April 20, 1910

CON

Arthur Cyril Boyce

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BQYCE.

I would like to ask the Prime Afinister whether the report is correct that there has been a ruling by the United States government that the construction of any part of the proposed Canadian navy or any warship on the great lakes would be an infringement of the Rush-Bagot treaty, an whether he has been officially informed of that ruling?

Topic:   WARSHIPS ON THE GREAT LAKES.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Neither officially nor otherwise.

Topic:   WARSHIPS ON THE GREAT LAKES.
Permalink

THE HOUSE OF COAIAIONS STAFF.

CON

John Allister Currie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Air. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe).

Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to refer to a notice of motion which is on the order paper with reference to the reclassification of the staff of the House of Commons. When that question comes up for discussion in the House I would like the Prime Alinister to have the opinion of the Department of Justice as to the legality of tire proposed schedule, also an official report from the Civil' Service Commission, and also from the deputy Alinister of Justice, and such other papers bearing on the subject that we will be able to discuss this subject intelligently. I know the right hon. gentleman does not wish to do anybody any injustice.

Topic:   THE HOUSE OF COAIAIONS STAFF.
Permalink

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.

CON

George Henry Bradbury

Conservative (1867-1942)

Air. BRADBURY.

Air. Speaker, I wish to speak to a question of privilege 4. few evenings ago, when I had the honour of addressing the House on the surrender of St. Peter's Reserve, I stated that, an account had been rendered by one E. Rayner, who claimed that, his work was to have cost something like $500, and when the account was rendered to the Department of Indian Affairs, the department refused to pay it. I pointed put that this money had been paid, and I su^-gested that the extra land that- had been given to the chief and councillors had been used for that purpose. This was the only part of the serious charges which I brought before the House against the department that the hon. Alinister of the Interior, in his three hours speech replying to me, attempted to refute. In that "attempt, he denied the accuracy of my statement in regard to the extra land which the chief and the councillors had received, and in doing so quoted what I understood him to say were the official figures from his department, and he asked the House to accept them rather than the statement made bv myself. The facts, AH. Speaker, which I intend to lay before the House are shown by a sworn return of J. 0. Lewis, an Indian agent at Selkirk, which I have here of the payments to the)Indians of the $5,000 which

the deputy superintendent general of Indian Affairs, Mr. Pedley, had promised them if they voted for the surrender. This return gives the names of each man of the band and the number of his children and the amounts the different Indians received of this $5,000. So that there can be no doubt that each family was fully represented under the head of such family, and ttie head of such families was there to make the familv look as large and numerous as possible,' so that his share of the $5,000 would be as great as possible. This I am sure will not be questioned by any lion, member of this House. Then Mr. Speaker, this pay roll which I hold in my hand shows beyond any doubt the number of children each councillor and the chief had. I will now read to the House the headings under which the members of the family are accounted for. I will also read the declaration attached to this pay roll. I have, Mr. Speaker, in my hands the pay roll for the distribution of the $5,000 that Mr. Pedley took to St. Peter's Indian reserve and distributed among the Indians _ after they agreed to the surrender and it is headed in this way:

Treaty No. 1. St. Peter's Band, paid at St. Peter's Reserve, September 23, 1907. Land Fund.

The different headings follow. It is made out in regular form showing how many men, women and children there were. It starts with men, women, boys, girls, males and females. We will take just one of these men in question. We will take the chief, Wm. Prince. According to this sworn return we find that he had just himself and his wife. He received $18.60 out of that fund. That money was paid by Mr. Pedley himself according to the book. Wm. Henry Prince according to this sworn return had two of a family, and got $14.60 and that was paid by Mr. Pedley. Each of the councillors received their money directly from the hands of Mr. Pedley. Now what I rose in my place this morning to correct was the statement made by the hon. minister denying my statement that the chief and the councillors had received more lands than they were legally entitled to under the surrender. The hon. gentleman denied that fact and he says, and I am quoting from ( Hansard of the 14th:

My hon. friend explained that Mr. Rayner had got back the extra money that he had paid to the Indians, because the chiefs had got a certain proportion more land than they were entitled to under the terms of the surrender. That is to say that Chief William Prince got 20 acres more, and the several councillors a certain number of acres more, in the neighbourhood of 20 apiece over and above what the terms of surrender called for. Chief Wiliam Prince was entitled to 212 acres by reason of his extra allowance as chief, and bv reason of the number of members in

liis family, and he received actually 215.53, that is 31 acres more than his allowance. Councillor Harper was entitled to 232 acres, and he got 233-16. Councillor James was entitled to 200 acres, and he got 206 -88. Councillor Henry Prince was entitled to 168 acres, and he got 172-50. John Prince was entitled to 136 acres, and he got 136 acres. The explanation is that in the laying out of the lands when the survey was made, the lots ran into one or two acres more than the allowance called for, and the block was allowed to go as it was surveyed. My hon. friend stated last night that these people received in the neighbourhood of 20 acres at least more than they were entitled to, and that this_ extra allowance of land was in some way, which he did not explain, used to repay Rayner the money that he said it was rumoured had been paid to the Indians.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Permalink
CON

George Henry Bradbury

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BRADBURY.

The minister has given the amount of acreage. I would like him to tell the House how many of a family each man had.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

Chief William Prince had two of a family, Councillor Harper seven, James William five, Henry Prince three, and John Prince one. My hon. friend said last night that these men got about an average of 20 acres apiece more than they were entitled to. The figures I have given the House are the figures given to me by the officers of the department, and I am sure my hon. friend will pardon me if I say I am rather willing to accept their figures than the figures he has given, and that I ask the House to do the same.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Permalink
LIB

James Kirkpatrick Kerr (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but a question of personal explanation according to Bourinot, must be confined purely and simply to personal explanation of the language used. I could read the authority, but I suppose it is hardly necessary. The hon. member cannot return to the debate on the St. Peter's Indian Reserve for the minister could not speak at this point so the hon. member will confine himself strictly to his personal explanation.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Permalink
CON

George Henry Bradbury

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BRADBURY.

I am nearly finished. It is absolutely necessary that I should state these facts to the House before I can make a proper explanation. What I wanted to point out, Mr. Speaker, on my responsibility as a member of this House, was that this actually gives a correct statement as to the families of the chief and councillors, and this fact is sworn to by J. O. Lewis, Indian agent. Now' let us see

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

I really submit to my hon. friend that he should not persist further in the light of the Speaker's ruling. What he means to say is that he has a difference with the Minister of the Interior, and he is trying to make a case out against him. I might have a difference with an hon. member opposite in a matter discussed some days ago, but surely I could not be allowed under a personal explanation to revive the debate.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Permalink
LIB

James Kirkpatrick Kerr (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

I may read what Bouri-not says on the matter :

There are certain cases where the House will permit a member who has already spoken to a question to make some further remarks by the way of explanation before the debate finally closes. For instance, when a member conceives himself to have been misunderstood in some material part of his speech, he is invariably allowed through the indulgence of the House to explain with respect to the part so misunderstood, and this privilege of explanation is permitted without leave being actually asked from the House. But such explanation must be confined to a statement of the words actually used when a members language is misquoted or misconceived or to a statement of the meaning of his language when it has been misunderstood by the House; for the Speaker will call him to order the moment he goes beyond that explanation and replies to the remarks of members in the debate.

*1 SPROULE- I respectifully submit this, that the hon. member (Mr. Bradbury) made a statement to this House which was denied and he is endeavouring to explain the grounds upon which he made that statement and if necessary he is prepared to quote from official documents upon which he grounded his statement. That is justification for an explanation. Further I ivould think it would properly be a matter of privilege and quite within his rights to do what he proposes. He is not dealing with any other one who took part in the debate except the one who contradicted his statement.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

I might have had a discussion with my hon. friend some weeks ago and the hon. gentleman might have contradicted something I said. Would I be at liberty under cover of personal explanation to revive that discussion? I do not think so. I do not wish to press the point, but I am afraid that we shall lose the order of the House.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

I recollect one occasion when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) did the very thing which he says now cannot be done.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

What was it ?

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mt. R. L. BORDEN.

During a controversy which the hon. member (Mr. Fiekl-ing) had with Sir Charles Tupper in this House. He came into the House afterwards with a letter from Mr. H. M. Whitney, I think it w'as, intended to corroborate his statement of the case, and introduced it into the debate, doing exactly the thing he says should not be done.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

I think the hon. member s (Mr. R. L. Borden) case is not happily chosen, speaking from memory. 1 may not state the facts exactly, but my recollection is that the discussion referred to arose on a tariff or fiscal measure. And, Mr. FIELDING. [DOT]

when, at a later stage, on a new motion, the subject urns again before the House. I referred to the letter spoken of. But I did not, on a question of privilege, undertake to do anything of that sort, I think that my hon friend, if he will consult the record, will find that he is mistaken.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

The procedure may have been as the hon. minister states; I have not a sufficiently clear recollection of the case to contradict him. By my recollection is that he was not corrected in the course he took. My hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury), I take it, could again bring up the whole matter on motion to go into supply.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

Certainly.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Air. R. L. BORDEN.

I do not see any reason why he should be driven to that. He has only a short explanation to make, as I understand it, endeavouring to put himself right on a matter in which he conceives himself to have been misrepresented.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Permalink

April 20, 1910