Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I do not often complain of statements that appear in newspapers with regard to myself, but in the Winnipeg ' Telegram,' of February 18, there is a report of some remarks purporting to be made by me in the course of a debate which is supposed to have taken place on the previous day, and I think the House
should be placed in possession of the facts. It appears that my hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) intended to bring forward the subject of the St. Peters' Indian reserve, and there appears in the ' Telegram ' a report of a very comprehensive statement on his part, and a report of what I am supposed to have said in reply, as follows:
The Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, Hon. Frank Oliver, opened his reply with a tirade of abuse.
He did not demonstrate to the House the correctness of his bold and reckless assertions. There was not an argument in rebuttal. He denied the correctness in a general wav of the charges, but in no case did he address one tittle of evidence to sustain his denial. He adopted, said Mr. Bradbury, unfair and insincere methods to counteract the damaging effect of the serious charges made by the Indians of St. Peter's against his department.
Mr. Speaker, I have no objection whatever to offer to any report that may have been given of what my hon. friend from Selkirk did not say on that occasion; but I do very strongly object to the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' giving me credit for a state-ment^whieh certainly I am not to be credited with.