I am very glad the minister
was interested enough to listen, because I know whereof I speak. There is an IndiaD
Long Adjournment-Mr. Munn
reservation at Pemberton. Those Indians have a very fine tract of land; all they need is a little encouragement and cooperation, but the agent very seldom goes there himself. He sends some understrapper who lords it over these poor fellows so they get no satisfaction whatever. This is a serious matter and I think something should be done to straighten it out, perhaps not in connection with the Indian department itself but in connection with the treatment of the Indians. They are entitled to fair, human treatment which they are not getting so far as my riding is concerned. Close to Vancouver we have what is known as the Squamish valley, in connection with which I have had considerable correspondence with the department, since there is quite a large Indian reserve there. I wrote the minister from Vancouver on July 25 last. I am sorry to have to put this on Hansard, but really there is only one way to do business and that is along business lines. I wrote as follows:
For your information I am enclosing a reference to the Squamish river published in the Vancouver Daily Province on the 25th instant.
I happened to he at Squamish a few days ago and went to the trouble of looking over the flood situation at that point and I have come to this conclusion, that your Indian agent is neglecting his duty. There is a lot of land in the Squamish Indian reserve being washed away, and in order to correct the situation it would only cost possibly at the outside $1,000.
Unless something is done to protect the river bank there is liable to be serious damage and my private opinion is that you should instruct your agent in charge of that reserve that you have a report with a view to protecting not only the Indian reserve land but the other lands tributary. This is really serious and should have prompt attention.
The minister acknowledged receipt of my letter on July 31, saying he had asked for a report. Then I heard nothing further until February of this year, when I wrote the minister as follows:
In July, 1934, I wrote you from Vancouver pointing out a very serious flood situation at the above mentioned river in British Columbia. At that time you acknowledged receipt of my letter and stated that you woulld have the Indian agent secure a report for you and when
it was received you would unite me again. To date I have heard no further word from you.
At that time I did not get my information in regard to conditions sitting in an arm chair in some sort of office or at some hotel. I put on old clothes and a pair of rubber boots and walked miles to personally acquaint myself with conditions and decide what should be done. I have been associated with woods operations in connection with lumber all my life, and naturally have had some experience in the handling of water in rivers.
I may say that one poor fellow lost his land and his house, and when I was there last July all he had left was the garden gate and a little piece of fence in front of his farm. To-day there is a very serious situation at that point; the property not only of the Indians but of other persons as well is being washed away, and the river is running wild. One poor fellow sends me a letter in which he complains that his fruit trees and even his poor old horse and buggy have been washed down stream. No one paid any attention; no one tried to help him out. There is a real danger at that point, where there are two rivers and the soil is very light. There is a town of perhaps five hundred people at that point, and there is danger that some day that river will take the whole town into the ocean. A very small expenditure for river bank protection would remove any possibility of danger of that kind. I do not entirely blame the Indian department, but in cooperation with the provincial government and the Pacific Great Eastern railway I believe they should do something to protect both the Indians and the white people living in the Squamish valley.
I do not want to take up too much time, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to say a word with regard to tarifis. We have heard a good deal with regard to high tariffs and low tariffs. It is no wonder that we in the west are against high tariffs because we suffer and pay because of them. I have a statement here which appeared in the Financial Post of September 1, 1934, showing the net cost and the net loss or gain from the tariff, as follows:
Benefit from Cost of Net lose or Net L or G tariff tariff gain per capita $ ? $ $Prince Edward Island.. . . .. . . 467,992 2.042,150 L 1,574,158 L 17.88.. . . 9,488,493 15,784,123 L 6.296,631 L 12.28.. . . 8.126,059 12.891,077 L 4,765,118 L 11.67.. .. 132.867,447 101.171.562 G 31,695,885 G 11.03.. .. 220,722,484 168,732.723 G 51,989,761 G 15.15. . .. 19,910,971 29.185.740 L 9,274,769 L 13.25Saskatchewan . . . 3,274,950 29.228,285 L 25.952.335 L 28.16.. .. 8,211,148 27,909,396 L 19,698,249 L 26.93British Columbia .. .. 22,378,571 37,737,247 L 15,358,676 L 22.33425.448.115 424.880.384
Long Adjournment-Mr. McKenzie
I shall not take up further the time of the house.
Now that the Prime Minister is on the way to recovery I sincerely trust his improvement will continue, that he will be able to attend the jubilee celebrations and return in fit physical condition to continue with the business of the house. Before taking my seat I would urge that instead of asking for an adjournment of five weeks the time be shortened to three weeks; surely that would be sufficient. Three weeks' time should be long enough, and at the end of that time we could proceed with the remainder of the work of the session and then return to our homes where we could do some real work.
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic: OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE