1933-05-08

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) :: I beg to lay on the table of the house a number of orders in council passed pursuant to relief legislation.



CANADA-NEW ZEALAND TRADE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 97, to authorize the governor in council to agree to extend by proclamation the duration of the trade agreements made between Canada and New Zealand, dated the 23rd day of April, 1932, as approved by chapter 34 of the statutes of 1932, entitled an Act respecting a certain Trade Agreement between Canada and New Zealand.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Mr. W. J. LOUCKS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to present to the house a

petition signed by a number of persons in my constituency and largely signed also by other citizens of Canada, to the extent of over four hundred thousand names, it relates to the banning of Judge Rutherford's lectures from broadcast over Canadian radio stations.


Mr. McINTOSH:: There ought to be a lot of votes in that. Why not protest?


Mr. BENNETT:: He is not reading them into Hansard.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	Is the government contemplating the transfer of the National Development Bureau, of the Department of the Interior, into another department?
2.	If so, what department is in mind?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


TUBERCULOSIS RESTRICTED AREA
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has the Department of Agriculture accepted the county of Saguenay as being part of the counties of Chicoutimi and Lake St. John in connection with the restricted area for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis?
2.	If so, when was such a- decision taken?
3.	W'ho made this request? [DOT]
4.	Was a restricted area for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis established for the county of Saguenay?
5.	If so, when?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No request made.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


POWELL RIVER, B.C., MAIL CONTRACTOR
Mr. MUNN:: 1.	What is the name of the mail contractor at Powell River, British Columbia?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	Were tenders called for?
4.	What amount does he receive per year?
5.	What was the name of the contractor employed previously to the present appointee?
6.	What amount was paid the previous contractor during the years 1930, 1931 and 1932?

Motions for Payers


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	F. J. Radford.
2.	May 1, 1933.
3.	Yes.
4.	$720.
5.	J. A. Dykes.
6.	1930-$300; 1931-$300; 1932-$660: (at rate $300 to April 1; rate $780 from April 1).


NORTH WOLFESTOWN, QUE., POSTMASTERSIIIP
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	What is the name of the postmaster at North Wolfestown, Quebec?
2.	What salary does he receive?
3.	What is the annual revenue of the post office?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Denis Larkin.
2.	$90 per annum.
3.	$18 for fiscal year ended March 31, 1933. Instructions given for closing of office.


BELMINA, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	Who is the postmaster at Belmina, Quebec?
2.	What salary does he receive?
3.	What is the annual revenue of this post office ?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Napoleon Croteau.
2.	$90 per annum.
3.	$5.50 for fiscal year ended March 31, 1933. Instructions given for closing of office.


STATUTORY INCREASES TO CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. MacLEAN:: What is the estimated amount of money which will be required to pay the statutory increase to the civil servants under the Civil Service Act, that will have accumulated for the three years ending March 31, next, and which is now a liability against the revenues of the dominion?


Mr. CAHAN:: I suggest that this question be withdrawn for revision, because, in the first place, the stoppage of increases in the salaries of civil servants has continued only one year, up to March 31 last, and not three years as suggested, and secondly, because the question assumes that these reductions or stoppages of increases accumulate from year to year as a liability against the revenues of Canada. That, I think, is an assumption of fact which has never yet been accepted. The question should be revised. It is impossible for us to make estimates for the next two years as to what these increases would amount to, having regard to deaths, retirements and other changes in the civil service.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped for revision.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DONNELLY:: 1.	What was the total number of government owned motor cars used for the convenience of the cabinet ministers from July 31, 1930, to March 31, 1931?
2.	What was the total number of government owned motor cars used for the convenience of deputy ministers from July 31, 1930, to March 31, 1931?
3.	When was each of the cars mentioned in questions 1 and 2 bought by the government and at what price?
4.	How many of these cars have been sold and how many are still in the possession of the government?
5.	Of those cars that have been sold, to whom was each sold and at what price?


JARKA COMPANY
Mr. QUINN:: 1.	Is the Jarka Company incorporated under the laws of the Dominion of Canada?
2.	What is the capital of this company?
3.	Is their floating equipment registered in Canada?
4.	If not, was full duty paid on both floating equipment and unloading equipment?
5.	Has this company made any application for any refund of duties on equipment brought into Canada during the last three years?
6.	Is the government aware that this company, operating in the harbour of Montreal is not employing members of the Longshoremen's Union?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. GAGNON:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Attorney-General for the province of Quebec or his assistant and the Minister of Justice, and the Chief Justice in Quebec and other persons, with respect to the appointment of new judges of the superior court in the province of Quebec.



GRONDINES, QUE., POST OFFICE

Mr. POULIOT (for Mr. Desrochers):: For a copy of all documents, letters, telegrams and reports of inquiries in the possession of the government, respecting the dismissal of Mrs. Arthur Perron, postmistress at Grondines, county of Portneuf, during the years 1930, 1931, 1932.



IMPORTATION OF AIRCRAFT

Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents received by the government or any minister thereof with reference to the prohibition of the importation of second hand or used aircraft into Canada since January 1, 1932. to date.
7'ariff Board Act



DUTY ON TIMOTHY SEED

Mr. ELLIOTT (for Mr. Taylor):: For a copy of all correspondence, orders in council and instructions to customs officers, respecting value for duty purposes on timothy seed and the rescinding of same.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There should be a date-
"since" a given time.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: What date?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Any date the hon. gentleman suggests.


John Campbell Elliott: Since August 1930.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: With that revision shall
the motion carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That on and after Tuesday, the 9th May, next, until the end of the present session, the house shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning of each sitting day, and that, in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock, p.m., there shall also foe an intermission every day from one to three o'clock, p.m., and that on Wednesday, the 10th May, next, and all subsequent Wednesdays, the sittings shall in every respect be under the same rules provided for other days.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, this motion is generally submitted when the full legislative program is before the house. Do we understand that apart from the redistribution bill and possibly another bill with relation to the French treaty, there will be nothing else to be presented?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I told the house the
other day that that was my understanding of the situation. I think there is an amendment to the Excise Act which was prepared in April and which was awaiting the passage of the budget, but outside of the bills in the Senate, I know of no others.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Tariff Board Act. chapter 55 of the statutes of 1931,

to provide that the salary of the chairman shall foe $15,000 per annum; and that any member of the board who has served for a period of ten years, and is, on completion of such period, of the age of sixty years or over, may be granted an annuity equal to one-half of the annual salary of such member.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), concerning certain dispatches which appeared in the press this morning concerning an agreement which has been entered into between this government and the government of British Columbia with respect to the unemployment situation in that province. If these dispatches are correct, would the minister give us the details of this agreement?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the contributions made by the federal authorities in connection with relief have been the subject of a number of conferences between myself and the representatives of the province of British Columbia. These conferences have taken place during the past two years at the end of each fiscal year. We have arrived at the terms of an agreement to be entered into with the province of British Columbia and a draft of the proposed agreement with the accompanying order in council was tabled to-day. This draft discloses the terms of the agreement which will become effective upon execution by both parties.



CANADIAN NATION AL-CA NADI A N PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) if the third reading of this bill will be proceeded with to-day?

Indian Act


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The third reading of this bill will not be proceeded with until to-morrow at the request of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King).



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. POUiLIOT (Translation): Would the hon. Postmaster General inform the house whether he will bring down his estimates to-day?
Hon. ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General) (Translation):: I would willingly do so, if I knew definitely when they will be submitted to the house.
I trust they will be brought down between-


Mr. HACKETT (Translation):: -at the end of the session.


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly, between now and the end of the session; I hope to move their adoption in the course of the present week or, at the latest, next week.



INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. 21, to amend the Indian Act-Mr. Murphy.-Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
On section 7-Enquiry as to fitness for enfranchisement.
Mr. SMOKE:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
make a few remarks concerning the Six Nations Indians. These Indians are not natives of Canada, as we understand the term. At the time of the discovery of America, or at least shortly afterwards, these Indians were settled in the Mohawk valley in the state of New York. As they are not natives of Canada, in the same sense as other Indians, I claim and they claim that they are in a class by themselves. Readers of history will remember that during the revolutionary war these Indians were allies of the British government and while that war turned out so disastrously for the British army, +hey remained loyal to the British Empii-o Subsequently, by virtue of what is known as the Haldimand treaty, they were allowed to come over to Canada. The Haldimand tre&jy, so-called, is very short and I think I cannot do better than read the material portions of it. It is dated October 25, 1784, and recites:
Whereas His Majesty having been pleased to direct that, in consideration of the early attachment to his cause manifested by the Mohawk
Indians and of the loss of their settlement which they thereby sustained a convenient tract of land under his protection should be chosen as a safe and comfortable retreat for them and others of the Six Nations who have either lost their settlements within the territory of the American states or wish to retire from them to the British. I have at the earnest desire of many of these His Majesty's faithful allies purchased a tract of land from the Indians situated between the lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron, and I do hereby in His Majesty's name authorize and permit the said Mohawk nation and such others of the Six Nation Indians as wish to settle in that quarter to take possession of and settle upon the banks of the river commonly called Ouse or Grand river, running into lake Erie, allotting to them for that purpose six miles deep from each side of the river, beginning at lake Erie and extending in that proportion to the head of the said river which they and their posterity are to enjoy forever.
Given under my hand and seal at arms-
In pursuance of that treaty the Six Nations Indians, or the greater bulk of them, came over from New York state where they had been living, and settled in the western part of Ontario. The British government had not at that time acquired all the land which they had agreed to give to the Six Nations Indians, but they afterwards by treaty acquired the land from the Mississauga Indians and subsequently made good their agreement to allow the Six Nations Indians to settle in that portion of western Ontario.
Following that treaty, what is known as the Simcoe deed was entered into pursuant to the Haldimand treaty. I want to read the material parts of the Simcoe deed, which is dated January 14, 1793:
Know ye, that whereas the attachment and fidelity of the chiefs, warriors, and people of the Six Nations, to us and our government has been made manifest on divers occasions by their spirited and zealous exertions and by the bravery of their conduct, and we being desirous of showing our approbation of the same and in recompense of the losses they may have sustained of providing a convenient tract of land under our protection for a safe and suitable retreat for them and their posterity, have of our special grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, given and granted-
This is a deed; Governor Simcoe, representing the king has given and granted this land.
-and by these presents do give and grant to the chiefs, warriors, women and people of the said Six Nations and their heirs forever, all that district or territory of land-
And so forth, described as I have given it before.
Giving and granting, and by these presents confirming to the said chiefs, warriors, women
Indian Act

and people of the said Six Nations and their heirs, the full and entire possession, use, benefit and advantage of the said district or territory, to be held and enjoyed by them in the most free and ample manner, and according to the several customs and usages of them the said chiefs, warriors, women and people of the said Six Nations; provided always, and be it understood to be the true intent and meaning of these presents that, for the purpose of assuring the said lands, as aforesaid to the said chiefs, warriors, women and people of the Six Nations, and their heirs, and of securing to them the free and undisturbed possession and enjoyment of the same, it is^ our royal will and pleasure that no transfer, alienation, conveyance, sale, gift, exchange, lease, property or possession, shall at any time be had, made or given of the said district or territory, or any part or parcel thereof, by any of the said chiefs, warriors, women or people, to any other nation or body of people, person or persons whatever, other than among themselves the said chiefs, warriors, women and people, but that any such transfer, alienation, conveyance, sale, gift, exchange, lease or possession, shall be null and void, and of no effect whatever, and that no person or persons shall possess or occupy the said district or territory or any part or parcel thereof, by or under any pretence or any such alienation, title or conveyance, as aforesaid, or by or under any pretence whatever, under pain of our severe displeasure.
And so on. That, as I say, places the band of Indians known as the Six Nations in an altogether different category from other Indians in this country. I want to call the attention of the .committee to the definition of the word " band " in the interpretation clause of the Indian Act. Section 2, paragraph (b) reads:
"Band" means any tribe, band or body of Indians who own or are interested in a reserve-
This is not a reserve at all.
-or in Indian lands in common, of which the legal title is vested in the crown.
The legal title to those lands is not vested in the crown because, according to the Simcoe deed which I have read, it is granted, to the Six Nations Indians, so that the word "band" does not apply to the Six Nations Indians.
We find the term "reserve" defined in paragraph (j) which reads:
"Reserve" means any tract or tracts of land set apart by treaty or otherwise for the use or benefit of or granted to a particular band of Indians, of which the legal title is in the crown.
Those are the same words used there. I claim that the legal title to those lands is not in the crown and therefore the present Indian Act should not be held to be applicable to the Six Nations Indians.

Let us refer again to the history of the Six Nations Indians. In the war of 1812-14 we find that they took the side of the British in fighting against the Americans. In the rebellion of 1837 they took the part of the loyal citizens of Canada of that day in fighting the battles of Great Britain. Then in the great war I can only refer to a speech made by a former Minister of the Interior in this house when he said that 600 of the Indians of the Six Nations volunteered to fight in the great war. Let us understand what 600 means in comparison with the small number of that whole Indian band, which does not comprise more than 4,000 or 5,000 people, including men, women and children. When one thinks 600 of their men of military age volunteered for service in the great war, surely one realizes that we in considering this bill in Canada owe some recognition of their sacrifices.	.
By the way, I understand an amendment has been proposed. I am told the legal department of the government hold that the Haldimand treaty is not a treaty, therefore the exception in this bill will not provide the remedy or help out the Six Nations Indians in their present claim. But reading the Haldimand treaty with the Simcoe deed, one cannot come to any other conclusion than that those lands belong to the Six Nations Indians and are to be held by them according to their ancient customs. I should like, if I may, to read a copy of a letter which I received and which was sent to the press, signed by W. F. Powless, who is secretary of the Six Nations council. This letter, which is dated March 11, 1933, reads:
Sir,-Allow me to give you an explanation of the objections and contentions of the Six Nations Indians with regard to the enfranchisement clause of the Indian Act now under discussion in the House of Commons, Ottawa, and of which there appears to be such little interest shown in a matter that is of vital interest to us and which threatens our very existence.
The part of the act dealing with the enfranchisement of Indians has been a matter of concern by succeeding governments, with the object in view of forcing full citizenship on a people the large majority of whom have not as yet attained that point where it would be to their advantage to be placed in business competition with the surrounding whites.
Only two or three generations ago their ancestors obtained their livelihood by the hunt having no knowledge of any other method while the whites have had hundreds of years of experience both in business and the art of farming and now the government is endeavouring to force compulsory enfranchisement on the Indian which we consider is one of the most

Indian Act
vicious pieces of legislation ever enacted. True, there are among the Indians of Canada, outstanding men and women who have obtained a prominent place in both the literary and professional world but they are in a very small minority and the Indians are urging that there be a distinction shown and that the proposed amendment to the act relative to the compulsory enfranchisement of Indians, empowering a body of men to decide as to the fitness of an Indian of a band to take the responsibility of full citizenship without first consulting the party or parties most interested, should not be allowed to become law.
There is a feeling of discouragement among the Indians and a suspicion of the motives of the government in the measure under discussion and as long as there is no satisfactory assurance that they will remain unmolested on their reserves there will be a tendency to neglect improvements on their farms as they contend that they have no guarantee that their children will be able to enjoy the fruits of their industry.
The Six Nations, in the short time that they have taken up farming, have become entirely self supporting and I venture to say that there is less destitution on their reserve at the present time than in any other community in Canada, being less than 10 per cent of the population. This is of course not generally known but what is known among a certain class of whites and of which they take full advantage is that the Indian has not the business ability to compete with his white neighbour.
True, we have been assured that the government has no designs on the Six Nations reserve but the amendment, if passed, will confer the power and may be exercised by a succeeding government if it so desires.
Another matter that should not be lost sight of is the magnificent response made by the Indians in practically every war in which the empire has been engaged in in the last 160 years and particularly in the great war when there was a larger percentage of voluntary enlistments from them than from any other class in Canada. And what is the thanks extended to the Indian returned veterans for their sacrifice? The benefits of relief to small pensioners have been passed to the Department of Indian Affairs while participation in the Cast Post fund has been entirely withdrawn although they helped to accumulate the profits derived from canteen funds and were asked to vote on the question of the disposition of said profits.
In conclusion I would appeal to the fair minded people of Canada, who have the interest of the Indian at heart, to make representations to the government urging that the proposed amendment be withdrawn. If that is done and the objectionable measure dropped they will win the everlasting gratitude of a people who never forget a kindness done them.
The Simcoe deed included all the territory from lake Erie along the Grand river, six miles on either side from mouth to source. As the years went on the Six Nations found that they could not usefully occupy the whole of that territory, and from time to time they surrendered certain portions to the crown, and now they occupy all of the township of Tuscarora, part of Onondaga and part of the township of Oneida in the adjoining county of Haldimand. The moneys paid into the Indian office in England, Indian affairs in Canada for several years having been administered in London, for the surrender of these important blocks of land are supposed to be lying somewhere down here in the treasury at Ottawa. The sum in the first place was very close to one million dollars but it has been depleted from one cause or another. I am not complaining of that depletion except with regard to one item, with respect to which I perhaps cannot do better than quote from a return that was passed by the house in 1927, and which is sessional paper 143. It says:
The only loss which was sustained by the Six Nations fund was owing to the unfortunate investment by the British Indian office of thirty-eight thousand pounds provicial currency in the Grand Kiver Navigation Company.
That was trust money which never should have been so invested. I have been told that over many years there have been applications sent in to this government and to the British government for a refund of that money. Being trust money it was misappropriated. The British government say:	Oh well, we handed
the whole thing over to Canada in 1867. The Canadian government say:	We did not do
it at all; it was done before we got hold of it. So they pass the buck from one to the other. That thirty-eight thousand pounds should be restored to the Six Nations Indian fund, although I must confess that the Six Nations Indians have almost given up hope that that will ever be done. I am told that the department claims that it has made that amount good to the Six Nations in various ways. The department has built a splendid hospital in Ohsweken in the county of Brant, and has built schools for the education of the Indians. But that same thing is done for the Indians throughout the whole dominion. It is the duty of the dominion government to do that, and for the department to say, "Oh, we have built hospitals and schools for the Indians of the Six Nations," when they do the same thing for Indians throughout this dominion is to put forward a contention in which I cannot see any merit at all.
I have obtained a copy of sessional paper 106 dated Friday, October 7, 1932, giving a list of the Indians enfranchised under the Indian Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1932. I find that from one end of Canada to the other there were only fifty-seven Indians granted enfranchisement during that year, and how many were there enfranchised among the Six Nations? Not one. They do not want it. Why then should legislation be passed amend-
Indian Act

ing the Indian Act and compelling their enfranchisement against their will provided that somebody decides that they are fit for enfranchisement? They do not want it, and are not asking for it.
The minister says that this government does not intend to enforce enfranchisement. If that is the case, why take this power and deprive the Indians of a good legal argument should the present government or any government in the future change the present policy and decide to enfranchise the Indians?
I think that an exception should be made of the Six Nations Indians, and I would offer an amendment for the consideration of the minister, that nothing in that particular section of the act shall apply to the Six Nations Indians of the Grand river.
I want again to refer to what the Six Nations Indians have done for the empire, and in that connection I cannot do better than quote a few lines from John McCrae's poem, In Flander's Fields. If justice is not done to the Six Nations Indians in this matter, I would ask if the government will not be in a similar position to that suggested in the last line of the poem:
We shall not sleep though poppies grow In Flanders fields.
I appeal to the minister to do everything possible, and there is a lot possible, to relieve the Indians of the Six Nations of the necessity of being enfranchised against their will.


Mr. MURPHY:: Mr. Chairman, as the
previous speaker has said, the amendment to the Indian Act which is now being considered in committee, has been considered on former occasions. There still seems to be a misapprehension in regard to the bill before us. During the years the government of Canada has, I believe, quite properly taken a very liberal attitude towards the treatment of Indian residents in Canada. Literally millions of dollars have been spent for a certain fixed definite purpose-at least so it seems to me. Money has been spent lavishly for educational purposes; a vast educational system has been built up, residential and day schools have been established, hospitals have been built, and in times of stress, medical services provided for the sick and relief given the aged and destitute. For what purpose have these moneys been spent, especially those moneys spent so lavishly upon the education of the Indian, if not ultimately to bring him to the point where he may enjoy the full status of citizenship? In other words, these moneys have been spent to help take the Indian from a position of wardship, and place him where

he may enjoy the privileges and responsibilities of self sustaining and self respecting citizenship.
May I say that at times I believe there is a mistaken public opinion sentimentalizing over our Indians to the effect that they should be spared all healthy discipline. If it is considered that the Indian must be a permanent charge upon the public, then to a great extent our present efforts are a waste of time. Is all self reliance. to be drained out of the Indian? As I have stated, we have been generous with the Indian, and rightly so. Certainly he has been treated as a ward, except in cases where he has voluntarily applied for enfranchisement. But, I think, Mr. Chairman. that our efforts are justified only upon the belief that some day 'he will emerge from that state of dependence. I do not think that we are helping the Indian when we impress upon him the belief that he is never to be held responsible. Certain objections have been raised in committee based on the assumption that the department is going to enforce compulsory enfranchisement. That is not so, because if one reads the amendment carefully he will observe that the Indian is to be enfranchised only after his fitness for such enfranchisement has been passed upon by a board consisting of any judge of any superior court, or any judge of any circuit or county court, an officer of the department and a member of the band to which the Indian belongs. Such board shall make inquiry and report as to fitness. I believe that provision makes it perfectly clear that the Indian is not to be submitted to compulsory enfranchisement, but is to be enfranchised only after a proper investigation has been held.
At the present time an Indian may voluntarily apply for enfranchisement. Before that recommendation is passed on to His Excellency in council a most minute, exhaustive and careful investigation is held as to his fitness. To my mind, the officer or member of that board who will wish particularly to be assured beyond all peradventure as to the Indian's fitness for enfranchisement, will be the member representing the department. We do not enfranchise the Indians simply because they ask for it. We make an exhaustive analysis because we feel our responsibility in the matter, and we know that to enfranchise him before he is fit would not be in his interests, the interests of the government or anyone else concerned.
The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Smoke) speaking about compulsory enfranchisement, referred to the Six Nations Indians. He made further reference to the so-called Haldimand

Indian Act
treaty or agreement, and the Simcoe deed. I have those documents before me, but as he has read from them to the committee I do not think I would be serving any useful purpose by reading them again. May I say however that if -there is anything in any treaty or agreement which gives any Indians in Canada special privileges, it is amply provided for in the amendment now before the committee, which reads:
Provided that no enfranchisement of any Indian or Indians shall be made under this subsection in violation of the terms of any treaty that may have been entered into between the crown and the Indians of the band in question.
I have read several of these treaties to which reference was made by the hon. member for Brant, and I am unable to find that the amendment will effect any violation of the terms of any treaty or agreement made. But if there is any such violation, it is amply covered by the provisions of the amendment.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Whilst under the amendment the enfranchisement of an Indian may not appear to conflict with any treaty, would not the enfranchisement itself, in many cases, -conflict with what Indians regard as their treaty rights? For example would it not conflict with certain immunities they have, such as the right to hunt in and out of season, the right to draw treaty payments, the right to live on a reserve, and the right of freedom of property from seizure. Would any of these rights be interfered with by enfranchisement?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I should like to ask a question in line with that asked by the hon. member for Bow River. Is it the intention to enfranchise the Indian and allow him to remain a member of the band?
Mr. MURPHY': If the Indian became enfranchised certainly he would not any longer be a member of the band. I do not know whether the hon. member for Bow River has a copy of the amendment-


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, I have.


Charles Murphy: He will find that the amendment is as follows:
Provided that no enfranchisement of any Indian or Indians shall be made under this subsection in violation of the terms of any treaty that may have been entered into between the crown and the Indians of the band in question.
Then it will be a question for the law officers of the crown to decide as to whether or not the terms of any treaty have been violated.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then the minister is leaving it to the law officers of the crown to determine, afterwards, whether the immunities of Indians are or are not being preserved. That is quite an unfair position. I am drastically opposed to any bill which embodies a principle of that kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so.


Edward Joseph Garland: Can the minister tell the committee definitely whether enfranchisement under this legislation will, first of all, dispossess the Indian of his right to live on the reserve? Is the answer yes or no?


Charles Murphy: Mr. Chairman, property rights will not be interfered with. If an Indian on a reserve holds a location there is provision in the act at the present time whereby he retains possession of that property. His property rights are not interfered with in the least by this amendment. He will take his share of the band funds or any other funds, his interest in the common land of the band, he will retain the location which he enjoys at the present time on the reserve.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Has the Indian then the right to sell that portion of the property within the reserve that is his?


Charles Murphy: After he receives his enfranchisement, and has title to the land that belongs to him, he is the same as any other citizen of Canada; he will be able to deal with it as may any other citizen.


John Vallance: That is one of the points the Indian is most opposed to. You are going to permit an official of the department to say a certain Indian shall be enfranchised-


Charles Murphy: That is not correct.


John Vallance: Then you are going to say that some Indian may be enfranchised, and you are going to allow that Indian to sell his property to any individual he chooses. So in a short time you are going to have your Indian reserves checker-boarded all over with white settlers perhaps. Do you think that is in the interests of the Indian?


Charles Murphy: I have endeavoured to make it plain to the committee on every occasion that when an Indian reaches that degree of advancement which entitles him to become a Canadian citizen he should accept the responsibilities of citizenship. I explained a moment ago to the hon. member for Bow River that the Indian becoming enfranchised will have all the responsibilities of a Canadian citizen, that he will receive title to his
46S0
Indian Act

land and be in the same position as any other Canadian citizen, and he can deal with his land as he sees fit.


John Vallance: Has the Indian now the right, before he becomes enfranchised, to sell that portion of the reserve that is his?


Charles Murphy: Only to a member of the band.


John Vallance: But when he gets title under this provision he may sell it to any Canadian he chooses, without permission of the council?


Charles Murphy: After enfranchisement,
certainly.


John Vallance: That is what the Indians most strenuously object to. It is going to spoil the whole Indian life.


Franklin Smoke: Will not the result of that be to let a lot of poor whites in on the reserves?
An lion. MEMBER: White trash!


Franklin Smoke: Will the best type of white citizen acquire farms on an Indian reserve? It is a great mistake to allow an Indian who is enfranchised to sell his land to any person who is not a member of the band.
Mr. MeINTOSH:	When this bill was before the house at an earlier time I made a few remarks in connection with it. I took the stand that if an Indian were fit to be enfranchised, if we are sure of our ground, it may be all right. But there seems to be grave doubt as to the wisdom of enfranchising Indians generally. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Smoke) is opposed to it. I am inclined to think that many members on the opposite side of the house are also opposed to it, as are many members on this side. The house is divided on this move by the department.
The minister in his brief statement mentioned the fact that we have spent a great deal of money on the Indians. He gave that as one reason for enfranchisement. But we have on the other side the fact that when we took over the Indian holdings in Canada we bought them at extremely low valuations, and if we have spent money on the Indians since it is only what we ought to have done. I do not think that argument ought to enter into the question at all. If we are going to enfranchise the Indians without their wishing to be enfranchised, is that in harmony with sound principles of British liberty and freedom? That is compulsion. That is not a sound position to take. Then we are told by the minister

that he is setting up a board, and this board must pronounce on the question before any action is taken. I would like to ask the minister, from whom must the request come to enfranchise any Indian or Indians? Will the request come from the individual Indian?


Mr. MALCOLM:: No, he has that privilege now, voluntarily.
Mr. MeINTOSH:	Then why take away
from him that freedom which he possesses at the present time and compel him to do something that he does not want to do? That does not smack of British freedom. You are not going to build up the independence of the Indian population of Canada in that way; you are only going to weaken it.
There is another point growing out of what the minister said. He laid great emphasis upon educating the Indian. I would think that the end of education is to develop the capacity of the individual -to ask questions and answer them. That is the purpose of our training institutions, -to develop that power in the human mind. If we cannot do that we are not getting very far. If the Indian does not ask the question, and does not say, I want to be enfranchised, why enfranchise him? Apparently with all our culture and training we are afraid of the Indian not wanting to be enfranchised, and so want to impose it on him. To me that looks like enfranchising the Indian to get his vote. That should not be the end of any legislation; what should concern us is the welfare of the Indian.
Another matter I wish to mention is this. Does this committee think fair the stand we are taking against the Indian wearing his aboriginal costume? As I understand the law now, before he can take part in a dance or stampede or exhibition in his aboriginal -costume he must have permission from the agent or the department. Now we are wiping out that provision, and it would appear that we are t^ing to prohibit the Indian wearing his native costume anywhere, on the reserve or off -it. I cannot see why we are making a move of that kind. I believe the Indian is absolutely entitled to wear his Indian costume wherever he likes, and the disapproval of the department is simply intimidating the Indian and keeping him from developing in the continuity of freedom and liberty. We know what took place in Scottish history after the union of the parliaments in 1707. In the uprising of 1745 some small-bore politicians and public men of the period in England decided that they had better forbid the Highland clans to wear their costume-


Ernest Lapointe: Order!

Indian Act


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And for twelve years
from 1746 they were forbidden to wear their costume or carry arms. But when a man of some brains and vision, the elder Pitt, during the seven years' war came to govern Great Britain, he saw what ought to be done, and did it immediately. He removed the embargo as it were, and the Highlanders were organized and allowed to wear their costumes, and history tells the result; they went around the world and fought as they never fought before and widened the bounds of the British Empire, made the British Empire, making it a real empire. If that is true of one nationality it is also true of the Indians, and I am going to ask the minister to make a statement on this question. My own opinion is that we should give the Indian more freedom regarding the wearing of his costume, because by doing that I think we will make him a better Indian.


John Campbell Elliott: Before the minister replies to what has already been said, I should like him to consider some observations I want to make on the effect of the act as changed by the amendment now proposed. He suggests that this takes away the compulsory feature of the enfranchisement, which is now no longer compulsory. In that, I submit, he is quite wrong. This is not the less compulsory because a judge and an official of the Indian department together with some member of the band selected by the government can make a report upon the Indian as to his fitness or otherwise for enfranchisement. If they report, as they can under this amendment, that the Indian is fit to be enfranchised, then he may be enfranchised no matter how much opposed he may be to it. If it is not compulsory why not leave it as before?
May I call attention to the provision, which I submit is a very serious objection to this legislation:
In respect of an Indian or Indians of any band who has not or who have not made application for enfranchisement under this section or under section 114 of this act, the Superintendent General may appoint a board-
It goes on to state whom the board may consist of.
-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 or Indians under this section.
The report upon the Indian's fitness shall have the same effect as the Indian making application. If it is not compulsory then you do not need the report. I submit that this is taking away from the Indian the right to make the application himself.


Charles Murphy: No; my hon. friend is
absolutely wrong.


John Campbell Elliott: I submit I am not. This is taking away from the Indian the right not to be enfranchised until he makes application for himself. Will the minister say that is not right?


Charles Murphy: The section of the act
dealing with that now makes provision for the Indian himself to make application. He may still do so after this amendment carries; he may apply himself.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: He may be rushed into it.


John Campbell Elliott: He will have the right
which he now enjoys, of not having enfranchisement forced upon him unless he applies, taken away from him by this amendment. That means that it is compulsory. If it is not compulsory it is not necessary. If it is only going to enfranchise the Indian who applies for enfranchisement, or who is willing to apply, it is absolutely unnecessary. What it does is to substitute compulsory enfranchisement for voluntary enfranchisement by application of the Indian, or by the decision of the band.
I want to call to the attention of the minister the protest that has been waged by the Indians; I doubt whether there is one tribe among all the tribes of Indians which is favourable to this legislation. I very much dislike at this stage of the session taking up the time of the house reading these protests, but I do feel that the matter touches so vitally the happiness, the future comfort, and the right of the Indians to obtain a livelihood as they have done in the past that I must protest as strongly as I can. I have here, from the Chippewa council of the Caradoc reserve, a petition dated March 17, 1933, as follows:
To the
Parliament of the Dominion of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Sirs,-
On the report in the press that the government of the Dominion of Canada are in the consideration of enacting an act of parliament to force the Indians of the Dominion of Canada into compulsory enfranchisement, we, the members of the Chippewa-Thames Band of Indians of the . Caradoc agency, do herein make our humble protest to such enactment of the act of parliament for the following reasons:
The Indians of this part of the province of Ontario are not in a position of qualification to enter into such enfranchisement by education and temperament, and the fact that the smartest of our race living in the various reserves of the province of Ontario who have taken enfranchisement have in a few months, or years, lost all their property, and in most cases have had to receive help. The majority

Indian Act

of the Indians have not even a common or public school education, and therefore cannot compete with the white people.
The Indians from the earliest times have appreciated their treatment by the British crown. Their loyalty has been traditional. In 1876 and 1812 they gave valuable military assistance to our cause. In the great war more than four thousand Canadian Indians enlisted, although they were expressly exempt from conscription. Therefore, we, your petitioners, request your favourable consideration of this, our humble petition.
I wish to have this petition in the 'hands of 'the minister so that he may consider it. Bearing on this phase of the subject, I would point out tha-t for generations the Indian has lived a different sort of life from the commercial life of the white people. They are very clever athletes, splendid sportsmen, good hunters, and they possess absolute loyalty and devotion to the crown, as they have shown whenever the test has come. But the point is that once they obtain enfranchisement, with the right to contract with regard to their own property, that property, just as surely as they are given that right, as I said in one previous discussion, is obtained by some whites who live along the border and are not above doing the poor Indian out of what is his. I see here a number of clippings from various letters that have appeared in the newspapers. I have one from the secretary of the Six Nations council, W. F. Powless, written to the Mail and Empire of Toronto. I will not trouble the committee by reading the whole of it but I would quote this part:
This is, of course, not generally known but what is known among a certain class of whites and of which they take full advantage is that the Indian has not yet the business ability to compete with his white neighbour.
Apart from the question of good faith with the Indian, I do not think it can be denied that this is a breach of the relationship that has existed under the treaties that have been entered into at various times, even before the declaration of independence of tlhe United States, because I believe it was before that time that the main treaties were entered into, an undertaking having been given by the king in the old treaties that the Indians would be protected, that they would have their hunting grounds and fishing rights, to quote a saying so much used by the Indians themselves, "as long as grass grows and water runs." These rights were to be preserved; they could not have their property taken away from them if the white man got a judgment against them. That is the great, protection which is being taken away by these amendments to the act.
TMr. Elliott.]
The following is an extract from a letter written on April 4, 1933, to the editor of the Toronto Globe:
Look back only a couple of generations ago and you will see the Six Nations warriors in war paint and feathers, whose means of livelihood was obtained from fishing and hunting and who are being transformed in that short space of time into agriculturists, in which, I believe, we have made greater strides than any other aborigines in the world, but we are far from being able to compete in a business way with our white neighbours.
That comes from Frank Montom, a member of the Madfourth band. Its source is entirely different but it contains the same idea put forth by hon. members of this committee who happen to know something about the habits of the Indians and the white .men who have made money out of preying upon the Indians. After all, this vaunted civilization of the white men has been a detriment rather than an advantage to the Indian. The Indian of two or three generations ago who lived among his own kind was better off than the Indian of today who is living partly with whites and partly with other Indians. There is no question at all that this is a breach of faith with the Indians. At this of all times, when there is so much unrest abroad in the land this should not be done. I shall not refer to the great possibilities in times of elections, but I repeat again that this is a breach of faith and the taking away of rights which these Indians have enjoyed for generations. Besides the Six Nations Indians, the Caughnawagas, the St. Regis Indians, the Muneeys and the Chippawas and the Blackfeet Indians have all sent me protests against this legislation. Similar legislation was in force for a short period, but it was repealed. These Indians got along in the past without this legislation and there is no reason why it should be forced upon them at this time. During this depression the Indians have not been such a heavy burden upon the government. In some cases they have been a less burden than many white people. They have come through these hard times very well and this legislation should not be imposed upon them. There is no use in my hon. friend saying that it will not be compulsory and will be done only after an inquiry has been held; it will be just as compulsory after an inquiry as if it were done without an inquiry. The result may not be as bad but the action will be just as compulsory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


John Campbell Elliott: The Prime Minister says
"no" but I have read the section and I say "yes." I say that most emphatically. The Indian will have just as little voice after

Indian Act
an inquiry to decide whether or not he shall be enfranchised as he had before the inquiry. Let me put this proposition to the Prime Minister. Suppose an inquiry is held and a report is made that a particular Indian is fit for enfranchisement. The Indian receives word that he has been recommended as being a fit and proper person to be enfranchised under this act. The Indian may object but even though an inquiry has been held, the action will be just as compulsory as if there had not been an inquiry. Unless this is being forced upon the Indian against his wishes the old act answers the purposes. If the Indian is to be consulted, if this thing is not to be enforced upon him, then the old act is good enough. It is now suggested that enfranchisement shall be forced upon the Indian and his property put in the same position as that held by a white man. It will be possible to obtain a judgment against him and issue an execution against his property. This could not be done under the old act and it is now proposed to make a complete change. Those who know anything about the Indians will agree with me when I say that should this amendment pass and the property of the Indian be put in the same position as that of the white man,	if (he	can	be sued	andexecution issued against him, in the course of a few years at least ninety per cent of our Indians will be in the position of those referred to in the correspondence I have read. Their property will dwindle away and they will become	objects	of charity. I	urgeupon the Prime Minister	and	upon the	minister in charge of this bill that this is not good legislation;	it is	not	good for	the
people of the country as a whole and it is particularly unfair to the Indians. I do not think it should be pressed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, had it
not been that there has been such grievous misrepresentation of the purposes of this bill, I am quite sure that the protests which have been sent to the government by the Indians would not have been sent. I am satisfied upon that point. I cannot understand why this committee does not deal frankly with the main issue, which is this: should or should not the Indians be enfranchised? The law provides already, by means of complicated sections, for an Indian receiving enfranchisement (a) at his own instance, and (b) at the instance of a majority of his band. It was thought desirable that there should be a continuance of that principle without applying it in a proper sense to those who by education or other fitness should no longer be wards of 53719-296J
the nation. Let me amplify this. Every argument to which I have listened and which has been presented to this committee with respect to the ability of the Indian to do business is equally applicable to the Indian who himself sought enfranchisement. That is number one. Number two is that section 110 of the old act-not this bill-states:
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-[DOT]
And so on, and then outlines the steps t< be taken to enfranchise an Indian. Does this committee concede the right of an Indian tc secure enfranchisement? If it does, then ah the arguments to which we have listenec vanish. His status-that is the technical term which should be used-is as it was at the passing of the act. Once we concede the right to an Indian to change his status and become enfranchised, every argument which has been offered over and over again as to his being imposed upon when he gets title to his land vanishes. Every Indian who sought enfranchisement obtained all the rights and privileges of an enfranchised person. Therefore, if we are going to maintain the principle suggested by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, we must repeal that section of the act which provides for voluntary enfranchisement. I think that is a fair statement. Secondly, there is enfranchisement at the instance of the band itself by majority vote, providing that it should be a factor in the case in determining whether he should be recommended for enfranchisement. That is, his attitude of mind towards the matter should be ascertained-
Which attitude shall be a factor in determining the question of fitness.
I put this to a committee of parliament sitting here this afternoon solemnly considering this legislation that provides that a majority of the band may take steps to enfranchise an Indian: Is the department to be denied the exercise of its jurisdiction?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Why tamper with the law?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is in order to clear up and remove any possible objection there may be by reason of this situation arising; I do not wish to use names, because it might be inconvenient for the Indian in question. I have received an application from an Indian
Indian Act

to be appointed to the department as a medical doctor. He is a graduate of one of our most important universities and he has a fair degree of experience. I inquired and found-I give this only for what it may be worth because it was not very carefully looked up-that he is not enfranchised. There are in the same position men who have had legal training and experience. Heretofore parliament-not the present House of Commons and Senate-provided for the enfranchisement of Indians. If I were to deal with the question de novo, I might arrive at some different conclusion, but to me it is as simple as anything in the world. The wards have given evidence that they shall no longer be wards and seized with ambition, the individual Indian says: I want to become enfranchised, and he makes his application. That is dealt with in the manner provided by the act. Under (b), the Indians say: John Smith, you should be enfranchised with all the money that has been spent on your education. Then the band meets together and by a majority vote says: We shall enfranchise you, and an inquiry has to take place such as that to which I refer.


Mr. NEILL:: Is that application made by the band? Does that not apply to the enfranchisement of the whole band, not of one individual?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It 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 the 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 of Indian Affairs 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 auy Indian or Indians to be enfranchised. The Indian member of the board shall be nominated by the council of the band, within thirty days after the date of notice having been given to the council, and in default of such nomination, the appointment shall be made by the superintendent general.


Alan Webster Neill: Of any Indian wishing to be enfranchised.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.
In the course of such inquiry it shall be the duty of the board to take into consideration and report upon the attitude of any such Indian towards his enfranchisement, which attitude shall be a factor in determining the question of fitness. Such report shall contain (Mr. Bennett.3
a description of the land occupied by each Indian, the amount thereof and the improvements thereon, the names, ages and sex of every Indian whose interests it is anticipated will be affected, and such other information as the superintendent general may direct such board to obtain.
Then there is provided:
Governor in council may enfranchise Indians, on approval of report of superintendent general.
Effect of enfranchisement.
Procedure where wife living apart.
Right of Indian to choose name, and to be known by same.
Letters patent for his land to be issued, to Indian upon enfranchisement.
And so forth. The only point I desire to ,make is that we are not dealing with the problem whether an Indian shall be enfranchised or not. The arguments we have heard are against enfranchisement at all. The arguments are those that have been made in all courts as to whether wards should be permitted to take over their property when they are twenty-one years of age, and all that sort of thing. But this parliament has said that they may become enfranchised. This amendment purports to do merely one thing; it purports, in view of the provision that has been made, to place the matter on a much more favourable basis than could be said with respect to the law before the amendment was introduced. May I again direct attention to the amendment:
In respect of an Indian or Indians of any band who has not or who have 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 any judge of any superior court or any judge of any circuit, district or county court, an officer of the department and a member of the band to which the Indian or Indians under investigation belongs or belong, to make inquiry and report as to the fitness of any Indian or Indians to be enfranchised-
There is where it stops, but will the committee be good enough to listen to these words:
-and such report shall have the same force and effect and shall be dealt with in tbe same manner as if the same had been made upon the application of an Indian or Indians under this section.
That is, the department only sets in motion the machinery to make the inquiry. When the inquiry is made, it stands in the same position as though the minister had put the last-


John Vallance: The minister said no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he did not.
Mr. VA'LLANOE: He said the disposition of the Indians' land was on a different basis.

Indian Act


Charles Murphy: I made no such statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The man is in the position of any other enfranchised Indian.


John Vallance: I understand to-day an Indian who applies for enfranchisement can do so only by agreeing with the band that they may take over his property in lieu of what they gave for it. The minister said to-day that under this provision the involuntarily enfranchised Indian has the right to take his title and sell it to a white man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder whether the
hon. gentleman has taken the trouble to read the statute. If he had, he would not have made that statement. He certainly misunderstood the minister as to that. The law provides that an enfranchised Indian at his own request will receive letters patent for his land; they will be issued to him and he will receive his share of the fund. Then the land and money of his children and wife are dealt with. Payments are made from the funds of the band if there is no land. Indians not members of the band, and non-treaty Indians may be enfranchised, and granted letters patent. Claims on funds of band cease on issue of letters patent.
That is the law to-day; we are not making it here. It is and has been the law of the country. An enfranchised Indian has all the rights and privileges to which I refer and receives letters patent to his land. The whole argument against his enfranchisement is that we are proposing that he shall be enfranchised. I put to the committee only this question: With the provisions of this amendment I think the Indian with whom we are now dealing is in a much better position than any of them. In the first case the Indian starts the inquiry. In the second, the band starts the inquiry for a single Indian or Indians, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said. In the third case the department starts the application, but in no case can anything be done until a report is made. The report made in the last of the three cases puts the Indian in exactly the same position as in the other two, but there has been added this which you will not find in the law as it now stands:
Provided, that no enfranchisement of any Indian or Indians shall be made under this subsection in violation of the terms of any
treaty

And I have just suggested to the minister that, in view of what has been said this afternoon, he adds the words "agreement or undertaking."
-that may have been entered into between the crown and the Indians of the band in question.


James Malcolm: That would be necessary when you force enfranchisement on the Indian.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It seems to be so impossible to impress upon this committee that the law with respect to this stands as it is today and we are not changing it except that we are providing that the department may make an inquiry, whereas heretofore a majority of the band was required, as the minister has said.


James Malcolm: The section that is being repealed starts out with these words:
Upon the application of an Indian of any band


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or.


James Malcolm: That is enough to start with, but it goes on:
[DOT]-or upon the application of a band-
That section is being repealed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


James Malcolm: It is the subsection to
be repealed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a subsection.


Charles Murphy: The amendment reads:
Section 110 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection.


James Malcolm: But section 7 of the bill says:
Subsection 1 of section 110 of the said act is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor:


Charles Murphy: The hon. gentleman is
not reading from the amendment. He is reading from the wrong bill.


James Malcolm: It is the only copy of
the bill before us. If we were favoured with a copy of the amendment we would be in a better position to discuss it.


Charles Murphy: I will send the hon. member a copy.


Onésime Gagnon: 
Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister go a
little further and concede this point, that the Indian who is to be appointed by the government shall be nominated by the band to which he belongs? I think that would pretty well safeguard the rights of the Indian.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be the
practice.
Indian Act


Alan Webster Neill: But it does not say so.
There might be some Indian who was a hanger-on of the Indian agent and who would be perennially employed at this job.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the suggestion
is sound.


John Vallance: This deals with a
different method by which an Indian may become enfranchised. The Indian himself may apply, the band may apply, and now the department may apply. Has the minister information as to how many Indians have been enfranchised up to date at the request of the band? The Prime Minister used an illustration this afternoon of a doctor. Why did not the Indian band, knowing that this Indian was a medical man and had all the qualifications for assuming full citizenship in Canada, apply for his enfranchisement?


Charles Murphy: It is impossible to answer that question. Only the band themselves can say why they did not exercise their privilege.


John Vallance: How many Indians have been enfranchised at the request of the band?


Charles Murphy: Not any to my knowledge.


John Vallance: And now the department is going to exercise the right when the band itself does not want it.


Charles Murphy: While I am on my feet
I may say that there are certain Indians to-day in Canada who have the franchise.


John Vallance: Lots of them; lots of them went to the war.


Charles Murphy: Not only those who took part in the war. Others have been enfranchised who do n>ot come within the definition in the act as Indians or non-treaty Indians. In a previous discussion in the house the hon. member for East Algoma raised the question as to the status of certain Indians in his riding, Indians who do not belong to a particular band and who are not classed as non-treaty Indians under the definition in the act. I have obtained an opinion from the Department of Justice on the point, which I shall read for the information of the committee:
419/33
Ottawa, March 10, 1933.
Dear Sir,-
I have the honour to reply to your letter of March 3rd, asking to be advised whether certain persons evidently of Indian blood, referred to by Mr. Nicholson, M.P., in the House of Commons on March 1st, are Indians within the definitions given in section 2 of the Indian Act. I observe that, to fall within

the definitions of "Indian" or "non-treaty Indian" prescribed by section 2 (d) and (h) of the Indian Act, a person of Indian blood must:
1.	Belong to a particular band, or
2.	Be a child of such person, or
3.	Belong to an irregular band, or
4.	Follow the Indian mode of life.
Evidently the persons to whom Mr. Nicholson refers do not fall within the first or second categories.
Mr. Williams informs me that the department does not know of any irregular band in the part of Canada referred to by Mr. Nicholson, so that evidently not one of them can fall within the first three categories, and those persons who live in the town in which Mr. Nicholson lives and to whom he refers specifically, evidently do not follow the Indian mode of life. These persons are, therefore, not Indians or non-treaty Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act and, so far as I am aware, have the rights of citizenship as other Canadians have and are entitled to the franchise.
The Deputy Superintendent General, Department of Indian Affairs,
Ottawa.


John Campbell Elliott: Can the minister now tell us the number of Indians who have been enfranchised on their own application? I understood him to say that none had been enfranchised on the application of their respective bands.


Charles Murphy: I said not to my knowledge. On a former occasion I.gave the information which the hon.- gentleman now asks for, but I can get it for him in a moment. But I wish to point out that here are Indians not following the mode of Indian life but who may have ninety-eight per cent of Indian blood in their veins, and who are to-day recognized as citizens of Canada with all the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship. Then we have other Indians in Montreal and Toronto and other large cities, members of the legal and medical professions, who beyond all doubt have received a much higher education and advanced much further than the class of Indians to which I have just referred, and yet who to-day are classed as Indians and have not the privilege of Canadian citizenship.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is the minister willing to limit the legislation to those two classes of Indians?


Charles Murphy: I think the amendment as drafted amply covers the point in question. The board which will be appointed will certainly make full inquiry as to the fitness of the Indian. The hon. member for West Middlesex said that the Indian might not even be seen by the board and might not know anything about the matter until after the board

Indian Act
had made its report. But the act as it stands on the statute book to-day provides:
In the course of such inquiry it shall be the duty of the board to take into consideration and report upon the attitude of any such Indian towards his enfranchisement, which attitude shall be a factor in determining the question of fitness.
Certainly the board could not determine that question unless the Indian was before them; that is if it is going to do its duty, and I cannot conceive that they would do otherwise. May I again impress upon the committee this faot, that the member of the board who from my own personal knowledge will be very careful as to the recommendations will be the departmental representative. It is not necessary for me to go over the ground which has been so well covered by the Prime Minister so much better than I, but I did wish to answer those few objections.


John Campbell Elliott: Replying to the Prime
Minister's answer to my argument, I think the Prime Minister has not given this section the thought he usually gives to a section of an act which he endeavours to interpret. There can be no question whatever that this section puts the Indian in an entirely different category from what he ever was in before. That is what it is intended for. Why? Because as matters stand at the present time there have been no applications by the band. That is the best evidence as to whether the members of the band themselves think some of their number should be enfranchised. Secondly, because the applications made by the Indians themselves for enfranchisement have been very, very few. Perhaps the minister has the number now. At all events they are very few, a very small proportion, less than one one-hundredth of one per cent possibly. That is the best evidence as to the attitude of the Indian himself. If the Prime Minister's argument means anything, it means that by this bill we are not violating the right which the Indian now has to say that he shall not be enfranchised against his wish. That is the point I was making. I say that under this amendment the Indian may be enfranchised against his wish. That is what the amendment is aimed at. If you intend to consult him about it he can be enfranchised already under the provisions to which the Prime Minister referred. The Prime Minister argued that under section 110, which reads:
Upon the application of an Indian of any band-
That is, upon his application, or upon the application of the band-
-on a vote of a majority of the male members of such band-
There are two ways in which he may now be enfranchised. Under the bill as originally drawn, those were both cut out; the whole section was repealed. The bill as originally drawn prompted the amendment which was moved with a view partially to meet the objections made by the hon. members on this side of the house. As originally drawn the bill repealed subsection 1 of section 110, that which was read by the Prime Minister, and the following was substituted therefor:
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.
That was the change.


Charles Murphy: Is the hon. member reading from the original act?


John Campbell Elliott: No; I have made it perfectly clear that I am reading the amendment. The bill as drawn provided, and the reason is very apparent, that because the Indians themselves did not make application to be enfranchised, or because the band did not make any, we must have some new system. The amendment provided for a board, as set out in the bill. It is true that a further amendment to section 110 has been moved, but that does not help the poor Indian who is being enfranchised against his will,-not one particle; it all amounts to the same thing.
An Indian who formerly could not be enfranchised without his consent or without the consent of the band to which he belonged can now, upon recommendation, be enfranchised by the board set up by the bill.
Some discussion has taken place as to what position the Indian would be in after enfranchisement. If the minister will look at subsection 9 of section 110 he will find exactly the position in which the Indian would be.
The superintendent general shall also pay to each Indian upon enfranchisement his or her share of the funds-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the position they are in to-day.


John Campbell Elliott: I will say that is the position they would be in to-day if they were making application under subsection 1, which
Indian Act

they are not doing, and which this amendment seeks to change. Subsection 9 reads:
The superintendent general shall also pay to each Indian upon enfranchisement his or her share of the funds to the credit of the band, including such amount as the superintendent general determines to be his or her share of the value of the common interest of the band in the lands of the reserve or reserves, or share of the principal of the annuities of the band capitalized at five per centum, out of such moneys as are provided by parliament for the purpose or which may be otherwise available for such purpose.
Where does that leave your Indian? It leaves him with the money in his pocket, money which he cannot keep in his pocket or anywhere else. It makes him-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He would be in the same position as he is to-day, if he were enfranchised.


John Campbell Elliott: But he is not being enfranchised to-day. Can the minister tell-


James Malcolm: He does not want it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is for the country's sake.


Charles Murphy: During the ten year period from December 31, 1922, to December 31, 1932, under sections 122a of the old act and 114 of the new, 793 Indians were enfranchised.


John Campbell Elliott: How many under section 110?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 110 is in the old act.


Charles Murphy: Under section 110 of the old act 61 Indians were enfranchised during the same period.


John Campbell Elliott: Is that during a ten year period?


Charles Murphy: Yes, under section 110.


John Campbell Elliott: Sixty-one Indians were
enfranchised under one clause, and none under the other, in a ten year period.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Not much urge there.


Charles Murphy: Altogether there were 793.


John Campbell Elliott: And that is the position they are in now. There are some pieces of legislation which look worse, the more you examine them. This is one of the worst examples. Under those two clauses in ten years only 61 Indians received enfranchisement, or an average of six and one-tenth Indians per year. That figure is from a total of about
100,000	Indians. Hon. members will note that enfranchisement which may take place would 
be against the wish of the Indians. That is the situation. The more we examine and discuss the legislation, the worse it appears. It is absolutely useless for the Prime Minister or anybody else to attempt to argue that the Indian will be in anything like the position he was in before. His rights are being taken away from him. He will have money paid to him, and there is no hon. member in this committee who is not familiar enough with the Indian mind to know that money just slips through his fingers as quickly as it does through the fingers of some white people. To put into his hands cash representing the lands he formerly owned and of which he could not deprive himself is, in my view, an abandonment of a duty which for generations the government of Canada has observed. Assuming he gets one, two., three, four or even five thousand dollars for his rights, you may depend he will be on the road inside of a year. That is what will happen to him. His land and his money will be gone.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The time to say that was before the law was changed to permit enfranchisement at all.


James Malcolm: No, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Anybody knows that. An argument such as the hon. member has made would be laughed at in any court of law.


James Malcolm: It would be impossible to add much to what has been said by the hon.
. member for West Middlesex, but after reading the amendment I feel exactly as I did when I rose to answer the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


James Malcolm: Under the existing act the Indian must ask for enfranchisement. Under the amendment that privilege is left, but it is also the privilege of the superintendent general, if he wishes, to enfranchise Indians.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not; why say that, when you know it is not so?


James Malcolm: I have read the amendment.


Charles Murphy: The superintendent general may not do it.


James Malcolm: Then the amendment of the minister simply provides that section 110 shall be left, and states further that the superintendent general may appoint a board-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is another matter.

Indian Act


James Malcolm: Such board will report on the fitness of any Indian. And it shall have the same force and effect, and shall be dealt with in the same manner as if it had been made upon the application of the Indian himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Malcolm: If that does not provide that the same procedure shall follow the action of the superintendent general as follows the application of the Indian himself, then I am afraid someone else will have to interpret the language of the section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what you said. Of course it does.


James Malcolm: I cannot argue anything else than that the change enfranchises the Indian through the superintendent general in the same way as he would have sought enfranchisement himself. I cannot add anything to what has been said by the hon. member for West Middlesex to clarify that point. I join with him however in protesting to the Minister of the Interior that so far as my experience in the province of Ontario has been, he would do well to accept the advice of the hon. member for West Middlesex.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ten or twelve years ago was the time to give it.


James Malcolm: Probably so. I agree
with the hon. member for Brant that the lands of these Indians so enfranchised will pass into the hands of white men who are not necessarily desirable on the reserve, and that the reserves will run down. I believe that some reserves in Ontario are improving greatly. The Indians have some splendid teachers, some splendid missionaries. The Cape Croker reserve I know sent practically every ablebodied man to the war. Those men are voting now. They are improving year by year under good guidance. I do not believe they are going to do as well if a number of whites are allowed to get possession of land now held by the Indians. For my part I agree with the hon. member for West Middlesex that the best evidence that the Indians do not want enfranchisement is the fact that they have not applied for it, and I think the minister will have to show us some other reasons why enfranchisement for which they do not ask should be forced upon them.


Mr. BROWN:: It may be presumption for a layman to enter into discussion with lawyers on matters of this kind, but the way the matter appears to me is simply this. There are now two methods whereby an Indian may
secure enfranchisement and this amendment proposes a third. If the amendment has any purpose whatever it must be that more Indians should be enfranchised. Evidently under the two methods now existent they are not being enfranchised in sufficient numbers and the object of the amendment is to increase the number. Whether deliberately or not, the Prime Minister only confuses the issue when he says that the results following enfranchisement by this new method will be just the same as those which follow to-day. Naturally they will, so why raise the point? The results will be the same no matter what method is employed. I say again that the purpose of this amendment is that more Indians should be enfranchised. Few are being enfranchised, on application by the individual himself, and none, I understand on application by the band. For some reason the department wants more Indians enfranchised so they propose this new method. I think the hon. member for West Middlesex and others have made it very clear that it is not desirable that any more Indians than at present should be placed in control of their property. That is how it appears to me, and the argument of the Prime Minister has absolutely failed to show me any reason why I should change my opinion.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I rise for only one purpose, to express the wish of the Indian bands in my riding, of which there are two, that they should be enfranchised. I think there must be a great diversity of intelligence among the Indians in the ridings of different members, or there would not be such diversity of opinion on this question in this house. The Indians in my riding are quite intelligent people, I would say their .intelligence is almost as high as that of the average white man. They have asked me time and again to try to get them enfranchised. I think they should be enfranchised w.herev.er they are intelligent enough. I think when an Indian has reached the stage of education and intelligence at which he is qualified to shoulder the responsibilities of citizenship they Should be given to him.


John Campbell Elliott: Will my hon. friend permit a question? Would he tell the committee how many applications came during the last ten years from Indians in his riding who are anxious to be enfranchised? I understand there were just sixty-two in the whole of Canada, so I wondered how many came from that riding.


Peter McGibbon: I have not the figures,
I know there have been a certain number. I tell the committee this, that my trouble
Indian Act

has been to get them enfranchised. I have handled some applications myself, and have had to threaten the officials, not only of this government but other governments, that I would go over their heads to the minister to get them enfranchised, and I have done so. The present minister will bear me out in that statement. In my experience there seems to be a prejudice on the part of the officials against enfranchising these men. I think I told this committee on a former occasion of a man who came to me and protested that he could not get work on account of being a ward of the government. He had saved enough money to buy himself a large motor truck, and was as capable of earning a living as anyone else. Why shield these people after all? If they have the degree of intelligence and education to fit them for full citizenship why should they not have it?


Jean-François Pouliot: They cannot wear their
full regalia!


Peter McGibbon: That is the kind of
answer I would expect from the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Further, I would say that I think a great deal of the objection to this proposal comes from people who want to keep the privilege of being wards of the law. I think there is no doubt about that, they want to hide behind the law so they do not have to pay their debts. I say this parliament and this country have a duty to these people, and when they are ready for full citizenship but will not seek it we ought to make them take it. How are you going to develop responsible, self-respecting people unless you make them take the responsibilities of citizenship?
There are some things about the bill that I do not like or I am not clear about. I do not like the idea of allowing whites to mix with them and get their land, I think that is detrimental to the interests of this country, but I gather from the discussion that that is not a new thing. If it can be prevented I think it is desirable to do so, not only in the interests of the Indian but in the interest of that lower strata of white people who seem to want to mix with any inferior class. I would like to see that prevented if possible. But I would support the minister by telling him that the Indians in my riding have told me time and again that they want to be enfranchised and become full citizens of Canada.


John Campbell Elliott: I understand 62 Indians
were enfranchised by their own request?


Charles Murphy: There are different sections of the act which apply.


John Campbell Elliott: I mean under section 110.


Charles Murphy: During the ten year period from December 31, 1922, to December 31, 1932, under section 122a of the old act and section 114 of the new, that is the act now before us, 793 Indians were enfranchised. Under section 107 of the old and section 110 of the new act 61 were enfranchised during the same period. I may say that practically all Indians that are enfranchised to-day are enfranchised under section 114 rather than section 110.


John Campbell Elliott: What amount did these
various Indians receive out of the moneys of the band, under subsection 9 of section 110?


Charles Murphy: I have not that information at hand but doubtless I could get it.


John Campbell Elliott: I should be greatly obliged if the minister could give it because it has a very material bearing. We were wondering whether it would be one thousand, two thousand or five thousand that each would get, and I am advised that frequently it did not amount to even one thousand. When it is pointed out to the minister that this legislation is taking away the Indian's land and home and the protection afforded him, giving him one thousand dollars in cash, I think it will be apparent at once that the Indian will be on unemployment relief.


Mr. MARCIL:: There are in my county
two Indian bands and I have never yet known of any Indian who applied for enfranchisement and was refused. The Indians on the reserve enjoy certain rights with respect to their land and property and I remember one attempt that was made in 1917 to expropriate the lands of the old Indians in Resti-gouche opposite Campbellton and to settle them in the northern country, the purpose being to take those lands as an annex to Campbellton and to set up building lots. That was prevented by the parliament of Canada. The Indians have been left on their reserves for their own protection, and I can recall that when a law was passed to enfranchise the Indians it was immediately repealed. Some Indians are competent to vote, and those who served overseas vote to-day in my constituency as in other parts of the country. But so far as Bonaventure is concerned I think it would be a great misfortune to enfranchise these Indians, leaving them to roam about away from the reserves, taking the little money they might get and spending it. It would merely add to the ranks of the unemployed, which are already numerous enough. I think the law should stand as it is now.	[DOT]

Indian Act


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I asked a question with regard to the costumes of the Indians under the proposed legislation, and I wish the minister would be good enough to amplify his statement on that point.


Charles Murphy: That clause was considered by the committee and passed several weeks ago.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am not asking what
was passed; I am asking the minister for a definite statement on the situation.


Charles Murphy: I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. member, but if he would frame his question differently I might possibly be able to give him the information. He spoke some minutes ago but I am not clear as to what information he does want.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The proposed measure,
I understand, will interfere with the right of the Indian to wear his Indian costume off the reserve. Does this legislation further prohibit him doing so? Does it interfere with that aboriginal right? If it does, it is absolutely wrong.


Charles Murphy: That question was
thoroughly discussed in the house and if the hon. member was not present I can only regret the fact. But the section having been passed, I do not think we should be asked to rediscuss the matter now.


Mr. MARCH:: For some years I have been receiving an interesting illustrated catalogue advertising the so called stampede at Calgary. Would this legislation interfere with such an exhibition, where the Indians are allowed to roam in their Indian costumes?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is the question I have asked and which, the minister refuses to answer. He says it has already been answered.


Air. BEA  NETT@: I think that the various suggestions that have been made might be embodied in an amendment as follows:
In respect of an Indian or Indians of any band who has not or have 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 any judge of any superior court or any judge of any circuit, district or county court, an officer of the department and a member of the band to be selected by the band to which the Indian or Indians under investigation belongs or belong, or failing the selection of such member for a period of thirty days after the date of notice having been given to the council, the member shall be appointed by the superintendent general-
That will be found in subsection 2 of section 110 now in respect of other questions of a similar character.
-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 or Indians under this section: Provided that no enfranchisement of any Indian or Indians shall be made under this subsection in violation of the terms of any treaty, agreement or undertaking that may have been entered into or made between or by the crown and the Indians of the band in question.
So far as the effect of this proposal is concerned, it merely recognizes the existing laws and protects the Indian against any possible undertaking that may have been given in any treaty or agreement, and the provision for selecting a member of the band is exactly what the law now is with respect to the case in which an Indian (makes his own application, namely, subsection 2 of section 110. I move that amendment.


Onésime Gagnon: Is this amendment to replace the one before the committee?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Onésime Gagnon: Do I understand that the amendment we have been discussing is withdrawn?


Richard Bedford Bennett: With the consent of the chamber, yes.


John Campbell Elliott: Would the minister consider adding to the amendment just offered something which I shall propose? I realize that a good deal of the time of the house is being taken up with this question, which to some hon. members may seem of no importance. I do not look upon it in that way at all; I think it is important, for it means everything to the people involved. With regard to the provision that no enfranchisement of any Indian or Indians shall be made under this subsection in violation of the terms of any treaty, I want to point out the difficulty of applying this, assuming that a case arose, as it would. An Indian comes and says, "This is in violation of a treaty". Unfortunately these treaties were made long before Canada had a government of its own. They were made in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Some of the first treaties were entered into in the seventeenth century, long before the declaration of independence, and involved the Indians who were in what is now the United States as well as those
Indian Act

then in what is now Canada, because it was then all British territory. It is very difficult to get hold of these old treaties. If I understood the minister correctly, he is unable to tell us at the present time, and I doubt whether any hon. member can tell us, what the treaty rights all are. I think there would be difficulty in establishing precisely what the treaty rights are under these old treaties of several hundred years ago. There is however one fact which he will not have much difficulty establishing and that is that for centuries under these treaties these rights have been recognized, including the right of protection given the ward of the government, not permitting him to alienate his property. I wonder if the Prime Minister and the minister would agree to the amendment reading like this:
No enfranchisement of any Indian or Indians shall bp made under this subsection in violation of the terms of any treaty, agreement or undertaking that may have been entered into or made between or by the crown and the Indians ot the band m question, or against the will of the Indian whom it is proposed to enfranchise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You cannot make it
negative.


John Campbell Elliott: Unless he is willing to consent, he should not be enfranchised.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member overlooks the fact that for fifteen years the law has contained provisions for the enfranchisement of Indians.


James Malcolm: Voluntary enfranchisement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not voluntary; by action of the band, if necessary. This committee will be made up of a member of the band, a representative of the superintendent general, and a judge of the superior or county courts. That is a precaution which does not exist with respect to the other two cases. Inasmuch as no such provision as that mentioned by the hon. member for West Middlesex has heretofore found its place in the law, the suggestion I have just made in the amendment with respect to treaties, agreements or undertakings made between or by the crown and the Indians would be ample to protect the interests of the Indian in the view of the judge who would have to be a member of the committee to determine the matter. The judge would be the impartial member, while there would be a member appointed by the government and one by the band. If the judge and the Indian say "no" there would be no doubt about the fact that there would 
be no enfranchisement. The answer to all the arguments which have been made this afternoon about the terrible white trash that is going to take away the people's land-


Charles A. Stewart: They cannot take the lands away from them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -the terrible white trash that might settle upon them, is the fact that the Indian's anxiety to secure money or land has not been evidenced by a desire to secure enfranchisement. I think it may be taken that the exercise of this power, provided it is done with caution and care, will not act unfairly in the determination of the fitness for enfranchisement. Tire judge of the county or superior court will be the impartial member on the committee. I think the amendment as it now stands makes the four principles much more fair.


Charles A. Stewart: The department has always to face the serious question as to whether or not certain individual Indians should be enfranchised. I found that there was opposition sometimes by the band itself against the desire of an individual Indian to be enfranchised. There was always difficulty in getting settlement with the band for his share of the fund and his interest in the lands. I think there must be the same difficulty in that regard as was stated by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, because when I had the honour to preside over the department I found that there was a desire to allow Indians to become enfranchised. The logical outcome of Indian life is his merging into the life of Canadian citizenship, but it should not be forgotten that we allow individuals to come to Canada from all over the world without forcing enfranchisement upon them.


Charles Murphy: They are not wards.


Charles A. Stewart: Up to date we have not done so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We put prohibitions
against them.


Charles A. Stewart: The chairman of this board which is to pass upon the fitness of an Indian to be enfranchised may be a judge, but the whole say as to whether or not final action shall be taken will be in the hands of the superintendent general. Under the present act he cannot do that unless the Indian is willing or an application is made by the band. Hon. gentlemen opposite are proposing something different from that at present in the act. As to the lands or prop-

Indian Act
erty owned by the band passing into the hands of white men, that cannot happen. The band takes good care of that. Before an individual becomes enfranchised they see that a settlement is made and an amount arrived at to represent his interest. That is given to him and the lands of the band are preserved. I do not think that principle should be interfered with. So far as the precautions set out in this subsection are concerned, they refer merely to the fitness of the individual Indian to be enfranchised. Whether or not he desires it, his case will be in the hands of the superintendent general. I doubt very much if this action will prove to be popular with the Indian. So far as securing votes are concerned, I think the superintendent general will be out of luck.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, quite so.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Do not impute motives.


Charles A. Stewart: Personally I think the government are making a mistake. I regret the slowness with which enfranchisement takes place and I know the difficulties of Indians having property and being on the highways and all that; it is rather a difficult situation, but I doubt the advisability of leaving the final say in the hands of the superintendent general. There is always the possibility of a favourable report by the board despite the protests of the individual or possibly of the band itself. If this is the case, the Indian will not be a very happy individual, and I do not think the Indians as a whole will consider that their interests are being protected.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will withdraw the original amendment which did not contain the necessary safeguard. Perhaps the chairman wrould read the last amendment.


Onésime Gagnon: The amendment reads:
That section 110 of the said act be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
14. In respect of an Indian or Indians of any band who has not or have 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 any judge of any superior court or any judge of any circuit, district or county court, an officer of the department and a member of the band to be selected by the band to which the Indian or Indians under investigation belongs or belong, or failing the selection of such member for a period of thirty days after the date of notice having been given to the council, the member shall be appointed by the superintendent general 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 or Indians under this section: Provided that no enfranchisement of any Indian or Indians shall be made under this subsection in violation of the terms of any treaty, agreement or undertaking that may have been entered into or made between or by the crown and the Indians of the band in question.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: As the amendment is pretty long and was not read sufficiently audibly for me, at least, to hear it, and much less to understand it, perhaps I may be excused if I do not discuss it at all and make my remarks refer to other phases of the matter. I suppose that will be quite in order, otherwise, we shall have to hear the amendment read again first.
There is one point on which I find myself in agreement with the minister and that is that some of the Indians, not now enfranchised, should be. I refer to the sons and daughters of Indian returned men who, by reason of their war service, were made eligible to vote. The returned men vote, but their sons and daughters do not. That matter would, I think, properly come under the election act and not under this. But lest some of my Indian constituents may have heard of the threatening redistribution bill hanging over their representative's head, and think, because of that, I may have lost all interest in my constituency, I believe I should say what I am about to say now. I am in favour of the sons and daughters of returned men having the same rights as have their fathers. Fancy, at this time when we are all trying to renounce war and we hear of the Kellogg-Briand pact and so on, enfranchising someone because he killed, or tried to kill, some fellowman in war! The son comes of age, becomes eventually a father himself and finds that neither he nor his wife can vote. His father has killed a man possibly; he is entitled to vote and he goes to the polls. The son says to himself: I have not killed or been given the opportunity of killing in war a man so I have not the franchise; I cannot vote. Whom shall I kill? He will look around and his keen hunter's eyes may light upon the Minister of National Revenue.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Upon the member for
the riding.


William Richard Motherwell: Nobody knows upon whose person the lynx-like eye of this Indian who cannot vote, may light. Whom shall he
select to massacre?


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member seems to indicate whom he will select.
Indian Act


William Richard Motherwell: I have to take one of them and I have taken the one who seems to be the better prepared to pass away.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: This matter is no joke, although we may for the moment make a joke about it. That is the actual condition on the reserve under the federal government. I have never discovered the solution to the knotty problem, but when one of these Indian boys came to my place and stayed there till twelve o'clock midnight explaining why his son should be enfranchised; that he was a good citizen; that he had taken up the peaceful occupation of pastoral as well as tillage farming and yet he could not vote, I had no answer and nobody has any answer to this complaint. If that situation could be corrected in the election act I would hold up both hands for it. I do not want to cause any more annoyance to the government than I can help; that is the spirit in which I make these comments. I know the Prime Minister does not care a snap of his finger about precedents; he is not governed by the hoary precedents of other countries, and he is right; in these days you have to break new ground. But I would like to know whether any other country under the sun ever forced its natives into enfranchisement. The whole history of native populations from time immemorial to the present day is that they have wanted the franchise before their mandatory government was ready to give it to them. This government is going to form the extraordinary precedent of compelling the natives of our country to become enfranchised with all that goes with that. The hon. member for West Edmonton pointed out that we do not do that to white people. So far as I know there are people who have lived from manhood up and died in Canada without taking out their naturalization papers. Why should we take, above all others, the sons and fathers of our own' natives, and compel them to become enfranchised?-because that is what the government is doing, describe it how they like. It is putting into the hands of this board the power to enfranchise these people. What is the only argument that I have heard in favour of taking this extraordinary step? I am speaking earnestly and sincerely because I know the Indian population of my constituency; I have known many of them since childhood, since they were in the cradle, and have seen them grow up and become useful citizens, following mainly agriculture. The band in my constituency is an excellent one-I do not mean the Six Nations-it is a musical band; they are accomplished in much that we call the

culture of the white people, and these Indians are superior to some whites. Why then Should we treat them any differently from the way we are using white immigrants in the way of voluntary enfranchisement?
The argument was that they had become so qualified in certain of the professions, I think it was law and medicine; that they had become too keen competitors for their white brothers. If that is so, it is not a great tribute to the work of the Indian department during the past decade, that these people should have been taken from the primitive condition in which we found them, roaming over the prairies, and been placed in our schools, eventually in our universities, so that now they have become so accomplished that they make the white men scratch gravel to compete with them? If so, let us continue that course of education further before we compel them to become citizens. If the argument advanced by the government is valid, I have not heard of any cases. I do not know in my experience of a single Indian who has gone into any of the professions and embarrassed the white man by his competition. There may be such cases, but the general policy of the department has been rather the other way. Life on the farm seems to be natural to the normal outdoor life of the Indian and he was discouraged from going into the professions for that reason and also because, if he did so, he had to meet some white man's prejudice against an Indian. Consequently this helped to cripple his activities in his competition with the white man. But if he is such an outstanding Indian that he can overcome the prejudice that some people of other colours than his hold against him, this is a great tribute to him and surely because of his attainments in this respect he should not be penalized by being enfranchised against his will. I think the government is making a terrible mistake and being unfair to itself. There is only one explanation of its conduct; though I do not like to suggest motives, there is only one conclusion-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The hon. member is
coming to it.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, and I am going to get there yet. The conclusion is that this government is going to follow the example of the government that preceded the election of 1896, that I remember so well, in the heinous enfranchising acts they had that enabled the returning officers and scrutineers to do everything almost but hang an elector. While we have got away from that by thirty or thirty-five years, my thoughts go back to that time and in the absence of any other

Indian Act
objection or purpose I am driven to the conclusion that this government, by means of this law, will be enabled to go out before an election and convert Indians into voters wholesale. If not, let them put up some valid reason why they are passing this act. I have not heard any so far. I do not think you can quote a precedent on top of this earth where native people have been compelled to be enfranchised. I have had several conversations with the minister, some of them jocular and some serious, and he knows that I entertain this pretty well grounded suspicion, but if he insists upon putting this through I do not think we will waste an awful lot more time trying to prevent him. This is the fifth time this bill has been up before the committee. I spoke on three of the other occasions, and when this order was called this afternoon I went out. I had business of a most pressing nature with a party who wanted to see me, but when I came back into the chamber I found that we were at the exact section that we were discussing two months ago. It is true that there have been some changes. I have been moved for the reasons I have indicated to make these few observations, and when the time comes to amend the elections act I shall be delighted as I have already intimated, to support my hon. friend the minister or whoever has charge of it in giving the franchise to the sons and daughters of the returned men, even if they have not killed or tried to kill anybody in war.


John Campbell Elliott: I realize that the discussion has taken longer than I fancy most members of the committee anticipated. I have listened with a good deal of attention to what the Prime Minister said with regard to the amendment that he proposed. It does make a change in that the third member of the board shall be selected by the band, but it still leaves it in the position that that member is all right if the judge is with him, and he is all wrong if the judge and the other member of the board are against him. If he is seeking to protect the representatives of the band I wonder if the Prime Minister would not agree to putting in a provision that no resolution would carry unless it was supported by the vote of the representative of the band? But I do not suppose there is any use in advocating that. I want, however, to move an amendment that there shall be added to the section as proposed to be amended, the following words:
or against the will of the Indian whom it is proposed to enfranchise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be out of
order, Mr. Chairman. It would negative the proposal.


John Campbell Elliott: We are amending subsection 110 by adding a subsection and what I have proposed is not a negative of anything in the proposed subsection. I wonder if the minister could now give us an idea of the amounts paid to the Indians.


Charles Murphy: I have not been able to
obtain it up to the present.


John Campbell Elliott: It will be given before the third reading of the bill?


Charles Murphy: I shall endeavour to get
the information for the hon. member. I want to deal with one point which was raised by the hon. member for Melville with reference to the enfranchisement of the Indians on the eve of an election. He indicated, as he did on a former occasion, that there might be some ulterior motive in the mind of the minister or of the department in proposing this amendment; in this case I suppose it would be the minister. May I say that his position is very illogical because if the Indian is to be enfranchised against his will, as hon. members to your left, Mr. Chairman, suggest, certainly he will not vote for the government that puts such voting power in his hands. Secondly, it cannot be done in that manner because subsection 5 of section 110 already provides:
On the report of the superintendent general that any Indian, male or female, over the age of twenty-one years, is fit for enfranchisement, the governor in council may by order direct that such Indian shall be and become enfranchised at the expiration of two years from the date of such order or earlier if requested by such Indian.
And so forth. That disposes completely of the point raised by the hon. member for Melville, that some government might enfranchise a number of Indians on the eve of an election. It simply cannot be done.


James Malcolm: The section which the
minister has just quoted has a very much fuller meaning than he has given to it. It says:
On the report of the superintendent general that any Indian, male or female, over the age of twenty-one years, is fit for enfranchisement, the governor in council may by order direct that such Indian shall be and become enfranchised at the expiration of two years from the date of such order or earlier if requested by such Indian.
Those last few words just knock out the two-years argument altogether. Enfranchisement may be granted at once if the Indian asks for it.
Indian Act


Onésime Gagnon: The
question is on the subamendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That cannot be in order, Mr. Chairman. You cannot move an amendment that is a negative to an existing proposal. By voting against it hon. members vote in favour of the amendment.


William Richard Motherwell: How many people
with both their lugs all right have heard that and understand what it is?


Ernest Lapointe: We heard it.


William Richard Motherwell: All right. I do
not know if my hon. friend from Pictou heard it with his auricular appendage on, but I did not. If I was right on top of it I could not understand it. It is not fair to the committee. We do not know what they are agreeing to. Will someone interpret the amendment in language we can understand, not draftsman's language, but every day language?


Onésime Gagnon: Does the hon. member say he does not understand the subamendment moved by the hon. member for West Middlesex?


William Richard Motherwell: Let it go.


James Malcolm: I consider that the subamendment moved by the hon. member for West Middlesex simply repeats section 110 of the act. I am opposed to the amendment which was submitted by the minister on the ground that section 110 does provide for enfranchisement at the instance of the individual or of the band. The amendment moved by the minister simply provides that the superintendent general may initiate the inquiry to determine whether the Indian shall be enfranchised. I am opposed to the amendment on the ground that the Indians do not want enfranchisement as is evidenced by the fact that they have not applied for it under the original section as it now stands. I also submit that the minister misrepresented subsection 5 of section 110 when he pointed out to the hon. member for Melville that even if an Indian were enfranchised before the election he would have to wait for two years. Either deliberately or innocently the minister left out a few. words in the subsection which point out that if the Indian so desires, such enfranchisement may take place at once. So the minister's answer to the hon. member for Melville is not an answer at all. I think the committee might just as well vote. We are opposed to the amendment as offered by the minister and we may as well record ourselves as being so opposed.


William Richard Motherwell: I am glad I did
not hear it.
Subamendment negatived.
Amendment (Mr. Bennett) agreed to, on division.
Section 7 as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.



EXCHEQUER COURT ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 17, consideration in committee of Bill No. 26, to amend the Exchequer Court Act-Mr. Guthrie.-Mr. Cowan (Port Arthur) in the chair.
Mr. DUPRE:: This bill was discussed last
on February 17. As pointed, out at that time [by my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), it is a well known principle of British law that moneys paid in settlement of a claim or of a litigated matter, when there has been no fraud or threat of any kind made, cannot be recovered. It is further a principle of British law, as my colleague pointed out, that money paid in mistake of law cannot be recovered. The Minister of Justice added that the object of the amendment is to declare that in Canada, in actions or proceedings taken before the exchequer court, the common principle of British law shall apply, and that the law in that respect shall be general throughout the length and breadth of Canada. The effect would be that in all matters coming within the jurisdiction of the exchequer court no party would be able to set up a claim to the effect that he should get his money back because he had paid it under a mistake of law.
Last February the hon. member for Mont-magny and the ex-Minister of Justice expressed some doubts as to whether or not there would be some encroachment upon the rights of the province of Quebec. They expressed the opinion that Bill No. 26 relates to property and civil rights in the province of Quebec and for that reason might be ultra-vires, in so far as it might come into conflict with property and civil rights of that province. On the other hand my colleague the Minister of Justice stated that in his opinion the amendment did not in any way come into conflict with the laws of the province of Quebec. There are provisions in the Quebec code through which moneys can be recovered when paid in mistake of law, and no one for a moment proposes to disturb that provision. But the exchequer court is a federal court having jurisdiction in all parts of Canada. The Minister of Justice added that it is not in-

Exchequer Court Act
tended in any way to disturb the operation of the law of the province of Quebec, as it applies to residents of that province, or to any matter which arises in that province. However the discussion on the bill was adjourned in order to allow the hon. member for Quebec East to express his views. The committee would be pleased at this time to hear from him.


Ernest Lapointe: I am very happy indeed that the government agreed not to proceed with the bill upon the first occasion. At that time I had doubts which have since changed into a certainty. This bill would do indirectly what parliament cannot do directly. Its true title ought to be: An Act to Supersede the Civil Code of the Province of Quebec. I believe I will have no difficulty in demonstrating that assertion. As is shown in the explanatory note, section 18 of the Exchequer Court Act gives exclusive jurisdiction to the exchequer court in respect of any matter which might be the subject of a suit or action against the crown, and so on.
Section 5 of the Petition of Right Act, which is chapter 168 of the revised statutes of Canada, enacts that all petitions of right must come before the Exchequer Court of Canada.


Maurice Dupré: That is the procedure.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. The Minister of Justice claimed that the bill would not take away any rights enjoyed by citizens of the province of Quebec. Well, it does not take the rights away; they will have the rights, just the same, but they will have no tribunal before which they may appear, because the exchequer court is the only one before which their rights could be presented. A petition of right must come before the exchequer court; by this bill the exchequer court will be deprived of jurisdiction in the matter of claiming amounts which have been paid to the crown in mistake of law. The purpose of the bill is pretty clearly stated, although it is not said that it is for the purpose of preventing the provisions of the civil code of the province of Quebec from operating. It is said in the explanatory note that the object of the bill is to effect uniformity of the law throughout Canada in regard to the recovery of any money paid to His Majesty voluntarily in mistake of law. My hon. friend has been honest and sincere; he says it is a principle of British law that there is no recovery of moneys that have been paid in mistake of law, and he wants this British principle to 53719-297
apply everywhere. Well, I know it is the law in all the provinces which are under the common law, but it is not the law in the province of Qeuebec.


Maurice Dupré: You mean on account of articles 1047 and 1140?


Ernest Lapointe: Of articles 1047 and 1140 of the civil code, which I am going to read:
1047. He who receives through error of law or of fact what is not due him is hound to restore it; or if it cannot be restored in kind, to give the value of it.
If the person receiving be in good faith, he is not obliged to restore the profits of the thing received.
1140. Every payment presupposes a debt; what has been paid where there is no debt may be recovered.
There can be no recovery of what has been paid in voluntary discharge of a natural obligation.
I do not want to discuss the advantage or disadvantage of the law, whether the provisions of the civil code are better, more equitable, than those of the common law. I personally believe that when through a mistake in law a man has paid money which is not due there is much in favour of the law that says he has the right to claim it back. It is not the law elsewhere but it is in the province of Quebec. It is the French law; it is a matter of property and civil rights. A man in the province of Quebec who in mistake of law has paid an amount which he does not owe has a civil right to claim it back, and parliament cannot take that right away from him. Parliament oamnot take it away from him directly, and parliament should not take it away from him indirectly by depriving him of the only tribunal before which he can lay -his claim.
. Section 94 of the British North America Act is very interesting in the discussion of this matter, because according to the explanatory note this bill is for the purpose of making the law uniform in all the provinces of Canada. Section 94, which deals with uniformity of laws, says:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, the parliament of Canada may make provision for the uniformity of all or any of the laws relative to property and civil rights in Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and of the procedure of all or any of the courts in those three provinces, and from and after the passing of any act in that behalf the power of the parliament of Canada to make laws in relation to any matter comprised in any such act shall, notwithstanding anything in this act, be unrestricted; but any act of the parliament of Canada making provision for such uniformity shall not have effect in any province unless and until it is adopted and enacted as law by the legislature thereof.

Exchequer Court Act

But this section does not apply to the province of Quebec. Parliament has the constitutional right to enact measures for the uniformity of laws in Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and certainly in the other provinces which have since entered the confederation, and are under the common law; but even then such measures enacted by this parliament would have to be ratified by the provinces concerned. The province of Quebec is excluded from the operation of this section.
Section 101 of the British North America Act gives to this parliament the right to create federal courts. This section does not give to parliament the right to change the laws; it gives it the right to apply the laws. I submit that parliament has not the right indirectly to use the Exchequer Court Act, which creates this federal tribunal, for the purpose of taking away a civil right from any citizen of any province, as would be done if this bill becomes law; because, although as I say the right would still exist under the civil code, there would be no tribunal before which claims could be made; for petitions of right cannot now be tried by the superior court of the province as they were before the Exchequer Court Act was enacted. There has been no change of the law, but there has been a change of the locus. It is the tribunal that has been changed. This amendment would, I submit, take away the jurisdiction in the province of Quebec in matters of recovery of money paid in mistake of law. While the claim under the law would still exist, there would be no court where it might be entertained. So as I said at the opening of my remarks, parliament would do indirectly what it cannot do directly, namely interfere with the law of the province of Quebec in matters pertaining to property and civil rights.
Now the civil law, "repetition de l'indu," recovery of moneys paid in mistake, applied as well against the crown as against ordinary persons. I do not believe anybody can contradict that, and it has been well recognized by the house.


Maurice Dupré: That is the case of the Exchange Bank vs. the Queen?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, it was decided in that case, and in a case of rather recent date, Ross vs. the King, the supreme court was unanimous to the effect that as the duties were paid at the port of Montreal the case was to be determined by the laws of the province of Quebec. And quite recently in the case of the King vs. Cutting, 1932 S. C.R., 410, the petition of right was maintained for the recovery of $13,513 paid to the province of Quebec for succession duties in mistake of law.


John Thomas Hackett: That was against the crown in the right of the province; it was not disputed.


Ernest Lapointe: But I believe the principle is the same. The crown in the right of the dominion is subject to the laws of the province of Quebec in matters pertaining to citizens of the province.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Ernest Lapointe: I will conclude my remarks in a very few words. I have submitted and, I think, fairly shown that it is the right of a citizen of the province of Quebec who has paid money under a mistake of law to recover such money. This is a civil right which cannot be taken away by this parliament. Indeed, this bill shows that that is the opinion entertained even by its authors, because it is not being done in a direct way; they are not taking the right away from the citizen but the tribunal, the forum, the locus where he could state the claim to recover that money.
The other objectionable feature of the bill to which I direct attention is its retroactive aspect. The bill reads, "to entertain any action heretofore or hereafter commenced." As a matter of fact, there are actual petitions of right, or at least requests for petitions of right pending against the crown, and even in respect of which fiats have been granted. If this bill becomes law it will be confiscatory, and I think it would be equivalent to expropriation without compensation.
I wish to read to the committee a resolution unanimously adopted by the council of the bar of Montreal, protesting against the bill. I will read it in French, as it has been sent to me:
(Translation)
Whereas Bill No. 26:	"to amend the
Exchequer Court Act" constitutes an infringement on the civil laws of the province of Quebec, in that it tends to render inoperative the provisions of the Civil Code in respect to recovery of moneys paid in error.
Whereas this bill might affect cases that are pending and that in principle all legislation infringing on acquired rights is contrary to equity and public order;
Therefore, the Council of the Bar, Montreal section, deem it their duty to protest against said bill and respectfully pray the Hon. Hugh Guthrie, Minister of Justice, not to proceed further in this respect
Unanimously.

Exchequer Court Act
I will read also a letter I have received from the assistant attorney general of the province of Quebec:
(Translation)
Quebec, February 24, 1933. Hon. Ernest Lapointe, K.C., M.P.,
56 St. Peter Street,
Quebec.
Dear Sir,-
Your letter of February 20th instant, relating to the amendments of the Exchequer Court Act, and addressed to the Hon. Prime Minister, was handed to me in order that I might examine the question to which it gives rise.
We are of the opinion that this act, after the amendment proposed by Bill No. 26, inasmuch els it affects persons resident in the province of Quebec, would in this respect constitute an infringement on the legislative powers of the province of Quebec as provided by subsection 13 (Property and Civil Rights in the Province) of article 92 of the British North America Act, 1867.
I am,	,
Yours sincerely,
The Deputy Attorney-General.
Under the circumstances, I think the committee will see that it is no whim on my part but that the stand I am taking against this bill is supported and indeed set forth by the bar of Montreal and by the provincial authorities of Quebec.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That there is an arguable question at issue in this case goes without saying. The civil law of the province of Quebec does provide that money paid under a mistake of law may be recovered equally as though it were paid under a mistake of fact. That is not the law in the other provinces, nor is it the law in England, although the Lord Chancellor, delivering judgment in a case in England, Cooper v. Phipps, many years ago said that under some circumstances a mistake of law might be a question of fact. However, that issue does not arise in this case.
That the civil rights of the citizens of Quebec are not to be in any sense restricted or taken away from them by legislation of this parliament is perfectly clear; they are guaranteed by the constitution and will be maintained by this parliament. As to that I think there is no question. The only issue is this. Is it competent for this parliament to enact legislation that will secure uniformity of treatment with respect to actions brought for recovery of money paid the crown under mistake of law? Undoubtedly the action could not be maintained in Ontario by an Ontario company, but the same company maintaining an office in Montreal and making payment there might, if the civil code is to be applied, recover the money.
Is that the general purpose of a federal court? I think not. I think the federal court 53719-297 J
idea, namely, the idea behind the exchequer court, was that all actions brought against the crown, of whatever character, should have general legal principles applied to them with respect to the statute of limitations and with respect to matters of that kind, unless there were a provision to the contrary in express terms. In this case the reason, for instance, that 'the retroactive feature is found in the act, is a simple one. The persons who are concerned have received the money; they have charged the money against their customers, and the subsequent decision of the courts would indicate that the principle on which the crown claimed from them was wrong. But they having claimed it from their customers and being unable to give it back, the individuals through whom it was recovered should not be able now to recover it and pocket that much more profit. That is a short way of putting it. If parliament adopted retroactive legislation under these circumstances, it would be pursuing the course pursued in Quebec itself with respect to election contests in provincial elections.
I have two suggestions to make to the hon. gentleman. I understand that the Minister of Justice and he discussed the matter, and I gather that he was of the opinion that it would not be proceeded with. If he was of that opinion we will respect his views in that regard. On the other hand, I suggest to him that this matter must ultimately be determined by the courts and we might enact this legislation, adding to it a section to provide that it should not come into force except on proclamation, with the understanding that in the meantime the statute would be referred to the supreme court for the purpose of having its validity determined. I leave either alternative to my hon. friend, but it does occur to me, in view of the questions that are at issue and must ultimately be settled-and the hon. gentleman has placed them before the committee in a most reasonable and fair way -that it might be desirable that we should pass the legislation, providing, as I have said, that it Should not come into force except on proclamation and after it had been referred, under the provisions of the Supreme Court Act, to that court for determination. That I suggest would meet the situation. In view of the discussions which the hon. gentleman had with the Minister of Justice, however, I repeat, if that course does not commend itself to him we will discharge the order for the moment.


Ernest Lapointe: I am grateful to my
right hon. friend for his suggestion, but I should prefer the first alternative, because I should not like to seem to agree to the prin-
Exchequer Court Act

ciple underlying the bill, even if we have to submit it afterwards to the Supreme Court of Canada. I suggest to my right hon. friend that he let this bill sleep for another year. In the meantime he might confer with the provincial authorities and next year if the government think they should proceed with it, it could be again presented. In the meantime I think it would be better to let the bill stand.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Does this bill apply to any province other than Quebec, and does it place any limitation upon the rights of the citizens in provinces other than Quebec to proceed before the exchequer court for the return of money paid in mistake of law?


Maurice Dupré: I understand it applies to
all provinces, but if we agree to the views expressed by the hon. member for Quebec East, it would apply only to the provinces other than Quebec. This would be so because of the civil rights guaranteed to the citizens of that province by the British North America Act.


Alfred Speakman: I do not pretend to
have anything but a very superficial knowledge of the situation, but as I understand it, the citizens of the province of Quebec have the constitutional right of proceeding against the crown for the recovery of money paid in mistake of law. Apparently this bill would nullify that constitutional right.


Ernest Lapointe: As far as the provinces other than Quebec are concerned, the law will remain as it is.


Alfred Speakman: That is why I was
wondering if this bill would limit the rights enjoyed at the present time by provinces other than Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: They have no such
right at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The English law does
not permit one who has paid any money under a mistaken idea as to what the law is to recover that money. Let us take the gallonage tax as an example. Suppose I pay money under this tax and it turns out subsequently that my appreciation of the law is erroneous. In the eight provinces other than Quebec that money could not be recovered by an action in the exchequer court. If I paid $10 when the correct computation was $4, that could be recovered because that payment was made in mistake of fact. I am giving a simple illustration without going into technicalities, and I think the distinction between a mistake of fact and a mistake of law is illustrated by what I have just said.

In the province of Quebec, under the civil law, the question of the recovery of money paid in mistake of law is in exactly the same position as though it were paid in mistake of fact. In either case the litigant can bring his action. As the former Minister of Justice has pointed out, the effect of this legislation would be that no money could be recovered in any part of Canada, if paid in mistake of law. There would be a universal rule applied to all provinces. The question as to whether this is a matter dealing with substantive law under the authority given by the British North America Act to set up a federal exchequer court or a matter dealing with property and civil rights and remedies that are appropriate for the purpose of enforcing claims in connection with property and civil rights is disputable and arguable. I think that these matters could be settled by the courts in the manner I have indicated but I appreciate the point raised by the former Minister of Justice. If he has relied upon the conversations he had with the Minister of Justice to the effect that the issue was of such a doubtful character, this matter had better stand for further consideration. The Solicitor General will not press the bill for the Minister of Justice in his absence, and he can move that the committee rise.


Alfred Speakman: As I understand it, at the present time the exchequer court has the right to hear such cases only when they come from Quebec?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Maurice Dupré: I move that the committee rise.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 17, consideration in committee of Bill No. 30, to amend the Customs Act-Mr. Ryckman-Mr. Stirling in the chair.
On section 2-Special permission for lightening vessels and unlading goods.
Ernest Lapointe: I should like to reiterate the objection I made against this section when the bill was last before the committee. I do not think there should be an exception made for the lightening and unloading of vessels on Sundays. The explanatory note reads:
By permitting lightening and unloading on holidays and Sundays and after and before hours, heavy demurrage loss, amounting in many cases to $2,500 per day, can be avoided.

Customs Act
This explanation does not seem to justify the change being made in the laws of the country. I think this amendment comes in conflict with the Lord's day act, and I urge the minister to withdraw this particular part of the bill.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: In view of the very pleasant way in which my hon. friend puts his request, I find it difficult not to accede. I should like to tell the committee how it came about that this proposed amendment was inserted. I am told that there are instances where a loss of $4,000 per day has been incurred which could have been saved merely by attaching a coupling to a ship which was ready to unload. I am told that the Sabbath was made for man and I believe that if such a situation were a personal one to any hon. member of the committee he would be against incurring a loss of $4,000 when it could be saved by attaching a coupling to a pipe line. I can understand this still less when I recall-I am sure the former Minister of Justice will forgive my saying this -that down in his very city on a Sunday afternoon you will find a gang of twenty hired ball players occupying the whole block; that is all right, but silently to attach a coupling to a ship-it cannot be done. Having said this much, I would just like to say, if it is a matter of principle with the hon. member and with anyone else in the house, and if they understood the situation as I have tried to put it in but a few words, that this money will be lost, that a distinguished counsel of Toronto came to Ottawa to see me and said: You do not know what this means in cost to us which is passed on to the consumer, because we have to take care of it. Having stated the facts shortly, I am agreeable to amending the bill.
By the way, let me say that the Lord's Day Act, chapter 123 of the revised statutes of Canada, takes care of this whole matter in railway transportation. If it were the unloading of a train, there would be no trouble: there would be no application to Ottawa for what is sought in this amending bill, but the reason for it is that, the unloading of ships has not advanced as fast as train dispatching or unloading. Again I put it to anyone who is reallv troubled about this: I have personal knowledge of the facts as I have tried to relate them, but I am quite willing to amend the bill so that section 2 will read as follows:
2. Subsection 2 of section 8 of the said act, is amended by adding thereto the following proviso:
"Provided that the collector or other proper officer at the port at which entry of the goods
is to be made may give permission in writing for the lightening of a vessel and unlading of goods,-
(a)	on a statutory holiday other than a Sunday;
(b)	after sunset and before sunrise;
(c)	at a place other than a port;
but such unlading shall be done only in the presence of an officer detailed for such service and under such conditions and upon such terms as the minister may authorize or prescribe.
If that is acceptable, I will ask the Solicitor General to move it.


Maurice Dupré: I move that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It seems to me, in any
event, the committee might amend it in this way, that if the vessel is unloaded on a Sunday, no action shall be instituted except by the attorney general of a province and no attorney of a province is apt to do so under the circumstances.


Ernest Lapointe: This is already provided under the Lord's Day Act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Prohibited or smuggled or unmanifested goods found in any vessel.
Alan Webster Neill: I would like to point out
what this section really means. The ostensible purpose of the amendment is to make the master liable to a penalty not exceeding $200 in one case and not exceeding $1,000 in another. That may or may not be justified in order to give the master a very particular interest in checking smuggling on his boat. But what I wish to draw attention to is the unjust provision in the part that is not being amended. The part that was there before states that if any prohibited or smuggled goods, or goods not in the manifest, are discovered on board the vessel, the whole boat with its sails, rigging, tackle, is liable to be seized and forfeited, with apparently no trial at all. Perhaps people think in terms of a little gas boat smuggling something, but supposing this were a big liner worth $300,000 or perhaps $400,000, and one of the crew smuggled some dope, and you can smuggle enough dope in the heel of your boot to give you a living for a year; or suppose a packet of cigarettes or a prohibited magazine were smuggled. In such a trivial case as that, in the discretion of the customs official the whole boat may be seized and forfeited. I do not think that is reasonable. We insert these provisions rather glibly or casually, more or less on the understanding that they wifi not be enforced, and certainly they should not
Customs Act

be, but why put them in? Is such a proceeding fair and just, supposing a member of the crew has committed a .petty infraction of the law? Let us suppose these boats carry Chinamen; in every trip of a boat there are new placed devised to smuggle dope which goes into small bulk; you can put enough heroin into a fountain pen to make it profitable, and because one of the crew does such a thing, the whole boat may be seized and forfeited What would the Canadian Pacific ocean services say if one of the Empress boats were seized and forfeited for such a reason?-and so far as I can see this can be done without even summary conviction. I would like the minister, if he can, to explain such an extraordinary provision.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I would just like to say to the committee that this clause is in the spirit of the Customs Act. If my hon. friend will permit me, I hardly think he was fair in limiting the charge to the master of the vessel. What appears is that:
The master or person in charge of such vessel and any other person concerned in such breach or violation, shall be liable-
And so forth. In the case of a Canadian Pacific liner or any other craft, however large or small it may be, the person liable would be the one who was responsible. As my hon. friend knows, if a vehicle or a vessel, because vehicles and vessels of all kinds are covered in the Customs Act, is found carrying what I will call contraband of the act, it is forfeited, but what always happens is this, that the customs official ascertains who is to blame; the one who is to blame is proceeded against and the vehicle or the vessel is released. This penalty clause which appears in section 4 appears in six other sections of the Customs Act. I may tell the hon. gentleman I know of no case in which one who has been innocent has been saddled with the loss of his conveyance, be it vessel or vehicle, and I would not expect, if a clause such as this were put into the act, there would be taken by the Department of National Revenue any action which would be unfair to a man who was not guilty.


Alan Webster Neill: The argument in reply to my remarks was exactly as one would anticipate: First, that it was in the act before. I anticipated that and said that that did not make it any better. Secondly, the minister says that it occurs in six other sections. That certainly does not make it any better. If I had murdered a man, it would not be my defence that I had murdered six other men. Next the minister goes to the very opposite extreme and says that this is never used. That is what I was contending; if it is never used, 
why put it in? And if it should not be put in, why not eliminate it? Finally, the minister says that the procedure will be that they will seize the boat and ascertain the guilty party and release the ship. It is nothing to me whether they seize a Canadian Pacific boat or not; but would the minister tell me, and I ask in all seriousness, having once legally seized and forfeited the boat, apparently without trial, where he gets power to release it? He has no such power. He is going to seize the boat under this desperately arbitrary power, which he says is never enforced; but where does he get authority, once the boat is seized, to give it back?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The governor in council may do that. The first case of this kind that I recall was when, as a youth, I stepped into the court house in the little village in which I was born. A member of a crew had landed from a ship some goods which technically constituted smuggling. A collector of customs had seized the vessel and an action had been brought against the collector of customs. I well recall the counsel in that case, afterwards Mr. Justice Hannington. The plaintiff was non-suited, for the first time in his life, he said. This legislation is intended to operate as a deterrent and to prevent looseness in connection with the inspection of crews' quarters by the master and officers of the ship, so that narcotics will not be stored and taken ashore, as they might easily be if the severity of the penalty did not in itself ensure the strictest supervision by those chargeable with the responsibility.


Alan Webster Neill: Would not personal liability to a fine of SI,000 be sufficient?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the master is
responsible for his ship. A provision of that character has long been in the British law, not that that makes it good, but it has been found that a deterrent of this character is the only deterrent that will ensure the master and officers of the ship searching and inspecting and taking every step to guarantee against the use of the vessel to which a member of the crew is articled for the purpose of promoting an illegal practice, the landing of goods that constitute smuggling. In practice it has been found a salutary deterrent, and in my judgment it should be extended.


Alan Webster Neill: While this is a severe punishment for the guilty party, would it not also be severe for the innocent owners of the vessel?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has never been any complaint. If the innocence of the owners is established an order in council is always issued releasing the ship.

Soldier Settlement Act


Mr. YOUNG:: It seems to me that this
section would apply not only to the crew but to the passengers on the vessel who were found with contraband, and the vessel would then be subject to seizure whatever might be the intent of the act. In the administration it works out something like this. I have had no experience with vessels other than prairie schooners, but when anybody in an automobile is found with contraband the car is seized and remains under seizure until the case is settled, generally several months after. If 37ou seize a ship and hold it for several months before releasing it, that would entail a tremendous loss to the owners. No matter what may be the intent of the act some customs officers are very strict and live up to the letter of the law, conceiving it to be their duty to find every possible means of getting convictions. They always take advantage of a strict interpretation of the act to make a seizure wherever possible, and in this case hardships would be worked. I do not give all customs officers throughout the country credit for having more than average intelligence, but it is a fact that some of them seem intent on getting convictions, just like some policemen, and very frequently cars and boats will be seized which in the end have to be released, but in the meantime very great inconvenience is caused to the owners.


Charles A. Stewart: I had a
case brought to my attention recently, which I turned over to the department. A man, was coming back across the boundary with his wife who had received some presents to the amount of less than five dollars in one of the American cities. They passed the customs officer but were detained by the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. The car was searched and seized. Before it was released they had to pay $18.60, which they have never recovered. That seems to me to be carrying things entirely too far.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: This relates only to
carriage by sea.


Charles A. Stewart: I quite appreciate that fact, but I am pointing out that the same hardship applies in the seizure of automobiles, only to a greater extent. They are not likely to seize a large vessel because one of the crew is found trying to smuggle, but a car is often seized and is tied up at once. I think the penalty is too severe for the small amount involved in such oases, and I think the penalty in this case is also too severe.


Alan Webster Neill: I would suggest that the
captain be sentenced to death. That would be a still greater deterrent. He could afterwards be revived and released.


Edward James Young: What about the shareholders?


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, May 4, consideration in committee of Bill No. 45, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act-Mr. Gordon-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
On section 1-Certain interest charges remitted.
Edward Joseph Garland: When the resolution which preceded this bill was before the house I inquired of the Minister of Labour whether or not he had given consideration to the possibility of closing up the soldier settlement board and turning the land over to the settlers. I asked him at that time for information covering the total costs of revaluation of land, revaluation of equipment and other losses entailed by the board, together with the total expenses of the board since the scheme was inaugurated. Has he that information now?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I have the information for which the hon. member asked. I had prepared a statement giving the information in detail, and when the deputy in charge of this matter is on the floor of the house I shall provide the hon. member with that information. Meantime I should like to draw the attention of the committee to figures for which a request was made when the bill was before the committee on May 4. A number of hon. members asked me concerning receipts and expenditures with respect to various provinces. The answers given then were from such material as I had before me. The information I gave however was by no means complete, and I am sure did not convey the full information desired. For that reason I had three short statements prepared showing administration costs in each province prior to the reorganization of the department in 1930, and figures showing the present decrease in costs both in dollars and in percentages. The tables show, further, the decrease in dollars and in percentages of what are known as controllable expenditures. As a matter of fact these controllable expenditures
Soldier Settlement Act

embrace practically the total expenditures, because in a measure all expenditures are controllable.
The second statement gives details of administration costs in each province, and a break-up of the first statement, showing salaries, travelling expenses, motor cars and sundry expenses. A further short statement
gives collection returns by provinces during the last fiscal year 1032-33. If hon. members will bear with me I shall read the statements into the record so that there will be no misunderstanding of the figures I gave on the previous occasion.
The following is a statement showing the administration costs:
Soldier Settlement of Canada Administration Costs
				Administration		
			Administration	cost		
cost	1932-1933	Decrease	District	1929-1930	(estimated)	Amount	British Columbia.. .	. $ 141,084 80	$ 82,659 08	$ 58,425 72	41%Edmonton	.1 155,258 50	98,505 22	56,693 28	37%Calgary	[DOT] j 129,971 38	77,421 26	52,550 12	41%Total Alberta..	. .$ 285,229 88	$ 175,986 48	$ 109,243 40	38%Saskatchewan	. $ 266,931 26	$ 138,572 40	$ 128,358 86	48%Manitoba	. 131,915 73	69,533 79	62,381 94	47%Ontario	. 115,576 78	67,246 14	48,330 64	41%Quebec	16,486 40	13,297 56	3,188 84	19%Maritimes	80,264 91	58,738 16	21,526 75	28%11,037,489 76	$ 606,033 61	$ 431,456 15	42%Head office	324,632 10	162,956 15	161,675 95	50%593,132 10	Not yet allotted.. .	36,010 24	-36,010 24	$1,362,121 86	$ 805,000 00	$ 557,121 86	41%Subdivision of	these totals is:	Soldier land settlement	$1,008,253 88	$ 567,600 00	$ 440,653 88	44%General land settlement	353,867 98	237,400 00	116,467 98	33%$1,362,121 86	$ 805,000 00	$ 557,121 86	41%1929-1930	1932-1933	Reduction	Controllable expenditure	$2,435,255 38	$1,266,400 00	$1,168,855 38	48%Administration Costs	1932-1933 (Estimated)	Travelling	Motor	District	Salaries expenses	cars	Sundry	TotalBritish Columbia.. .	$	66,989	25 $ 7,059 40	$ 6,831 62	$ 1,778 81 $	82,659 08Edmonton	80,584	20 6.040 97	9,000 55	2,939 50	98,565 22Calgary	1	61,437	60 5,722 95	8,153 82	2,106 89	77,421 26Total Alberta..	$	142,021	80 $ 11,763 92	$ 17,154 37	$ 5,046 39 $	175,986 48Saskatchewan	$	106.915	65 $ 12,729 73	$ 14,754 50	$ 4.172 52 $	138,572 40Manitoba	>	56.550	83 4,969 65	6,201 64	1,811 67	69,533 79Ontario	50.368	05 7,777 84	6,899 11	2,201 14	67,246 14Quebec	9,858 00 1,773 72	1,343 60	322 24	13,297 56Maritimes	45.767	47 6,484 73	5,300 09	1,185 87	58,738 16Head office	114,931	94 8,641 37	23,913 14	15,469 70	162,956 15$	593,402	99 $61,200 36	$ 82,398 07	$31,988 34 $	768,989 76Unallotted	4,597	01 8,799 64	14,801 93	8,011 66	36,010 24$	598,000	00 $ 70,000 00	$ 97,000 00	$40,000 00 $	805.000 00
"Sundry" consists of- Postage,
Telegrams, Telephones, Guarantee insurance, Express,

Freight,
Janitor,
Repairs, office equipment, Legal,
Printing and supplies, Indian soldier settlement.

Soldier Settlement Act


Mr. DONNELLY:: Is this for the land settlement scheme, or just the soldiers?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: This covers ail the settlers, I believe.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Up to what date in 1933?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The figures are for the
fiscal year.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask the minister if he has the receipts for 1929-30?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I haive not them before me but I could supply them. Hon. members will see that after the reorganization of the department a general reduction in administrative expense has been accomplished of 41 per cent.


Alan Webster Neill: Could the minister give a statement of the relation in percentages of revenue and expense? That is very significant.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have the receipts for 1932-33: Soldier Settlement of Canada Receipts 1932-1933 District- Total British Columbia	$ 234,469 35		
Edmonton	
Calgary	216,400 97 169,407 71Total Alberta..	$	385,808 68Saskatchewan.. .. Manitoba	
Toronto	
Quebec	
Maritimes	
Indian settlement..	$	317,957 94 122,151 61 148,642 36 37,180 84 86,257 78 8,374 69Total.. ..	$1,340,843 25


Alan Webster Neill: Could we have the receipts for 1929-30 and the percentages?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not those.


Alan Webster Neill: The picture is not complete without that. There is a very substantial and commendable reduction in expense but the real test is what percentage of the money collected went in expenses.


James J. Donnelly: I would like to ask in regard to Saskatchewan how much of the land that was bought by the soldiers has been taken back and sold to other settlers; and what proportion of these receipts was from the soldiers and how much from this other land that was taken back and sold.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not know that I can cover all the information the hon. member asks for. The number of soldiers established was 24,715. I cannot supply the actual acreage. The number now on the land is
19,241. I believe when the resolution was before the house a question was asked as to loans repaid in full. I might give that information now. The number of loans that have been repaid in full in cash is 2,390, and the number taken over by resale, 2,568, making a total of 4,958.


Mr. SPENCER:: What is the total number of soldiers who have been put on the land?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 24,715.


Mr. REID:: Has the minister the number for British Columbia?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 2,251.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What is the number for Saskatchewan?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have to correct the
figure I have given for British Columbia; the number there is 3,515.


Alan Webster Neill: Now on the land?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is the original number.


Alan Webster Neill: How many are on the land
at the present time in British Columbia?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 2,643.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What is the number on the land at present in Saskatchewan?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 5,036.


Thomas Reid: The minister gave 3,515 for
British Columbia. Is that the original number?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The original.


Thomas Reid: When this bill first came up I intended to make a few remarks regarding the situation in British Columbia, but not wishing to delay the bill then I thought I would reserve what I had to say until the matter was in committee. The bill, while it is very desirable and is a good measure as far as it goes, is based I think on the problem as it affects the soldier settlers on the prairies. I am not sure whether the minister has obtained any information from British Columbia with regard to conditions there, but the information that has been supplied me would seem to indicate that the rulings and the bill itself are based on the problem as it affects the soldier settlers on the prairies.
I wish now to direct the attention of the minister to the condition of the settlers in British Columbia. I have here a brief issued by the soldier settlers' organization in British Columbia, and while I do not intend to read


Edward Joseph Garland: Surely my hon. friend does not think that British Columbia is an exception in that regard.


Thomas Reid: I am sorry to say it is not an exception. It is stated that pictures, books and pamphlets were distributed in the camps overseas and these men were even asked where they would like to locate to take up this choice land. They were told they would become independent and the most glowing future was held out to them. They were almost compelled to take up this land. They claim the scheme was actually forced upon them. I know from personal contact with some of these settlers in British Columbia that many of them even assigned or commuted their pension as payment. However,

Soldier Settlement Act
in many cases dire necessity has forced them into a terrible position. I maintain these men cannot take advantage of the inducements offered by this bill. It is stated that one dollar will be given by the government for every dollar paid by the settler, but these men have no money with which to make payments. They now think it strange that the unemployed should be given 8600 without any arrangements being made for repayment. This is being done in the various provinces as a relief measure. Many of these soldier and civilian settlers would be glad to leave the land if they only knew where to go, and they would not ask for any $600.
Many of these settlers are under a greater debt to-day than they were when they took up the land originally. This is a rather serious matter. In some cases they have sold their farm in .the hope that they could obtain some recompense, but the purchasers have in many cases quit-claimed the land and so it has come back upon the original settler. The soldier settlers in British Columbia ask that all interest payments be waived for a few years. If they had any money at all they could obtain advantage under the provisions of this bill, but they have not nor have they hope of getting any. Interest charges are piling up and will pile up, and these men are asking that these interest charges be not held against them or the property. The conditions in British Columbia are entirely different from those that prevail on the prairie. I know that many of the settlers in my constituency are in a very serious plight. In many instances they assigned their cream cheques but they have been compelled to ask them back in order to live as the merchants in some instances have refused to grant them further credit. This plea is not put forward by the soldier settlers alone; it is wholeheartedly supported by all citizens. I am going to ask the minister seriously to consider this matter and see if something cannot be done to provide for the waiving of interest charges for a few years, if not for all time. I ask him also to consider the fact that in many cases the load of debt to-day is much heavier than when the original purchase was made. Could the minister tell me how many civilians have purchased land in British Columbia under the soldier settlement scheme, what amounts they have paid and what amounts are outstanding?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In British Columbia there are 1,511 soldier settlers as defined by the act, 902 civilian settlers and 230 settlers under the British family scheme. This makes a total of 2,643 settlers.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has the
minister the information he promised me a short time ago?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes. I will send it across to my hon. friend.


James J. Donnelly: How many farm supervisors are there in Saskatchewan under this scheme and what are their duties at the present time?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There are 23 supervisors and 3 chief field supervisors. Their duty is to collect the instalments as they fall due, to keep in touch with the settlers to see that they are not proceeded against when they are trying to get along, and when their account falls due to see that they are treated with fairness having regard to their ability to pay. At the present time these men are engaged in general land settlement work under the relief legislation. They are working in conjunction with the officials of the department.


James J. Donnelly: As I understand it, these men were hired originally to teach the settlers how to farm. They have been employed for sixteen or seventeen years and surely the settlers should know how to farm by now. I imagine that the necessity for this sort of work has ceased and I cannot understand why such a large body of men is required just to collect the money due. It seems to me that a much smaller number could handle this work.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: A very considerable reduction has been made in the staff in Saskatchewan. I am not well enough acquainted with the details of their duties, but they have other duties to perform besides the collection of money. They were able to sell or lease to others some 800 farms during the last fiscal year. The crown has a very large interest in these lands and it is desirable that they be protected as much as possible.


Mr DONNELLY:: Some time ago I asked the minister what proportion of the $201,000 collected last year was collected from soldiers and what proportion from the settlers on land which had been taken back and resold.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I regret I have not the
figures broken up to that extent, to give the information requested.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister be kind enough to bring down, say to-morrow on the
Soldier Settlement Act

orders of the day, a statement giving just two sets of figures, first, the total revenue and, second, the total expenditure for the fiscal year 1929-30?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: I just want on behalf of the settlers in my district to put on record a little matter so as to prevent misunderstanding. When the resolution on which this bill is founded, was in committee, the minister referred to a Mr. Price who, he said, was president of the Soldier Settlers' Union, and he quoted a letter Mr. Price had written on February 14. I am not quite clear that the gentleman who, I understand from those who know him, is a man of high character, is really president of a general soldier settlers' union, or rather just of the local union where he lives; at least I have before me no record, certainly not as regards British Columbia, of there being any conference of locals appointing such officers, but there may have been some more or less local arrangement. I mean no deprecation of him in that connection, but it somewhat weakens the strength of his presentation.
What I was going to say was this:	The
minister quoted a letter from Mr. Price in which the latter indicated that he would practically guarantee that the soldier settlers would keep quiet for the next five years and have no criticism to make of this policy as now brought down, if the minister put it through. There is, as I say, some misunderstanding about that, because that was on February 14, and on March 16 Mr. Price was writing-I think it is as president himself- signing himself as such, to the local in my district and taking a wholly different attitude. Instead of saying that he was satisfied with the proposed legislation such as we have it now before us, he said:
Our main objective is to secure legislation that will obtain for us a much more equitable arrangement than we are at present working under. This would, of course, include the total abolition of interest.
Further on he said:
We also made it quite clear-*
Presumably that was the conference with the minister's officials.
-that any scheme for final adjustment that did not include a total abolition of interest, would not be acceptable to us.
That does not exactly jibe with the statement he made in the letter quoted by the minister. I presume the explanation is that the letter quoted by the minister was dealing with the temporary matter of relief, whereas

this gentleman was writing to this local saying that the ultimate policy of all the unions was the total abolition of interest. I want to have it clearly understood, at least so far as the men I represent are concerned, that they are not satisfied; while they may be grateful for this temporary measure of relief, they believe it is not of a permanent character. When one is dealing with a matter like this it is not a very good thing to give merely a temporary measure of relief; it would be better to take a long view and give them something that not only would afford them hope to continue making payments, such as they may be on a reduced scale, but also allow the minister to deal with the matter finally, so that these men would know, so to speak, where they stood. There is no doubt that is their view, because I quote just a couple of lines from the local union:
The proposed act is only a form of temporary relief, which in our opinion is not the wish of the majority and which we consider will only temporarily relieve matters. In the meantime the settler has no more incentive to remain on the land than before, as private debts being unavoidably contracted now will hang over his head for years, and. providing a more permanent form of relief is not provided, we are afraid many will be forced to abandon their holdings and go on relief.
Let me say there, that is what I was speaking about a moment ago, that fear or discouragement might lead them to go off the land, whereas if they knew now they would get this further rebate, they might be encouraged to struggle along. Perhaps in five years the minister will give this relief to those who are left, but in the meantime many may become discouraged and go off the land. This man points out that he believes that is the view in the northwest also. He says also:
There is no doubt in our minds if the interest is cancelled, a large number of appointments of board officials could be cancelled with it.
That is, the overhead can be reduced. The point of view of the settlers and my point of view from my knowledge of them is that the interest should be wiped out from now on, because the government will not get it in any case, and if the government tell them now that it will be rebated, they will be encouraged to continue, whereas while it is hanging over their heads it will be a matter of discouragement ; a number will go off the land and it will only be a residue who will get relief along the line suggested. Would it not be better to say now that a permanent settlement of the situation will be made? The government from time to time have been liberal; they have made a revaluation rebate on their land and 40 per

Soldier Settlement Act
cent rebate upon their stock and so on. They have not been ungenerous; I am not charging the government with not being generous; I am dealing with the situation as it is and will be. It is sometimes the part of a wise creditor to wipe out the bigger portion of his debt and thereby be sure of getting a part of it, rather than to try to force his debtors to pay, saying: You must pay, and in the end getting nothing. That, at least, is the view of the settlers, and unless prospects change most remarkably in the next three or four years there will be no hope of the government getting this interest in any case. It would be the part of wisdom to make now whatever pronouncement they think and believe they will make ultimately. That is the view of the men I represent.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton):: Shall the section carry?


Alan Webster Neill: I just want to explain that we are not passing the section. It was agreed when someone was in the chair before you, Mr. Chairman, we were not going to pass the bill which consists of one section; we were going to deal only with the individual subsections, and we are now dealing with subsection 72.


James J. Donnelly: How much is owing in Saskatchewan for equipment and how much is owing on land?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am sorry I have not the figures broken up in that way.


Edward Joseph Garland: Can the
minister give the total amount outstanding at the present time on all accounts?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The amount is $63,753,-



S68.07.

James J. Donnelly: Has the minister those figures broken up into so much for equipment and so much for land?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No.
Mr. AleINTOSH:	May I ask the minister
whether subsections 72 and 73 apply to both soldier and civilian contracts? I understand they do. Am I correct?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes,
.Mr. McINTOSH: If I am correct, then in 1930 certain adjustments were made in regard to the soldier contracts. I understand from a letter that I have under my hand from Leask, Saskatchewan, that since the soldier settlers in 1930 had their contracts adjusted to current prices, no adjustments have been made in regard to civil contracts, and that in the vicinity of Leask to-day the Indian department and soldier settlement board are offering
land for S20 an acre, while many civilian contracts were entered into at S30 an acre. What I want to ask the minister is this: These civilian contracts apparently cannot be adjusted; when a settler who has a civil contract wants his land adjusted as the soldier settlement land was in 1930, he is told that the law is so and so and there is no power to make an adjustment. Could an inspector not revalue that land, andiif that revaluation is sanctioned by head office or by the minister and his department, could there not be an adjustment made in those civil contracts where the men are heavily indebted? Could there not be certain readjustments made, especially in cases where the revaluation would be greater than the debt?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Answering first the question of the hon. member for Willow Bunch, I find that in 1922 the statute consolidated the debt as between land, implements and so forth, and from that time on the debt has been carried as a single loan.
With reference to the point raised by the hon. member for North Battleford, the subject matter referred to in section 70 of the legislation in the early spring session of 1930; I was not in the house at that time. There was no provision that would cover the cases to which reference had been made. There is no power either in the director or in the minister to make the adjustment to which the hon. member refers. I have been told, and I believe it to be the fact, that in many instances the civilian purchaser was in a much more favoured position than the soldier purchaser, that he bought at current prices on competitive tenders, and took his chances, as it were, of getting value for his money when he purchased his farm. At any rate, the legislation of that year made no provision for the same sort of adjustment with respect to the civilian purchaser that it made with respect to the soldier,
With regard to what the hon. member for New Westminster said, comparing the treatment between the soldier settler and those whom the provinces have endeavoured to place on land, granting them each $600, if the matter is to be judged on the basis of money adjustments, the soldier settler by remedial legislation has in every case received very much more than $600. Reductions have been made by this parliament in years past amounting to almost $32,000,000. I feel certain that we all have one objective with respect to the soldier settler, and that is not to discourage him, but at the same time we must bear in mind that the people have a huge investment in these lands. I believe we are all in agreement that that course
Soldier Settlement Act

should be followed which on the one hand will ensure that the settler is ultimately able to pay for his farm and on the other that in the course of doing it the government shall not adopt any measures that will make it more difficult for the soldier. In dealing with this whole problem, which is not a simple one by any means, we must bear this in mind: Some people, both in this house and outside of it, have advocated that the soldier settler should be legislated into ownership. From what I can learn from the soldier settler himself, he does not desire that. We must also bear in mind that less than three per cent of those who went overseas are represented by the soldier settler, and many more returned soldiers went into other vocations and found themselves, and find themselves [DOT] to-day in great difficulty. So far as possible the same treatment must be given to the soldier settlers as to other soldiers who find themselves in difficult positions. I have had many communications from soldiers who went into other lines of work and became the owners of businesses that were heavily mortgaged or the owners of city homes heavily mortgaged, and who are seeking from the government, relief with respect to these debts. In principle I doubt if they are not entitled to receive the same consideration as the soldier settler. Remember, they also invested their money which was probably borrowed from friends or relatives, and many of them probably involved themselves with loan companies and banks. That class of soldier received no assistance in remedial legislation. He had to deal with a common creditor, and in many instances perhaps with the sheriff. The soldier settler, if he has fallen on evil times, at least cannot be sheriffed, if I may use the phrase, out of his farm. The soldier settler, in common with others, has had and is having a difficult time, but the course to be followed I think is to grant such relief as we can, having regard to the rights of the state in the matter, and at the same time in regard to the settler himself to encourage him not to disavow but to discharge his debt, because he has had considerable assistance by way of the legislation to which I have made reference. The principle of this bill is perhaps based on the old principle, he pays the half who does confess the debt, and this is giving him the opportunity to do it.
Reference has been made to what the Canadian Pacific has done with respect to its lands in western Canada? This bill is more than the Canadian Pacific has done. After examining the results of what the Canadian Pacific did a year ago, and having consulted with their officials charged with the ad-
ministration of those lands, I believe we shall find that many people heretofore discouraged because of the low prices for their products and for other reasons will take a great deal of encouragement from this bill. I have received scores of letters from soldier and civilian settlers in all parts of Canada, commenting upon this legislation, not all complimentary, but the great majority so, and hopeful that with this measure of assistance in the remission of interest and the credit of dollar for dollar for the period named in the bill they will, with any considerable improvement in commodity price levels, be well on their way to paying for their farms. That is the aggregate of the views I have received as a result of the communications which have been directed to me from all over Canada.
There is another aspect of the situation to which I should like to draw the attention of the committee. This bill applies with equal force all over Canada. On March 29, 1930, western Canada was particularly favoured over eastern Canada with respect to the payment of taxes; payments were made and apparently obligations assumed by what was said to be an agreement with the western provinces, in the face of advice which was then upon record, and is still there, that it was illegal to do what was being done. However I presume pressure of the times and the necessity of assisting the settler was apparent to such an extent that the government of the day thought it desirable to take such action. That action however applied only to western Canada. Why it should have been so restricted, I do not know, and there is nothing on record to indicate the reason. The legislation now before the committee, however, applies with equal force throughout Canada, and I am hopeful that the assistance here given the people on soldier settler lands combined with any considerable improvement in prices, will give that kind of encouragement which will be gratifying to every hon. member.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I thank the minister for the statement he has given, but I do not believe he has answered my question in regard to any revaluation requests of settlers with civil contracts. Suppose a request comes from a settler under a civil contract to have land revalued that he bought at S25 or S35 an acre, when the same land can now be bought for $20-and is now being offered by the soldier settlement board and the Indian department-in certain sections of northern Saskatchewan, will he consider revaluation of that land and the adjustment of the debt, if the value is greater than the debt?

Soldier Settlement Act


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If a request such as has
been indicated came to me, of course I would consider it. But under the legislation I am powerless to make a revaluation, because I assume that is what the hon. member has in mind.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is the difficulty;
settlers are told that.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am powerless to make
any such revaluation.


James J. Donnelly: I am anxious to find
out what the soldier settlement scheme has cost the country. The minister has told us about $63,000,000 is still due, and about $32,000,000 of the debts already owing by soldiers had been written off. I should like to know the original cost of this scheme and how much has been paid in by soldiers, so that we may be able to arrive at an estimate of just what the scheme is costing the country?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The principal investment amounted to $117,670,711.02. The interest as accrued amounted to $22,688,651.10, making a total of $140,359,362.12.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: That is for land and
equipment?


James Malcolm: Everything.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: As of January 31, 1933,
there have been repayments of $50,968,482.79. That sum could be broken up into principal and interest, the principal being $34,590,697.50 and the interest $16,377,785.29.


James J. Donnelly: How many soldiers does this amount look after?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Something over 19,000.


James Malcolm: I believe the minister
gave the exact figure of 19,241.


James J. Donnelly: In Saskatchewan we
have a number of supervisors travelling about the country. They are able to collect only an amount which would equal the cost of maintaining them. Practically all the money they collect goes to them. It seems to me that with conditions such as now exist in western Canada we might do away with these supervisors, and that the payments due by soldiers to the government might be eliminated, or at least the interest thereon. Under present conditions in western Canada prospects of getting any money back from the soldier settlement scheme are very remote indeed. Until conditions improve my advice to the government would be to call in the supervisors and take them off the road
entirely. They are going about from one soldier settler to another, bothering and worrying them in an effort to collect money from them, when in fact the soldiers have no money to pay. They make a nuisance of themselves, and continual complaints are being made in respect to them. They are doing no good whatever, and are making trouble instead of helping.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I have some more facts
to take up in connection with this bill. I do not know whether I shall be able to complete them to-night, but I shall attempt at least to do so-to give one or more instalments, thereof. But before leaving the question of revaluation of land bought under the soldier settlement board by settlers other than soldiers, I have also a few observations to make. The minister said he would take this matter into consideration. May I impress upon him the importance of considering the matter fully? When men bought land at $30 or $35 an acre which can now be bought for $20 I think the men interested have a strong argument for some adjustment. The minister said he would consider the matter. May I impress upon him the importance of having his department give the matter the most complete consideration as quickly as possible.
Following that, may I take up with the minister one or two further points? A few days ago in the house I asked him about a complaint made by Stanley Lawrence of Huntoon, Saskatchewan, and other soldiers throughout the province. The question I put to the minister was this: I said I had received information from northern Saskatchewan that certain soldier settlers could not procure seed or feed oats. I also said these men had applied to the municipality, to the Canadian legion, to the soldier settlement board, and to the minister himself, and up to the time I received the information no action had been taken. Therefore I thought that as a member of this house from Saskatchewan I should ask the minister a straightforward question about this condition of affairs, and I did so. The minister replied the next day something like this; that the settler asked about was located not in the constituency of North Battleford, but, he thought, in the constituency of Wey-burn. I did not say that Lawrence was located in North Battleford federal riding; I said I had information regarding this complaint from northern Saskatchewan. I did not even say that the person from whom I received the information was living in the North Battleford federal riding, but I said that I had the information from that part of the province.
Soldier Settlement Act

Now the minister says this man is living in the riding of Weybum. I understand he is not living in that constituency but in the riding of Assiniboia, though under the new redistribution bill he will be in Weyburn. Of course the redistribution bill is not law yet, and in its present form may we hope it never will be. However, leaving that point aside for the moment, the information was that feed and seed oats were not got last year by this man Lawrence until June. The minister says he did get the seed in plenty of time. Lawrence says he did not. Whom are we to believe? Lawrence says he did not get the seed, did not sow it and did not reap a harvest. The minister says he got it in time. If he did not get a crop the chances are that he did not get the seed in time, and I am told Lawrence is of the opinion that the reason he did not get the seed in time was that he was a Liberal in politics and therefore was discriminated against.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Oh, nonsense.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am not in a position to verify that statement because Lawrence is not present, but-


Wesley Ashton Gordon: You do not believe it, I
am sure.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: His own opinion was
that he did not get justice because his politics were not right. I hope he will get justice this year, because I understand he is still Liberal. I have confidence in the minister that he will not hold back seed and feed oats because the man differs politically from himself. Surely not!
But let me continue. This man applied to the municipality, to the settlement board, to the Canadian legion and to the minister, and he got no action until too late last year, and it appeared that he was not getting very quick action this year, therefore he thought the matter should be brought up in the house, and I brought it up. The minister says he has directed him what to do. Well, I am thankful to the minister, but the fact remains that up to the time the information reached here this year this man was in need of seed and had not got it. If action has been taken since I compliment the minister for setting the departmental machinery going so that this man may get the justice to which he is entitled.
Next, let me go back to the dying days of the first part of the present session. It will be remembered that last fall when the question of land settlement and soldier settlement was before the house I put a statement on Hansard, and later the minister also put a

statement on the record, saying among other things he had given to parliament all the information he could, from all over Canada. He did give a good deal of information I admit. But he said he had listened to addresses, especially from members from western Canada, which he thought would be more helpful and dependable and effective if the information had been got from the department and not from newspaper clippings and letters. Apparently the government must always have a fling at the newspapers, whether it be the weekly press or the daily. They would have us 'believe that information given to the house obtained from weekly and daily papers is often unsound information. I do not take that view at all. I believe that a government or a minister can often be put right by information got first-hand by newspapers. I think a statement of that kind was absolutely unnecessary, and would not have been required had we had in Canada a non-political unemployment advisory council for the last three years, national in character, that would have gathered all the information on soldier settlement, unemployment and land settlement generally which would have been available to any member on request. As it is now we have to dig up this information ourselves from whatever source we can get it, from letters and other first-hand information, newspapers and government departments. I believe that on the whole the information daily obtained by a member is just as authentic as anything that can be got from any department of government.
Secondly m that speech the minister said that the department of soldier settlement had been completely reorganized, and so he said it commended itself to the great majority of settlers under its control. Well I only hope that is true, but I do not think it is one hundred per cent true, indeed it is far from it. I know many soldier settlers in northern Saskatchewan feel that although the department has been reorganized it is by no means as efficient or as aggressive as it might be in ways apart from collecting money. I do not want to find fault with the present director; in fact I would like to encourage him, and in turn ask him to encourage the men on the land-the soldier settlers. But the fact that the department has been reorganized is no proof that there are not grievances which ought to be adjusted as completely and as quickly as possible.
Thirdly, the minister further made certain criticisms of myself,-and I am not finding any fault; it was ligitimate criticism and I do not mind anyone criticizing me so long as the
criticism appears sound. I had occasion in that

Soldier Settlement Act
address in the house to put on record a report of a meeting at Medstead, Saskatchewan, in connection with land settlement. The settlers concerned received S600 a year, $200 from the municipality, $200 from the province and $200 from this government, and some of these were soldier settlers. A meeting was arranged at which four or five municipalities were represented. I was invited to that meeting, and I thought it only right that, as a member, I should attend. The meeting was attended by thirty or forty reeves, secretaries, and councillors. As far as the meeting was concerned I put on record a very straightforward statement about the existing condition of affairs in northern Saskatchewan in regard to soldier settlement and land settlement generally. When the minister discovered that that report had been published in my own paper, the North Battleford News, that I had personally attended the meeting, that I had written the report myself and that it appeared in the North Battleford News, controlled by myself, he suggested that the statements could not be proven in that way. That, I submit, is a lame argument; it is about the least plausible argument anyone would wish to hear. If a report appears in a newspaper, weekly or daily, owned by a certain individual, that report being written by the owner of the newspaper, is it more authentic or less authentic then a report written by someone acting simply as a reporter? Any schoolboy would answer immediately that the report of a meeting, written by the owner of a newspaper, a meeting attended by the owner himself and at which he heard every speech delivered, every statement made, every argument iput forward touching the question at issue-in this instance the land settlement scheme-would be an absolutely authentic report, a report much more authentic than one written by some person without any interest in the paper and without considering anything apart from a mechanical report of the proceedings. I would say there was no proof necessary. The facts were self evident, and although they were stated in the North Battleford News they were not written to prove anything but to give information to all who wanted to learn.


Finlay MacDonald: Will the hon. member be good enough to stick to the point?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am sticking to the point, and I am not going to take up very much of the time of the committee. If this matter cannot be fully discussed now, Mr. Chairman, then it will have to be discussed 53719-298
on the third reading, so that it does not make much difference. May I say, then, that one . of the reeves present at that meeting said that in his district there would be no crop and no cash. How then could a soldier pay for land without either crop or cash?


Finlay MacDonald: Surely the hon. member must know that his remarks are not relevant to the section under consideration.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: We have not been confining ourselves to one section, Mr. Chairman.


Finlay MacDonald: We are discussing section 72.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I introduced my remarks under section 72.


Finlay MacDonald: I trust the hon. gentleman will use his good judgment and not wander too far.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I submit that my remarks are relevant, Mr. Chairman. Another reeve, Mr. Comerford, said that settlers had been dumped into his area of the country and that fifty schooi children were without school accommodation. These soldier settlers were also in a hopeless situation. The reeve of Medstead, Mr. Soderberg. said that the land the soldiers were put on was hopeless and that it would be impossible for them to succeed. Perhaps I had better give briefly the statements of one or two of these men. Mr. Grimes, the reeve of Parkdale, pointed out clearly that the costs were piling up against these men. They were supposed to pay their taxes but could not; they were supposed to pay for hospitalization but could not; they were supposed to pay for medical attention, and that was impossible. They had no money with which to discharge any of these obligations, and as a consequence the department at Regina requested the reeve and secretary of the latter municipality to interview each settler, and report, which they refused to do. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I would say that the report placed on Hansard was informative; it did not require to be proven because as I have said, it was self evident, and it was essential that that information should be given to parliament and the country.
With regard to another question which the minister dealt with, he said that the Soldier Settlers' Union sent out an alarming circular, and that these soldier settlers wanted to put something across.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I did not say that.

Soldier Settlement Act


Cameron Ross McIntosh: These are the minister's words:
An organization was formed there among the soldier settlers; they communicated with me and sent out rather an alarming circular as to what attitude they intended to adopt with respect to discharging their obligations to the crown. But when they met, there apparently was sound sense among most of the settlers, and those who organized the union were not able to put across the sentiments expressed in the circular.
I do not think there is anything alarming in the circular. I have the circular here and I cannot see for the life of me why the minister characterized as alarming the actions of the men who organized the Soldier Settlers' Union in Saskatchewan, nor do I understand why he should suggest that they were trying to put something across. I for one certainly do not believe that they were trying to put across anything but what was right. I know personally the secretary, Major H. F. Packman, and the secretary, Lieutenant-Colonel H. J. Price.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Packman was one of the representatives at the meeting when these amendments were discussed-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I understand that.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: -and he approved of them and abandoned the proposition set out in the circular.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Here are some of the points with which the organization dealt in that circular, and I will leave it to the minister to say which of them are alarming and which are not. We may have a difference of opinion about what is alarming. I hope we have.


Mr. ERNST:: So do I.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am glad the hon. gentleman has some opinions-also hopes. First of all, the chairman says that the organization is non-politicail. That should suit the minister. Further, the statement is made that the organization has been formed for the sole purpose of enabling all soldier settlers to get together. Let me quote precisely what is said:
The Soldier Settlers' Union is a non-political organization, which has been formed for the sole purpose of enabling all soldier settlers to get together as a strong, united body, so that we may be able to demand and obtain justice and common sense in the administration of our affairs by the soldier settlement board.
Is there anything wrong with that? Where is the alarming sentiment? There is nothing whatever alarming in that statement. Take the next:
For years there has been a growing feeling of dissatisfaction amongst soldier settlers, both

at the terms of our contracts and at the treatment accorded us by the board. This has culminated, in Lloydminster district, in the formation of the union.
In other words, the organization of the Soldier Settlers' Union came about as a result of the dissatisfaction that existed between the soldier settlers and the soldier settlement board; because there was that dissatisfaction, because of unsatisfactory treatment, these men made up their minds to organize. I should like to know what is wrong about any body of men organizing when they have a grievance. Are not assembly and organization two of the fundamentals of what we might term British liberty? I think so. If we have not the right to organize when we have a grievance, then we have no democracy that is worth while. If we cannot assemble to state our grievance, what freedom do we enjoy? None whatever. I say therefore that there is nothing alarming in that statement. Let me quote the third:
Our farms were purchased at highly inflated prices, and in spite of some reduction and concessions made by the government, the amount still owing on them is, in the majority of cases, out of all proportion to their earning power.
That is true, and if it is, even though it is a little alarming, what is wrong with it? Nothing at all so far as I. can see. It is a perfectly justifiable statement by men who are anxious to improve their position. Take the next:
- It is realized by most of us that it is impossible for us to repay our loans, as they now stand. We are steadily going behind, and piling up a debt of principal and interest, which we can never hope to liquidate.
They are going behind and they do not hope to be ever able to pay up. This is what they tell the minister in this circular, and the minister describes it as alarming. Well, it may be alarming to the department, but the sooner some action is taken by the department to allay that discontent the better. Statement number 5 reads:
This situation is due to no fault of ours, and exists in spite of every effort we have made to dear off our liabilities to the board.
They have done their best but they have gone behind and cannot pay up. They told that to the board, and the minister now says that that was an alarming statement. There is no question about it, it is a statement of fact and if it is alarming, all the more reason why the department should take action. The next statement reads:
Although our present position is obviously due to factors over which we have no control, the government insists that we shall repay our loans in full.

Soldier Settlement Act
Listen to that! They have made their complaints to the department and they have been told that they must repay their loans in full. They were told at that time, which was August 20, 1932, there would be no hope of any concessions or adjustments held out, they would have to pay the principal and pay the interest. If they did not do that, more than likely they would be evicted.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I know the hon. member would not consciously make a statement-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I would not make a statement which I could not back up.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: -not in accordance with the facts. I think I stated before that the seizures all over Canada were less than three-tenths of one per cent. These seizures were not evictions in any sense of the word, and in no case was there justification for the attitude taken by the settlers. I am absolutely certain that the action taken by the department in the very small number of cases was the correct action under the circumstances. I believe that that action was proper and I believe it would have been taken by every hon. member of this committee under similar circumstances. The statement has been made by the hon. member with respect to evictions taking place if payment was not made, but that has not been the policy of the government since this depression commenced. The soldier settlers knew that and I think they have done very well considering the difficulties which have confronted them in common with all others in almost every walk of life.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: My statement was that
the thought present in the minds of these soldier settlers was that if they did not pay up in full, in all probability they would be evicted. I did not say that that was the policy of the department.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There was no reason for any such fear.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If the minister will
listen for a little while I think I can show him that there was a foundation for such a fear. It was because of that fear that these men organized. They satisfied themselves that the quicker they got organized, the better for themselves.
The next statement made in the circular is to the effect that they had received every reasonable reduction and concession from the government and need expect no further help from that source. That is, they got every desirable concession and reduction. They felt that if the information they got that day was correct, then they had no great reason to expect any further reductions or concessions.
53719-298J
That was the reason they organized. The next statement has some bearing upon the eviction question. The minister should listen. It reads:
It was made perfectly clear by these officials that the policy of the board would be to demand full payment of our loans, and that in the event of our failure to meet the payments from any cause whatsoever, eviction proceedings would be taken.
That is the statement made by the secretary of the Soldiers Settlers' Union who writes this circular.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: When this circular first
came to my attention I read it over carefully and made inquiry with reference to that particular paragraph. I can assure the hon. member that no such statement was ever made by any official of the department. If such a statement had been made at that meeting, does the hon. member think for one moment that the department would not have been deluged by letters and telegrams? Of course that would have happened, but we never heard a word of it until we received this circular. I am absolutely satisfied that the party responsible for the printing of this circular, perhaps not by design but certainly in some way or another, has included a statement which is absolutely in contradiction of the facts. I made certain that no such statement had been made.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I will take the word of the minister and the officials of his department. I want to take the word of the minister that eviction proceedings were not in his mind or in the minds of his officials. I am very glad to receive that information but my point still stands that the feeling which prompted these men to organize was that if they did not get busy and organize to protect themselves-as organization always does-they would more than likely be evicted. Another statement reads:
It would be well for every soldier settler to clearly understand the situation. Unless some means is adopted of changing the present policy of the government, we must pay up our loans in full-an obvious impossibility-or eventually lose our farms.
That statement amplifies the idea of eviction. As the result of that feeling, the soldier settlers organized.
When they organized they had two objectives. The first objective was the finding of a solution for the problem which confronted them last fall. That was their immediate objective.	They wanted to find out how
they could stay on the land and how they could keep themselves from being evicted. But their main objective was one which brings us more closely to the provisions
Soldier Settlement Act

of this bill. They asked for a better and more equitable deal for all soldier settlers. This legislation attempts to meet that objective in a modified form. The soldier settlers feel that if they cannot get a new deal they will never be able to pay off their loans and will never be free from the threat of eviction. As this circular states, that threat is constantly before them. There is another statement made in the circular which should be put on the record. I want to be fair to the department, so I will quote this statement along with the others. It is stated that the feeling was that as soon as grain prices went up these collectors would be on their backs again with more fury than ever, dragooning them to pay the last cent of their obligations. That is followed with the thought that the more thoroughly they are organized, the less unreasonable will be the demands they will have to meet. They state quite plainly that they want to meet their obligations. They want to remain on their farms if it is at all possible, and they do not want to cheat the government out of one cent. These are some of the facts in connection with the organization of the Soldier Settlers' Union as found in the preliminary statement of the secretary.
I stated before in my address that there was a certain soldier settler, A. J. Sibley, living over ten miles out of North Battle-ford. This man had a grievance. As the minister said, officials from Saskatoon were sent to visit that man. On their way to visit him they called at my home and they asked me to go out with them. I went along with them to see what was going on. These officials had an interview with Mr. Sibley that day; they came to a certain understanding; they left and I returned with them. Because I did this, the minister put it on record in a very improper manner. Fancy a 'minister of the crown putting stuff like this on Hansard! This is what he said:
The superintendent took him-
That is myself.
-right down to that settler and let him investigate the condition for himself.
I did not investigate the condition.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: What did the hon. member
do?
Mr. MoINTOSH: The superintendent from Saskatoon went out and investigated. The only reason I went with the minister's officials from Saskatoon was that I was asked to go and that if my presence could be of any help in any way to get the two parties together, I was willing to go. I did not even hear or want to hear what was said; I do not
r\Ir. McIntosh.}
know what their understanding or agreement was. Yet the minister makes this statement in the house:
He knew the arrangement at that time-
I certainly did not know the arrangement.
-and after seeing the condition for himself he drove home with the superintendent and did not have a single word of criticism to offer.
Then he says that after not having a word of criticism to offer, I came to Ottawa and placed critical statements on the record of the house.


Mr. MacMILLAN:: The hon. member
certainly did.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I certainly did place proper criticisms on Hansard, and, if necessary, I will do so again. Such a statement by the minister is absolutely unfair; that report is a departmentally coloured one and not worth the ink with/which it is written. I went out merely to help the soldier settlement board to find, if possible, common ground with the settler to have his grievance adjusted. I did not take part in the conversation; I did not know what the settlement was, but I thought my presence there would help and I was willing to go. Because I went, I am told by the minister that I went out and knew all about the matter and then I came down here and found fault. I want again to repudiate that statement in this chamber and to say that it is made out of whole cloth; there is nothing exact about it.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: What statement?
Mr. MoINTOSH: The statement I have just referred to. Let me go a step further. Further on the minister says that statements made by myself and other western members in connection with soldier settlement were really breaking down the financial structure of Canada; that men who had invested in western bonds, sold them and bade good-bye to Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba as investment areas. I can only say this, that if telling the truth and putting on record the grievances of our soldier settlers who fought in the war to win liberty and who are entitled to redress, will scare away from western Canada some superficial investors, the quicker they are scared out of western Canada the better. So far as I am concerned, I am going to put on record statements of that kind just when I feel they ought to be made public. I do not think by putting them on record, we interfere with western development; in fact I think, by putting these facts on record and telling the truth about western Canada, we help western development.


Finlay MacDonald: The hon. gentleman's time is up.

Soldier Settlement Act


Cameron Ross McIntosh: There is no time limit in committee, is there?


Finlay MacDonald: Yes, forty minutes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Well, I shall have something to say a little later on.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If we could get on with this bill, all this discussion can and, I think, probably will take .place when the estimates of this department come before the house later on. I would like, if possible, to advance this bill because I want to take the necessary course the legislation contemplates to take care of the various soldiers' accounts and settlers' accounts that will have to be adjusted in conformity with the legislation.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Well, I can put on record the rest of my information on the third reading of the bill, if necessary; I do not want to delay the minister too long to-night.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The hon. member for
North Battleford has raised the question of seed and feed oats for the settlers. I understand there is no seed and feed oats being put out by the government. When I have been approached, I have given that information. There is one thing in this bill to which I should like to refer, and that is in regard to the interest that is being cancelled. I am sorry that it is being cancelled for only one year. The hard years of 1929-30, 1930-31 and 1931-32, as the minister well knows, have been the most difficult years for the settler and I regret very much that this legislation has not been drawn so that more interest could be cancelled than for the one year. I suppose the minister would not consider an amendment at this time, but although there is a great deal of good in the bill, it would have been more acceptable if the government had been able to cancel more than the interest for one year.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I presume I can now
speak for another forty minutes, if necessary, but I do not expect to do so. I believe it is better to put on record now the remainder of what I want to say on this bill; it will be more connected.
Coming now to the bill that is before the committee, may I refer to the meeting that took place in Saskatoon when the president and secretary of the soldier settlement union and other representative soldier settlers convened in that city and, I understand, met the soldier settlement director. A general discussion took place about the complaints that I have put on Hansard, and as to what ought and should be done, otherwise these men
would lose their farms. In other words, these men had to have a new understanding with the department and they were out to have it. The department very kindly arranged a meeting which was held in Saskatoon, as I said, and a veiy free and full discussion took place in regard to soldier settlement questions. What transpired at that meeting? Well, the memorandum that was presented at the meeting bjT the soldier settlers was made up of eight points which bore entirely on the problems of the soldier settlers in the prairie provinces.
The first was that because of unprecedented low price levels of agricultural products, coupled with drought, soldier settlers have been operating at serious loss during the past three years. They were not paying operating expenses because of the low price level of agriculture products and because of the serious drought in western Canada. That was one point which they put in the memorandum.
The second was: The accumulation of debts was so great that the average settler would be unable to overtake his liability even with the return of normal times.
As soon as normal times return and price levels would rise, the soldier settlers felt the}' would be called upon to make payments they could not make and therefore they were very anxious to bring this important aspect of the question before the department. They made the statement that even with the return of normal times, they were quite hopeless about overtaking their liabilities.
The third point was: As a result of these conditions surrounding soldier settlers, discouragement, hopelessness, a lowering of their morale and a loss of their incentive to work had been brought about. Because they were losing their morale and their initiative, becoming hopeless and discouraged, they welcomed the opportunity of laying their whole case before the department at Saskatoon.
Now for number 4. The soldier settlers agree among themselves that to carry on with any assurance of ultimate success some adjustment of debt is necessary in order to remove anxiety and uphold their faith in the future.
If they are going to carry on there must be a remission of interest from the government and there must be some debt readjustment. Paving the way for this bill, Mr. Chairman, for a bill which a few months before they were told would not be brought down because the department had given the soldier settlers to understand that they would have to pay the last cent and that no action would be taken by the department.
471S
Soldier Settlement Act


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have already said that no such statement was made a few months previously.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I will accept the minister's word, but the soldier settlers got that idea, and I understand that they got it at the organization meeting, and that they were told that. I am not to blame. I am merely putting on record the facts of the case.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Might I interrupt again, because I am afraid there is going to be a misconception, whether it is of importance or not. I have a copy of the minutes of the meeting covering all these points, and I find that what the hon. member is referring to was not presented to the meeting at all. It was after the discussion at the meeting that this memorandum of these various points was drawn up and subscribed to by everybody present at the meeting including the director himself, who assisted in the preparation of what the hon. member is reading from, and it was upon this memorandum together with subsequent conferences that the present legislation was founded.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Exactly what I am coming to if the minister would allow me to do it.
Number 5 says that the soldier settlers keenly appreciate the concessions already made -on their behalf but these concessions were necessitated not merely because of the inability of the settler to meet his obligations but because of the fundamental defects of the soldier settler scheme which made it impossible for the soldier settler to farm profitably enough to make his payments.
That is a very fair statement, and it entered into the discussions later.
Number 6. It was realized that the soldier settler could not reasonably expect to receive concessions simply as a soldier settler.
That is quite fair, Mr. Chairman, Number 6 continues:
But since the provincial governments are taking steps to relieve the debt burden of the civilian population it was thought the Dominion government, as the authority to adjust soldier settlement schemes, should also effect a general measure of debt adjustment on behalf of soldier settlers.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I must ask the hon. member to permit me to interject again. I am following the certified copy of the report of the meeting, and number 6-there has been some subsection from other topics-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am giving just the
essence of each part of the memorandum.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Number 6 has been emasculated beyond all recognition.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No, I am coming to that if the minister will allow me. He is in too much of a hurry.
Number 7. Any relief suggested should be devised on an absolutely equitable basis, and not framed to help the improvident. Only in this way can the soldier settlers secure maximum returns at minimum of expense.
The last statement in their memorandum was to the effect that the question of a free grant was discussed, and the soldier settlers said in conference that they did not favour it. The soldier settlers went on record as being desirous of paying for their farms. I have made that statement before, but may I say to the minister that I believe that on the whole the sentiments among the soldier settlers are to the effect that they cannot pay for their farms. They say so. They say that even with a return to normaJl prices they feel they will be unable to overtake their liabilities. If that is the case I echo the sentiments expressed here to-night by other members from western Canada, that if the soldier settlers cannot pay for their farms, then instead of keeping a certain number of officials in their positions and in the collection field, the quicker something eminently satisfactory is done the better.
May I also say to the minister that if the department demands payment in full, the feeling among the soldier settlers is that the payments could be made just as well to any postmaster in the district, to be forwarded by him to the department. The soldier settlers urge that if that can be done, it should be done, and then these men who are covering the country in their cars, using up cars and gasoline and costing the nation a great deal of money, can be taken off and the soldier settlers can make their payments to some body like the Post Office Department, and the money be forwarded to the soldier settlement department. It would save a great deal of expense, and it would have the effect of giving the soldiers a different feeling towards the department from what they harm at the present time.
In conclusion, as the minister said, after this memorandum was presented to the meeting certain action was taken and the point of view of the soldier settlers was given very emphatically. One point of view was this, that there should be a total abolition of interest retroactive to 1929, and that any interest payments that should be made should apply on the amortized debt, that is on the

principal plus the interest up to 1929. By this bill only one year's interest is taken off the debt of the soldier settlers-1931 to 1932.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Is my hon. friend still reading from the same minutes of the same meeting?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, the same meeting.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have a certified copy here and it is entirely different.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: This must be all right because it is in your bill only you have not gone far enough.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The recommendation with respect to interest is clear and cannot be misunderstood :
That the interest on outstanding loans for the year 1932 should be remitted, and in any case in which any settler has already paid his interest that payment should be applied on his principal debt.
That is signed by my hon. friend's friends, including Colonel Harry Price, Mr. Packman, General Ross of Yorkton and all the representatives that attended the meeting, and the recommendation was unanimously carried. So that the record will not be hopelessly confused and uninteresting to anyone who wants the facts, I would earnestly suggest that my hon. friend should stick to what the minutes of the meeting say.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Here is the statement
I have here, Number 1, the same as the minister is reading from, and it is exactly as I have given it, only I have given it in a briefer way.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: You have gone back to
1929.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The statement is this:
Total abolition of interest retroactive to 1929, also any interest payment made to apply on principal debt.
Now I understand that the soldier settler wants a total abolition of interest from the year 1929. This bill eliminates only one year's interest, and therefore it is not satisfactory. More than that, I believe that the wish of the soldier settlers is that no more interest be paid on these debts, and the reason simply is that the soldier settlers figure they cannot pay it. That is why they want the interest clause in this bill retroactive to 1929. That is where the bill falls short. I would like to see the bill amended to provide for the total abolition of interest not only back to 1929 but forward through the years, so that these men will be given at least a fair chance
Soldier Settlement Act
to pay their obligations. Otherwise they say they cannot pay, and it is hopeless to expect any interest.	_
Now, number 2, and I am coming to the clause you are so anxious about, Mr. Chairman, and that is the double credit clause, by which if a man pays one dollar he gets credit for two dollars, and this is to go on for four years. May I compliment the minister and his department for making this for a period of four years? I am not anxious to find fault with the minister or his department. I wish merely to place the facts on Hansard so that they may be recorded on behalf of these men who feel that they ought to have someone in the House of Commons -in fact, many members-speak on their behalf. The clause of the bill which gives a double credit for four years was debated at the conference. I believe the wish of the director, who is present with us to-night, was to make it active for two years. Now in the bill it has been made four years, or just double the suggestion made at the meeting.
I congratulate the minister upon taking new ground, and going forward. I like to see people go forward, and in the formation of legislation I like to see departments go ahead. Therefore in that regard the extension of the double credit for four years is, in my view, a sound part of the bill, and will be satisfactory to soldier settlers.
Lastly, the lien on equipment was released. Again I believe this is a sound step in advance, and I thank the minister and his department for taking it. In 1930 the lien was taken off stock. In this bill we are making null and void any lien on equipment, and by doing so I believe we will be helping the soldier settlers.
In closing may I ask the minister to consider very carefully one of the outstanding points in connection with help to soldier settlers, namely the total abolition of interest retroactive to 1929, with provision for no more interest payments in the future. Secondly, I recommend that full consideration be given to the problems of soldier settlers generally, so that if the soldiers cannot pay for their land, something constructive be done to leave them in possession of their property, or, better still, hand their farms back to them free of all encumbrances. If the government will adopt these suggestions perhaps some of the ill-advised expenses now obtaining in connection with staffs collecting moneys from soldier settlers and selling their crops-all but a third, when debts are not paid up to the minute- might be eliminated. When soldier settlers feel it is impossible to pay any more than they are paying, and when officers have not other
Soldier Settlement Act

work to do, but pester the life out of them to pay! pay! the government would do well to call off these highly paid collecting officials and have soldier settler problems more constructively and economically dealt with.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On subsection 73-Additional credit on payments of arrears of instalments.
John Campbell Elliott: I should like to ask a question which may have been asked before in an earlier part of the discussion, respecting the relief from interest payments of purchasers from settlers. Supposing a civilian purchased from a soldier settler, what would be the arrangement with respect to interest? As I understand it under this legislation he would receive the same relief as the soldier settler' would have received. Is that correct?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Carrying out that idea, I suggest we should go farther and define the term "settler." In the explanatory notes I find the expression "any settler or purchaser." But in the bill are the words "any settler or person." In the interpretation clause we find that "settler" is defined as:
A person who at any time during the war has been therein engaged on active service in a military force.
Then various conditions are given.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is the reason it is so worded in section 73 of the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: Apparently the words "or person" are used but I suggest they are capable of a dangerous interpretation. I would certainly appreciate it if the expression "any settler or civilian purchaser" were used. But when we come to the word "person" we are confronted with the argument that a settler is a person. Is there anywhere in the act a definition of what a person is? It might be argued that a person eventually means a settler, and a settler means a man who has been in active service. The wording may create very great hardship, if there be any doubt as to the application to a civilian purchaser. I do not believe any harm would be done by making a change, even if it were only to allay apprehensions of possible difficulty. I recall a few years ago that on a bill similar to this one I asked the minister then at the head of the department a question in connection with revaluation, as to whether so and so would mean so and so, and I was told most emphatically that it would. The 
minister's answer appeared in Plansard. Six months later the department absolutely repudiated the assurance I had been given by the minister, and said they were not bound by it. As a result a number of people suffered an injustice. When we come to interpretation, we cannot go by what someone may say; we must take what is expressed. If the minister could see his way clear to put in the words "or civilian purchaser" he would relieve the minds of a good many people, and I believe would be doing no harm to anybody.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That very point was in
contemplation when the bill was drawn. From a purely legal standpoint I gave it consideration. In order that there might be no doubt that the word "person" would cover people other than settlers as interpreted in the act, I submitted the section to the officers of the Department of Justice, and their judgment was that the words now appearing amply covered all others indebted under the act, because a settler is interpreted to mean as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has read from the act. Other persons not being settlers who have purchased under the act are taken care of by the language appearing in the first line of the section.


Alan Webster Neill: But you do not say "persons other than settlers."


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not know how we
can make it any clearer than we have. "Civilian purchaser" would confuse the issue.


Alan Webster Neill: You could say "settler or
person other than a settler." How would that do? Then, would the word "arrears" in the twenty-second line of the bill cover a payment made by the government for taxes? Would that come under the things for which he could get a dollar for dollar rebate?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, taxes paid prior would come under the operation of the statute.


Alan Webster Neill: Could the minister use the
language "or person other than settler'?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I should like to defer to
the judgment of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, but as a lawyer I say we are using the broadest possible term we can use. I have submitted the matter to the law officers of the crown and they agree with me. I very much fear if we used any other expression we would be more likely to contract than to expand the meaning.


Alan Webster Neill: Very well; you are a lawyer.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: In subsection 2 I
find the words:
No such additional credit shall be accorded in respect of moneys the proceeds of alienation of any property charged under this act or of fire insurance.
And so on. Then in the explanatory clause on the opposite page I find the following:
Moneys received from the disposal of the department's security and credited to the account of the settler or purchaser will not be augmented by the bonus.
Will the bonus be granted to the present occupant of the land under one of those tripartite agreements?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Then in the case of an agreement that is about paid up, if the purchaser under one of those agreements makes the final payment or close to the final payment, he will get a credit of an equal amount, and that will be lessening the equity that the soldier setter had, will it not?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No I do not think it lessens his equity.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Suppose the balance
owing on a contract was S500; the soldier settler has an equity in that land of $250. The purchaser pays $250 and gets credit for $500. The $250 would wipe out the equity that the soldier settler himself had in the tripartite agreement?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, I think the hon. member has a misconception. It would not disturb the equity of the soldier settler at all. The civilian purchaser, if we so call him, would be credited dollar for dollar of the amount he owed1 the department. It would not destroy or affect any equity that the soldier settler has in the land. I am confident that that is the interpretation.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I doubt whether the
minister is correct in that, or whether he understood the question I put. When it comes to the final payment it seems to me that all that civilian settler needs to pay is one-half the amount, and he gets credit for the other half. That other half may be a part of the soldier settler's equity. It seems to me some change should be made in this section to take care of such cases.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Subsections 74 and 75 agreed to.
Bank Act
Section 1 agreed to.
Bill reported, read1 the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister, for the Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 27, an act to amend the Bank Act.
He said: The amendment is the change of the title to The Bank Charters Continuation Act, 1933. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) had intended to offer that as an amendment because the original bill was entitled An Act to Amend the Bank Act, when as a matter of fact it is an .act respecting banks.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house, 1 move that order number 28, for the second reading of Bill No. 66, an act respecting courts of admiralty be discharged, in accordance with the arrangement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Richard Bedford Bennett: To-morrow we will proceed with the second readings of bills, and possibly, depending upon the work the Secretary of State has to do, we will take Bill No. 77. We propose to get royal assent tomorrow to the supply bill, and Bill 77 might be disposed of, as a number of organizations desire to have provisions made to deal with creditors, by arrangements that could not be carried out under the Bankruptcy Act. Then perhaps to-morrow evening we will take some supply. It is just possible that it may be necessary to introduce an amendment to the Radio Act. I told the house some time ago that Major Gladstone Murray had been asked to come out and make a report. I received the report on Saturday, and it is likely that one or two amendments will have to be made. If we can avoid them we will.
Reports oj Committees


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The other afternoon the Prime Minister indicated that some financial bill might come up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, in view of the approaching conference it was thought that it might be left, that it was undesirable to disturb credit by any legislation at present. There
is a loan bill; that is on the order paper.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to Standing order.
Tuesday, May 9, 1933