I consider their mode of life a very picturesque one. I would even venture to say that from an artistic point of view some of our people have receded from the Indian standard. I would very much like to retain as much as we can of these old customs and old costumes.


Mr. MALCOLM:: Can the minister inform the committee what privileges the Ontario and Quebec Indians have? Apparently this section does not apply to them.


Charles Gavan Power: They can laugh and play and have parties.


Mr.   MLTRPHY@: The question has not
arisen in the eastern provinces to any extent, if at all. It more particularly applies to the western provinces. I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to have the support of the hon. member for Melville, who has had much experience with Indians on his own reserves. He is aware, as I am, that if we are ever to make farmers out of our Indians-


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Why should we?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: -we should seek to keep them on the farms.


Charles Gavan Power: Why make them all farmers?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: We are not attempting-


Joseph Georges Bouchard: We are forcing.

Indian Act


Thomas Gerow Murphy: -to make all Indians
farmers, but this section particularly applies-


Joseph Georges Bouchard: This is a back to the land movement.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: -to those who are on agricultural reserves, who have attended certain pageants or stampedes in the west, and who at the present time are actually carrying on farming operations. When these stampedes occur every Unddan on the reserve frequently leaves and consequently neglects his crops and his cattle.


Alan Webster Neill: Does not the white man do the same?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The white man may, but the white man does not receive from the government appropriations to assist him in the work he is carrying on. The Indian is in a different category entirely. As has been well said this afternoon, we have spent millions of dollars in an endeavour to make these Indians self-supporting by teaching them the art of agriculture. There is nothing to prevent an Indian or Indians from taking part in a small local show in the aboriginal costumes with the consent of the agent. If they desire to take part in some pageant or to show off the reserve, and if it is considered proper by the Indian agent, it is very easy for them to obtain his permission, and I cannot conceive that the agent will refuse permission in justifiable cases. This provision is merely designed, as I have stated as clearly as I can, to keep those Indians from attending such pageants or shows as will militate against the performance of their duties as farmers.


Alan Webster Neill: As far as experience goes I
think I can compare with the hon. member for Melville, because for ten years I was an Indian agent and I learned how to handle them. I found that they got along much better and in a manner best calculated to promote their progress by not being too strict and by remembering that they were human beings who required recreation just as much as white men required it, and in fact more so for the reasons I have indicated.
- Mr. MURPHY: There is nothing to prevent them from taking part in those shows if they get permission from the Indian agent.


Alan Webster Neill: It is somewhat humiliating
to be compelled to go to an agent who may be two hundred miles away, and it is not convenient. What if the agent is away or is not available? I suppose the best that can be said about this section is that to a large extent it is ignored.


Mr. REID:: I must support the amendment. Coming from a race which has perpetuated its aboriginal costumes for many years it would ill become me to help deprive the Indians of their costumes. Hundreds of years ago a measure of this kind was passed having reference to Scotchmen, and they have not recovered from that insult to this day. I think if the Indians want to parade in their costumes they should have the right to do so.
Amendment negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	[DOT]
Section 11 agreed to.
Section 1 agreed to.
Progress reported.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bury in the chair.
Miscellaneous-to provide for payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council and for the cost of administration thereof, $2,000,000.
Peter Heenan: Could the minister tell
us what amount of coal has been moved under this subsidy?


Mr. GORDON:: Under what is known as
the Alberta coal movement to Ontario, that is, order in council P.C. 439 dated March 16, 1928, amended by P.C. 2364 of December 3, 1929, extended by P.C. 1268 of June 5, 1930 to March 15, 1931, and further extended by P.C. 302 of February 9, 1932, authorizing a test freight rate of $6.75 per ton on movements of Alberta coal to the province of Ontario, the movements have been as follows:
	Tons	Amount paid
1928	32.101	$ 47.509 501929	45.381	100,745 821930	25,287	56,137 141931	22,634	50,247 48*1932	16,801	37,301 39*142,204	$291,941 33* Estimated.	Then by order	in council	P.C. 1400, dated
June 14, 1930, a reduction was authorized of one-eighth of one cent per ton mile from existing freight rates.
P.C. 1303 of May 30, 1931, became effective June 1, 1931, and will expire June 30, 1933. It authorizes a reduction of one-seventh of a cent per ton per mile from existing freight rates, but the amount of the assistance is not to exceed $1.50 per net ton, on coal for industrial and railway purposes shipped to points in Manitoba. By P.C. 827 of April 15,

Supply-M iscellan eous-Coal
1932, the limit of $1.50 per ton was reduced to $150 per tan, with the proviso that accept ances already granted at the previous rate could be filled at the old rate.
P.'C. 1303 also authorized a reduction of one-third of a cent per ton per mile from the existing freight rates, but the amount of assistance is not to exceed S2 per ton, on coal shipped to points in Ontario west of Sioux Lookout and Fort Frances.
Movements
Net	Cost to
tons	government
1930, June to December. 54,479	$ 59,193 41
1931	
180,114	211,566	541932	
218,668	273,574	36Total	
453,261	$544,334	31
Saskatchewan coal to Manitoba and western Ontario:
PjC. 1399 dated June 14, 1930, was effective from June 1, 1930, to May 31, 1931. It authorized a reduction of fifty cents per ton from the existing freight rates on coal for industrial purposes shipped to points in Manitoba.
P.C. 1301 of May 30, 1931, became effective June 1, 1931, and will expire June 30, 1933. It authorizes a reduction of one-seventh of a cent per ton per mile from the existing freight rates but the amount of assistance is not to exceed $1 per net ton on coal for industrial purposes shipped to points in Manitoba and to points in Ontario west of Sioux Lookout and Fort Frances.
Movements
Net	Cost to
tons government 1	1930, June to December. 19,604	$ 9,802 821931	
60.012	26,842	011932	
100,479	40,698	22Total	
180,095	$77,343	05
British Columbia export and bunker coals: P.C. 1302 of May 30, 1931, and as amended by P.C. 2699 of October 27, 1931, authorizes assistance of fifty cents per gross ton on coal sold as fuel for ships' stores, and assistance of SI per gross ton on coal sold for export to foreign countries other than the United States of America. The total annual payments to be made under the order in council and its amendment are limited to $100,000. It expires June 30. 1933.
Movements
Net	Cost to
tons government 1931, June to December. 55,678	$17,850 72
1932	
81,639	36,750 00Total	
137,317	$54,600 72
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick coals to Quebec and Ontario:
P.C. 539 of March 30, 1928, and its extension, P.C. 2256 of October 2, 1930, was in effect from April 1, 1928 to May 30, 1931.
Section " A " covered movements wholly by rail providing a maximum temporary rate of $3 per net ton on coal mined in Nova Scotia, and $2.10 per net ton on coal mined in New Brunswick, shipped by rail to points in Quebec during the season when navigation on the St. Lawrence was not practicable.
Section " B " covered movements by water and rail. It provided a temporary rate of one-fifth of one cent per ton less than the rail rate which otherwise would be applicable on coal mined in eastern Canada and carried by vessel to St. Lawrence ports and thence transshipped to points in Quebec and Ontario.
P.C. 539 was rescinded by P.C. 1299 and PjC. 1300 referred to hereunder, with the proviso that shipments would be continued on acceptances that were granted under authority of P.C. 539 until the tonnages authorized had been shipped.
P.C. 1299 for coal mined in New Brunswick became effective June 1, 1931, and will expire June 30, 1933. It authorizes a reduction of one-sixth of a cent per net ton per mile from the existing freight rates for coal for other than household purposes when shipped to points in Ontario or Quebec, but the amount of assistance is not to exceed $1.50 per net ton.
P.C. 1300 for coal mined in Nova Scotia, became effective June 1, 1931 and was in effect until May 9, 1932 when it was rescinded by P.C. 1048, referred to hereunder, with the proviso that shipments should be continued on acceptances that were granted under authority of P.C. 1300 until the tonnages authorized had been shipped.
P.C. 1300 authorized a reduction of one-fifth of a cent per ton per mile from the existing rail freight on coal mined in Nova Scotia and carried by vessel to St. Lawrence ports and thence transhipped by the railways to points in Quebec and to the town of Cornwall and the city of Ottawa in Ontario, with a limit of 75 cents per net ton. It also authorized a reduction of one-third of a cent per ton per mile (not exceeding $1.50 per net ton) from the existing rail freights on Nova Scotia coal waterborne to St. Lawrence ports and thence transhipped to points in Ontario other than the town of Cornwall and city of Ottawa. It also authorized a reduction of one-seventh of a cent per ton per mile (not exceeding $2 per net ton) on coal mined in Nova Scotia
53719-166i
Supply-Miscellaneous-Coal

and shipped wholly by rail to points in Quebec and Ontario during the season from 15th November to 15th April in each year.
P.C. 1048 became effective May 9, 1932. Amended by P.C. 1676 of July 28, 1932. Further amended by P.C. 2563 of November 22, 1932. Will continue in force until rescinded, so long as parliament continues to vote the necessary funds.
P.C. 1048 authorizes assistance at the rate of one-fifth of a cent per net ton per mile from the existing rail freight rates on Nova Scotia coal waterborne to St. Lawrence ports, thence transhipped by the railways to points in Quebec for use by consumers other than the railways. Limit 75 cents per net ton.
It authorizes assistance at the rate of one-third of a cent per ton per mile on Nova Scotia coal shipped similarly to the above to points in Ontario. Limit $1.50 per net ton.
It authorizes assistance at the rate of one-seventh of a cent per net ton per mile on Nova Scotia coal transported wholly by rail to points in Ontario and Quebec for use by consumers other than the railways. Limit $2 per net ton. Originally available only from November 15 to April 15 each year, this was amended by P.C. 1676 of July 28, 1932, to be effective at all times.
It also authorizes assistance at the rate of $1 per net ton on maritime provinces coal carried by water to any point west of the island of Montreal.
It authorizes, for maritime provinces coal transported as in the preceding paragraph to points west of the island of Montreal, thence transhipped by the railways to points in Ontario west of Kingston for use by consumers other than the railways, assistance at the rate of one-third of a cent per ton per mile from the existing rail freight rates. Limit $1 per net ton.
Railway Coal:	It authorizes payment to
the coal mine operators or to distributors, in the case of coal purchased by the railways for their own use at points in Quebec and Ontario, of the difference in the laid-down cost to the railways of coal mined in the maritime provinces and the laid-down cost at the same point of imported coal that would otherwise be used, up to a maximum of $2 per net ton. It was provided that the difference in laid-down costs should be determined by the Dominion Fuel Board. It was also provided that assistance should only apply on that quantity of Canadian coal purchased in excess of the quantity of Canadian coal purchased in 1931. This limitation was removed by P.C. 2563 of November 22, 1932.

The movement under these orders in council was as follows-


Charles A. Stewart: Is there an area limit upon the assistance given to the railways?


George Gordon: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: How far
west does it extend?


George Gordon: I think it comes up to
Montreal and it may come as far as Kingston, although I am not sure. I will obtain the information for my hon. friend. The movement under these orders in council was as follows:
From Nova Scotia, Rail and Water
Cost to
Year

	Net tons government
1928	
88.334	$ 15,734	401929	
225,444	51,544	051930	
305,099	84,204	181931	
332,159	96,232	62Total	
951,036	$247,715 25
From Nova Scotia, all Rail
Cost to
Year-[DOT]	Net tons government
1928-	29	
85,241	$166,219	951929-	30	
63,884	124,573	801930-	31	
71,549	139,520	551931 to December 31.	17,608	27,837	13Total	
238,282	$458,151 43
The figures for 1930-31 all-rail movements are estimated only.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 2, 1933