Air Speaker, I was saying when I was interrupted that Chief William Prince had a wife and on her account he was entitled to>
16 acres of land. Under the terms of the treaty he was entitled to 180 acres for himself, a total, 196 acres. ATet according to the minister's statement, he received 215 acres, or 19 acres more than he was entitled to. William H. Prince, councillor, had a wife, on whose account he was entitled to 16 acres. He himself was entitled to 120 acres, or a total of 136 acres. According to the statement of the minister, he received 172} acres, or 36} acres more than he was entitled to under the treaty. John Prince, councillor, had no wife, and was entitled to 120 acres. He received 136 acres, or 16 more than he was entitled to under the treaty. James Williams, councillor, had a wife and three children, on whose account he was entitled to 64 acres, together with 120 of his own account, a total of 184 acres. But he received, according to the minister's statement, 206J acres, or 22:1 acres more than he was entitled to. William Harper, councillor, was according to this
sworn return, entitled to 16 acres on account of his wife, and 16 for one child. I may say in passing that the man had no wife; his wife was dead, and 120 acres for himself, he was entitled under his claim to only 152 acres. He received, according to the minister's statement, 2321 acres or 801 acres more than he was entitled to. In these extra allotments four men received, not a hundred acres, as I stated to the House before. I was too moderate, for they did receive 174 acres more land than they were entitled to under the terms of the surrender, and I am now satisfied that that land supplied the money to pay the chief and council for betraying their band. The facts entirely justify my statement and proves the hon. minister entirely wrong.
Topic: QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
I have no explanation to make, but my hon. friend has seen fit to revive a discussion which took place the other clay, and it seems to me that if he wished to revive it he had much better have done it when the estimates were under discussion and when all these questions could be threshed out. If I am privileged, however, to continue this discussion-
Topic: QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
I have nothing to explain. and nothing to apologize for. I do not wish to break the rules 'of the House for the purpose of keeping up a discussion which, it seems to me, occupied as much time of this House the other day as was fairly warranted under the circumstances; and unless my hon. friend can find some new matter to bring to the attention of the House on this occasion, I would suggest to him that he be merciful, even if he is strong.
Topic: QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Before the orders of the day are called-I understand a committee of this House has been appointed to revise the rules of the House, and we have been waiting now for about Ifour months to hear from that committee. There is a certain vague rumour going around the corridors that in a few days, after the work of the House is nearly 'all done, the rules will be brought in here with a closure in them. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the amended rules might not be placed before the House so as to give us an opportunity of discussing them before the session closes, and deciding whether it is necessary to have the closure.
I am happy to inform my hon. friend that this committee will have its last sitting on Saturday, and the report will be brought down on Monday. I think my hon. friend will find the rules quite satisfactory to this House.
Bill (No. 205) to amend the Civil Service Act.-Mr. Fisher.
NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Sir WILFRID LAL'RIER moved the third reading of Bill (No. 95) respecting the Naval Service of Canada. He said: I promised my hon. friend the leader of the opposition yesterday to give him some information. which I now present to the House.
Robert Laird Borden
(Leader of the Official Opposition)
I have expressed my views at considerable length on two occasions with regard to the measure that is now before us for the third reading; for that reason it will not be necessary for me to inflict upon the House any lengthy remarks at the present moment. I do not intend to go over matters that I have already debated; there are, however, one or two considerations which I feel it my duty to present to the House before the third reading is passed. I have not found an absolute wealth of information available with regard to the details of this measure. Yesterday I put a number of questions to the government which, owing to some confusion in the arrangement of their documents, they were not able to answer at the moment. I cannot see that the memorandum which I have received from the Prime Minister this morning is very illuminating, as it consists for the most part of a reference to matters that have already been set forth on the pages of ' Hansard.' In fact, so far as the details of the measure are concerned, I would be inclined to think that the government are wandering in a sort of Serbonian bog in which there is not much light respecting the proposals that are before the House.
Now the problem of co-operation in the defence of the empire is undoubtedly a very grave one. Two considerations present themselves immediately when that question is before us. The first consideration is how we may best give aid in what I consider to be the present emergent condition of the empire; the second is what will be a reasonable basis of permanent cooperation by Canada in the naval defence of the empire. So far as I am concerned.
I have endeavoured to keep those questions absolutely distinct, as I think they are distinct in themselves. Ever since we first discussed this question on the floor of the House in the month of March, 1909, it. has seemed to me that an immediate and effective aid to the empire in the present emerg-
ent conditions can only be accomplished, or at least can best be accomplished, by placing a certain sum of money at the disposal of the imperial ^authorities of Great Britain as represented by the admiralty, and inviting them to make the best disposal of that money, in their judgment, for the purpose of increasing the united naval strength of the empire I have set out my views on that matter in the resolution which I moved in this House on the second reading, and I need not repeat my observations thereon. I shall come to one or two details of the government measure in a moment. I desire to say at this juncture that I regard the subject of permanent co-operation by Canada in the naval defence of the empire as one that should be properly submitted to the people of this country before any plan of permanent co-operation is entered upon by Canada. Some very strong criticism of our position in that regard has been made by the Prime Minister, by the Minister -of Militia and Defence and by other hon. gentlemen opposite. 1 have not observed anything in those criticisms which alters the opinion I have expressed. If I were inclined, I could quote this morning from speeches made in the past by the Prime Minister himself upon the proposal to build the Canadian Pacific railway, from speeches made by the Minister of Militia and Defence himself upon that proposal and upon other proposals; I could quote the remarks hnd the votes of those hon. gentlemen in this House, who, in respect of matters that had 'been canvassed in this country for years, declared that measures should not pass parliament until the actual proposals had passed through the ordeal of a general election, that they should only be passed by a parliament that came back with a mandate from the people in that regard. For example, although the proposal to build the Canadian Pacific railway had been before this country for no less than 8 years, and had been discussed upon every platform in the country, both of these hon. gentlemen voted in this House for a resolution which declared, 'that the contract should not be ratified till after the people had had _ the opportunity of expressing their opinion through the medium of a general election.' As neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Militia said a single word in support of that motion they must be regarded as concurring in the arguments used by one of their supporters at that time, who made the motion on their behalf.
The hon. gentleman may be correct or not correct in that re-
gard. The point of my contention is that he declared ' that the contract should not be ratified till after the people had had an opportunity of expressing their opinion through the. medium of a general election.' That parliament had been elected to a certain extent on that issue, and I will invite my hon. friend to consider the reasons to which he committed himself for his silent vote. Mr. Bechard, who made that motion, speaking for his colleagues, used the following language:
'I contend this whole subject should be laid before the people for their decision at the polls. The ground on which I base my contention is that in a question of such great consequence for the weel or woe of the country, the people should have an opportunity of pronouncing on this new policy and scheme submitted by the government. True this Pacifio Railway question has been before the people for years, and that it has been the settled policy Qf the country to build a road connecting the eastern with the western provinces, and that this road should be continued to the Pacific coast; but it is equally true that the policy now before us to attain that end is completely new to the people. . . .
'We do not know what is the real sentiment of the people at present with reference to this scheme. . . .
* I believe it is difficult for any of us to say what is the real sentiment of the people with regard to the question, and I think that the only way of ascertaining it would be an appeal to the judgment of the people.'
I say that every one of these considerations is an infinitely stronger consideration why the mandate of the people should be sought at a general election on the present occasion than it was when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia voted for that particualr motion in 1881. This proposal has not been before the people at all. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister cannot deny that. What was his attitude in 1907 at the imperial conference? His attitude-and upon that attitude he went to the country in 1908 -was exactly the reverse of the policy he has presented to the House in this Bill. He declared at the imperial conference of 1907, in language which has been quoted over and over again in this House, in language as explicit and forcible as it would be possible for any man to use, that he would have absolutely none of the policy that he is presenting to the House today. So I say as far as our position is concerned in seeking the mandate _ of the people at a general election with regard to a basis of permanent co-operation for the defence of the empire, we had nothing to retract. We stand, as we have always stood in that respect, on two considerations-first, that the emergent conditions of the empire do demand immediate and effective aid, and, in the second place, that before a basis of permanent cooperation in the naval defence of the em-