Mr. SAMUEL HUGHES (Victoria and Huliburton).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to rise to a question of privilege. From answers given by the Minister of Militia to a couple of questions in the House in the last day or two, and the form in which those questions were put, a wrong impression might be created throughout, the country. I would take the liberty of suggesting to the .minister that he get some one in his department to answer the questions placed on the Order Paper in a little more definite manner than these questions seem to have been answered. It is very well known that for some years past a conspiracy or agitation has been carried on in this country by agents, direct and indirect, of concerns in the motherland, with the object of discrediting the Ross rifle and injuring it in this country. That rifle1, Sir, has spoken for itself; it has silenced all critics by the answers it has given on the ranges throughout the world during the past year. As president of the standing committee on small arms for the Dominion of Canada, last spring, before the rifle had been very much distributed throughout the country, and in order that it might reach every riding in the Dominion, as far as possible, and be placed in the hands of competent men who would judge it on its merits, I requested the minister to distribute a number of these rifles amongst the members of this House who would see that they were placed in the hands of expert riflemen in their respective localities, and thus meet

the slanders and falsehoods circulated throughout the country against the rifle. Accordingly, some were distributed. I thought one was issued to nearly every member of the House; but I am very sorry this was not the case. They were issued only to a few members of parliament, with that object in view. It is a very meritorious object, and I trust that the minister will see that a rifle is sent to every riding as an eye-opener and an , object lesson to the critics and slanderers of the rifle.
However, the fact that the rifle has swept everything before it, although only a few were issued, at the Rifle Association meeting in Quebec and Ontario and at the meetings of the Dominion Rifle Associations, where nearly every place on the Bisley team and in the Governor General's match was won by the Ross rifle is proof of its superiority. In every provincial and Dominion match, the Ross rifle has made a name for itself as superior to every other. For the first time in history a rifle-of which only a few were used, less than 20 among 4,000- took more than one haH of the first prizes at Bisley. I make these remarks in justification to gentlemen whose names were brought rather frivolously before the House on a recent occasion when there was no need for levity.


Mr. W. D. STAPLES (Macdonald).: I rise to a question of privilege. I was both amused and surprised at the manner in which the hon. minister answered the question yesterday. He appeared desirous of leaving the impression that I had secured this rifle in a somewhat irregular manner. Let me advise the minister that although he may have had some trouble in recovering certain goods and chattels, he will have no trouble in securing this rifle at any moment. It is now in the hands of a good young marksman in my constituency, a member of the Rifle Association. He has keenly followed all the improvements on this rifle and asked me to try and get him one. I made application to the hon. minister and the rifle was forwarded me. I handed it to, this young marksman, and if the minister wants it back, I can wire and have it back here to-night.


Hon. SIR FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence).: If I may be permitted to say a word, I wish to say that yesterday a question was put asking for information regarding the distribution of a certain lot of rifles. I gave the information. I said that 12 rifles had been issued to individuals.


Samuel Hughes: On a receipt.


Frederick William Borden: That goes without saying. The hon. gentleman who asked the question was not satisfied and wanted to know the names. What could I do but give them? There was no intention to cast any reflection on my hon. friend. He Mr. HUGHES.
will look in vain in the answer I gave for any such suggestion or intention. On the contrary, I quite agree with my hon. friend from Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) that it was a perfectly proper and laudable thing to give these rifles and I was very glad indeed to have had the opportunity of issuing them. As a matter of fact they were issued on receipt. I am sorry if my hon. friend misunderstood my remarks as casting any reflection on him. Quite the opposite was the case.



CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES

Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 26) respecting the Co-operative Credit Societies Act. He said:


Mr. MONK. (Translation).: Mr. Speaker, the object of this Bill is to enable loan and savings banks, such as are termed ' People's Banks,' and working on co-operative principles, to obtain incorporation under Dominion legislation. The House will remember no doubt that a Bill dealing with cooperation was introduced in the course of last parliament, for the purpose of enabling or authorizing these associations to obtain incorporation under Dominion legislation. The Bill as introduced dealt with co-operative associations as a whole. And, as no distinction was made, it turned out that [DOT] the main objection offered on behalf of some of the provinces and people interested in preventing such legislation from being passed rested on the ground of its being ultra vires.
The House will remember that the retail merchants, who were also formed into an association, opposed the passing of such a Bill. And, while it was unanimously carried through this House, the Bill, after consideration in the Senate, was rejected, mainly on the grounds set forth by the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, that it went beyond the powers granted bv the constitution. Accordingly, it was deemed preferable to introduce two separate Bills, one dealing entirely with people's bank, loan and savings associations. Nobody denies the right of the Dominion government to legislate as regards savings and loan banks. That explains why a separate Bill is introduced as regards credit and loan associations. The labouring classes take a deep interest in this legislation and for the last ten years to say the least organized labour, as I understand, have been requesting from year to year, at their annual meetings, that such legislation in regard to co-operative associations be carried out. The hon. member from Brantford (Mr. Harris), who, representing as he does in this House a large manufacturing centre, is greatly interested in such legislation. proposes, as I perceive at reading the notice contained in the orders of the day,

to introduce a Bill for the incorporation of co-operative producing and distributing as

sociations, these being of great interest to the working classes, in the same way as people's banks.
The House has not forgotten what occurred in regard to the first Bill. The government stated their approval of such legislation; and the Bill was taken charge of by the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Lemieux), who at the time had also the Department of Labour under his supervision. He took charge of the Bill, and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister granted us an inquiry which gave most interesting results. We had as witnesses experts in agriculture, university professors, representatives of labour, agriculturists, and even His Excellency the Governor General, who has from the beginning concerned himself with that movement in England, is honorary president of the international co-operative league, and whose evidence was of a most useful character.
This House unanimously voted the Bill of which the government had taken charge; but in the Senate, as session was drawing to a close, and through the pressure which was exerted, as previously stated, on behalf of the retail dealers, whose claims did not appear to me well grounded, the Bill was rejected by a vote of 19 against 18, a number of the senators being away.
I think this is an opportune time for the introduction of these two Bills. The movement, started several years ago, has made great strides throughout all the1 provinces, especially as regards people's loan and credit banks. I may say that in the province of Quebec, there are already in existence over 32 associations of that kind, and that in the same province the number of members of such associations exceeds 15,000. The movement is growing rapidly from day to dav.
Clergymen in all parts of the Dominion who are in close touch with the working classes and farming community, have taken a deen interest in the movement, and especially in the province which I represent, they have in this connection taken the lead with the best results.
I may say to the House that in this Bill we are entrusting the Minister of Labour with the superintendence or control of these associations. That is the rule followed in most countries. In England co-operative associations-and there are many of them

are under the law controlled by the chairman of the Board of Trade, whose duties correspond to those of the Minister of Labour here. In France, that control lies also with the Minister of Labour and provident associations. The same condition of things exists in the neighbouring republic; that is, in those states wdiich have voted similar legislation, in Massachusetts, for instance,
where the Minister of Labour has under his control co-operative institutions. In entrusting these powers to the Minister of Labour, the object is in no way to detract from the prestige or the importance of the duties assigned to the hon. Secretary of State. The latter department has charge of the granting of charters applied for by private stock companies; but such charters as a rule grant important privileges and for their cancellation require going through a tedious and expensive procedure. In this case, the Minister of Labour will have no such duty to fulfil, he will merely be called upon to grant authority for the formation of such associations, and to cancel the same without going through numerous formalities, whenever he thinks it advisable in compliance with the provisions of the Act.
As I have previously stated, the most serious objection with which we were met was that based on the ultra vires character of such legislation. It was claimed that this parliament was without jurisdiction, although it was acknowledged at the same time that as regards loan banks, such business being in the nature of banking and finance, the Dominion parliament, no doubt, had jurisdiction. However, it seems to me that this parliament has jurisdiction as well as regards co-operative producing and distributing associations. In the first place, we are authorized to legislate in regard to agriculture. Now, it is more particularly the farming community who are anxious that sufch legislation be enacted and who will benefit by it. That legislation will be enforced throughout the country and will prove of great assistance to the farmers. As regards the industrial classes, it seems to me we have jurisdiction as well. Undoubtedly we have the right to legislate with the object of insuring the welfare and development of the country as a whole, though we would be debarred trom legislating in the same fashion for the exclusive benefit of one province. That is the view taken to-day even bv those who objected to the proposal as first submitted.
Dominion legislation in this connection is necessary for the following reason: There are nine provinces in the Dominion, and as such a movement requires to be forwarded on uniform lines, it is important that the Dominion government be in a position to act efficiently. Wherever that movement has taken foot, it has developed in marvellous fashion. Is it not desirable that such happy results be extended to the whole Dominion? In the absence of Dominion legislation, this movement would lack uniformity and cohesion. Two provinces only have legislated in this respect, and they have done so on different lines; apart from these two cases, there exists no legislation emanating from the provinces in this connection. If all the provinces were to legislate in this

regard, we would some day be confronted with nine different systems emanating from as many legislatures. It would be impossible to collate uniform statistics, since each province would have its own system. Now, if this House voted this Bill, the movement no doubt would be greatly accelerated and extended owing to this Dominion legislation. I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by stating that those requesting such legislation are increasing in numbers from day to day. The benefits of co-operation are making themselves felt more strongly throughout the world. I hope that the government and the House, as thev have already done, will enact this legislation, and that no further check will be put upon it bv the Upper House.	'
Bill read a first time.



SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask when it is intended to have the committees organized. No committee has been organized yet.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Immediately.



SUPPLY - INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY TRAIN SERVICE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['It has been intimated that very many of the members on both sides of the House have engagements which will prevent their being present to-night, and as we are likely to have a thin House I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.']
Robert Laird Borden: Before the House goes into Supply, I would like to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) whether he has received a resolution of the Board of Trade of Dartmouth in regard to the present train service, both passenger and freight, between Windsor Junction and Dartmouth! I have under my hand a copy of that resolution-it is rather lengthy-I have no doubt the minister has had communication of it. In effect, it declares that the recent changes in the train service have completely demoralized business conditions, both as regards passengers and freight; that it has accomplished the maximum of inconvenience with the minimum of economy ; that under present conditions the train service probably costs more than it did formerly, and it is not giving nearly as good accommodation to the public. Not only is_ there alleged to be greatly additional inconvenience so far as the transportation of freight is concerned, but there is an almost intolerable inconvenience to persons residing at Waverly, and elsewhere on the line, who desire to go to Halifax or to Dartmouth and do business for a day, and return to their homes the same night. I will not inflict the whole of this resolution upon the House at the present, but I would only ask the minister whether he has taken the matter into consideration, and whether he thinks that any changes could


Frederick Debartzch Monk: be made. I realize that the Intercolonial management has been placed in the hands of a commission, that a great deal of discretion must be left to them in such matters, and I would not be inclined lightly to interfere, with them. But if the representations in this resolution, the terms of which seem to have been very carefully considered, and the condition of affairs are such as are described here, then I think the members of that commission ought to take up the matter at once and endeavour to give to the people of Dartmouth and all along that line to Windsor Junction some better train service than they have at the present time, particularly as .it is alleged in the resolution that this could be done without adding one dollar to the cost of operating the line beyond what it amounts to at present.


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: I may say in reply that I have no recollection of receiving such a resolution. If it has been received, it has been transmitted at once to the Board of Management. Since handing the Intercolonial over to the Board of Management I have not interfered in any way with the manner in which they choose to run that railway. I have given them some suggestions but they have had control of the situation and of the management of the trains. I may say that the general superintendent, Mr. Brady, who has charge of the transportation, is one of the best transportation men in the Dominion of Canada, I believe he lias few superiors in America as a transportation man, and I am sure that any representations that may be made ^ to him will receive due consideration. I will make inquiry at the department, and if the resolution lias been received and has not been transferred to the board, I will see that it is done at once.


Robert Laird Borden: In order that there may be no doubt about the minister receiving it,* I will send him a copy of it across the floor of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply.
Department of Indian Affairs salaries, $111,825.
['In order that there may be no doubt about the minister receiving it,* I will send him a copy of it across the floor of the House.']
Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: In the third division subdivision B there are four clerks at $800; one at $775, one at $750, one at $737.50, one at $725, and two at $535, making a total of $7,237.50. There is one packer at $800, 4 messengers receiving a total of $2,887.50. Total, $111,825. Add. the difference between the amount paid' under the flat increase and the amount paid by statutory increase, $1,275. The increase is made up by 10 statutory increases of $100; 45 statutory increases of $50; 1 broken statutory increase at $37.50; 5 brok-

en statutory increases at $25, and 1 broken statutory increase at $75, making a total of $3,487.50. Less saving between estimated salary of officer deceased and new appointment, $650. Less savings due to status of 2 clerkships in grade A of third division, reduced to status of two clerkships in grade B of third division, $800, showing a net increase of $2,037.50. Less amount deducted from estimated salary $200; less amount of difference between money paid under the flat increase and that paid by statutory increase, $1,275. The net increase on the entire showing is $562.50.


Mr. FOSTER.: Who are the two additional in the third division, subdivision B?


Frank Oliver: Miss Coghlan and Miss Darby, at $525 each.


George Eulas Foster: The minimum of that class is $500 is it not?


Frank Oliver: They were appointed in the first half of the year, and therefore they are allowed the statutory increase which belongs to the latter half of the year.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Does the minister think it necessary to have so large a staff of officials in the Department of Indian Affairs? As I understand it, there is about $1,500,000 distributed in that department, including salaries of officials. Has the minister made an investigation as to the amount of work done in his department? Does he think there is need for such a large staff, and does he know what they are doing?


Frank Oliver: The information I have received from time to time from officers of the department is to the effect that their work is arduous and faithfully performed. I receive this information very generally and persistently when there is any prospect . of an increase of salary or promotion.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have no doubt the minister will receive suggestions of this kind, but I wish he would give us some knowledge of the amount of work in that department. There are in Canada 107,000 Indians, of whom 85.000 are actually under government control. One half of the expenditure of the department is devoted to salaries, and I would like to know what the work of the department requiring such a large staff is.


Frank Oliver: A careful study of the annual report of the department will show that there is a large amount of work. It is not a mere matter of distribution of money but of the oversight of the work and the social life of people scattered from one end *of the Dominion to the other who are notoriously difficult to care for. While the work of the department 'does involve a large expenditure, it is nevertheless very responsible work and must be done if the credit of Canada is to be maintained.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister state the reasons why the officers on whose account items for travelling expenses appear in the report have to travel in the service of the department? I notice the following items for travelling expenses: Mr. Bray, $198.55; Mr. Ogilvie, $284.02; Mr. McKay, $259.70; Mr. F. H. Paget, $520.50.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Bray is the chief surveyor of the department, and these travelling expenses were incurred in inspecting survey work done by other surveyors of the department, chiefly in Ontario. Mr. Ogilvie is the architect of the department and these expenses were incurred in the inspection of buildings of the department. Where it is reported that a building needs repairs or is unfit for use, or that a building is required, Mr. Ogilvie gives the department the expert advice required. Mr. McKay is the accountant of the branch, and made a trip in western Canada, auditing certain accounts of the western agencies. Mr. Paget was sent on an inspection of the agencies in the prairie province last year. It was thought advisable that an important officer at the head office should have personal cognizance of the way in which business was being transacted at the different agencies, and therefore we thought it sound policy that Mr. Paget should make that trip. These accounts are all for out-of-pocket expenditures.


George Eulas Foster: There is no per diem allowance?


Frank Oliver: Oh, no.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many employees are in the inside and outside service of the Indian Department?


Frank Oliver: In the inside service there are 78. At a later date I can give my hon. friend the number in the outside service.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I understand that the 75 officers whose salaries we are now considering are employed in the departmental offices, their work not extending outside of Ottawa, so that practicaly what they have to do is largely connected with the distribution of moneys referred to by the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Armstrong). It seems to me that a large number of people are employed to distribute''a reasonably small amount of money. I presume those in the outside service will be much more numerous. The whole department seems to be somewhat expensive.


Frank Oliver: There is no doubt that the department is expensive, it costs a great deal of money, but I admit that I know of no way in which the responsibilities of the country in regard to the Indians can be dis-

charged without a very large expenditure of money or without the employment of a large staff of officers. I might say that some of the officers whose salaries appear as a part of the civil government vote are not employed in the offices here. I speak of the surveyors, whose work, of course, is in the field, but who still are a part of the inside service. Then there are the two inspectors of the Ontario agencies, whose work is outside but who are part of the inside service.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the sale of lands come under the supervision of these employees, and are these sales of Indian lands being conducted in the same manner as they were some years ago? If the minister will recollect, we made an investigation some years ago and found that this government had sold in the neighbourhood of
600,000	acres of Indian lands since they had come into office, and though a large portion of these lands were sold at an upset price fixed by the department they brought ten and fifteen cents an acre. Islands were sold for one dollar apiece. Is the minister still allowing sales to be conducted in the same manner, and are these officials the ones who look after that part of the work?


Frank Oliver: The department has secured surrenders from a number of bands of Indians within the last few years for the purposes of sale for the benefit of the Indians. In all cases the land has been sold at public auction, duly advertised, and the prices realized have been, I think everybody will admit, fair prices as compared with the value of surrounding land. We have had some sales within the last few days. Land that belonged to a band near Ponoka brought an average of $11 an acre. Lands were also sold near Battleford and in other parts of the country and I think the records will show that we secured a fair average price. I will be very glad to produce the returns of the sales if it is desired.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: My reason for referring to that is that two years ago we had the returns brought down showing the sales of lands that were disposed of, and, as I have already stated, the bulk of these lands were not disposed of by public tender and in fact a very small proportion of them have been disposed of by public tender. I am very glad to know that the minister is now disposing of the lands by public tender.


Frank Oliver: By auction.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I might assure my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) that if he, will inquire as to the men employed in this department in the outside service he will find that there are a hundred of them and that a large sum of money amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars is going to men employed by this de-Mr. OLIVER.
partment engaged in other walks of life throughout the country.


Mr. BRADBURY.: I cannot help but contrast the remarks of the minister wills the facts- regarding the sale of lands. 1 understood him to say that all the Indian reserves which had been surrendered had been sold at public auction and that they had brought fair prices. I would like to recall to the minister the surrender of the St. Peter reserve which is a very important subject in Manitoba. That reserve was surrendered and nearly half of the reserve has been practically given away. It was given in the first place to the Indians on the condition that they would agree to the surrender. The Indians were left unprotected. The department made no effort to protect them and nearly 22,000 acres of this land fell into the hands of speculators at a less sum than $5 per acre when it was admitted to be well worth $15 or $20 an acre. The balance of some 20,000 acres was sold, as the minister says, at public auction. It was advertised and the auction took place about this time of the year. But very strange to say the advertising was so managed that the public were not aware that the auction was going on. The men who bought the land and who attended the auction at St. Peter where, in every case, or, I think nearly every case, the men who had secured the land from the Indians and I think that if the minister will look into the matter he will find that the prices secured even by auction for the St. Peter reserve were away below what the land was worth. The department has an Indian agent in the town of Selkirk. That man, I presume, is supposed to look after the interests of the Indians. In this case whether his hands were tied, by the department or not I do not know, but I am inclined to think they were. There was no effort made on the part of the agent to protect the Indians. I understand-and I think I can produce the evidence before' the House rises-that the Indian agent himself was in collusion with the land dealers and that he purchased some of these lands from the Indians. I do not know but I think it is likely that the minister is well aware of these facts because the matter was brought to his attention while he was in Winnipeg. I would desire very much that the minister should cause some investigation to be made into the manner in which the St. Peter Indians have been treated. They have a serious grievance. The Indians feel that they have been practically robbed of their rights. In addition to that the state has lost a great deal of monev because of the fact that when the Indian loses and becomes pauperized the state has to step in and take care of him.


Frank Oliver: With regard to the case of the Indians of the St. Peter's reserve I said that all land which had been sur-

rendered by the Indians had been sold by public auction. The land of the St. Peter's reserve that was surrendered by the Indians was sold by public auction. If it did not bring the price that it should have brought I regret it very much, but if at a point within twenty miles of the greatest centre of real estate speculation in the known world an advertised sale of real estate takes place and a fair price is not realized I submit it is not the fault of the Indian Department. In the transaction that took place in securing the surrender by these Indians of their land the department placed itself in the hands of a gentleman against whose character or ability I do not think any person in the province of Manitoba would utter one word.


George Eulas Foster: Namely?


Frank Oliver: He is now the chief justice of Manitoba-Chief Justice Howell. He was, in fact, the Chief Justice of Manitoba at the time. He made such an arrangement with the Indians as was possible in order to secure their consent. The presence of the Indians upon that reserve was an open sore that could not be healed as long as that presence continued. My hon. friend who represents that constituency knows perfectly well that that is the case and will not deny it. It was sound public policy to secure the surrender by the Indians of their land at that place and to secure their removal as far as was possible to some other locality better suited to their nature and to their natural and proper modes of life. In order to secure the surrender Chief Justice Howell was given a free hand and, in the process of securing the surrender, an arrangement was made whereby these Indians-who, by the way, are only Indians in name,* who are, as a matter of fact, halfbreeds, as well able, in the large majority of cases, to look after their own business, as any member of this House-insisted that they should individually receive for their own personal use and benefit some portion of the land on this reserve and that they should receive that land free from any control or supervision by the Indian Department. That was the condition of the surrender, and having faith in the disinterested motives, the ability, and the honour of the Chief Justice of Manitoba the Indian Department believed these were the best terms upon which we could secure the surrender in the interest of every one. The surrender having been secured on these terms the land which the Indians individually claimed they were entitled to was allotted to them and they disposed of it as they had the right to do under the terms of the surrender, to whomsoever they pleased and on such terms as they agreed upon.


George Eulas Foster: What was the allotment to each individual?


Frank Oliver: About 15 acres.


George Eulas Foster: Was that to each head of a family?


Frank Oliver: To each individual Indian. My information is that the price that the Indians received for this land which they held individually and which they sold individually was to all intents and purposes the price which was received at the auction sale by the Indian Department of the land which the band surrendered.


George Eulas Foster: How much was that?


Frank Oliver: About 24,000 acres was surrendered for sale and was sold by auction and realized about $5 per acre or about the same price as the Indians received for the land which they sold at private sale. Since that time it has transpired that some of the Indians who have sold, claim they have not been paid jin full according to the terms of the bargain, but that is a matter in which the Indian Department has no legal right to interfere. Of course, if it is a fact that the Indians have not been properly dealt with by the parties to whom they sold it is possible that the department might take an advisory interest in the matter, the interest of a solicitor'for a client. But the department has no legal standing in that transaction. Now, the conditions were arrived at as the result of the best judgment of the Chief Justice of Manitoba and in the estimation of the Indian Department the transaction has been good not only for the constituency of my hon. friend and the province of Manitoba, but is essentially in the interest or the Indians themselves.


George Eulas Foster: What instructions were issued to Judge Howell?


Frank Oliver: I am under the impression that the papers were brought down last session but if not they can be laid on the table.


George Eulas Foster: Did the Indian Department hand over the whole matter of getting a surrender to Judge Howell, under instructions, instead of availing itself of its own officers or agents?


Frank Oliver: An official of the department took the surrender in its proper form but the negotiations were carried on by Judge Howell. There was an extra complication in this case in that there were claims of private owners interspersed with the lands of the Indians and there was a dispute between them and Judge Howell was appointed to adjudicate on the dispute and at the same time if possible to secure a surrender of the Indian lands.


George Eulas Foster: What is the general quality of the land?


Frank Oliver: It varies. I understand that generally speaking it is very good land

but parts of it run into marsh so that there is quite a variation in the value.


George Henry Bradbury: I am a little surprised at the explanation given by the minister. He first started out to say^ that all the lands surrendered by the Indians were sold by competition, but he knows that every acre that the Indians received from the government was part of the land they surrendered. They first surrendered the Indian reserve and then the government gave them, not 15 acres but 16 acres for every soul on the'reserve. There is nobody trying to cast any reflection on Chief Justice Howell's integrity or ability. I think perhaps he did the very best he could, but it is history in Selkirk that when he went there to negotiate the treaty there . was no agitation in the town or surrounding district for the surrender. I have failed to hear or see where the representation came from to the government to take that action. There was no petition from the residents of the town of Selkirk who were directly interested. The surrender was brought about I think by the late member for Selkirk and a few of his friends, and when Chief Justice Howell came down the Indians refused to negotiate for the surrender. They did not 'desire to give up the reserve. The consequence was that before the surrender could be secured some deal had to be made with the chief and council. I think I can produce evidence that there was a deal made with the chief and council by which they were promised a certain amount of money and a great deal more land than the ordinary Indian would receive if they would consent to the surrender. They did consent and immediately the chief and council received 196 acres while the ordinary Indian received only 16 acres. I am told that in addition to that the chief and council were promised $200 in cash to agree to the surrender. After all this was done, they had to call the band together to secure its consent, and I am told on very good authority that after a good deal of canvassing and a good deal of bribing and the free use of whisky, the consent of the band was secured to that surrender by a majority of one vote.
The department must have been aware of these facts. The minister says the Indian refused to surrender his lands unless he had absolute control of the sixteen acres allotted to him. I do not doubt that, but I do not think there is any question that the Indian was instructed by the men who were seeking to get control of his land to put in that plea. I do not think that would justify the department in leaving the Indian unprotected. The Indian of St. Peter's reserve is just as much an Indian as any Indian in Canada to-day, so far as business affairs are concerned. My hon. friend :says that he is as capable of transacting Mr. OLIVER.
business as the average man. There is not one man in a dozen on St. Peter's reserve who has the slightest knowledge of any written document; he will sign anything he is asked to sign; you can get him to sign away his land for a mere trifle. The price obtained for the land, the minister says, he considers a fair price. I would ask the minister, is it not a fact that the chief justice who negotiated the treaty has himself within the last month approached the minister and made representations to him to the effect that the Indian has been unfairly treated and has not received fair value for his property. I know that in the city of Winnipeg the land titles office has held up every one of the patents, because representations have been made to that office that the Indian has been defrauded and has not received a fair value for his land, because when he signed an agreement for the disposal of his land, he was led to believe that he was only agreeing to give the man the first choice of purchasing it on the issue of the patent. Instead of that, it turned out to be an absolute quit claim deed of the property. This I am sure the minister must be aware of. I myself have brought it very clearly to his attention before. Mr. F. Heap, lawyer, of Selkirk, and Mr. J. O. Clark, of Winnipeg, were both employed and paid by the department, one to look after the interests of the Indian, the other to look after the interests of the old settlers. Neither of these men had any interest in protecting the interest of the Indian. The Indian was thrown entirely on his own resources, which meant- that "he was thrown into the hands of the land speculators. Nobody attempted to protect him. The department turned their back upon the Indian and told them to do as they liked with their lands. The result is that the lands have passed into the hands of speculators at one-third of their value. The lands comprising the old St. Peter's reserve are the best available farm lands in the province of Manitoba; and the land that was left, after the sixteen acres that were allotted to the different Indians, fell into the hands of speculators. These men bought in the sixteen acre lots here and there. I know a man who got 1,000 acres in one block. At the time he secured this land, the government had surveyors on the ground, and he went to them and had them lay out the land, and he picked out the best land that could be secured in one block to satisfy these allotments; so that every allotment fell into the hands of speculators, and they picked out the best land to satisfy the claims of the individual Indians. The remnant of the reserve, something like 20,000 acres, if I remember correctly, after all the best lands had been picked out was put up at auction. The advertisement for this sale was published in

such a way that the public were not really aware that it was on. The sale was brought on when the snow was on the ground. There was no crying need of rushing that sale. It would have been more in the interest of the Indians and in the interest of the public if the sale had been [DOT] put off until next spring. The men who attended the sale in Selkirk were, with one or two exceptions, the very men who had been going around among the Indians acquiring their rights, and there was very little, if any, competition among them. This the department is thoroughly aware of. The Indian agent at Selkirk was paid by the department to look after the interests of the Indians. The Indian is absolutely under the control of the Indian agent, to whom he looks to protect his interest, and he will do whatever he is told by him. At the time the surrender of the lands was made, I had not the honour of a seat in this House, and I wrote to the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) requesting him to ask the minister across the floor if any protection would be given to any body who secured any of these lands from the Indians until after the patent issued. The minister answered in what I thought was a very proper manner. He said no, that the Indian had no land to sell until such time as the patent issued, and the department would take no responsibility and would protect nobody who bought these lands. In addition to that, a letter was written from the department by one of the officers instructing the Indian agent to make it known all over the reserve that if any man pledged his Jand or disposed of it in any way before the patent issued, such pledge or transfer would not be recognized by the department. I have a copy of that letter, which I would have brought if I had known that this matter were coming up to-day. In the face of that letter, about 22,000 acres of these lands passed into the hands of speculators before the patent issued, and the department recognized those deals and handed over the patents to these men. I understand that the department requires, before any patent shall issue, that an application shall be made, signed by the Indian entitled to the patent, and again when the patent is handed over by the agent, the instruction of the department is that the particular Indian should make application for it and sign a receipt when he receives it. I do not think there are 20 men on that reserve who made applications for patents or signed receipts. I have evidence in my desk which I shall produce later, to prove that the large majority of these people never saw their patents. The patent was simply handed by the Indian agent to the speculators. This is a serious matter and I would ask the minister to grant an in-12
vestigation. I am sure that Chief Justice Howell himself would urge that an investigation be granted in order that justice be done these Indians. I am satisfied that not one of these men has received more than one-third the value of his land. The Department of Indian Affairs must bear the full responsibility of the wrong done these Indians on the St. Peter's reserve. It is not too late to remedy this great wrong, because every one of these patents is held up by the lands titles office, and it is a blessing that there is some power in the land which will take cognizance of a wrong of that kind. These patents have been held there for the last five or six months. The registrars in Winnipeg, the gentlemen standing between the Indians and the speculator who has wronged them, have no special right to do so. Thev are not the custodians of the Indian lands or guardians of the Indians, but the minister is; and I appeal to him, in the interest of justice, to grant an investigation by impartial men. I feel satisfied that the men who helped to negotiate this treaty and who are in charge of affairs in that department, are responsible to a great extent, and therefore I ask an investigation by independent men, not closelv identified with the department. The minister is hardly right when he says he has no power to protect the Indians in this case. The best legal minds of Winnipeg differ with him on that point, and I am sure that Chief Justice Howell will not take that position. The Indians claim that they were fraudently dealt with, that the agreements they signed were only agreements providing that when the parties received their patents, the men who advanced them two or three dollars an acre, and in many cases from $2.50 to $5, would have the first rights to purchase the lands at a price to be fixed by the Indians, and if they were not willing to pay that price the Indians were to return the money at a fair rate of interest. This is the manner in which the deed was interpreted to the band by the chief and council. The very first move made was to purchase the chief and council. These men were bought and bribed to deceive the band.- I think the department is well aware of the fact. The Indian agent at Selkirk, instead of defending these people and protecting their rights, was himself in the market to buy these lands.


Frank Oliver: I would like to call the attention of the committee to the last statement of my hon. friend. He said that the first move made in connection with this surrender was to bribe the chief and councillors with land and money, and some little time ago he said whisky.


George Henry Bradbury: I said that when the consent of the band was given at a meeting to agree to a surrender, whisky was then used among these men to get them to vote, and even with the aid of whisky onlv one of a majority was secured. Surely that was not sufficient to turn these men out of house and home.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend said that the first move to secure the surrender was the bribing of the chief and council with land and money. Now the negotiations with the band were open. The first move to secure the surrender was made by Chief Justice Howell of Manitoba; and if the chief justice opened his negotiations by bribing the chief and council with land and money, my hon. friend will have to take the responsibility of making that assertion.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not think that anything I said would lead this House to believe that I insinuated that the chief justice had anything to do with the bribing. I do not think I said that. I am sure I did not mean to. What I said was the absolute facts, that the land speculators-no doubt the men who induced the minister to throw that reserve open-were the men who did the bribing and gave the whisky.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend will have to be more careful in what he says because the men, who are not concerned in the department, were not able to give any land or to bribe the chief or councillors with land. The only bribe of land that could be given, could have been given by whoever made the surrender arrangement, and that man was Chief Justice Howell.


George Henry Bradbury: Let me point out this fact. The chief and the councillors received, I think, five times as much land as the ordinary Indians. That was one of the inducements offered. I do not mean to say it was offered as a bribe, but it certainly was an inducement. The other statement I made that the Indian chief and council were promised money is absolutely true. That was not done by Chief Justice Howell, but by the men who set out to get the Indian chief and council to agree to meet Chief Justice Howell. These men would not meet the chief justice. They did not want to surrender their homes, but there were men in Selkirk who got hold of the chief and council and made it appear to their interest to meet Chief Justice Howell and agree to that surrender.


Frank Oliver: Again my hon. friend has used the word bribe and used it in connection with the distribution of land among the Indians. Bribe is an ugly word. Whoever gives a bribe must be responsible, and whoever makes a charge must be equally responsible for his ac-Mr. OLIVER,
cusation. If the giving of the land was a bribe, that was given by Chief Justice Howell.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Frank Oliver: Undoubtedly. There was no other authority to give it or to make the arrangement, and the arrangement was made open and above board. It was considered fair and right that the chief and councillors should get a larger share of the land than the other Indians, and my hon. friend is not well advised in using the word bribe in connection with that part of the transaction, and he must take the responsibility of having accused the chief justice of bribery.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not think the minister has any right to keep reiterating that statement. I have explained that I did not state that the chief justice had given this bribe.


Samuel Hughes: Are the chief and councillors hereditary in that position? If they are not, why should they get any more than any one else? If they are selected, they should get the same as any one else.


Frank Oliver: As to whether they should or should not get this amount, I am not pretending to say. If my hon. friend says they should not get it, then he stands with my other hon. friend in holding that the government acted improperly, that the negotiations were improper, and therefore the man who made the negotiations was guilty of an impropriety. When my hon. friend makes an accusation he ought to stand to it, and when he says ' bribed ' he ought to stand by the word, and admit that he made an accusation that was not warranted by the facts. As to the assignments from the Indians to - the purchasers of their lands, the House and the public wete informed that no assignments would be recognized by the department, and in every case my information is that the patent was made out to the Indian and not to any body else, and it was handed to the Indian. Now I ask the House in all fairness how is the Indian Department to be made responsible for the disposition that the Indian subsequently made of that patent, a patent which he received under the agreement of surrender negotiated as I have stated? It was his to do with as he pleased. It may be that it was not proper to give him a patent with which he could do as he pleased. But that was a part of the terms of surrender, negotiated as I have said, on the responsibility I have explained to the House. I say it is unfair and unreasonable to suggest responsibility on the part of the Indian Department to control the action of the Indian in regard to a matter that was placed absolutely under his control by the terms

of the surrender of the reserve. As to the difference in price between the land that was sold by the Indians to private parties and the land that was sold by auction, it must surely appear to any one that little patches of land in areas of 16 acres -do not have the same value in a farming country such as Manitoba as an area of 160 acres.


George Eulas Foster: No, if they all remain 16
acre areas. They were not allowed to remain in 16 acre areas.


Frank Oliver: They were allowed to remain in 16 acre areas. If I bought 16 acres of you and 16 acres of another man and 16 acres of another man and so on, I have to take my chances of being able to get those different parcels brought together so as to make a single block. Does my hon. friend suggest that that land would be as valuable to me as if I could have bought the whole 160 acres in one lot?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, if you knew you could get it all put together.


Frank Oliver: How could you know? There was no way you could know. If Brown, Jones and Robinson each held single patents for 16 acre lots of land, how are you going to ensure that Brown, Jones and Robinson are going to lump their sections together at your convenience, unless you pay them for it? So I say if that land was sold in blocks of 160 acres it is surely more valuable than the land that was sold in 16 acre pieces. The plea that the land did not bring its full value, that the auction sale was not well known, is, I submit, not worthy of consideration. There is no doubt that the sale was advertised in the public press, and as I said before, it was advertised in a centre of population and business which has the keenest eye for real estate speculation of any place in the known world. I am satisfied that whatever the land may be worth to-day, it realized its full value at that time.


George Eulas Foster: When was it sold?


Frank Oliver: About a year ago.


George Henry Bradbury: The minister says that the value they received at that time was the full value. Now I would like to ask him if it is not a fact that the chief justice who negotiated this treaty has himself brought it to the attention of the minister that the Indians, in his opinion, had not received fair value for their land?


Frank Oliver: The chief justice never said anything to me about the value that was received at public auction. No word was said to me by any one except by my hon. friend in this House, indicating that the land which was sold at auction did not bring its fair value at that time, or that there was not every opportunity given to the public who wished to invest in those lands.
12i
Now I submit that when the Indian Department does that, it does all it can do, all it was expected to do, all any reasonable man could expect it to do. In regard to the Indians who sold their own lands privately, if my hon. friend is anxious to hear private conversations, I will say that I did have a private conversation with the Chief Justice of Manitoba, and he told me he had heard that some of these Indians had not received full value for their land; he said he had heard it, but he had no knowledge of the matter beyond the treaty; but he had heard so, and he thought that it was right to let me know it. As I have said, it is a matter perhaps of oversight. But I want to point out to the House that the department has no legal standing in that matter because of the terms of the surrender which was made on the responsibility that I have mentioned.
Now in regard to the attitude of the registrar of the land titles in Manitoba, this gentleman is a provincial officer, he has certain duties to perform, and is responsible to those who appointed him for the performance of those duties. The registrar of land titles in the province of Manitoba is responsible, and his actions are no concern of ours. The titles to these lands were registered in the Selkirk registry office under the system of registration there prevailing.	When the
people who acquired the titles desired to bring these lands under the Torrens system, they took them to the gentleman my hon. friend has mentioned, and it is between the registrar and the purchaser as to whether their title is in proper shape or not. So far as we are concerned, the titles are registered in the proper office. I submit that while we have an interest in seeing that the purchasers get their titles and in helping them to get their titles as far as we can, we have absolutely no responsibility in the matter beyond seeing that the Indians get the full price for the land that was theirs to sell and do what they pleased with.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister make any statement as to the Indian agent?


Frank Oliver: No, I cannot make any statement in regard to the, agent. If my hon. friend can establish that the Indian agent trafficked in these lands as he should not do, I will guarantee that the agent will cease to be agent on very short notice, but, so far, I have no knowledge of that fact. Certainly it did not come within the scope of our arrangement. My hon. friend has stated perfectly clearly that we gave certain instructions from the office here which we believed would be in the interests of the Indians and all parties concerned. That was our duty in the matter and so far as we are aware those instructions have been carried out. If they hfive not been carried out then those who should have carried

them out of course will have to suffer, but that does not in any degree establish any responsibility against the department for the action of the Indians who, under the terms of surrender, were secured in their right to do as they pleased with what was their own.


Robert Laird Borden: Was it not anticipated that they would do just what they have done, that is, get rid of the lands very quickly and at a very inadequate price?


Frank Oliver: I cannot say that it was or that it was not. That was a matter for the consideration of the gentleman upon whose good judgment we relied in the negotiations with the Indians.


Robert Laird Borden: Surely the minister does not believe that the department can shield itself by giving a free hand as he says to some gentleman and then saying: He advised so and so and we have no further responsibility about it.


Frank Oliver: We do not propose for an instant to shelter ourselves behind anybody, but it is necessary that the House should be made aware of the circumstances under which the surrender was secured and it would be unfair to the House not to state to them the terms of that surrender. I have already said that we take full responsibility and I believe that the surrender was made on the best terms that could be secured, that it was sound public policy to secure it and it was in the interest of the town of Selkirk, of the constituency of Selkirk, of the province of Manitoba and of the Indians concerned.


George Eulas Foster: After what the minister has heard publicly and privately does he propose to: take any steps towards investigating this transaction?


Frank Oliver: As I have said to the House, we are interested in seeing as far as we can that those who are in our wardship get value for what is theirs, and so far as that is concerned, our intention is to investigate; what I am trying to impress upon the House is the difference between a legal responsibility and an advisory responsibility. That is the difference between the position my Iron. friend desires to hold us in and the position that we consider we are entitled to be in.


George Eulas Foster: I heard a good deal about this personally from various parties in Winnipeg and in Selkirk; in fact it is common talk there. I may have mingled with people who were not altogether disinterested, although I think in certain cases I got my information from people who were disinterested, but I can tell the minister that the general opinion, so far as I could gather, is that a great wrong has been done. Sentiments of that kind have been expressed to me by people on both sides of Mr. OLIVER
politics; in fact I found no other opinion existing. I think the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) has done his duty and was perfectly justified in bringing this matter before the committee as he has done, and I was glad to hear the minister say that he proposed not to let It rest at this particular stage, although he qualified himself in some way that I could hardly understand as to the scope of the investigation that he would hold. But two facts remain and they are to my mind uncontrovertible. You can go anywhere you like in Manitoba and you cannot find an equal area together of better lands than the lands in this reserve, that have gone in this way out of the reserve largely into the hands of speculators. It is also, I think, an absolute fact that $5 an acre for these lands is the merest bagatelle. The minister may stand there from now till doomsday and say he thinks that a fair value was got for these lands but he could not convince me. The lands are beautifully situated, they are on each side of the river, they are near to the town of Selkirk; in fact they jut right into the town at certain places, and are within easy communication. As to the quality of the soil there is but one opinion, they are prime lands. And yet, an auction sale, said to have been well advertised within a very small distance of the centre of real estate activity, realizes only $5 per acre for these prime lands.


George Henry Bradbury: Less than $5.


George Eulas Foster: Less than $5 I am told, but the minister said $5 per acre in the bulk.


Frank Oliver: I must have been a little wrong, they realized a little over $6.


George Eulas Foster: Say over $6, the difference of $1 in this consideration matters very little indeed. If the minister puts up school lands in the far northwest, he will get prices, five, six or seven times as great as those obtained here. The reason he get3 it there is that while the lands are not better situated or of better soil, the competition is keener, and the competition is keener because people are advised that these lands are to be sold, they attend the sale and run up the price to the limit of what they consider they are able to pay for lands of that quality. Yet in this garden of Manitoba, prime lands, beautifully situated along the river, realize only $5 or $6 per acre in the bulk. It is common talk there that these lands have gone into the hands of speculators. I have myself seen some of the men who have bought them, and they are speculators and speculators simply. They do not propose to sell these lands at $6 or $7 or $8 an acre; I think there is no doubt that the ultimate purchaser will pay three, four or five times the price that has been realized. What is

the position of the minister, who is the guardian of the Indians, who is their trustee and who must not simply shuffle off his duties into the hands of even the chief justice, and then shelter himself, as the minister certainly does, behind the argument that he gave it over to the chief justice and that he only carried out the arrangement that the chief justice -made. If any man ought to have protected the Indian, it was the Indian agent who represented the department and the department itself which is the .trustee for the Indian. Now, the minister is no chicken. He is well versed in 'business matters. He knows the history of the whole of the scrip business in the Northwest, he knows how the cormorants got after the Indian or the halfbreed and how they got his scrip or allotment of land toy virtually wheedling it from him -for whisky or an infinitesimally small part of its value. He knows that what takes place in one case will very likely take place in another, and if the minister -did not take all the precautions he could to see that this rich land which belonged to these Indians, when it was taken from them and sold to the public, brought to these Indians at least fair value for what their possession was, he certainly did not do his full duty. Have they got their fair value? I do not believe they have; I do not think there is a man in this House who believes they have. Could the department have taken precautions to have prevented them being sacrificed in the way in which they were and thrown out with a very small, if any, pittance upon which to live? The department could have done it if it had done its whole duty, and its proper officers, in their proper places, had shown as much disposition to protect the Indians as some of them, I am told, had to get a slice -of what was the Indians valuable possession.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: May I ask the minister if the 22,000 acres that were sold by public auction were all sold in bulk and at one time?


Frank Oliver: They were sold by quarter-sections but at the one auction sale.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Having devoted parts of two sessions to a study of the Indian Department and knowing, as I do, considerable about that department, I feel satisfied that the minister has not given sufficient attention to it, and that the officers in that department are woefully incapable of handling the affairs of the Indians of this country. There is no -doubt in my mind -about it. There is no -doubt in my mind that for the last ten years the Indian Department has been disposing of lands belonging to the wards of this nation in a manner which is not only unfair
to the Indians but most unfair to the people of this country. I -am satisfied that if the minister will devote more time and attention to that department and see to it that in future at least lands will not -be squandered in the manner in which they have been in the past he will be doing a very great favour, not only to the Indians, but to those of our people who are interested in their welfare. Some 600,000 acres of land have been disposed -of since this government came into power, and tens of thousands of acres of that land have been sold at from ten to fifteen cents an acre, when there was no need o.f it being disposed of. Islands have been sold at a dollar apiece. Yet the minister will stand up and say that this department is 'being -conducted in the best possible manner. I sincerely hope that the minister will devote more attention to the Indian Department and" see that affairs are ran in a better manner than they have been in the past.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: What inducements were offered to the chief and council beyond what the band got and why?


Frank Oliver: I am informed that the chief received 320 acres and the councillors 160 acres each. That was a matter that was discussed in council and was satisfactory to the Indians, to all the members of the band, or, at any rate, to the majority who voted for the surrender.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister answer the latter part -of the question, and let us know why these parties were entitled to more than the ordinary members of the band.


Frank Oliver: I am not able to answer that question. I did not negotiate the treaty for the surrender. I have already given to the committee the responsibility upon which the surrender was negotiated and the department felt it wise to accept the terms that had been arranged.


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister any information to give to the House to show that the ordinary members of the band knew before the agreement was surrendered that the chief and council were to get these extraordinary inducements?


Frank Oliver: Yes, I am informed that the provisions of the surrender, including the large grant of land to the chief and councillors, were read and explained in detail to the Indians and were discussed for two days by the band before the surrender was signed.


William D. Staples: Will the minister kindly -advise us Show long these lands were advertised and in what papers ?


Frank Oliver: I cannot offhand -give my hon. friend a list of newspapers, but

I am informed that the sale was advertised in the Toronto ' Globe,' the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' and the local Selkirk paper and the advertisement was continued for a period of from four to six weeks. I can give my hon. friend the exact data at a later date, hut I have forgotten it at the moment.


William D. Staples: Was the sale advertised in the local Selkirk papers?


Frank Oliver: It perhaps would not be well to answer offhand because I am not perfectly certain. It is a question of fact. It can be settled without difficulty later on. If my hon. friend would leave it for the present I can satisfy him at another time.


William D. Staples: There should have been no difficulty in securing full value for these lands if they had been properly advertised. Take, for example, the reserve at Swan Lake, which the minister was good enough to reclaim, advertise and sell. It was sold last summer. I had been at the minister for several years, in fact, since I came into this House, endeavouring to have these lands recovered from the Indians and put on the market. The lands lay in very much the same position with reference to the town of Swan Lake as the lands in question lie to the town of Selkirk. As the minister knows, the sale of the Swan Lake reserve was advertised in the principal papers and in the local papers. The lands were sold at public auction last summer and these lands, which are not any better, in my opinion, and, in fact, in regard to location, are not as valuable as the lands in question, brought all the way from $15 to $26 per acre. I did not hear the early part of this discussion but it seems to me that lands, such as have been sold within that reserve, should have brought from $15 to $30 per acre.


Arthur Meighen: The answer of the minister to the effect that the ordinary members of the band knew and understood that the chief and council were getting those extraordinary inducements is rather disappointing to me. The minister knows quite well that any engagement entered into in writing between the Indian Department and the chief and council .would in all likelihood be quite well understood by the chief and council, while it is very unlikely that it would be understood by the ordinary Indian. The Minister of the Interior is very anxious to-night about the reputation of the chief justice and as to how that reputation is attacked. It is clear to everybody that it has not been attacked nor has the conduct of the chief justice in any way been attacked by the member for Selkirk or by any other hon. member on this side of the House. But, Sir, whatever may have been said reflecting on what may have been done to the Indians is surely Mr. OLIVER.
ascribable directly to the minister and to the department itself and not through the medium of the chief justice. If bribery is a correct term to apply, then that bribery is referable directly to the Department of the Interior itself. I am absolutely at a loss to understand why the department should see fit to grant land of this country to the chief and council of the band over and above what the members of the band were entitled to. The minister is in a quandary over that and so am I. Standing on his feet in the House the minister has admitted he could give no reason for it whatever. As is well known the chief and council of a band of Indians are simply elected only to hold their office terminating at the end of each year, and why that annual election should give them the right to hundreds of acres of land and perhaps other inducements, over and above the members of the band who elect them is certainly a mystery. But the purpose of it is only too clear, and if the minister considers bribery the proper word to describe it then it seems to me that his department is responsible. The chief and council in the natural course of events are above the average intelligence of the band; they have very considerable influence over the other members of the band; their word practically goes, for no ward in all the world is more easily influenced than the Indian, particularly by one of his own people who excells in intelligence. And, just so soon as the department, by whatever means they chose to adopt got the good will of the chief and council, they were very likely to get the good will and assent of the band in general. If the Department of Indian Affairs chooses to hand over the lands of this country to the chief and council, even with the assent of their wards the Indians, then it seems to me they ought to be willing to accept the word bribery as a proper word to apply to their conduct. We do not apply it to the chief justice at all, but I can think of no other word better applicable to the conduct of ti,e officials of the department who adopted that method of getting this surrender from the Indians.


Frank Oliver: 
Arthur Meighen: I said they had-only the same rights as the rest of the band, but that they had greater average intelligence.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend was strong on the point that the Indian could be persuaded to do almost anything you wanted him to do and that the chief had great control over the band. And as this is a rather important question; let me point out that in a recent surrender, the surrender on the Peigan agency, the chiefs were in the minority and the members of the band were in the majority, and the surrender was secured in spite of the adverse vote of the chiefs, and that was one of the objections raised against the surrender. In this case the chiefs were for the surrender and the vote was carried. Now, I want to say that the policy of the Indian Department, as it is at present administered, is to secure the surrender of Indian lands which are not being used beneficially by the Indians, so that they may be transferred at a fair price to white settlers who will use them beneficially, the country thereby receiving the benefit of increased production and increased wealth and the Indians receiving the benefit in money of the value of the land which they themselves were not able to realize. Furthermore, it is the policy of the department that where a reservation is situated near a town or close to a settlement, where conditions are in any degree as they were on that reserve at St. Peter's - and my information is that the conditions on that reserve were more deplorable by reason of the proximity of that reserve to the town than on any other reserve in the west-I say that where that condition exists it is the policy of the department to secure the removal of the Indians to a locality where they will not be subjected to the same temptations, and where it will be better for them in every way than to remain in that location. In regard to the value of the land, hon. gentlemen know that it is easy to say that land is worth more than is secured for it. I have seen the city of Winnipeg surrounded by vacant land that was not brought under cultivation when land 100 or 150 miles distant was closely settled. It is no use to say that because the land at Selkirk is good and because it is only 20 or 25 miles from Winnipeg that therefore it has a certain fixed value. The values of land depend on conditions and reasons that we do not always understand. If we always did understand them we probably would all be richer than we are to-day; it is because we do not understand these conditions that we do not make as much money out of real estate as we would like. I say it is no evidence that an adequate price was not received for that land to say that it was good land and that it was near the city of Winnipeg. I say that when an auction sale of this land was duly advertised and the land was sold, that the price that was received at that auction sale is evidence as to the value of the land that it is not competent for any one to deny.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: At what time of the year was this auction held?


Frank Oliver: In the latter part of October or the early part of November, 1908.


Mr. BLAIN.: Can the minister supply us with a list of the purchasers of the land and the prices paid in each case?


Frank Oliver: I can if I am given time.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the minister would agree to supply it when this matter is again discussed.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is it the practice of the department to send a man out to investigate the land and ascertain its value before disposing of it?


Frank Oliver: All Indian land, before being put up for sale, is surveyed and valued by an officer of the department. The land in question was surveyed and valued by an officer of the department, and it sold at more than the valuation or of course it *would not have been sold.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Was the officer ol the department an Indian agent in the district or an official from the department here?


Frank Oliver: The gentleman who valued the land was Mr. McLean, one of the surveyors of the department, a man of long experience in the west and of very good reputation.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The word bribe may not be a very good word to use, but I think it fits in very well with the circumstances of this case. I would like to ask why it was necessary to pay the councillors and chief anything to get their consent?


Frank Oliver: It is in accordance with the principle recognized the world over, that the man of higher position receives the greater recognition. In making a treaty with the Indians, we always give a larger amount of treaty money and a greater recognition in every way to the men of rank, the chief and the councillor, than to the other Indians. That principle was followed in this case.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Was this amount [DOT] paid to them with the view of having them

influence the other Indians to sell their lands at a given price?


Frank Oliver: I would think the tendency would be quite the other way. According to my reasoning, it would have the opposite effect.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The Minister of the Interior has had too much experience in that western country and knows it too well , to try earnestly to make anybody from Manitoba believe that he got a fair price for that land. He has tried to bolster up his case by saying that land near Winnipeg or Selkirk might be worth very little. That is quite true, but we know this land, and 1 do not hesitate to say that land just like it in the province of Manitoba, not near Winnipeg or Selkirk, but hundreds of miles from those places, is selling to-day at from $30 to $50 an acre. Somebody is responsible for this deal, and it should be investigated. It is only a repetition of what has been going on in that western country for some time-lands going into the hands of speculators, and one of the most disgraceful acts this government ever committed has been to appoint the man who did the most to sacrifice the lands of that country, to be chairman of a commission for the conservation of those lands.


Mr. CROTHERS.: We have got considerable interesting information from the Minister of the Interior touching this transaction, but I cannot help thinking that he has withheld a good deal of interesting and material information which would enable us to determine whether or not this transaction was carried out in a businesslike manner. The minister might have gone a little further and told us what steps he had taken to inform himself as to the value of this piece of public property. Here were
22,000	acres of land to be sold, worth from $150,000 to $200,000. It would be intefest-ing to learn from the minister whether or not he has gained any information, and if so from whom, as to the price he ought to obtain for this property. He has told us that, the gentleman who surveyed these lots -reported on their value; but surely it was not a business transaction to dispose of $200,000 worth of property on the strength of that single report. No private individual dealing with a piece of property of his own would ever think of disposing of it in that "way. We all have had something to do with disposing of parcels of land, and we never accept the affidavit of one individual onlv as to the price of it. We get three or four men whose knowledge of the values of property in the district carries weight :	we see to it that
they are wholly disinterested; we have them go and examine the property; we get their three affidavits before we, make up our minds what the propertv is-worth; and then we inform the auctioneer of the re-Mr. SCHAFFNER.
serve bid, and unless the offers reach that, the property is not sold. That is a business way of disposing of a piece of property, and the Minister of the Interior should have proceeded in that way. He has not told ns that he got any information whatever except what he got from the surveyor, and I am informed that if all the facts were known his report would not carry very much weight. The Minister of the Interior and also the Minister of Public Works might learn a good lesson if he would study the methods adopted by the government of Ontario in disposing of public property. Let me give one illustration, and I could multiply it by scores. They had a piece of property a short time ago for sale. The highest offer was $50,000. But the Prime Minister said: I have private information that this property is worth a great deal more. And although they were his political friends who had offered the $50,000, he said: I am trustee for the whole of the people of Ontario, I am informed this property is worth a great deal more than $50,000 and you cannot have it. What was the result? He re-advertised the property for sale, and the very same men came forward and offered him $178,000 for the property. Then take public contracts. A short time ago, the Ontario government advertised for the construction of a public building. The lowest tender was for a certain sum, but the Minister of Public Works said, I have had that matter investigated, I am informed that building can be erected for much less, we will build it ourselves. They engaged a foreman and put up the building and it cost onv 60 per cent of the lowest tender. That is only one or two instances to show that in. Ontario public affairs are carried on in a businesslike manner.
This illustration you have just had of the sale of lands in Manitoba-and we had a dozen such cases last year-shows us that this government does not dispose of public properties in a businesslike manner. I do not wish to go into the particulars of the tenders but I submit that the minister has not-so far as we can judge from what information he has condescended to give us on this matter-taken a businesslike manner to dispose of this property in the interests of the poor Indians.


Frank Oliver: I suppose it is the privilege of an hon. member to say in this House anything he pleases. But since mv hon. friend has been so very critical in this matter, let me repeat that in this particular case, the land was advertised in the public newspapers and was sold by public auction in parcels of 160 acres each, or 60 to 70 different parcels. It was valued, when surveyed, by a competent man and sold at a prft-e above his valuation, and the transaction was in all respects quite on a par with the best illustration the hon. gentle-

man has given the House. Let me point out that the only difference., judging by the instances he gave us, is this, that there must be a difficult lot of people which the Ontario government have to deal with in Ontario.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: Will the hon. minister, when the main estimates come up, bring down a list of the papers in which these lands were advertised, also a list of the purchasers and the prices paid? Some of my hon. friends behind me asked if they were advertised in the Selkirk papers and the hon. gentleman could not answer the question.


Frank Oliver: I have no objection whatever.


Richard Blain: How much was paid the auctioneer and who was he?


Frank Oliver: He wras paid one half per cent of the selling price, not to exceed in all $200. I cannot give his name just now.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Does the minister undertake to say that he considers $6 per acre a fair price for this land?


Frank Oliver: Yes, I think that any land advertised in the public press for a reasonable time and offered for sale within a'distance of 25 miles of Winnipeg is absolutely certain to bring its full value at that particular time.


George Henry Bradbury: I am somewhat surprised at the minister's statement regarding the advertisement of those lands. As I said a few' moments ago, although these lands had been advertised, there were conditions surrounding the whole transactions which practically frightened away ordinary purchasers. There was a letter'from the department which seems to have been entirely overlooked by the minister. That letter was practically a warning to the people that the Indians had nothing to sell, and the average man got the Indian allotment and the balance of the reserves mixed up in such a manner that he was afraid to touch any land. I have a letter written by the department to the Indian agent, instructing him how to proceed. It is dated Department of Indian Affairs, Jan. 21, 1908, and is signed by Frank Pedley:
Copy.
Department of Indian Affairs,
Ottawa, January 21, 1908.
Sir,-I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 12th instant (No 2-37) in connection with the locations of Indians of the St. Peter reserve, in accordance with surrender, and given by them a short time ago, and in reply beg to say that action is being taken with as much expedition as possible to locate the Indians on the lands to which they may be found entitled, and you should notify them that there will be as little delay in arranging the matter as possible.
In connection with Indians disposing of or pledging their holdings, I beg to say that no transfer or pledge by any Indian will be in any way recognized by the department, and when it has been determined what land each Indian is entitled to receive, a jiatent for the same will be issued to such Indian, without regard to any claims by white men or others.
It is necessary to make this position of the department clear and as widely known as possible, as any] .recognition of rights by transfer would cause endless comj)lication, and in order to prevent same it is incumbent on the department to issue grants only to the Indians found entitled to receive same.
The representatives of the Indians and the department will deal with all claims to land in accordance with the provisions of the sur render.
Your obedient servant,



[Stage Direction]
Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Adairs.
J. O. Lewis, Esq.
The point is this, that this letter was written to the Indian agent just at the time these lands were coming into the market-. A great many people around Selkirk wanted to purchase some of these lands, including a lot of my own friends, but as soon as it was made known that the department would not recognize any pledges or transfers given by the Indians until after the patents were issued, not one of these men would buy an acre of that land. Not one of these men bought an acre of this land. But very strange to say, the men who did purchase these lands, every one of them, were supporters of the hon. gentlemen opposite. Now these men must have received a tip from the department, or from somebody, that these pledges or transfers would be accepted. I ask the minister now if it is not a fact that every acre of this land was secured by the speculators before the patents were issued, in defiance of that letter written by Mr. Frank Pedley of the Indian Department? This is an absolute fact, Mr. Chairman, and this is one of the reasons why I ask the minister to open up this question and make a fair investigation. Now, if this letter had never been written and these lands had been thrown on the market, these frauds would not have taken place! Some of my friends were willing to pay $25 an acre for pieces of the land, but they knew that unless thev stood in with the Indian agent and the Indian Department, there was no guarantee they would ever receive their titles. I cannot understand how the minister, in face of the instructions given by his department, can get up and say that he assumes full responsibility for accepting the patents to-day, or accepting the transfers, and handing the patents over to those men who have purchased the lands in defiance of the instruction of the de-
[Stage Direction]
partment. Why, according to this instruction not one of those allotments has been legally sold, and every one of them ought to be cancelled. Now so far as the Indian himself is concerned, it is the Indian I am fighting for to-day. I have no interest, nor have any of my friends, a dollar's interest in these lands, I am glad to say. I want to say this to the minister, that after this letter was written, one of the biggest speculators, one of the biggest holders' of this land to-day, came to Ottawa to interview somebody here, I do not know who. But I met him on the train going back, and he said to me: I have fixed the thing all right, I am going to buy the land, and if you like you can come in with me. I answered that it might be my duty, if I were elected, to criticise this matter in the House of Commons, and consequently I could not invest one dollar in the land. That fact, Mr. Chairman, is, I think, evidence that there was collusion between the purchasers and some official in the Department of Indian Affairs. These men who purchased those lands, who were putting up thousands and tens of thousands of dollars to be given to these Indians, do you not think- they knew that they were safe? There was no risk so far as they were concerned, they were going to get their patents in defiance of that letter, and they got them; and the only reason why the deal has not gone through is because the Land Titles Office at Winnipeg has held up every one of those patents on account of the alleged fraud on the f- ;e "f the whole transaction. I hold in my hand a petition from 110 Indians, some of those men that have been wronged, and I am going to present it to this House. I had no idea this discussion was coming on, and consequently I am not as well prepared for it as I would liked to have been, as there is other evidence that I will bring before the House later on. This letter was written from St. Peter's, November 1, 1909, and is addressed to myself:
We, the undersigned, beg to lay before you their following grievances. The surrender of the St. Peters reserve was made on- the 24th September, 1907. A few days after the surrender was made, land buyers came and bought land, first of all buying from the chief and council.
Then they hired the chief and council at $2 a day to remain in the offices, and around the offices, and to bring in other men who owned land and induce these Indians to sell to these men.
After this was done, then they were hired to influence their people to sell land, telling them until such time the issuing of patents, a proper bargain could be made, hence the land was sold, and the majority of Indians never made an application for their patents. However, the patents were issued, the In-Mr. BRADBURY
dians only heard of the same, never even having the privilege of seeing their patents.
Remember, Mr. Chairman, that this is an Indian letter, which fact explains the peculiarity of the language.
The Indians were entirely ignorant as to the nature of the documents they signed when selling land, for the reason that no proper interpretation was given at the time of sale or any other time, and that is the reason why there is so much complaint.	_
There is another matter which we think would be necessary to be understood properly. There were application forms at the Indian office, and each head of a family had to make an application in person for his or for her patent. This was never done, with hut a few exceptions. When issuing of patents there were another kind of forms at the Indian office \v li ieh had to he signed by the Indians before receiving their patents. This was never done, with but a few exceptions. We think it would be only proper to demand those forms in order that you may understand more fully as to the nature of the same.
The bon. gentleman says to-day it was 320 acres. These men are a little more moderate.
With regard to allotment of land, the chief received 196 acres. Each individual councillor received 136 acres, an ordinary Indian received 16 acres. Besides the chief and councillors received more money than the ordinary Indian.
Now, I want the minister to listen to this part:
The land buyers were the parties that selected the choice land, the Indians were simply onlookers. That is the treatment the Indians received from their so-called chief and councillors. In some instances the Indians were only receiving less than $2 per acre, some received $2.50, some $3, and some $4 and $5 to the acre, and some are entirely ignorant as to what sum they receited. We are all fully aware that our land was fully worth at least from $15 to $20 per acre.
Trusting that you will be able to understand the nature of our grievances, humbly requesting that you will use your influence to bring the matter before the House if possible, your petitioners will ever pray.
This is signed by 110 of the men that have been wronged. Now, Mr. Chairman, in face of all this evidence, in face of the many complaints that the minister himself has received personally, in face of the position that the chief justice takes, the man who negotiated this treaty, in face of the fact that the registrar at Winnipeg refused to allow these patents to go through is it not reasonable that I, the representative of that constituency, should ask the minister to grant an investigation to find out whether these statements are true, or false, to find out whether these Indians have been wronged or not. The minister cannot shield himself behind the fact that the Indian refused to allow him, or to allow﻿373

his officials, to insert in the surrender a clause which prevented the department from protecting them. These Indians were mere children, these Indians up to that time had been wards of the government. Every pound of tea they secured from the Indian Department was obtained through the Indian agent. Consequently, the Indian was utterly incompetent to deal with a matter of this kind, quite incompetent to dispose of an acre of land; but suddenly the department made him a landlord. I do not suppose that one of these Indians had ever owned an acre of land in his life before. The Indian had no idea of the value of what he possessed, but the chief and council were a little more intelligent and thoroughly unscrupulous. These men were purchased. In the first place, as the minister admits, they secured more lands than the others, 320 acres. The minister says the chief received this amount while the ordinary Indian, the man who had elected the chief and the council to protect his interests, received only sixteen acres of land. Why? I think it is a fair deduction to say that these Indians received that land in consideration of their inducing the rest of the band to agree to the surrender. In addition to that there is this other fact, which I wish to bring to the attention of the minister although he and his department are well aware of it: Although the term of office of the chief and council of these Indians expired in July in the very year of this transaction the department has refused to allow an election to take place in the band since. They have retained that chief and council there in defiance of the band. Petition after petition has been sent in asking that an election should be granted in order that they might have an opportunity of turning these men out of office. But in spite of all that the Indian Department keeps these men there. What for? To assist the land dealers in carrying out that nefarious transaction.	[DOT]
Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the department here can keep a chief and council in office in defiance of the band?


George Henry Bradbury: That is what they have done. They have refused to allow the Indians in St. Peter's to have an election, although petition after petition has been sent in praying for justice. The band do not recognize the chief as their chief or the council as their councillors. Consequently they are practically in a disorganized condition to-day and the Department of Indian Affairs is directly responsible for it.
The whole transaction, from its very inception until the present time, has been notorious in Selkirk. Every one in Selkirk who knows anything about the manner in which the Indian agent and the lawyers employed by the Indian Department to protect these Indians have conducted this affair, realizes that a great wrong has been done to these people. I have here a statement brought down from the Department of Indian Affairs showing the fees paid to lawyers in this connection. One letter says:
I am directed to forward to you an account amounting to $1,509.65 received from the Hon. Chief Justice Howell, in connection with St. Peter's reserve.
There is another account of $1,093. Two of these lawyers, one being Mr. Heap, of Selkirk, were appointed to protect the interest of the Indians. Mr. Heap was looked on by the Indians as their solicitor and he advised them in many cases, but the strange part of the thing is that he was one of the land company who vTere purchasing this land. The whole transaction was carried on in a room not half the size of one of our committee rooms. The land buyers were in one end of the building, the Indian agent was in the other end, the lawyer was next door, and the chief and counsel were in attendance day after day bringing in these poor ignorant people and advising them to sell their land to this land company and these speculators. In face of the facts that have been adduced here today, in face of what the minister knows, I ask him again to grant a fair investigation into this transaction. It surely cannot do any harm to have an investigation into this transaction. It surely cannot do any harm to have an investigation. I feel satisfied in my own mind that wrong has been committed. I believe that these lands have passed into the hands of these purchasers at less than one-third, perhaps one-fourth of their value. I was surprised to hear the minister state that he believed that these lands had brought their full value at the sale. Let me illustrate for a moment. These lands were sold some time in November, 1908. The following spring the Indian reserve at Shoal Lake, hundreds of miles away, was put on the market. That land brought an average of $17.60 an acre, while the St. Peter's land, in the very garden of the province of Manitoba, has yielded the Indians muclt less than $5 an acre. After the lands were picked over, as I have stated in the earlier part of this discussion, the remnant of the reserve that was left to be sold by public competition, so-called-because it was only so-called, there was no competition about it-brought $5.68 an acre.
Let us take another illustration. At Beausejour, 35 miles east from Winnipeg, a school land sale was held the same season, and some of the same men who had secured these lands from the Indians paid $22 an acre for school lands by no means

equal to what they secured at St. Peter's for less than $5 from the Indian, and $5.68 at the so-called auction. In face of these facts it must be apparent to the hon. gentleman that the Indians have not received a fair price for their lands. The question arises, what is the responsibility of the department? The hon. minister says they have no responsibility. They made a deal with the Indian to surrender bis land. He agreed to take the 16 acres and another reserve, and as far as that allotment was concerned, he could do as he pleased, the department had no authority, no control and consequently did not intend to interfere. 1 think that is a short-sighted position. The Indian is a ward of the government and if he becomes pauperized this country must come to his assistance and feed him; consequently it is the duty of the department to see that he gets a fair value for every acre of his land. In addition to all these things the hon. minister knows, I am satisfied there are documents in his department which will show beyond ariv doubt, that there are to-day even more serious complaints from the Indians than those I have made regarding this transaction. This petition I received only yesterday and I am informed by letter that the chief himself, the man who was an instrument in the hands of these land sharks has since declared that he helped to deceive the band, that he did not tell the band the truth, that when these lands were being purchased the explanation given to the Indian in nearly every case was that the Indian was not signing away his lands but only signing an agreement that when the patents were issued, he would give the man advancing him the money, the first chance to buy the lands at the price fixed by the Indian.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in face of these facts, because I believe they are facts, I cannot see how the minister can hesitate one moment to grant a fair in-, vestigation. I do not think there is any doubt at all that it can be proven beyond any question that the Indian has been deceived. I do not think there is any doubt that when he signed these agreements he did not realize that he was signing away his rights to his land. He thought that these speculators were giving him an advance, loaning him money on his land. Do not overlook the point that the Indian was misled by the department itself. The department told the Indian that until such time as the patents could be issued the Indian had nothing to sell. The department is on record advising the Indians that they had nothing to sell until their patents^ were issued. Consequently the Indian did not realize that he was selling his land or that he was disposing of his rights. He said to himself: Here is the letter; the Mr. BRADBURY.
Indian agent tells me I have nothing to sell, and I am only signing an agreement that when I get something to sell I will make a bargain with these men who want my land. There is no question at all that that is the position that the Indian took in the matter. That is what he thought, and when you realize that every one of these agreements is an absolute transfer secured in defiance of this letter you will acknowledge that the minister has the authority and the right to step in and cancel every one of these agreements and you will acknowledge that it is his duty to do so. I have taken up a good deal more of the time of the committee than I expected to do. There is a good deal more to be said on this question, and unless the minister is prepared to grant a fair investigation I can only promise him that this debate cannot end here, because there are matters of very great importance that will have to be ventilated, and it would take up a good deal more of the time of the House than we have taken up this afternoon. But it is only fair, I think, if the minister were inclined to be fair, and he usually is, to ask that he will undertake to have this question thoroughly inquired into. I cannot understand why the minister, in a case, of this kind, is hesitating. There must be something behind it that we cannot see, for if there ever was a case for interference by the trustees of these people it is this one. I feel satisfied that the minister ought to step in and tell us to-night that he will give a fair and impartial investigation into all these facts and see that the Indian gets a fair price for his land.
Some resolutions reported.


Mr. FIELDING.: It has been intimated that very many of the members on both sides of the House have engagements which will prevent their being present to-night, and as we are likely to have a thin House I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at six o'clock.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November, 24, 1909.